Prepared for: Walton Development and Management Inc. Suite 4610, 199 Bay Street P.O. Box 407 Commerce Court Postal Station Toronto, Ontario, M5L 1G3

Transcription

1 Prepared for: Walton Development and Management Inc. Suite 4610, 199 Bay Street P.O. Box 407 Commerce Court Postal Station Toronto, Ontario, M5L 1G3 Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Ltd. 49 Frederick Street Kitchener, Ontario N2H 6M7 Project: September 2010

2

3 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION STUDY AREA APPROACH AGENCY CONSULTATION NATURAL HERITAGE AND HAZARDLAND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT COUNTY OF BRANT OFFICIAL PLAN GRAND RIVER CONSERVATION AUTHORITY POLICIES AND REGULATION SPECIES AT RISK ACT ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SUMMARY OF POLICY IMPLICATIONS METHODS FOR DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS BACKGROUND DATA COLLECTION FIELD INVESTIGATIONS Botanical Surveys Wetland Delineation Amphibian Surveys Breeding Bird Surveys American Badger and Badger Den Surveys Reptile Surveys Incidental Wildlife and General Wildlife Habitat Surveys Aquatic Habitat Assessment and Electrofishing Water Balance ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE AND SENSITIVITY SITE DESCRIPTION AND EXISTING NATURAL FEATURES GENERAL OVERVIEW OF SITE CONDITIONS DESIGNATED NATURAL FEATURES PHYSIOGRAPHY GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY Surface Water Wetlands TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES Landscape Ecology Vegetation Communities Vascular Plant Species Breeding Birds Amphibians Reptiles General Wildlife Habitat Incidental Wildlife Observations cjp w:\active\ tutela heights\planning\report\eis\final\rpt_tutela heights eis_07sep10_final.docx i

4 Table of Contents 4.7 AQUATIC RESOURCES Aquatic Species Aquatic Habitat SIGNIFICANT NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND FUNCTIONS SIGNIFICANT HABITAT FOR ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS Provincially Significant Wetlands Other Wetlands SIGNIFICANT WOODLANDS SIGNIFICANT VALLEYLANDS SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT Seasonal Concentration Areas Rare or Specialized Habitat Species of Conservation Concern Migration Corridors Summary of Significant Wildlife Habitat SIGNIFICANT AREAS OF NATURAL AND SCIENTIFIC INTEREST (ANSI) FISH HABITAT SUMMARY Federally Recognized Features and Species Provincially Recognized Features and Species County Recognized Features and Species Conservation Authority Regulated Areas PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT WATER SUPPLY SANITARY TREATMENT IMPACT IDENTIFICATION, ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION IMPACT ON SIGNIFICANT NATURAL FEATURES Wetlands Fish Habitat Significant Woodlands Significant Wildlife Habitat Grand River Valley Buffers and Setbacks HYDROLOGIC IMPACTS Stormwater Management Water Balance GENERAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION Vegetation Removal Land Use Change and Management Construction and Grading ii cjp w:\active\ tutela heights\planning\report\eis\final\rpt_tutela heights eis_07sep10_final.docx

5 Table of Contents Erosion and Sediment Control Construction Timing Increased Human Activity RECOMMENDED RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT MEASURES NET ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING STRATEGY SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS REFERENCES cjp w:\active\ tutela heights\planning\report\eis\final\rpt_tutela heights eis_07sep10_final.docx iii

6 Table of Contents List of Appendices Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F Appendix G Figures EIS Terms of Reference and GRCA Pre-consultation Meeting Minutes Vegetation Species List Wildlife Species List MNR Fish Collection Permit Water Balance Calculations Photo Log List of Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Study Area Recognized Natural Environment Features Existing Natural Heritage Features Aquatic Habitat Reaches Significant Natural Heritage Features Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision List of Tables Table 1 Field Investigations, Riverbend Phase 1 Subdivision Table 2 Amphibian Survey Weather Conditions Table 3 Ecological Land Classification (ELC) Vegetation Types Table 4 Amphibian Call Level Codes and Species Results Table 5 Amphibian Species Acronyms iv cjp w:\active\ tutela heights\planning\report\eis\final\rpt_tutela heights eis_07sep10_final.docx

7 1.0 Introduction Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) was retained by Walton Development and Management Inc. to complete an Environmental Impact Study in support of a proposed residential draft plan of subdivision on the subject property. The intent of this EIS is to identify and describe the natural heritage features known to exist on, and adjacent to, the subject property that may be impacted by the proposed development and to recommend appropriate measures to avoid and mitigate potential impacts and to restore and enhance the natural environment and associated ecological functions, where possible. 1.1 STUDY AREA The subject property is located within the Urban Settlement Boundary of the Hamlet of Tutela Heights, south of Tutela Heights Road, east of Mount Pleasant Road and the Valley Estates residential subdivision in the County of Brant. The majority of this property is under agricultural production but also contains upland woodlands, hedgerows, several tributaries of the Grand River and associated wetlands and floodplain areas. Topography on this site is rolling, with several valley slopes mapped by the GRCA, although no hazardous slopes exist. The watercourses, wetlands, valley slopes, floodplain and associated allowances in the vicinity of the subject property are regulated by the GRCA. The study area focuses on the proposed development area (subject property) and adjacent natural features within 120 metres of the proposed development, which defines the area within which potential impacts are reasonably anticipated to occur. A more detailed description of existing conditions, assessment of significance and evaluation of potential impacts is provided for this area. A higher level assessment of current natural heritage features within the broader Tutela Heights area and subwatershed context is also provided. A more general description of linkages and corridors connecting the wetlands, watercourses and woodlands on the subject property to a larger natural heritage system is provided. 1.2 APPROACH The information contained in this report is based initially on existing published data and data made available through various public agencies, web-based mapping programs, on-line databases and other environmental reports pertaining to the subject property. This information was supplemented through various site-specific field investigations and discussions with agency staff to confirm and refine our understanding of the current site conditions, natural features and ecological functions in the area. cjp w:\active\ tutela heights\planning\report\eis\final\rpt_tutela heights eis_07sep10_final.docx 1.1

8 Introduction Coordination with other supporting studies being completed by the study team, including stormwater management, water balance, geotechnical and fluvial geomorphological investigations, provides a more comprehensive assessment of the proposed development within the context of existing hydrologic, ecologic and physiographic conditions. This information has been synthesized, summarized and the policy implications presented for consideration in support of the proposed residential draft plan of subdivision. 1.3 AGENCY CONSULTATION Various review and approval agencies were contacted to solicit initial comments, identify potential concerns and obtain pertinent information for consideration during the development of the proposed draft plan and completion of the EIS. The proposed field investigations, timing, assessment of potential impacts and components of the EIS were identified through the preparation and submission of a Terms of Reference (ToR) to the GRCA and MNR for review and discussion. Based on a pre-consultation meeting with GRCA staff on May 11, 2010, and comments received by MNR staff, the ToR for this EIS was finalized and circulated to the various review and approval agencies. A copy of the final Terms of Reference (Stantec, May 19, 2010) and minutes from the pre-consultation meeting with the GRCA are provided in Appendix B. A subsequent pre-consultation meeting with the County of Brant and GRCA was held on June 25, 2010 to review and discuss the proposed development application and corresponding studies required to support a complete application. Issues and items surrounding planning (area study), servicing (water, sanitary, stormwater management), traffic, archaeology, natural hazards and natural heritage were discussed. An EIS for the adjacent subdivision to the west (Biologics, 2004) was provided by the County. On July 6, 2010, a site meeting with Mr. Rob Messier (GRCA) was conducted to confirm the wetland delineation identified by Stantec prior to surveying the wetland boundary. Discussion also focussed on the potential expansion of the existing SWM facility (Valley Estates) into a portion of the wetland community impacted by the adjacent development. Digital background information, including regulatory mapping, wetlands, woodlands and slope areas was provided through a data sharing agreement with the GRCA, County of Brant and MNR (Land Information Ontario). Updated information regarding known species occurrences and background information available through the MNR was obtained from Ms. April Nix (MNR) on February 23, 2010, which supplemented previously collected information obtained through Mr. Art Timmerman (MNR) in 2007 and current NHIC data. This information has been summarized and included in the description of existing natural heritage and hazard information in Section 4 of this EIS. 1.2 cjp w:\active\ tutela heights\planning\report\eis\final\rpt_tutela heights eis_07sep10_final.docx

9 2.0 Natural Heritage and Hazardland Policy Considerations An assessment of the natural heritage features and functions within the study area was undertaken to comply with the requirements of the following policy and guideline documents: 2.1 PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT This EIS has been completed in a manner consistent with Policy 2.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) (MMAH, 2005), with guidance obtained from the Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Natural Heritage Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement (MNR, 2010) and the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (MNR, 2000). The natural heritage features and ecological functions to be considered in accordance with the PPS include: Significant wetlands (in Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E) and significant coastal wetlands; Significant habitat of endangered and threatened species; Significant woodlands; Significant valleylands; Significant wildlife habitat; Significant areas of natural and scientific interest (ANSIs); and Fish habitat. In southern Ontario, development is not permitted in significant habitat of endangered and threatened species, significant wetlands or significant coastal wetlands. Development and site alteration may be permitted on lands adjacent to significant wetlands, coastal wetlands and the habitat of endangered and threatened species if it is demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or the ecological functions for which the area was identified. Development is not permitted within, or on lands adjacent to, the other significant natural heritage features unless the ecological function of these lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that no negative impacts on the natural heritage features or their ecological function will occur. Development and site alteration is not permitted within fish habitat except in accordance with provincial and federal requirements. The diversity and connectivity of the natural features in an area should be maintained and enhanced, where possible, recognizing linkages between and among natural heritage, surface water and groundwater features. Policy 2.2 directs planning authorities to protect, improve and restore the quality and quantity of water through a number of means, including but not limited to, the following: cjp w:\active\ tutela heights\planning\report\eis\final\rpt_tutela heights eis_07sep10_final.docx 2.1

10 Natural Heritage and Hazardland Policy Considerations identifying surface water and groundwater features, natural heritage features and hydrologic functions necessary for the ecological and hydrological integrity of the watershed; implementing necessary restrictions on development and site alteration to protect, improve or restore sensitive water features and their hydrologic functions; maintaining linkages and related functions among surface water and groundwater features, hydrologic functions and natural heritage features and functions; promoting the sustainable use of water resources through conservation and sustaining water quality; and ensuring stormwater management practices minimize volumes, minimize contaminant loads and maintain or increase the extent of vegetative and pervious features. In accordance with PPS Policy 3.1, development is generally directed to areas outside of hazardous lands adjacent to rivers and streams that are impacted by flooding and erosion. No development is permitted within the Regulatory floodplain and may only be permitted within the flood fringe portion of the floodplain where a 2-zone or Special Policy Area has been established through the local municipality. The floodplain in this area is considered to be one zone floodplain, in which the entire floodplain comprises the floodway (no flood fringe or Special Policy Area). 2.2 COUNTY OF BRANT OFFICIAL PLAN The natural heritage system within the County of Brant Official Plan (2000) consists of the following land use designations used to identify significant natural heritage features for protection: Natural Environment areas, including ANSI s, significant wildlife habitat, habitat of endangered or threatened species, locally significant wetlands, wildlife corridors, river and stream corridors, conservation areas, natural heritage corridors, significant valley lands, fish habitat and environmentally sensitive areas; Wetlands, including PSWs; and Woodlands, including all woodlands greater than 4 ha. These features are identified on Schedules A and B of the Official Plan, although features that satisfy the criteria for significance are protected regardless of whether they are mapped on the Schedules. Development is generally not permitted within these land use designations to preserve and protect natural features, to prevent deterioration of the natural environment and to maintain linkages and corridors for wildlife movements. Development is prohibited in wetlands, except for conservation uses, fish and wildlife management and passive open space uses. Development within or adjacent to significant 2.2 cjp w:\active\ tutela heights\planning\report\eis\final\rpt_tutela heights eis_07sep10_final.docx

11 Natural Heritage and Hazardland Policy Considerations woodlands or Natural Environment areas may be permitted provided an EIS can demonstrate that no negative impact on the natural features or their ecological functions will occur as a result of the proposed development. Adjacent lands are generally identified as 120 metres from the significant natural features. Additional land use designations are used to identify natural hazards, including Flood Prone Areas that include the floodway, flood fringe and Special Policy Areas). The County of Brant is currently undertaking a review and update of the Official Plan policies and schedules. A final draft version of the proposed new Official Plan has been released and the statutory public meeting held August 4, The following changes should be considered as they may influence or guide development on the subject property: The Tutela Heights area is within a Secondary Urban Settlement Boundary and designated as Suburban Residential. The eastern boundary has been amended slightly to coincide with the rear lot line of the residential properties fronting onto the east side of Davern Road; The Natural Heritage System (NHS) designation has been created and applies to significant wetlands, significant habitat of threatened and endangered species, significant wildlife habitat, as well as hazardous sites and hazardous lands; Other natural heritage features surrounding the NHS that also pose a constraint to development include woodlands, Provincially significant woodlands and vegetation, ANSI s, significant valleylands, watercourses and other surface water features, other wetlands; Locally significant woodlands include woodlands >2ha within urban settlements and >4ha in agricultural areas or woodland areas that contain rare, threatened or endangered species and their habitat; a definition for Provincially Significant woodlands is also provided that is consistent with the definition included in the PPS. The new Schedules forming part of the final draft have been revised to reflect more recent mapping and policy changes described in the text. Further discussion of the implications specific to the proposed development are provided in Section 4.2 of this report. It is our understanding that the County will rely on the GRCA to undertake a technical review of this document for compliance with appropriate natural environment policies. 2.3 GRAND RIVER CONSERVATION AUTHORITY POLICIES AND REGULATION Pursuant to Ontario Regulation 150/06, prior permission is required from the GRCA for any development within a floodplain, valleyland, wetland, or other hazardous land, any alteration to a river, creek, stream or watercourse or any interference with a wetland. The decision-making cjp w:\active\ tutela heights\planning\report\eis\final\rpt_tutela heights eis_07sep10_final.docx 2.3

12 Natural Heritage and Hazardland Policy Considerations policies for such Permits are contained within the Policies for the Administration of the Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation (GRCA, 2009). The regulated area represents the greatest extent of the combined hazards plus a prescribed allowance as set out in the Regulation. Generally, development, interference or alterations within a regulated area, including floodplain, wetland, watercourse or other hazardous area, including steep slopes, is not permitted, except in accordance with various general and specific exceptions as outlined in the Policy document. Examples of such general exceptions include, but are not limited to, development where: susceptibility to natural hazards is not increased or a new hazard created (Policy 7.1.2(b)); there are no adverse hydraulic or fluvial impacts on rivers, streams, creeks, watercourses (Policy (c)); grading is minimized and maintains stage-storage discharge relationships and floodplain flow regimes for a range of rainfall events, including the Regional Storm (Policy 7.1.2(d)); there are no negative or adverse hydrologic impacts on wetlands (Policy 7.1.2(e)); intrusions on significant natural features or hydrologic or ecological functions are avoided, and no adverse impacts to significant natural features or hydrologic or ecological functions will occur (Policy 7.1.2(g)); groundwater recharge and discharge areas which support significant natural features or hydrologic or ecological functions on-site and adjacent to the site are avoided and will be maintained or enhanced (Policy 7.1.2(h and i)); and the control of flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches, pollution or the conservation of land is not adversely affected (Policy 7.1.2(k)). Development is generally not permitted within a wetland. However, development may be permitted in a natural wetland less than 0.5 ha or a man-made wetland less than 2 ha, provided the wetland is not part of a PSW, located within a floodplain or riparian community, part of a designated natural heritage feature (significant woodland or hazard land), fish habitat, significant wildlife habitat, confirmed habitat for a significant species, part of an ecologically functional corridor or linkage between larger wetlands or natural areas, part of a groundwater recharge area, or a groundwater discharge area associated with any of the above (GRCA Policy and 8.4.3). Any development within an area of interference less than or equal to 30 metres from a wetland may be permitted in accordance with the GRCA Policies in Sections and Section (Appendix B) where an EIS demonstrates that: 2.4 cjp w:\active\ tutela heights\planning\report\eis\final\rpt_tutela heights eis_07sep10_final.docx

13 Natural Heritage and Hazardland Policy Considerations there are no negative or adverse hydrological or ecological impacts on the wetland; all development is located outside of the wetland and maintains as much setback as feasible; and development is located above the water table (GRCA Policy 8.4.7). Development within an area of interference between 30 and 120 metres from a wetland, which in the opinion of the GRCA may result in hydrologic impact, may be permitted where an EIS demonstrates that policies in Sections General Policies are met. 2.4 SPECIES AT RISK ACT The Species at Risk Act (SARA) identifies wildlife species considered to be at risk in Canada and designates them as threatened, endangered, extirpated or of special concern. Species at risk are identified and assessed by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), which is an independent committee of wildlife experts and scientists that makes recommendations to the federal government regarding the status of wildlife species in Canada. SARA prohibits various activities related to listed species, such as killing or harming of species, or destroying critical habitat identified in recovery strategies, action plans or management plans prepared under the Act. The protection and conservation measures afforded by SARA apply to those species identified on Schedule 1. Other species identified by COSEWIC as species at risk that require further assessment in accordance with current assessment criteria are identified on Schedule 2 (Endangered and Threatened) and Schedule 3 (Special Concern) of the Act. All listed (Schedule 1) aquatic species and migratory birds in Canada are protected by SARA, but these protections only apply to other listed species (i.e. plants, mammals, reptiles, amphibians) where they occur on federal lands (i.e. National Parks, First Nations Reserves). Any activity affecting a listed species or its critical habitat requires the prior issuance of a Permit from the applicable agency (Environment Canada, Department of Fisheries and Oceans). Permits may only be issued for scientific research relating to the conservation of the species, where activities are required to benefit a species or to enhance its chances of survival, or for incidental impacts. Efforts to avoid, reduce or minimize impacts must first be employed, and activities will not be permitted if they would jeopardize the survival or recovery of the species. 2.5 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT Similar to SARA, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) identifies wildlife species considered to be at risk in Ontario and designates them as threatened, endangered, extirpated or of special concern. Provincial species at risk are identified and assessed by the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO) which is an committee of wildlife experts and scientists, as well as those who provide Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge, that classify species cjp w:\active\ tutela heights\planning\report\eis\final\rpt_tutela heights eis_07sep10_final.docx 2.5

14 Natural Heritage and Hazardland Policy Considerations according to their degree of risk based on the best available scientific information, community knowledge and aboriginal traditional knowledge. When COSSARO classifies a species at risk, that classification applies throughout Ontario, unless otherwise noted. The ESA protects species at risk and their habitats by prohibiting anyone from killing, harming, harassing or possessing protected species, as well as prohibiting any damage or destruction to the habitat of species identified on the SARO List. All species on the SARO List are provided with general habitat protections under the ESA, which protect areas that species depend on to carry out their life processes, such as reproduction, rearing, hibernation, migration or feeding. There is a transitional provision for species that were listed as endangered or threatened, prior to June 30, 2007, but not regulated under the previous ESA. For these species, habitat protection will not apply until June 30, 2013 (5 years after the ESA 2007 came into effect), a habitat regulation is prescribed or the species status changes (e.g. upgraded from threatened to endangered). Any activity that may impact a protected species or its habitat requires the prior issuance of a Permit from the MNR. Such permits may only be issued under certain circumstances, which are limited to activities required to protect human health and safety, activities that will assist in the protection or recovery of the species, activities that will result in an overall benefit to the species or activities that may provide significant social or economic benefit without jeopardizing the survival or recovery of the species in Ontario. 2.6 SUMMARY OF POLICY IMPLICATIONS The policies and guidelines summarized above provide the context within which the approval of a development will be granted from a natural environment perspective. The corresponding opportunities and constraints established by these policies and supporting guidelines should be recognized and addressed through the development design, location and supporting documentation, including the identification of appropriate mitigation, restoration and enhancement measures to offset potential negative impacts. The intent of this EIS is to demonstrate how the proposed development complies with the applicable policy documents noted above. 2.6 cjp w:\active\ tutela heights\planning\report\eis\final\rpt_tutela heights eis_07sep10_final.docx

15 3.0 Methods for Data Collection and Analysis 3.1 BACKGROUND DATA COLLECTION A variety of background documents and sources of information were consulted during the preparation of this report, including the following references: County of Brant Official Plan (2000) and proposed Draft OP Update (2010) GRCA Regulatory Mapping (2010) Grand River Fisheries Management Plan (MNR and GRCA, 1998) A Watershed Forest Plan for the Grand River (GRCA, 2004) Distribution of Mussel and Fish Species at Risk GRCA (Map 6) (DFO, 2010) Biodiversity Explorer (Natural Heritage Information Centre) (MNR, 2010) Partners In Flight (PIF) program plan for Bird Conservation Region ( BCR ) 13 (Lower Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Plain region of southern Ontario) (Ontario PIF, 2008) The Physiography of Southern Ontario, Third Edition (Chapman and Putnam, 1984) Environmental Impact Study: Tutela Heights Property (BioLogic, 2004) Aerial Photography (First Base Solutions, 2006) These information sources were reviewed to provide an understanding of the site in the context of the surrounding area. We have relied on these secondary sources of information to identify the known environmental constraint areas and to map the significant features such as watercourses, steep slopes and floodplains and potential wildlife occurrences. 3.2 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS The fieldwork methodology for this study was designed to generate a dataset sufficient for the production of an EIS in support of draft plan conditions. Field studies and natural environment inventories were completed on the subject property and lands on lands adjacent to the proposed development (where access was permitted) to confirm and refine the boundaries, characteristics and significance of the natural features that may be affected by the proposed development. Additional field investigation and general observations were completed for select areas downstream of the subject property, where feasible, as required to characterize the large natural heritage system in the area. Table 1 provides a summary of the field investigations undertaken for this project, as proposed in the approved ToR circulated to the review agencies. cjp w:\active\ tutela heights\planning\report\eis\final\rpt_tutela heights eis_07sep10_final.docx 3.1

16 Methods for Data Collection and Analysis Table 1 Field Investigations, Riverbend Phase 1 Subdivision Purpose of Field Investigation Date Field Personnel Vegetation Surveys: Botanical Inventory and ELC June 3, 2010 (Spring) James Leslie July 6, 2010 (refine ELC) July 21, 2010 (Summer) Pending (Fall) James Leslie James Leslie James Leslie Wetland Delineation July 6, 2010 James Leslie Robert Messier (GRCA) Wildlife Surveys: Amphibian Surveys April 7, 2010 (Round 1) Jill Crumb & Shari Muscat May 18, 2010 (Round 2) June 14, 2010 (Round 3) Jill Crumb & Shari Muscat Jill Crumb & Shari Muscat Breeding Bird Surveys June 10, 2010 Melissa Straus June 24, 2010 Melissa Straus Badger and Badger Den Survey June 3, 2010 James Leslie Snake Survey July 21, 2010 James Leslie Incidental Wildlife Observations All visits All listed General Wildlife Habitat Survey All visits All listed Aquatic Surveys: Aquatic Habitat Assessment and Electrofishing Survey Other Surveys: July 7, 2010 Mark Pomeroy & Joe Keene Reconnaissance Surveys July 18, 2007 Chris Powell April 13, 2010 July 6, 2010 Chris Powell & Kevin Fergin Chris Powell Botanical Surveys Spring and summer botanical inventories and the characterization of existing vegetation communities were completed in the Spring and Summer of A subsequent Fall vegetation 3.2 cjp w:\active\ tutela heights\planning\report\eis\final\rpt_tutela heights eis_07sep10_final.docx

17 Methods for Data Collection and Analysis survey will be completed in 2010 (in accordance with the ToR), the results of which will be assessed in relation to the proposed draft plan of subdivision. The subject property was systematically covered on foot to ensure a complete inventory of plant species and vegetation communities potentially impacted by the proposed development. Community characterizations (eco-sites and vegetation types) identified during these surveys were based on the Ecological Land Classification (ELC) system (Lee et al., 1998). Vegetation communities were delineated on aerial photographs and checked in the field. English colloquial names and scientific binominals of plant species generally follow Newmaster et al. (1998). Specific attention was paid during the surveys for potential plant rare species known to occur in the vicinity of the subject property, such as Butternut, American chestnut, and other rare plants, as well as rare vegetation community types (prairie, savannah and oak woodlands). This included scanning hedgerows to search for occurrences of such rare species and considering the applicability of the rare community types to the observations in the field. The results of these surveys are presented in Section and A complete list of vegetation species identified during the various surveys is provided in Appendix C Wetland Delineation On July 6, 2010 the ELC boundaries were refined and the boundaries of the wetlands on the subject property were flagged with the GRCA. The purpose of this survey was to create accurate mapping of the wetland communities within and adjacent to the subject property. Further, this mapping establishes the boundaries between drainage swales and ecologically functioning wetland habitat. Wetland communities were delineated based on the protocols outlined in the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES). While various considerations are applied to wetland delineations, particular attention is given to the plant species present. In general, where greater than 50% of the tree canopy consists of species known to commonly inhabit wet areas, the community is considered wetland. Where a tree canopy does not exist or is inconclusive, the shrub or herbaceous layer is then assessed using the same principle. Additional evidence is also utilized where this boundary is not obvious, such as soil samples, density of herbaceous layer, and indicators of past surface water levels. Generally, linear wetland areas that were less than 2.5m wide were considered to be a drainage feature and not a wetland community the dimensions of which were provided by the GRCA. Where upland features (i.e. tractor paths) dissected wetland habitat, these features were also not considered to be wetland; however, given that the abutting wetlands are provided a protective buffer, these upland areas become incidentally protected regardless of species composition and soil moisture. cjp w:\active\ tutela heights\planning\report\eis\final\rpt_tutela heights eis_07sep10_final.docx 3.3

18 Methods for Data Collection and Analysis Amphibian Surveys Three amphibian call count surveys were conducted on April 7, May 18, and June 14, 2010 for the purpose of monitoring amphibian breeding activity at various stations based on the presence of potential amphibian habitat. Nine amphibian breeding stations were identified during field investigations based on a review of aerial photographs of the subject property and initial field reconnaissance of potential breeding locations that were associated with the wetland areas. Weather conditions at the onset of each survey are presented in Table 2. Table 2 Amphibian Survey Weather Conditions DATE/TIME April 7, 2010 (19:30-22:15) May 5, 2010 (21:40-00:00) June 14, 2010 (21:10-23:00) Temp ( C) Wind (Beaufort Scale) WEATHER Cloud Cover (%) PPT / PPT last 24 hours Rain & mist / rain None / none Light mist / rain The surveys were conducted using protocols for the Marsh Monitoring Program (Bird Studies Canada, 1994) and Environment Canada s Amphibian Road Call Count program (1997). Counts were conducted between one half hour after sunset and midnight under appropriate weather conditions. This protocol involved the surveyor standing at each station and listening for 3 minutes, recording amphibians if they were heard calling within 100 m. Any species heard calling outside of the station (>100 m) were also recorded accordingly. The results of these surveys are presented in Section All calling activity was ranked using one of the following three abundance code categories: 1 - Calls not simultaneous number of individuals can be accurately counted; 2 - Some calls simultaneous number of individuals can be reliably estimated; and 3 - Full chorus calls continuous and overlapping, so number of individuals cannot be reliably estimated. The number of individuals calling was also estimated, for example, a few individual spring peepers calling may be recorded as 1-4, and a small chorus may be recorded as 2-15 whereas a large chorus would simply be recorded as 3 (without an estimation of individuals). 3.4 cjp w:\active\ tutela heights\planning\report\eis\final\rpt_tutela heights eis_07sep10_final.docx

19 Methods for Data Collection and Analysis Breeding Bird Surveys Breeding bird surveys were conducted on June 10, 2010 between 5:55 and 8:15 AM and on June 24 between 6:45 and 9:00 AM. Timing of the surveys was in accordance with the Ontario Forest Bird Monitoring Program (Cadman et al, 1997) and Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario (Cadman et al., 2007). During the first survey, the temperature was roughly 16 C, with a wind factor of 1 (Beaufort scale) and 10% cloud cover. The temperature during the second survey was approximately 21 C, with a wind factor of 5 (Beaufort scale) and 100% cloud cover. Surveys were conducted by traversing the subject property on foot while maintaining less than 200 m between routes or transects. All species seen and heard were recorded. A conservative approach to determining breeding status was taken; all birds seen or heard in appropriate habitat during the breeding season were assumed to be breeding, as presented in Section Observations were recorded separately between woodlots and agricultural fields American Badger and Badger Den Surveys A badger den survey was conducted on July 21, 2010 between the hours of 08:30 and 12:30. Air temperatures reached a maximum of approximately 28 degrees. The subject property was surveyed for possible badger dens or evidence of badger activity (scat, prints, excavated groundhog dens, etc). Cloud cover was approximately 30%, with no precipitation. A brief rainfall prior to the survey was evident from wet vegetation. The wind (Beaufort Scale) was between 1 and Reptile Surveys A reptile survey was conducted on July 21, 2010, with emphasis on searching for Eastern Milksnake, as suggested by the MNR. Methodology employed during this survey included walking the site and searching for reptiles, particularly under trees and within the debris piles that are present on the property. Potential hibernacula features were also investigated. Observations of other reptile species were also attempted, such as Snapping Turtle, along the marsh communities and watercourses within, and adjacent to, the subject property. The results of these surveys are presented in Section Incidental Wildlife and General Wildlife Habitat Surveys Incidental observations of wildlife, such as direct species observation, den sites and raptor nests, were identified and recorded when encountered during surveys. Attention was paid during each survey for possible reptile species within the marshes, watercourses and woodlands within, and adjacent to, the subject property, such as snapping turtles. All wildlife species identified by sight, sound or distinctive signs during all surveys were recorded, as per Section A complete list of wildlife species identified during the various surveys is provided in Appendix D. cjp w:\active\ tutela heights\planning\report\eis\final\rpt_tutela heights eis_07sep10_final.docx 3.5

20 Methods for Data Collection and Analysis Aquatic Habitat Assessment and Electrofishing Fisheries investigations were carried out on July 7, 2010, in order to characterize aquatic habitat within, and downstream of, the subject property and to examine the connectivity with watercourse reaches farther downstream so that implications of development adjacent to aquatic habitat as related to the Fisheries Act, can be determined. Additionally, the fish community in the tributaries and their possible contribution to the Grand River fishery was also assessed (per MNR June 7, 2010). Aquatic habitat characteristics were recorded for each of the 13 reaches within the tributaries traversing the subject property and downstream road crossings, generally identifying the following habitat characteristics: watercourse size and flow; key habitat features (e.g. pools, riffles, undercut banks); groundwater seepage and upwelling areas; watercourse substrate types; watercourse bank stability; in-stream cover; riparian vegetation; fish species; and adjacent land uses. During each aquatic habitat assessment, air temperature, recent weather conditions, UTM coordinates, length of each reach surveyed, and general water quality data (ph, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, water temperature) were also recorded. Background information pertaining to fish species known to occur within the watercourses in the study area were requested through a review of MNR and GRCA data records, however, no records exist for these watercourses. Therefore, to supplement the habitat information, and to confirm the presence / absence of fish within the various tributaries, each reach was surveyed (where depths permitted) using a Smith Root Model 12 backpack electrofishing unit for a total of 55 electrofishing seconds. Additionally, dip netting was attempted in areas where water was present, but of insufficient depth to electrofish. A single-pass habitat method of electrofishing was conducted within the single reach where water depth and flow were sufficient to sample. A Fish Collection Permit was obtained from the MNR (Guelph) to complete the electrofishing survey (Appendix E). 3.6 cjp w:\active\ tutela heights\planning\report\eis\final\rpt_tutela heights eis_07sep10_final.docx

21 Methods for Data Collection and Analysis Water Balance Monthly water balance calculations were completed for the subject property under pre- and post-development conditions based on the method of Thornthwaite and Mather (1955) in MOE (2003). The Thornthwaite and Mather model is essentially an accounting procedure that analyzes the allocation of water among various components of the hydrologic system. Monthly values of precipitation (rainfall plus snowmelt) and potential evapotranspiration rates are input to the model to estimate actual rates of evapotranspiration and the surplus water that would be available for runoff and groundwater recharge. The monthly surplus of water available for runoff and groundwater recharge was determined by subtracting monthly values of actual evapotranspiration from corresponding precipitation normals. This calculation assumes that no surplus water is available for runoff and recharge during those months where water losses from actual evapotranspiration exceed precipitation inputs. Monthly groundwater recharge at the Site was calculated by applying the weighted infiltration factor to the surplus, with the runoff being calculated by subtracting this resulting groundwater recharge value from the surplus. The results of these calculations for the proposed development are presented in Appendix F and implications discussed in Section ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE AND SENSITIVITY Biological field data were evaluated to establish the significance of the observed natural heritage features. The provincial status of flora and fauna was provided by the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC, 2010). Status rankings (SRANKs) for plants, vegetation communities and wildlife are based on the number of occurrences in Ontario and have the following meanings: S1: critically imperiled; often fewer than 5 occurrences S2: imperiled; often fewer than 20 occurrences S3: vulnerable; often fewer than 80 occurrences S4: apparently secure S5: secure S?: unranked, or, if following a ranking, rank uncertain (e.g. S3?). The global, federal and provincial status of wildlife was determined by reviewing species accounts published by the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC, 2007). Provincial significance of vegetation communities was based on the draft rankings assigned by the Natural Heritage Information Centre (Bakowsky, 1996). The provincial status of all plant species is based on Newmaster et al. (1998), with updates from the database of the Natural Heritage cjp w:\active\ tutela heights\planning\report\eis\final\rpt_tutela heights eis_07sep10_final.docx 3.7

22 Methods for Data Collection and Analysis Information Centre (NHIC, 2010). Species at risk protected under the Endangered Species Act include those listed on the current Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) List, while the federal species include those listed on current Schedules issued under the Species at Risk Act. Identification of potentially sensitive plant species was based on the coefficient of conservatism value (CC) assigned to each native species in southern Ontario (Oldham et al. 1995). The value of CC, ranging from 0 (low) to 10 (high), is based on a species tolerance of disturbance and fidelity to natural habitats. Species with a CC value of 9 or 10 generally exhibit a high degree of fidelity to a narrow range of habitat parameters and undisturbed environments. The potential significance of the natural heritage features and associated ecological functions was evaluated in accordance with the following provincial and municipal guideline documents: Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Natural Heritage Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 (MNR, 2010) to determine Provincially Significant natural heritage features and associated ecological functions Significant Wildlife Habitat: Technical Guide (MNR, 2000) to determine the significance of identified wildlife habitat features and functions Ontario Landbird Conservation Plan: Lower Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Plain (Ontario Partners in Flight, 2006) to determine locally significant species and establish objectives and recommended actions. The potential sensitivity of natural heritage features and functions, such as existing wetlands and watercourse functions, was also measured through an assessment of: surface water and groundwater patterns; vegetation communities (habitat quality, floral quality index, degree of disturbance); sensitive species (plants with a high coefficient of conservatism value); and potential linkage and corridor functions. 3.8 cjp w:\active\ tutela heights\planning\report\eis\final\rpt_tutela heights eis_07sep10_final.docx

23 4.0 Site Description and Existing Natural Features The information contained in this section describes the natural environment features, functions and context within the proximity of the study area based on a review of existing information and refinement of current conditions based on the field investigations and consultation with agency staff described in Section GENERAL OVERVIEW OF SITE CONDITIONS The subject property is located to the south of the existing residential built up area of Tutela Heights, south of Tutela Heights Road in the County of Brant. This area is generally characterized by active agricultural lands on undulating, rolling topography where several tributaries of the Grand River and associated floodplains and marsh communities occur within defined valleys. Several hedgerows are scattered across the area, with several large upland woodland communities to the south and east of the proposed development site. Several tributaries of the Grand River cross through the subject property and outlet near Newport, downstream of the Grand River oxbow. Over time, these watercourses have carved meandering valleys with slopes that reach heights of 10 to 15 metres (downstream of the subject property). These watercourses are intermittent and convey flows primarily during storm events or melt conditions. In some areas, the watercourses have well-defined beds and banks stabilized by natural riparian vegetation, while other flatter sections of these watercourses are less-defined and become braided channels, generally where wetlands occur. The majority of the floodplain areas within the valleys consist of wetland communities, with the exception of areas where agriculture encroaches to the edge of the watercourses. These wetlands form a series of hydrologically connected riparian wetland communities extended to the confluence with the Grand River, similar to other tributaries in the area. The Grand River and its associated large valley system occur immediately north of the subject property. The wooded valley slopes along the south shore of this reach of the Grand River reach heights of between 30 and 40 metres, and are identified as being subject to erosion and instability. Significant works occurred along this slope in 1973 to stabilize and re-vegetate the banks and to divert flows using gabions and groins within the Grand River. 4.2 DESIGNATED NATURAL FEATURES According to the County of Brant Official Plan (2000), the majority of the subject property is designated as Hamlet Residential (HMR) on Schedule B-10, with a portion of the site designated as Woodlands (although mapping does not reflect current site conditions). All of the lands proposed for development are located within the Secondary Urban Settlement Boundary of Tutela Heights. Tributary of the Grand River and its associated floodplain are designated as a Flood Prone Area along the southern portion of the subject property. cjp w:\active\ tutela heights\planning\report\eis\final\rpt_tutela heights eis_07sep10_final.docx 4.1

24 Site Description and Existing Natural Features The slopes along the Grand River valley north of the subject property, on the north side of Tutela Heights Road, are designated as a natural hazard (steep slopes susceptible to erosion). A portion of the hazard land feature extends onto the subject property near the entrance to the proposed development site. The valley feature associated with the Grand River is described in the OP as a significant valleyland in the County of Brant. Current zoning of the subject property is h/h-5-vr, which only permits existing uses (i.e. agriculture) pending the completion of an Area Study to allow for the expansion of the existing Village Residential (VR) zone. The wetlands and watercourse to the northeast, as well as the existing stormwater management facility constructed as part of the Valley Estates, are identified as Open Space (OS). The tributary of the Grand River and its associated floodplain are zoned Environmental Protection (EP). The remainder of the lands within the vicinity of the subject property outside of the Hamlet of Tutela Heights are zoned Agriculture (A). Based on a review of the Schedules for the draft OP, the land use designations generally remain the same as in the current OP, however, floodplains, wetlands and slope areas are identified as part of the Natural Heritage System (Schedule A-6). On Schedule C-6, the wetlands are identified as Significant Wetlands, woodlands are identified as Woodlands and Vegetation and the floodplain and slopes are identified as Natural Hazards. Pursuant the GRCA mapping, the wetlands, floodplains, valley slopes and corresponding allowances are identified as being within the Regulation Limit of the GRCA s Regulation (Ontario Regulation 150/06) (Figure 2). The watercourses in the area are also regulated by the GRCA, although are not included in the mapped Regulation Limit. 4.3 PHYSIOGRAPHY The subject property is located within the Norfolk Sand Plain with Lake Warren (and younger) glaciolacustrine deep water sediments of stratified to varved silt and clay, minor sand, locally overlain by a veneer of sand (Chapman and Putnam, 1984). Alluvial deposits of gravel, sand and/or silt associated with the sand plain are common (Chapman and Putnam, 1984). Drainage in the area is primarily achieved through small creeks, in addition to small lakes and ponds and swampy hollows of old spillways. The subject property consists of undulating topography characterized by a series of ridges, plateaus and valleys. The site generally drains from north to south with a topographic relief in the order of 20 m (approx.) from north to south, with localized slopes in the 10-20% grade range. Bedrock in the vicinity of this area varies from 55 to 70 m below grade, and near surface soils consisted of 0.1 to 0.3 m of surficial topsoil underlain by layers of sand, sandy silt, silt and.or clayey silt (Golder Associates, 2004). 4.2 cjp w:\active\ tutela heights\planning\report\eis\final\rpt_tutela heights eis_07sep10_final.docx