Environmental Impact Study Saginaw Subdivision City of Cambridge

Transcription

1 GUIDING SOLUTIONS IN THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Environmental Impact Study Saginaw Subdivision City of Cambridge Prepared For: Saginaw Developments Corporation Prepared By: Beacon Environmental Limited Date: Project: November W O O L W I C H S T R E E T, G U E L P H, O N T A R I O, C A N A D A N H W 4 T e l : ( F a x : (

2 T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s p a g e. Introduction.... Study Objectives....2 Study Team.... Report Outline Environmental Policy Framework Federal Fisheries Act Endangered Species Act ( Provincial Policy Statement ( Region of Waterloo Official Plan (ROP, as modified and finally approved by Oral Decision of the Ontario Municipal Boars on June 8, City of Cambridge Official Plan ( Grand River Conservation Authority Policies and Regulations Study Methodology Background Review Feature Staking Field Investigations Ecological Land Classification Floristic Surveys Tree Inventory and Assessment Amphibian Breeding Surveys Reptile Surveys Breeding Bird Surveys Historical Assessment Aquatic Habitat Assessment Evaluation of Significant Natural Heritage Resources Study Findings Physical Environment Topography and Drainage Conditions Physiography Bedrock and Surficial Geology Soil Hydraulic Conductivity Hydrogeology Groundwater Level Monitoring Groundwater Flow Recharge/Discharge Conditions Water Quality Hydrology Biological Environment Ecological Communities Wetland Evaluation...

3 4.2. Flora Tree Inventory and Assessment Amphibians Reptiles Avifauna Species at Risk Pond Assessment West Pond (Pond A East Pond (Pond B Irrigation Pond (Pond C Assessment of Significant Natural Heritage Features Summary of Ecological Features and Functions Constraints and Opportunities Natural Heritage Constraints Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW Locally Significant Wetland (LSW Fish Habitat Significant Habitat for Endangered and Threatened Species Woodlands and Treed Resources Natural Hazard Constraints Slope Stability and Flooding Opportunities Wetland Restoration Woodland Restoration Golf Course Naturalization Tree Preservation Other Opportunities Description of the Proposed Development Draft Plan Grading Plan Servicing Plan Stormwater Management Plan Water Balance/LIDs Conceptual Restoration and Enhancement Plan Impact Assessment and Mitigation Monitoring Policy Conformity Conclusions References... 70

4 F i g u r e s Figure. Site Map and Context... after page 2 Figure 2. Existing Conditions... after page 0 Figure. Historical Air Photo... after page 6 Figure 4. Provincially Significant Wetland Water Level Hydrograph... after page 44 Figure 5. Locally Significant Wetland Water Level Hydrograph... after page 44 Figure 6. Draft Plan of Subdivision Site Statistics Figure 7. Draft Plan of Subdivision... after page 48 Figure 8. Proposed Subdivision and Surrounding Development... after page 48 Figure 9. Conceptual Restoration and Enhancement Plan... after page 52 T a b l e s Table. Composition of Study Team, Discipline and Studies/Reports Completed... Table 2. Dates of Field Investigations... 9 Table. Amphibian Survey Details... 2 Table 4. Reptile Survey Details... 2 Table 5. Breeding Bird Survey Details Table 6. Provincial Conservation Status Ranks of Vascular Plants Recorded on the Subject Property... 2 Table 7. Amphibian Call Survey Findings... Table 8. Incidental Amphibian Observations... Table 9. Assessment of Significant Natural Heritage Features... 7 Table 0. Impact Assessment and Recommended Mitigation & Enhancement Measures... 5 Table. Proposed Environmental Monitoring Framework Table 2. Policy Conformity... 6 A p p e n d i c e s A. EIS Terms of Reference B. Vascular Plant Checklist C. Tree Management Plan Report D. Breeding Bird Checklist

5 . Introduction Beacon Environmental Limited (Beacon was retained by Saginaw Development Corporation to prepare an Environmental Impact Study (EIS in support of a proposal to redevelop the Saginaw Golf Club property to accommodate low and medium density residential uses. The Saginaw Golf Club property (hereafter referred to as the Subject Property is situated in the Fiddlesticks Neighbourhood, near the eastern boundary of the City of Cambridge (Figure. The Subject Property and surrounding lands were extensively modified in the 990 s during development of the golf course and surrounding residential community. The golf course went into receivership in 20 and is no longer operational. The majority of the property is occupied by golf course, however there are portions of the site that support natural and semi-natural features, including kettle depressions and associated ponds, wetlands, woodlands and trees. The largest natural feature is a kettle depression, situated on the western portion of the Subject Property. It is identified as a wetland and forms part of the larger Portuguese Swamp Provincially Significant Wetland Complex. Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSWs are identified in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo Official Plan (ROP as Core Environmental Features that form a component of the Regional Greenlands Network as well as the City s Natural Heritage System. The second largest natural feature is the kettle depression on the eastern portion of the Subject Property. It supports a non-psw wetland which is recognized in the City of Cambridge Official Plan as a Locally Significant Natural Area and forms part of the City s Natural Heritage System and is considered a Locally Significant Wetland (LSW. Both the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and City of Cambridge Official Plans contain policies that require an EIS be prepared in support of development proposals that occur on lands that are contiguous with Core Environmental Features and/or Locally Significant Natural Areas. These policies are discussed further in Section 2 of this report. The PSW and LSW wetlands that are associated with the kettle depressions are recognized as Core Environmental Features and Locally Significant Natural Areas respectively. As such, the proposed redevelopment must be supported by an EIS which demonstrates that these natural features and their functions will not be adversely impacted. The Region of Waterloo Greenlands Network Implementation Guideline (RMW 200 describes the purpose of an EIS as follows: to provide technical input to decision-making bodies considering the approval of development applications; to identify, prevent, avoid and mitigate potential adverse environmental impacts of development or site alteration upon a designated Landscape Level System or Core Environmental Feature; and to identify opportunities to enhance and/or restore their environmental features and functions. Page

6 There are generally three types of EIS studies that are recognized by the Region, City and GRCA. An EIS can be comprehensive, full or scoped. Comprehensive and Full EISs are typically completed at the landscape scale or in cases where there is limited environmental information available for an area or where there is a potential risk of adversely impacting components of the Regional Greenlands Network or City s Natural Heritage System. A scoped EIS is generally prepared for site-specific development applications where the potential risk of adversely impacting upon natural features is limited in area or scope. Through consultation with the Region, City and GRCA, it was recommended by GRCA that a Full EIS would be the appropriate level of study required to support the development proposal. The scope of the EIS study was established through a pre-submission consultation meeting with the City, Region and GRCA staff on April 24, 20. Based on agency feedback received as well as following guidance provided in the Environmental Impact Study Guidelines and Submission Standards for Wetlands (GRCA 2005 and Region of Waterloo Greenlands Network Implementation Guideline (RMW 200, Beacon Environmental prepared Draft Terms of Reference for the EIS that outline in detail the types of environmental studies to be undertaken as part of the EIS. The Draft Terms of Reference were circulated to Region, City and GRCA staff for review and comment on June 27, 20. These terms, included in Appendix A, were finalized on July, 20 based on input received from the Region and GRCA. Between 20 and 205, Beacon undertook extensive ecological surveys of the Subject Property and worked closely with members of a multidisciplinary team including engineers, planners, designers and individuals with expertise in the areas of hydrogeology, hydrology and soils, to: a characterize the biophysical environment and ecological functions; b identify environmental constraints and opportunities; c determine ecologically appropriate limits to development; d develop environmental management strategies for the purposes of protecting, enhancing and restoring natural heritage features and their ecological functions; e assess development related impacts to natural heritage features and ecological function; and f to make recommendations for mitigating development related impacts. Beacon submitted a Draft EIS in September 205 that was based on an earlier Draft Plan. Comments on the Draft EIS were received from the GRCA and Region in December 205. The EIS has been revised to address comments received from the agencies and is based on a revised Draft Plan of Subdivision (MHBC October, 206. This updated EIS report builds upon the original EIS and includes the following supplementary information: data from the supplemental ecological surveys completed in 206 a summary of findings from additional hydrogeological investigations completed by MTE Consultants Inc. in 206 an updated Impact Assessment based on the October, 206 Draft Plan of Subdivision an updated Vegetation and Tree Management Plan an updated Wetland Restoration and Enhancement Plan Page 2

7 Can-Amera Pkwy Site Location and Context Figure Puslinch Lake Irish Creek Wetland Complex Saginaw Developments Corporation Franklin Blvd Townline Rd Legend Subject Property Road Area of Natural and Scientific Interest Significant Wetland Portuguese Swamp Bishop St N Green Vista Dr Burnette Ave Saginaw Pkwy Mill Creek Puslinch Wetland Complex First Base Solutions Web Mapping Service 20 Avenue Rd Mill Cre ek UTM Zone 7 N, NAD Metres :5,000 Project 227 November, 206

8 . Study Objectives The objectives of the EIS are to:. characterize the natural features and functions associated with the study area; 2. identify significant and sensitive natural heritage features and functions;. identify constraints and opportunities to development; 4. describe the development and related activities; 5. assess the potential impact of the development on the significant and sensitive natural features and functions; 6. make recommendations for impact avoidance, mitigation, and enhancements to features and functions; and 7. make a determination regarding the net impact of the proposed development and issue a statement of compliance with applicable environmental policies and regulations..2 Study Team The EIS was prepared with input from a multi-disciplinary team. Members of the study team have completed reports and technical studies in the fields of planning, geology, geomorphology, hydrogeology, hydrology, terrestrial and aquatic ecology. This information was used to develop a comprehensive understanding of the ecological inter-relationships between groundwater, surface water, and natural heritage resources for the Subject Property and broader areas. This integrated approach is necessary to inform the development design and associated environmental management strategies that are necessary to protect, enhance and restore all components of the Regional Greenlands Network and City s Natural Heritage System. A list of study team members, their qualifications, and role in this study is summarized in Table. Table. Composition of Study Team, Discipline and Studies/Reports Completed Firm Individuals Title - Qualifications Key Role and Reporting Beacon Environmental Ltd. Ken Ursic Project Manager / Sr. Ecologist - M.Sc. Ecol. Project Management EIS Report Primary Author (Beacon Dan Westerhof Int. Ecologist B.Sc., MES Vegetation Surveys, Tree Inventory, Amphibian surveys, Incidental Wildlife, EIS Report Input Rob Aitken Wildlife Ecologist, GIS Wildlife Surveys, EIS Mapping Specialist B.Sc. Sarah Aitken Aquatic Ecologist B.Sc. Aquatic Habitat Assessments, EIS Report Input Stephan Crispin Landscape Architect B.LA Wetland Restoration Design MHBC Paul Britton Planner Planning and Policy Review Emily Elliott Planner Planning and Policy Review MTE Jeff Martens Project Engineer P. Eng. Stormwater Management Study Steve Peterson Project Manager P. Eng Project Management Bob Schaefer Designer C.E.T. Functional Servicing Page

9 Firm Individuals Title - Qualifications Key Role and Reporting Kurtis Romanchuk SWM Modelling E.I.T. Stormwater Management Study Peto MacCallum Gerry Mitchell Manager, Geotechnical Services P.Eng. Ken Hanes Project Engineer, Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Services - P. Eng. Geotechnical Study Geotechnical Study. Report Outline The outline for this updated EIS report is adopted from the EIS Terms of Reference (Appendix A. A brief description of the contents for each report section is provided below: Section - Introduction: This report section includes a description of the study purpose, objectives and scope of work, study team members and their respective roles. Section 2 - Environmental Policy Framework: This report section describes the current environmental policy framework that is directly relevant to the proposal. It includes an explanation of the various legislation, policies and regulations at the federal, provincial and municipal levels. Section - Study Methodology: This report section describes the various methodologies used to characterize the biophysical environment, including background reviews, field surveys and analyses undertaken to identify constraints and opportunities, assess impacts and establish mitigation measures. Section 4 - Study Findings: This report section summarizes the findings of the background reviews and field investigations used to characterize the biophysical environment and identify the significance and sensitivities of the biophysical resources using established criteria. Section 5 - Constraints and Opportunities: This report section identifies natural heritage and natural hazard constraints to future development and identifies opportunities for enhancement of the natural environment. The constraint analysis was used to establish buffers and limits to future development. Section 6 - Description of the Proposed Development: This report section will describe the proposed development. The description will include a summary of proposed grading activities, servicing and stormwater management, and subdivision design. Section 7 - Impact Assessment and Recommended Mitigation: This report section describes all potential anticipated impacts of the proposed development on the natural heritage features and functions as well as appropriate mitigation measures (i.e. buffers, restoration and enhancement of the wetlands. A stormwater management and water balance strategy has been presented in support of the appropriate mitigation measures. Page 4

10 Section 8 - Monitoring: This report section includes recommendations for long-term monitoring of natural features to monitor changes to key environmental parameters (species, habitats, wetland functions to determine the effectiveness of recommended mitigation measures and environmental management systems. Section 9 - Policy Conformity Analysis: This report section includes an evaluation of the proposed development and associated environmental management strategies, and makes a determination on how they conform to applicable environmental legislation, policies, and regulations. Section 0 - Conclusions: This report section summarizes the study findings and recommendations, and makes concluding remarks. 2. Environmental Policy Framework This report section contains a summary of key environmental policies and regulations that will need to be satisfied by the proposed development. The following sections summarize key environmental legislation, policies and regulations that may apply to the Subject Property within the context of the proposed development application. 2. Federal Fisheries Act The Subject Property supports ponds which contain populations of warm water baitfish. Due to the presence of fish habitat, the Fisheries Act (985 is relevant to the proposed development. The Fisheries Act was recently amended through Bill C-8, which came into effect on November 25 th, 20. Key changes include the combination of former Sections 2 and 5 into a new Section 5. Former prohibitions on killing fish and causing Harmful Alteration, Disruption or Destruction of fish habitat (HADD are now combined within a single prohibition in Section 5 against causing "serious harm to fish that are part of a commercial, recreational or aboriginal fishery, or to fish that support such a fishery. Serious harm to fish includes the following:. The death of fish; 2. A permanent alteration to fish habitat of a spatial scale, duration or intensity that limits or diminishes the ability of fish to use such habitats as spawning grounds, or as nursery, rearing, or food supply areas, or as a migration corridor, or any other area in order to carry out one or more of their life processes; and. The destruction of fish habitat of a spatial scale, duration, or intensity that fish can no longer rely upon such habitats for use as spawning grounds, or as nursery, rearing, or food supply areas, or as a migration corridor, or any other area in order to carry out one or more of their life processes. Page 5

11 Determining the applicability of the Section 5 prohibition to particular waterbodies is now made on a case-by-case basis through a self-assessment process to determine impacts to fish and fish habitat, as well as next steps. Development activities taking place in or near water may affect fisheries by adversely affecting fish or fish habitat. DFO recommends that proponents of these activities should: understand the types of impacts their projects are likely to cause; take measures to avoid and mitigate impacts to the extent possible; and request authorization from the Minister and abide by the conditions of any such authorization, when it is not possible to avoid and mitigate impacts of projects that are likely to cause serious harm to fish. Definitions of avoidance, mitigation and offsetting from the new Fisheries ion Policy Statement (20 are outlined below: Avoidance Avoidance is the undertaking of measures to completely prevent serious harm to fish. Avoidance measures may include locating infrastructure or designing a project or one or more of its components to avoid serious harm to fish. Careful timing of certain activities may also avoid harm to fish and fish habitat. For some projects, serious harm to fish may be fully avoided while for others, serious harm to fish may only be partially avoided. When serious harm to fish cannot be fully avoided, mitigation measures should be undertaken. Mitigation Mitigation is a measure to reduce the spatial scale, duration, or intensity of serious harm to fish that cannot be completely avoided. The best available mitigation measures or standards should be implemented by proponents as much as is practically feasible. Mitigation measures include the implementation of best management practices during the construction, maintenance, operation and decommissioning of a project. Offsetting If all efforts have been made to avoid and mitigate impacts, any residual serious harm to fish should be addressed by offsetting. An offset measure is one that counterbalances unavoidable serious harm to fish resulting from a project with the goal of maintaining or improving the productivity of the commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery. Offset measures should support available fisheries management objectives and local restoration priorities. Prior to development, it will be necessary to contact DFO and undertake a self-assessment to determine the extent of mitigation and/or offsetting that may be required for this project. Page 6

12 2.2 Endangered Species Act (2007 The Ontario Endangered Species Act (2007 (ESA regulates the habitat of Endangered or Threatened species. Species at Risk (SAR in Ontario are species that are listed as Endangered, Threatened or Special Concern at the provincial level. Based on a review of Natural Heritage Information Centre data for the km grid corresponding with the Subject Property, there are records of at least four SAR species in the vicinity of the Subject Property. It should be noted that three of the records are historical ( and correspond with a larger 0 km square. Only one of the records is current and corresponds with an observation in proximity to the Subject Property. The ESA provides legal protection to Endangered and Threatened species confirmed on a site, although under subsection 7( of the Act, the Minster may issue a permit that authorizes a person to engage in an activity that would otherwise be prohibited by subsection 9( or 0( of the Act provided the applicable legislative requirements of subsection 7(2 are satisfied. For context, relevant excerpts from this Act are included below: Subsection 9( of the ESA states that: No person shall, (a kill, harm, harass, capture or take a living member of a species that is listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario List as an extirpated, endangered or threatened species; (b possess, transport, collect, buy, sell, lease, trade or offer to buy, sell, lease or trade, (i a living or dead member of a species that is listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario List as an extirpated, endangered or threatened species, (ii any part of a living or dead member of a species referred to in subclause (i, (iii anything derived from a living or dead member of a species referred to in subclause (i; or (c sell, lease, trade or offer to sell, lease or trade anything that the person represents to be a thing described in subclause (b (i, (ii or (iii. Subsection 0( (a of the ESA states that: No person shall damage or destroy the habitat of a species that is listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario list as an endangered or threatened species. The Endangered Species Act Submission Standards for Activity Review and 7(2(c Overall Benefit Permits (MNR 202a is a document that provides guidance regarding permitting requirements under the Act. Relevant excerpts are provided below: There are four types of permits that may be issued for authorizing otherwise prohibited activities. These are where the activity: (i is necessary for the protection of human health or safety - clause 7(2(a; Page 7

13 (ii has the main purpose to assist, and would assist, in the protection or recovery of the species - clause 7(2(b; (iii has the main purpose not to assist in the protection or recovery of the species, but through specific and mandatory conditions outlined in the permit will result in an overall benefit to the species within a reasonable time - clause 7(2(c; and, (iv will result in significant social or economic benefit to Ontario, but will not jeopardize the survival or recovery of species at risk - clause 7(2(d. Such permits may be issued where, in the Minister of Natural Resources and Forests opinion: (i the permitted activity will result in an overall benefit to the species within a reasonable time through requirements imposed by conditions of the permit, (ii reasonable alternatives have been considered, including alternatives that would not adversely affect the species, and the best alternative has been adopted, and (iii reasonable steps to minimize adverse effects on individual members of the species are required by conditions of the permit. In July 20, Ontario Regulation 76/ (to amend O. Reg. 242/08 came into effect to simplify the process for addressing activities that can potentially damage or destroy the habitats of certain SAR. As a result of this regulation, an Overall Benefit Permit is not needed if the Registry process as described in the regulation is followed, although habitat replacement and monitoring are still required. The Provincial Policy Statement (discussed in Section 2. below clarifies that confirmation of habitat of provincially endangered and threatened species is ultimately MNRF s jurisdiction, and that any proposed development or site alteration within such habitat may only be permitted in accordance with provincial regulations and supporting documents. The study team has engaged with MNRF to discuss required habitat protection measures and associated permitting procedures under the ESA to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Act. 2. Provincial Policy Statement (20 Policy 2. of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS (MMAH, 20 provides direction to municipalities regarding planning policies specifically for the protection and management of natural heritage features and areas. The PPS defines natural heritage features and areas as follows: features and areas, including significant wetlands, significant coastal wetlands, other coastal wetlands in Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E, fish habitat, significant woodlands and significant valleylands in Ecoregions 6E and 7E (excluding islands in Lake Huron and the St. Marys River, habitat of endangered species and threatened species, significant wildlife habitat, and significant areas of natural and scientific interest, which are important for their environmental and social values as a legacy of the natural landscapes of an area. Page 8

14 Each of the natural heritage components is afforded varying levels of protection subject to guidelines, and in some cases, regulations. The Natural Heritage Reference Manual (MNRF, 200 provides guidance for the identification and assessment of these features. Significant wetlands and significant ANSI s are identified by protocols provided by the MNRF. Significant habitat of Endangered and Threatened species is determined by the MNRF once a species listed as such has been confirmed on a property through site specific investigation or through existing information. Fish habitat is governed by the federal Fisheries Act and variously applied by Fisheries and Oceans Canada. The identification of the remainder of the features listed above is the responsibility of the municipality or other local planning authority. The Natural Heritage Policies of the PPS state that: In respect of the exercise of an authority that affects a planning matter, Section of the Planning Act requires that decisions affecting planning matters shall be consistent with policy statements issued under the Act. Sections 2..4 through 2..8 relate to protection of natural heritage features and are as follows: 2..4 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in: a significant wetlands in Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E ; and b significant coastal wetlands. unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in: a significant wetlands in the Canadian Shield north of Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E; b significant woodlands in Ecoregions 6E and 7E (excluding islands in Lake Huron and the St. Marys River; c significant valleylands in Ecoregions 6E and 7E (excluding islands in Lake Huron and the St. Marys River; d significant wildlife habitat; e significant areas of natural and scientific interest; and f coastal wetlands in Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E that are not subject to policy 2..4(b unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in fish habitat except in accordance with provincial and federal requirements Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in habitat of endangered species and threatened species, except in accordance with provincial and federal requirements Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on adjacent lands to the natural heritage features and areas identified in policies 2..4, 2..5, and 2..6 unless Page 9

15 the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on their ecological functions. Policy. of the PPS provides direction to municipalities regarding land use planning in natural hazard areas. These policies generally prohibit or restrict development in areas prone to flooding and erosion. 2.4 Region of Waterloo Official Plan (ROP, as modified and finally approved by Oral Decision of the Ontario Municipal Boars on June 8, 206 The Region of Waterloo Official Plan has identified a Greenlands Network that is comprised of various environmental features and the linkages that connect them. The Greenlands Network contributes to maintaining the environmental health of Waterloo Region and the Grand River watershed. The Region of Waterloo Official Plan includes policies for maintaining, enhancing or, where feasible restoring the Greenlands Network. Included below is a summary of key environmental policies from the Region of Waterloo Official Plan that are relevant to the current application. 7.A. The Greenlands Network comprises Landscape Level Systems, Core Environmental Features, Fish Habitat, Supporting Environmental Features and the linkages among these elements, and lands designated within the Provincial Greenbelt Plan as Natural Heritage System. 7.A.6 Interpretation of the boundaries of Landscape Level Systems and Core Environmental Features, as required to support the review of development applications, will be achieved through the completion of Environmental Impact Statements or other appropriate studies in accordance with the policies in Section 7.G. 7.C. Core Environmental Features are those environmental features identified as being provincially significant or regionally significant. These features are the most significant elements of the regional landscape in terms of maintaining, protecting and enhancing biodiversity and important ecological functions. Core Environmental Features are designated as shown on Map 4. The Core Environmental Features designation applies to lands that meet the criteria as: (a Significant Habitat of Endangered or Threatened Species; (b Provincially Significant Wetlands; (c Environmentally Sensitive Policy Areas; (d Significant Woodlands; or (e Environmentally Significant Valley Features. As the Subject Property does not support features c, d or e listed above, policies that are directly relevant to the application are 7.C. and 7.C.4, which are included below. 7.C. Significant Habitat of Endangered or Threatened Species is approved by the Province or the Federal government. This habitat is necessary for the maintenance, Page 0

16 survival and/or recovery of naturally occurring or reintroduced populations of endangered or threatened species, and where those areas of occurrence are occupied or habitually occupied by the species during all or any part(s of its life cycle. Mapping of the habitat of these species may not be shown on Map 4 and will not be shown within the Core Environmental Features Technical Appendix in order to protect such species and their habitat. The Region will collaborate with the Province to ensure that Significant Habitat of Endangered or Threatened Species on lands affected by or contiguous to any proposed development or site alteration is properly identified. 7.C.4 Provincially Significant Wetlands, as identified by the Province, will be considered Core Environmental Features for the purposes of this Plan. The Region will collaborate with the Province to ensure that wetlands on lands affected by or contiguous to any proposed development or site alteration are properly evaluated and identified as Provincially Significant Wetlands, where appropriate. 7.C.9 Development or site alteration will not be permitted within Core Environmental Features, except for: a forest, fish or wildlife management and conservation; b flood or erosion control projects demonstrated to be in the public interest and for which no other alternative is feasible; c minor alterations to legal non-conforming land uses within Core Environmental Feature; d infrastructure projects in accordance with Policies 7.C. and 7.C.2; or e new mineral aggregate operations in accordance with Policy 9.C.6. Any application for development or site alteration for the above uses will require the submission of an Environmental Impact Statement, to the satisfaction of the Region, to determine the mitigation measures to be implemented, as appropriate, through the development review process. 7.C.0 Development or site alteration will only be permitted on lands contiguous to a Core Environmental Feature where an Environmental Impact Statement, or similar study, submitted in accordance with the policies in Section 7.G has determined to the satisfaction of the Region, Area Municipalities, the Grand River Conservation Authority and/or the Province, as appropriate, that approval of the proposed development or site alteration would not result in adverse environmental impacts on the features and ecological functions of the Core Environmental Feature. The Region may require conditions of approval to implement such recommendations. 7.C. An Environmental Impact Statement submitted in accordance with Policies 7.C.9 or 7.C.0 will identify appropriate buffers to Core Environmental Features, to the satisfaction of the Region, in consultation with Area Municipalities and the Grand River Conservation Authority. Such buffers will not only serve to protect Core Environmental Features from adverse environmental impacts but will also provide opportunities for net habitat enhancement to enhance or, wherever feasible, restore the ecological functions of the Core Environmental Feature. The location, width, composition and use of buffers will be in accordance with the approved Environmental Impact Statement, with buffers being a minimum of 0 metres as measured from the outside boundary of the Core Page

17 Environmental Feature and established and maintained as appropriate self-sustaining native vegetation. 7.C.2 Where construction of a road on a new right-of-way, widening or upgrading of an existing roadway, construction or upgrading of a trunk sewer, trunk watermain, gas pipeline or electrical transmission line, wastewater treatment facility, waste management facility or groundwater taking project is proposed within or contiguous to a Core Environmental Feature, the submission of an Environmental Impact Statement, or other appropriate study, in accordance with the policies in Section 7.G will be required. 7.C. Where a study completed in accordance with Policy 7.C. demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Region that the construction of the infrastructure project will: a result in localized and/or reversible impacts to the features and ecological functions of the Core Environmental Feature, and that other alternatives are less feasible from a technical, environmental and/or financial perspective, the Region and Area Municipalities will, without amendment to this Plan; i. require that appropriate mitigation measures be implemented; and ii. approve the undertaking; or iii. support the undertaking in comments, submissions or recommendations. 7.D. Development or site alteration will not be permitted within fish habitat, except in accordance with Provincial and Federal requirements to the satisfaction of the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, or its delegate. 7.E.5 Lands within river or stream valleys, floodplains, wetlands, watercourses, lakes or hazardous lands, or lands within 20 metres of Provincially Significant Wetlands and wetlands greater than or equal to two hectares, or lands within 0 metres of wetlands less than two hectares, are regulated by the Grand River Conservation Authority. Development or site alteration within these Regulated Areas will require a permit from the Grand River Conservation Authority in accordance with the applicable regulations approved under the Conservation Authorities Act. 7.G. An Environmental Impact Statement may be required to identify and evaluate the potential effects of a proposed development or site alteration on elements of the Greenlands Network, and recommend means of preventing, minimizing or mitigating these impacts, as well as enhancing or restoring the quality and connectivity of elements of the Greenlands Network. An Environmental Impact Statement may also be used to identify and evaluate elements of the Greenlands Network and interpret the boundaries of these elements. The Province, Region, Area Municipalities and the Grand River Conservation Authority will co-ordinate the requirements for the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements. 7.G. The need for, and scope of Environmental Impact Statements, will be determined in collaboration with affected Area Municipalities, the Province, the Grand River Conservation Authority by: Page 2

18 a the Province, for development or site alteration potentially affecting Significant Habitat of Endangered or Threatened Species, or; b the Region, for development or site alteration potentially affecting: i. Landscape Level Systems, not including Significant Valleys; ii. iii. Core Environmental Features; or Environmentally Significant Discharge Areas and/or Environmentally Significant Recharge Areas that sustain Core Environmental Features. c the Grand River Conservation Authority for Significant Valleys, Provincially Significant Wetlands located outside Environmentally Sensitive Policy Areas and wetlands not identified as provincially significant, including unevaluated wetlands; d the affected Area Municipality for development applications potentially affecting other elements of the Greenlands Network; and e the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, or its delegate, for fish habitat; 7.G.4 The following provisions will apply to Environmental Impact Statements required by the Region under Policy 7.G.(b: a the Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Regional Greenlands Network Implementation Guideline; b the Region may reduce the scope and/or content of the Environmental Impact Statement where the impacts of the proposed development or site alteration upon an element of the Greenlands Network are expected to be limited in area and/or scope, or where other environmental studies fulfilling the requirements of an Environmental Impact Statement have been previously been prepared; c the Region may waive the requirement for the Environmental Impact Statement where consultation with other agencies or site investigation bythe Region indicate that there are not likely to be adverse environmental impacts upon the Greenlands Network; and d the submission of an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required by the Region where an Environmental Assessment or alternative environmental reviews are being undertaken as part of a comprehensive planning process required under Provincial or Federal Legislation, provided the Environmental Assessment or alternative environmental review fulfills all the requirements for site specific, and/or landscape level Environmental Impact Statements that would otherwise be required by this Plan. 7.H Natural Hazards 7.H. Hazardous lands and hazardous sites as identified by the Grand River Conservation Authority will be given an appropriate land use designation within Area Municipal official plans. Development or site alteration on hazardous lands and hazardous sites may also be subject to the regulations administered by the Grand River Conservation Authority. Amendments to Area Municipal official plans will not be required for minor revisions to the boundaries of hazardous lands and hazardous sites, where such revisions are supported by technical studies approved by the Grand River Conservation Authority. Page

19 7.H.7 Development or site alteration will not be permitted within: a hazardous lands which are impacted by flooding hazards and/or erosion hazards; b erosion access allowances, which will not be less than six metres; and c hazardous sites. City of Cambridge Official Plan (202 The City of Cambridge Official Plan has identified a Natural Heritage System that is comprised of a diversity of natural features and associated ecological functions. This system expands upon the Region of Waterloo Greenlands Network and other natural elements in the broader Grand River watershed. In recognition of this hierarchy, the City of Cambridge Official Plan Natural Heritage System includes Landscape Level Systems, Core Environmental Features, Locally Significant Natural Areas, as well as linkage and restoration areas. Included below is a summary of key environmental policies from the City of Cambridge Official Plan that are relevant to the current application. Policy.A. of the City of Cambridge Official Plan relates to Regional Core Environmental Features and are consistent with those described in the preceding section and not repeated here. Policy.A.4 of the City of Cambridge Official Plan applies to Locally Significant Natural Areas and states:. Locally Significant Natural Areas (LSNAs (unmapped are those natural features not meeting the criteria for recognition as being provincially or regionally significant. LSNAs play an important role in maintaining the ecological functions provided by the Natural Heritage System. 2. To qualify for recognition as a LSNA, a natural feature must be: a a wetland which is regulated by the GRCA but which does not qualify as a Core Environmental Feature; b a wooded area identified by the Ministry of Natural Resources but which does not qualify as a Core Environmental Feature; c significant wildlife habitat generally consisting of one or more of the following: (i seasonal concentration areas; (ii rare vegetation communities or specialized habitats for wildlife; (iii habitats of species of conservation concern; or (iv wildlife movement corridors; (v perennial or intermittent watercourse(s; (vi Environmentally Significant Groundwater Discharge and Recharge Areas.. Development and site alteration will avoid LSNAs wherever feasible. Development or site alteration proposed within or contiguous to a LSNA will require an Environmental Impact Statement. The determination of boundaries and buffers will be done through this study and it must show to the satisfaction of the City that the ecological function of the LSNA will be maintained, enhanced or where feasible, restored. Page

20 4. On lands where LSNAs have not been adequately identified and evaluated through a subwatershed study, master environmental servicing plan or any other appropriate natural heritage review, development or site alteration will be prohibited until such time as an Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared for an owner/applicant in accordance with the policies in Section.A.8 to identify and evaluate any such elements located on the subject lands. 5. The form of LSNAs may be modified through development or site alteration provided it is demonstrated through an Environmental Impact Statement that ecological function of the natural feature is maintained, enhanced or where feasible, restored. 6. Further to Policy.A.4.5, development or site alteration may only be permitted within LSNAs that are wetlands where it is demonstrated through an Environmental Impact Statement that the wetland is not: a located within a riparian community; b hazardous land or a hazardous site; c a bog or fen; d fish habitat; e part of a functional linkage between larger wetlands or natural features; f significant wildlife habitat; g confirmed habitat for a provincially or regionally significant species as determined by the Province or the Region; h part of a groundwater recharge area; i a groundwater discharge area associated with any of the above..a.6 Restoration Areas and Vegetation Management. The protection, preservation and restoration of indigenous vegetative cover is a priority for the City. This priority ranges from the protection of significant natural features described in the Natural Heritage System to general vegetative cover across the municipality. Private development and public works projects are seen as opportunities to increase the vegetative cover quantity and quality in the municipality, as well as biodiversity. 2. The City shall require as necessary the preparation and submission of a tree management plan prior to draft approval of a plan of subdivision or site plan approval. Tree management plans submitted to the City shall be prepared in a manner consistent with the Tree Management Policies and Guidelines for New Developments.. The Tree Management Policies and Guidelines for New Developments shall also guide the City in the preservation, protection, management, replacement and possible acquisition of significant tree stands, hedgerows, woodlots and forested areas. They will be applied to tree management practices carried out by the City on City-owned lands. Page 5

21 4. In addition to the Tree Management Policies and Guidelines for New Developments, the City will consider other measures, such as the Region s Woodland Conservation By-law, a local tree protection/preservation by-law under the Municipal Act, designation of heritage trees under the Heritage Act and/or stewardship programs to aid in policy implementation..a.7 Fish Habitat Development or site alteration will not be permitted within fish habitat, except in accordance with Provincial and Federal requirements to the satisfaction of the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans or its delegate..a.8 Environmental Impact Statements. An Environmental Impact Statement will be required in accordance with the policies of this Plan, to identify and evaluate the potential effects of a development or site alteration application on elements of the significant natural features as described in Sections.A.2,.A., and.a.4 to recommend: means of preventing, minimizing or mitigating impacts; opportunities for enhancement; and where appropriate, to interpret the boundaries of the elements. A Comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement is a broader scale study. 2. The City requires the completion of a Comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement where; a the proposed development may affect a variety of elements of the Natural Heritage System; b multiple contiguous properties containing elements of the Natural Heritage System are proposed for development; c Community Plan or Secondary Plan is being prepared; d environmental studies are required to examine changes to the City Urban Area boundaries; or e substantive new information is needed for previously completed subwatershed studies regarding the identification of elements of the Natural Heritage System.. Terms of reference for Comprehensive Environmental Impact Statements will be established in consultation with the City, the Region, the Province and the GRCA and abutting municipalities, if applicable. 4. Comprehensive Environmental Impact Statements may be used to fulfill all other requirements for site-specific Environmental Impact Statements that should otherwise be required, or for scoping future Environmental Impact Statements. 5. The need for, scope and acceptability of site-specific Environmental Impact Statements will be determined in collaboration with the City, the Region, the Province and the GRCA. If the significant natural feature extends beyond the boundaries of the city, the adjacent municipality will be offered the opportunity to participate in this determination. Page 6

22 6. A reduction in the scope and/or content or waiving of the Environmental Impact Statement may be authorized by the Commissioner of Planning Services in collaboration with the Region, the Province and/or the GRCA where the impacts of a development or site alteration upon a LSNA are expected to be limited in area and/or scope, or where other environmental studies fulfilling the requirements of an Environmental Impact Statement have previously been prepared. 7. The City will collaborate with the Region and the GRCA to develop a guideline for the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements required by the policies of this Plan. In addition to the natural heritage related policies presented above, the City of Cambridge Official Plan includes policies related to natural hazards..b.6. Natural Hazards Natural hazards such as flooding, erosion and slope failures pose a risk to human health and safety, as well as property. As a matter of public safety, it is important to reduce the potential risks and costs associated with natural hazards by ensuring that development is directed away from these areas. The GRCA is a key partner in this effort through the administration of the Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation (Ontario Regulation 50/06. In addition to City approval, permission from the GRCA is required to develop in river or stream valleys, wetlands, shorelines or hazardous lands..b.6.. Floodplains. Major floodplains, defined by the Regulatory Flood as identified and approved by the GRCA, are shown conceptually on Map 0 of this Plan. The precise delineation of the floodplain is determined by the GRCA or through subwatershed studies. This precise delineation does not require amendment to this Plan. 2. The floodplain within Cambridge, as shown on Maps 0,, and 2 of this Plan, consists of One-Zone, Two-Zone and Special Floodplain Policy Areas. In One-Zone Floodplain Policy Areas shown on Map 0 of this Plan, development is prohibited or restricted in the entire floodplain. In Two-Zone Floodplain Policy Areas shown on Map of this Plan, the floodplain is divided into two zones, the floodway and the flood fringe. Development may be permitted in the flood fringe provided appropriate flood proofing measures are undertaken. The Galt City Centre Floodplain Special Policy Area shown on Map 2 of this Plan recognizes the need to allow limited development and redevelopment in the floodway to maintain a Community Core Area.. Certain activities, including the construction of new public roads, or new structures necessary for conservation, public recreation, water supply, wastewater management, stormwater management, utility or agricultural purposes may be permitted, subject to the approval of the GRCA, within the floodplain in a One-Zone Policy Area or the floodway in a Two-Zone Policy Area. 4. Development or redevelopment is prohibited within the floodplain that is associated with: Page 7

23 a the manufacturing, use or storage of hazardous or toxic substances which would pose an unacceptable threat to public safety if damaged as a result of flooding or failure of flood protection measures; b institutional uses, such as hospitals, nursing homes, day care establishments, group homes and schools, which would pose a significant threat to the safety of the inhabitants if involved in an emergency evacuation situation as a result of flooding or failure of flood protection measures, except as provided in Policy.B f (flood fringe; and c emergency services such as police, fire and ambulance stations and electrical and telephone substations, which would be impaired during a flood emergency as a result of flooding or failure of flood protection measures. 2.6 Grand River Conservation Authority Policies and Regulations The Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA regulates hazard lands, watercourses, valleylands, shorelines, and wetlands, as well as land adjacent to these features. The Subject Property contains one evaluated wetland which forms part of the Portuguese Swamp PSW as well as one unevaluated wetland. Both of these features, and the lands adjacent them, are regulated by GRCA. The site does not contain other features (watercourses, hazard lands (floodplains, erosion area that would be regulated by GRCA. GRCA policy (GRCA, 200 requires that an EIS be prepared for development proposals within 20 m of a PSW or unevaluated wetlands. In addition, a permit must be obtained for any development and/or site alteration within regulated areas.. Study Methodology. Background Review Background information pertaining to the natural resource and physical setting of the Subject Property and environs was gathered and reviewed at the outset of the project. The following individuals and information sources were consulted:. Graham Buck (Species at Risk Biologist MNRF (October April Souwand (Environmental Planner - City of Cambridge (June 20. Art Timmerman (District Biologist MNRF (June 7, Tony Zammit (Ecologist GRCA (June 7, Greg Scheifele (GWS Forestry Consultants (June Andy Byrne (Saginaw Golf Course 7. Natural Heritage Information Centre Databases (Rare Species Records 8. Region of Waterloo Official Plan Environmental Policies and Schedules 9. City of Cambridge Official Plan Environmental Policies and Schedules Page 8

24 0. GRCA Policies for the Administration of the Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation - Ontario Regulation 50/06. Ontario Wetland Evaluation Manual for Southern Ontario (20.2 Feature Staking The limits of the two regulated wetland features on the Subject Property were staked with GRCA staff on May 2, 20. These limits were subsequently surveyed by MTE on May 2 st and May 22 nd, 20, and added to the overall topographic survey plan.. Field Investigations Beacon Environmental ecologists undertook field investigations on the Subject Property and adjacent lands in 20, 20 and 206 for the purposes of documenting natural heritage resources. A summary of the field visits and survey dates is presented in Table 2. More detailed survey descriptions are provided in the subsections that follow. Table 2. Dates of Field Investigations Survey Type Dates of Surveys Ecological Land Classification May 8, May 2, June 29, 20. Floristic Inventory May 0 and August 2, 20; May 8, May 2, June 29, September 8, 20 Tree Inventory June 29, September 8, October 7, 20 May 2, 20, June 9, 20 Amphibian Surveys March 5, April 9, May 9, June 20, 206 May 8 and May 2, 20 Reptile Surveys April 9, May 5, and June 2, 206 June 9 and June 25, 20 Breeding Bird Surveys May, 206 and June 2, 206 Aquatic Assessment August 2, 20.. Ecological Land Classification Vegetation communities on the Subject Property were mapped and described following the protocols of the Ecological Land Classification (ELC System for Southern Ontario (Lee et al This involved delineating vegetation communities on aerial photos of the property. For each vegetation community, information on dominant species cover, community structure, level of disturbance, presence of indicator species, and other notable features was recorded. Page 9

25 ..2 Floristic Surveys Floristic surveys were completed in the spring, summer and fall of 20 and 20. For specific survey dates, refer to Table 2. All portions of the Subject Property were surveyed to document vascular plant species populations. A list of all vascular plant species observed was compiled for each vegetation community during ELC surveys and is presented in Appendix B... Tree Inventory and Assessment Tree inventories on the Subject Property were completed by an ISA Certified Arborist on June 29 and September 8, and October 7, 20. A Tree Management Plan Report is presented in Appendix C. The inventories were completed in accordance with the City of Cambridge Tree Management Policies and Guidelines for New Developments (April 999, Revised Feb. 2002, which involves three phases or levels of analysis as follows: General Vegetation Inventory and Analysis; 2 Detailed Vegetation Management Plan; and Tree Preservation/Compensation Plan. The General Vegetation Inventory and Analysis involves an inventory and description of treed communities on the property. The community descriptions are based on the ELC system as described in Section.2.. For each tree group/community, information was collected on vegetation type (e.g. hedgerow, deciduous forest, etc., species association or plant community, number of trees (relative species abundance, canopy closure (percentage, dominant tree species, rare or unusual tree species, tree condition, and average tree size (trunk diameter. The Detailed Vegetation Management Plan requires inventorying and assessing all trees that could potentially be affected by future development or site alteration. To prepare such a plan, all trees with stem diameters in excess of 0 cm DBH (diameter at breast height - measured at.4 m above ground were marked with a numbered aluminum forestry tag and information was collected on the following:. Tree Location (recorded during topographical survey of property 2. Tree Species. Tree Diameter (DBH 4. Tree Condition (assessed according to the following criteria: : dead branches less than 0, signs of good compartmentalization on any wounds, no structural defects; Fair: 0-0 dead branches, size or occurrence of wounds presents some concerns, minor structural defects; Poor: more than 0 dead branches, weak compartmentalization, early leaf drop, presence of insects/disease, major structural defects; Dead: tree exhibits no signs of life. In cases where tree stands were dense, a description of the tree grouping was provided as opposed to data on individual stems. Opportunities to preserve individual trees and/or tree groupings were Page 20

26 identified by considering the tree health and condition, as well as future grading and servicing. Based on these considerations, a recommendation was provided to protect, remove, or transplant individual trees or tree groupings. The findings and recommendations are presented in the Tree Management Plan Report, which is included in Appendix C...4 Amphibian Breeding Surveys Amphibian surveys were undertaken on the Subject Property during the spring of 20 and 206 to record the presence or absence of early, mid, and late season breeding frogs and toads. Surveys were conducted on May 2 and June 8, 20 and April 9, May 9, and June 20, 206 following the Marsh Monitoring Protocol (Bird Studies Canada, On each occasion, the Subject Property was visited after sunset to listen for calling frogs and toads in areas supporting potential breeding habitats (i.e. ponds, wetlands. Survey details including dates, times and weather conditions are summarized in Table. Table. Amphibian Survey Details Survey Survey 2 Survey Survey 2 Survey Survey 4 Date: May 2 June 8 March 5 April 9 May 9 June 20 Start time: 9:2 pm 9:0 pm 8:00 pm 9:5 pm 9:55 pm 0:25 pm Temperature ( o C: Wind speed (km/h: o Cloud cover (: Precipitation None None None None None None..5 Reptile Surveys Reptile surveys were completed in 20 and 206. The shorelines of ponds and wetlands were surveyed with binoculars for basking turtles. This method is considered to be one of the most effective methods of confirming the presence of turtles within suitable habitat (MNRF, 20. Basking surveys were completed on sunny days when air temperatures were above 0 C or on partially cloudy or slightly overcast days when the air temperatures were above 5 C and is higher than the water temperature (MNR, 20. Survey details are presented in Table 4. Incidental monitoring for basking turtles was completed during all site visits. Table 4. Reptile Survey Details Date: May 8 May 2 April 9 May June 2 Start time: :0 am 0:00 am 9:50 am 5:50 am 6:20 am End time: 2:0 pm 2:0 pm 2:5 pm 7:0 am 8:20 am Temp ( o C: C 20 C 8 C 5 C 7 C Page 2

27 Wind (km/h: km/h 5 km/h 0 5 km/h 0 km/h 5 km/h Cloud cover (: Weather Sunny Sunny with some Sunny with some Sunny with some Sunny clouds clouds clouds Precipitation None None None None None..6 Breeding Bird Surveys Breeding birds were surveyed in 20 and 206. Surveys for the breeding birds took place in the early morning on days with low winds ( on the Beaufort scale, temperatures within 5 C of normal and no precipitation. The property was walked such that all signing birds could be heard or observed and recorded on an aerial photograph of the site. Survey details are presented in Table 5. Table 5. Breeding Bird Survey Details Date: June 9 June 25 May June 2 Start time: 5:05 am 5:5 am 5:50 am 6:20 am End time: 6:5 am 6:0 am 7:0 am 8:20 am Temp ( o C: C 9 C 5 C 7 C Wind (km/h: 5 km/h 0 5 km/h 0 km/h 5 km/h Cloud cover (: Precipitation None None None None..7 Historical Assessment Historical aerial photography was reviewed to evaluate the state and condition of natural heritage features on the Subject Property prior to the urbanization of the surrounding area. Aerial photography from 954 was obtained from the National Air Photo Library. The historical imagery was compared to current imagery to determine the extent, form and condition of any remnant natural features such as wetlands, forests and hedgerows...8 Aquatic Habitat Assessment The aquatic habitats associated with the kettle ponds were surveyed on August 2, 20. The western kettle was surveyed using a canoe and the eastern kettle was surveyed from the edge. Additional information that was collected as part of the aquatic habitat assessment for the western pond included water depth, temperature and any fish that were observed. Due to the low water levels in the eastern pond at the time of the survey water depths were not recorded as it was inaccessible by canoe. Page 22

28 .4 Evaluation of Significant Natural Heritage Resources As discussed in Section 2, there are environmental policies, regulations and legislation at the federal, provincial, regional and local municipal levels that afford protection to significant natural heritage resources, including, but not limited to the following: fish habitat habitat of threatened and endangered species natural heritage systems and natural areas significant wetlands significant woodlands significant valleylands significant wildlife habitat Determining the significance of the various natural features and areas noted above requires application of a more detailed evaluation of their significance using local, regional and provincial criteria-based guidelines. The findings of the background review and field investigations were used to confirm whether the Subject Property supports any of the natural heritage components recognized under the PPS, as well as the Region and City s Official Plans. Additional technical guidance, is contained in the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (MNRF, 200, Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (MNRF, 2000 and Draft SWH Criteria for Ecoregion 6E (MNRF, 202, were also consulted where appropriate..5 Constraint Analysis A constraint analysis was undertaken to identify the extent to which natural heritage features and natural hazards could potentially constrain future development on the Subject Property. The goal of this analysis was to identify, with reasonable certainty, an environmental constraint line that could be used to establish the limits of future development. The constraint analysis was prepared based on the following: a. identification of significant natural heritage features / areas and associated functions; b. identification of natural hazards; c. field delineation of environmental features with the Region, City and GRCA; and d. evaluation and application of policy-related environmental constraints. The following biophysical features, functions and attributes were considered when identifying environmental constraints for the Study Area. Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSW Locally Significant Wetlands (LSW Environmentally Sensitive Landscapes (ESL s Locally Significant Natural Area (LSNA s Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI s Significant Woodlands Page 2

29 Floodplains Slopes Fish habitat Habitats for endangered and threatened species Potential candidate significant wildlife habitats The constraint analysis consisted of overlaying maps of the various significant natural heritage features and natural hazards associated with the Subject Property, and applying buffers and / or setbacks based on their ecological sensitivities and / or applicable policy requirements. The most restrictive of these constraints was utilized to establish development limits..6 Impact Assessment To assess potential impacts associated with the various land uses and to evaluate their effect on the physical and biological environment, an impact assessment matrix was developed to provide a framework for the assessment in accordance with the EIS Terms of Reference (Appendix A. The matrix is organized by technical discipline (e.g., hydrogeology, hydrology, aquatic biology, terrestrial biology, etc. and describes the various anticipated impacts by identifying: feature and/or function expected to receive the impact, the proposed activity expected to result in impacts, the potential impacts, the recommended mitigation (including special monitoring or management needs, and the net effects (or residual impacts expected, if any. 4. Study Findings 4. Physical Environment 4.. Topography and Drainage Conditions The topography of the Subject Property can be described as gently rolling tableland. Most notable are three kettle depression landforms that lack of surface drainage connections or outlets. The entirety of the Subject Property, as well as large portions of the surrounding development, drain to these kettle depressions. Topographic relief across the western portion of the Subject Property is approximately 8.0 m. Elevations range from approximately 8 metres above sea level (masl in the northwest corner to 8 masl in the northeast corner, to 0 m at the bottom of the large kettle pond. Topographic relief across the eastern portion of the Subject Property is approximately 9.0 m. Elevations range from approximately 7 masl at the northeast and southwest corner to 5 masl along the western edge dropping to 06.8 masl at the bottom of the kettle pond (MTE 206. Page 24

30 4..2 Physiography The Subject Property is situated within the Horseshoe Moraines physiographic region of Ontario. This physiographic region extends west of the Niagara Escarpment from Caledon to Paris. The Horseshoe Moraines are represented by a collection of discontinuous individual moraines. Local topography is irregular, sloping generally to the south and southwest, with many small scattered knobs and kettle depressions. Associated with the moraines is a system of spillways with broad sand and gravel terraces and swampy valley floors (Chapman and Putnam 984. The Subject Property lies in an area on the eastern flank of the physiographic region known as the Waterloo Moraine, which is an irregular tract of hummocky to steeply rolling ground that extends from St. Clements in the north to Ayr in the south (Chapman and Putnam, 984, Karrow, 99. Another physiographic region, known as the Galt Moraine, is located east of the Subject Property (MTE Bedrock and Surficial Geology The Region of Waterloo is located on the eastern rim of the Michigan Basin. The Paleozoic bedrock dips gently to the southwest towards the centre of the basin. The Region is underlain, east to west and oldest to youngest, by Silurian age Guelph (dolostone, Salina (dolostone, shale, salt, and gypsum and Bass Islands (dolostone Formations. The Subject Property is underlain by Middle Silurian dolomite of the Guelph Formation. The mapping describes the Guelph Formation as being comprised of cream and brown, fine to medium crystalline dolomite that contains numerous bioherm reefs. The depth to bedrock beneath the Subject Property is between 28m bgs to 9m bgs (MTE 206. The Region of Waterloo has relatively thick deposits of glacial overburden that overly the bedrock with depths exceeding 00m. In general, silty to clayey till was deposited as extensive sheets during different periods of glacial ice advance. Granular materials such as outwash and kame sands and gravels and glaciolacustrine fine-grained deposits (such as silt and clay, were deposited during the ice retreat (Karrow 99. Surficial geology mapping prepared by the Ontario Geological Survey (200 indicates that the Subject Property is underlain by sand deposits associated with eskers and kames. Soils are classified as Dumfries Loam and Waterloo Fine Sandy Loam (Presant and Wicklund 97. The Quaternary geology for this area identifies regional surficial deposits of ice-contact stratified sands and gravels in the vicinity of the Subject Property. Important hydrostratigraphic units from a groundwater recharge and flow perspective that underlie the Subject Property are: Regional Waterloo Moraine overburden aquifer units (Regional Aquifer ; Lower, older till units (Lower Maryhill Till and Catfish Creek Till; and Deep regional bedrock aquifer units (Regional Aquifer 4. The Maryhill Till is a fine textured clay rich till closely associated with glaciolacustrine sediments and is further subdivided into three units (Upper, Middle, and Lower Maryhill Till. The Lower Maryhill Till is compositionally distinct and can be observed at depth beneath the Site. Page 25

31 The Wentworth Till is characterized as a silty sand or sandy silt till, which is observed east of the Site, and is the primary constituent of the Galt/Paris Moraines. Underlying the younger tills is the Catfish Creek Till, a stoney, silty to sandy diamicton, which is often over consolidated and forms an important marker horizon beneath Regional Aquifer within the Region (Karrow 987. The Catfish Creek Till acts as an important, relatively continuous regional aquitard that is compositionally distinct and is widely distributed across the Region (Terraqua Ltd., 995; Bajc and Shirota, 2007; AquaResource Inc., In general, the subsurface stratigraphy is comprised of surficial topsoil and/or fill soils overlying mixed deposits consisting primarily of silts, silty sands and sand and gravel. Much of the property also contains fill from previous grade modifications. Topsoil depth was measured at between 00mm and 850mm (Peto-MacCallum 205/ Soil Hydraulic Conductivity MTE conducted several measurements of soil hydraulic conductivity (K using individual well hydraulic response test (slug method. The hydraulic response tests (slug/bail test for the monitoring wells drilled in October 20 (MW00- to MW06- and those drilled in May 206 (MW00s,d-6, MW0s,d-6, and MW02s,d-6 provide an estimate of horizontal K within the screened interval. These estimates were then compared to the slug test results conducted in 200 (on MW6-0, MW8-0, MW-0, MW5-0, and MW7-0. K values for the shallow overburden aquifer system (Regional Aquifer ranged between x0-5 m/sec to.6x0-7 m/sec from data collected in 200. Slug testing K estimates completed in 20 ranged between 2.4x0-5 m/sec and 4.7x0-8 m/sec. Slug testing conducted in 206, for the 00 series monitoring wells, estimated K in the range of between 6.x0-5 m/sec and 8.6x0-7 m/sec in areas adjacent to the western kettle pond (PSW and eastern kettle pond (LSW. The low K value was observed at MW0-, where it was screened within silty fine sand and trace clay, represented a higher percentage of fine grained material. Higher K values were observed at the remaining monitoring wells in the north part of the Site (MW5-0 and MW04-, which were screened across more permeable sand and gravel material. MTE reported a geometric mean value of approximately 5.0x0-7 m/sec (MTE, 20, which is within a half order of magnitude of the geometric mean estimated in the current study.0x0-6 m/sec( MTE Hydrogeology Groundwater Level Monitoring A perched groundwater condition in the vicinity of the kettle ponds is approximately 0.6m below grade with a downward gradient to the regional water table, which is generally at an elevation of 05 masl (MTE 206. Mounding of the regional water table over time has occurred as the long term historical regional water table at the kettle ponds was reported to generally be 0 masl prior to development in the area. Page 26

32 Manual groundwater level measurements were collected between 200 and 206. The relatively steeper horizontal gradients suggest that the shallow groundwater system is not a highly transmissive aquifer. The western kettle pond was interpreted to act as a permanent groundwater mounding area. The vertical hydraulic gradient between the groundwater table and the western kettle pond was characterized using four mini-piezometers (MP-0 to MP4-0. At the time of observation, the vertical hydraulic gradients were estimated to be low and reflected near-pond conditions. In general, the findings indicate that the western kettle pond acts as a recharge condition to the shallow groundwater system Groundwater Flow The current understanding of the shallow groundwater flow system for the Subject Property is based on information collected from 9 boreholes (i.e. BH to BH 9 drilled by PML in May 200, the background geotechnical investigation completed by Naylor Engineering in April 996, and MTE s drilling activities (MW00- to MW06-; BH200 to BH204; and MW00-6 to MW0-6. Regional groundwater flow is primarily toward the Clemens Mill water supply wells completed in bedrock. Groundwater flow in the shallow Regional Aquifer travels primarily to the Grand River, located approximately km southwest of the Site. The Portuguese Swamp northeast of the Subject Property functions as a groundwater recharge and source area for the regional aquifer system (Cumming Cockburn, 987. Groundwater is interpreted to flow outward from the western kettle pond in a southwest direction, toward the Grand River, and to northeast across the Subject Property. Local groundwater flow patterns generally reflect topographical changes and are influenced by groundwater mounding effects of the western kettle pond. Groundwater data from June 7, 200 shows water found between.6m bgs near the western kettle pond and 6.0m bgs southwest of the pond at a distance of approximately 00m away. More recent groundwater level measurements on eastern portion of the Subject Property found groundwater between 5m bgs at the eastern kettle pond and 0m bgs near the topographic high area in the south. A groundwater flow map is presented in Figure 2 in the Hydrogeological Study prepared by MTE ( Recharge/Discharge Conditions Both the western kettle pond and eastern kettle pond are surface water collection areas. The bottoms of these ponds are tightly sealed with peat and silt. When water enters these features the detention storage area provides recharge to the silty sand and sand layers at the pond edges, which then flows 5 to 0 m down to the regional aquifer (MTE 206. Page 27

33 Water Quality Groundwater and surface water quality sampling was conducted by MTE in June 200 and early January 20 as part of a limited scope Phase II ESA (MTE, 20 for the purposes of establishing baseline conditions. Shallow groundwater samples were collected from the monitoring wells, deep groundwater samples were collected from the irrigation well (MOE ID#65065 and surface water samples were collected from the western kettle pond. The samples were analyzed for general water chemistry and chemical parameter analysis. Results from the above sampling program were compared to the Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQO (MOE, 994, the Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standards (ODWQS, and Table (Background of the MOE Soil, Groundwater and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV. of the Environmental ion Act, April 20 (herein noted as the MOE 20 Table Standards. (MTE 206 Results from the 200 sampling indicated that all groundwater samples exceeded the aesthetic and operational guideline ODWQS for Colour, Turbidity, and Hardness. The shallow groundwater sample from MW6-0 exceeded the OWDQS for total dissolved solids (TDS and Alkalinity, while the shallow groundwater samples from MW-0, MW5-0. Deep groundwater samples from the irrigation well exceeded the ODWQS for manganese and iron. These parameters are considered aesthetic and/or operational objectives or guidelines and not health related parameters. The results have been interpreted as naturally occurring conditions. The results of the surface water sampling from the western kettle pond showed that they exceeded the PWQO for ph, aluminum, and iron. Additionally, for select metals, the laboratory detection limit exceeded the PWQO, reflecting natural background surface water conditions. The results do not indicate any significant impacts or a widespread concern related to groundwater impacts from anthropogenic (i.e. man-made sources as it meets the MOE Table Standards (MTE Hydrology There are no surface drainage features or watercourses on or adjacent to the Subject Property. The topography of the Subject Property suggests that drainage on the site is internally draining. The subject site area is split among two broader drainage catchment areas. The majority of the Subject Property is located within a small sub watershed that drains directly toward the Grand River which is located approximately km to the west. A small portion of the eastern parcel is located within the Irish Creek watershed, which includes the Portuguese Swamp PSW and is located approximately 50m to the north of the eastern parcel, as well as Puslinch Lake, located approximately 2.25km to the north east. The Irish Creek watershed drains toward the Speed River, which is tributary to the Grand River. Page 28

34 4.2 Biological Environment 4.2. Ecological Communities The majority of the Subject Property is heavily modified and comprised of golf course and associated landscaping. These areas are considered non-natural or cultural communities. Natural ecological communities are restricted to two kettle features, small woodlands, and a remnant hedgerow. In addition to the golf course which is classified as anthropogenic, there are nine (9 ecological communities identified on Subject Property. A description the ecological communities is provided below and mapping is presented on Figure 2. Open Water (OA / Shallow Water (SA (ELC Units a & b There are two open water/shallow water communities on the Subject Property. They correspond with the two large kettle depressions on the western and eastern portions of Subject Property. The western kettle is identified as Unit a and the eastern kettle is identified as ELC unit b. Open Water communities are defined as being > 2m in depth, while Shallow Water communities are up to 2 m in depth. Because the ponds each have section that are deeper and shallower than 2 m, they have been mapped and classified as a combination of these two communities. Detailed bathymetry mapping would be required to further refine the mapping. Unit a is largely unvegetated (<25 vegetation cover. There is a small amount of emergent vegetation that occurs sporadically along the edge of the pond, consisting mostly of Water Smartweed (Polygonum amphibium. The pond is surrounded by golf course greens, which are mown to the pond edge. In a few spots, there is a narrow (< m wide band of un-mowed vegetation along the north edge of the pond which includes some meadow marsh species such as Marsh Bedstraw (Gallium palustre, sedges (Carex spp., Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea, Northern Bugleweed (Lycopus uniflorus, Bristly Crowfoot (Ranunculus pennsylvanicus and others. Unit b is also largely unvegetated, but supports a small amount Sago Pondweed (Stuckenia pectinata, Water Smartweed, Spikerush (Eleocharis sp., and other wetland species along the margins. Fresh-Moist Lowland Deciduous Forest (FOD7 (ELC Units 2a-2d There are several small, disturbed woodland features surrounding ELC Unit a. These woodland communities are dominated by Manitoba Maple (Acer negundo. The understory consists of Wild Red Raspberry (Rubus ideaus ssp. strigosus, Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica, Tartarian Honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica, and Glossy Buckthorn (Frangula alnus. Dominant ground covers include Thicket Creeper (Parthenocissus vitacea, Enchanter s Nightshade (Circaea lutetiana, Garlic Mustard (Alliaria petioloata, Dandelion (Taraxacum offinciale, avens (Geum spp., and Spotted Jewelweed (Impatiens capensis. Shallow Water (SA - Pondweed Submerged Shallow Aquatic (SAS- (ELC Units a, b & c There are two irrigation ponds on the Subject Property (ELC units a and b. These ponds are associated with a former kettle depression that has been dug and split into two cells. Both ponds Page 29

35 contain submergent aquatic vegetation comprised of Sago Pondweed. There is some emergent vegetation along the pond fringes including Spikerush (Eleocharis sp., Softstem Bulrush (Shoenoplectus tabernamontanii, a rush (Juncus articulatus, and Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea. Unit c is a constructed stormwater forebay that receives stormwater runoff from the existing Fiddlesticks Community and is then released to ELC Unit a. The forebay is less than 2 m in depth and largely unvegetated. Dry-Fresh Red Oak-Hardwood Deciduous Forest (FOD2-4 (ELC Unit 4 This small forest remnant consists of mid-aged to mature Red Oak (Quercus rubra, (, Bitternut Hickory (Carya cordiformis, and Manitoba Maple. The subcanopy and understory consists largely of White Ash (Fraxinus americana, Common Buckthorn, and Choke Cherry (Prunus virginiana. Common Buckthorn is quite dense. Ground covers are generally sparse, but include Enchanter s Nightshade, Pennsylvania Sedge (Carex pennyslvanica, Poison Ivy (Toxicodendron rydbergii, avens, and Thicket Creeper. Fresh-Moist Poplar Deciduous Forest (FOD8- (ELC Unit 5 This community is dominated by Trembling Aspen. The canopy is relatively open and the understory is quite dense with Common Buckthorn, Red-osier Dogwood (Cornus sericea, Riverbank Grape (Vitis riparia, and Wild Red Raspberry. Dominant ground covers are Garlic Mustard, Thicket Creeper, Avens (Geum urbanum, Geum candensis, and Enchanter s Nightshade. Dry-Moist Old Field Meadow (CUM- (ELC Unit 6 The meadow community consist of common old field forbs and grasses, predominantly Smooth Brome (Bromus inermis, Orchard Grass (Dacytlis glomerata, Bird s Foot Trefoil (Lotus corniculatus, and Crown Vetch (Coronilla varia. Cultural Woodland (CUW (ELC Unit 7 There are a number of small woodlands/tree groupings on the property consisting of various tree species, which have been classified as cultural woodlands as they have been modified and are maintained by golf course operations. The features are regularly mulched and, therefore, have no understory or ground vegetation. These features are comprised of varying association of mid-aged to mature, Manitoba Maple, Sugar Maple, Crack Willow, and Ash. More detailed descriptions of individual units are provided in the Tree Management Plan Report (Appendix C. Poplar Mineral Deciduous Swamp (SWD4- (ELC Unit 8 The small swamp community is situated along the north edge of the pond east of Essex Point Drive. It has an open canopy consisting mostly of mid-aged Trembling Aspen and a few Manitoba Maple. Page 0

36 Ecological Communities Figure 2 Can-Amera Pkwy Country Club Dr Green Vista Dr Essex Point Dr Saginaw Developments Corporation Legend Subject Property Staked Wetland Boundary ELC Communities b 7a Anthropogenic - Golf Course (0a, 0b Cultural Meadow (6 Cultural Woodland (7a, 7b, 7c, 7d, 7e, 7f, 7g, 7h Deciduous Forest (2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 4, 5 Deciduous Swamp (8 c 2a 2b 2c 7h Meadow Marsh (9 Shallow Aquatic a, b, c Open Aquatic / Shallow Aquatic (a, b 2e a 2d 7d 7c 7b b a 4 0b B 0a 7e 7f 7g 6 Note: Wetland Boundary Staked May 2, 20 by Beacon Environmenal and the Grand River Conservation Authority. First Base Solutions Web Mapping Service 20 UTM Zone 7 N, NAD Metres :,500 Saginaw Pkwy Project 227 November, 206

37 The understory is dense and dominated by Red-osier Dogwood, Glossy Buckthorn, and Common Buckthorn. There are few ground covers, likely due to the dense shrub cover. Mineral Meadow Marsh (MAM2 (ELC Unit 9 This small meadow marsh is situated adjacent to ELC Unit b. It consists almost exclusively of Spikerush (Eleocharis sp Wetland Evaluation All wetlands on the Subject Property were evaluated by MNRF in 985 during an evaluation of the Portuguese Swamp. All four of the original kettle depressions were included as wetlands within the Portuguese Swamp PSW. In 998, MNRF undertook a verification exercise and determined that only one the largest kettle depression on the western portion of the Subject Property should remain included as part of the Portuguese Swamp PSW Complex, presumably because the condition of the other three kettles had changed significantly due to the golf course operation. One of the two kettle depressions on the eastern portion of the Subject Property was filled in to facilitate golf course development. The remaining kettle depression on the eastern portion of the Subject Property (ELC Unit b was removed from the PSW, presumably due to its modified hydrology and lack of wetland functions. The smaller of two kettle depressions on the western portion of the Subject Property was modified to create irrigation ponds for the golf course. The larger kettle depression continues to be included as part of the Portuguese Swamp PSW Complex. In 20, the outer boundaries of both the PSW (ELC Unit a and LSW (ELC Unit b were reviewed and staked by GRCA staff and re-surveyed. The staked limits of both the PSW and LSW are depicted on Figure 2. It should be noted that the extent of wetland habitat associated with both these kettle features is limited to a narrow and sometimes discontinuous band along the outer fringe of the pond where wetland vegetation exceeds 0 cover. If the kettle depression on the western portion of the Subject Property were to be re-evaluated using the current Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES, it would likely be classified as aquatic open water instead of wetland because the pond supports less than 0 wetland vegetation and is largely fringed by golf course. While a re-evaluation of this feature using OWES, would likely result in omission from the PSW complex, the feature would nevertheless continue to be regulated as a wetland by GRCA, similar to the LSW on the eastern portion of the site Flora A total of 20 vascular plant species have been recorded from the Subject Property. Beacon Environmental documented 7 species during seasonal surveys completed 20 to 20. GWS (200, previously documented 2 species. A checklist of all species recorded from the Subject Property is presented in Appendix C. The provincial conservation status ranks (S-Ranks of the species documented on the Subject Property are summarized in Table 6. The majority of species are common native species that are Page

38 relatively abundant in Ontario (S5 or exotic/non-native (SNA. One species, Redbud (Cercis canadensis, is ranked SX, indicating that this species is presumed to be extirpated from the province. While Redbud is presumed to be extirpated from the wild in Ontario, it is occasionally planted for landscaping/horticultural purposes, as was the case with the single specimen identified on the property. Seven plants that were identified only to genus (e.g. Amaranthus sp. could not be ranked. One species, Redroot Umbrella Sedge (Cyperus erythrorhizos is ranked S, indicating that Vulnerable on Ontario (i.e. restricted range, relatively few populations, recent and widespread declines, or other factors make it vulnerable to extirpation. This species was found along the edge of the large kettle pond (ELC unit a and the adjoining forebay pond (ELC unit b. One species, Swamp White Oak (Quercus bicolor, is a regionally significant species. The specimens on the subject property were all planted as part of the golf course landscaping and not considered natural occurrences. Eastern Cottonwood (Populus deltoides is considered regionally significant only if proven to be of natural origin (i.e. not planted. The Cottonwood specimen identified on the property is located in a semi-natural area with Manitoba Maple and Crack Willow. Given the history of the site, it was likely planted as well. Furthermore, based on the findings of the tree inventory and assessment, it was found to have serious structural/condition issues. Table 6. Provincial Conservation Status Ranks of Vascular Plants Recorded on the Subject Property S5 S4/S5 S4 S SU SX SNA Number of species S5 = Common, secure; S4 = Uncommon, apparently secure; S4/S5 = Secure/Apparently secure; S = Vulnerable; SU = Unknown, not enough information to assign rank; SX = Presumed extirpated; SNA = Not applicable, species not a target for conservation (exotic/introduced Tree Inventory and Assessment The Subject Property contains a number of small woodland features (ELC unit 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 as well as numerous individual trees and tree groupings throughout the golf course. Many of the individual trees have been planted as part of the golf course development. A Tree Inventory and Assessment has been prepared in accordance with the City s Tree Management Policies and Guidelines for New Developments. The Tree Inventory and Assessment is contained in Appendix B. 4. Amphibians The results of the nocturnal amphibian call surveys are summarized in Table 7. Only two species were identified on the subject property in 20 and 206: American Toad and Bullfrog. Page 2

39 Table 7. Amphibian Call Survey Findings Location Survey Survey 2 Survey Survey 2 Survey Survey 4 ELC Unit a 0 BUFR ( BUFR ( ELC Unit b AMTO ( ELC Unit a 0 0 AMTO ( BUFR ( ELC Unit b 0 BUFR ( BUFR (2 SPPE = AMTO = American Toad, BUFR = Bullfrog Code 0 No calling Code - Individuals can be counted; calls not simultaneous. Estimated number of individuals indicated in brackets. Code 2 - Calls distinguishable; some simultaneous calling. Estimated number of individuals indicated in brackets. Code - Full chorus; calls continuous and overlapping. In addition to the amphibians recorded during the nocturnal call surveys, a number of incidental amphibian observations were noted over the course of the field season including Bullfrog, Green Frog, and Leopard Frog. Incidental amphibian observations are summarized in Table 8. Table 8. Incidental Amphibian Observations Location Species Date(s ELC Unit a ELC Unit b Northern Leopard Frog May 8, 20 Bull Frog June 27, 20 Green Frog May 2, 20 Leopard Frog June 27, 20 American Toad May 2, 20 Green Frog May 2, 20 Leopard Frog June 27, 20 ELC Unit a Green Frog May 2, 20 ELC unit b Green Frog May 2, 20 Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH Ecoregion 6E Criterion Schedule (MNRF 205 identifies significant amphibian breeding habitat (wetlands as Thicket Swamp, Marsh, Fen, Bog, Open Water and Shallow Water habitats that are greater than 500 m 2 in size that provide habitat for one or more salamander species or three or more listed frog species with at least 20 breeding individuals. Wetlands with confirmed breeding Bullfrogs are also significant. Based on these criteria the western kettle pond (ELC Unit a would qualify as candidate SWH; however the irrigation ponds (ELC Units a and b would not qualify as they are manmade and require active management to maintain water levels. Page

40 4.2.6 Reptiles Incidental monitoring for reptiles was completed during all visits to the site. Since most of the site is golf course and landscaped, there are few natural or anthropogenic sources of cover for snakes. There are also no features observed that would suggest there is a snake hibernacula or overwintering site on the Subject Property. The eastern and western kettle ponds are known to provide habitat for turtles. Two surveys were completed in spring 20 under suitable weather conditions. No turtles were observed at either of the ponds during the first survey however during the second survey fifteen Painted Turtles (Chrysemys picta were observed basking at the western kettle pond and one Painted Turtle was observed basking around the eastern kettle pond. The majority of the basking turtles were observed on the manicured lawn around the edge of the pond. There was a log in the western kettle pond where turtles were observed basking. The irrigation pond could potentially provide habitat for turtles, however none were observed during the surveys, likely due to fluctuating water levels. Three additional reptile surveys were completed in the spring of 206. During the first survey one Painted Turtle was observed basking at the edge of the eastern kettle pond and thirty Painted Turtles were observed basking on various logs surrounding the edge of the western kettle pond. During the third survey, no turtles were observed, however the three predated Painted Turtle nests were observed along the golf cart path that runs directly north of the western kettle pond. Based on the time of year that these turtles were observed, it is reasonable to assume that they overwinter in the western pond. Using the criteria provided in the SWH Ecoregion 6E Criterion Schedule sites that provide over wintering habitat for five or more Painted Turtles is could be considered significant. Given the numbers of turtles observed, the western kettle pond could be considered candidate SWH based on this criteria. Turtle nesting areas are also a type of significant wildlife habitat. Exposed mineral soils within 00 m of Meadow Marsh, Shallow Aquatic, Open Bogs and Open Fens that are not on the sides of municipal or provincial roads where five or more Midland Painted Turtle nests have been observed are considered potential SWH. Only three painted turtle nests have been documented to date and therefor the area would not qualify as candidate SWH Avifauna Breeding bird surveys were conducted on June 9 and June 25, 20 and May and June 2, 206. Thirty eight bird species were recorded on, or adjacent the Subject Property, the majority of which were breeding or suspected to be breeding (refer to Appendix D. The majority of the species recorded are common, urban, disturbance-tolerant birds of meadow, marsh, pond and woodland habitat. The most numerous breeding species were American Robin (Turdus migratorius, Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos, Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus, European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris and Canada Goose (Branta canadensis. Species that were observed flying or foraging on or over the property that were not believed to be breeding on the property included Double-crested Cormorant (Phalacrocarax auriturs, Great Blue Heron (Ardea Herodias, Mute Swan (Cygnus olor, Ring-billed Gull (Larus delawarensis, Tree Swallow (Tachycineta biclor, Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia, Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica, Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna and Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis, Page 4

41 Several Tree Swallow, Bank Swallow and Barn Swallow were observed foraging over the larger pond (ELC unit a on the western half of the property. Bank Swallow and Barn Swallow are listed as a Threatened Species and are protected under the provincial Endangered Species Act. The nesting locations of the Tree Swallow and Bank Swallow are not believed to be associated with the Subject Property. Barn Swallow were confirmed to be nesting beneath the decks of some of the residences to the north of the property. As access to these properties was not provided at the time of the survey it was not possible to confirm which buildings were being utilized by Barn Swallow. No Barn Swallow nests were observed on any of the structures on the golf course. One Eastern Meadowlark was also observed flying over the property during the one of the 206 surveys. Eastern Meadowlark is also listed as a Threatened Species and is protected under the provincial Endangered Species Act. This individual stopped briefly on both the western and eastern parcels before flying off to the south. This species was not observed to be breeding on the Subject Property during the breeding bird surveys Species at Risk Species at Risk (SAR include species that are listed as Endangered, Threatened or Special Concern in Ontario by the MNRF. The habitats of Endangered and Threatened species are protected under the Ontario Endangered Species Act. Barn Swallow is a provincially threatened species at risk. This species was observed foraging over the Subject Property on multiple occasions with the majority of the observations being over the large western kettle pond. Barn Swallow nests were observed on structures associated with several of the residential dwelling that surround the Subject Property. Barn Swallow nests were not observed on any of the structures on the Subject Property. The proposed development is not expected to significantly alter the foraging habitat for this species. We have confirmed with the MNRF that no permitting would be required under the Endangered Species Act provided no nesting habitat is disturbed. (G. Buck SAR Biologist 205 pers. comm. Jan. 7. In addition to Barn Swallow, the Bank Swallow and Eastern Meadowlark are also considered provincially threatened and subject to the ESA; however there is presently no suitable habitat for these species on the Subject Property. A review of the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC databases and discussions with MNRF staff also revealed that there is a 2009 record for the provincially threatened Blanding s Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii, associated with the Subject Property. Field surveys completed in 20 and 20 failed to detect this species. Blanding s Turtles are primarily an aquatic species and can be associated with a variety of wetlands including marshes, swamps, ponds, fens, bogs, slow-flowing streams, shallow bays of lakes or rivers and shallow marshes and slough forest habitats that are adjacent to larger marsh complexes. These sites often have an abundance of vegetation and a soft substrate made up of decomposing materials with stagnant or slow moving shallow waters. They are not restricted to a single wetland over the course of a season and often make overland movements between wetlands in search of foraging or mating opportunities or different habitat characteristics. These movements can range from a few hundred meters to several kilometres. In southwestern Ontario where limited habitat is available they may be restricted to a single wetland. This species demonstrates high site fidelity and individuals can live up to 80 years or more (MNRF, 20. Page 5

42 There are records for Blanding s Turtle at Puslinch Lake, which supports suitable overwintering habitat for this species. The habitat provided on the Subject Property is not suitable for Blanding s Turtle as the area surrounding the ponds it largely consists of manicured lawn with some small woodland patches and the riparian area contains little emergent or submergent aquatic vegetation. The ponds on the Subject Property are isolated and separated from suitable habitats in the Portuguese Swamp and Puslinch Lake by urban development and major roads. Blanding s Turtle were not observed during any of the field investigations. Beacon Environmental has confirmed with MNRF (G. Buck SAR Biologist 205 pers. comm. Jan. 7 that the habitats on the Subject Property are not suitable for Blanding s Turtle and that the MNRF does not intend to regulate this habitat under the Endangered Species Act, on the basis of the 2009 record. The rationale provided for this is that the ponds on the Subject Property are isolated and separated from other suitable habitats in the Portuguese Swamp and Puslinch Lake by urban development and major roads. So while turtles could potentially migrate through these areas, it is unlikely that they would be able to do so successfully on a regular basis given the extent of barriers (i.e. roads, curbs, fences and additional risks (i.e. road mortality, capture by human encounters, and exposure to urban wildlife. It is also improbable that Blanding s Turtle would successfully breed on the Subject Property as this species tends to be secretive and avoids areas of frequent human activity Pond Assessment West Pond (Pond A Pond A is a.28 ha kettle feature located centrally on the western parcel. It is approximately.5 m deep on average. Pond depths were measured on August 2, 20 and the deepest depth recorded was 2.5 m. Water levels were low at the time and it is estimated that depths would be at least.0 m deeper in the spring. The pond currently receives stormwater runoff from the golf course and some of the adjoining subdivision. The water quality in the pond is very poor. The water in the pond is turbid and aquatic and wetland vegetation is conspicuously absent. Algal blooms are observed in 20 and 20, suggesting that eutrophic conditions occur in the summer months. Several species of warm water baitfish were noted from the pond. Wildlife observed included midland painted turtle, green frog, and bullfrog. A historical assessment of the pond was completed using 954 aerial photography (Figure. The surrounding land use at the time the photo was taken was primarily agricultural. Treed hedgerows are also visible surrounding the edge of the pond. Based on the shading and texture of the southern half of the western pond appears to have been occupied primarily by shallow marsh habitat. The northern half of the pond consisted of open water with areas of deeper marsh or shrub thicket habitat in the middle. The abundance of wetland vegetation that is visible on the 954 aerial photography confirms that historically, water levels in the pond were substantially lower and that water levels increased as the area surrounding the kettle became urbanized. It is estimated that current water levels 0.04 m asl are approximately m -.0 m higher than historical levels. Water level data provided by MTE Consultants Inc. confirms that pond levels were 08.67, and 0.5 masl in 996, 999, and 205 respectively. Page 6

43 Pond B Pond C Pond A Legend Subject Property Historical Air Photo Figure Saginaw Developments Corporation National Air Photo Library, 954 UTM Zone 7 N, NAD Metres :6,000 Project 227 November, 206

44 East Pond (Pond B Pond B is a 0.6 ha feature that is located centrally on the northern half of the eastern parcel. The pond receives runoff from the surround golf course and a small drain that flows into the pond from the southwest. Limited to no wetland vegetation was observed around the outer edge of the pond. Wildlife observations recorded from the vicinity of the pond include painted turtle, leopard frog and green frog. A historic assessment of pond conditions using 954 aerial photography (Figure revealed that the majority of the pond consisted of an open water component fringed by a narrow band of meadow marsh habitat. The pond was surrounded by agricultural fields and there were no wooded habitats were associated with the feature. Interestingly, the photography reveals that there was historically another kettle wetland further to the south on the Subject Property. It is our understanding that this wetland was filled in during development of the golf course Irrigation Pond (Pond C Pond C is comprised of two separate pond features, bisected by a fairway, and located centrally on the western parcel. The ponds are 0.5 and 0.20 ha in size. The water in the ponds are used for irrigation and the pond is maintained. There is no wetland vegetation associated with this pond was visible in or around the pond. The outer edge of the pond had been modified and is lined with rocks with grass and maintained. The pond is presently used for golf course irrigation purposes and there is a pump house associated with the southerly pond. There is a grouping of trees associated with the northern pond. Water levels in both ponds fluctuate regularly in response to water demands. As a consequence, the pond does not support any wetland habitat and its wildlife habitat function are limited. Wildlife observations from this feature include mallard, green frog and bullfrog. A historic assessment of pond conditions using 954 aerial photography (Figure revealed that Pond C originally consisted of a single kettle feature dominated by marsh wetland with a small open water component. The pond was surrounded by agricultural fields and hedgerow trees, some of which are still evident today. Pond C was extensively modified as part of the golf course development. 4. Assessment of Significant Natural Heritage Features The findings of the background review and field investigations have been relied upon to confirm whether the Subject Property supports any of the natural heritage components recognized under the PPS, as well as the Regional and City policies. The Natural Heritage Reference Manual (MNRF, 200 was consulted to provide additional technical guidance, where required. A summary of this assessment is provided in Table 9. Table 9. Assessment of Significant Natural Heritage Features Regional Greenlands Network Component Assessment Landscape Level Systems Present on property? Page 7

45 Regional Greenlands Network Component Environmentally Sensitive Landscapes Significant Valleyland Regional Recharge Areas Provincial Greenbelt Natural Heritage System Significant Habitat for Endangered and Threatened Species Provincially Significant Wetlands Environmentally Sensitive Policy Area Regionally Significant Woodland Environmentally Significant Valley Features Non-PSW - Regulated Wetland Significant Wildlife Habitat Assessment The Subject Property does not overlap with any Environmentally Sensitive Landscapes (ESL. The closest ESL is the Beverly ESL that is situated 2 km to the south. No significant valleylands were identified on the Subject Property. The Subject Property does not overlap with any Regional Recharge Areas. All Regional Recharge Areas are situated to the west of the Grand River and far removed from the Subject Property. The Subject Property does not overlap with the Provincial Greenbelt. The Subject Property is situated approximately 7 kilometers to the north west of the Provincial Greenbelt Plan Area. Core Environmental Features None. Barn Swallow were observed nesting on structures (decks and balconies of adjacent residential dwellings and foraging over the pond on the Subject Property. No Barn Swallow nests were observed on the Subject Property. Section 7.C.4 of the Region of Waterloo Official Plan defines significant wetlands as those that are evaluated as Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSW by the MNRF. The large kettle wetland (Pond A is identified as part of the Portuguese Swamp PSW Complex. The Subject Property does not overlap with any Environmentally Sensitive Policy Areas (ESPA. The closest E.S.P.A is the Portuguese Swamp situated immediately to the north of the site on the opposite side of Burnett Ave. Section 7.C.6 of the Region of Waterloo Official Plan considers woodlands greater than 4 ha in size and comprised of native species to be significant. All of the woodland features on the Subject Property are too small to meet these criteria. As such, none would qualify as significant woodlands. The Subject Property does not overlap with any Environmentally Significant Valley Features. City of Cambridge Locally Significant Natural Area The eastern kettle pond (Pond B is not identified as being part of the Portuguese Swamp PSW wetland; however it is regulated by GRCA. Thirty Painted Turtles were observed within the western kettle pond. Based on the time of year that these turtles were observed it is reasonable to assume that the turtles observed within the western kettle pond over winter there. Based on the criteria provided in the Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH Ecoregion 6E Criterion Schedule (MNRF, over-wintering sites that provide over wintering habitat for five or more Painted Turtles is significant. Therefore based on this criteria it is likely that this habitat would be considered SWH based on this Present on property? No No No No No Yes No No No Yes Yes Page 8

46 Regional Greenlands Network Component criteria. Assessment Present on property? Significant Area of Natural and Scientific Interest Fish habitat Based on the criteria provided in the SWH Ecoregion 6E Criterion Schedule the western kettle pond (ELC Unit a would be considered SWH. The classification of the irrigation ponds (ELC Units a and b as SWH due to the presence of Bullfrog is not appropriate because they are anthropogenic in nature and would require active maintenance to maintain their water levels. The Subject Property does not overlap with any Provincially or Regionally Significant Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest. Warm water Baitfish were confirmed in the western kettle pond (Pond A on during the pond assessment. No Yes 4.2 Summary of Ecological Features and Functions Natural heritage features on the Subject Property are presently limited to two kettle depressions, associated woodland patches and some scattered isolated tree groupings that are remnants of former hedgerow features. The remainder of the Subject Property was extensively modified to facilitate the former golf course development and operation and is devoid of natural heritage features. The Subject Property is completely surrounded by existing residential development and is not connected to any natural areas, watercourses or valleylands. Significant natural heritage resources on the Subject Property were summarized in Section 4. and are limited to features and functions that are directly associated with the two kettle depressions. While the western kettle feature forms part of the Regional Greenlands Network and City s Natural Heritage System, this feature as well as the eastern kettle are effectively isolated for other components of these systems. The Subject Property is proximal to the Portuguese Swamp ESPA; however it is separated by residential development and a road. As such, its potential connectivity or linkage to this other natural areas is considered weak. Furthermore, the natural heritage features on the Subject Property are hydrologically and hydrogeologically isolated from adjacent natural areas. 5. Constraints and Opportunities Constraints to future development on the Subject Property have been identified by evaluating the relative significance and sensitivity of natural heritage features and their ecological functions as well as natural hazards as described in Section.5. Additionally these constraints were assessed within the context of applicable environmental policies outlined in Section. Page 9

47 The biophysical inventories completed through this EIS have identified that there are natural heritage and natural hazard constraints associated with the Subject Property. These are summarized in the subsections below. 5. Natural Heritage Constraints Natural heritage constraints to future development on the Subject Property are generally limited to the two kettle depressions. The level of constraint associated with these natural heritage features and their functions is discussed below. 5.. Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW The wetland associated with the large kettle depression on the western portion of the Subject Property has been identified as a PSW. For this reason, this feature is designated as a Core Environmental Feature of the Regional Greenlands Network. Provincial, regional and local policies generally do not permit development within PSWs, but do permit development on adjacent lands provided it can be demonstrated that the development will not adversely impact upon the feature and its functions. Additionally, it is the policy of the Region and City to apply a 0 m ecological buffer to Core Environmental Features. The policies do however permit some forms of development to be accommodated within the Core Environmental Feature and on adjacent lands if their impacts can be minimized (i.e. development or site alterations related to flood control, conservation, and infrastructure such as stormwater management. It is also the policy of GRCA to protect and conserve PSW features and to apply a 0 m development setback to such features. Ecological buffers are commonly applied to wetlands and other natural features for protection and are also considered to represent a constraint to future development. Buffers are an impact mitigation tool that can help protect natural features and functions from incompatible adjacent land uses and activities. The size, form and function of a buffer is determined by evaluating the sensitivity of the natural feature and assessing the range of potential impacts that may result from changes in land uses or activities adjacent to the feature. Natural features that support attributes and functions that are highly sensitive to changes in adjacent land uses and activities may require wider or enhanced buffers to achieve feature protection objectives. In the case of the western kettle depression, this feature does not support any ecological attributes or functions that would be considered to be especially sensitive to the proposed residential land uses. There are presently no buffers or mitigation measures in place to protect this feature from impacts related to golf course operation and stormwater runoff from existing residential development. The ecological integrity of this kettle feature has been substantially compromised by past and current land uses. Within this context, the proposed development provides an opportunity to establish ecologically appropriate buffers and to implement measures to restore and enhance some of the ecological integrity that has been lost and compromised. In evaluating the sensitivity and significance of the feature, it was determined that an appropriate ecological buffer for the proposed residential development would roughly correspond with the limit of the kettle depression landform that contains it. Based on the site topography, the limits of the kettle generally corresponds with the 0 m area surrounding the pond. Both the pond and the 0 m buffer Page 40

48 should be considered a constraint to future development and incompatible land uses such as residential development; however some minor encroachments may be permitted for better integration of the development (i.e. minor grading, rounding out lots, etc.. The outer edge of proposed Street encroaches slightly into the recommended 0 m buffer and cannot be avoided. Additionally, it is proposed that the existing municipal sewer, which is currently located within 0 m of the PSW be relocated further into the proposed development and under a proposed street. So, despite the limited area of road encroachment into the PSW buffer, the proposal provides an opportunity to decommission the existing sewer and rehabilitate and naturalise the buffer area. No negative impacts to the wetland are anticipated provided appropriate mitigation measures and implemented during and post construction. While this recommended buffer is intended to protect the feature for the long term, it is recognized that the buffer can also accommodate certain land uses and activities which can help maintain, restore and enhance wetland functions. Land uses such as open space, parks, trails, restoration and naturalization projects, as well as stormwater management facilities and other infrastructure could be accommodated within the 0 m buffer and meet wetland protection objectives if designed appropriately. Additionally, activities such as wetland restoration, wildlife management and habitat enhancement could also be undertaken in the buffer area Locally Significant Wetland (LSW The kettle depression on the eastern portion of the Subject Property is recognized as a Locally Significant Natural Area (LSNA and forms part of the City s Natural Heritage System. City of Cambridge policies generally and where feasible do not permit development within LSNAs, and development on adjacent lands is also generally not permitted where feasible unless it can be demonstrated that ecological functions of the LSNA can be maintained, enhanced and where feasible restored. It is the policy of the City that appropriate ecological buffers be applied to LSWs. The policies do however permit some forms of development to be accommodated within the LSNAs where feasible. It is also the general policy of the GRCA to protect and conserve LSW features and to apply a 5 m development setback to such features. Similar to the discussion provided above in Section 5.., the LSW is also presently surrounded by golf course and stormwater management infrastructure (outfall and there is no ecological buffer provided to this feature. Within this context, the proposed development provides an opportunity to establish ecologically appropriate buffers and undertake enhancement measures to restore, in part, some of the ecological integrity that has been compromised. In evaluating the sensitivity and significance of the LSW, it was determined that an appropriate ecological buffer should generally correspond with the limit of the kettle depression landform that contains it. Based on the site topography, the limits of the kettle depression feature generally corresponds with the 5 m area surrounding the wetland. Both the LSW and this 5 m buffer should be considered a constraint to future development and incompatible land uses such as residential development (lots and roads. While this recommended buffer is intended to protect the feature for the long term, it is recognized that the buffer can also accommodate certain land uses and activities which can help maintain, restore and enhance wetland functions. Land uses such as open space, parks, trails, restoration and naturalization projects, as well as stormwater management facilities and other infrastructure could be Page 4

49 accommodated within the 5 m buffer and meet wetland protection objectives if designed appropriately. Additionally, activities such as wetland restoration, wildlife management and habitat enhancement could also be undertaken in the buffer area. As such, it is recommended that the LSW be considered a development constraint, and that residential development (lots and roads be restricted to areas of the Subject Property outside of the LSW and 5 m buffer. 5.. Fish Habitat The western kettle pond (Pond A supports fish habitat. Fish habitat is protected under a variety of federal legislation and provincial, regional and local policies and regulations. Fish habitat is limited to the aquatic habitat associated with this pond. Typically a 5 m development setback would apply to warmwater fish habitat; however in this case a 0 m buffer has been applied to the wetland which is greater. Fish habitat represents a constraint to future development. Future development must ensure that fish habitat will not be harmed. While development is not proposed within fish habitat, measures should be implemented to ensure that the proposed stormwater management systems are designed to accommodate the existing fishery and reduce any additional impacts to water quality. Prior to development, it will be necessary to undertake a self-assessment to determine the extent of mitigation and/or offsetting that may be required for this development project and obtain confirmation from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO that the proposed approach is acceptable Significant Habitat for Endangered and Threatened Species During the biophysical inventory Barn Swallow (Threatened were observed foraging over the Subject Property. There is also a 2009 record from the Subject Property for provincially threatened Blanding s Turtle. Significant Habitat of Threatened and Endangered Species constitutes a Core Environmental Feature, and while not mapped, forms part of the Regional Greenlands Network and City s Natural Heritage System. Under provincial, regional and local policies, development is generally not permitted within the habitat of threatened or endangered species. Through discussions with the local district MNRF SAR Biologist, we have confirmed that the MNRF does not intend to regulate the habitats on the Subject Property for Barn Swallow or Blanding s Turtle under the Endangered Species Act for reasons described in Section Nesting Barn Swallow were identified on the decks of the houses to the north of the PSW. Prior to the removal of the buildings nest surveys will be completed to ensure that no habitat for nesting Barn Swallow is present on these structures. If nesting habitat for Barn Swallow is identified a permit to remove and compensate for this habitat will be obtained under Ontario Regulation 76/ Woodlands and Treed Resources The Subject Property supports several small woodland patches as well as isolated tree groupings. None of the woodland features are large enough to meet regional or local criteria for Significant Woodlands. The few woodland patches are associated with the PSW and LSW features and their buffers. While they do not represent a significant constraint to development, their protection and integration should be encouraged. These woodland areas and tree groupings have been recommended for protection and a 5.0 m tree protection setback from there dripline has been applied to the majority of these features. Page 42

50 There are two exceptions to this setback. The first is located on the southeast corner of the PSW where a portion of the woodland has been identified for removal to accommodate the infiltration galleries. This woodland is dominated by Manitoba Maple and Common Buckthorn. The second is located on the southwest corner of the PSW where four trees, all Manitoba Maple, have been identified for removal in order to accommodate the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision. The remaining portion of this woodland, which is dominated by Red Oak,, Bitternut Hickory, Manitoba Maple and Trembling Aspen will remain intact. The remaining woodlands and tree groupings and their associated buffers have been identified as a constraint to future residential development (roads and lots. Areas that will require removal of portions of some tree groupings will be compensated for through either replacement tree plantings and/or other measures that enhance the condition and quality of the woodlands. There are also numerous individual trees associated with the golf course. Most of these trees are horticultural and were planted to frame the fairways and greens. There are however some tree clusters that correspond with remnant hedgerow features. The potential integration of these more mature native trees within the development should be considered where feasible. 5.2 Natural Hazard Constraints 5.2. Slope Stability and Flooding There are no steep unstable slopes or geotechnical hazards associated with the Subject Property. Under pre-development conditions, the existing kettle depressions provide runoff storage and recharge for the area. There are no flood hazard zones or flood related regulation limits identified on the Subject Property. Through hydrologic modelling completed by MTE Consultants Inc. (206, it was however determined that under a Regional storm event, that the maximum flood elevation will encroach partially onto the existing residential subdivision, and that under post-development conditions, that the Regional storm flood elevation in the PSW will be lowered from to.6 providing some freeboard to the existing backyards, thereby eliminating the existing flood risk to the surrounding existing development. The GRCA regulates building on floodplains and steep slopes to reduce the risk of loss of life and property damage. Under these regulations, no steep slopes were identified on subject area. Proposed development will have no impact on existing and future slope stability and bank stabilization or erosion protection works will not be required. 5. Opportunities The Subject Property provides opportunities for both the re-development of the golf course and for enhancement of existing natural heritage features and functions through implementation of protective buffers, restoration of wetlands, fish and wildlife habitats, and provision of open space recreation through public parks and trails. Page 4

51 As was discussed in the preceding sections, the development of the golf course and surrounding residential community has had a significant impact on the ecological state of the kettle depressions. Of the four original kettles on the Subject Property, one has been completely removed, another was modified and converted to irrigation ponds, and the two remaining have had their ecological integrity compromised through alterations to their hydrology and degradation of their water quality. The proposed redevelopment represents a unique opportunity to implement enhanced stormwater management systems that will provided for improved quantity and quality control for both the existing residential development as well as the future residential development. Additionally, there is an opportunity to restore the hydrology of the kettles by lowering water levels which will encourage reestablishment of wetland habitat. This can be achieved by diverting a proportion of the runoff in infiltration cells within the kettle, thereby bypassing the ponds. Additional discussion is provided below. 5.. Wetland Restoration The western kettle depression supports a small area of wetland that is identified as part of the PSW. Development of the surrounding area in the early 990 s resulted in a substantial enlargement of the drainage catchment area. As a consequence, the kettle feature receives substantially more runoff which has resulted in increased water levels. It is estimated that water depths in this kettle have increased on average from 0.80 m to.8 m (Figure 4. This has resulted in the conversion of former wetland habitat to open water habitat. Based on a review of 954 aerial photography, it is estimated that up to 90 of the original wetland habitat in this pond has been lost. Under existing conditions the majority of this pond is not vegetated and technically does not meet the definition of a wetland under the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES (MNRF 202. Because the golf course was maintained to the edge of the pond, wetland is only present in a few small areas along the perimeter of the pond. Additionally, runoff entering the kettle is uncontrolled and receives little, if any, quality treatment. The increased sediment load over the years has likely reduced the infiltration potential of the feature and extended inundation periods have further inhibited wetland development. Elevated nutrient inputs from the surrounding area have resulted in algal blooms and eutrophication during the summer months, reducing the quality of the aquatic habitat. These factors have successively contributed to the impairment of ecological functions associated with the kettle. The maintenance of this kettle as a water feature by the golf course also contributed to a net reduction in biodiversity over the years. Under their current condition, the pond offers limited opportunities for wildlife as the kettle is largely devoid of any habitat structure or wetland vegetation. The eastern kettle depression supports an LSW wetland. Development of the surrounding area in the early 990 s resulted in a reduction to the drainage catchment area of this kettle. As a consequence, the kettle feature receives less runoff than originally which has decreased water levels. It is estimated that water depths in this kettle have decreased by approximately 0.2 m from original levels (Figure 5. This decrease has resulted in the conversion of former open water habitat to more wetland habitat. The proposed re-development presents an excellent opportunity to restore and enhance the ecological health and integrity of both of the remaining kettle features. The PSW feature would benefit significantly if its hydrology could be restored to a more natural state by reducing the amount of runoff to this feature. Runoff can be reduced by infiltrating to the ground instead. The corresponding reduction in pond water levels would promote re-establishment of wetland habitat at the pond perimeter and in other shallow areas of the pond. Page 44

52 2.5 FIGURE 4: Provincially Significant Wetland Water Level Hydrograph Pre-Pre-Development Maximum Monthly Water Level Pre-Pre-Development Average Daily Water Level Pre-Pre-Development Minimum Monthly Water Level Pre-Development Maximum Monthly Water Level Pre-Development Average Daily Water Level Pre-Development Minimum Monthly Water Level Post-Develpoment Maximum Monthly Water Level Post-Development Average Daily Water Level Post-Development Minimum Monthly Water Level Project Number: Date: October 27, 206 Designer: KMR 0.5 Water Level (masl //900 //900 //900 4//900 5//900 6//900 7//900 7//900 8//900 9/0/900 0//900 /0/900 2/0/900 Date

53 FIGURE 5: Locally Significant Wetland Water Level Hydrograph Pre-Development Maximum Monthly Water Level Pre-Development Average Daily Water Level Pre-Development Minimum Monthly Water Level Post-Develpoment Maximum Monthly Water Level Post-Development Average Daily Water Level Post-Development Minimum Monthly Water Level Project Number: Date: October 27, 206 Designer: KMR Water Level (masl //900 //900 //900 4//900 5//900 6//900 7//900 7//900 8//900 9/0/900 0//900 /0/900 2/0/900 Date

54 Water quality in the kettles will also be improved by a retrofitting existing stormwater management facilities (i.e. forebays to provide for better quantity control and quality treatment, and b designing the stormwater management facilities to provide quantity controls that would help to restore a more natural hydrological regime in the kettle and provide for enhanced quality treatment. For the western kettle this can be accomplished by installing infiltration galleries immediately adjacent to the pond where they can also be used to set the maximum water elevation for the pond. The infiltration cells will be slightly lower than the maximum pond elevation and will be connected to the pond via a pipe. The infiltration cells are sized to accommodate runoff from the proposed development and reduce flows to the pond. The cells will also be used to manage excess runoff from the existing development. As the pond fills, runoff will spill over into the infiltration cell. This will have the effect of lowering pond water levels and is expected to encourage wetland increase the surface area of the wetland surrounding the pond. While both kettles lack wildlife habitat structure, the western kettle is particularly deficient. In addition to promoting wetland development in the PSW through lowering water levels as discussed above, improvements to wildlife habitat can be made in both kettle wetlands by introducing structure (rocks, logs, islands, snags, etc. to provide cover and habitat Woodland Restoration There are several woodland patches on the Subject Property that are directly associated with the two kettle features and that will be protected by virtue of overlapping with the recommended ecological buffers to the PSW and LSW. None of these woodlands are considered significant because they are very small. Furthermore, these woodlands are relatively young and reflect a highly disturbed history. With the exception of ELC Unit 4 which corresponds with a remnant upland forest patch on the southern side of the PSW, the other woodlands are largely dominated by successional and non-native and invasive vegetation. As a consequence, the native species diversity is very low. The ecological health and integrity of all the woodland features could be improved through active management. The proposed re-development provides an opportunity to restore these woodland areas by controlling invasive species, promoting establishment of native species, and managing the woodlands for wildlife habitat. A detailed restoration plan identifying the various naturalization programs that will be implemented as part of the proposed development will be prepared as a condition of draft plan approval. 5.. Golf Course Naturalization The proposed re-development of the Subject Property will be limited to areas that are generally unconstrained by natural heritage features and their buffers or by future hazard lands. Additionally, there are portions of the property that cannot be developed as they are land-locked by the constrained areas. As these constrained and land-locked areas are presently managed and maintained as golf course, they present opportunities for naturalization that would complement naturalization associated with the proposed stormwater management facilities. The conversion of golf course to forest and meadow habitats will complement the wetland and woodland restoration opportunities discussed above which can effectively restore both kettle depressions to a natural condition. Considering that Page 45

55 these kettle depressions have extensively modified and under human influence for the past 200 years, this represents a rare opportunity to undertake restoration at this scale. A detailed restoration plan identifying the various naturalization programs that will be implemented as part of the proposed development will be prepared as a condition of draft plan approval Tree Preservation There are substantial tree resources associated with the golf course both within and outside environmentally constrained areas. Opportunities exist to protect and maintain individual trees and tree groupings within the environmentally constrained areas as these areas will remain undeveloped, with the exception of stormwater management facilities which have been designed with the objective of avoiding woodlands and tree groupings as well as individual trees where feasible. Opportunities to preserve individual trees and tree groupings on the unconstrained portions of the property are limited by the need to accommodate development and servicing. The future open space blocks associated with the kettle depressions do however provide sufficient area for any required compensation plantings. Street tree and rear yard planting are also proposed as part of the proposed development Other Opportunities In addition to the opportunities identified above, there are social opportunities associated with the proposed re-development. The integration of trails and parkland within the Open Space can provide for passive recreation, education and nature appreciation. 6. Description of the Proposed Development 6. Draft Plan The proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision was developed through a comprehensive and iterative process involving the multi-disciplinary project team and stakeholders. Draft Plan of Subdivision has proposes 22 single-detached homes, 67 townhouses, and 66 multiple residential units in a multi storey building. Under the proposed plan, development will be restricted to those portions of the Subject Property that have previously been developed for golf course and will not encroach upon the two larger kettle depressions, with the exception of stormwater management and open space uses. Page 46

56 Site statistics for the Draft Plan of Subdivision are presented below in Figure 6. A copy of the Draft Plan is included in Figure 7 and Figure 8. Figure 6. Draft Plan of Subdivision Site Statistics 6.2 Grading Plan The proposed grading design will comply with municipal standards for minimum and maximum road grades and ensure that adequate cover is provided over municipal services. The roadways will be constructed to a full urban 8.5 m minor local road cross-section in accordance with the City of Cambridge standards for the majority of the development. It is proposed that a non-standard road section be constructed from the Street One / Green Vista Drive intersection to approximately 85m south on Street One, to allow for the retention of the existing residential house (Lot 24, #59 Green Vista Drive. Utilizing the proposed road layout, preliminary centerline road grades slopes ranging from 0.5 (minimum to 4.5 (maximum will be used to design the preliminary lot grading design while incorporating the constraints mentioned previously into the overall grading design. The preliminary lot grading plan ensures that the seasonal high groundwater table is a minimum 0.6 m below the underside of house footing elevations. Preliminary lot grades range from (minimum to 6.0 (maximum with a combination of traditional back to front drainage, split drainage and walkout lots. Special consideration was given to Page 47

57 grading around the existing wetland depressions and no grading is proposed within 0 m of the PSW or 5 m of the LSW. The majority of the grading within 0 m of the PSW is associated with the creation of the SWMF, the infiltration galleries and the replacement of the existing fore bay. The infiltration gallery will be linked to the PSW through a ditch-inlet catch basin and storm pipe that will essentially set the maximum water level for much of the year as excess water will spill over to the infiltration cell. This lowering of the water level will allow for the restoration of wetland habitat surrounding the PSW. The replacement of the existing fore bay will improve water quality in the kettles by providing better quantity control and quality treatment. Once built the SWMF for the proposed development will act as an additional buffer to the PSW as it will separate the proposed and existing residences from the PSW. A buffer distance of 0 m was also allocated around the PSW and a 5 m buffer around the majority of woodland features surrounding the PSW. Some grading is also required on the outer half of the 0 m buffer northwest of the PSW is necessary to match the grades of the lots that will back onto the PSW as well as section of Street One. This encroachment is not anticipated to adversely impact the PSW as this portion of the buffer currently overlaps with an existing sanitary sewer easement. It is proposed that this sanitary sewer be relocated within the development where it will follow the road network. The decommissioning of the sewer segment within the buffer will provide opportunities for permanent naturalization. The majority of the grading within 5 m of the LSW is associated with the creation of the SWMF and matching the grades of the lots that will back onto the LSW. A buffer distance of 5 m was also allocated around the majority of the existing vegetation and woodland features surrounding the LSW. The preliminary finished grades are designed to optimize the earthmoving (cutting and filling required for road and lot construction. Detailed information pertaining to the proposed grading is located in the Functional Servicing Report prepared by MTE Consultants Inc. (November Servicing Plan Sanitary sewers will be extended throughout the Subject Property within the proposed road allowances. Sanitary sewage from Stage and two proposed lots from Stage 2, will outlet to an existing 450 mm diameter sanitary trunk sewer at the southerly limit of Stage. Sanitary sewage from Stage 2 is proposed to connect to existing manhole at the intersection of Glen Valley Drive and Burnett Avenue. The sanitary sewer system will be sized to adequately convey sanitary flow, with a minimum diameter of 200 mm and minimum slope of 0.40 meeting MOE guidelines. The future development, Stage and 2, has been identified as being located within the southeast portion of the Region of Waterloo s (Region Cambridge Pressure Zone 2E (Cam 2E. Water supply for the proposed development is available and will be provided by two connection points to the existing municipal water distribution system for each stage. Details regarding connection locations, pressure, flow demands and pipe sizes are provided in MTE Preliminary Functional Servicing Report (September 205. Page 48

58 Figure 72 Figure Legal Description LOTS 4 & 42, PLAN 509, LOT 2, PLAN 58M-79, BLOCK, PLAN 58M-80 & BLOCK, PLAN 58M-04, CITY OF CAMBRIDGE, REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO Owner's Certificate Nick Gougoulias, MCIP, RPP. - President Saginaw Developments Corp. Surveyor's Certificate Trevor McNeil, OLS MTE Ontario Land Surveyors Ltd. Key Plan north Subject Site SCALE N.T.S. SOURCE: REGION OF WATERLOO Additional Information Required Under Section 5(7 of the Planning Act R.S.O. 990, c.p. as Amended A. As Shown B. As Shown C. As Shown D. Residential, Park, Open Space, Storm Water Management E. As Shown F. As Shown G. As Shown H. Municipal Water Supply J. As Shown K. All Services As Required I. Sandy Loam L. As Shown 0T- Area Schedule Stage Description Residential Total Stage 2 Lots/ Blks Units Area (ha Lots/ Blks Units Area (ha Lots/ Blks Units , Area (ha Park Open Space , Walkway Lot Addition Roads TOTAL 8 October,206 7 October 2,206 6 August 29,206 5 August 0,206 4 July 4,206 May 2,206 2 September 8,205 August 2,205 Rev. No Stage, Lots -8 Revised. Revise Stage 2, Block 67 from Park to Open Space. Revise Area Schedule. Renumber Streets in Stage 2 Edits to Area Schedule. Revise Street One Alignment to Green Vista Drive. Revisions to Plan per Comments from City Staff and Public Meetings. Revise Area Schedule. Revisions to Plan per Comments from City Staff and Public Meetings. Revise Area Schedule. Edits to Area Schedule LHB Issued for Submission Date LHB LHB LHB LHB LHB LHB LHB By Issued / Revision Notes: - Topographic information prepared by MTE Engineering. - Contour interval 0.5m. Stamp Date October, 206 File No. 22A Plan Scale Revised Plan :500 Drawn By L.H.B. Checked By P.B. Other Saginaw Subdivision 24 Saginaw Parkway Cambridge, Ontario NT Z2 north Project Dwg.. K:\22A-Nideva-Saginaw-Cambridge\Planning Report\Fig DP October 206.dwg

59 DATE: October 24, 206 PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT FILE: 22A SCALE: NTS north Figure 58 Figure DRN: AB R:\projects in progress\22\a\illustrative\22a - Septemeber 20, 206 Illustrative Documents\Illustrative Plan\22A - Saginaw Subdivision Illustrative Plan - October 6, 206 (DESIGN BRIEF COLOURING - For Report (x7 + Title Block.pdf MHBC PLANNING URBAN DESIGN & LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE BINGEMANS CENTRE DR. KITCHENER, ON, N2B X9 P: F:

60 Storm drainage for the proposed development will be provided through a combination of minor (piped and major (overland drainage systems. The proposed development areas will drain via storm sewers to proposed downstream SWM facilities within each stage of the development. A new quality stormwater management facility will be installed within the Stage area to replace the existing forebay to provide improved Stormwater quality for the existing Country Club Estates residential subdivision. Storm sewers will be sized to accept runoff from a 5-year storm event utilizing the City of Cambridge IDF Curve parameters in accordance with the current development standards. Storm sewers will be constructed to typical depths with a minimum cover of.5 m within the road allowance. It is estimated that all services will be situated above the existing groundwater level. Should any of the deepest servicing trenches intersect the groundwater table, cut-off collars will be implemented to prevent groundwater conveyance. Details regarding sanitary, water and storm services are outlined in the Functional Servicing report prepared by MTE (September, Stormwater Management Plan The stormwater management strategy for the proposed development will provide appropriate levels of quality and quantity controls and will maintain the baseflow inputs into existing PSW and LSW. The proposed stormwater management plan is discussed in detail within the accompanying Preliminary Stormwater Management (SWM report by MTE (November, 206 and summarized below. For the major storm events, the proposed road allowances will provide overland flow routes for surface runoff not being collected by the minor storm sewer system, conveying the stormwater to the SWM facilities (forebays, wetland cell and infiltration gallery and ultimately discharging into the PSW (Pond A and LSW (Pond B depression areas. The SWM facilities and proposed infiltration cells were designed to capture, attenuate and ultimately infiltrate, the entire development runoff. A new stormwater management forebay will be installed within the Stage area to replace the existing forebay to provide improved Stormwater quality for the existing Country Club Estates residential subdivision. Quantity control for a series of design storm events including 2, 5, 00 year and Regional Storm events as well as quality control and water budget inputs to surface water wetlands and groundwater aquifer features were analyzed. The proposed flow regime of the wetlands will generally mimic existing conditions for all storm events up to the 00 year. The surplus water resulting from development will be mitigated with an increase in recharge. The SWM facilities and infiltration cells will integrate with the natural wetlands to complement and enhance their ecological functions and will provide a net ecological gain for the area. The infiltration galleries for the PSW will be installed 0 m from the PSW as part of the proposed wetland restoration that has been included as part of this proposal. Water levels within the PSW will be lowered to masl by linking the PSW to the infiltration galleries through a ditch-inlet catch basin and outlet pipe at an elevation that will decrease the water level of the PSW. This will promote the establishment of wetland habitat around the pond by increasing the area of the shallow fringe areas that surround it. Page 49

61 Low Impact Development (LID measures are proposed at the lot level. Infiltration galleries are proposed to be connected to the majority of roof areas within the development. The multiple residential blocks will contain common element infiltration facilities and/or infiltration locations connected to the majority of roof areas, located and designed within the parameters of the individual block designs. Lot level infiltration facilities are to be designed to accept 25 mm of runoff. 6.5 Water Balance/LIDs Western Parcel Under existing conditions the western kettle pond receives runoff from the golf course and part of the existing subdivision to the north. The western kettle pond has the capacity to accommodate the additional runoff volumes from the proposed development, however since there is no surface water outlet, measures must be taken to reduce the potential impact on vegetation that surrounds the pond from increased frequency or duration of flooding (MTE November 206. Pre and post development infiltration calculations found that under pre development conditions infiltration rates are 42. mm/yr. while post development infiltration rates will be mm/ yr. Under post development conditions there will be a distributed infiltration gain of approximately 29,66 m per year. This will be accomplished using roof infiltration galleries that will be sized to accommodate a 25 mm storm and will be distributed across the catchment area (MTE 206. Pre and post development runoff rate calculations found that under pre development conditions runoff rates are 266 mm/yr, while post runoff rates are 28 mm/yr. Under post development conditions there will be a net increase in runoff of approximately 6,480 m per year. This surplus runoff will be accommodated in the proposed infiltration cells adjacent to the kettle pond thereby maintaining the water balance (MTE 206. Calculations of pre and post-development runoff rate to the kettle pond prior to being infiltrated found that under pre-development conditions runoff rates are 202.mm/yr, while post-development runoff rates are 25.8mm/y. Under post-development conditions there will be a runoff surplus to the western kettle pond of approximately 5,29m per year. This runoff surplus can be accommodated in the proposed infiltration cells, which will balance the runoff volumes to the kettle pond (MTE November 206. Detailed information pertaining to the stormwater management plan is located in the Preliminary Stormwater Management Report prepared by MTE (206. Eastern Parcel Under existing conditions the eastern kettle pond receives stormwater runoff from the golf course and a small portion of the existing subdivision that surrounds it. The pond has the capacity to accommodate the additional runoff from the proposed development. However as there is no surface water outlet, infiltration cells/galleries in the vicinity of the wetland will be required to protect the existing vegetation surrounding the pond from increased frequency or duration of flooding (MTE, 205. Page 50

62 Pre and post-development infiltration found that under pre-development conditions infiltration rates are 65.5mm/yr, while post infiltration rates will be 55.4mm/yr. Under post-development conditions there will be a distributed infiltration gain of approximately 6,952m per year. This will be accomplished using roof infiltration galleries that will be sized to accommodate a 25mm storm and will be distributed across the catchment area (MTE November 206. Pre and post runoff rate calculations found that under pre-development conditions runoff rates to the wetland prior to being infiltrated are 29.9mm/yr, while post runoff rates are 6.4mm/yr (when normalized to the same contributing drainage area. Under post development conditions there will be a net increase in runoff to the eastern kettle pond of approximately 79m per year. This increase will be accommodated through the creation of infiltration cells that will be located in the vicinity of the wetland and will be designed to infiltrate the annual surplus runoff, which will balance the runoff volumes to the kettle pond (MTE November 206. Detailed information pertaining to the stormwater management plan is located in the Stormwater Management Report prepared by MTE November Conceptual Restoration and Enhancement Plan A number of opportunities for ecological restoration and enhancement on the Subject Property were identified and described in Section 5.. It is proposed that restoration and enhancement measures be implemented through this project. It is anticipated that their implementation will achieve an overall net benefit to the natural heritage features and their ecological functions. A Conceptual Restoration and Enhancement Plan outlining the various themes is included in Figure 9. These opportunities can be categorized according the following themes:. Wetland Restoration Water levels will be lowered to more natural levels in the western pond/psw. This will be accomplished by linking the western pond/psw to the infiltration galleries through a ditch inlet catch basin and outlet pipe at an elevation that will decrease the water level of the pond. This will promote the establishment of wetland habitat around the pond by increasing the area of the shallow fringe areas that surround it. 2. Woodland Restoration Woodland habitat will be created in the SWM/Open Space blocks around the wetlands. We will reforest areas of the golf course that are adjacent to exiting tree groupings to increase the amount of woodland cover.. Woodland Management There are wooded areas within the SWM/Open Space Blocks that will be protected and integrated. Some of these wooded areas support high levels of introduced and / or invasive species. Consequentially, the native species diversity of these habitats is low. By undertaking vegetation management, it is possible over time to remove the problematic invasive species and replace them with quality native species. 4. Wildlife Habitat Creation The diversity and quality of wildlife habitats in the area is considered poor. Suitable habitat for local wildlife is limited as the golf course provides very little habitat structure, even within the pond and wetlands. Wildlife habitat quality can be improved within the SWM/Open Space block by creating suitable habitat and structure. Habitat creation efforts to be implemented include: a. Installation of floating wetlands in the west pond. These will provide habitat for waterfowl, reptiles and amphibians, and cover for fish. The floating vegetation mats Page 5

63 will also introduce a seed source for native vegetation to colonize other parts of the wetland, as well as some water quality benefits. b. Installation of logs in the wetland to provide for turtle basking. c. Installation of standing snags around the perimeter of the wetland to provide perches and nesting habitat for birds. d. Installation of bird boxes for swallows and other species. e. Installation of sand and gravel mounds for turtle nesting. f. Installation of snake hibernacula. 5. Biodiversity Enhancement - Levels of native biodiversity within the wetlands and adjacent SWM/Open Space Blocks can be enhanced and substantially increased by replacing existing non-native vegetation with more appropriate native species that are compatible with the historical vegetation condition and that of adjacent natural areas. All proposed re-vegetation will be comprised of native species. 6. Water Quality Enhancement By treating runoff from existing development as well as future development through a series of constructed wetland cells and infiltration basins, the quality of water being discharged to the wetlands can be improved. 7. Nature Appreciation The construction of natural trails and interpretive signage around the wetland will introduce the community to the natural wetland features, promote understanding of kettle wetland ecology, local wildlife, and restoration efforts. 7. Impact Assessment and Mitigation The following section provides a description of potential direct and indirect impacts to the natural environment that are anticipated as part of the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision and related Stormwater Management and Servicing Plans. Where impacts are identified, recommendations have also been included to mitigate adverse effects on natural heritage features and ecological functions. As was discussed in Section 4. and in Section 5., the Subject Property supports several significant natural heritage features which are being protected and were used to establish limits to the proposed re-development. These features will be protected and maintained in an Open Space designation under the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision. These features will also be further enhanced through by capitalising on the restoration and management opportunities identified in Section 5.. It is anticipated that these measures will not only protect the existing natural heritage features, but will serve to expand these areas and enhance their overall functions over the long term. To assess the potential direct and indirect impacts associated with the various components of the proposed development and to evaluate their effect on the physical and biological environment, an impact assessment matrix, included in Table 0, has been prepared as part of this EIS. The matrix includes a description of the various development activities and their anticipated effect on the environment, a description of mitigation measures that will be implemented to avoid or offset potential impacts and/or restore or enhance the quality and condition of natural heritage features and ecological functions, as well as a summary of the net residual impact. Page 52

64 OD GR OV RE SC on Dr Sheld EN T SITE B RY CLU COUNT LEGEND DRIVE EXISTING WOODLAND PATCHES! CONTROL INVASIVE SPECIES AND! ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIVE TREE SPECIES! : 6: EXISTING TREES OR GROUPINGS! TO BE RETAINED : 5: BLOCK 65 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT 5: : : NT SCE CRE S Avenu St N Elgin S e Rd BLOCK 67 PARK : : EXISTING OPEN WATER / POND : WETLAND RESTORATION:! OPPORTUNITY TO ESTABLISH WETLAND! HABITAT AROUND POND PERIMETER AND! OTHER SHALLOW AREAS : : WETLAND 6: : BLOCK 68 OPEN SPACE EXISTING WETLAND : TA DR I : VE y AX.5m r Buffe CSW AX : CSW.5m 56 : AX 54 5 Blk. 6 use 52 ho Town First Submission 5 / 08 / 25 SC A S S O CIA T 6.0m P TE.7 7 IO NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION! UNLESS SIGNED & DATED M E M B ER.S IB = TT AV URNE r Buffe 48 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS SIGNED & DATED 47 B 2 FL N O A ND O N I P H A CRI S 4 ho Town SC ENUE 50 6 Blk. 6 use 6 / 0 / 5 AX : M o CE AC E NA TE IN MA 4.0 m W ID E = 4.5m CSW AX : M AX : M CSW 4 9 CSW.5m 7.7 =.S IB Fd CSW AX CONCEPTUAL! RESTORATION AND! ENHANCEMENT PLAN 0 : M FH= Ex. T TWO AX : M r Buffe DESIGN BY: SC DRAWN BY: SC CHECKED BY: KU AX : M EX W.5m CS 8 B CSW 6.0m STREE W 5 20 W dition Lot Ad SHEET TITLE.5m CS.5m CS 7 AX O ST CSW lk. 72.5m NE :.5m 24 Blk Blk. 6.5m R CA NC Blk Saginaw Parkway! Cambridge, Ontario Fd.C C =. 8 SS IN I DR Saginaw! Developments Corporation CSW X.5m A : M VE Blk. 7 AX 6: PROJECT : ition d Lot Ad : M : 5: Walkway 6 22 : 5 : M ffer : Bu 6.0m : 5: : : : Blk. 79 ESS 5: : 6: 45 X RIVE E -U S M UL TI 0m : : D OINT EX P W AY : PA TH 5: k. Bl. W CS 69 5: 67 k. Bl m ST : : BLOCK 76 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT.5 ET E R : FO : 44 W CS UR CSW m.5.5m W 4: :.5m CS : 8 m : A : M S :.5 6 k. Bl 5 7 Ex.F H : Revised per Engineering Grading Plan BY: SEAL h Town : 4 Blk. 6 use : ND 2 WETLA 6 : LIMIT OF 2 IX ET S E R T S k. Bl 2 AX : M.5m CSW.5m Buffe 6 ET RE T S 5: 5 k Bl 6.0m O TW 6.6 r S.5 55 CSW.5m CSW 6 7 AX 2 W CS DATE: P E A RCH I N SEVE T E STRE : 4 REVISIONS IN CS m MULTI - USE RECREATIONAL TRAIL CA W m.5 5 CONIFEROUS & DECIDUOUS! TREE PLANTINGS! S S 52.5m 4 : AX 6: M 5: 5: : : : 54 ho Town ND 8 4 Blk. 6 use LA 7 k ET 9 W 8 OF 4 2 IT 2.6 : M LIM Bl RIVE BLOCK 78 EXISTING WETLAND OPEN SPACE TD POIN X E S ES.5 : E R ST W CS m : ET E ON : 56 : 57 M 6.0m AX : 55 Y WA ATH EP I-US 58 5 : CSW ULT 59 M Blk. 6 mm : 60.0 AX M r Buffe : SCREENING: TREES AND SHRUBS Fd 6 BU AV RNE EN TT UE 0 Blk. 7 : M : : : : 0m 5: 5: : M S : 6. 5: 5: OPEN SPACE PARK BLOCK! GRASSED AREAS WITH PLANTINGS! OF NATIVE TREES AND SHRUBS 57 D.5m : WETLAN 5: 5: : W CS.5m : VI 6: ff Bu : D LIMIT OF 58 CSW : E 9 Blk. 5 : MAX 6: 2 : : : : : MEADOW HABITAT RESTORATION Blk S : A ST : MAX.5 5: 5: er wa W m CS 5: V RI 0 BLOCK 66 PARK 6.0m 6:.6 AX CSW BLOCK 77 PARK NATURALIZED PLANTINGS OF! INFILTRATION CELLS ND Wa lk.5m PATH WAY S WETLA 5: 6: Fd. CC DE MAINT 4: I-USE Blk : MAX 4.0m WI MULT WOODLAND RESTORATION:! OPPORTUNITY TO ESTABLISH NATIVE! SPECIES THROUGH REFORESTATION! PLANTINGS AND NATURALIZATION CTS O NTA R.0m FOREBAY / "WETLAND CELLS " ENANCE ACCESS LIMIT OF : M N VIS. 69 GREE T COUR N O C FAL S 5: : LIMIT OF S VE DRI Sa gina w TE INS WK HA EC!!WILDLIFE HABITAT CREATION! Installation of floating wetlands in the west pond.!! Installation of logs in the wetland for turtle basking.!! Installation of standing snags around the perimeter of the! wetland to provide perches and nesting habitat.!! Installation of bird boxes for swallows and other species.!! Installation of sand and gravel mounds for turtle nesting.!! Installation of snake hibernacula. ER AK ITT WH N EE WO : MAX : MAX DATE: 74 se k. ou Bl ownh T 6 EX 8.7 SCALE: JADE CRESCENT SE CLO N E RE October 206 : 000 PROJECT Nº: FIGURE

65 Table 0. Impact Assessment and Recommended Mitigation & Enhancement Measures Environmental Parameter(s PHYSICAL RESOURCES Bedrock Geology Surficial Geology/ Physiography/ Topography Soils Development Activity Grading and servicing. Grading and servicing. Site preparation and grading. Potential Impact to Natural Features & Functions Recommended Mitigation & Enhancement Residual Effect Recommended Environmental Management and Monitoring Grading and servicing activities will not expose or interfere with bedrock resources as the bedrock is at considerable depth in the area. No impacts are anticipated. Due to the gently rolling topography and presence of fill across many areas of the site, grading requirements will be moderate. Finished grades will match existing grades at the limits of development. No retaining walls will be required to match into existing residential grades. Site preparation and grading activities will require stripping and stockpiling of existing topsoil resources. These activities, as well as handling and transport can result in an overall loss of topsoil resources. Topsoil stockpiling can result in the loss of soil structure. None Neutral None The Preliminary Grading Plan has been prepared to maintain a cut/fill balance and reduce the amount of material to be exported / imported offsite. The Preliminary Grading Plan has also been prepared to match existing grades at the limits of development. No grading is proposed within 0 metres of the PSW or 5 metres of the LSW. The exception to this is the open weir that links the PSW to the infiltration galleries. This link is required as part of the wetland restoration that is proposed as part of the work plan. It will allow excess water from the PSW to drain into the infiltration galleries which will lower the water levels within the PSW resulting in an increase of wetland habitat surrounding the pond. The proximity of the infiltration galleries to the PSW is required in order to accomplish the wetland restoration. The stormwater management facilities have been designed to blend into the existing kettle landforms. All graded areas of buffer and stormwater management facilities will be re-vegetated and naturalized using native vegetation compatible with the surrounding environment. Stockpile topsoil resources for reuse in post-construction landscaping. Follow best management practices for handling and storing topsoil. Implement sediment and erosion control measures throughout the construction phase to minimize loss of topsoil from erosion. Neutral Neutral None Topsoil Conservation Implement an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Water Balance Grading and development Grading, servicing and site preparation will result in compaction of native soils and an increase the overall imperviousness of the development area, thereby reducing surface water infiltration and increasing runoff which can potentially impact surface water features (ponds and natural features (wetlands. Monitor topsoil stripping and re-application to ensure topsoil resources are conserved. Deficits in infiltration can be reduced by incorporating mitigation measures such as directing roof runoff towards infiltration galleries, lawns, side or rear yard swales and Infiltration Cells incorporated into existing wetland depression. Infiltration capacity of soils can be enhanced by increasing topsoil volumes. Neutral None Groundwater Flow Patterns Drainage Features Grading and development Grading and servicing Grading and servicing has the potential to interfere with natural groundwater flow patterns that sustain natural features. No evidence of seepage or discharge conditions has been observed on the Subject Property. The proposed development is not expected to interfere with shallow or deep groundwater flow patterns. The re-alignment and sanitary sewer and construction of an outlet pipe that connects the west and east ponds will require trenching which can potentially intercept lateral groundwater flows. There are no watercourses on the Subject Property. The only surface drainage features are the three kettle ponds. Under the proposed Refer to Water Balance Analysis section, in the MTE Preliminary Stormwater Management Report (September, 205 for additional details. The stormwater management facilities have been designed to include infiltration cells, which will permit runoff to slowly infiltrate and migrate to the kettle ponds. Servicing trenches, and or SWM pipes, that interface with stabilized groundwater table will incorporate trench plugs and/or anti-seepage collars. Neutral None Neutral None Monitor groundwater throughout grading and construction. Refer to MTE 205 Page 5

66 Environmental Parameter(s Water Quantity Development Activity Servicing and development. Potential Impact to Natural Features & Functions Recommended Mitigation & Enhancement Residual Effect Recommended Environmental Management and Monitoring development, PSW and Pond B will be retained and unmodified. Pond C will however be removed. The proposed development will introduce impervious surfaces to the Subject Property and increase overall runoff volumes. The stormwater management facilities have been sized to accommodate runoff from the site as per GRCA requirements. Neutral Implement operation, maintenance and monitoring requirements identified in SWM Design Guidelines (MOE 200 This can potentially increase the quantity of water requiring treatment in the stormwater management facility. It also has the potential to increase the quantity of runoff that presently flows to the kettle ponds and wetlands; Post development runoff volumes will be reduced by infiltrating clean roof runoff into infiltration galleries, lawns, side and rear yard swales, infiltration cells and other open space areas to retain flows from larger events. Stormwater from the existing development to the north will be directed to the new stormwater management facility prior to draining into the kettle pond on the western parcel. Post development runoff volumes to natural features will be maintained at pre-development levels by incorporating Infiltration Cells into existing depressions. These cells have also been sized to accommodate additional flow from the adjacent PSW as part of the proposed wetland restoration that has been included as part of this project. Wetland Hydrology Water Quality Grading, servicing and development. Site preparation activities such as clearing, grubbing and grading can potentially result in erosion and sedimentation that can affect the receiving water bodies (ponds and associated habitats. Under the post-development scenario, there is a potential for contaminants such as oil, sand, salt and other debris to be captured in surface runoff and this can adversely affect the quality of the receiving water bodies (ponds and associated habitats. This will help maintain hydrological conditions in adjacent natural areas. A sediment and erosion control plan will be prepared to ensure that areas prone to erosion are protected and that sediments are contained on the site and do not migrate to receiving water bodies (wetlands and associated habitats. Under post-development conditions, clean runoff to pervious surfaces such as roofs will be directed to infiltration galleries on individual lot basis and permitted to infiltrate. Neutral Same as above BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Wetlands Grading, servicing and development. There are two wetland features on the Subject Property that are regulated by the GRCA and receive protection under existing environmental policies. The wetland associated with the western kettle depression is a PSW and the wetland associated with the eastern kettle depression is a LSW. Both the PSW and LSW will be retained in a natural state within a future Open Space block. No development is proposed within either the PSW or LSW, with the exception of infrastructure related to wetland restoration. An open weir within the PSW has been included as part of the wetland restoration plan. This weir will link the PSW and infiltration galleries at an elevation that will decrease the water level of the PSW. This will promote the establishment of wetland habitat around the pond by increasing the area of the shallow fringe areas that surround it. The proposed development will require the removal of wetland Contaminated runoff from roads and driveways will be conveyed into minor storm sewer system and directed to the stormwater management facilities for treatment., restore and enhance the PSW and LSW. the PSW and LSW by implementing ecological buffers and limiting future residential development to areas outside the kettle depressions. This will be accomplished by linking the western pond/psw to the infiltration galleries at an elevation that will decrease the water level of the pond. This will promote the establishment of wetland habitat around the pond by increasing the area of the the shallow fringe areas that surround it Enhance the areas around the PSW and LSW by naturalizing the ecological buffers. Enhance the areas around the PSW and LSW by naturalizing the proposed stormwater management facilities. Positive Develop a detailed Environmental Management Plan to assist with implementation of the Conceptual Restoration and Enhancement Plan Page 54

67 Environmental Parameter(s Development Activity Potential Impact to Natural Features & Functions Recommended Mitigation & Enhancement Residual Effect Recommended Environmental Management and Monitoring associated with Pond C. This kettle feature was extensively modified and converted to a golf course irrigation pond. It does not support any important ecological features or functions and is not regulated by GRCA or recognized as part of the Regional Greenlands Network or City s Natural Heritage System. The PSW and LSW will receive additional protection through the introduction of naturalized ecological buffers where none presently exist. Ecological buffers were determined on the basis of protecting the overall kettle depression landform. A 0 m ecological buffer has been recommended to be established around the PSW from which residential development will be excluded. The one exception to this is the outer edge of Street that is located within the sanitary sewer easement that bisects the property. The existing sanitary sewer is to be decommissioned and the new one will follow the new roads. This will result in the new infrastructure being further removed from the PSW. The remaining disturbed area will be rehabilitated allowing for the permanent naturalization of the easement outside of the new proposed road that overlaps with the 0 m ecological buffer. As the area between the roadway and PSW is to be naturalized no negative impacts to the PSW are anticipated. A 5 m ecological buffer has been established around the LSW from which residential development will be excluded. Restore wetland habitat to the PSW by implementing the proposed stormwater management plan; designed to restore the hydrology of the PSW to a more natural state. Limit grading and construction for the proposed SWM facilities to areas no closer than 0 m from the staked wetland limits of the PSW and 5 m from the edge of the LSW. Implement a sediment and erosion control plan to protect the PSW and LSW during construction. Any pipes that interface with stabilized groundwater table will incorporate trench plugs and/or anti-seepage collars. Install fencing at the rear of residential lots abutting the future open space block. Naturalize areas within ecological buffers adjacent wetlands using native vegetation. The proposed re-development will not directly impact the PSW or LSW as residential development will be limited to areas outside these recommended ecological buffers. The proposed re-development will however require the construction of additional stormwater management infrastructure within each kettle depression to service existing and future development. The construction of these facilities has the potential to impact the PSW and LSW during construction. Woodlands Grading, servicing and development. Under the post development conditions, the open space block will be surrounded by residential development and roads. There is a possibility that the adjacent features may experience additional degradation due to encroachment related impacts such as informal trail development, dumping of litter and waste, predation of wildlife by pets, noise and other stressors if recommended mitigation measures are not implemented. There are several woodland features on the Subject Property. These woodlands are associated with the kettle depressions and will be protected under the proposed development; however, a portion of ELC Unit 2d, a woodland dominated by Manitoba Maple, will be removed to accommodate grading. There is a potential that the protected woodlands could be indirectly affected by grading and construction of the SWM facilities. the woodlands by establishing a buffer of 5 m from the dripline of the woodland edge. The buffer should be temporarily fenced to provide tree protection. Install permanent fencing at the rear of any residential lots abutting the future open space block. Enhance the woodlands through woodland management. Positive Develop a detailed Environmental Management Plan to assist with implementation of the Conceptual Restoration and Enhancement Plan The proposed Conceptual Restoration and Enhancement Plan proposes to undertake woodland management, including invasive species control, planting of native species and some wildlife habitat improvements. Page 55

68 Environmental Parameter(s Trees Wildlife Resources Development Activity Grading, servicing and development. Grading, servicing and development. Potential Impact to Natural Features & Functions Recommended Mitigation & Enhancement Residual Effect Recommended Environmental Management and Monitoring These management activities will improve the ecological health and integrity of the woodland and increase overall native species diversity. Site preparation activities will require the removal of most trees within the limits of the future development due to grading requirements. The wildlife communities associated with the Subject Property are comprised of species that are considered common to abundant in periurban environments. The PSW and LSW and associated woodland patches provide habitat for most of the resident wildlife. The ponds provide habitat for at least one turtle species and several amphibian species as well as common waterfowl, foraging birds and small mammals, The PSW and LSW as well as the adjoining woodland habitats will be protected, restored and enhanced under the current proposal. Additionally, much of the area around the kettle depressions that is presently maintained as golf course will be naturalized. It is anticipated that these proposed modifications will enhance the wildlife community in the area. The loss of trees will be offset by planting trees in Open Space Blocks, along streets, and in rear yards. A detailed restoration plan identifying the various naturalization programs that will be implemented as part of the proposed development will be prepared as a condition of draft plan approval. Undertake all vegetation clearing between September and April so as not to impact on nesting birds. Install and monitoring sediment and erosion control fencing around the PSW and LSW during the construction of the SWMF, infiltration gallery and the new Stormwater management facility to prevent turtles from migration into the active construction area and to prevent sediment from draining into the waterbodies. Install permanent fencing at the rear of any residential lots abutting the future open space block to reduce predation by pets and human encroachment. Neutral Positive Refer to recommendations in the Tree Inventory and Assessment. Develop a detailed Environmental Management Plan to assist with implementation of the Conceptual Restoration and Enhancement Plan The irrigation ponds also provide limited habitat for breeding amphibians, however because they are anthropogenic in nature and need to be actively managed to maintain the water levels within these features are not considered significant. The habitat created within the PSW as a result of the wetland restoration will improve the quality of amphibian breeding habitat within the Subject Property. Enhance wildlife habitat in the wetlands, woodlands, and open space block. A detailed restoration plan identifying the various naturalization programs that will be implemented as part of the proposed development will be prepared as a condition of draft plan approval. There is only one significant wildlife species associated with the Subject Property. Barn Swallow, a provincially threatened species is known to nest on the decks of adjacent residential dwellings and forage over the kettle ponds. The proposed re-development will not impact on these functions. Fish Habitat Grading, servicing and development. The introduction of residential development adjacent to natural features could potentially impact breeding birds. Pets, in particular cats, can exert predation stress on local bird populations. Warmwater baitfish were observed from the PSW and LSW. The proposed re-development will not directly impact upon fish habitat as development is not proposed within the PSW or LSW. The proposed redevelopment will however include stormwater management facilities designed to improve the hydrology of the PSW and enhance the quality of runoff discharged to the PSW and LSW. These will have a positive impact on fish habitat., restore and enhance the PSW and LSW. the PSW and LSW by implementing ecological buffers and limiting future residential development to areas outside the kettle depressions. Enhance the areas around the PSW and LSW by naturalizing the ecological buffers. Positive Enhance the areas around the PSW and LSW by naturalizing the proposed stormwater management facilities. Restore wetland habitat to the PSW by implementing the proposed stormwater management plan; designed to restore the hydrology of the Page 56

69 Environmental Parameter(s Significant Species Development Activity Grading, servicing and development. Potential Impact to Natural Features & Functions Recommended Mitigation & Enhancement Residual Effect Recommended Environmental Management and Monitoring Field investigations conducted as part of this study identified one species at risk (Barn Swallow that was actively foraging over the kettle pond on the western parcel. As the kettle pond will be maintained as part of the proposed development and the majority of the houses to the north of this property are not to be removed no impacts to this species are anticipated. One house will need to be removed in order to build a road to connect to Green Vista Drive. Prior to the removal of this house a nesting survey will be completed to confirm the presence/absence of Barn Swallow nests. If nesting habitat for Barn Swallow is identified a permit to remove and compensate for this habitat will be obtained under Ontario Regulation 76/. PSW to a more natural state. If nesting habitat for Barn Swallow is identified a permit to remove and compensate for this habitat will be obtained under Ontario Regulation 76/. This permitting process includes compensation and monitoring requirements to ensure that no negative impacts to these species occur as a result of the proposed development. If no nesting habitat for Barn Swallow is present no mitigation or enhancement measures for SAR are required. Neutral None Linkages Grading, servicing and development. A Blanding s Turtle record for the kettle pond on the western parcel was identified through the NHIC. Correspondence with the MNR indicated that this individual was likely traveling to/from overwintering habitat and that the habitat at the site is not considered ideal/suitable for this species. Regardless as the kettle pond will be maintained/improved as part of the proposed development no impacts to this species are anticipated. The Subject Property does not provide any linkages as it is isolated from other natural areas by existing development and roads. The closest natural area is the Portuguese Swamp ESPA located to the north of the eastern parcel. The proposed re-development will include the conversion of golf course to naturalized woodlands and meadows which may improve connectivity between the two areas for birds and other highly vagile taxa. Naturalize the kettle depressions to provide for larger habitat patches which can serve as stepping stones for the natural heritage system. Neutral Positive Develop a detailed Environmental Management Plan to assist with implementation of the Conceptual Restoration and Enhancement Plan Page 57

70 8. Monitoring Environmental monitoring is recommended to a evaluate changes to the biophysical environment over time as the Subject Property undergoes redevelopment, and b verify that the proposed mitigation measures and environmental management systems have been implemented and are performing as designed. Environmental monitoring is proposed to be undertaken prior to development, during development, and following development. Monitoring prior to development is intended to establish baseline conditions and most of this monitoring has already been completed in preparing this EIS. Monitoring during development is intended to verify that the various environmental management systems (i.e., sediment and erosion control, naturalization plantings, SWM have been implemented and are operating as recommended. Post-Development monitoring is intended to evaluate the performance of the environmental management systems to confirm that they are operating as intended and achieving the objectives outlined in the EIS and FSR. Beacon Environmental and MTE Consultants Inc. have proposed a suite of biophysical parameters to be monitored before, during and following development to assist in confirming that the recommended environmental management systems have been implemented and performing as intended. The proposed Environmental Monitoring Framework is presented in Table. A final Environmental Monitoring Plan will be prepared in consultation with Region of Waterloo and GRCA staff as a condition of Draft Plan Approval. Page 58

71 Table. Proposed Environmental Monitoring Framework Ecosystem Component Objective(s/Rationale Monitoring Parameter(s Monitoring Indicator(s Groundwater Resources To assess changes in the groundwater elevations and flow conditions Surface Water Resources Terrestrial Resources - Vegetation Terrestrial Resources - Wildlife To assess changes in surface water levels of kettles features. To assess changes in water quality of kettles features. To confirm that Erosion and Sediment Controls (ESC measures have been implemented and are performing as per specifications. To assess changes in the type and extent of natural cover in the Open Space block over the long term. To assess changes in floristic quality within the natural heritage system over time. To assess changes in the distribution and abundance of invasive plant species over time, as well as effectiveness of woodland management. To evaluate the effectiveness of the prescribed buffers in reducing encroachment related impacts to protected features within the natural heritage system. To assess changes in wildlife communities over the long term. Methods/Protocols/Analyses Groundwater Level Groundwater elevations Manual measurements in all on-site monitoring wells are collected on a quarterly basis. Continuous data logger readings at collected in seven monitoring wells. Specific locations to be determined with the RMW and GRCA. Groundwater Flow Patterns Groundwater elevations Manual measurements in all on-site monitoring wells are collected on a quarterly basis. Continuous data logger readings at collected in seven monitoring wells. Specific locations to be determined with the RMW and GRCA. Discharge/Baseflow Shallow groundwater levels Manual measurement in drive-point piezometers installed along edge of kettle features are collected on a quarterly basis. Frequency & Duration Pre-Development During Construction Post-Development Monthly manual for year, To be determined in To be determined in and quarterly thereafter. consultation with RMW and consultation with RMW and Hourly data logger readings GRCA. GRCA. for to 2 years at selected locations. Monthly manual for year, and quarterly thereafter. Hourly data logger readings for to 2 years at selected locations. Monthly for year, and quarterly thereafter. Hourly data logger readings for to 2 years at selected locations. Quantity Water Level Continuous data loggers installed in each kettle feature to monitor water levels over time. Hourly for one full year prior to construction. Quality Sediment and Nutrients Water sampling and analysis. Water quality sampling parameters include Total Phosphorus (TP, Bi-annually for one full year Total Suspended Solids (TSS, Temperature, ph, Conductivity, Dissolved prior to construction Oxygen and Chloride. Natural Vegetation Cover Buffer and Open Space Naturalization Erosion and Sediment Controls Type and extent of natural vegetation cover Floristic Quality Invasive Species Human related disturbance Condition of Open Space naturalization plantings Breeding Bird Species richness and diversity Amphibians/Reptile and habitat Species richness and conditions diversity and distribution of amphibian and turtle species; success and condition of wetland plantings To be determined in consultation with RMW and GRCA. To be determined in consultation with RMW and GRCA. Hourly Quarterly for one full year prior to construction until 00 Build Out. Regular Visual Inspections N/A To be determined in consultation with RMW and GRCA. Vegetation resources will be classified according to ELC standards. The area of each ELC vegetation type will be estimated using aerial photography. GIS analyses will be used to compare changes in area over time. The floristic quality of vegetation communities within the natural heritage system will establish by undertaking a floristic quality assessment (FQA. These values can be compared over time to identify trends. Vegetation surveys will identify populations of invasive species to assist with woodland management. Population densities and locations will be mapped and described to facilitate comparison over the long-term with management efforts. The interface between the development and natural heritage system will be fenced off and surveyed to document evidence of human disturbance. Observations will be categorized according to disturbance type, extent and magnitude of effect. A homeowner information pamphlet will be developed as a Draft Plan condition. Buffers and Open Space will be planted and naturalized using native species. The condition of these plantings will be assessed using standard vegetation plots. Breeding bird surveys will be conducted both pre and post construction using standard protocols concerning weather and time of year (late May to early July, and twice per breeding season. Amphibian populations will be monitored three times per year in years monitored. Turtle presence will be monitored twice per year. Habitat conditions will be documented. To be determined in consultation with RMW and GRCA. To be determined in consultation with RMW and GRCA. Hourly for years following 00 Build Out. Quarterly for three years following 00 Build Out. To be determined in consultation with RMW and GRCA. None Included in 20 EIS Once at 00 Build Out At years 2, 5 and 0 following 00 Build Out. None Included in 20 EIS Once at 00 Build Out At years 2, 5 and 0 following 00 Build Out. Once to prior to construction and woodland management to establish baseline condition None None None Included in 20 EIS None - Included in 20 EIS Once at 00 Build Out At years 2, 5 and 0 following 00 Build Out. Annually until 00 Build Out Annually until 00 Build Out Annually until 00 Build Out Annually until 00 Build Out At years 2, 5 and 0 following 00 Build Out. At years 2, 5 and 0 following 00 Build Out. At years 2, 5 and 0 following 00 Build Out. To be determined in consultation with RMW and GRCA. Page 59

72 9. Policy Conformity This section of the report is intended to demonstrate how the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision complies with existing environmental policies and legislation at the provincial, regional and local level. A comprehensive listing of environmental planning policies most applicable to the proposed development was presented in Section 2. Rather than repeating them here, a table has been prepared describing how the proposed Draft Plan conforms to current environmental planning policies and regulations. The summary is presented below in Table 2. Page 60

73 Table 2. Policy Conformity E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t S t u d y - S a g i n a w S u b d i v i s i o n APPLICABLE POLICY / Policy Intent EIS Findings & Recommendations Compliance LEGISLATION Federal Fisheries Act To protect fish habitat. Both Pond A and B support poor quality warmwater fish habitat. The proposed development will not directly impact fish habitat as the aquatic features are being YES. Development will not adversely impact fish habitat. retained. Fish habitat will however be indirectly affected by the proposed stormwater management plan as well as proposed wetland restoration plan. Under the current conditions, untreated stormwater runoff from the existing surrounding residential development is discharged to these ponds. The proposed development will include new stormwater management facilities that will incorporate treatment wetlands as well as infiltration basins. It is anticipated that the additional treatment provided by these facilities will improve the quality of water being discharged to the ponds and also improve the condition of the fish habitat. Furthermore, it is proposed that fish and wildlife habitat within the ponds be enhanced by introducing structures and encouraging wetland development at the pond margins, which in turn will provide additional cover and habitat for the local fish populations. Provincial Policy Statement (2005 Page 6

74 APPLICABLE POLICY / LEGISLATION. Habitat for Threatened and Endangered Species 2. Significant Wetlands Policy Intent EIS Findings & Recommendations Compliance The PPS does not permit development or site alteration in the significant portions of the habitat for threatened and endangered species. The PPS does not permit development or site alteration in Significant Wetlands, except for conservation, wildlife management and stewardship purposes. There are two threatened species noted as being associated with the Subject Property. Barn Swallow was observed actively foraging over the kettle pond on the western parcel and nesting on houses to the north of the Subject Property. While no nests were observed on the Subject Property, nest were observed on some of the houses adjacent to the property. As part of the proposal, there is one house that will need to be removed in order to build a road to connect to Green Vista Drive. Prior to the removal of this house a nesting survey will be completed to confirm the presence/absence of Barn Swallow nests. Blanding s Turtle was observed in 2009 from a pond on the Subject Property. The pond habitats on the Subject Property are not considered suitable for this species due to the lack of cover. The 2009 sighting was likely an individual that was migrating to more suitable habitat in the adjacent landscape associated with the Portuguese Swamp and Puslinch Lake to the north. The western kettle pond is identified as part of the Portuguese Swamp PSW. This feature is largely open water and has been severely degraded. It presently receives untreated and uncontrolled YES. While the habitat for endangered and threatened species is protected under provincial, regional and local policies, there is a consensus that when SAR are identified, that the MNRF makes decisions related to their habitat protection. We have discussed SAR matters with MNRF, and they have confirmed that they do not intend to regulate the habitats for these species under the ESA. However, if nesting habitat for Barn Swallow is identified on any structures prior to development, a permit to remove and compensate for this habitat will be obtained under Ontario Regulation 76/. This permitting process includes compensation and monitoring requirements to ensure that no negative impacts to these species occur as a result of the proposed development. Irrespective of the policy regime, the habitats will nevertheless be protected under the current proposal. YES. Development and/or site alteration is not being proposed within the PSW will be protected. No Page 62

75 APPLICABLE POLICY / LEGISLATION Policy Intent EIS Findings & Recommendations Compliance The PPS also does not generally permit development or site alteration on lands adjacent to Significant Wetlands unless it can be demonstrated that such activities will not adversely impact upon the feature and its functions. stormwater from the existing surrounding development as well as from the golf course. The golf course around the feature is generally maintained to the water s edge. As a consequence, there is little wetland vegetation associated with the feature. The pond itself is unvegetated and technically does not qualify as wetland under OWES. The EIS has recommended that the PSW be protected, restored and enhanced. With the exception of stormwater management infrastructure and a small segment of Street One, development is not proposed within the within 0 m of the PSW. development proposed within PSW. 0 m development buffer applied to PSW, with some exceptions for SWM and a minor road encroachment. No adverse impacts to PSW are anticipated. Implementation of the proposed SWM Plan and Wetland Restoration & Enhancement Plan will have a net positive impact on the PSW and it functions. The proposed stormwater management facilities have been designed to complement the wetland and its functions, including buffering to the existing and proposed residential development. The design and construction of the stormwater management facilities will be completed in a manner that complements and enhances the PSW and its functions. This will be achieved by restoring the hydrology of the wetland to a more natural state, naturalizing the golf course adjacent to the PSW, removing existing sewer infrastructure, retrofitting existing stormwater management infrastructure, and creating improved wildlife habitat. All of these measures will have a positive impact on the PSW and its functions. Page 6

76 APPLICABLE POLICY / LEGISLATION. Significant Woodlands 4. Significant Valleylands 5. Significant Wildlife Habitat Policy Intent EIS Findings & Recommendations Compliance The PPS does not permit development or site alteration in Significant Woodlands unless it can be demonstrated through an EIS that there will be no negative impacts. The PPS does not permit development or site alteration in Significant Valleylands unless it can be demonstrated through an EIS that there will be no negative impacts. The PPS does not permit development or site alteration in Significant Wildlife Habitat unless it can be demonstrated through an EIS that there will be no negative impacts. There are no Significant Woodlands on or adjacent to the Subject Property. There are no Significant Valleylands associated with the Subject Property. No development or site alteration is proposed in Significant Valleylands. Two types of candidate Significant Wildlife Habitat may be present on the Subject Property candidate turtle wintering area and candidate amphibian breeding habitat (wetlands. Both of these are associated with the kettle ponds features which are to be maintained/enhanced as part of the proposed development. No development or site alteration is proposed in Significant Wildlife Habitat. YES. YES. YES. The designation of the irrigation ponds (ELC Units a and b as Significant Wildlife Habitat is not appropriate as they are anthropogenic in nature and need to be actively managed to maintain their water levels. 6. Significant Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI The PPS does not permit development or site alteration in Significant ANSI s unless it can be demonstrated through an EIS that There are no ANSI s in the vicinity of the Subject Property. No development or site alteration is proposed in Significant ANSI s. YES. Page 64

77 APPLICABLE POLICY / LEGISLATION Policy Intent EIS Findings & Recommendations Compliance there will be no negative impacts. Ontario Endangered Species Act (2007 Region of Waterloo Official Plan (2008 Same as. Same as. YES. Same as. Policy 7.C.9 of the Region of Waterloo Official Plan states that development or site alteration will only be permitted on lands contiguous to a Core Environmental Feature where an Environmental Impact Statement, or similar study has determined to the satisfaction of the Region, Area Municipalities, the GRCA, and/or the Province, as appropriate, that approval of the proposed development or site alteration would not result in adverse environmental impacts on the features and ecological functions of the Core Environmental Feature. Policies 7.E. and 7.E.2 of the Region of Waterloo Official Plan discuss Supporting Environmental Features and environmental features that are not identified as Core Features within the Official Plan. Under these policies these areas are to be maintained, enhanced or, wherever feasible, restored. The EIS has confirmed that the western kettle pond is a Core Environmental Feature, as identified within the Regional Official Plan. No development is proposed within the Core Environmental Feature. With the exception of the proposed stormwater management facility and a small segment of Street One, no development is proposed within 0 m of the Core Environmental Feature. The proposed stormwater management facilities adjacent to the Core Environmental Feature have been designed to complement the wetland and its functions, including buffering to the existing and proposed residential development. The eastern kettle pond meets the criteria to be considered a Supporting Environmental Feature or an environmental feature that is not identified as Core Environmental Feature within the Official Plan. With the exception of the proposed stormwater management facility, no development is proposed within 5 m of YES. Same as 2. Page 65

78 APPLICABLE POLICY / LEGISLATION Policy Intent EIS Findings & Recommendations Compliance the Supporting Environmental Features. The SWM facility and buffer will be naturalized using native self-sustaining vegetation. City of Cambridge Official Plan Policy.A..6 of the City of Cambridge Official Plan states that development or site alteration will only be permitted on lands contiguous to a Core Environmental Feature where an EIS, or similar study has determined to the satisfaction of the Region, Area Municipalities, the GRCA, and/or the Province, as appropriate, that approval of the proposed development or site alteration would not result in adverse environmental impacts on the features and ecological functions of the Core Environmental Features. Policy.A.4. identifies LSNAs as unmapped natural features that do not meet the criteria for recognition as being provincially or regionally significant. Policy.A.4. of the Cities Official Plan states that development and site alteration will avoid LSNAs where feasible. Where development or site alteration proposed within or contiguous to a LSNA an EIS is required to determine the boundaries and Same as above. YES. Same as 2. Page 66

79 APPLICABLE POLICY / LEGISLATION Policy Intent EIS Findings & Recommendations Compliance buffers for LSNA and it must show to the satisfaction of the City that the ecological function of the LSNA will be maintained, enhanced or where feasible, restored. Grand River Conservation Authority Regulations The GRCA regulates hazard lands including valleylands, floodplains, watercourse, and wetlands. GRCA policies generally do not permit development or site alteration within hazard lands without a permit. Requested studies have been completed and wetlands and water bodies will be maintained and protective buffers have been placed on these features YES. Page 67

80 0. Conclusions Between 20 and 205, Beacon undertook extensive ecological surveys of the Subject Property and worked closely with members of a multidisciplinary team including engineers, planners, designers and individuals with expertise in the areas of hydrogeology, hydrology and soils, to a characterize the biophysical environment and ecological functions; b identify environmental constraints and opportunities; c determine ecologically appropriate limits to development; d develop environmental management strategies for the purposes of protecting, enhancing and restoring natural heritage features and their ecological functions; e assess development related impacts to natural heritage features and ecological function; and f to make recommendations for mitigating development related impacts. An EIS report was prepared in accordance with Terms of Reference (TOR that were developed through consultation with the Region of Waterloo, City of Cambridge and GRCA. The report was based on information gathered through review of available background documents, field assessments, analysis and supporting technical studies, and was submitted in September 205. Comments on the EIS were received from the GRCA and Region in December 205. Between 205 and 206, met with the Region, City and GRCA to address their comments and concerns. Beacon also participated in a Public Liaison Committee Meeting to address comments and concerns raised by area residents. Based on the comments received, Beacon undertook supplemental ecological surveys in 206 and worked with the multi-disciplinary team to address the outstanding issues. This report represents an update to the 205 EIS. The report has been revised to include the following supplementary information: data from the supplemental ecological surveys completed in 206 summary of findings from additional hydrogeological investigations completed by MTE Consultants Inc. in 206 a revised Draft Plan an updated Impact Assessment an updated Vegetation and Tree Management Plan an updated Wetland Restoration and Enhancement Plan The objectives of the EIS are as follows:. to characterize the natural features and functions associated with the study area; 2. to identify significant and sensitive natural heritage features and functions;. to identify constraints and opportunities to development; 4. to describe the development and related activities; 5. to assess the potential impact of the development on the significant and sensitive natural features and functions; 6. to make recommendations for impact avoidance, mitigation, and enhancements to features and functions; and Page 68

81 7. to make a determination regarding the net impact of the proposed development and issue a statement of compliance with applicable environmental policies and regulations. This updated EIS satisfies all of the above objectives. The findings of the impact assessment confirm that the proposed re-development will not adversely impact any provincially, regionally or locally significant natural heritage features or functions. Development is not proposed within any significant natural heritage features or within natural hazards. The majority of the Subject Property, including the kettle depressions, was utilized as golf course as recently as 20. It is proposed that areas of golf course associated with the kettle depressions, as well as undevelopable land-locked tablelands, be naturalized or converted to parks. Under the current proposal, the net amount of natural open space on the Subject Property will be increased substantially and it is anticipated that this will have a net positive impact on the PSW, LSW, woodland features and associated fish and wildlife habitat. In summary, this updated EIS has: provided a comprehensive overview of all applicable environmental policies pertaining to natural heritage and natural hazards; updated the knowledge base of the site s natural heritage resources through information gather through seasonal inventories of key taxa, including supplemental work completed in 206; identified the relative significance and sensitivities of natural heritage features and functions; identified constraints to development and opportunities for restoration and enhancement; established ecologically appropriate buffers and development limits; presented an updated conceptual restoration and enhancement plan; presented an updated vegetation and tree management plan; assessed impacts associated with all aspects of the proposed development; provided recommendations for avoiding or mitigating impacts; developed an environmental monitoring framework to ensure the recommendations presented in the EIS and FSR are implemented as intended; and demonstrated how the proposal conforms with applicable environmental policies. Based on the findings of this EIS, it is our opinion that the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision will not adversely impact on the natural heritage system and that the proposed environmental management systems will have a positive impact on the natural heritage features and functions over the long term. Report prepared by: Beacon Environmental Report reviewed by: Beacon Environmental Rob Aitken, B.Sc. Ecologist Ken Ursic, M.Sc. Senior Ecologist Page 69

82 . References Bird Studies Canada Marsh Monitoring Program Participant s Handbook for Surveying Amphibians. Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, U.S. Environmental ion Agency. February Chapman, L.J. and D.F. Putnam The Physiography of Southern Ontario, Third Edition. Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume 2, 270p. Accompanied by Map P.275 (coloured, scale :600,000. Corporation of the City of Cambridge Tree Management Policies and Guidelines for New Developments. Cumming Cockburn, 987. Environmental Impact Statement: Clemens Mill. 22 pp., 2 appendices Grand River Conservation Authority Grand River Conservation Authority Wetland Policies. March 28, 200. Grand River Conservation Authority Environmental Impact Study Guidelines and Submission Standards for Wetlands. GWS Environmental Impact Study Biological Data Lee, H.T., W.D. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig and S. McMurray Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: First Approximation and Its Application. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. SCSS Field Guide FG pp. MOE, 994. Water Management Policies, Guidelines, Provincial Water Quality Objectives of the Ministry of Environment and Energy. MOE, 20. Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV. of the Environmental ion Act Ministry of the Environment April 5, 20. MTE 20. Villages of Saginaw Draft Hydrogeological Investigation. MTE 206. Saginaw Subdivision Preliminary Stormwater Management Report. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide. October Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Page 70

83 Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Natural Heritage Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, Second Edition. March 8, 200. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Draft Significant Wildlife Habitat Criteria for Ecoregion 6E. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 20. General Habitat Description for the Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 20. Draft Occurrence Survey Protocol for Blanding s Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Species at Risk Branch. Peterborough, Ontario. Ii + 7 pp. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 20. Ontario Wetland Evaluation System, Southern Manual, rd Edition, Version.2 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Significant wildlife habitat ecoregional criteria schedules: Ecoregion 6E. Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH. 20. Provincial Policy Statement. Toronto, Ontario. Peto MacCallum Ltd Geotechnical Investigation, Saginaw Subdivision Saginaw Parkway, Cambridge, Ontario. Region of Waterloo Region of Waterloo Greenlands Network Implementation Guideline. Page 7

84 Appendix A E I S T e r m s o f R e f e r e n c e

85 GUIDING SOLUTIONS IN THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Wednesday, July 9, 20 BEL-227 Yvette Rybensky Senior Planner Planning and Development Department The City of Cambridge 50 Dickson St., rd Floor P.O. Box 669 Cambridge, ON NR 5W8 Tel: ( ext Fax: ( Re: Terms of Reference for Scoped Environmental Impact Statement (EIS Saginaw Golf Course - Cambridge, Ontario Dear Ms. Rybensky; The purpose of this letter is to present Terms of Reference for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS in support of a residential re-development project for the Saginaw Golf Course property in the City of Cambridge. Beacon Environmental Ltd. was retained by Saginaw Development Corporation to prepare a Scoped EIS in support of the re-zoning and draft plan of subdivision application for the property. The subject property is situated within the Fiddlesticks Neighbourhood of the City of Cambridge. The property is currently designated as Open Space (Recreation and Open Space (Natural Open Space System in the City of Cambridge s Official Plan General Land Use Plan. Saginaw Development Corporation is proposing to re-zone the property to accommodate low and medium density residential uses. The subject property is highly modified and presently includes the clubhouse and associated parking areas, a maintenance yard, golf greens, fairways, paths and irrigation ponds. Natural features are limited to two kettle wetland features. The larger wetland forms part of the Provincially Significant Portuguese Swamp Wetland Complex and is designated as a Core Environmental Feature in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo Official Plan. The smaller wetland feature has not been evaluated and is not designated as an environmental feature locally or regionally. Both wetland features are however regulated by the Grand River Conservation Authority under Ont. Reg. 50/06 and a permit is required to undertake any site alterations within the regulated areas corresponding with these features. The City of Cambridge and Regional Municipality of Waterloo Official Plan policies require that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS be prepared in support of all development proposals that occur on lands that are contiguous with Core Environmental Features. The main purpose of an EIS is to: 6 W A T E R L O O A V E N U E, G U E L P H, O N T A R I O, C A N A D A N H H 9 T e l : ( F a x : (

86 <09/07/20> TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY SAGINAW GOLF COURSE, CAMBRIDGE. a characterize the natural features and functions associated with the study area; b identify significant and sensitive natural heritage features and functions; c identify constraints and opportunities to development; d describe the development and related activities; e assess the potential impact of the development on the significant and sensitive natural features and functions; f make recommendations for impact avoidance, mitigation, and enhancements to features and functions; and g make a determination regarding the net impact of the proposed development and statement of compliance with applicable environmental policies and regulations. On the subject property, the presence of the provincially significant wetland (PSW feature triggers the requirement for an EIS. Policy.A..6 of the City of Cambridge Official Plan states that: Development or site alteration will only be permitted on land contiguous to a Core Environmental Feature where an Environmental Impact Statement, or similar study, submitted in accordance with the policies in Section.A.8, has determined to the satisfaction of the City, Region, GRCA and/or Province, as appropriate, that approval of the proposed development or site alteration would not result in adverse environmental impacts on the natural features and ecological functions of the Core Environmental Feature Policy.A.8 provides guidance on preparation of an EIS. Policies.A.8.5 and.a.8.6 relate to scoping the EIS requirements in collaboration with the Region, City and GRCA. A Pre-Submission Consultation Meeting with the City, Region and GRCA staff was held on April 24, 20 to discuss the necessary studies and information required to be submitted in support of the application. Meeting notes were prepared and circulated by your office in a letter dated May, 20. The meeting notes summarize municipal and agency staff comments with respect to the EIS. For completeness, and to ensure that our Draft EIS Terms of Reference address the identified items, we have included below the items pertaining to the EIS. Regional Municipality of Waterloo Alyssa Bridge An Environmental Impact Statement is required (4 copies to form a complete application. The subject lands are within Core Environmental Features (Provincially Significant Wetlands designated by the Regional Official Plan (ROP. The larger Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSW is located in Block 20 (Stage and the smaller PSW is located in Block (Stage 2. In accordance with ROP Policy 7.C.9, development or site alteration may only be permitted on lands contiguous to Core Environmental Features where an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Region that the proposed development would not result in adverse environmental impacts on the feature and its ecological functions. To this end, the applicant will be required to submit a seeped EIS to the satisfaction of the Region prior to approval. Page 2

87 <09/07/20> TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY SAGINAW GOLF COURSE, CAMBRIDGE. 2 The proponent will be required to confirm whether or not the proposed development will drain to ESPA 72 (Portuguese Swamp. If the proposed development will drain to ESPA 72, the proponent will be required to assess potential adverse environmental impacts on this feature as indicated in item d below. At a minimum, it is expected that the proponent to consult previous studies completed in support of the existing Country Club Estates subdivision 0T The Terms of Reference (ToR for the EIS will be determined by the Region in collaboration with the GRCA and the City of Cambridge in accordance with ROP Policy 7.G.. The ToR must include, but may not be limited to, the following: a. confirmation of an ecologically appropriate boundary of Core Environmental Features within the subject lands; b. delineation and design of suitable buffers between the proposed development and Core Environmental Features; c. a biophysical survey to identify natural habitats and/or populations of Regionally significant plant and animal species on the subject lands that might be adversely affected by the proposed development; d. maintaining quantitative and qualitative. aspects of hydrological and hydrogeological regimes sustaining Core Environmental Features within the subject lands and contiguous lands (should the proposed development drain to ESPA 72 through design and operation of a stormwater management system; e. content of a during-development and post-development monitoring program; and f. stewardship plan for the portion of Core Environmental Features on the subject property. 4 A site inspection will be required to help determine the ToR for the EIS related to this application. Please contact Tim Van Hinte, Environmental Planner at x649 or tvanhinte@regionofwaterloo.ca to schedule the inspection. City of Cambridge Planning and Development Department-Yvette Rybensky and James Horan 5 An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIS must accompany the application. The TOR should be coordinated between the City, the Region and the GRCA. City of Cambridge Senior Environmental Planner- April Souwand 6 There is a portion of the Portuguese Swamp Provincially Significant Wetland Complex on the subject property (larger western wetland, as well as a smaller wetland pocket to the east that has been identified as wetland by the GRCA but has not been included in the Portuguese Swamp PSW by the Ministry of Natural Resources. 7 An EIS to determine appropriate buffers from these wetland features is required. EIS terms of reference should be reviewed and approved by GRCA, Region of Waterloo and City of Cambridge environmental staff. Page

88 <09/07/20> TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY SAGINAW GOLF COURSE, CAMBRIDGE. 8 Stormwater management plans for the proposed development will have to be sensitive to the needs of the wetlands. Development should be viewed as an opportunity to improve environmental conditions of the wetland features. City of Cambridge Community Services Department- Susan Reise and Paul Willms 9 A Tree Management Plan in accordance with the City's Tree Management Policies and Guidelines for New Developments is required at the earliest planning application stage. The proponents may wish to deal with this at the same time as the required EIS. The applicant should contact the City Forester, Brian Geerts, , Ext for further information and scope regarding this requirement Grand River Conservation Authority - John Brum 0 Information currently available at this office indicates that the subject lands contain two wetland areas that are a part of the Provincially Significant Portuguese Swamp Wetland Complex. Also, there are areas within 20 metres of these wetlands. Consequently, portions of the subject lands are regulated by the GRCA under Ontario Regulation 50/06 (Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation. It is our understanding that the applicant is proposing to redevelop the existing golf course into a residential plan of subdivision and condominium townhouse units. This proposal will require official plan and zoning by-law amendments and consent and condominium approvals. Based on a review of the preliminary plan, the GRCA offers the following comments. 2 In support of this redevelopment proposal, the GRCA will require the submission of preliminary drainage plans, grading plans, servicing plans, and a stormwater management (SWM report addressing stormwater quality and quantity controls. The following items would also need to be addressed: Need to clarify where the outlet of minor stormwater flows, since we assume that these flows would be going to existing municipal infrastructure. We further note that the City of Cambridge is currently undertaking a Stormwater Master Plan Study which may provide further SWM direction for these lands. Major stormwater flows are to be controlled to predevelopment rates. Water balance analysis (infiltrate as much as possible Provide stormwater quality control (Level, enhanced if draining to wetlands Additional runoff volumes to Portuguese Swamp could be a concern Please note that there are GRCA SWM checklists and erosion/sediment control guidelines on our website that can be completed by the applicant and provide guidance in the preparation of the supporting documentation. Page 4

89 <09/07/20> TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY SAGINAW GOLF COURSE, CAMBRIDGE. A Full Environmental Impact Study (EIS following GRCA Guidelines will need to be completed. The EIS will need to demonstrate that the proposed Zone Change and redevelopment complies with the Provincial Policy Statement and GRCA wetland policy. Please note that the GRCA's Wetlands EIS guidelines are available from our website. Draft Terms of Reference for the completion of the EIS is to be reviewed and approved by the GRCA prior to starting the EIS. The EIS will need to clearly identify the wetland boundary, recommend and justify a wetland buffer, a no-touch zone, and acceptable and sustainable activities within the wetland buffer that will not impact the hydrological and ecological functions of the wetland. Any proposed lot lines must be located outside of the identified wetland areas and buffer. Hydrological assessment will need to identify the hydrological supply for the wetland and if it is groundwater source, surface water feed or a combination. We note that when comparing 2000 ortho-imagery to the 2006 ortho-imagery, the vegetation community in and around the large wetland has changed in a short period of time. The EIS should assess if earlier buffers and setbacks are adequate or has the golf course maintenance and management altered the vegetation community. An occurrence report for Blanding's turtle, a species identified as being threatened in Ontario appears on this location. The EIS will need to demonstrate that the development proposal complies with the Endangered Species Act. The EIS consultants will need to contact the Species at Risk Biologist at the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources office in Guelph for specific details for dealing with an endangered or threatened species and its habitat. The EIS should identify how the ecological link between the large wetland area and the adjacent wetland areas can be maintained. The hydrological function of existing water features that could be lost during redevelopment will need to be compensated for in the SWM Plan. The EIS should investigate the existing water use and irrigation system. Can water conservation measures be gained from the proposed redevelopment through recycling of SWM water or other innovative measures? The GRCA's Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation (Ontario Regulation 50/06, prohibits development in or on the following areas: adjacent or close to the shoreline of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River System or to inland lakes that may be affected by flooding, erosion or dynamic beaches, and within the 5 metre allowance, within 5 metres of a river or stream valleys that have depressional features associated with a river or stream, whether or not they contain a watercourse, hazardous lands; wetlands; or other areas where development could interfere with the hydrologic function of a wetland, including areas within 20 metres of all provincially significant wetlands and wetlands greater than or equal to hectares in size, and areas within 0 metres of wetlands less than hectares in size, but not including those where Page 5

90 <09/07/20> TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY SAGINAW GOLF COURSE, CAMBRIDGE. development has been approved pursuant to an application made under the Planning Act or other public planning or regulatory process; And prohibits alteration to: straighten, change, divert or interfere in any way with the existing channel of a river, creek, stream or watercourse or change or interfere in any way with a wetland prior to receiving written consent of the GRCA. Please be advised that any future development within the regulated areas on the subject lands will require the prior issuance of a Permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 50/06 from the GRCA. The Permit process involves the submission of a Permit Application to this office, the review of the application by Authority staff and the subsequent approval/refusal of the Permit Application by the GRCA. Beacon Environmental and MTE have given consideration to the above comments from municipal and agency staff in preparing the following Draft EIS Terms of Reference which we believe address general and more specific study requirements noted in the comments. Purpose Draft EIS Terms of Reference Beacon Environmental and MTE have prepared the following Draft EIS Terms of Reference (TOR to confirm that our proposed approach to undertaking the various field studies, analyses and reporting is consistent with the expectations of the Region, City and GRCA. The EIS will be prepared utilizing available background information and will be supplemented with the findings of more detailed field investigations to characterize natural heritage features and their associated functions, identify development constraints and opportunities, assess potential impacts of the proposed development on these features and functions, and make recommendations for impact avoidance, mitigation and potential enhancements. Beacon Environmental will work closely with MTE who are undertaking the hydrogeological and hydrological assessments, to develop a comprehensive understanding of the hydrology of the wetland features under past, current and future conditions. While the separate technical reports will be prepared in support of site servicing and stormwater management, the EIS will integrate key findings related to hydrogeology, hydrology and water balance investigations. Background Review Background information related to natural heritage resources in the vicinity of the property will be compiled and reviewed. This will include available aerial photography, natural resource mapping, data available from the GRCA, the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR and the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC, and any other relevant information. In addition, the relevant environmental/natural heritage policies that may apply to the subject property at a provincial and municipal level will be reviewed including the Provincial Policy Statement, the Page 6

91 <09/07/20> TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY SAGINAW GOLF COURSE, CAMBRIDGE. Regional Official Plan, City of Cambridge Official Plan and GRCA Regulations. Wetland Staking The limits of the wetland features on the subject property were staked with staff from the GRCA, City and Region on May 22, 20. There was full agreement on the limits of the wetlands as staked. MTE has subsequently surveyed the wetland limits. The surveyed wetland limits will be depicted on all subsequent plans forming part of the application submission. Field Studies Wildlife Surveys. Amphibian Surveys (May - June 20 - Two evening breeding amphibian surveys will be conducted between May and June to assess the diversity and abundance of frog and toad species on the property according to the Marsh Monitoring Program (MMP protocols, the standard methodology for breeding amphibian surveys in Ontario. The initial round typically required under this protocol is not required at this site as the species targeted by these surveys are more commonly associated with vernal pools and swamp habitat. According to information obtained from the City s Environmental Planner there is a 2005 record for Blanding s Turtle in the vicinity of the property. This species is ranked as provincially threatened and its habitat is protected under the Endangered Species Act. As this species was recorded eight years ago and there is no suitable habitat available on-site it is extremely unlikely that this species is associated with the ponds on the property. However in order to confirm this is the case, we proposed to undertake surveys for basking and nesting turtles in the spring to assess the suitability of the habitat. Additionally, all incidental amphibian and reptile observations made during other site visits will also be reported and mapped. 2. Birds (May July 20 - A Breeding Bird Survey will be completed in accordance with the protocols provided in the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas (OBBA Guide for Participants (2 Site visits, scheduled to occur between May 24 th and July 0 th, that will occur between dawn and 5 hours after dawn and will be a minimum of two weeks apart. The significance of observed species will be noted using current status lists including COSEWIC, COSSARO, NHIC, OBBA and the Region of Waterloo. All incidental observations of any nationally, provincially, regionally or locally rare species made during other site visits will be recorded.. Other Wildlife Incidental observations of other wildlife made during the site visits will be recorded. Aquatic Surveys 4. Fish Habitat Assessment (June 20 An assessment of fish habitat will be completed in June. Page 7

92 <09/07/20> TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY SAGINAW GOLF COURSE, CAMBRIDGE. Vegetation and Tree Surveys 5. Vegetation (May July 20 - Background information will be obtained from the MNR, NHIC, GRCA and previous site investigations as available. A two season vegetation survey will be completed (spring and summer. Specimens and/or photos will be collected of plant species that require verification. The locations of any rare, threatened or endangered species, if encountered, will be recorded and mapped. Vegetation species significance or rarity will be identified on a national, provincial, regional and local level based on published literature and standard status lists including the Committee on the Statues of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC, the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO, the NHIC and the Region of Waterloo. Vegetation community boundaries and descriptions will be completed in accordance with the Ecological Land Classification for southern Ontario (Lee et al., 998. Wetland will be identified and delineated according to the MNR Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (MNR, Tree Survey A Tree Survey will be completed in general accordance with the City s Tree Management Policies and Guidelines for New Developments. All trees having a minimum diameter at breast height (DBH of 0 cm in areas that may potentially be affected by site clearing, grading or any other construction operations will be surveyed. Trees along the edges of features to be preserved will also be surveyed. Any noteworthy specimens will also be identified. The surveyed trees will be marked with forestry tags. The following information will be recoded for the surveyed trees: tag number; species; DBH; condition o good (dead branches less than 0, signs of good compartmentalization on any wounds, no structural defects; o fair (0 0 dead branches, weak compartmentalization, early leaf drop, presence of insects/disease, major structural defects; o poor (more than 0 dead branches, weak compartmentalization, early leaf drop, presence of insects/disease, major structural defects; and o dead (tree exhibits no signs of life. proposed action (remain, relocate, remove; and rationale for removal/relocation if proposed. The results of the tree survey will be integrated with the EIS. Analyses A number of analyses will be completed utilizing the information obtained through the background review and field surveys. The significance and sensitivity of natural heritage features will be assessed to determine which features qualify as significant using applicable criteria and represent constraints to development (i.e. Page 8

93 <09/07/20> TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY SAGINAW GOLF COURSE, CAMBRIDGE. significant wildlife habitat, significant wetlands, significant woodlands, significant valleylands, habitats of endangered and threatened species, and ANSI;s. Ecologically appropriate buffers will also be established based on sensitivity of a feature to the proposed land use changes. A water balance analysis will also be completed to determine appropriate hydroregimes for potential restoration and enhancement of the wetland features. The results of these analyses will be used to identify constraints and opportunities associated with the proposed development and to establish the limit of development. An impact assessment will be undertaken to assess the potential impact of the proposed development on the existing natural features and their ecological functions. The impact assessment will include recommendations for impact avoidance, mitigation and enhancement. Finally, a policy conformity analysis will be completed to identify how the proposed development complies with applicable provincial and municipal policies and regulations. Reporting It is proposed that the EIS be prepared using the following report outline: Section - Introduction: This report section will include a description of the study purpose, objectives and scope of work, study area, study team members and roles. Section 2 - Environmental Policy Framework: This report section will summarize the environmental planning context for the EIS, including a description of provincial and municipal environmental legislation, policies and regulations directly relevant to the EIS. Section - Study Methodology: This report section will describe the various methodologies used to characterize the biophysical environment, including background reviews, field surveys, and analyses undertaken to identify constraints and opportunities, assess impacts and establish mitigation measures. Section 4 - Study Findings: This report section will summarize the findings of the background reviews and field investigations. It will describe the biophysical environment, identify the significance and sensitivities of the biophysical resources using established criteria. Section 5 - Constraints and Opportunities: This report section will identify natural heritage and natural hazard constraints to future development and identify opportunities for enhancement to the proposed Natural Heritage System. The constraint analysis will be used to establish buffers and limits to future development. Section 6 - Description of the Proposed Development: This report section will describe the proposed development. The description will include a summary of proposed grading activities, servicing and stormwater management, and subdivision design. Page 9

94 <09/07/20> TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY SAGINAW GOLF COURSE, CAMBRIDGE. Section 7 - Impact Assessment and Recommended Mitigation: This report section will describe all potential anticipated impacts of the proposed development on the natural heritage features and functions as well as appropriate mitigation measures (i.e. buffers, restoration and enhancement of the wetlands. A stormwater management and water balance strategy will be presented in support of the appropriate mitigation measures. Section 8 - Monitoring: This report section will include recommendations for long-term monitoring of the wetland features to monitor changes to key environmental parameters (species, habitats, wetland functions to determine the effectiveness of recommended mitigation measures and environmental management systems. Section 9 - Policy Conformity Analysis: This report section will evaluate the proposed development plan and identify how it conforms to applicable environmental legislation, policies, and regulations at the provincial and municipal levels. Section 0 - Conclusions: This report section will include a high level summary of the study findings and recommendations, and make concluding remarks. We trust that the Draft EIS Terms of Reference presented above are sufficiently comprehensive to address the requirements for a full EIS and to address the specific comments identified by municipal and agency staff during the Pre-Submission Consultation Meeting of April 24 th 20. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours truly, Beacon Environmental Ken Ursic, M.Sc. Senior Ecologist ( ext. 2 kursic@beaconenviro.com Page 0

95 Appendix B V a s c u l a r P l a n t C h e c k l i s t

96 A p p e n d i x B A p p e n d i x B Vascular Plant Checklist Family Name New Scientific Name (FOIBIS 2008 Common Name (FOIBIS Beacon GWS S-RANK WATERLOO Aceraceae Acer negundo Manitoba Maple x x S5 Aceraceae Acer platanoides Norway Maple x SNA Aceraceae Acer rubrum Red Maple x x S5 Aceraceae Acer saccharum var. saccharum Sugar Maple x S5 Alismataceae Alisma plantago-aquatica Broad-leaved Water-plantain x S5 Amaranthaceae Amaranthus powellii Green Amaranth x SNA Amaranthaceae Amaranthus sp. Amaranth Species x Anacardiaceae Rhus hirta Staghorn Sumac x x S5 Anacardiaceae Toxicodendron radicans ssp. negundo Poison Ivy x S5 Anacardiaceae Toxicodendron rydbergii Western Poison Ivy x S5 Apiaceae Daucus carota Queen Anne's Lace x x SNA Apocynum androsaemifolium ssp. Apocynaceae androsaemifolium Spreading Dogbane x S5 Apocynaceae Vinca minor Periwinkle x x SNA Araceae Arisaema triphyllum ssp. triphyllum Jack-in-the-pulpit x S5 Asclepiadaceae Asclepias syriaca Common Milkweed x x S5 Asteraceae Ambrosia artemisiifolia Annual Ragweed x x S5 Asteraceae Arctium lappa Greater Burdock x SNA Asteraceae Arctium minus Lesser Burdock x SNA Asteraceae Bidens cernua Nodding Beggar's Ticks x S5 Asteraceae Bidens frondosa Devil's Beggar's Ticks x x S5 Asteraceae Carduus nutans ssp. nutans Musk Thistle x SNA Asteraceae Cirsium arvense Creeping Thistle x SNA Page B-

97 A p p e n d i x B Family Name New Scientific Name (FOIBIS 2008 Common Name (FOIBIS Beacon GWS S-RANK WATERLOO Asteraceae Cirsium vulgare Bull Thistle x SNA Asteraceae Conyza canadensis Fleabane x S5 Asteraceae Erigeron annuus White-top Fleabane x x S5 Erigeron philadelphicus var. Asteraceae philadelphicus Philadelphia Fleabane x x S5 Asteraceae Erigeron strigosus Daisy Fleabane x S5 Asteraceae Eupatorium perfoliatum Common Boneset x S5 Asteraceae Euthamia graminifolia Grass-leaved Goldenrod x x S5 Asteraceae Hieracium praealtum Tall King Devil x SNA Asteraceae Lactuca serriola Prickly Lettuce x SNA Asteraceae Leucanthemum vulgare Oxeye Daisy x x SNA Asteraceae Matricaria discoidea Pineapple-weed x SNA Asteraceae Solidago canadensis var. scabra Tall Goldenrod x x S5 Asteraceae Solidago gigantea Smooth Goldenrod x S5 Asteraceae Solidago juncea Early Goldenrod x S5 Asteraceae Sonchus arvensis ssp. arvensis Field Sowthistle x SNA Asteraceae Sonchus asper ssp. asper Spiny-leaf Sowthistle x SNA Asteraceae Sonchus oleraceus Common Sowthistle x x SNA Symphyotrichum lanceolatum ssp. Asteraceae lanceolatum Panicled Aster x x S5 Asteraceae Symphyotrichum novae-angliae New England Aster x x S5 Asteraceae Tanacetum vulgare Common Tansy x SNA Asteraceae Taraxacum officinale Common Dandelion x x SNA Asteraceae Tragopogon dubius Meadow Goat's-beard x SNA Asteraceae Tragopogon sp. Goat's-beard Species x Asteraceae Tussilago farfara Colt's Foot x x SNA Balsaminaceae Impatiens capensis Spotted Jewel-weed x x S5 Betulaceae Betula papyrifera Paper Birch x S5 Betulaceae Ostrya virginiana Eastern Hop-hornbeam x S5 Page B-2

98 A p p e n d i x B Family Name New Scientific Name (FOIBIS 2008 Common Name (FOIBIS Beacon GWS S-RANK WATERLOO Boraginaceae Echium vulgare Common Viper's-bugloss x x SNA Brassicaceae Alliaria petiolata Garlic Mustard x x SNA Brassicaceae Barbarea vulgaris Yellow Rocket x SNA Brassicaceae Berteroa incana Hoary False-alyssum x SNA Erysimum cheiranthoides ssp. Brassicaceae cheiranthoides Woormseed Mustard x x SNA Brassicaceae Hesperis matronalis Dame's Rocket x x SNA Brassicaceae Rorippa palustris ssp. hispida Hispid Yellow-cress x x S5 Brassicaceae Thlaspi arvense Field Penny-cress x SNA Caprifoliaceae Diervilla lonicera Northern Bush-honeysuckle x x S5 Caprifoliaceae Lonicera tatarica Tartarian Honeysuckle x x SNA Caprifoliaceae Sambucus nigra ssp. canadensis Common Elderberry x S5 Caprifoliaceae Sambucus racemosa var. racemosa Red-berried Elder x S5 Caprifoliaceae Viburnum lentago Nannyberry x x S5 Caprifoliaceae Viburnum opulus Guelder-rose Viburnum x SNA Caprifoliaceae Viburnum opulus var. americanum Highbush Cranberry x S5 Caryophyllaceae Silene latifolia Bladder Campion x x SNA Caryophyllaceae Silene vulgaris Maiden's Tears x SNA Caryophyllaceae Stellaria media Common Starwort x SNA Chenopodiaceae Chenopodium album var. album White Goosefoot x x SNA Chenopodiaceae Chenopodium sp. Goosefoot Species x Clusiaceae Hypericum perforatum St. John's-wort x x SNA Cornaceae Cornus alternifolia Alternate-leaf Dogwood x x S5 Cornaceae Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood x S5 Cornaceae Cornus racemosa Gray Dogwood x x S5 Cornaceae Cornus sericea ssp. sericea Red-osier Dogwood x x S5 Cupressaceae Thuja occidentalis Northern White Cedar x S5 Cyperaceae Carex bebbii Bebb's Sedge x S5 Page B-

99 A p p e n d i x B Family Name New Scientific Name (FOIBIS 2008 Common Name (FOIBIS Beacon GWS S-RANK WATERLOO Cyperaceae Carex pensylvanica Pennsylvania Sedge x x S5 Cyperaceae Carex retrorsa Retrorse Sedge x S5 Cyperaceae Carex tribuloides Blunt Broom Sedge x S4S5 Cyperaceae Carex vulpinoidea Fox Sedge x S5 Cyperaceae Cyperus erythrorhizos Red-root Umbrella Sedge x S R Cyperaceae Cyperus esculentus Yellow Nutgrass x S5 Cyperaceae Cyperus strigosus Straw-colored Umbrella Sedge x S5 R* Cyperaceae Eleocharis obtusa Blunt Spikerush x x S5 Cyperaceae Eleocharis palustris Creeping Spikerush x S5 Cyperaceae Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani Soft-stemmed Bulrush x S5 Cyperaceae Scirpus cyperinus Cottongrass Bulrush x S5 Dipsacaceae Dipsacus fullonum ssp. sylvestris Common Teasel x x SNA Dryopteridaceae Onoclea sensibilis Sensitive Fern x x S5 Elaeagnaceae Elaeagnus umbellata Autum Olive x SNA Equisetaceae Equisetum arvense Field Horsetail x x S5 Fabaceae Cercis canadensis Redbud x SX Fabaceae Coronilla varia Crown-vetch x SNA Fabaceae Lotus corniculatus Bird's-foot Trefoil x SNA Fabaceae Medicago lupulina Black Medic x SNA Fabaceae Melilotus alba White Sweet Clover x SNA Fabaceae Trifolium dubium Suckling Clover x SNA Fabaceae Trifolium pratense Red Clover x SNA Fabaceae Trifolium repens White Clover x x SNA Fagaceae Quercus alba White Oak x S5 Fagaceae Quercus bicolor Swamp White Oak x S4 R Fagaceae Quercus macrocarpa Bur Oak x S5 Fagaceae Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak x x S5 Geraniaceae Geranium robertianum Herb-robert x x SNA Page B-4

100 A p p e n d i x B Family Name New Scientific Name (FOIBIS 2008 Common Name (FOIBIS Beacon GWS S-RANK WATERLOO Grossulariaceae Ribes rubrum Northern Red Currant x SNA Haloragaceae Myriophyllum spicatum Eurasian Water-milfoil x SNA Hydrocharitaceae Elodea canadensis Broad Waterweed x S5 Iridaceae Iris virginica Virginia Blue Flag x S5 Juglandaceae Carya cordiformis Bitternut Hickory x x S5 Juncaceae Juncus articulatus Jointed Rush x x S5 Juncaceae Juncus bufonius Toad Rush x S5 Juncaceae Juncus dudleyi Dudley's Rush x x S5 Juncaceae Juncus effusus ssp. solutus Soft Rush x S5 Lamiaceae Glechoma hederacea Ground Ivy x x SNA Lamiaceae Leonurus cardiaca ssp. cardiaca Common Motherwort x SNA Lamiaceae Lycopus uniflorus Northern Bugleweed x x S5 Lamiaceae Mentha arvensis Corn Mint x S5 Lamiaceae Mentha spicata Spearmint x SNA Lamiaceae Nepeta cataria Catnip x SNA Lamiaceae Scutellaria galericulata Hooded Skullcap x S5 Erythronium americanum ssp. Liliaceae americanum Yellow Trout-lily x S5 Liliaceae Hemerocallis fulva Orange Daylily x x SNA Lythraceae Lythrum salicaria Slender-spike Loosestrife x x SNA Magnoliaceae Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Tree x S4 Malvaceae Abutilon theophrasti Velvet-leaf x SNA Malvaceae Malva alcea European Mallow x SNA Moraceae Morus alba White Mulberry x x SNA Oleaceae Fraxinus americana White Ash x x S5 Oleaceae Fraxinus excelsior European Ash x SNA Oleaceae Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash x S5 Oleaceae Ligustrum vulgare European Privet x SNA Page B-5

101 A p p e n d i x B Family Name New Scientific Name (FOIBIS 2008 Common Name (FOIBIS Beacon GWS S-RANK WATERLOO Onagraceae Circaea lutetiana ssp. canadensis Enchanter's Nightshade x x S5 Onagraceae Epilobium ciliatum ssp. ciliatum Hairy Willow-herb x S5 Onagraceae Epilobium ciliatum ssp. glandulosum Northern Willow-herb x SU Onagraceae Epilobium hirsutum Great-hairy Willow-herb x SNA Onagraceae Epilobium parviflorum Small-flower Willow-herb x SNA Onagraceae Oenothera biennis Common Evening-primrose x S5 Orchidaceae Epipactis helleborine Eastern Helleborine x SNA Oxalidaceae Oxalis stricta Upright Yellow Wood Sorrel x S5 Pinaceae Picea abies Norway Spruce x SNA Pinaceae Picea glauca White Spruce x S5 R+ Pinaceae Picea pungens Colorado Spruce x SNA Pinaceae Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine x S5 Pinaceae Pinus sylvestris Scotch Pine x SNA Plantaginaceae Plantago major Nipple-seed Plantain x x SNA Poaceae Bromus commutatus Hairy Brome x SNA Poaceae Bromus inermis ssp. inermis Smooth Brome x x SNA Poaceae Dactylis glomerata Orchard Grass x x SNA Poaceae Danthonia spicata Poverty Oat-grass x S5 Poaceae Echinochloa crusgalli Barnyard Grass x x SNA Poaceae Leersia oryzoides Rice Cutgrass x S5 Poaceae Leersia virginica White Cutgrass x S4 Poaceae Lolium perenne Perennial Ryegrass x SNA Poaceae Panicum capillare Old Panic Grass x x S5 Poaceae Phalaris arundinacea Reed Canary Grass x x S5 Poaceae Phleum pratense Timothy x x SNA Poaceae Poa compressa Canada Bluegrass x S5 Poaceae Poa pratensis ssp. pratensis Kentucky Bluegrass x x S5 Poaceae Setaria viridis Green Bristle Grass x x SNA Page B-6

102 A p p e n d i x B Family Name New Scientific Name (FOIBIS 2008 Common Name (FOIBIS Beacon GWS S-RANK WATERLOO Polygalaceae Persicaria amphibia Water Smartweed x x S5 Polygonaceae Polygonum lapathifolium Dock-leaf Smartweed x S5 Polygonaceae Polygonum persicaria Lady's Thumb x SNA Polygonaceae Rumex crispus Curly Dock x x SNA Potamogetonacea e Stuckenia pectinatus Sago Pondweed x S5 Primulaceae Lysimachia nummularia Moneywort x SNA Ranunculaceae Ranunculus acris Tall Buttercup x x SNA Ranunculaceae Ranunculus pensylvanicus Bristly Crowfoot x x S5 Rhamnaceae Frangula alnus Glossy Buckthorn x x SNA Rhamnaceae Rhamnus cathartica Buckthorn x x SNA Rosaceae Amelanchier sp. Serviceberry Species x Rosaceae Crataegus punctata Dotted Hawthorn x S5 Rosaceae Crataegus sp. Hawthorn Species x x Rosaceae Fragaria virginiana Wild Stawberry x x S5 Rosaceae Geum aleppicum Yellow Avens x S5 Rosaceae Geum canadense White Avens x S5 Rosaceae Geum urbanum Clover-root x SNA Rosaceae Malus sp. Apple Species x Rosaceae Potentilla norvegica ssp. norvegica Norway Cinquefoil x SU Rosaceae Potentilla recta Sulphur Cinquefoil x SNA Rosaceae Wild x x S5 Rosaceae Prunus virginiana var. virginiana Choke Cherry x x S5 Rosaceae Rubus idaeus ssp. strigosus Wild Red Raspberry x x S5 Rosaceae Sorbus aucuparia European Mountain-ash x SNA Rubiaceae Galium aparine Cleavers x S5 Rubiaceae Galium mollugo White Bedstraw x x SNA Rubiaceae Galium palustre Marsh Bedstraw x S5 Page B-7

103 A p p e n d i x B Family Name New Scientific Name (FOIBIS 2008 Common Name (FOIBIS Beacon GWS S-RANK WATERLOO Rubiaceae Galium trifidum ssp. trifidum Small Bedstraw x S5 Rubiaceae Galium triflorum Sweet-scent Bedstraw x S5 Salicaceae Populus balsamifera ssp. balsamifera Balsam Poplar x S5 Salicaceae Populus deltoides ssp. deltoides Eastern Cottonwood x SU R+ Salicaceae Populus tremuloides Quaking Aspen x x S5 Salicaceae Salix exigua Sandbar Willow x S5 Salicaceae Salix fragilis Crack Willow x x SNA Salicaceae Salix x rubens Reddish Willow x SNA Scrophulariaceae Linaria vulgaris Butter-and-eggs x SNA Scrophulariaceae Verbascum thapsus Common Mullein x x SNA Scrophulariaceae Veronica persica Perscians' Speedwell x SNA Solanaceae Physalis heterophylla Clammy Ground-cherry x S4 Solanaceae Solanum dulcamara Climbing Nightshade x x SNA Solanaceae Solanum ptychanthum Eastern Black Nightshade x x S5 Tiliaceae Tilia americana American Basswood x S5 Tiliaceae Tilia cordata Small leaf Linden x SNA Ulmaceae Ulmus americana American Elm x x S5 Urticaceae Boehmeria cylindrica False Nettle x S5 Urticaceae Urtica dioica ssp. dioica Stinging Nettle x SNA Urticaceae Urtica dioica ssp. gracilis Slender Stinging Nettle x x S5 Violaceae Viola affinis Lecontes Violet x S4? Violaceae Viola sp. Violet Species x Vitaceae Parthenocissus vitacea Thicket Creeper x x S5 Vitaceae Vitis riparia Riverbank Grape x x S5 S-Rank: Provincial Status (NHIC. S4 = apparently secure; S5 = secure; SNA = Not Applicable, a status rank is not applicable because the species is not a suitable target for conservation activities (e.g. exotic/introduced. R Regionally Rare. R+ - Regionally Rare (Introduced Page B-8

104 Appendix C T r e e M a n a g e m e n t P l a n R e p o r t

105 GUIDING SOLUTIONS IN THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Tree Management Plan Saginaw Subdivision City of Cambridge Prepared For: Saginaw Developments Corporation Prepared By: Beacon Environmental Limited Date: Project: November W O O L W I C H S T R E E T, G U E L P H, O N T A R I O, C A N A D A N H W 4 T e l : ( F a x : (

106 T r e e M a n a g e m e n t P l a n f o r S a g i n a w S u b d i v i s i o n T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s p a g e. Introduction General Vegetation Inventory and Analysis.... Detailed Vegetation Management Plan Tree Preservation and Compensation Plan Tree ion Recommendations Tree Removal and Transplant Recommendations Tree Compensation Recommendations... 2 F i g u r e s Figure. Site Location and Context... after page 2 Figure 2. Ecological Communities... after page 2 Figure TP-. Preliminary Tree Preservation and Removal Plan... after page 0 Figure TP-2. Preliminary Tree Preservation and Removal Plan... after page 0 T a b l e s Table. General Summary of Treed ELC Communities... 4 Table 2. Summary of Trees in Group A... 7 Table. Summary of Trees in Group B... 7 Table 4. Summary of Trees in Group E... 8 Table 5. Summary of Trees in Group F... 8 Table 6. Summary of Trees in Group G... 9 Table 7. Summary of Trees in Group H... 9 Table 8. Summary of Trees in Group I... 9 Table 9. Summary of Trees in Group K... 0 A p p e n d i c e s A. Tree Inventory and Evaluation

107 T r e e M a n a g e m e n t P l a n - S a g i n a w D e v e l o p m e n t s. Introduction Beacon Environmental Limited (Beacon was retained to complete a Vegetation and Tree Management Plan for the Saginaw Developments Corporation property in the City of Cambridge. The location of the Subject Property is shown on Figure. The Vegetation and Tree Management Plan was completed in accordance with the City of Cambridge s Tree Management Policies and Guidelines for New Developments (April 999, Revised Feb The guidelines identify three phases or levels of analysis as follows: General Vegetation Inventory and Analysis; 2 Detailed Vegetation Management Plan; and Tree Preservation/Compensation Plan. This report has been prepared to include the components listed above. 2. General Vegetation Inventory and Analysis According to the City of Cambridge s Tree Management Policies and Guidelines for New Developments (April 999, Revised Feb a General Vegetation Inventory and Analysis is similar to standard vegetation resources characterization completed through other studies such as an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS. In preparing the General Vegetation Inventory and Analysis, we assessed the vegetation communities on the Subject Property and described and mapped them using the Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario (ELC. ELC is the accepted provincial standard for classifying ecological communities. The ELC surveys were completed as part of the EIS work program (Beacon 205. Vegetation communities on the Subject Property were mapped as polygons and classified according to ELC standards. Information recorded from each vegetation community included: vegetation community type (e.g. hedgerow, deciduous forest, etc., species composition, relative species abundance, canopy closure (percentage, dominant tree species, rare or unusual tree species, tree condition, and average tree size (trunk diameter. ELC communities are illustrated on Figure 2. Descriptions for each treed vegetation community are provided in Table. For details regarding all the vegetation (ELC communities (including non-treed communities, site topography, soils and drainage, and other significant natural and physical features present on the site, refer to the EIS prepared by Beacon (August 205. Analysis In general, the treed vegetation communities on the Subject Property are of low quality which is reflective of a history of disturbance associated with farming and golf course development. With the exception of a few remnant hardwoods, all of the original forest habitats were cleared from the property over 00 years ago. The woodland features that remain developed in an urbanizing landscape and are Page

108 T r e e M a n a g e m e n t P l a n - S a g i n a w D e v e l o p m e n t s very different in their structure and composition from the less impacted forested habitats that remain in the adjacent landscape (i.e. Hilborn Knoll and Portuguese Swamp. The woodlands on the Subject Property are generally early to mid-successional communities and contain a high proportion of nonnative and invasive species such as Manitoba Maple and Common Buckthorn. The only remaining patches of original woodland that contain native species assemblages correspond with former agricultural hedgerows that were integrated into the golf course when it was developed. Such areas are limited to the western portion of the Subject Property just above the kettle pond. A description of the treed vegetation (ELC communities is provided below and their locations are illustrated on Figure 2. ELC units 2b-2e are mid-aged woodlands dominated by invasive species, notable Manitoba Maple and Common Buckthorn. The understory consist of Wild Red Raspberry (Rubus ideaus ssp. strigosus, Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica, Tartarian Honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica, and Glossy Buckthorn (Frangula alnus. Dominant ground covers include Thicket Creeper (Parthenocissus vitacea, Enchanter s Nightshade (Circaea lutetiana, Garlic Mustard (Alliaria petioloata, Dandelion (Taraxacum offinciale, avens (Geum spp., and Spotted Jewelweed (Impatiens capensis. ELC units 5 and 8 are dominated by Trembling Aspen, an early successional, relatively short-lived tree. The canopy is relatively open and the understory is quite dense with Common Buckthorn, Red-osier Dogwood, Riverbank Grape, Wild Red Raspberry. Dominant ground covers are Garlic Mustard, Thicket Creeper, Avens (Geum urbanum, Geum candensis, and Enchanter s Nightshade. Despite the disturbed nature of these woodlands, they may provide some supportive habitat function to the adjacent ponds/wetlands. The cultural woodland communities (ELC unit 7 on the property have been modified by golf course maintenance operations. The features are regularly mulched and, therefore, there is no understory or ground flora. Several of these woodlands support mature Sugar Maple (ELC units 7c and 7d, which historic air photos indicate are remnants of a hedgerow that existed when the land was farmed. Higher quality vegetation is associated with ELC unit 4, a small remnant patch of Red Oak, Bitternut Hickory, and other native hardwoods, which supports some native understory and ground cover vegetation. This unit appears less disturbed than the other woodlands on the Subject Property. There are several Manitoba Maple and Common Buckthorn that are also associated with this feature. In addition to the tree groupings and woodland patches, there are many individual trees scattered throughout the golf course. Most of these are recently planted specimens and are small. There are no rare or unusual tree groupings or individual trees on the Subject Property; however, as mentioned, there are several mature Sugar Maple, Red Oak, and Bitternut Hickory. One Eastern Cottonwood tree was identified in ELC unit 7b. This species is considered rare in the Region of Waterloo if demonstrably indigenous (i.e. not planted. The origin of the Eastern Cottonwood on the property is unknown; however, the tree is in poor condition having sustained heavy damage to the lower trunk and is not a suitable candidate for retention. Tree groupings associated with ELC units 2a, 2b, 2c, 2e, 4, 5, 7a, and 8 will not be affected by development; therefore, these vegetation units do not require further data collection and analysis. There are opportunities to restore or enhance the ecological quality of these woodlands through invasive Page 2

109 Can-Amera Pkwy Site Location and Context Figure Puslinch Lake Irish Creek Wetland Complex Saginaw Developments Corporation Franklin Blvd Townline Rd Legend Subject Property Road Area of Natural and Scientific Interest Significant Wetland Portuguese Swamp Bishop St N Green Vista Dr Burnette Ave Saginaw Pkwy Mill Creek Puslinch Wetland Complex First Base Solutions Web Mapping Service 20 Avenue Rd Mill Cre ek UTM Zone 7 N, NAD Metres :5,000 Project 227 November, 206

110 Ecological Communities Figure 2 Can-Amera Pkwy Country Club Dr Green Vista Dr Essex Point Dr Saginaw Developments Corporation Legend Subject Property Staked Wetland Boundary ELC Communities b 7a Anthropogenic - Golf Course (0a, 0b Cultural Meadow (6 Cultural Woodland (7a, 7b, 7c, 7d, 7e, 7f, 7g, 7h Deciduous Forest (2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 4, 5 Deciduous Swamp (8 c 2a 2b 2c 7h Meadow Marsh (9 Shallow Aquatic a, b, c Open Aquatic / Shallow Aquatic (a, b 2e a 2d 7d 7c 7b b a 4 0b B 0a 7e 7f 7g 6 Note: Wetland Boundary Staked May 2, 20 by Beacon Environmenal and the Grand River Conservation Authority. First Base Solutions Web Mapping Service 20 UTM Zone 7 N, NAD Metres :,500 Saginaw Pkwy Project 227 November, 206

111 T r e e M a n a g e m e n t P l a n - S a g i n a w D e v e l o p m e n t s species management and planting native species within and adjacent to the features as is discussed in the EIS (Beacon 205. A more detailed tree inventory was conducted for portions of the site within the proposed development footprint in order to identify opportunities for tree preservation. Page

112 T r e e M a n a g e m e n t P l a n - S a g i n a w S u b d i v i s i o n Table. General Summary of Treed ELC Communities ELC Unit 2a 2b 2c 2d 4 5 7a 7b 7c Vegetation Type Fresh-Moist Lowland Deciduous Forest Fresh-Moist Lowland Deciduous Forest Fresh-Moist Lowland Deciduous Forest Fresh-Moist Lowland Deciduous Forest Dry-Fresh Red Oak- Hardwood Deciduous Forest Fresh-Moist Poplar Deciduous Forest Cultural Woodland Cultural Woodland Cultural Woodland Tree Species composition Average DBH (cm Canopy closure ( Rare/Unusual Species or Heritage Trees Average Tree condition Sensitivity to disturbance Manitoba Maple None Fair Low Manitoba Maple None Fair Low Manitoba Maple None Fair Low Manitoba Maple None Fair Low Red Oak > > Bitternut Hickory > Manitoba Maple = Trembling Aspen 0 80 Mature Red Oak, Hickory Moderate Trembling Aspen >> = Manitoba Maple None Fair Low >> White Elm 80 None Fair Low Manitoba Maple > Crack Willow >> Eastern Eastern Cottonwood (poor Cottonwood condition Fair Low Sugar Maple >> Black Cherry = Manitoba Maple Mature Sugar Maple Fair Low Page 4

113 T r e e M a n a g e m e n t P l a n - S a g i n a w S u b d i v i s i o n ELC Unit 7d 7e 7f 7g 7h 7i 8 0 Vegetation Type Cultural Woodland Cultural Woodland Cultural Woodland Cultural Woodland Cultural Woodland Cultural Woodland Poplar Mineral Deciduous Swamp Anthropogenic - Golf Course Tree Species composition Average DBH (cm Canopy closure ( Rare/Unusual Species or Heritage Trees Average Tree condition Sensitivity to disturbance Sugar Maple > Manitoba Maple >> Black Cherry >> White Ash = Basswood Mature Sugar Maple Fair Low Manitoba Maple > Sugar Maple > Basswood = None Fair Low Manitoba Maple > Green Ash >> Black Cherry 5 80 None Fair Low White Ash >> 5 80 None Fair Low Manitoba Maple > White Ash > Black Cherry 5 80 None Fair Low > Trembling Aspen 8 80 None Fair Low Trembling Aspen >> Manitoba Maple None Fair Moderate, Ash, Manitoba Maple, Spruces Sugar Maple, etc. 25 <0 None Fair- Low Page 5

114 T r e e M a n a g e m e n t P l a n - S a g i n a w S u b d i v i s i o n. Detailed Vegetation Management Plan According to the City of Cambridge s Tree Management Policies and Guidelines for New Developments (April 999, Revised Feb. 2002, a Detailed Vegetation Management Plan is synonymous with a Tree Inventory. A tree inventory was completed for the Subject Property by an ISA Certified Arborist on June 29, September 8, and October 7, 20. Tree groupings as well as individual trees were inventoried and assessed in those areas overlapping with future development. Individual measuring 0 cm or greater in DBH were tagged with a numbered aluminum forestry tag. Information recorded for individual trees included:. Location (recorded during topographical survey of property 2. Species. DBH 4. Condition (assessed according to the following criteria: : dead branches less than 0, signs of good compartmentalization on any wounds, no structural defects Fair: 0-0 dead branches, size or occurrence of wounds presents some concerns, minor structural defects For Poor: more than 0 dead branches, weak compartmentalization, early leaf drop, presence of insects/disease, major structural defects Dead: tree exhibits no signs of life For tree groupings, rather than tag and assess all trees individually, these features were mapped and described as tree groups. The number of trees within each group was recorded and trees were categorized based on species and trunk diameter size (measured in DBH. A total of 07 trees were individually tagged and assessed and 2 tree groups were inventoried. The locations of individual trees and tree groups are illustrated on Figure 2. A detailed summary and evaluation of individual trees is provided in Appendix A. Trees range in size from 0 to 80 cm DBH, with a median DBH of 2 cm. Dominant species represented on the subject property include (, Manitoba Maple (Acer negundo, Green and White Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica, F. americana, Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum, spruces (Picea spp. Tree groups are summarized as follows. Tree Group A This grouping (which corresponds with ELC unit 7h consists predominantly of young to mid-aged Trembling Aspen and. Most of the trees are in fair condition. The species composition and size class distribution of trees in this grouping are summarized in Table 2. Page 6

115 T r e e M a n a g e m e n t P l a n - S a g i n a w S u b d i v i s i o n Table 2. Summary of Trees in Group A DBH Range (cm Species Common Name Total Populus tremuloides Trembling Aspen Amelancheier sp. Serviceberry Crataegus sp. Hawthorn Total: Dead Tree Group B This is a small grouping of and Common Buckthorn. There are 0 young trees ranging in size from 0 to 20 cm DBH, with a median DBH of 5 cm. Trees are generally in fair condition. Tree Group C This grouping consists mostly of. The species composition and size class distribution of trees in this grouping are summarized in Table. The trees are generally in fair condition; however, two trees were observed to be in poor condition. Table. Summary of Trees in Group B DBH Range (cm Species Common Name Total Fraxinus americana White Ash Acer negundo Manitoba Maple Total: Dead Tree Group D This is a small planted grouping of White Cedar trees generally ranging in size from 0-5 cm DBH. Tree Group E There are 9 trees in this grouping consisting mostly of Crack Willow and Manitoba Maple. Trees are generally in fair condition. One Eastern Cottonwood also occurs here; however this tree was observed Page 7

116 T r e e M a n a g e m e n t P l a n - S a g i n a w S u b d i v i s i o n to be poor condition, with significant damage to the base. The species composition and size class distribution of trees in this grouping are summarized in Table 4. Table 4. Summary of Trees in Group E Species Common Name DBH Range (cm Salix fragilis Crack Willow Acer negundo Manitoba Maple Populus Eastern deltoides Cottonwood Total Dead Tree Group F There are nine trees in this small grouping consisting mostly of Sugar Maple, which are generally in good condition. The species composition and size class distribution of trees in this grouping are summarized in Table 5. Table 5. Summary of Trees in Group F DBH Range (cm Species Common Name Total Acer saccharum Sugar Maple Acer negundo Manitoba Maple Total: Tree Group G There are 49 trees in this group, consisting mostly of Sugar Maple and Manitoba Maple in fair to good condition. The species composition and size class distribution of trees in this grouping are summarized in Table 6. Page 8

117 T r e e M a n a g e m e n t P l a n - S a g i n a w S u b d i v i s i o n Table 6. Summary of Trees in Group G Species Common Name DBH Range (cm Acer saccharum Sugar Maple Acer negundo Manitoba Maple Fraxinus americana White Ash Tilia americana Basswood Tota l Tree Group H This group consists of trees. The species composition and size class distribution of trees in this grouping are summarized in Table 7. Table 7. Summary of Trees in Group H DBH Range (cm Species Common Name Total Acer saccharum Sugar Maple - Acer negundo Manitoba Maple Fraxinus americana White Ash Tree Group I This grouping consists of 2 trees, most of which are Manitoba Maple. The species composition and size class distribution of trees in this grouping are summarized in Table 8. Table 8. Summary of Trees in Group I DBH Range (cm Species Common Name Total Fraxinus americana White Ash Acer negundo Manitoba Maple Page 9

118 T r e e M a n a g e m e n t P l a n - S a g i n a w S u b d i v i s i o n Tree Group J This grouping consists of one large White Ash (8 cm DBH, four smaller White Ash (2-25 cm DBH, and two 5 and 4 cm DBH. Tree Group K This group, which corresponds with ELC unit 2d, is dominated by Manitoba Maple (see Table 9. Common Buckthorn is also abundant. Table 9. Summary of Trees in Group K DBH Range (cm Species Common Name Total Acer negundo Manitoba Maple Populus balsamifera Balsam Poplar Tree Preservation and Compensation Plan According to the City of Cambridge Tree Management Policies and Guidelines for New Developments (April 999, Revised Feb. 2002, a Tree Preservation and Compensation Plan identifies opportunities for preservation of individual trees and tree groupings by considering the draft plan, grading and servicing plans, and makes recommendations for tree protection zones as well as replacement plantings. 4. Tree ion Recommendations A total of 04 trees identified in Appendix A and on Figures TP- and TP-2 are recommended for preservation. Additionally, treed ELC units 2a, 2b, 2c, 2e, 4, and 5 will be protected. The majority of these trees are located within the stormwater management and open space blocks. There is potential for damage to occur to trees during construction if proper precautions and protection measures are not implemented. Trees can be negatively impacted through grade changes, soil compaction, root cutting, and mechanical damage to trunks and branches resulting from the operation of construction equipment. Trees to be retained should be protected through the establishment of a tree protection zone (TPZ, which, in general, should be established at the dripline of the tree crowns. The TPZ should be Page 0

119 GREE N The Contractor shall verify all dimensions and confirm all site conditions on! the project prior to submitting bid. Any discrepencies or ambiguities are to be reported to the project Landscape Architect and or Arborist for clarification prior to proceeding with any works.!! The Contractor is to be aware of all existing and proposed services and utilities. The Contractor is responsible for having all underground services and utility lines staked by each agency having jurisdiction prior to commencing the work.!! All existing trees which are to remain shall be fully protected with hoarding as specified of this plan and Tree ion Fencing Detail on Sheet TP-2.!! The applicant is responsible for ensuring that tree protection hoarding! is maintained throughout all phases of construction in the location and condition as approved by the City.! : : : : : : : : : : : X MA : REVISIONS 2 Second Submission 6 / / 09 SC First Submission 5 / 08 / 26 SC DATE: : PA TH W AY : 5: 5: SE UL TI -U M. 0m 5: : : 6: SS CE AC CE AN TE N MA IN E W ID T EX 8.7 BY: SCEAL 0 2. A S S O CIA X MA :.46 m : EX..09 EX. 6 k. Bl ET E R ST 6 k. Bl Nº JADE CRESCENT FL N O A ND IO P H AN CRI S S 5: 5: : 6: O TW 2.2 Topographic information prepared by MTE Engineering! Site Plan information prepared by MHBC P TE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION! UNLESS SIGNED & DATED IO k. Bl UR O F T EE R ST k. Bl k..72 Bl E RE H T ET E R ST Buf fer m MA X : k : Bl ! C NE O ST IN R A EX.9 M E M B ER EX P E A RCH I AX k. Bl 4 AX M : E IV R D CA 8. TP-2 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS SIGNED & DATED EX 8. 5 CLIENT : EX R U R ST C LONGH T ESCEN PROJECT : Pre-Clearing Operation 7. IN The Contractor is to have the required Municipality Tree Removal Permit in hands prior to the removal of any trees.the Contractor shall keep a copy of the Tree Removal Permit on site while performing the any works.!! It is the responsibility of the Contractor and / or Owner to ensure that the drawings with the latest revisions are used for construction.! TREE PROTECTION FENCE M EX TREE TAG NUMBER S : CB 4 T. F U G= T/ : CB 4 T. F U G= T/ T : se k. ou Bl ownh AX.8 5: : : M 5.5 Blk GROUPING OF TREES TO BE REMOVED : Walkway : CB 4 T. F U G= T/ : : : : AX M 0.8 Blk : : : m.0 er 5 w d Se t e os ry en op ita m Pr San ase E 4. : WE TL A : m : CB 4 T. F U G= T/ FF ER IB = BU Fd. 0.5 ion dit W Ad CS t Lo m S : BLOCK 76 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT : LP ND : TREES TO BE REMOVED FF ER : 6: WETLA ND FF ER BU BU E LIN ING DRIP 5m RAD FG IT O LIM AW IN AG 0.5 W CS R PA 5: FER BU F m ND W ET LA W ET LA 5: : LIMIT OF Saginaw! Developments Corporation General : 5: E IN : L IP : m m ND W 5.57EX m CS.7 9 6: DR EX Y WA ATH EP I-US ULT 5m AY W K mm : 5: Blk St N.0 : : EX.. ( Elgin EX TREES TO BE TRANSPLANTED GROUPING OF TREES TO BE PRESERVED.EX TREES TO BE PRESERVED. EX a WOODLOT NO TOUCH LIMIT.04EX WETLAND BUFFER 0M Page of WETLAND LIMIT! (Staked By GRCA May 2, 20. EX 6.0 BU FF ER EX. ND : MAX W ET LA m EX FF ER W GROUP K FF ER M BU BU ? : MAX.0 ND W ET LA ND e Rd LEGEND BLOCK 78 EXISTING WETLAND OPEN SPACE DI NG ND ET LA 6.8 IT OF GR A W ET L. A m CS W CS m : 9.8 LP..6 T TWO STREE m EX 2 m. W W ( ffer 6.0m Bu : MAX : MAX W CS m Blk. 68.5m CS ( ( IT OF LIM LP ffer 6.0m Bu W.5m CS : MAX EX LIM :.EX. AX KEY PLAN : M : 5: 0.67EX D : WETLAN :.78EX R : R : Avenu UFFE UFFE : ND B LIMIT OF lk. B CS m WET LA 0.07EX. W W.5m CS GROUP J W CS m r ffe Bu m 6. EX P 2L E ON m AX WET LA ND B : : : 4.6 Sa gina w 209 5m 5: GROUP D 7 2. : T EE R ST B lk CS m GROUP F GROUP E M BLOCK 77 PARK G 6: EX EX ADIN 2 22 SE PA THW AY :.7 AX W EX P EX TW O W C m l k GROUP I CS 9 2. BLOCK 75 MULTIPLE RESDIDENTIAL EX ET SW m B W CS m m : 0.5 CS ST RE EX CS W H m W CS AX B.0m M : m AX M er uff W CS m W GROUP G 0.5 E ON T EE R ST GROUP H ( AX. 6.6 M : AX M : : IVE : AX M m 6..8 Bu r ffe AX M : : AX M A M : X R OF G SITE 5: 6: Fd. CC?? NT 2.2 0m r ffe u B CE ES N EE D 2.67 EX C SW CR A ST I V VE RI LIMIT 6: 5: 22 GR ULTI-U 5: 2.4 N EE.0m M.5m R GR AD T S VI 220 DRIVE on Dr CTS O NTA R RD FO AW Sheld TE CR 2.2 VISTA Prior to site disturbance the owner must confirm that no migratory birds are making use of the site for nesting.!! The owner must ensure that the works are in conformance with the Migratory Bird Convention Act and that no migratory bird nests will be impacted by the proposed work. Vegetation clearing work to be undertaken outside of the key migration bird nesting period.!! The Contractor shall mark trees to be removed as specified on this drawing and he shall review this work with the Project Arborist and or Project Landscape Architect prior to commencing any work on site.!! The Contractor is required to install all tree protection hoarding first and obtain approval by the Project Arborist and the City Forestry Deparment prior to undertaking any vegetation clearing, demolition and grading works on site.!! Trees identified for preservation are not to be damaged during tree removal operations. Where required, trees are to be pruned according to arboricultural standards. During Construction The tree protection fence shall be maintained erect and in good condition throughout the duration of the construction project with breaks and unsupported sections repaired immediately.!! No rigging cables shall be wrapped around or installed or installed in trees and surplus soil, equipment, debris, or materials shall not be placed over root systems of the trees within the protective fencing.!! Do not burn waste near trees or flush concrete truck or cement mixing machines over or near where feeder roots systems exist.!! The developer and his or her agents shall take every precaution necessary to prevent damage to trees to be retained.!! Where limbs or portions of trees are removed to accomodate construction work, they will be removed carefully in accordance with accepted arboricultural practice.!! Where root systems are protected trees are exposed directly adjacent to or damaged by construction work they shall be trimmed neatly and the area back filled with approprite material to prevent disiccation.!! Where necessary, the trees will be given an overall pruning to restore balance between the roots and top growth or to restore the appearance of the tree.! Trees identified for removal shall be cut and removed off-site. All wood chips shall be hauled and disposed off site.!! Tree protection fence may not be removed prior to the completion of construction without final inspection and written authorization from the Project Arborist or Project Landscape Architect.!! Trees that have died or have have been damaged betond repair, shall be removed and replaced by the owner at his own expense with trees of a size and species approved by the City.!! 24 Saginaw Parkway! Cambridge, Ontario! NT Z2 SHEET TITLE TREE PRESERVATION! & REMOVAL PLAN DESIGN BY: SC DRAWN BY: SC CHECKED BY: DW DATE: November 206 SCALE: : 000 PROJECT Nº: 227 SHEET Nº: TP-

120 TREE INVENTORY TABLE 5: 5: : : BLOCK 65 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT 88 : : 87 : EX. 5m DRIPLINE BUFFER 2.28EX..72EX. OF GRAD 0 LIMIT.7 EX. : EX. ING.9EX..7 2 GROUP L : 08.9EX y Wa lkw a 6.0m X A : M X A : M St N n GROUPING OF TREES TO BE REMOVED 59 TREE TAG NUMBER TREE PROTECTION FENCE m TP-2 Topographic information prepared by MTE Engineering! Site Plan information prepared by MHBC Nº REVISIONS DATE: 2 Second Submission 6 / / 09 SC First Submission 5 / 06 / 22 SC BY: SCEAL FL N O A ND IO P H AN CRI S P TE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION! UNLESS SIGNED & DATED IO r Buffe 45 CSW TREES TO BE REMOVED X A : M AREA UNDER CONSTRUCTION X 4 A : M X A : M X A : M,200mm HIGH PAIGE WIRE FARM FENCE PROJECT : 600 ET STRE CSW.5m N SEVE 4 TREES TO BE TRANSPLANTED 6.0m To o h Town BU AV RNE EN TT UE X A : M W m CS ET STRE 2 wnho 4 Blk. 6 use CSW.5m CSW.5m N SEVE CSW.5m r A : M X Bl k LP Blk. 6 use 6 ET STRE X WOODLOT NO TOUCH LIMIT 2.4 NOTES: A : M AREA TO BE PROTECTED PAIGE WIRE FARM FENCE CSW 2 Blk Buffe SIX 7 8 r Buffe 50 o h Town X A : M 5 4 Blk. 6 use CSW.5m STRE CSW.5m 0 2 X A : M 6.0m.5m X A : M GROUPING OF TREES TO BE PRESERVED SILT FENCE FABRIC (SEE NOTE, r TREES TO BE PRESERVED.0 m. SET BACK FROM DRIPLINE WHERE POSSIBLE FILTER FABRIC TERRAFIX 270R OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT Buffe Blk LP m o CSW.5m IX ET S r Buffe m X STAPLES A : M WETLAND BUFFER 5M Remove - dead Remove - dead Transplant Transplant Transplant MAX. SPACING = 2.4m SUPPORT POST TO BE SET IN FIRM GROUND good trunk, large crown, included bark in branch unions WETLAND LIMIT! (Staked By GRCA May 2, 20 P E A RCH I CSW Fair- minor branch dieback Fair-Poor Fair- Poor Fair- Fair Fair- Fair Fair- Fair Dead Fair- Fair- Fair Dead/ one live trunk, one dead Fair- Fair Fair/Dead Dead Dead Fair Poor Fair Fair Dead Dead Poor Fair- Fair Fair Fair-Poor Fair Fair Fair- Fair Fair Fair Fair-Poor not tagged, premature leaf drop, bunches of epicormics Fair- Fair LEGEND NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS SIGNED & DATED / /27 24/6 6 20/ 9/20 5/6 26/ / /0 9/0 5 20/ /20 2/5 2/ / / /80/50/ // /27 2/20/ /0/ five broken branches/stubs damage/decay to base, branch dieback, poor form KEY PLAN m White Oak White Oak White Oak White Oak White Oak White Oak White Oak White Elm Green Ash Green Ash Sugar Maple Reddish Willow White Pine White Pine Norway Spruce Norway Spruce Norway Spruce White Pine White Pine Colorado Blue Spruce Bur Oak White Pine White Spruce White Spruce White Spruce White Spruce Manitoba Maple Sugar Maple Little-leaf Linden Green Ash White Cedar White Cedar White Cedar Green Ash Freeman's Maple Green Ash Freeman's Maple Freeman's Maple Freeman's Maple Green Ash Sugar Maple Sugar Maple Freeman's Maple Freeman's Maple Green Ash Norway Maple Colorado Blue Spruce Norway Maple Norway Maple Spruce species Bur Oak Manitoba Maple Freeman's Maple Green Ash Freeman's Maple Spruce species Bur Oak Bitternut Hickory Green Ash Green Ash Green Ash Green Ash Freeman's Maple Redbud Sugar Maple Freeman's Maple Green Ash Green Ash White Oak Manitoba Maple epicormics, good form epicormics, minor twig dieback asymmetric crown, a few epicormics Asymmetric crown, slight lean one hanger, slight lean codominant stems, twig dieback, fair form small open wound, good vigour e Rd M E M B ER 55a White Elm Quercus alba Quercus alba Quercus alba Quercus alba Quercus alba Quercus alba Quercus alba Ulmus americana Fraxinus pennsylvanica Fraxinus pennsylvanica Acer saccharum Salix x rubens Pinus strobus Pinus strobus Picea abies Picea abies Picea abies Pinus strobus Pinus strobus Picea pungens Quercus macrocarpa Pinus strobus Picea glauca Picea glauca Picea glauca Picea glauca Acer negundo Acer saccharum Tilia cordata Fraxinus pennsylvanica Thuja occidentalis Thuja occidentalis Thuja occidentalis Fraxinus pennsylvanica Acer x freemanii Fraxinus pennsylvanica Acer x freemanii Acer x freemanii Acer x freemanii Fraxinus pennsylvanica Acer saccharum Acer saccharum Acer x freemanii Acer x freemanii Fraxinus pennsylvanica Acer platanoides Picea pungens Acer platanoides Acer platanoides Picea sp. Quercus macrocarpa Acer negundo Acer x freemanii Fraxinus pennsylvanica Acer x freemanii Picea sp. Quercus macrocarpa Carya cordiformis Fraxinus pennsylvanica Fraxinus pennsylvanica Fraxinus pennsylvanica Fraxinus pennsylvanica Acer x freemanii Cercis canadensis Acer saccharum Acer x freemanii Fraxinus pennsylvanica Fraxinus pennsylvanica Quercus alba Acer negundo Base damage, a few epicormics Avenu Ulmus americana a 02a 59a leaf tar spot epicormics from base; tar spot tar spot tar spot, several poor prune cuts large open wound on lower trunk with decaying heartwood, bark peeling around root flare, large dead limb, twig dieback codominant leaders, stems crossing/rubbing slight lean, small open wound Sa gina w IN : MAX : MAX fair form, good vigour, fruiting fair form, one limb with large open wound, twig die-back asymmetric crown, a few epicormics, fruiting asymmetric crown, good vigour one trunk leaning good vigour, smaller trunk with 45 degree lean, sprawling twig dieback, irregular crown, broken limb, many epicormics, fair vigour large old open wound on lower trunk, good vigour and crown form CSW HP m Fair- Dead Fair Fair Fair- Fair Fair- Fair- Poor Fair- fruiting, good vigour, fair form on Dr SITE Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Far Fair Fair Fair-Poor Fair-Poor Dead Dead Fair- Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Poor Fair Fair- Fair Fair- Fair-Poor Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair- Fair Fair Fair- Fair- Fair- Poor Fair- Fair-Poor /6 26/ /20/7 Pinus strobus Betula papyrifera Betula papyrifera Betula papyrifera Pinus strobus Quercus alba branch dieback, uneven crown asymmetric crown, good vigour Sheld CA h Town P..9 8 H m X A : M r Buffe /29 26 / /0 0/0 /0 2/2/ /5/ / / // 0// 2/ // /28/ /25 0/5/6/9/2 9/9/ unions with included bark, large patch of soft discolored bark - appears to originate from branch stub, several small dead branches, large crown a few small dead branches Codominant stems asymmetric crown, large 2 m long open wound up lower trunk Significant lean scraggly asymmetric crown Short/stunted, numerous sapsucker holes Remove - condition Remove - dead Remove - dead Transplant Transplant Transplant Transplant Transplant Both trunks leaning Transplant Transplant Transplant Transplant Transplant Transplant Transplant trunks leaning, sprawling form, good vigour large open wound with evident fungus, asymmetric crown good vigour codominant stems, included bark developing Transplant EAB- D-shaped holes Transplant good vigour good vigour good vigour good vigour dieback at top good vigour Transplant good form and vigour good form and vigour Transplant good vigour, uneven crown patch of damage/decay on upper main trunk, fair form, good vigour slight asymmetric crown fair vigour, good form good vigour, uneven crown, over-extended branch good vigour, uneven crown fair form, good vigour included bark in crotch, good vigour in decline, three trunks dead, dieback in others Transplant good vigour, many epicormic branches four broken branches/stubs, good vigour 44 White Pine White Birch White Birch White Birch White Pine White Oak Recommendations Transplant Transplant S Blk Blk. 6 use X A : M : : ACCESS : 4: 4.0m WI DE MAINT ENANCE FUT.CB 4.70 T/G= RIVE FUT.CB 5. T/G= TD POIN X E ESS ESSE RIVE INT D X PO FUT.CB 4.2 T/G= ( GROUP! B FUT.CB 4.7 T/G= B CSW lk m Blk : MAX EX CSW LP m : MAX GROUP A G EX.. EX EX EX GRADIN WETLA ND LIMIT OF Blk CSW Blk.6. EX EX m LP CSW 0.5 : MAX LIMIT OF. EX BLOCK 66 PARK m EX EX BLOCK 68 EXISTING WETLAND OPEN SPACE EX. : ON FALC WETLAND LIMIT OF 9 : ER AND BUFF Scotch Pine White Cedar White Cedar White Cedar White Spruce White Spruce European Ash Norway Spruce Swamp White Oak European Ash Swamp White Oak Swamp White Oak Green Ash Green Ash Swamp White Oak Sugar Maple Freeman's Maple Freeman's Maple Green Ash Green Ash Little-leaf Linden Sugar Maple European Ash Swamp White Oak European Ash Colorado Blue Spruce European Ash European Ash Swamp White Oak Colorado Blue Spruce Colorado Blue Spruce Colorado Blue Spruce Colorado Blue Spruce Colorado Blue Spruce White Cedar White Cedar White Cedar White Cedar Freeman's Maple Freeman's Maple White Spruce White Spruce Manitoba Maple Manitoba Maple Bitternut Hickory Bitternut Hickory Green Ash Green Ash Manitoba Maple White Ash Manitoba Maple Bitternut Hickory Manitoba Maple White Cedar White Cedar White Cedar White Cedar White Cedar White Cedar Sugar Maple Green Ash Green Ash Swamp White Oak Bur Oak Green Ash Manitoba Maple Manitoba Maple Sugar Maple Sugar Maple White Ash Sugar Maple White Ash White Ash White Ash White Ash White Ash Green Ash Sugar Maple Green Ash Green Ash White Birch Manitoba Maple Trembling Aspen Trembling Aspen Trembling Aspen Hawthorn species Sugar Maple Apple species White Pine Top and upper branches dead Thin foliage, large area of missing bark on lower trunk Codominant stems 62 Comments significant lean, rocks piles around base, many epicormics top dead, spindly m WETL T COUR 0.2EX. Pinus sylvestris Thuja occidentalis Thuja occidentalis Thuja occidentalis Picea glauca Picea glauca Fraxinus excelsior Picea abies Quercus bicolor Fraxinus excelsior Quercus bicolor Quercus bicolor Fraxinus pennsylvanica Fraxinus pennsylvanica Quercus bicolor Acer saccharum Acer x freemanii Acer x freemanii Fraxinus pennsylvanica Fraxinus pennsylvanica Tilia cordata Acer saccharum Fraxinus excelsior Quercus bicolor Fraxinus excelsior Picea pungens Fraxinus excelsior Fraxinus excelsior Quercus bicolor Picea pungens Picea pungens Picea pungens Picea pungens Picea pungens Thuja occidentalis Thuja occidentalis Thuja occidentalis Thuja occidentalis Acer x freemanii Acer x freemanii Picea glauca Picea glauca Acer negundo Acer negundo Carya cordiformis Carya cordiformis Fraxinus pennsylvanica Fraxinus pennsylvanica Acer negundo Fraxinus americana Acer negundo Carya cordiformis Acer negundo Thuja occidentalis Thuja occidentalis Thuja occidentalis Thuja occidentalis Thuja occidentalis Thuja occidentalis Acer saccharum Fraxinus pennsylvanica Fraxinus pennsylvanica Quercus bicolor Quercus macrocarpa Fraxinus pennsylvanica Acer negundo Acer negundo Acer saccharum Acer saccharum Fraxinus americana Acer saccharum Fraxinus americana Fraxinus americana Fraxinus americana Fraxinus americana Fraxinus americana Fraxinus pennsylvanica Acer saccharum Fraxinus pennsylvanica Fraxinus pennsylvanica Betula papyrifera Acer negundo Populus tremuloides Populus tremuloides Populus tremuloides Crataegus sp. Acer saccharum Malus sp. Pinus strobus Fair Significant lean (45 degrees Condition Fair Fair-Poor Fair Fair-Poor Fair Fair- Fair- Fair- Fair- F Fair-Poor Fair CTS O NTA R : BUFFER ETLAND 5m W Top of tree bent over 90 degrees DBH (cm / /2 55/ /9 5/ N O TI C W O RE DI FL F O SILT PROTECTION SHALL CONSIST OF FILTER CLOTH! (TERRAFIX 270R OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT BURIED! 0. METRES IN THE GROUND,.0 METRE HIGH AND! SECURED TO WIRE FARM FENCE WITH 'T' POSTS AT! 2.4 METRES CENTERS. ALL SILTATION CONTROL MEASURES TO BE MAINTAINED! AND PERIODICALLY REPLACE FILTER CLOTH AS DIRECTED! BY THE TOWN ENGINEER. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETRES OR! METRES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. MIN. 0.m 0. x 0.m TRENCH COMPACTED BACKFILL FILTER FABRIC SHOULD BE A WOVEN, CLASS! I GEOTEXTILE HAVING A WIDTH OF m MINIMUM.! IT SHALL HAVE A FILTRATION OPENING SIZE! (FOS OF 840 MICROMETRES MAXIMUM, MEETING! CAN/CGSB 8., METHOD 0.2. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE SECURED TO THE PAIGE WIRE FENCE! WITH GALVANIZED WIRE.!! SEDIMENT ACCUMULATIONS TO BE REMOVED WHEN SILLT REACH! ONE THIRD OF THE WAY TO THE TOP OF THE SILT FENCE. SILT FENCE SUPPORT POSTS SHOULD BE SET! A MINIMUM OF 600mm INTO THE GROUND. TP-2 Saginaw! Developments Corporation 24 Saginaw Parkway! Cambridge, Ontario! NT Z2 SURFACE FLOW 00 8 White Mulberry Codominant stems Common Name Manitoba Maple Green Ash Green Ash Manitoba Maple Dotted Hawthorn Cottonwood Sugar Maple European Mountain-Ash Manitoba Maple Sugar Maple Sugar Maple Freeman's Maple Freeman's Maple Freeman's Maple Freeman's Maple 220 : Morus alba Codominant stems significant lean, large open wound mid trunk, poor form, good vigour Species Acer negundo Fraxinus pennsylvanica Fraxinus pennsylvanica Acer negundo Crataegus punctata Populus deltoides Acer saccharum Sorbus aucuparia Acer negundo Acer saccharum Acer saccharum Acer x freemanii Acer x freemanii Acer x freemanii Acer x freemanii SHEET TITLE DO NOT EXCAVATE WITHIN TREE ROOT ZONES 0.60 : One trunk fallen over Tree ID T : Hollow trunk, massive open wound along trunk, large fungal bodies Forked at 8 m, one fork broken off ragged branch stub Uneven crown Bend in trunk, many epicormics Slight lean, fair form, lots of epicormics Severe lean Recommendation Remove - condition Remove development/grading Remove development/grading Transplant Transplant Remove fallen log; remaining trunks Transplant Transplant St N Comments Open wound near base. vigour with large full crown S GROUP C Condition Fair- Fair- Poor Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair-Poor Fair- Fair-Poor Fair-Poor Poor Fair Fair Fair Fair-Poor Fair A S S O CIA 86 DBH (cm /0/22 25/26/2 /5/25/ / / / gi 00 0 Common Name Red Oak White Ash Manitoba Maple Manitoba Maple Manitoba Maple Manitoba Maple White Cedar White Cedar White Cedar White Cedar Manitoba Maple Manitoba Maple Manitoba Maple White Ash White Cedar White Cedar Manitoba Maple Green Ash Manitoba Maple Norway Spruce Norway Spruce Green Ash White Elm Manitoba Maple Manitoba Maple Manitoba Maple Nannyberry White Pine Cottonwood Sugar Maple European Ash Ironwood Sugar Maple El 99 Species Quercus rubra Fraxinus americana Acer negundo Acer negundo Acer negundo Acer negundo Thuja occidentalis Thuja occidentalis Thuja occidentalis Thuja occidentalis Acer negundo Acer negundo Acer negundo Fraxinus americana Thuja occidentalis Thuja occidentalis Acer negundo Fraxinus pennsylvanica Acer negundo Picea abies Picea abies Fraxinus pennsylvanica Ulmus americana Acer negundo Acer negundo Acer negundo Viburnum lentago Pinus strobus Populus deltoides Acer saccharum Fraxinus excelsior Ostrya virginiana Acer saccharum Elgin Tree ID TE a BLOCK PARK FENCE TO BE SECURED WITH 2,440mm HIGH IRON T-BAR STAKES 000mm O.C. TREE PRESERVATION! & REMOVAL PLAN PLASTIC LOCKING TIE WRAP OR GALVANIZED WIRE 250mm O.C. IRON T-BAR STAKES LOCATED 000M O.C. PAIGE WIRE FENCE FILTER FABRIC mm 600 R OVE L AP JOINTING DETAIL NTS DESIGN BY: SC DRAWN BY: SC CHECKED BY: DW COMBINED SILT FENCE AND TREE PROTECTION FENCING DATE: November 206 NTS SCALE: : 000 PROJECT Nº: 227 SHEET Nº: TP-2