55 & 75 Cityview Drive Property Scoped Environmental...

55 & 75 Cityview Drive Property Scoped Environmental Impact Study

Prepared for:

Robert Saroli Debrob Investments Limited

85 Parkshore Drive Brampton, Ontario

L6T 5M1

Project No. 924 Date: July 2013

225 Labrador Drive, Unit 1, Waterloo, Ontario, N2K 4M8 Tel: (519) 725-2227 Web: www.nrsi.on.ca Email: [email protected]

55 & 75 Cityview Drive Property Scoped Environmental Impact Study

Project Team:

Staff Role

David Stephenson Project Advisor, Senior Biologist, Certified Arborist

Tara Brenton Project Manager, Terrestrial/Wetland Biologist, Certified Arborist

Jessica Linton Terrestrial/Wetland Biologist

Pamela Tucciarone Terrestrial/Wetland Biologist, Certified Arborist

Brett Woodman Terrestrial/Wetland Biologist, Certified Arborist

Christy Humphrey Terrestrial/Wetland Biologist

Pat Deacon Terrestrial/Wetland Biologist

Phil Anderson Aquatic Biologist

Kaitlin Boddaert G.I.S Mapping

Gerry Schaus G.I.S Mapping

Report submitted on July 31, 2013

_________________________________

Tara Brenton, Project Manager

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction......................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Study Area ............................................................................................................ 3

1.2 Proposed Undertaking .......................................................................................... 4

1.3 Project Scoping .................................................................................................... 6

2.0 Relevant Policies, Legislation and Planning Studies ....................................... 9

2.1 Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 ......................................................................... 9

2.1.1 Natural Heritage Reference Manual ......................................................... 10

2.1.2 Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide ............................................. 10

2.2 Endangered Species Act, 2013 .......................................................................... 11

2.3 Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 ................................................................. 13

2.4 City of Guelph Official Plan, 2012 Consolidation ................................................. 14

2.4.1 Official Plan Amendment 42 (OPA 42) ..................................................... 14

2.5 GRCA Ontario Regulation 150/06 ....................................................................... 15

2.6 Municipal Tree By-law and Tree Protection Guidelines ....................................... 16

3.0 Field Survey Methods ....................................................................................... 17

3.1 Field Surveys ...................................................................................................... 17

3.2 Vegetation Surveys............................................................................................. 17

3.2.1 Vegetation Community Mapping .............................................................. 17

3.2.2 Vascular Flora Inventories ........................................................................ 17

3.2.3 Wetland Boundary Delineation ................................................................. 17

3.2.4 Tree Inventory and Assessment ............................................................... 19

3.3 Wildlife Surveys .................................................................................................. 20

3.3.1 Breeding Bird Surveys ............................................................................. 20

3.3.2 Breeding Amphibian Surveys ................................................................... 20

3.3.3 Snake Coverboard Surveys ..................................................................... 21

3.3.4 Turtle Surveys .......................................................................................... 21

3.3.5 Other Wildlife Surveys .............................................................................. 21

3.3.6 Aquatic Habitat Survey ............................................................................. 22

4.0 Existing Conditions .......................................................................................... 24

4.1 Physiography and Soils ...................................................................................... 24

4.2 Surface Water Drainage and Hydrology .............................................................. 24

4.3 Designated Natural Areas ................................................................................... 26

4.4 Vegetation .......................................................................................................... 27

4.4.1 Vegetation Communities .......................................................................... 27

4.4.2 Vascular Flora .......................................................................................... 32

4.4.3 Tree Inventory .......................................................................................... 32

4.5 Wildlife ................................................................................................................ 34

4.5.1 Birds ........................................................................................................ 34

4.5.2 Herpetofauna ........................................................................................... 39

4.5.3 Mammals ................................................................................................. 42

4.5.4 Lepidoptera .............................................................................................. 43

4.5.5 Odonata ................................................................................................... 44

4.6 Aquatic Environment ........................................................................................... 44

5.0 Significance and Sensitivity of Natural Features ........................................... 47

5.1 Wetlands ............................................................................................................ 47

5.1.1 Clythe Creek PSW ................................................................................... 49

5.1.2 Non-Provincially Significant Wetlands ...................................................... 49

5.2 Woodlands ......................................................................................................... 52

5.3 Significant Wildlife Habitat .................................................................................. 54

5.3.1 Seasonal Concentration Areas ................................................................. 55

5.3.2 Rare Vegetation Communities ................................................................. 55

5.3.3 Specialized Wildlife Habitat ...................................................................... 56

5.3.4 Habitat of Species of Conservation Concern ............................................ 56

5.3.5 Animal Movement Corridors ..................................................................... 58

5.4 Habitat for Locally Significant Species ................................................................ 59

5.5 Valleylands ......................................................................................................... 60

6.0 Stewardship Plan .............................................................................................. 61

6.1 Natural Area Enhancement and Restoration ....................................................... 61

6.2 Invasive Shrub Removal ..................................................................................... 64

6.3 Tree Retention Areas .......................................................................................... 65

7.0 Impact Analysis ................................................................................................ 66

7.1 Approach to Impact Analysis .............................................................................. 66

7.2 Direct Impacts ..................................................................................................... 66

7.2.1 Wetland Removal ..................................................................................... 67

7.2.2 Tree Removal .......................................................................................... 67

7.2.3 Wildlife and Their Habitats ....................................................................... 68

7.2.4 Site Grading ............................................................................................. 70

7.3 Indirect Impacts .................................................................................................. 70

7.3.1 Sediment and Erosion .............................................................................. 70

7.3.2 Changes to Groundwater and Surface Water Flow Patterns .................... 71

7.3.3 Changes to Surface and Groundwater Quality ......................................... 72

7.3.4 Management of Stormwater Quantity and Quality .................................... 73

7.3.5 Protected Natural Features and Wildlife Habitats ..................................... 74

7.4 Induced Impacts ................................................................................................. 76

7.5 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................ 76

8.0 Mitigation and Recommendations ................................................................... 80

8.1 Construction and Design Related Mitigation ....................................................... 80

8.2 Monitoring Plan ................................................................................................... 81

8.2.1 Pre-Construction Monitoring ..................................................................... 81

8.2.2 During Construction Monitoring ................................................................ 81

8.2.3 During Construction Sighting Protocols .................................................... 82

8.2.4 Migratory Bird Convention Act .................................................................. 83

8.2.5 Post Construction Monitoring ................................................................... 83

9.0 Summary and Conclusion ................................................................................ 85

10.0 References ........................................................................................................ 87

List of Tables

Table 1. Summary of Field Surveys .............................................................................. 18 Table 2. Summary of Tree Species Inventoried ............................................................ 33 Table 3. Bird SAR and SCC Reported from the Study Area ......................................... 36 Table 4. Herpetofauna SAR and SCC Reported from the Study Area .......................... 40

List of Figures

Figure 1. 55 & 75 Cityview Drive Study Area and Natural Features ................................ 2 Figure 2. Cityview Drive Draft Plan of Subdivision .......................................................... 5 Figure 3. Monitoring Stations ........................................................................................ 23 Figure 4. Vegetation Communities ............................................................................... 31 Figure 5. Natural Environment Constraints ................................................................... 48 Figure 6. Stewardship Plan .......................................................................................... 62

List of Appendices Appendix I Cityview Drive Property Terms of Reference Appendix II Cityview Drive Draft EIS November 2011 – Agency Comments Appendix III Significant Wildlife Habitat Screening Appendix IV Tree Protection Plan Appendix V Vascular Flora Species Observed in the Subject Property Appendix VI Bird Species Reported from the Study Area Appendix VII Herpetofauna Species Reported from the Study Area Appendix VIII Mammal Species Reported from the Study Area Appendix IX Lepidoptera Species Reported from the Study Area Appendix X Odonata Species Reported from the Study Area Appendix XI Aquatic Investigation Photos Appendix XII Migratory Bird Convention Act Factsheet

Natural Resource Solutions Inc. 1 55 & 75 Cityview Drive Property – Scoped EIS

1.0 Introduction

Natural Resource Solutions Inc. (NRSI) was retained by IBI Group on behalf of Debrob

Investments Limited to complete a Scoped Environmental Impact Study (EIS) for a

proposed residential development on the 55 & 75 Cityview Drive property in the City of

Guelph, Ontario. The subject property is located within the Clythe Creek subwatershed,

northwest of the intersection of York Road and Watson Parkway in Guelph (Figure 1).

The landowner is proposing to develop the 55 & 75 Cityview Drive property as a

residential neighbourhood, which will include a variety of housing types, a road network,

open spaces and parks.

Residential development is also proposed for the neighbouring properties to the east

(Starwood Drive) and south (Cityview Ridge) shown on Figure 1. Separate EISs have

been prepared for the Starwood Drive and Cityview Ridge properties by NRSI (2013)

and North-South Environmental (2012), respectively, to address constraints and

potential impacts associated with these properties. These reports and their findings

were referred to during the development of this report.

The study team is comprised of IBI Group, Anderson GeoLogic Limited, Chung &

Vander Doelen Engineering, and NRSI. IBI Group led the development of the Draft Plan

of Subdivision as well as completion of the revised preliminary Stormwater Management

Report (IBI Group 2013a) that was completed in 2007 by Planning & Engineering

Initiatives Ltd. (PEIL), as well as the Functional Servicing Report (IBI 2013b). Anderson

GeoLogic Limited completed a hydrogeological investigation within the subject property

focusing on an examination of groundwater flows and wetland recharge (Anderson

GeoLogic 2013). Chung & Vander Doelen Engineering Ltd. completed a geotechnical

investigation (2006) and slope stability assessment (2007) for the Cityview Drive

property. This report provides a summary of background information on the natural

heritage features, results of original field surveys and also incorporates the results of the

stormwater management plan prepared by IBI Group (2013a) and the hydrogeological

assessment prepared by Anderson Geologic (2013). An impact analysis is provided that

compares the natural features on the subject property to the details of the proposed

development. This impact study has been developed in accordance with applicable

environmental policies which are outlined in Section 2 of this report.

CITYVIEW RIDGE PROPERTY

WATSON-STARWOOD PROPERTY

SILURIAN DR

YORK RD

WATSON PKY N

CEDARVALE AVE

CITYVIEW DR

KEAT

ING

ST

PETT

ITT D

R

563000

563000

563200

563200

563400

563400

563600

563600

563800

563800

4823

400

4823

400

4823

600

4823

600

4823

800

4823

800

4824

000

4824

000

55 & 75 Cityview Drive

´ 0 50 100 150Meters

NAD83 - UTM Zone 17Scale: 1:3,000 (11x17")

Airphoto: 2006Project: NRSI-0924Date: July 29, 2013

Figure 1

LegendSubject PropertyWatson-Starwood Property

Ephemeral Drainage

Surveyed wetland boundary confirmed by GRCA - June 8, 2009Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) & OPA 42 - Significant NaturalAreaNon-Provinically Significant Wetlands

OPA 42 - 'Other' Valleylands

OPA 42 - Cultural Woodland

X:\0924_CityViewDrive\NRSI_0924_Fig1_StudyArea_NaturalHeritage_3K_2013_07_29_KEB.mxd

Study Area and Natural Heritage Features

This map is proprietary and confidential and must not be duplicatedor distributed by any means without the express written permissionof Natural Resource Solutions Inc. (NRSI).

Produced using information under license with the Grand River Conservation Authority, copyright Grand River Conservation Authority.

Produced using information provided under license by theMinistry of Natural Resources, copyright the Queen's Printer ofOntario. Imagery: First Base Solutions, 2010.


1.1 Study Area

For the purposes of this report, the term „subject property‟ refers to the 55 & 75 Cityview

Drive property where the residential development is proposed to occur (Figure 1). The

term „study area‟ refers to the subject property plus the surrounding area (approximately

120m radius). Detailed biological surveys were undertaken by NRSI on the subject

property while legacy data collected from agencies encompassed the entire study area

to ensure that all surrounding natural features were considered. Field survey findings

from the neighbouring properties (Starwood Drive and Cityview Ridge) were also

reviewed during this stage.

The subject property is approximately 15.217 hectares in size. The majority of the

subject property is legally described as Part of Lots 25, 31, and 32, Registered Plan 53,

Part of Lot 4, Concession 3, Division “C”, City of Guelph, Former Township of Guelph.

These lands have the physical address of 55 & 75 Cityview Drive. The subject property

also includes the 0.25 hectare parcel located at 75 Cityview Drive which contains an

existing residential dwelling (Figure 1). The southwest portion of the property is mainly

comprised of fallow agricultural fields, with a few scattered trees and a hedgerow. Two

small unevaluated wetland features are present along the southwest and southeast

property boundaries. The north portion of the subject property contains wooded area

that varies from densely vegetated to open areas, thicket, savannah, plantation, and a

swamp which is part of the Clythe Creek Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW)

Complex. The area surrounding the subject property is comprised primarily of existing

and proposed low/medium density residential development.

The subject property is within the Grand River watershed and the Clythe Creek

Subwatershed. GRCA mapping indicates a tributary of Clythe Creek that historically

transected the northeast corner of the property (GRCA 2013). Aquatic habitat

investigations by NRSI concluded that this tributary no longer exists. This is reflected in

mapping completed for the Guelph Natural Heritage Strategy (NHS) (Dougan and

Associates 2009). The GRCA has also confirmed that this area does not contain

floodplain (IBI Group 2013b).


1.2 Proposed Undertaking

Debrob is proposing to build a municipally serviced subdivision which will contain a

range between 261 and 336 residential units in the form of single detached, semi-

detached, street townhouse, cluster townhouses and stacked townhouses in 15.217

hectares of undeveloped greenfield within the City of Guelph. It is the intent that these

greenfield lands, as identified in the Growth Plan and City Official Plan, will

accommodate a portion of the City‟s existing and future population and employment

growth through new development, while recognizing development constraints associated

with existing natural features. New development in these areas will contribute to

complete communities, support walking and cycling, and create high-quality public

spaces. The proposed subdivision will accommodate a greater number of persons living

within walking distance to the adjacent Mixed-Use Node at Starwood Drive and Frasson

Road, contributing to the future viability of this node and the development of a „complete

community‟ in the Eastview neighbourhood.

IBI Group worked with the City and consulting team for the neighbouring Cityview Ridge

property to develop draft plans for each property that integrate road and lot layout,

grading and stormwater management.

LOTS 1-25, 40-47, 62-71,

86-145

SINGLE RESIDENTIAL 4.214 103 103

LOTS 26-39, 48-61

SEMI-DETACHED RESIDENTIAL 0.683 28 28

LOTS 72-85

TOWNHOUSES 0.320 14 14

BLOCKS 146-148

MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL 2.506 105 180

BLOCKS 149-150

PARK 0.325

BLOCK 151-152

OPEN SPACE 4.233

BLOCKS 153-157

FUTURE DEVELOPMENT 0.332 11 11

ROADS 2.597

TOTAL 15.210 261 336

AREA

LOTS/BLKS LAND USE

LAND USE SCHEDULE

MAXMIN

POTENTIAL

# OF UNITS

379 QUEEN STREET SOUTH

KITCHENER, ONTARIO

N2G 1W6

(519) 745-9455

www.ibigroup.com

KEY MAP - N.T.S.

ACI SURVEYING, Ontario Land Surveyors

BENCHMARK

PATRICK HARAMIS, O.L.S.

ROBERT SAROLI

SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE

OWNER'S CERTIFICATE

DATE

DEBROB INVESTMENTS LIMITED

SIGNED

SIGNED

DATE

MUNICIPAL SANITARY AND STORM SEWERS

(j) - AS SHOWN

(k) -

(l) - NONE

SANDY LOAM(i) -

(h) - MUNICIPAL WATER

AS SHOWN(g) -

(f) - AS SHOWN

(e) - AS SHOWN

AS SHOWN

AS SHOWN

(b) -

AS LISTED BELOW

(a) -

(c) -

AS SHOWN

(d) -

INFORMATION REQUIRED

DATE:APPROVED:

I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF THE LANDS TO BE

SUBDIVIDED ON THIS PLAN AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO THE

ADJACENT LANDS ARE ACCURATELY AND CORRECTLY SHOWN.

DESIGNED BY:

APPROVALS

SCALE:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

FILE NUMBER:

I HEREBY CONSENT TO THE FILING OF THIS PLAN BY IBI GROUP, IN

DRAFT FORM.

PART OF LOTS 25, 31 AND 32,

REG.PLAN 53, AND PART OF LOT 4,

CONCESSION 3, DIVISION 'C'

CITY OF GUELPH,

FORMER TOWNSHIP OF GUELPH

DEBROB INVESTMENTS INC.

CITYVIEW DRIVE

C.D/J.J

J.J/P.T

O.G

OCTOBER 2010

25528

1:1000

REVISIONS

# DATE BY DESCRIPTION

1 MARCH 2011 CPD TO ACCOMODATE ADDITIONAL LANDS

2 SEPT. 2012 JJ REDESIGN OF ROAD AND LOTTING

N

SUBJECT

PROPERTY

N


1.3 Project Scoping

In order to determine a study approach for the 55 & 75 Cityview Drive property, existing

natural heritage information was gathered and reviewed to identify key natural features

and species that are known to occur, or have the potential to occur within the study area.

A Terms of Reference (TOR) for the EIS was prepared by NRSI and submitted to the

City of Guelph and the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) for review and

approval on April 29, 2009 (Appendix I). The GRCA approved the Terms of Reference

on May 14, 2009 (Ferguson pers. comm. 2009). The City of Guelph‟s Environmental

Advisory Committee (EAC) reviewed the TOR on June 10, 2009 and provided comments

on the study approach. EAC indicated that a Tree Preservation Plan was required

before the Environmental Implementation Report (EIR) stage of the project and that the

EIS should provide information in the context of the Secondary Plan and relevant Natural

Heritage Policies. EAC also requested that a geotechnical assessment for the property

be completed.

In November 2011, NRSI prepared and submitted a Draft EIS to the City of Guelph, EAC

and GRCA for their review and input. EAC provided comments on the Draft EIS on July

24, 2012. Review comments on the EIS are provided in Appendix II.

In preparation for the Draft EIS (NRSI 2011), background information on the natural

environment features and species within the study area was gathered from the following

sources:

Grand River Conservation Authority;

Natural Heritage Information Centre Biodiversity Explorer (NHIC) (OMNR 2013);

Ministry of Natural Resources, Guelph District (D. Marriot pers. comm. 2009);

City of Guelph Official Plan (2012 Consolidation);

City of Guelph OPA 42 (City of Guelph 2012);

Guelph Natural Heritage System Report (Dougan & Associates 2009);

Cityview Ridge Environmental Impact Study (February 2012),

Clythe Creek Subwatershed Overview (Ecologistics Limited 1998),

Digital airphotos, and

Land Information Ontario (LIO) spatial data.

Given the time since the first submission of the EIS (NRSI 2011), a further review of

background sources, with specific focus on species of significance was completed for

this report. This also included a review of the Cityview Ridge EIS prepared by North-


South Environmental (2012). This report has been revised to address review comments

and incorporate new information based on the updated Draft Plan of Subdivision

prepared by IBI Group, dated July 23, 2013 (Figure 2).

Based on a preliminary review of existing information, several natural features were

identified within and adjacent to (within 120m) of the subject property. These features

are shown on Figure 1 and include:

Woodlands – Natural Area/Cultural Woodlands as defined by the City of Guelph OPA 42 (currently under appeal) (City of Guelph 2012); Wetlands – Clythe Creek PSW complex, which is currently designated as Core Greenlands under the City of Guelph Official Plan (2011), a Significant Natural Area under OPA 42, and as regulated lands under GRCA‟s Ontario Regulation 150/06; Watercourse – a tributary of Clythe Creek has been identified as traversing the subject property, as mapped by the GRCA and OMNR. Field surveys conducted by NRSI, with field verification by the GRCA, indicate that this feature no longer exists; Valleylands – „Other Valleylands‟ as defined by the City of Guelph OPA 42 (currently under appeal) (City of Guelph 2012).

To further identify wildlife species potentially occurring in the study area, initial species

lists were compiled to provide information on species known from the study area using

various atlases, including the Ontario Mammal Atlas (Dobbyn 1994), the Ontario

Butterfly Atlas (Toronto Entomological Association (TEA) 2013), the Ontario

Herpetofaunal Summary Atlas (Oldham and Weller 2000) and Ontario Reptile and

Amphibian Atlas (Ontario Nature 2013). Data on breeding birds in the study area was

extracted from the OBBA (Bird Studies Canada (BSC) et al. 2006). Since the OBBA

provides data based on 10x10km survey squares, information on breeding birds from the

square that overlapped with the study area was compiled (Square 17NJ62). The Natural

Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) Biodiversity Explorer Database (OMNR 2013) was

searched for provincially rare species. All wildlife species identified as nationally

significant (COSEWIC 2013), provincially significant (OMNR 2010b), or regionally

significant (Dougan & Associates 2009) were cross-referenced with species known to

occur within the vicinity of the study area. These initial species lists were used to guide

the scope and type of wildlife field surveys for the EIS.


For the purposes of this report, SAR are defined as species listed as Threatened or

Endangered provincially. Species designated as Special Concern provincially, or

designated as Threatened or Endangered under the federal Species at Risk Act, are

considered SCC and are discussed further within the context of Significant Wildlife

Habitat (SWH) (Section 5.1). Based on the initial species lists, a total of 9 Species at

Risk (SAR), 12 Species of Conservation Concern (SCC) and 98 regionally significant

species were identified as potentially occurring in the study area.

A preliminary screening exercise was conducted on these species to identify which

species have suitable habitat within the subject property. From this exercise, suitable

habitat for 5 significant species was found to exist within the study area. These species

are discussed in Section 4 of this report under their respective biota subsections (i.e.

Birds). Wildlife surveys, including breeding bird surveys, amphibian surveys, snake

coverboard surveys and vascular flora inventories were undertaken to help determine

the potential presence of these species within the subject property. Survey methods are

outlined in Section 3 with findings provided in Section 4.

A preliminary screening for the presence of candidate SWH was also completed for the

study area (Appendix III). The Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (SWHTG) is

a guideline document that outlines the types of habitats that the OMNR considers

significant in Ontario, as well as criteria to identify these habitats (OMNR 2000a, OMNR

2000b, OMNR 2012a). The SWHTG groups SWH into four broad categories: seasonal

concentration areas, rare vegetation communities and specialized wildlife habitat,

habitats of species of conservation concern and animal movement corridors. Based on

the results of this preliminary screening exercise, three candidate SWH types occur

within the subject property, habitat for species of conservation concern, specialized

habitat for wildlife and seasonal concentration areas. Field surveys, as outlined in

Section 3 of this report, were conducted to verify the presence of SWH. Based on the

survey findings that are outlined in Section 4, it has been determined that there is no

SWH present within the subject property. Full results of the SWH screening are

provided in Appendix III.


2.0 Relevant Policies, Legislation and Planning Studies

With respect to the natural environment, conformance to all applicable municipal,

provincial and federal policies and guidelines is necessary throughout all phases of the

project. A summary of policies, legislation, guidelines and planning studies pertinent to

this project are summarized below.

These relevant policies, legislation, guidelines and planning studies are used to define

what are known as „significant‟ natural areas, features, and habitats. They are further

used to guide the layout of the proposed development by establishing boundaries and

protective development setbacks (buffers) from any identified significant areas, features,

or habitats.

Section 5.0 of this report provides a summary of significant natural areas, features and

habitats identified within the study area as it relates to the policies, legislation, guidelines

and planning studies discussed in this section.

2.1 Provincial Policy Statement, 2005

The Ontario Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) is issued under Section 3 of the Ontario

Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990. Section 3 of the Act requires that decisions affecting

planning matters “shall be consistent with” policy statements issued under the Act. The

new PPS came into effect on March 1, 2005, and applies to all applications submitted on

or after this date. The PPS provides policy direction on land use planning and

development matters that are of provincial interest which protect the natural environment

as well as public health and safety.

Section 2.0 Wise Use and Management of Resources, provides policies on protecting

the Province‟s natural heritage, water, agricultural, mineral, cultural heritage and

archaeological resources. Section 2.1 Natural Heritage, identifies seven types of natural

heritage features to be protected:

significant habitat of endangered species and threatened species;

provincially significant wetlands;

fish habitat;


significant woodlands south and east of the Canadian Shield;

significant valleylands south and east of the Canadian Shield;

significant wildlife habitat; and,

significant areas of natural and scientific interest.

Development and site alteration is not permitted in:

significant habitat of endangered species and threatened species; and,

provincially significant wetlands.

Development and site alteration may be permitted within and adjacent to the remaining

significant natural heritage features if the ecological function has been evaluated and it

has been demonstrated through an EIS that there will be no negative impacts on the

natural features or on their ecological functions.

Based on a preliminary analysis of the natural features present, provincially significant

wetlands are known to occur within the subject property. There are no Significant Wildlife

Habitats (SWH), direct fish habitats or significant woodlands within the subject property.

There is potential habitat for endangered and threatened species within and adjacent to

the subject property, as defined by the PPS (OMMAH 2005).

2.1.1 Natural Heritage Reference Manual

The OMNR Natural Heritage Reference Manual (OMNR 2010) provides technical

guidance for implementing the natural heritage policies of the PPS. The manual

presents the Province‟s recommended technical criteria and approaches for being

consistent with the PPS in protecting natural heritage features and areas and natural

heritage systems in Ontario.

This manual was consulted in the completion of this EIS when evaluating the presence

of natural heritage features protected under the PPS within the study area.

2.1.2 Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide

The OMNR Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (SWHTG) (2000) was prepared

to assist planning authorities and other participants in the land use planning system to


adequately protect Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) features to ensure their continued

existence and functional value within the planning district and province in general.

Within the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (SWHTG) (OMNR 2000),

„Significant Wildlife Habitat‟ has been identified as a natural heritage area for the

purposes of Section 2.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) (Ontario Ministry of

Municipal Affairs and Housing 2005). The SWHTG (OMNR 2000) indicates that the PPS

identifies wildlife habitat as; “areas where plants, animals, and other organisms live, and

find adequate amounts of food, water, shelter, and space needed to sustain their

populations.” Wildlife habitat is considered „significant‟ where it is:

d) ecologically important in terms of features, functions, representation or

amount, and contributing to the quality and diversity of an identifiable geographic

area or Natural Heritage System. Criteria for determining significance may be

recommended by the Province, but municipal approaches that achieve the same

objective may also be used” (OMNR 2000).

The SWGHTG (OMNR 2000) is a detailed technical manual that provides information on

the identification, description, and prioritization of SWH. It is intended for use in the

municipal policy and development process under the Planning Act. An addendum to the

SWHTG has also been prepared by the OMNR which provides further details on

characterizing and identifying SWH for Ecoregion 6E (OMNR 2012).

This technical guide was consulted in completing this EIS when evaluating presence of

SWH as defined under the PPS within the study area.

2.2 Endangered Species Act, 2013

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) (OMNR 2013) was created to:

1) identify species at risk based on the best available scientific information,

including information obtained from community knowledge and aboriginal

traditional knowledge.

2) protect species that are at risk and their habitats, and to promote the recovery of

species that are at risk, and


3) promote stewardship activities to assist in the protection and recovery of species

that are at risk.

In this way, the ESA addresses the protection of “significant habitat of endangered

species and threatened species” as outlined in the PPS (OMMAH 2005). Species

thought to be at risk are assessed by the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in

Ontario (COSSARO). Species that are listed as Endangered, Threatened or Extirpated,

by COSSARO receive legal protection under the ESA 2013. The ESA also affords

habitat protection for Threatened and Endangered species as identified by COSSARO

and calls for the creation of recovery strategies these species, as well as management

plans for species of special concern (Government of Ontario 2013a).

Species designated as Threatened or Endangered in Ontario automatically receive legal

protection under the Endangered Species Act and their habitats are protected generally

under the Act (i.e. areas essential for breeding, rearing, feeding, hibernation and

migration). The Endangered Species Act (Subsection 9(1)) 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).

Clause 10(1)(a) of the Endangered Species Act 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”


In order to balance social and economic considerations with protection and recovery

goals, the Endangered Species Act also enables the MNR to issue permits or enter into

agreements with proponents in order to authorize activities that would otherwise be

prohibited by subsections 9(1) or 10(1) of the Act provided the legal requirements of the

Act are met.

The ESA is of relevance to this EIS given the potential presence of habitat for species

regulated under this Act within close proximity (120m) of the subject property. These

species and their habitats are afforded protection under the ESA and as such, require

the establishment of development setbacks as well as obtaining permits and approvals

for any works occurring with the identified regulated area. Further assessments,

including field-based studies, were completed to determine the potential presence and

significance of these species to the subject property.

2.3 Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994

The federal Migratory Birds Convention Act (MBCA) is applied through The Regulations

Respecting the Protection of Migratory Birds that states that:

“no person shall disturb, destroy or take a nest, egg […] of a migratory bird.”

This law protects all birds aside from the introduced species European Starling (Sturnus

vulgaris), House Sparrow (Passer domesticus), and Rock Pigeon (Columba livia). Bird

nests that are destroyed during the course of construction and other related activities is

referred to as “incidental take” and is illegal except under the authority of a permit

obtained through the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS). Implications of the MBCA have

potential to occur during the construction phase of the project when the subject property

is cleared and grubbed of vegetation.

The schedule of actual on-site work must consider the Migratory Birds Convention Act

(MBCA) (Canadian Wildlife Service 1994) construction window. The timing of the peak

migratory bird breeding season for the study area is between May 1 and July 31,

although this should be held as a general guideline since the Act applies to nesting at

any time of the year.


2.4 City of Guelph Official Plan, 2012 Consolidation

The City of Guelph (City) Official Plan (OP) designates Provincially Significant Wetland,

such as the Clythe Creek PSW, and its adjacent lands part of the City‟s „Greenlands

System‟ (City of Guelph 2012). More specifically these lands are defined as „Core

Greenlands‟ (City of Guelph 2012).

The „Core Greenlands‟ land use designation recognizes areas of the „Greenlands

System‟ which have greater sensitivity or significance. Development is not permitted

within PSW and the City encourages that all development proposals minimize impacts

on PSW and its ecological value and function (City of Guelph 2012).

Although development is prohibited within PSW, development may be permitted within

adjacent lands if the proponent completes an EIS that meets City requirements and

demonstrates that the proposed development will not:

a) Result in a loss of the wetland‟s ecological function;

b) Create subsequent demand for future development which will negatively

impact on the wetland‟s ecological function;

c) Conflict with existing site-specific wetland management practices; and

d) Result in loss of contiguous wetland.

Boundaries of the „Greenland System‟ are approximate and were further refined by the

completion of site specific surveys of existing natural heritage features during the EIS

prepared by NRSI (November 2011). As such, the boundaries of the PSW features

shown on Figure 1 are considered the most accurate delineation of the „Greenland

System‟ within the subject property.

2.4.1 Official Plan Amendment 42 (OPA 42)

In 2010, OP Amendment 42 (OPA 42) was brought forth to City of Guelph Council. This

amendment focuses on defining a Natural Heritage System (NHS) under the OP that

would replace the existing „Core and non-Core Greenland‟ policies, as described above.

The purpose of the NHS would be to establish a sustainable greenspace network

throughout the City. OPA 42 was adopted by Council on July 27, 2010. As OPA 42

requires consistency with the PPS, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing

(OMMAH) is required to review and approve. A decision was made by the OMMAH on


February 2011 but has since been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) and

is therefore OPA 42 is currently not being enforced. With regard to this project,

consideration should be made to OPA 42 as it will be the upcoming strategy for

protecting natural heritage features within the City of Guelph.

Under OPA 42 Schedule 1 – Land Use Plan, the natural areas situated within the portion

of the subject property are designated as Natural Area and Significant Natural Area (City

of Guelph 2010). These areas are further characterized under Schedule 10 – Natural

heritage Strategy to identify which natural heritage features are present. These include:

Natural Area/Cultural Woodlands- the wooded portion of the subject property

(Schedule 10c),

Significant Natural Area/PSW/Other Valleylands – the portion of the subject

property that is defined as the Clythe Creek PSW as well as a small inclusion of

what is defined as „other valleylands‟ (Schedule 10)

These features together comprise what is defined as the Natural Heritage System under

Schedule 2 of OPA 42 (City of Guelph 2010).

Development is not permitted within Significant Natural Areas or their minimum buffers

as indicated in Table 6.1 in OPA 42 and shown in Schedule 2. Development or site

alteration may be permitted within the adjacent lands to Significant Natural Areas and

within Natural Areas provided it has been demonstrated through an EIS that there will be

no negative impacts on the protected natural heritage features or their associated

ecological functions.

2.5 GRCA Ontario Regulation 150/06

The Regulation of Development, Interface with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines

and Watercourses (Ontario Regulation 150/06), is a regulation issued under

Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990. Through this regulation, the GRCA has the

responsibility to regulate activities in natural and hazardous areas (i.e., areas in and near

rivers, streams, floodplains, wetlands, slopes and the Lake Huron shoreline).


As portions of the subject property have been identified within GRCA regulated lands,

more specifically, the Clythe Creek PSW and two un-evaluated wetland parcels, a permit

will be required from the GRCA under the Reg. 150/06 to proceed with development

within and adjacent to these areas. In addition, as the development is proposed within

120m of these features, a scoped EIS is required to evaluate and demonstrate that there

will be no negative impacts on the identified natural feature or on its ecological functions

as described under Reg. 150/06 (GRCA 2009).

2.6 Municipal Tree By-law and Tree Protection Guidelines

The City of Guelph Tree By-Law (2010) - 19058 states that […] “no person may destroy

or injure, or cause or permit the destruction or injuring of a regulated tree […]”.

Exemptions apply to this clause and are described in Section 4 of the by-law.

A regulated tree is defined as

“a specimen if any species including deciduous or coniferous growing woody

perennial plant, supported by a single root system, which has reached, or could

have reached a height at least 4.5m from the ground at physiological maturity, it

located on a lot that is greater than 0.2 hectares (0.5 acres) in size and has a

DBH of 10cm”.

When applying for a permit to destroy or injure a regulated tree, a Tree Protection Plan

is required to demonstrate how the remaining trees will be protected from injury.

The City of Guelph‟s OPA 42 (2010 – currently under appeal) also requires that a

Vegetation Compensation Plan be required for the replacement of all healthy indigenous

trees measuring over 10cm Diameter at Breast Height (DBH). Although OPA 42 is

currently under appeal, the tree inventory was conducted to satisfy all relevant policies.

The inventory focused on assessing the health and condition of all trees ≥10cm DBH

situated outside of the Open Space Blocks and within approximately 5m of the

development limit.

The tree inventory is summarized in this report, while the complete Tree Preservation

Plan is provided in Appendix IV.


3.0 Field Survey Methods

3.1 Field Surveys

NRSI terrestrial and aquatic biologists conducted field surveys on a total of 20 field visits

between April 2009 and June 2013. A variety of field surveys were undertaken to

characterize existing natural features which are summarized in Table 1 and described in

Sections 3.2.1 through 3.3.6.

3.2 Vegetation Surveys

3.2.1 Vegetation Community Mapping

Vegetation communities within the subject property were mapped and classified using

the Ecological Land Classification System (ELC) for southern Ontario (Lee at al. 1998,

Lee 2008). Experienced NRSI biologists conducted field site investigations to refine and

confirm the ELC community boundaries on May 13, 2009. Where necessary,

boundaries and community types were refined during follow-up surveys being conducted

within the property. Results of the vegetation community mapping assessment are

provided in Section 4.5.1.

3.2.2 Vascular Flora Inventories

Detailed vascular flora inventories were conducted within each of the ELC communities

in spring (May 13, 2009) and summer (June 23, 2009) and fall (October 4, 2012).

Results of the floral inventories are discussed in Section 4.5.2.

3.2.3 Wetland Boundary Delineation

Wetland boundaries were initially delineated using existing OMNR and GRCA mapping

which was supplemented with field checks as per the Ontario Wetland Evaluation

System (OWES) for Southern Ontario (OMNR 2002). The wetland boundaries were

flagged in the field by NRSI on May 13, 2009 and reviewed and approved by GRCA staff

(Tony Zammit) on June 8, 2009. The approved wetland boundary, which is shown on

the Draft Plan of Subdivision, was surveyed by IBI Group in 2009.


Table 1. Summary of Field Surveys

Survey Date

Survey Type

ELC Vascular

Flora

Wetland Boundary

Flagging/Review Breeding

Birds Breeding

Amphibians Snake

Coverboards Lepidoptera & Odonata

Tree Inventory & Health

Assessment Aquatic Habitat

Incidental Wildlife/Flora

Inventory

2009

April 15 X X

April 21 X X

May 13 X X X X

May 20 X X

May 22 X X

June 8 X X

June 10 X X X

June 23 X X X X X

June 24 X X X

2010

Aug 10 X X

Aug 11 X X

Aug 12 X X

Aug 18 X X

2012

Oct 4 X X

Oct 24 X X

2013

March 6 X X

March 14 X

X

May 30 X X

June 11 X X

June 17 X X

Total 1 3 2 2 2 5 1 9 2 20


3.2.4 Tree Inventory and Assessment

For completion of the November 2011 EIS (NRSI), trees ≥10cm DBH within the subject

property that had the potential to be retained were inventoried and assessed in August

2010 according to the City of Guelph‟s Tree Protection Policies and Guidelines (City of

Guelph 2008). This included recording the physical condition, DBH, species name, and

hazard rating of each tree which may be impacted by the development by ELC

community. The locations of trees having the potential to be retained were surveyed

using a Trimble GeoXT GIS unit.

Following review of the 2011 EIS, the City of Guelph EAC (July 25, 2012) requested that

trees outside of the natural areas be inventoried and assessed. All trees within the

revised development footprint and within approximately 10m of the development limit

line were inventoried and assessed by NRSI Certified Arborists on March 6, 14, May 30,

June 11 and 17, 2013. The revised Draft Plan of Subdivision prepared by IBI Group,

dated July 23, 2013 was used as a base for the updated surveys.

As part of the tree health assessment, NRSI biologists who are trained and experienced

in the OMNR bat habitat assessment protocol visually scanned all trees ≥10cm DBH for

the presence of cavities that may provide bat maternity colony habitat. Although the

OMNR‟s guidance document Bats and Bat Habitats: Guidelines for Wind Power

Projects, July 2011 (OMNR 2011) specifies trees ≥25cm DBH, all trees ≥10cm DBH

were scanned for cavities as a means of thoroughly searching for any potential habitat

for bats.

The Tree Protection Plan for the Cityview property, detailing tree protection and

compensation is appended to this EIS (Appendix IV). A separate Tree Protection Plan

to assess the hedgerow trees that run along the extreme eastern boundary of the 55 &

75 Cityview Drive property was prepared and submitted as part of the Starwood Drive

EIS (NRSI 2013).


3.3 Wildlife Surveys

3.3.1 Breeding Bird Surveys

According to the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS), the peak breeding period for birds

that nest in scrub, open and wetland habitats in southern Ontario is between May 1 and

July 31 (Miller pers. comm. 2010). This breeding period usually peaks in June (OBBA

2001).

Breeding bird surveys were conducted by NRSI on June 10 and June 23, 2009 using the

Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas methodology (OBBA 2001), which involved area searches

throughout the entire property. Breeding bird evidence was recorded by habitat type

found within the subject property: wetland, thicket, and open field. Breeding evidence

codes followed those outlined by the OBBA (2001) and were used to record the highest

breeding evidence observed. Area searches were conducted beginning no earlier than

one half hours prior to sunrise and ending prior to 1000hrs. In addition to breeding bird

surveys, all birds observed within the subject property during all field visits were

documented.

3.3.2 Breeding Amphibian Surveys

Evening amphibian call surveys were conducted using the Marsh Monitoring Program

methodology (BSC 2009). Monitoring focused on calling anurans during 3-minute call

counts. The first survey was conducted on April 21, 2009 at one station (ANR-001),

shown on Figure 3. This station was selected based on existing wetland mapping

provided by the GRCA and OMNR. Subsequent to the first survey, additional wetland

areas were identified within the subject property and two more monitoring stations were

added (ANR-002 and ANR-003) (Figure 2). Call surveys were conducted at all three

stations on May 22, 2009. By June, there was no standing water in any of the wetlands

so a third call survey was not deemed necessary due to the lack of suitable breeding

habitat. In addition to the evening call surveys, all incidental observations of amphibians

during other field work were documented.


Natural areas within the subject property were assessed for their potential to provide

habitat for salamanders. No suitable salamander habitat was identified within or

adjacent to the subject property.

3.3.3 Snake Coverboard Surveys

During background data collection, the OMNR indicated that two snake SAR were

known from the vicinity of the study area; eastern milksnake (Lampropeltis t. triangulum)

and eastern ribbonsnake (Thamnophis sauritus septentrionalis). The OMNR

recommended that snake surveys be undertaken within the subject property.

A total of 8 snake cover boards were strategically placed throughout the subject property

on April 15, 2009 in order to record snake diversity and approximate abundance (Figure

2). These boards were checked periodically throughout the field season from April

through August, 2009. In addition to checking the snake boards, NRSI biologists

conducted area searches for snakes, checking debris piles, under scrap wood, and other

suitable snake habitats.

3.3.4 Turtle Surveys

Natural areas within the subject property were assessed for their potential to provide

habitat for turtles. No suitable turtle habitat was identified within or adjacent to the

subject property.

3.3.5 Other Wildlife Surveys

All observations of mammals (as well as evidence such as tracks, scats, dens, etc.),

reptiles, butterflies and dragonflies were documented on all field visits. Area searches

for butterflies, dragonflies, and damselflies occurred on June 23, 2009 between

10:00hrs. and 14:00hrs during ideal weather conditions, i.e. hot (26°-31°C), low wind,

and little cloud cover.


3.3.6 Aquatic Habitat Survey

On June 24, 2009 an aquatic biologist from NRSI conducted a site visit to record

observations of any aquatic features on site. During this visit, habitat assessments were

conducted along an identified ephemeral conveyance feature. This feature was

investigated for the potential to contain any seasonal fish habitat including direct or

indirect habitat. Photo documentation was also conducted for later reference.

An additional site visit was conducted by NRSI on October 24, 2012 with a City of

Guelph representative to further investigate the conveyance to confirm the ephemeral

classification.

[́

[́ [́

[́

[́[́

[́

[́

[́

[́

[́

STARWOOD DRGR

ANGE

RD

SILURIAN DR

YORK RD

KEARNEY STCEDARVALE AV

E

CITYVIEW DR

LAW

DR

CITYVIEW DR N

KEAT

ING

ST

BRADSON DR

BREESEGARDEN LANE

003

002

008

007

006

005 004

003

002001

001

Source: Esri, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, GeoEye, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Community

562800

562800

563000

563000

563200

563200

563400

563400

563600

563600

4823

400

4823

400

4823

600

4823

600

4823

800

4823

800

4824

000

4824

000

´ 0 50 100 150Meters


Airphoto: 2006Project: NRSI-0924

Date: August 20, 2013

LegendSubject Property

[́ (ANR) Anuran Station

[́ (SNK) Snake Board

Figure 3

X:\0924_CityViewDrive\NRSI_0924_Fig3_MonitoringStations_3K_2013_08_20_GCS.mxd

55 & 75 Cityview DriveHerpetofauna

Monitoring Stations

This map is proprietary and confidential and must not be duplicatedor d istributed by any means without the express written permissionof Natural Resource Solutions Inc. (NRSI).




4.0 Existing Conditions

4.1 Physiography and Soils

The following is a summary of the information provided in the geotechnical investigation

carried out on the Cityview property in 2006 (Chung & Vander Doelen Engineering Ltd.

2006). The entire property is covered by a layer of topsoil which varies in thickness

across the site. The topsoil is underlain by a deposit of glacial sandy silt till which

extended to the maximum depth (5.03m) of borehole exploration, however at two

boreholes, this layer was underlain by saturated silt and sandy silt. Within the dominant

sandy silt layer, trace gravel and clay were observed.

Portions of the subject property are part of the Guelph Drumlin Field, which extends for

many kilometers in all directions from the property (Anderson GeoLogic Limited 2013).

The total relief across the property is approximately 30m, falling more steeply away from

the axis of the central drumlin toward the northeast portion of the property, and less

steeply to the southwest (Anderson GeoLogic Limited 2013). Peak elevation along the

northwest property boundary is approximately 354 mASL, while the lowest elevation of

324 mASL is within the northeast portion of the property (Anderson GeoLogic Limited

2013). The property slopes down gently from south to north, with the more elevated

southern portion being used for agricultural production in the past. The northern portion

of the property is lower lying (+/-10%) and heavily treed (Chung & Vander Doelen

Engineering Litd. 2006).

4.2 Surface Water Drainage and Hydrology

The subject property is located within the Clythe Creek subwatershed, which drains a

portion of the northeast corner of the City of Guelph and adjacent township lands. The

Clythe Creek subwatershed is approximately 21km2 in area and is dominated by

agricultural and built-up lands. According to the GRCA, Clythe Creek is a coolwater

stream (GRCA 2006). It originates in a lowland cedar swamp located approximately

6km upstream of its outlet to the Eramosa River just south of Hwy 7 and east of Victoria

Road. The swamp is part of the Clythe Creek PSW Complex. The abundance of

groundwater, near or at the ground surface, in this watershed plays a key role in

influencing the composition and distribution of vegetation in the watershed.


The upper reaches of the creek are well vegetated and the creek channel is fairly natural

with dense cedar woods, swamp and marsh communities along portions of the creek.

Toward Watson Road the creek is altered from its natural state in several ways

(Ecologistics 1998).

On May 13, 2009, NRSI biologists observed several areas of localized groundwater

discharge along the north facing, treed slope that divides the southern two thirds of the

property from the northern portion. These areas were identified as localized discharge

(lateral interflow associated with groundwater infiltration) during the hydrogeological

investigation conducted by Anderson GeoLogic Limited, and are not related to the

regional groundwater table (2013). Focused surveys of the slope did not indicate the

presence of significant plant species, seepage indicator species or wildlife use of the

area. In addition, it should be noted that the agricultural field to the west of the slope has

been tiled and this may contribute to groundwater discharge that was observed by NRSI

staff on the May 13, 2009 site visit.

To the southwest of the main drumlin divide, there is a topographic dip between the two

drumlins prior to the topography falling more steeply to the southwest. The 2 small non-

PSW wetland features are located in this dip, where surface water drainage is poor

(Anderson GeoLogic 2013). The underlying low-permeability till deposit beneath these 2

wetlands, allows surface water to periodically accumulate in the depressions. Data from

the hydrogeological investigation indicate that these 2 features are wholly supported by

surface water runoff and there is no groundwater function (Anderson GeoLogic 2013).

The hydrogeological investigation noted the absence of perennial watercourses within

the subject property, resulting in drainage that occurs primarily as sheet flow that follows

the moderate to steep slopes on the sides of the drumlins. In general, the overland

drainage is poor in the topographic dip, which has resulted in the 2 small wetland

features in the upland area.

Along the northern boundary of the property, there is a small ephemeral watercourse,

approximately 40m in length. Field observations by NRSI and Anderson GeoLogic

noted that the watercourse does not extend north into the wooded area beyond the PSW


boundary. The watercourse becomes indistinguishable at its southern end within the

larger wetland area (Anderson GeoLogic 2013).

The PSW feature situated along the northeast portion of the property is fed directly by

surface water runoff and interflow. Based on an assessment by Anderson GeoLogic

(2013), “there is no apparent upwelling or discharge of groundwater to the wetland,

although shallow groundwater undoubtedly passes laterally beneath it.” It was also

noted that some of the surface water reaching this wetland infiltrates to the water table

(Anderson GeoLogic 2013).

Surface drainage features outside of the subject property include a recently constructed

stormwater ditch that wraps around the northern corner of the property. This ditch

follows a southeasterly path adjacent to the property to a stormwater management pond

on the north side of Watson Road (Anderson GeoLogic 2013).

As noted previously, GRCA and OMNR watercourse mapping indicated that a tributary

of Clythe Creek traverses the subject property. A site visit was conducted by an NRSI

aquatic biologist on November 9, 2012, to verify the presence or absence of this

watercourse, which was not apparent from recent (2010) aerial photography of the

subject property.

NRSI aquatic biologists did not observe any surface water features within the subject

property. Therefore, the watercourse identified on GRCA and OMNR mapping as

traversing the subject property was confirmed to no longer exist on or within 30m of the

subject property. Documentation of the absence of this feature was provided by NRSI to

GRCA (Nathan Garland) and the City Environmental Planner (Adèle Labbé) for review in

February 2013. This included 360 degree video as well as photographic documentation.

A map with all the locations in which documentation was obtained was also provided

4.3 Designated Natural Areas

A small portion (approximately 0.90ha) of the Clythe Creek PSW Complex extends onto

the northeast portion of the subject property (Figure 1). This wetland complex is

considered Significant Natural Area under OPA 42 (currently under appeal) (City of

Guelph 2010). This wetland was originally mapped by the OMNR by airphoto


interpretation; however, its boundaries were delineated in the field by NRSI and

confirmed by GRCA staff on June 8, 2009. In total, the wetland complex is 103. 35ha in

size and is comprised of two wetland types: swamp and marsh (OMNR 2013). Within

the subject property, this wetland is made up of deciduous swamp, dominated by

poplars (SWDM4-5) and swamp thicket dominated by red-osier dogwood (Cornus

stolonifera) (SWTM2-1) (NRSI 2011). The location of the non-PSW and PSW features is

shown on Figure 1.

4.4 Vegetation

4.4.1 Vegetation Communities

Vegetation communities within the subject property are described below and shown on

Figure 4. The subject property is primarily comprised of fallow agricultural fields that

have transitioned into old field meadows and shrub thickets.

Cultural

Dry – Fresh Forb Meadow (MEFM4)

This vegetation community is the result of disturbance from agricultural activities.

Vegetation has re-colonized the agricultural fields taken out of production and is

comprised of a large proportion of non-native plants, such as dandelion (Taraxacum

officinale), red clover (Trifolium pratense), black medick (Medicago lupulina), common

hawkweed (Hieracium caespitosum), garlic mustard (Alliaria officinalis), common

burdock (Arctium minus), wild carrot (Daucus carota), yellow rocket (Barbarea vulgaris),

common plantain (Plantago lanceolata), and common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia).

Coniferous (TAGM1)

Two small coniferous plantations dominated by Scotch pine (Pinus sylvestris) are found

within the subject property. The trees in these plantations are in good health and appear

to be young to mid aged. A large Scotch pine plantation is also found along the

northeast boundary of the subject property which contains older trees.


Deciduous Hedgerow (H1)

There is one deciduous hedgerow comprised primarily of sugar maple (Acer

saccharum). Trees >10cm DBH within this hedgerow were inventoried and assessed as

part of the Tree Protection Plan included in Appendix IV.

Dry – Fresh Deciduous Savanna (SVDM3)

This small vegetation community is dominated by a high proportion of non-native

species such as common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), yarrow (Achillea millefolium),

dandelion, barnyard grass (Echinochloa crusgalli), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense),

butter-and-eggs (Comandra umbellata), black medic, and common plantain. Scattered

trees are present, including Manitoba maple (Acer negundo), bur oak (Quercus

macrocarpa), hawthorn (Crataegus spp.), and Scotch pine.

Chokecherry Deciduous Shrub Thicket (THDM2-3)

Located within the center of the wooded area within the subject property, this thicket

community is dominated by chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), with a variety of other small

trees and shrubs such as common buckthorn, white cedar (Thuja occidentalis), white

ash (Fraxinus americana), Scotch pine, tartarian honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica), apple

(Malus pumila), downy serviceberry (Amelanchier arborea), red cedar (Juniperus

virginiana), nannyberry (Viburnum lentago), bending wayfaring tree (Viburnum lantana),

and red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera). Groundcover is dominated by grasses with

common meadow species, such as yarrow, black-eyed Susan (Rudbeckia hirta),

dandelion, Canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis), and New England aster

(Symphyotrichum novae-angliae) abundant as well.

Buckthorn Deciduous Shrub Thicket (THDM2-6)

This is the largest vegetation community found in the subject property. It is identified in

the OPA 42 (2010) as „cultural woodland‟. The canopy, subcanopy and understory are

dominated by a thick, impenetrable stand of common buckthorn, an exotic and highly

invasive species. Scotch pine, chokecherry, hawthorns, and riverbank grape (Vitis

riparia) are also present within these layers in smaller numbers. Groundcover is only

prevalent in areas where the canopy allows light penetration and consists of dandelion,

avens species (Geum spp.), common mullein (Verbascum thapsus), field horsetail

(Equisetum arvense), and sedges (Carex alopecoidea and C. houghtoniana). Within this


vegetation community there are two small inclusions which are characterized by a

Scotch pine plantation (TAGM1) and a red-raspberry (Rubus idaeus) thicket (THDM2-8).

A bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa) dominated hedgerow is found along the extreme

eastern boundary of the property, which was assessed and detailed in the Tree

Protection Plan prepared for the Starwood Drive EIS (NRSI 2013).

Wetland

Initial wetland mapping within the subject property was based on air photo interpretation

and existing wetland mapping completed by the GRCA and MNR. Wetland boundaries

were confirmed and revised where necessary in the field using the standard Ontario

Wetland Evaluation System (OWES) for southern Ontario (OMNR 2002). Two additional

unevaluated wetland areas not mapped by the GRCA were identified in the field and

flagged by NRSI. All wetland boundaries were reviewed by GRCA staff on June 8, 2009

and subsequently surveyed by IBI Group.

Reed-Canary Grass Graminoid Mineral Marsh (MAMM1-3)

This vegetation community (0.12ha) is surrounded by old field and appears to have been

ploughed in the past for agricultural purposes. Since agricultural practices have stopped

on the subject property, wetland vegetation has begun to re-colonize and is mostly

comprised of reed-canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), although scattered cattails

(Typha latifolia), beggarticks (Bidens frondosa), marsh bedstraw (Galium palustre), and

sedges (C. flava and C. vulpinoidea) are present throughout. A few sandbar willows

(Salix exigua) are also present around the wetland edge.

Poplar Mineral Deciduous Swamp (SWDM4-5)

Located along the north boundary of the property, this swamp community (0.42), which

forms part of the PSW, is dominated by trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides) with

smaller numbers of Manitoba maple, green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica var.

subintegerrina), and white elm (Ulmus americana). The subcanopy is dominated by

trembling aspen and Manitoba maple, while the understorey is comprised of red-osier

dogwood, glossy buckthorn (Rhamnus frangula), and Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus

quinquefolia). Groundcover is comprised of species common to wet areas, such as

ostrich fern (Matteuccia struthiopteris), tall white aster (Symphyotrichum lanceolatum),


jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), and reed canary grass. This wetland was previously

not mapped by the GRCA or MNR but due to its high proportion of wetland plants

(>60%) and its soil characteristics (abundant mottling in the upper soil layers) it was

classified as wetland.

Red-osier Dogwood Mineral Swamp Thicket (SWTM2-1)

Two mineral thicket swamp communities are present within the subject property. The

first community (0.48ha) is located along the southern boundary of the property. This

community was previously mapped by the GRCA and OMNR and is included in the

Clythe Creek PSW complex. The PSW is dominated by red-osier dogwood, glossy

buckthorn, reed canary grass, and tall white aster. The red-osier swamp thicket

community in the southwest corner (0.37ha) of the property is dominated by a mix of

wetland and upland species; however, contains >50% wetland vegetation and has a

very wet soil moisture regime (6). Red-osier dogwood, gray dogwood (Cornus foemina),

trembling aspen, and beaked willow (Salix bebbiana) are abundant throughout, while the

southern portion of the wetland is dominated by silver maple (Acer saccharinum),

Manitoba maple, black walnut (Juglans nigra), and white ash. Green ash and white

cedar are also present in smaller numbers. Groundcover is a mixture of wetland

species, such as reed canary grass, sedges (C. utriculata, C. vulpinoidea and C.

hystericina), and cattails. Upland species are also present within the groundcover,

including wild carrot, yarrow, false Solomon‟s seal (Maianthemum racemosum),

woodland strawberry (Fragaria vesca), and white bedstraw (Galium mullugo).

H1

THDM2-6

MEFM4

THDM2-6

GRAN

GE R

D

SILURIAN DR

YORK RD

KEARNEY STCEDARVALE AV

E

CITYVIEW DR

LAW

DR

KEAT

ING

ST

BRADSON DR

MEFM4

THDM2-6

THDM2-3

SWTM2-1

SWDM4-5

SVDM3

SWTM2-1

TAGM1

THDM2-8

TAGM1

MAMM1-3


562800

562800

563000

563000

563200

563200

563400

563400

563600

563600

4823

400

4823

400

4823

600

4823

600

4823

800

4823

800

4824

000

4824

000

55 & 75 Cityview DriveVegetation Communities

´ 0 50 100 150Meters




Figure 4

LegendSubject Property

Ecological Land Classification (ELC)(MAMM1-3) Reed-canary Grass Graminoid Mineral Meadow Marsh Type(MEFM4) Fresh-Moist Forb Meadow Ecosite(TAGM1) Coniferous Plantation(THDM2-3) Chokecherry Deciduous Shrub Thicket Type(THDM2-6) Buckthorn Deciduous Shrub Thicket Type(THDM2-8) Raspberry Deciduous Shrub Thicket Type(SVDM3) Dry - Fresh Deciduous Savanna Ecosite(SWDM4-5) Poplar Mineral Deciduous Ecosite(SWTM2-1) Red-osier Dogwood Mineral Deciduous Thicket Swamp Type(H1) Deciduous Hedgerow

NRSI_0924_Fig2_ELC_3K_2011_11_16_GCS





4.4.2 Vascular Flora

A total of 160 vascular flora species were identified within the subject property. A

complete list of these species is appended to this report (Appendix V).

Background data collection indicated that no federally or provincially significant plant

species are known from the study area (Marriott, pers. comm. 2009, OMNR 2010, Riley

1989, Dougan & Associates 2009). During field surveys, NRSI observed 3 regionally

significant species (Dougan & Associates 2009); rough-leaved goldenrod (Solidago

patula), heart-leaved aster (Symphyotrichum cordifolium) and soft willow-herb

(Epilobium strictum). Appendix V identifies the vegetation communities in which each of

these species were observed. NRSI did not observe any nationally or provincially

significant plant species in the subject property.

4.4.3 Tree Inventory

A total of 705 trees and 28 species were inventoried within the subject property, which

included isolated trees, hedgerow trees, trees within the shrub thickets, and within the

PSW buffer. Of these, 350 (49.6%) are native species and 355 (50.4%) are non-native.

Table 2 provides a list of trees inventoried within the subject property, whether they are

native or non-native and their overall condition. The reader is referred to Appendix IV for

the complete Tree Protection Plan, which includes tree inventory details, such as

species, condition and recommended compensation and protection measures.


Table 2. Summary of Tree Species Inventoried

Common Name Scientific Name Excellent Good Fair Poor Very Poor Snag Total

Native Species

Balsam poplar Populus balsamifera 9 18 1 28

Basswood Tilia americana 5 14 2 21

Black ash Fraxinus nigra 4 4

Black cherry Prunus serotina 1 14 3 2 20

Black walnut Juglans nigra 1 11 5 17

Bur oak Quercus macrocarpa 3 5 1 1 10

Freeman‟s maple Acer x freemanii 1 1

Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 1 12 8 3 4 4 32

Hawthorn species Crataegus sp. 1 19 20 7 1 48

Jack pine Pinus banksiana 1 1

Peach-leaved willow Salix amygdaloides 1 1

Red pine Pinus resinosa 3 3

Serviceberry species Amelanchier sp. 1 1 2

Silver maple Acer saccharinum 1 4 2 1 8

Sugar maple Acer saccharum 3 1 5 1 10

Trembling aspen Populus tremuloides 35 17 3 5 60

White ash Fraxinus americana 15 17 12 7 51

White cedar Thuja occidentalis 13 5 18

White elm Ulmus americana 5 3 8

White spruce Picea glauca 1 1

Willow species Salix sp. 5 1 6

Total 7 151 135 32 15 10 350

Non-Native Species

Apple species Malus sp. 22 31 12 2 67

Common pear Pryrus communis 1 1 2

Manitoba maple Acer negundo 55 78 32 4 169

Ornamental cedar Unknown 7 10 17

Scotch pine Pinus sylvestris 14 75 4 1 94

Siberian elm Ulmus pumila 1 1

White willow Salix alba 3 2 5

Total 0 102 197 49 6 1 355

Overall Total 7 253 332 81 21 11 705


4.5 Wildlife

4.5.1 Birds

A comprehensive bird species list, including field observations from NRSI and

background information from the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas (BSC 2006) can be found

in Appendix VI. A total of 112 bird species are known from the 10x10 km square that

overlaps with the study area according to the OBBA. Twenty-nine species were

observed by NRSI biologists during breeding bird point counts and an additional 9

species were observed incidentally during other field surveys.

All 38 species documented by NRSI during field surveys were observed around the

breeding bird season (May – June). Thirty-two of these species displayed some

evidence of breeding which is detailed in Appendix VI. During the breeding bird surveys

conducted, the highest diversity of bird species was observed within the thicket shrub

community (23 species) followed by wetland habitat (12 species) and the agricultural

fields (10 species).

Based on a review of background information sources (BSC 2006, OMNR 2013), 8

federally and/or provincially significant bird species are known from the vicinity of the

study area. In addition, 48 species of the 112 species known from the area are

considered regionally significant in Wellington County (Dougan & Associates 2009).

Table 3 provides a summary of the federally and provincially significant bird species

known to occur within the study area, their status and preferred habitat.

NRSI observed 2 provincially and/or federally significant bird species within the subject

property; bank swallow (Riparia riparia), a federally Threatened species (COSEWIC

2013) and barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), a federally and provincially Threatened

species (COSEWIC 2013, OMNR 2013). Both species were observed flying through the

subject property.

Suitable nesting habitat, as described in Table 3 below, is present within the subject

property for 3 of these species; eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna), eastern wood-

pewee (Contopus virens) and red-headed woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus).


The agricultural fields that have been left to go fallow (CUM1-1) provide suitable nesting

habitat for eastern meadowlark; however, no evidence of this species was recorded by

NRSI during the focused breeding bird surveys or incidentally. Habitat for eastern wood-

pewee and red-headed woodpecker is within the wooded/thicket corridor along the north

boundary of the property (THDM2-6 and SWDM4-5/SWTM2-1).

.


Table 3. Bird SAR and SCC Reported from the Study Area

Common Name

Scientific Name SRANK

1 COSSARO

2 COSEWIC

3 SARA

4 Habitat Preference

Suitable Habitat within

Property NRSI

Observed

Bank swallow

Riparia riparia S4B T Prefers sand, clay or gravel river banks or steep riverbank cliffs; lakeshore bluffs of easily crumbled sand or gravel; gravel pits, road-cuts, grassland or cultivated fields that are close to water; nesting sites are limiting factor for species presence.

No Yes

Barn swallow

Hirundo rustica S4B THR T Farmlands or rural areas; cliffs, caves, rock niches; buildings or other man-made structures for nesting; open country near body of water. This species forages in grassy fields, cleared ROW‟s, cottages and farms (OMNR 2000; COSEWIC 2011).

No Yes

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus

S4B THR T Large, open expansive grasslands with dense ground cover; hayfields, meadows or fallow fields; marshes; an area sensitive species requiring tracts of grassland >50ha. In Ontario, hayfields and pastures are preferred but they are usually absent from grain fields and row crops (COSEWIC 2010).

No No


Common Name


1 COSSARO

2 COSEWIC

3 SARA



Property NRSI

Observed

Chimney swift

Chaetura pelagic

S4B,S4N THR T Schedule 1

Commonly found in urban areas near buildings; nests in hollow trees, crevices of rock cliffs, chimneys; highly gregarious; feeds over open water.

No No

Eastern meadowlark

Sturnella magna S4B THR T Open, grassy meadows, farmland, pastures, hayfields or grasslands with elevated singing perches; cultivated land and weedy areas with trees; old orchards with adjacent, open grassy areas >10ha in size. This species breeds in Ontario, and favours well concealed grassland s and prairie habitats for nesting (Jaster et al. 2012).

Yes No

Eastern wood pewee

Contopus virens S4B SC Open, deciduous, mixed or coniferous forest; predominated by oak with little understory; forest clearings, edges, farm woodlands, parks (OMNR 2000).

Yes No

Least bittern Izobrychus exilis S4B THR T Schedule 1

Breeds specifically in dense freshwater marshes dominated by tall emergent vegetation such as cattails. The bittern typically requires large marshes (>5ha) with a stable water level as the nests are usually built among dense tall stands of emergent vegetation and within 10cm of open waters. This

No No


Common Name


1 COSSARO

2 COSEWIC

3 SARA



Property NRSI

Observed

open water is also needed for the bittern to forage as it is an ambush forager (COSEWIC 2012; Poole et al. 2009).

Red-headed woodpecker

Melanerpes erythrocephalus

S4B SC T Schedule 1

Red-headed woodpecker is known as a habitat generalist that may use deciduous forests, wooded swamps, fields, or pastures, but typically requires a territory of about 4 ha in size. Red-headed woodpeckers prefer to nest in the cavities of trees that are at least 40cm diameter at breast height (dbh) (OMNR 2000).

Yes No

1OMNR 2010,

2OMNR 2013,

3COSEWIC 2013,

4OMNR 2013a

LEGEND

SRANK COSSARO/COSEWIC

S4 Apparently Secure SC Special Concern

B Breeding THR/T Threatened

N Non-breeding


NRSI also observed 3 regionally significant species within the subject property;

Baltimore oriole (Icterus galbula), American redstart (Setophaga ruticilla) and sharp-

shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus). Both the Baltimore oriole and American redstart

demonstrated evidence of breeding within the buckthorn thicket community (THDM2-6),

while the sharp-shinned hawk was observed flying through the thicket community, which

may provide suitable foraging habitat.

Further discussion of impacts and mitigation measures which aim to maintain habitat for

the federally, provincially and regionally significant species are discussed further in this

report.

4.5.2 Herpetofauna

Twenty-eight species of herpetofauna (reptiles and amphibians) are known to occur

within the vicinity of the study area (Oldham and Weller 2000 and Ontario Nature 2013).

Half of these species are considered regionally rare (Dougan & Associates 2009), while

7 of them are considered SAR. A complete list of herpetofauna reported from the study

area, including their current status rankings, is shown in Appendix VII. Table 4 provides

a summary of significant herpetofauna species reported from the study area and their

preferred habitats.

NRSI did not observe any species of reptiles within the subject property despite

concentrated search efforts and strategic placement of snake boards. Figure 3 identifies

the Error! Reference source not found.location of the 8 snake boards that were

onitored. Background information indicates that several species of snakes are known

from the study area including 2 SAR; eastern milksnake (Lampropeltis taylori triangulum)

and the northern ribbonsnake (Thamnophis sauritus septentrionalis) (Marriott pers.

comm. 2009).

NRSI observed one amphibian species incidentally within the subject property; American

toad (Bufo americanus). No calling amphibians were heard during evening surveys and

suitable breeding habitat for frogs and toads within the subject property is very limited.

Refer to Figure 3 for the location of the calling anuran (frogs and toads) monitoring

stations.


Table 4. Herpetofauna SAR and SCC Reported from the Study Area

Common Name


1 COSSARO

2 COSEWIC

3 SARA


5


Property NRSI

Observed

Blanding‟s turtle

Emydoidea blandingii

S3 THR T Schedule 1

Shallow water marshes, bogs, ponds or swamps, or coves in larger lakes with soft muddy bottoms and aquatic vegetation; basks on logs, stumps or banks; surrounding natural habitat is important in summer as they frequently move from aquatic habitat to terrestrial habitats; hibernates in bogs; not readily observed.

No No

Common snapping turtle

Chelydra serpentina serpentina

S3 SC SC Schedule 1

Permanent or semi-permanent fresh water; marshes, swamps or bogs; rivers and streams with soft muddybanks or bottoms. The species often uses soft soil or clean dry sand on south-facing slopes for nest sites and may nest at some distance from water.

No No

Eastern milksnake

Lampropeltis taylori triangulum

S3 SC SC Schedule 1

Farmlands, meadows, hardwood or aspen stands; pine forest with brushy or woody cover; river bottoms or bog woods; hides under logs, stones, or boards or in outbuildings; often uses communal nest sites.

Yes No


Common Name


1 COSSARO

2 COSEWIC

3 SARA


5


Property NRSI

Observed

Jefferson salamander

Ambystoma jeffersonianum

S2 END E Schedule 1

Damp shady deciduous forest, swamps, moist pasture, lakeshores; temporary woodland pools for breeding; hides under leaf litter, stones or in decomposing logs

No No

Northern map turtle

Graptemys geographica

S3 SC SC Schedule 1

Large bodies of water with soft bottoms, and aquatic vegetation; basks on logs or rocks or on beaches and grassy edges, will bask in groups; uses soft soil or clean dry sand for nest sites; may nest at some distance from water.

No No

Northern ribbonsnake

Thamnophis sauritus septentrionalis

S3 SC SC Schedule 1

Sunny grassy areas with low dense vegetation near bodies of shallow permanent quiet water; wet meadows grassy marshes or sphagnum bogs; borders of ponds, lakes or streams; hibernates in groups

No No

Western chorus frog (Great Lakes/St. Lawrence – Canadian Shield Population)

Pseudacris triseriata pop. 2

S3 NAR T Roadside ditches or temporary ponds in fields; swamps or wet meadows; woodland or open country with cover and moisture; small ponds and temporary pools ponds and temporary pools

Yes No

1OMNR 2010,

2OMNR 2013,

3COSEWIC 2013,

4OMNR 2013a,

5OMNR 2000


As identified in Table 4 above, suitable habitat is present for 2 of the SAR reported from

the study area; eastern milksnake and western chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata

population 2). As eastern milksnake can occur in a wide variety of habitats, including

open areas (OMNR 2000), suitable habitat is present within the fallow fields and shrub

thicket communities. Although suitable habitat may be present within the property, no

snake species were observed during the focused snake surveys conducted by NRSI.

Chorus frogs are also found in a variety of habitats, including ponds in fields, woodlands

and swamps or wet meadows (OMNR 2000). The wetland pockets within the property

may provide suitable breeding habitat for this species; however, only 1 frog species was

documented during the evening anuran call surveys conducted by NRSI; American toad.

As suitable habitat for these species is present, the wildlife sighting protocol discussed in

more detail below, should be implemented prior to and during the construction phase to

ensure protection of wildlife species.

4.5.3 Mammals

Thirty-three mammal species are reported from the vicinity of the study area (Dobbyn

1994). NRSI biologists recorded evidence or observed seven of these species within the

subject property, all of which are common species in Ontario. This included direct

observations of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus

floridanus), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), and star-nosed mole (Condylura cristata)

as well as indirect evidence which included raccoon (Procyon lotor) tracks, the skull of a

Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and a coyote (Canis latrans) den with fresh scat

nearby. The coyote den which appeared to be active during the 2009 field surveys was

located in the far northeast corner of the subject property within the area mapped as

deciduous savannah (SVDM3).

A complete list of mammal species reported from the study area and their current status

is provided in Appendix VIII.

There are 2 mammal species known from the area that are considered federally and

provincially significant (Endangered); little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus) and northern


myotis (Myotis septentrionalis). Little brown myotis use caves, quarries, tunnel, hollow

trees or buildings for roosting. This species winters in humid caves and maternity roots

are sites in dark, warm areas such as attics and barns. Foraging habitat is primarily in

wetlands and forest edges (OMNR 2000).

Northern myotis and little brown myotis bats hibernate during the winter in mines or

caves. Roosting occurs in houses, manmade structures; however, they prefer hollow

trees or being under loose bark. They can be found foraging in forested areas with

nearby meadows and rivers (OMNR 2000).

Much of the property is comprised of fallow agricultural fields and shrub thicket

dominated by common buckthorn and smaller stature tree/shrub species. A detailed

tree inventory and assessment was conducted as part of the Tree Protection Plan within

the areas proposed for removal, which noted some larger stature trees adjacent to the

PSW. The area containing the larger stature trees that could provide suitable roosting

habitat for these species (in tree cavities) is being retained as open space. The

remainder of the property (fallow fields, small wetland pockets) may provide suitable

foraging habitat for these species.

Southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans)1 and the northern myotis are 2 regionally

significant species known from the county (Dougan & Associates 2009). In Ontario, the

southern flying squirrel inhabits mature deciduous forests, which is absent from the

subject property.

4.5.4 Lepidoptera

Based on data gathered from background sources (TEA 2012), there are 64 species

known to occur within the vicinity of the study area. NRSI biologists observed 12

species of butterfly within the subject property, including the monarch (Danaus

plexippus), a species of Conservation Concern. The monarch is listed as Special

Concern-Schedule 1 under the federal Species at Risk Act (OMNR 2013b). Although

1 The southern flying squirrel is listed as Special Concern in the Guelph Natural Heritage Study

(Dougan & Associates 2009), however this species has been listed as Not at Risk by COSEWIC since April 2006 (COSEWIC 2011).


abundant and widespread across Canada, habitat loss, especially in Mexico where this

species overwinters, threatens the monarch throughout its range.

5 other species (including monarch), are considered significant in Wellington County

(Dougan & Associates 2009). A complete list of butterflies reported from the study area

and their current status rankings can be seen in Appendix IX.

4.5.5 Odonata

Sixty-seven species of Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies) are known to occur within

the study area (Appendix X). NRSI biologists observed 4 species of dragonfly on the

subject property, including the ebony jewelwing (Calopteryx maculata), the lance-tipped

darner (Aeshna constricta), the Halloween pennant (Celithemis eponina), and the widow

skimmer (Libellula luctuosa). Each of the species observed are common in the province

of Ontario, although the Halloween pennant is considered a regionally significant species

(Dougan & Associates 2009). Halloween pennant prefers ponds, lakes and slow

streams (Catling and Brownell 2000). The ephemeral watercourse within the subject

property may provide suitable habitat for this species when conditions provide flowing

water; however, it is likely that this species was just moving through the site.

A complete list of odonates (dragonflies and damselflies) reported from the study area

and their current status rankings are provided in Appendix X.

4.6 Aquatic Environment

No permanent aquatic features are present within the subject lands. An ephemeral head

water swale feature, which conveys surface runoff flows from a small area south of

Starwood Drive towards the Clythe Creek PSW in a south easterly direction, is present

in the wetland at the northern end of the subject lands (Figure 1). Representatives from

the GRCA (Tony Zammit, Ecologist and Fred Notolochny) had internal discussions in

regards to this feature, and concluded that the feature referred to as an "ephemeral

headwater swale" is not a watercourse as defined by GRCA regulation and is not a

feature regulated under the Conservation Authorities Act and would only serve to convey

flow on occasion. This confirms what has been provided through NRSI observations

(GRCA 2012). NRSI and City of Guelph staff met on-site on October 24, 2012 to


reassess the local drainage conditions and ephemeral classification given to the feature.

It was again concluded that the ephemeral designation given is consistent with the

definition of ephemeral features in OPA 42 “water that only flows during storm events

and may or may not have a well-defined channel” (City of Guelph 2010).

As shown in Appendix XI, Photo 1, a low volume of water flow was observed within this

feature on May 14, 2009 during the spring freshet; however, on subsequent visits on

June 24, 2009 and October 24, 2012, the features was observed in dry conditions

(Appendix XI - Photo 2).

There was no defined channel (streambed and banks) observed, indicating that the

feature does not receive significant enough flows, or duration of flows, to scour soils and

form a stream bed or banks. The feature can be described as a slightly depressed (a

few centimeters), low gradient, swale feature that is lined with dense terrestrial

vegetation (herbaceous) that is situated within two wetland communities (see SWDM4-5

and SWTM2-1 on Figure 3). The established terrestrial vegetation indicates that the

feature only conveys occasional surface flows for limited periods of time. In some

locations within the subject property, the feature is so ill-defined that it is difficult to

visually identify its presence through the wetland. Although this feature is mapped as an

intermittent tributary by the Ministry of Natural Resources (Marriott pers. comm. 2009)

based on NRSI, GRCA, and City of Guelph field observations, this swale is ephemeral in

nature as it appears to only convey flow during the spring freshet. Based on the small

drainage area and topography of the area, it is unlikely that runoff during rain events

would be conveyed to the swale feature. It is more likely to sheet flow and dissipates

through the shrub thicket and wetland communities.

The feature is not considered direct fish habitat as the swale feature does not have

adequate water levels and flow to support a fish community. The feature was only

observed to flow during spring freshet. The feature does not have direct connectivity to

direct fish habitat, Clythe Creek, which is located approximately 0.5km to the south. The

feature may convey small volumes of spring freshet runoff towards the Clythe Creek

PSW. This feature is not believed to indirectly support fish habitat within Clythe Creek.

Although it provides very minor contributing surface flow to the Clythe Creek PSW, this


is anticipated to occur for a limited period of time (once a year at spring freshet). These

flows are anticipated to be negligible contributing volumes to the PSW or Clythe Creek.

A storm water management swale has been constructed just north of the subject lands

behind a residential community which flows in a northeasterly direction toward Starwood

Drive then southeasterly along the outer edge of the study area. This swale was dry

during all site visits. At the north corner of the property the swale flows through gabion

basket reinforced banks where it turns south east (Appendix XI - Photo 3).

Downstream of the gabion banks the swale widens to approximately 7-10m wide

between an earth berm (along the edge of the shrub thicket and subject property) and an

elevated abandoned field (Appendix XI - Photo 4). This area, which extends along the

northern boundary of the subject lands, acts as a settling area during periods of

increased precipitation. This area was also dry during site visits on June 24 2009, and

October 24, 2012. There was no direct or indirect fish habitat present within this storm

water management swale feature.


5.0 Significance and Sensitivity of Natural Features

Analysis of the significance and sensitivity of existing natural features is used to identify

those features and habitats that are sensitive to disturbance based on the rarity or

significance of the feature or the functions/processes and/or policies, legislation, or

planning related studies. These features and functions are further identified as

„constraints‟ to development, prohibiting development to occur within them. Conversely,

the analysis is used to identify areas that have been previously disturbed or impacted or

contain no natural features which are identified as areas of „opportunity‟ for development

or where potential for habitat rehabilitation or enhancement exists. Results of this

analysis are intended to provide input the proposed development plan in order to avoid

and reduce impacts to natural features and functions.

A summary of this analysis for the Cityview Drive property is discussed below.

Development constraints are shown on Figure 5.

5.1 Wetlands

A total of 3 wetland features were identified within the subject property, which include 2

non-PSW parcels and a small portion of the Clythe Creek PSW complex (see Figure 1).

The boundaries of these features were flagged in the field by NRSI and reviewed by

GRCA staff on June 8, 2009. These surveys were then surveyed to be shown on

subsequent plans.

Wetlands are important for many reasons including collecting and storing surface water

and groundwater and providing habitat for plants, wildlife and fish. Wetlands operate on

a water balance, where the hydrologic character of the wetland is determined by the

combination of water inflow/outflow, topography and groundwater conditions (Mitsch and

Gosselink 1993). Wetlands receive water through precipitation, surface inflow,

groundwater recharge and lose water through evapotranspiration, surface outflow and

groundwater discharge.

THDM2-6

HI

MEFM4

THDM2-6

STARWOOD DR

SILURIAN DR

YORK RD

WATSON PKY N

CEDARVALE AVE

CITYVIEW DR

LAW

DR

KEAT

ING

ST

MEFM4

THDM2-6

THDM2-3

SWTM2-1

SWDM4-5

SVDM3

SWTM2-1

TAGM1

THDM2-8

TAGM1

MAMM1-3


563000

563000

563200

563200

563400

563400

563600

563600

4823

400

4823

400

4823

600

4823

600

4823

800

4823

800

4824

000

4824

000


´ 0 50 100 150Meters




Figure 5

LegendSubject PropertyProposed Development

Proposed Grading

Grading Limit for Lots 123-136PSW BoundaryPSW Buffer (30m)Ecological Land Classification (ELC)

(MAMM1-3) Reed-canary Grass Graminoid Mineral Meadow Marsh Type(MEFM4) Fresh-Moist Forb Meadow Ecosite(TAGM1) Coniferous Plantation(THDM2-3) Chokecherry Deciduous Shrub Thicket Type(THDM2-6) Buckthorn Deciduous Shrub Thicket Type(THDM2-8) Raspberry Deciduous Shrub Thicket Type(SVDM3) Dry - Fresh Deciduous Savanna Ecosite(SWDM4-5) Poplar Mineral Deciduous Ecosite(SWTM2-1) Red-osier Dogwood Mineral Deciduous Thicket Swamp Type(H1) Deciduous Hedgerow

X:\0924_CityViewDrive\NRSI_0924_Fig5_NaturalConstraints_3K_2013_08_20_GCS.mxd




Natural Environment Constraints


5.1.1 Clythe Creek PSW

A portion of the Clythe Creek PSW Complex occurs along the northeast portion of the

subject property (Figure 1). This wetland has also been designed as Core Greenland

within the current City of Guelph Official Plan (2012) and has been mapped as a

Significant Natural Area under OPA 42 (City of Guelph 2010 – currently under appeal).

Adjacent lands to the PSW (defined as 120m) extend onto portions of the property

where the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision is proposed. The reader is referred to

Section 2.0 for constraints to development within PSWs, City of Guelph Core

Greenlands, Significant Natural Areas under OPA 42 (currently under appeal) and their

adjacent lands.

This wetland was identified as being predominantly surface water fed, including interflow

(transient near-surface flow that originates from recent runoff events and which moves

short lateral distances through surficial soil layers) (Anderson GeoLogic 2013). Small

localized areas of interflow were noted by NRSI staff on the north-facing slope within the

section of shrub thicket area being retained.

As discussed in Section 2.1, development within a PSW is prohibited under the PPS.

Development can occur adjacent to the feature provided that it is demonstrated through

the completion of an EIS that the feature and its function will not be impacted. This is

consistent with the City of Guelph‟s Official Plan (2012) and OPA 42 (2010 - currently

under appeal).

Naturally vegetated buffers are required for natural heritage features such as wetlands to

protect their form and ecological function, as well as to mitigate against negative effects

from a proposed development. A 30m buffer beyond the boundary of a PSW is a

standard minimum setback for development which is consistent to that recommended

under the City of Guelph‟s OPA 42. The on-site PSW is afforded protection from the

proposed development by way of a minimum 30m wetland buffer as shown on Figure 5.

5.1.2 Non-Provincially Significant Wetlands

The 2 small wetland areas in the southern portion of the property are not hydraulically

connected to the PSW and the topography of the property has resulted in a drainage


divide in the central portion of the subject property (Anderson GeoLogic Limited 2013).

The hydrogeological investigation identified both of these features as surface fed by

runoff (Anderson GeoLogic Limited 2013). Although within 750m of the PSW, because

both of these wetlands are less than 2 hectares and not functionally connected to the

PSW area they were not considered candidates for evaluation (OMNR 2009).

The one wetland parcel located along the southern property boundary, characterized as

meadow marsh (MAMM1-3) is approximately 0.12ha in size. As discussed in Section

2.5, this wetland feature is regulated under GRCA Regulation 150/06. Section 8.4.4 of

this regulation notes that development within a naturally occurring wetland may be

permitted where the wetland is less than 0.5ha in size and it can be demonstrated that

the wetland is not:

Part of a Provincially Significant Wetland,

located within a floodplain or riparian community,

part of a Provincially or municipally designated natural heritage feature, a significant woodland, or hazard land,

a bog or a fen,

fish habitat,

significant wildlife habitat,

confirmed habitat for a provincially or regionally significant species as determined by the Ministry of Natural Resources or as determined by the municipality,

part of an ecologically functional corridor or linkage between larger wetlands or natural areas,

part of a groundwater recharge area, or

a groundwater discharge area associated with any of the above.

Based on field surveys conducted by NRSI and the hydrogeological study completed by

Anderson GeoLogic (2013), the small meadow marsh community (MAMM1-3) does not

meet any of the criteria outlined above, therefore, this wetland is considered non-

significant. Furthermore, the GRCA may permit development in this area under Ontario

Regulation 150/06.

The second wetland parcel located in the southwest corner of the property that is

characterized as deciduous thicket swamp (SWTM2-1) is 0.37ha in size. This wetland is

a relatively new feature which appears to have formed by the alteration of the landscape


due to the surrounding urban development. NRSI observed the surface soils in this

wetland to be characterized by a layer of topsoil, likely from past agricultural activities,

overlaying silty clay. The presence of mineral soils with low infiltration capabilities

indicates that as drainage in the area was directed to the site, the soils became

saturated and wetland vegetation began to establish. A resident along Cityview Drive

indicated that this area was historically used for agricultural but was left to naturally

regenerate approximately 20 years ago. This is supported by evidence in historic

airphotos (2000) that show substantially less vegetation in this area. The absence of

organic soils within the wetland area also indicates the wetland is young, with little humic

or organic content.

Development within an anthropogenic wetland may be permitted by the GRCA where

the wetland is less than 2 hectares and where it can be demonstrated that the wetland

functions can be maintained or enhanced elsewhere within the subwatershed or

planning area and the wetland is not:

part of a Provincially Significant Wetland,

located within a floodplain or riparian community,

part of a Provincially or municipally designated natural heritage feature, a significant woodland, or hazard land,

fish habitat,

significant wildlife habitat,

confirmed habitat for a Provincially or regionally significant species as determined by the Ministry of Natural Resources or determined by the municipality,

part of an ecologically functional corridor or linkage between larger wetlands or natural areas,

part of a groundwater recharge area, or

a groundwater discharge area associated with any of the above.

Although this wetland has become established due to natural regeneration, the human

alteration of the landscape appears to be sustaining surface water flow through

stormwater discharge from the neighbouring property off Lee Street. The

hydrogeological investigation prepared for the site (Anderson GeoLogic Limited 2013)

notes that to the southeast of the main drainage divide within the subject property, there

is a „subdued‟ topographic dip before topography falls more steeply toward the

southwest. The two unevaluated wetland features described above are located in this


topographic dip where surface water drainage was observed to be poor. The wetland

does not meet any of the criteria outlined above and is not considered significant,

furthermore, the GRCA may permit development in this area under Ontario Regulation

150/06.

According to OPA 42 (2010 – currently under appeal) development and site alteration

may be permitted within non-significant wetlands where it has been demonstrated, to the

satisfaction of the City, through a site-specific study, that the wetland does not meet one

or more of the following criteria:

located within a floodplain or riparian community;

identified as part of another Significant Natural Area in the City;

a bog or fen;

Fish Habitat;

Significant Wildlife Habitat;

confirmed Habitat for Significant Species (as identified by COSEWIC 2011,

OMNR 2011b, or Dougan and Associates 2009);

part of an ecologically functional corridor or linkage between larger wetlands or

Significant Natural Areas; or

is part of a seep or spring or is hydrologically linked to a PSW or locally

significant wetland.

Based on field surveys conducted by NRSI and the hydrogeological study completed by

Anderson GeoLogic Limited (2013), these non-significant wetland features do not meet

any of the criteria outlined above.

5.2 Woodlands

The discussion of woodlands in this section is in reference to the shrub thicket area in

the eastern portion of the study area and excludes portions that have been designated

as PSW and Significant Natural Area under OPA 42 (2010).

Under the existing City of Guelph OP (2012), the shrub thickets within the subject

property are not designated as Significant Woodlands. These shrub thicket areas

(buckthorn and chokecherry) do not meet the criteria for Significant Woodlands under


OPA 42 (City of Guelph 2010 - currently under appeal) as they can be largely

characterized as disturbed or „cultural‟, with a high proportion of non-native, invasive tree

and shrub species, such as common buckthorn that dominates the canopy, sub-canopy

and understory. The large proportion of common buckthorn, along with occasional

Manitoba maple, Scotch pine, tartarian honeysuckle, common crabapple and a variety of

cold season grasses and non-native forbs indicates a high level of disturbance within

this area historically. With the number of successional species, non-native, invasive

species present and the relatively low number of mature trees found within this area, it is

quite likely that the existing feature has regenerated from an abandoned agricultural field

or pasture.

OPA 42 defines „cultural woodlands‟ as the following:

“a woodland with tree cover between 35% and 60% originating from, or maintained by, anthropogenic influences and culturally based disturbances (e.g., planting or agriculture, clearing, recreation, grazing or mowing); often having a large proportion of introduced (i.e., non-native) species (as per the Ecological Land Classification System for southern Ontario) and with shrubs, grasses, and/or herbaceous ground cover. These may be second or third growth woodlands that occur on land that has been significantly altered by human disturbance where the original forest was completely or mostly removed at various points in time (e.g., from agriculture, grazing, gravel extraction) and may include a small proportion of planted trees but has undergone natural succession to the point where tree cover is between 35% and 60%, with grass and herbaceous ground covers, and possibly shrubs as well. “

As the shrub thicket areas are disturbed, with limited deciduous tree canopy cover, they

do not meet the criteria for significant woodlands under OPA 42 as indicated in Section

6.1.5.5.2 of OPA 42. Under Section 6.1.6.2.3 of OPA 42, development and site

alteration may be permitted in cultural woodlands where it has been demonstrated

through an EIS that the cultural woodland:

i) does not meet the criteria for one or more Significant Natural Areas; and

ii) is dominated by non-indigenous species (i.e., 60% or more)

The shrub thicket area does not meet OPA 42 criteria for a Significant Natural Area and

contains greater than 60% non-indigenous species; furthermore, development may be

permitted within this feature. As such, no buffers have been recommended. The

proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision encroaches into the western portion of the thicket


area; however, habitat is being retained within the area encompassed in the 30m

wetland buffer, as well as within Open Space Block 152.

5.3 Significant Wildlife Habitat

The results of information collected through agency consultation, vegetation community

mapping and focused wildlife surveys was used to screen for/identify candidate

Significant Wildlife Habitats (SWH) within the subject property based on the PPS,

Natural Heritage Reference Manual and SWHTG. The SWHTG groups significant

wildlife habitats into 4 broad categories:

i. seasonal concentration areas,

ii. rare vegetation communities or specialized wildlife habitat,

iii. habitats of species of conservation concern, excluding habitats for endangered

and threatened species, and

iv. animal movement corridors.

Three candidate SWH types were initially identified for the subject property and/or the

surrounding 50m (defined as adjacent lands for SWH following City of Guelph (2012)):

Seasonal Concentration Areas:

snake hibernaculum, and

bat maternity colony

Specialized Wildlife Habitat:

amphibian breeding habitat – wetlands and woodlands,

seeps and springs

Habitat of Species of Conservation Concern:

eastern meadowlark,

eastern wood-pewee,

red-headed woodpecker,

eastern milksnake,

western chorus frog,

monarch, and

terrestrial crayfish,


Further analysis on these habitats was carried out to determine if confirmed SWH is

present within the subject property (Appendix III). Based on survey findings, no SWH

types were confirmed to be present within the subject property. See Appendix III for the

complete SWH screening tables for seasonal concentration areas, rare vegetation

communities, specialized wildlife habitat, habitat for species of conservation concern and

animal movement corridors.

5.3.1 Seasonal Concentration Areas

Wildlife seasonal concentration areas are defined as areas where animals occur in

relatively high densities for all, or portions, or their life cycle (OMNR 2000a). These

areas are generally relatively small in size, particularly when compared to areas used by

these species during other times of the year. Habitats of seasonal concentration of

animals have been identified by using the habitat criteria found in the SWHTG and

updated Ecoregion Criteria Schedules (OMNR 2000a, OMNR 2012). Based on this

assessment, there are no seasonal concentration areas within the subject property (see

Appendix III).

5.3.2 Rare Vegetation Communities

The SWHTG identifies rare vegetation communities as those that have been identified

as provincially rare or rare within a planning area. Vegetation communities with the

lowest representation within the planning area may also be considered significant, and

those that are rare or could be lost due to development are considered highly significant.

The highest priority sites are those that contain S1-S3 ranked vegetation communities.

A vegetation community may also be considered rare within a planning area if it

represents <3% of the remaining natural area or if it is found at 5 or fewer sites within the

municipality. Higher quality sites are relatively undisturbed (i.e. no roads or infrequently

used roads, no pollution, no forestry operations etc.). Rare communities supporting

other significant wildlife habitat are considered the most significant.

Vegetation communities within the subject property were classified using the Ecological

Land Classification System for Southern Ontario (Lee et al. 1998, Lee 2008). This

included vascular flora inventories and notes on wildlife habitat. The results of these

surveys were then compared to the rare vegetation community descriptions provided in


the SWHTG Addendum (OMNR 2012b) as a desktop exercise. Based on this analysis,

there are no rare vegetation communities within the subject property.

5.3.3 Specialized Wildlife Habitat

Specialized habitats include those that support wildlife species with highly specific

habitat requirements, areas with exceptionally high species diversity, and/or areas that

provide habitat that greatly enhances a species‟ chance of survival (OMNR 2000a). No

specialized wildlife habitats were identified within the subject property from background

data collected; however, the SWHTG indicates that most specialized habitats have not

been formally identified or mapped by any agency (OMNR 2000a).

Small, localized areas of seasonal interflow (shallow groundwater flows) were noted by

NRSI biologists on May 13 2009 on the north-facing slope within the shrub thicket area.

As the areas of interflow are present from infiltration of precipitation into soils and

shallow discharge along the slope and not supported by the local groundwater table

(Anderson GeoLogic Limited 2013), they do not provide the same function of true

groundwater fed seepages do as they are limited to times where soils are saturated (i.e.

spring thaw or large rain events). With temporal limitations, function for wildlife such as

providing a drinking source during winter conditions is unlikely. In addition, NRSI did not

observe any seepage indicator species or wildlife use. Furthermore, areas of interflow

within the subject property do not meet OMNR requirements to be designated as SWH

under the PPS.

5.3.4 Habitat of Species of Conservation Concern

According to the SWHTG (OMNR 2000a), species that can be considered species of

conservation concern include:

“species identified as nationally endangered or threatened by the Committee on

the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, which are not protected in the

regulation under Ontario‟s Endangered Species Act,

species identified as provincially vulnerable based on lists of Vulnerable,

Threatened, Endangered, Extirpated, or Extinct Species of Ontario that are

updated periodically by the OMNR,


species that are listed as rare or historical in Ontario based on records kept by

the Natural Heritage Information Centre in Peterborough (S1 is extremely rare,

S2 is very rare, S3 is rare to uncommon),

species whose populations are known to be experiencing substantial declines in

Ontario,

species that have a high percentage of their global population in Ontario and are

rare or uncommon in the planning area,

species that are rare within the planning area, even though they may not be

provincially rare,

species that are subjects of recovery programs (e.g. the Black Duck Joint

Venture of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan),

species considered important to the municipality, based on recommendations

from the Conservation Advisory Committee.”

Habitats for species of conservation concern are exclusive of those habitats for species

that are protected under the Habitat of Endangered and Threatened Species of the

Natural Heritage Component of the PPS (OMNR 2000a). Suitable habitat is present for

eastern meadowlark, eastern wood-pewee, red-headed woodpecker, eastern milksnake,

western chorus frog, monarch and terrestrial crayfish within the fallow agricultural fields,

open field wetland features, shrub thickets and PSW; however; none of these species,

with the exception of monarch, were documented during focused field surveys

conducted by NRSI.

Monarch Butterfly

The monarch butterfly is considered a species of conservation concern based on its

current status of Special Concern- Schedule 1 under the federal SARA. SWH habitat for

this species is migratory stopover areas, which are located within 5km of Lake Ontario;

therefore, SWH habitat is not present within the subject property.

The species lays its eggs on milkweeds (Asclepias spp.) which were observed scattered

throughout the fallow field areas and meadows. Milkweed is a very common plant that

abundantly occurs throughout the region; therefore, foraging habitat may be present.

However, with the retention of the vegetated corridor associated with the PSW (and

retention of milkweed plants), the proposed development is not expected to have a


negative impact on the Monarch. Suitable foraging habitat is also abundantly available

locally. As such, habitat of this species within the subject property is not considered

significant, furthermore, not meeting the requirements to be designated as SWH under

the PPS.

5.3.5 Animal Movement Corridors

The SWHTG identifies animal movement corridors as naturally vegetated parts of the

landscape used by wildlife to move from one habitat to another (OMNR 2000a). The

SWHTG indicates that animal movement corridors are considered „significant‟ when they

facilitate wildlife movement between Significant Wildlife Habitats (e.g. deer movement to

and from wintering areas, amphibian movement between significant breeding ponds and

summer habitat, etc.). These corridors are particularly important to wildlife that require a

variety of habitat types to survive (e.g. amphibians), wildlife that move in response to

climatic changes (e.g. moose and deer), and dispersing juveniles. Adding to, or

improving the functionality of corridors may increase dispersal abilities of many wildlife

species, increase biodiversity, assist in off-setting negative impacts associated with

highly fragmented landscapes, and increase buffer zones. These areas can provide

habitat that is suitable for wildlife movement and plant propagation, while allowing

genetic exchange, re-colonization and the ability to move in response to seasonal and

long-term environmental changes (Bolger et al. 2001, Ng et al. 2004).

Within Ecoregion 6E (OMNR 2012), animal movement corridors are identified for

amphibian movement corridors and deer movement corridors. The habitat

characteristics for amphibian movement corridors are to be comprised of native

vegetation, roadless areas, areas with no gaps such as fields, waterbodies and

undeveloped areas (OMNR 2012). Deer movement corridors may be found in all

forested ecosites. Corridors that lead to a deer wintering yard should be unbroken by

roads and residential areas (OMNR 2012).

There are no wildlife movement corridors or ecological linkages identified within the

City‟s OPA 42 Natural Heritage Strategy mapping (2010 – currently under appeal).

Through the assessment of habitat features on-site and field survey findings, no SWH

habitat features were confirmed within the subject property, therefore, no significant

movement corridors are present.


Although not identified as a movement corridor based on existing policies, the wooded

corridor along the northern portion of the property, in conjunction with the neighbouring

Cityview Ridge wooded area may provide a small area for wildlife to travel. Wildlife

movement is limited in this area as a result of surrounding residential development.

5.4 Habitat for Locally Significant Species

NRSI observed 3 regionally significant bird species, the American redstart, Baltimore

oriole and sharp-shinned hawk and 1 dragonfly species; Halloween pennant.

Populations for the American redstart, Baltimore oriole and sharp-shinned hawk are

considered secure (S5) in Ontario and the Halloween pennant is vulnerable (S3) in

Ontario. All of these species are commonly encountered in a variety of habitats

throughout southern Ontario.

The American redstart generally prefers habitats which offer moist, deciduous, second-

growth woodlands with abundant shrubs but can also be found in thickets, orchards and

often in riparian areas (Sherry and Holmes 1997). The species forages primarily on

insects ranging from the ground level through to the near canopy and builds nests

primarily within deciduous trees (Sherry and Holmes 1997).

Baltimore orioles prefer areas of deciduous woodland edge (often in riparian areas) as

well as more open habitats with scattered trees (Rising and Flood 1998). The species

often nests in tall, widely-spaced trees but will also frequent the understory to forage for

insects and fruits (Rising and Flood 1998). Oriole nests are generally built in the canopy

of large isolated trees (including those within an urban setting) frequently within

American elm, silver maple and poplar trees.

Sharp-shinned hawks prefer dense, coniferous or mixed forests and are often found

near a lake or river and sometimes within wet forests (OMNR 2000). This species uses

more open areas (i.e. forest edges or forest clearings) for hunting and requirements a

minimum of 4ha of dense (>80%) canopy closure for nesting (OMNR 2000).

The dragonfly species observed by NRSI, Halloween pennant, prefers ponds, lakes and

slow streams for breeding habitat (Catling and Brownell 2000).


Given the habitat preferences for each of these species, suitable habitat for American

redstart and Baltimore oriole is present within the shrub thicket area, while foraging

habitat may be present for sharp-shinned hawk and Halloween pennant within the open

areas of the thicket communities or along the ephemeral watercourse. The American

redstart and Baltimore oriole demonstrated evidence of breeding within the shrub thicket,

while the sharp-shinned hawk and Halloween pennant were observed flying through the

property.

Section 6.1.6.3.3 of OPA 42 indicates that:

“Development and site alteration may be permitted within all or portions of the habitat of locally significant wildlife species and established buffers where it has been demonstrated through an EIS or EA, to the satisfaction of the City, that there will be no negative impacts on the local habitat that is necessary for the maintenance and survival of the species.”

5.5 Valleylands

A portion of „other valleylands‟ under OPA 42 has been identified as occurring within the

subject property (Figure 1). Mapping of this feature is likely based on course-level or

outdated topographic mapping, as the area in which the designation applies was

surveyed by NRSI staff on October 24, 2012 and was found to be an area of flat land at

the top of an adjacent valley slope.

A large open space block (Block 152) is proposed along the backside of residential Lots

121 – 145 on the Draft Plan of Subdivision. Although not designated as „Other

Valleylands‟, the open space block will allow for the retention of local sloping

topography.


6.0 Stewardship Plan

The recommendations provided below are aimed at enhancing the existing natural areas

within the subject property. Figure 6 provides an overview of the natural areas being

retained as part of the Draft Plan of Subdivision, as well as areas of tree preservation,

restoration opportunities and enhancement measures. By enhancing features, such as

wetland buffers and woodlot edges, the natural communities within the subject property

will be preserved and disturbance to wildlife will be minimized.

6.1 Natural Area Enhancement and Restoration

As part of the this impact assessment based on the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision,

a number of factors were considered including the opportunities to enhance existing

natural features. Opportunities for enhancement include retained natural features, their

buffers, stormwater management features, open space and parkland. Restoration and

enhancement of these areas will provide additional habitat diversity as well as potential

linkages between other wooded and wetland habitats off-site.

The upland areas surrounding the PSW are dominated by common buckthorn, an exotic

and highly invasive species. If feasible, it is recommended that a buckthorn/invasive

species removal program be considered for the open space block buffer in order to allow

the establishment of native shrub species. Although common buckthorn is an

undesirable, non-native shrub, it provides suitable habitat on site for wildlife species

which prefer thicket habitats such as some bird species. Opportunities to replace native

shrubland/thicket habitat exists within the buffers and open space blocks to be retained

(Blocks 151 and 152) as well as lots backing onto these areas.

THDM2-6

HI

MEFM4

THDM2-6

STARWOOD DR

SILURIAN DR

YORK RD

WATSON PKY N

CEDARVALE AVE

CITYVIEW DR

LAW

DR

KEAT

ING

ST

MEFM4

THDM2-6

THDM2-3

SWTM2-1

SWDM4-5

SVDM3

SWTM2-1

TAGM1

THDM2-8

TAGM1

MAMM1-3


563000

563000

563200

563200

563400

563400

563600

563600

4823

400

4823

400

4823

600

4823

600

4823

800

4823

800

4824

000

4824

000


´ 0 50 100 150Meters




Figure 6

LegendSubject PropertyProposed Development

Proposed Grading

Grading Limit for Lots 123-136Buffer/Open Space Enhancement and Invasive Shrub RemovalTree Retention AreasEcological Land Classification (ELC)

(MAMM1-3) Reed-canary Grass Graminoid Mineral Meadow Marsh Type(MEFM4) Fresh-Moist Forb Meadow Ecosite(TAGM1) Coniferous Plantation(THDM2-3) Chokecherry Deciduous Shrub Thicket Type(THDM2-6) Buckthorn Deciduous Shrub Thicket Type(THDM2-8) Raspberry Deciduous Shrub Thicket Type(SVDM3) Dry - Fresh Deciduous Savanna Ecosite(SWDM4-5) Poplar Mineral Deciduous Ecosite(SWTM2-1) Red-osier Dogwood Mineral Deciduous Thicket Swamp Type(H1) Deciduous Hedgerow

X:\0924_CityViewDrive\NRSI_0924_Fig6_StewardshipPlan_3K_2013_08_20_GCS.mxd




Stewardship Plan


Enhancement plantings are recommended along the edge of Block 152 to act as a

vegetative buffer to the wetland and to provide a number of other benefits. As outlined

in the Tree Protection Plan (Appendix IV), a 2:1 or 3:1 compensation for all native and

non-native trees in excellent to fair condition proposed for removal is recommended.

Where possible, compensation for these trees should be fulfilled on-site, such as along

backs of properties, in park areas, along street boulevards and within the open space

blocks. Vegetation species used for enhancement plantings and tree compensation

plantings, with exception of street trees, should be exclusively native and common to

Wellington County and should not include any species that are listed as introduced or

significant. The use of hardy species will ensure successful early establishment and

minimize the potential for invasive species infestations. For street tree plantings, the use

of non-native trees species that are more tolerant to urban conditions (i.e. salt and

drought tolerant) may be suitable as long as they do not include invasive species such

as Norway maple (Acer platanoides).

Plantings should aim to bulk up natural areas and buffer them from ad-hoc pedestrian

trails and residential development. The enhancement and compensation plantings will

provide:

Enhancement of existing habitat linkages through re-vegetation of native species.

This focuses on supplementing existing wooded habitats associated with the

wetland,

Provision of buffers and setbacks to enhance wetland and terrestrial habitats.

Natural succession and plantings can be used to create native vegetation zones

around the retained wetland and thicket areas,

Enhanced buffer plantings in the area where residential properties are

immediately adjacent to the wetland buffer (Lots 121, 122 and 123). This should

include plantings of suitable native species to prohibit people from trampling

vegetation or entering the wetland buffer, and prevent erosion, and

Provision of open habitats, such as cultural thickets/meadows for foraging as well

as nesting, etc. for species that prefer open areas.

Buffer plantings may include the planting of larger caliper trees or smaller tree „whips‟

and shrub plantings, all of which will serve to buffer the wooded area from development.

The selection of species should reflect the native species composition of nearby natural


areas. Moisture regime and soil requirements for enhancement and compensation

species should also be considered to ensure their survival.

Due to the emergence of emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis) (EAB), within southern

Ontario, the use of ash trees (Fraxinus ssp.) for restoration plantings is not

recommended

6.2 Invasive Shrub Removal

Much of the deciduous shrub thicket area within the subject property is comprised of

common buckthorn and other non-native species. The open space block (including

PSW and associated buffer) would benefit from an invasive shrub removal program

focused primarily on buckthorn. Invasive shrubs have the potential to dominate forest

edges and understory, resulting in reductions in overall species diversity. The methods

below highlight the approach that could be taken to control the spread of buckthorn on

site.

Buckthorn is a woody shrub abundant in many forests, thickets, wetlands and quite often

at forest edges. It is a prolific seed-producer and suckers vigorously from cut stems.

The seeds of buckthorn will remain viable in the soil for 2-3 years, thus post-treatment

monitoring is advisable and repeated treatments may be required.

Light Infestations

Hand-pulling can be effective if a few small shrubs are present. Soil disturbance

must be minimized to avoid the seed bank germinating. Cutting or girdling alone

is not effective; the stems will sucker back much thicker than before.

Heavy infestations

Heavy infestations of buckthorn are controlled almost exclusively by herbicide

application. Prescribed burning is another option, but it is often not practical in

the urban or wooded settings. As with light infestations, cutting or girdling alone

is not effective and will only cause the buckthorn to sucker and allow new plants

to germinate with the additional light available,

The most effective approach is referred to as the “cut and coat” method.

Buckthorn stems are cut low to the ground with a chainsaw or brush saw

followed by an application of herbicide to the cut stems. A dilution of 30%


triclopyr herbicide (Garlon 4®) mixed with an oil carrier (diesel fuel) applied to cut

stems will kill nearly all plants with no suckering. It is important that all stems are

coated fully (this is made easier with the use of an oil-soluble dye such as Bas-

Oil®),

Foliar sprays are also effective in late summer, though success rates are lower

than the “cut and coat” method, and the potential to harm desirable species is

increased. A dilution of 3-5% glyphosate (RoundUp®) or 25% triclopyr (Garlon

4®) mixed with water and sprayed with a backpack sprayer to the leaves of

buckthorn will prove somewhat effective. It should be noted that as a broad-

spectrum herbicide, glyphosate will harm graminoid species (grasses) as well as

broad-leaved herbaceous species. Triclopyr is broad-leaf specific and will

generally not harm grass species.

6.3 Tree Retention Areas

Areas designated as parks or open space and the rear of residential lots, in some cases,

have existing tree cover present which may be suitable for tree retention. The Tree

Protection Plan prepared by NRSI (Appendix IV) identifies where these trees should be

retained/removed. The presence of trees of any size in these green spaces will serve a

number of functions, including wildlife habitat, soil stabilization and improved aesthetics.

A Tree Protection Plan has been prepared for the area which identifies where trees

>10cm DBH can be retained within these areas (Appendix IV).


7.0 Impact Analysis

7.1 Approach to Impact Analysis

To guide the revised development proposal, NRSI provided boundaries and setbacks

from the significant natural features on-site to the study team. Based on these features

and their buffers, the study team collaborated to develop a concept plan, servicing and

stormwater management strategy which avoided and protected the significant natural

features. The impact analysis presented here is based on the final version of the

proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision prepared by IBI Group (July 23, 2013). The

proposed undertaking is outlined in Section 1.2 above and will entail the stormwater

management strategy and servicing study prepared by IBI Group (2013a and 2013b).

The proposed undertaking will result in site grading to achieve the necessary cut/fill

balance, vegetation removal within the fallow agricultural fields, shrub thicket area, non-

PSW features and tree removal within footprint.

The following is a description of the types of impacts that are discussed.

Direct impacts to the subject lands associated with disruption or displacement

caused by the actual proposed „footprint‟ of the undertaking.

Indirect impacts associated with changes in site conditions such as drainage and

water quantity/quality.

Induced impacts associated with impacts after the development is constructed

such as subsequent demand on the resources created by increased

habitation/use of the area and vicinity.

Cumulative impacts associated with the spatial and temporal implications of this

proposal in conjunction with other undertakings in the area.

7.2 Direct Impacts

The approach to identifying and delineating the natural features and associated buffers

was aimed at avoiding direct impacts from development on important natural features.

The delineation of the natural features, especially the surveyed PSW boundary are the

basis for the revised Draft Plan shown on Figure 2, therefore, direct impacts to these

natural features have been avoided where possible. Figure 5 presents the proposed

development layout over the existing natural features and associated buffers showing


the direct impacts to natural features, including tree removal, removal of fallow field

vegetation, site grading and the removal of two non-PSW features. These impacts are

discussed in more detail below.

7.2.1 Wetland Removal

The proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision as shown on Figure 2 will not result in the

removal of any of the PSW within the subject property. A 30m buffer has been

established around the PSW to avoid direct impacts from grading activities and future

development of the site. It will however result in the removal of the small (0.12 ha)

meadow marsh along the southern property boundary and a portion (0.3 ha) of the

swamp wetland along the southwestern property boundary. These wetlands were

documented as being hydrologically isolated from the PSW, and have arisen due to

changes in drainage on-site and on adjacent lands. No significant plants, wildlife, or

wildlife habitat was observed to be present within these features. It is not anticipated

that the proposed removal of these features would result in significant negative

environmental impacts based on their small size, distance and isolation from other

wetland communities, and the drainage alterations that have already occurred from

nearby urbanization.

7.2.2 Tree Removal

NRSI inventoried 705 trees within the subject property. As detailed in the Tree

Protection Plan (Appendix IV), the location of these trees was compared to the grading

plan and recommended tree removal and retention was based on 2 considerations:

1) Trees identified as having a high potential for structural failure or poor condition.

The removal of these trees would be recommended for safety etc., especially if

they are located within striking distance of a component of the proposed

development, or existing off-site sidewalks, roads or buildings. They would be

given a rating of high potential for structural failure. For the purpose of this

report, trees which fall into this category are identified for removal,

2) Trees that require removal based on the extent of proposed site grading. This

was determined by comparing the location of the trees to the location of the

components of the development proposal.


Development of the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision (IBI Group July 23, 2013) will

result in the removal of 490 trees. This includes trees situated along the grading limit or

in close proximity that may incur root damage as a result of grading and trees within 10m

of the development limit that were identified as being in poor or very poor condition,

and/or having a high risk of structural failure, and/or identified as snags.

The location of trees proposed for removal is shown in the Tree Protection Plan

(Appendix IV). Tree protection measures are provided in Appendix IV to limit impacts to

adjacent trees proposed for retention.

7.2.3 Wildlife and Their Habitats

The natural features which are most valuable to wildlife within the subject property are

being retained in the northern portion of the subject property around the PSW area and

within open space blocks. Open space areas that will be retained have the potential to

provide habitat for a variety of common wildlife species (i.e. grassland birds, small

mammals) such as those currently found on the subject property. The loss of trees and

small non-PSW areas will occur due to this development, but these are not anticipated to

have significant impacts to urban wildlife observed on the site.

NRSI observed three regionally significant bird species, American redstart, Baltimore

oriole and sharp-shinned hawk, 1 butterfly species of Conservation Concern (Monarch)

and 1 regionally significant dragonfly (Halloween pennant).

Baltimore oriole is often found in open deciduous woodlands and woodland edges and

can tolerate semi-urban conditions whereby natural features are found in close proximity

to developed areas (Rising & Flood 1998). The American redstart prefers second

growth deciduous forests and areas of dense shrub cover (Thomas & Holmes 1997),

while sharp-shinned hawks prefer dense, extensive mixed or deciduous forests near a

lake or river (OMNR 2000). Baltimore oriole is considered apparently secure (S4B) in

Ontario and American redstart and sharp-shinned hawk are secure (S5). Each of these

species are commonly encountered in a variety of habitats throughout southern Ontario.

Suitable breeding habitat for Baltimore oriole and American redstart and foraging habitat


for sharp-shinned hawk is being retained within the PSW, associated buffer and adjacent

shrub thicket.

Monarchs lay their eggs on milkweeds which were observed scattered throughout the

fallow field areas and meadows. With the retention of the vegetated corridor associated

with the PSW (and retention of milkweed plants), the proposed development is not

anticipated to have a negative impact on the Monarch.

Suitable foraging habitat may be present for Halloween pennant within the open areas of

the thicket communities or along the ephemeral watercourse. These areas are being

retained as part of the Draft Plan; therefore, direct impacts are not anticipated.

The removal of a portion of the shrub thicket area (area dominated by common

buckthorn) and hedgerow vegetation will result in minimal loss of suitable breeding or

foraging habitat for these species. Section 8.0 identifies recommended mitigation

measures which will preserve nesting and foraging habitat for bird species within the

subject property.

Vegetation clearing should occur outside of the bird nesting season (May 31 - July 31) to

avoid disruption to nesting activities of birds in the area, and to avoid destruction of

active nests. While the shrub thickets do provide suitable habitat for these species, the

core of this feature (the Clythe Creek PSW complex) will continue to provide suitable

habitat for regionally significant bird species. It should be noted that the majority of the

shrub thicket community that would be removed is dominated by dense common

buckthorn and exhibits very low species diversity. The retention of healthy mature trees

as outlined in the appended Tree Protection Plan (Appendix IV) will provide suitable

habitat for the Baltimore oriole which favours woodland edges and has adapted to areas

of human settlement. Suitable habitat for American redstart and sharp-shinned hawk is

focused more strictly on the shrub thicket communities and surrounding wooded

features. A large portion of suitable habitat for these species will be protected by the

PSW and associated buffer (2.24ha), as well as within Open Space Block 152 (1.71ha).

Enhancement of the PSW and buffer area through restoration provides the opportunity

to actively manage invasive species and enhance this habitat for wildlife.


Recommendations for enhancing wetland habitat are provided in Section 8.1 of this

report. A Tree Protection Plan, compliant with current City of Guelph policies, has been

prepared for the subject property and is included in Appendix IV.

7.2.4 Site Grading

Earth cuts up to 4m and fill depths up to 9m depth are proposed throughout the site in

order to provide positive drainage for local services, and to address

topographic/environmental constraints. The overall cut/fill operation will address areas

of unsuitable fill, and is anticipated to require detailed planning/coordination to enhance

infiltration opportunities (i.e. placement/exposure of permeable soils) throughout the site.

The intent of the area grading operation will be to replicate existing drainage conditions

using suitable engineering practices and procedures. The analysis of required grading

indicates that the limit of grading is will not encroach within the dripline buffer of the

neighbouring plantation and therefore no direct impacts from grading activities are

anticipated to these trees.

The current topography on the subject property is relatively flat in the southern portion,

with a gradual to moderate slope toward the northern portion. Grading within the site

has been designed to maintain the existing elevations as much as possible given the

site‟s topography and the overall balance between cut and fill.

7.3 Indirect Impacts

For the purposes of the analysis of potential indirect impacts, the following categories

are discussed:

Sediment and erosion

Changes to groundwater and surface water flow patterns

Changes to water quality

Indirect impacts to wildlife

Indirect impacts wetlands due to buffer encroachment

7.3.1 Sediment and Erosion

Preliminary erosion and sediment control features have been identified by the project

team engineers and will be finalized at the detailed design stage (IBI Group 2013).


During area grading, erosion and sediment control measures will be implemented to

ensure sediment does not escape the subject property or impact protected

environmental lands. An erosion and sediment control strategy will be developed during

final design and implemented during the construction process in order to minimize the

potential for offsite discharge of sediment and the resultant negative environmental

impacts. Sediment and erosion control plans will be required for all stages of the

proposed development. This would take the form of silt fences strategically positioned

within the subject property at low points receiving overland flows and where the Tree

Protection Plan (Appendix IV) recommends tree protection fencing. Typical sediment

control measures, such as silt fencing are anticipated for this development with no

anticipated impact to natural features. Double silt fencing will be required in the area

adjacent to the PSW due to the current slopes and to protect the wetland from potential

negative impacts caused by run-off. If the recommendations are followed, it is not

expected that runoff will reach these natural areas.

An environmental monitoring program is recommended to ensure that the sediment and

erosion control measures are installed, maintained and functioning as intended.

7.3.2 Changes to Groundwater and Surface Water Flow Patterns

Changes to the hydrologic regime to areas within and surrounding the subject property,

such as through increases or decreases in the quantity of groundwater and/or surface

water inputs to natural features, can cause stress and die-back of vegetation adapted to

the current hydrologic regime. Over long-term periods this can lead to changes in

ecological community composition.

This section of the impact analysis focuses on the potential changes to the flow patterns

and quantity of groundwater and surface water flows to the PSW. As detailed in the

hydrogeological report prepared by Anderson GeoLogic Limited (2013), local

groundwater conditions generally flow northeast toward the PSW. The report indicates

that based on available data, the water table is likely to be no greater than about 2m

deep across the upland portions of the property becoming shallower (0.2-0.3m)

approaching the PSW in the northeast portion of the property. Groundwater monitoring

indicated that the upward hydraulic gradient in the area approaching the PSW is not

strong (i.e. no apparent groundwater upwelling or discharge) (Anderson GeoLogic


Limited 2013). The PSW is identified within the hydrogeological investigation as being

fed directly by surface water runoff including interflow (Anderson GeoLogic Limited

2013).

In order to maintain the water balance of the PSW post-development, surface water

quantities reaching the wetland must be maintained. The current catchment area of the

wetland within the subject property is 8.49ha (Anderson GeoLogic Limited 2013). A

large percentage of this area will be converted to impervious (i.e. houses, paved areas,

etc.) post-development for which stormwater will be collected and diverted off-site. In

order to maintain current surface flows to the PSW area, two stormwater measures are

proposed; a) direct rooftop runoff from available lots to the natural sloped area adjacent

to the wetland, and b) direct proportional amount of the treated stormwater flow from the

northeast storm sewer to an appropriately located stormwater spreader on the edge of

the development (i.e. outside of wetland buffer) (Anderson GeoLogic 2013). There will

be approximately 55.1% reduction in the water contribution from the adjacent lands to

the wetland as a result of area reduction of 55.6%. By directing supplemental amounts

of rooftop runoff and stormwater from the northeast stormsewer to the wetland buffer

area, the overall water budget contribution from the adjacent lands to the wetland will be

maintained (Anderson GeoLogic 2013). A pre and post development water budget

assessment is detailed in the Hydrogeological Assessment report (Anderson GeoLogic

2013). Based on the current Draft Plan of Subdivision and utilization of the above

stormwater management recommendations, it is not anticipated that there will be any

significant impacts to the PSW water balance within the subject property.

7.3.3 Changes to Surface and Groundwater Quality

The majority of stormwater quality control will be provided in off-site pond facilities,

however the water being directed to the PSW must be treated on-site prior to release

into the PSW (IBI Group 2013).

On-site treatment of stormwater being directed to the PSW will provide for an Enhanced

Protected Level for long-term sediment removal (IBI Group 2013). This will involve the

use of oil/grit separators which will be sized at the final design stage. These quality


control measures however, will not remove salt from runoff, therefore, it is recommended

that the use of salt be minimized to as great an extent as possible.

7.3.4 Management of Stormwater Quantity and Quality

The off-site stormwater management ponds have been sized to provide both quantity

and quality control of the stormwater generated from the proposed development. To

demonstrate this capacity, a detailed review of reports and drawings was undertaken

which is summarized in the preliminary stormwater management report prepared by IBI

Group (2013). Runoff from the east-draining portion of the subject property has been

accounted for in the Stantec design for the Grangehill Estates development. Based on

the proposed stormwater design prepared by IBI Group (2013a), 4.051ha will drain

toward the east storm sewer outlet. As discussed in the Preliminary SWM Report (IBI

Group 2013a), “stormwater will be conveyed to the existing stormwater management

facility located on Watson Parkway via internal storm sewers sized to convey the minor

storm runoff (5 year storm event). Major storm events will be conveyed overland to the

pond within the road right-of-way. Drainage from the site will connect to the existing

storm drainage system on Starwood Drive, and the storm sewer design for the

subdivision will account for external drainage areas from existing development to the

north.”

The west draining portion of the development has been accounted for in the Gamsby

Mannerow design for the Valleyhaven Subdivision development. The 55 & 75 Cityview

property stormwater will be conveyed to the Valleyhaven Subdivision stormwater

facilities. Runoff will discharge via internal storm sewers for minor storm runoff and

major storm events will be conveyed overland to the pond in the road right-of-way (IBI

Group 2003a). Runoff from the Cityview property will be routed to the Cityview Drive

storm sewer and road system, which will then flow west to the existing pond. An

easement (or block) will be secured to provide a servicing corridor suitably sized for

storm, sanity and water services and to provide an overland flow route for events up to

the 100 year storm (IBI Group 2013a).

For the drainage area diverted to the wetland, stormwater must be treated. To eliminate

potential negative impacts from water quality draining to the wetland, IBI Group (2013a)

prepared a stormwater quality control strategy that provides an Enhanced Protection


Level for road drainage prior to being discharged to the wetland. This will be achieved

with an Oil Grit Separator (OGS) unit that will be sized at the final design stage for long-

term suspended sediment removal, based on contributing drainage area and peakflow

rate (IBI Group 2013a). As OGS units do not remove salt from runoff, it is recommended

that use of salt within the Cityview subdivision be minimized to the extent possible.

7.3.5 Protected Natural Features and Wildlife Habitats

Vegetation clearing, grading and other construction activities have the potential to

inadvertently destroy, damage and degrade the edge of adjacent protected natural

features unless the boundaries are clearly marked. For example, construction activities

can cause scarring and decreased health of adjacent trees whose branches or root

systems have been damaged by machinery or affected by construction-related dust and

sedimentation. Damage to trees and other vegetation can also be caused by the

compaction of soils within tree rooting zones along woodland edges.

Direct damage and indirect disturbances can cause stresses on the natural features that

weaken their ecological integrity. In these states, natural features are more prone to

establishment and proliferation of invasive, non-native species such as common

buckthorn. Proliferation of invasive, non-native species within natural communities

decreases their ecological value such as by suppressing native species, diminishing

biodiversity and reducing habitat suitability.

As a general means to limit ecological impacts during construction, efforts should be

made to clearly demarcate the limits of development, including vegetation cutting and

grading boundaries, so as to prevent unnecessary encroachment into the surrounding

natural features. These boundaries should be clearly marked using either bright-

coloured snow fencing, or silt fencing erected for the purposes of on-site stormwater

runoff control. The location of temporary tree protection fencing, which will provide

protection to areas being retained and tree root zones, is included in the appended Tree

Protection Plan (Appendix IV).

Designated areas for construction lay-down, vehicle access and parking, equipment

storage, materials stockpiling, and any on-site construction offices should be located

entirely outside of land within 30m of the PSW boundary, and preferably not adjacent to


the mapped edge of this area so as to limit potential to indirectly impact the lands within.

Construction-based disturbances within this 30m zone (e.g., for the pool, walking paths)

should be minimized to the extent possible. The boundary of the 30m zone should be

lined with double heavy-duty silt fencing to both delineate the buffer boundary and to

prevent erosion and sedimentation of this area caused by sediment-laden stormwater.

Protection measures for retained trees should be followed as recommended in the Tree

Protection Plan (Appendix IV). The tree protection fencing (and associated sediment

and erosion control fencing) is recommended to be installed at the grading limit line

adjacent to existing natural features. This will include protection fencing along the west

side of Open Space Block 151, and around Open Space Block 152.

Upon installation of the tree protection fencing, the area should be reviewed by a

Certified Arborist to ensure trees are properly protected and no root or limb damage has

occurred.

Increased disturbance caused by excessive noise, dust, vibrations, artificial night-time

lighting, and proximity of human presence during construction may cause certain wildlife

species to abandon or avoid the area for travel, nesting, roosting or foraging. However,

these impacts are anticipated to be minimal, localized, and temporary, and it is expected

that displaced wildlife species will return to the vicinity of the subject property following

construction.

Excessive noise caused by site preparation and construction activities may cause

wildlife to temporarily avoid the area. These noise impacts can be mitigated by

restricting the daily timing of construction activities to between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm.

Any lighting equipment associated with construction activities should be turned off

following cessation of daily construction activities, or at least turned away from the

adjacent natural features so as to prevent „lightwash‟ of these areas.

Detailed lighting designs are required at the Site Plan stage. Lighting designs should

include directional lighting for all areas of development that are within 30m of the natural

features to eliminate lightwash.


During construction activities such as grading, tree clearing and grubbing, dust can

potentially result in the following:

Impacts to vegetation due to increased heat absorption and decreased

transpiration,

Immediate visual impacts.

Impacts due to dust should be mitigated for by moistening areas of bare, dry soil with

water as needed during construction activities to reduce the amount of dust produced.

7.4 Induced Impacts

Induced impacts are described as those that are not directly related to the construction

or operation of the facilities in question, but rather arise from the use of the natural areas

as a result of the development. The simplest example is increased use of a natural area

by residents, feral domestic wildlife, and unauthorized trail/pathway construction.

Once the development is completed, subsequent use of the natural areas by residents is

difficult to control. Education with respect to the values and implications of the

neighbouring natural areas, particularly the PSW, is one tool that can be used. Dense

plantings of native trees and shrubs can be used to discourage human intrusion into

sensitive areas.

7.5 Cumulative Impacts

The lands in the study area and specifically within the property have historically

undergone modification resulting from agricultural uses and more recently residential

development. Further modification of the landscape is anticipated due to further

residential development. In order to evaluate the potential for cumulative impacts

resulting from this development, it is necessary to look beyond the boundaries of the

subject property to the neighbouring lands, upstream and downstream, and naturalized

lands to the east of the property. This approach looks at the character and potential

changes that are occurring or may occur in the future on surrounding lands within the

neighbouring property. As emphasized by the City‟s EAC, it is important to recognize

the ecological significance of the natural features on the subject property within the


larger landscape context and identify potential cumulative effects from the proposed

development.

Cumulative impacts may arise as a result of the following:

Spatial crowding

Temporal crowding

Spatial lags

Temporal lags

Shared impact linkages

The following provides a brief discussion on each of these potential sources of

cumulative impacts.

Spatial Crowding

Spatial crowding occurs when a development proposal occurs in close proximity to

others, such that there is potential for relatively minor impacts from each undertaking to

add up (or combine) since they overlap in space. The subject property is designated for

residential development in the City‟s Official Plan and is within a highly urbanized area.

The off-site ponds that will receive stormwater from the subject property have been

designed to accommodate and treat this additional stormwater (IBI Group 2013a).

Based on this analysis no cumulative impacts to Clythe Creek are anticipated.

Although much of the PSW is situated within the 55 & 75 Cityview Drive property,

residential development is proposed for the Starwood Drive and Cityview Ridge

properties to the east and south (Figure 1). The development of these sites, along with

the Cityview property will encircle the PSW and associated natural area, leading to

spatial crowding over-time. The Draft Plans for each of these developments have made

recommendations for retention of natural features, plus suitable setbacks to minimize

direct and indirect impacts to the greatest extent possible.

Temporal Crowding

Temporal crowding can occur when phases of a development or different developments

overlap in time. Although it is anticipated that development of the lands within the study

area will occur over time, as demands arise and landowners progress through the


subdivision, the current study has been completed to guide these developments in terms

of environmental concerns and impact mitigation. Design details will be determined at

the Site Plan stage, but adherence to the design/layout guidelines recommended in this

report should avoid significant impacts from temporal crowding.

The stormwater management strategy for the property utilizes services that are, for most

part, already constructed and functioning. Therefore, the potential for temporal crowding

is not seen as significant for this Draft Plan proposal.

Spatial Lags

Spatial lags occur in cases where potential impacts are not found for some distance from

the proposed undertaking. An example of this is when wetland or aquatic features are

affected due to changes in infiltration patterns some distance away. Maintenance of on-

site surface flow infiltration through treated stormwater as recommended by Anderson

GeoLogic Limited (2013) is important to control off-site impacts.

Temporal Lags

Cumulative impacts that arise from temporal lags are those that occur after time has

elapsed between the source of the impact and the possible effect. An example of this is

when compounds released change to some more problematic compound after some

time of exposure to the environment.

No cumulative impacts from temporal lags are anticipated to result from this

development.

Shared Impact Linkages

Shared impact linkages are similar to spatial and temporal crowding, but focus on cases

where more than one development that may not actually overlap in time or space,

affects the same component of the ecosystem. An example of this is when one land use

change affects the breeding grounds of a species, while a second development affects

the over-wintering habitat of the same species. The proposed Draft Plans for both the

55 & 75 Cityview Drive and Cityview Ridge properties provide protection for the

significant natural features, with appropriate setbacks from development. The retention

of these habitats will minimize shared linkage impacts to the greatest extent possible.


Although no significant impacts to the PSW are anticipated, other developments east

and south of the subject property must be considered since the PSW area and adjacent

woodlands are contiguous.


8.0 Mitigation and Recommendations

8.1 Construction and Design Related Mitigation

The following recommendations are provided to ensure that any potential impacts are

minimized:

Directional lighting for all areas of road and developments that are within 30m of

the natural features will be required to eliminate lightwash,

Sediment and erosion control measures and tree protection fencing, must be

installed prior to, and maintained during construction.

Sediment and erosion control fencing to be inspected on a regular basis by an

Environmental Inspector or qualified biologist and tree protection fencing to be

inspected by a Certified Arborist or qualified other to ensure no root or limb

damage during installation,

Areas of bare soil that are left idle until development, should be re-vegetated

within 30 days to prevent erosion of soils and eliminate dust issues,

No vegetation removal should occur during the breeding bird season (May 31 to

July 31) in order to protect breeding populations of regionally significant birds

which may be nesting within the subject property (Baltimore oriole, American

redstart and sharp-shinned hawk),

Trees, shrubs and areas of natural vegetation should be retained wherever

possible to provide habitat for wildlife species. The retention of mid-age and

mature trees within the PSW buffer and existing hedgerows will provide suitable

nesting and foraging habitat for significant species known from the area,

Existing areas of natural vegetation that will be retained should be clearly

delineated in the field and inspected by an on-site Environmental Inspector prior

to construction. In order to ensure no damage to trees occurs within these area,

the following recommendations are provided:

Any limbs or roots to be retained which are damaged during construction

should be pruned using appropriate arboricultural techniques.

Maintenance of machinery during construction should occur at a designated

location away from the natural areas on-site (minimum 30m from wetland and

10m from dripline),


Any areas of bare soil that arise should be graded and re-vegetated as soon as

possible to avoid gullying and erosion,

Native restoration plantings should be considered to maximize protection of the

Provincially Significant Wetland and associated Natural Area from erosion, wind

throw, as well as unauthorized entry (especially pedestrian and vehicle use),

Planting of native tree, shrub and herbaceous species on currently un-vegetated

portions of the site is recommended to enhance site conditions,

No storage of equipment, materials or fill is to occur within the natural area and

associated buffer,

During installation of the construction limit fencing, any hazard trees should be

identified by a Certified Arborist or tree professional and removed as warranted.

8.2 Monitoring Plan

A pre, during, and post construction monitoring program is recommended. The

recommended monitoring program is described in more detail below.

8.2.1 Pre-Construction Monitoring

Prior to any construction activity on-site, including clearing and grubbing, on-site

inspections of the following should be undertaken to ensure proper installation:

Sediment and erosion control measures,

Tree and natural area protection measures, such as fences installed beyond

dripline, trees to be retained and wetland buffer,

In accordance with the City of Guelph tree management policies, trees affected

by development have been inventoried and assessed (see Appendix IV).

8.2.2 During Construction Monitoring

Construction monitoring is the responsibility of the proponent and is tied to the specific

undertaking. Generally, construction monitoring must occur to ensure compliance with

the conditions of various permits. Often, an environmental inspector is required to carry

out construction monitoring during grading, servicing and building construction.


In addition to an environmental inspector, the following are recommended during

construction:

Pruning of any limbs or roots (of trees to be retained) disrupted during

construction,

Maintenance of vegetated setbacks from wetlands,

Fuelling of machinery to be done at designated location away from the wetland

and ephemeral drainage feature (minimum 30m),

Storage of machinery and material, fill, etc. to be done in designated areas away

from the PSW and buffer area,

Equipment movement through natural areas and associated buffers to be

controlled.

8.2.3 During Construction Sighting Protocols

To address the possibility of encountering Species at Risk during construction of the site,

it is recommended that construction crews be provided with a sighting protocol. The

sighting protocol would be specific to SAR that are known to occur within the vicinity of

the study area, such as eastern milksnake, common snapping turtle, western chorus frog

and eastern meadowlark, as well as common wildlife species.

Prior to the onset of any construction activities, all staff involved in on-site activities

should be provided with a sighting protocol document, along with detailed fact sheets

specific to SAR that may be encountered. The information package should include

representative photos, habitat descriptions, size characteristics and other important

identifying features. It is recommended that a qualified biologist or the environmental

inspector familiarize all on-site staff with identifying characteristics, as well as the proper

protocol to follow should a suspected SAR be encountered (i.e. contact MNR for

removal).

It is also recommended that immediately prior to grading within habitat that may be

suitable for wildlife (i.e. fallow fields), area searches be conducted by a trained biologist

within small habitat areas to minimize potential for wildlife mortality.


8.2.4 Migratory Bird Convention Act

The schedule of actual on-site work must consider the Migratory Birds Convention Act

(Environment Canada 1994) construction window. Construction activities can only be

conducted in accordance with the Migratory Birds Convention Act (MBCA). The

purposed of the MBCA is to “implement the Convention by protecting and conserving

migratory birds – as populations and individual birds – and their nests.” Every

developer/consultant/contractor, etc. is legally obligated to carry out due diligence to

protect migratory birds from harm during all construction projects. To mitigate potential

impacts to migratory birds during construction, the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS)

recommends that construction contract documents identify importance of migratory bird

protection. During pre-construction meetings, it is recommended that meeting agendas

“contain a standard item on the protection of wildlife and their habitats. Procedures in

the contract documents pertaining to wildlife protection and mitigation should be clearly

communicated to front-line workers on the project.” During construction, “if there is

evidence that migratory birds are actively inhabiting an area that may be affected by

construction (i.e. fallow field, hedgerows) all work in the immediate vicinity should STOP

immediately. The site supervisor should contact the appropriate authorities for advice

(CWS, MNR) and assistance. Until permission is grated to the owner, consultant or site

supervisor to proceed with construction, construction activities will remain suspended”

(Migratory Bird Convention Act Factsheet – Appendix XII).

The timing of the peak migratory bird breeding season for the study area is between May

1 and July 31, although this should be held as a general guideline. Birds are known to

nest prior to and after these dates, depending on site conditions and other factors.

Where possible, construction activities should be kept outside of the breeding season.

In the event construction activities are anticipated to commence during the peak

breeding season in potential breeding habitat, pending discussion and approval by the

CWS, nest surveys may be conducted by trained biologists within small habitat areas

just prior to construction activity.

8.2.5 Post Construction Monitoring

In order to detect any potential negative impacts to the PSW, post-construction

monitoring is recommended. A monitoring program will ensure there are strategic


procedures developed to react immediately to any negative effects resulting from the

development.

The post-construction monitoring plan should be developed to ensure the water balance

and water quality within the PSW is maintained. This may include measurements of

water inputs on a quarterly basis. In addition to these quarterly measurements, water

quality within the PSW should be tested annually to assess the presence of any

contamination to these features. It is recommended that the water balance and quality

monitoring be conducted for 2 years post-construction (2 years after stormwater

management system is functioning).

Maintaining the current water balance and water quality in the wetlands is critical to

preserving its current form and function. If monitoring results indicate there is the

potential for adverse effects due to development activities, immediate action should be

taken to further protect, and where possible, enhance the wetland feature. Mitigation will

depend on the particular circumstances of the disturbance, but may include identifying

and eliminating sources of contamination, ensuring adequate surface water recharge to

the wetlands, and/or controlling public access to the area.

Restoration and Enhancement Areas

A two year warranty is recommended for all proposed planting material throughout the

subject property (shrubs, trees and herbaceous). All plants should be inspected by the

environmental inspector or biologist prior to being planted within the site. Planted

material shall also be inspected by an appropriate inspector at the end of the guarantee

period. Plants which, at that time, are not in healthy vigorous growing condition, to the

inspector‟s approval, shall be replaced at no extra charge. All tree staking is to be

removed just prior to final inspection.


9.0 Summary and Conclusion

NRSI was retained by Dehrob Investments Inc. to complete a Scoped EIS for the

proposed 55 & 75 Cityview Drive Property in Guelph, Ontario. This report provides a

summary of the natural features within the study area and provides an analysis of

impacts based on the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision prepared by IBI Group (July

23, 2013).

The identified natural feature constraints were used to guide the layout of the

development in such a way that direct displacement of natural features is avoided where

possible. Following initial review comments of the Draft EIS (NRSI 2011) by the City of

Guelph, EAC and GRCA, the Draft Plan of Subdivision was revised to ensure the

protection of the Provincially Significant Wetland and its 30m buffer. As such, the

revised Draft Plan prepared by IBI Group (Figure 2) meets good environmental practices

by minimizing significant direct impacts to the natural features on-site. The development

is confined to mainly agricultural fields that have been left to go fallow.

Direct impacts associated with this undertaking include tree removal, removal of fallow

field vegetation and the removal of two small, non-provincially significant wetland

features. A Tree Protection Plan was prepared by NRSI in accordance with the City of

Guelph‟s current guidelines and policies for the property and recommendations for

protection and compensation have been provided (Appendix IV). The two non-PSW‟s

being removed were reviewed in the field by GRCA and have been compared to current

GRCA wetland policies. Based on the current character of these wetlands, they do not

provide any of the significant functions listed in the Ontario Regulation 150/06.

Indirect impacts to water quality and quantity within the PSW area have been mitigated

through a detailed stormwater management plan which has been designed to maintain

current surface flow volumes and provide an enhanced level of treatment to this feature

(IBI Group 2013a). Recommendations have been made to enhance the buffer area

around the PSW feature through the replacement of invasive and exotic plants with

native vegetation.


A preliminary sediment and erosion control plan has been developed by IBI Group to

avoid indirect impacts to the natural features and will be finalized at the detailed design

stage.

Induced and cumulative impacts associated with the development have also been

examined and found to be insignificant given the historical activities within the subject

property and surrounding urban landscape.

In order to protect the natural features during the development of this site, the following

are recommended:

a sediment and erosion control plan, including Tree Protection Fencing, should

be prepared by a qualified professional,

where feasible, implement a buckthorn removal program within the open space

block to replace the invasive shrub species with native trees and shrubs, and

develop a planting plan for the parkland and buffers using native plant species

known to occur in Wellington County and suited to the site conditions.

This report provides recommendations to minimize impacts and ensure that mitigative

measures are installed and functioning properly. These include recommendations to

mitigate direct, indirect and induced impacts that may arise during the proposed

development, as well as a monitoring program to ensure that stormwater management is

effective and water quality and quantity discharged to the Clythe Creek PSW is

maintained and/or enhanced. With the revised Draft Plan of Subdivision that protects

the PSW and its 30m buffer and recommendations outlined in this report, along with

those outlined in the Hydrogeological Assessment (Anderson GeoLogic Ltd. 2013),

Stormwater Management Report (IBI 2013a) and Functional Servicing Report (IBI

2013b), negative impacts from this development are not anticipated.


10.0 References

Anderson GeoLogic Limited. 2013. Scoped Hydrogeological Assessment, Cityview

Drive Development. Prepared for Debrob Investments Inc. July 2013. Bird Studies Canada (BSC), Environment Canada's Canadian Wildlife Service, Ontario

Nature, Ontario Field Ornithologists and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2006. Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas Database, March 2013. 17NJ62. http://www.birdsontario.org/atlas/aboutdata.jsp?lang=en

Cadman, M.D., D.A. Sutherland, G.G. Beck, D. Lepage and A.R. Couturier. 2007. Atlas

of the Breeding Birds of Ontario – Square 17NJ62. http://www.birdsontario.org/atlas/index.jsp?lang=en

Catling, P.M. and V.R. Brownell. 2000. Damselflies and Dragonflies (Odonata) of

Ontario: Resource Guide and Annotated List. ProResources, 2326 Scrivens Drive, Metcalfe, Ontario Canada. 200pp.

Chung & Vander Doelen Engineering Ltd. 2006. Geotechnical Investigation: Proposed

Residential Subdivision, Cityview Drive. Part of Lots 25, 31, &32, Registered Plan 35 Guelph, Ontario. Submitted to Clarity Mortgage Inc. July 27, 2006.

City of Guelph. 2008. Draft Tree Protection Policies and Guidelines. June 2008. City of Guelph. 2010a. The Corporation of the City of Guelph By-law Number (2010) –

19058. City of Guelph. 2010b. Amendment Number 42 to the Official Plan for the Corporation

of the City of Guelph: Natural Heritage System Amendment. Adopted by Guelph City Council July 27, 2010 – Currently Under Appeal. http://www.guelph.ca/uploads/PBS_Dept/planning/PDF/OP%20Update/OPA%2042%20-%20final.pdf

City of Guelph. 2012. The City of Guelph Official Plan 2001 – December 2012 Consolidation. http://guelph.ca/wp-content/uploads/OfficialPlan-December2012Consolidation.pdf

Committee for the Status on Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2013.

Canadian Wildlife Species at Risk. http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/sar/index/default_e.cfm

Dobbyn, J.S. 1994. Atlas of the Mammals of Ontario. Don Mills, Federation of Ontario

Naturalists. 120p. Dougan and Associates. 2009. Guelph Natural Heritage Study: Volume 1. Final Report

March 2009. Ecologistics Ltd. 1998. Clythe Creek Overview Study. 57 pp.

http://www.birdsontario.org/atlas/aboutdata.jsp?lang=en

http://www.birdsontario.org/atlas/index.jsp?lang=en

http://www.guelph.ca/uploads/PBS_Dept/planning/PDF/OP%20Update/OPA%2042%20-%20final.pdf


http://guelph.ca/wp-content/uploads/OfficialPlan-December2012Consolidation.pdf

http://guelph.ca/wp-content/uploads/OfficialPlan-December2012Consolidation.pdf

http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/sar/index/default_e.cfm


Ferguson, Jamie. 2009. Resource Planner, Grand River Conservation Authority. Personal Communication, May 5, 2009

Government of Canada. 1994. Migratory Birds Convention Act. http://laws-

lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/M-7.01/

Government of Ontario. 2013a. Endangered Species Act, 2007 Ontario Regulation 176/13. July 1, 2013 Consolidation. http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_07e06_e.htm.

Government of Canada. 2013b. Species at Risk Public Registry. http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm.

Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA). 2012. Fred Notolochny, Grand River Conservation Authority. Personal Communication (email), October 10, 2012.

Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA). 2013. Policies for the Administration of the Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation Ontario regulation 150/06. Effective January 25, 2013.

Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA). 2013. Grand River Conservation Network: Interactive Mapping Tool. http://www.grandriver.ca/index/document.cfm?Sec=63&Sub1=0&sub2=0

IBI Group. 2013a. Preliminary Stormwater Management Report, Draft Plan of

Subdivision, Cityview Drive, City of Guelph. Prepared for Debrob Investments Limited. July 2013.

IBI Group. 2013b. Functional Servicing Report, Draft Plan of Subdivision, Cityview Drive, City of Guelph. Prepared for Debrob Investments Limited. July 2013.

Layberry, R.A., P.W. Hall, and J.D. Lafontaine. 1998. The Butterflies of Canada. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada. 280p.

Lee, H. 2008. Southern Ontario Ecological Land Classification - Vegetation Type List. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources: London, Ontario.

Lee, H.T., W.D. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig and S.

McMurray.1998. Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: First Approximation and its Application. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Southcentral Science Section, Science Development and Transfer Branch. SCSS Field Guide FG-02.

Marriott, Dave. 2009. District Planner, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Guelph

District. Personal Communication (Letter Correspondence), April 27, 2009 Miller, John. 2010. Wildlife Officer, Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Services

Branch. Personal Communication, May 5, 2010 Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands. Second Edition. Van Nostrand

Reinhold, New York, NY. 722 pp.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/M-7.01/

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/M-7.01/

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_07e06_e.htm

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_07e06_e.htm

http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm

http://www.grandriver.ca/index/document.cfm?Sec=63&Sub1=0&sub2=0


Natural Resource Solutions Inc (NRSI). 2013. Starwood Drive Scoped Environmental Impact Study. Prepared for Coletera Developments. July 2013.

North-South Environmental Ltd. 2012. Cityview Ridge Environmental Impact Study.

Prepared for Carson Reid Homes Ltd. February 2012. Oldham, M.J. and W.F. Weller. 2000. Ontario Herpetofaunal Atlas. Natural Heritage

Information Centre, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/nhic/herps/ohs.html

Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas (OBBA). 2001. Guide for Participants. Atlas Management

Board, Federation of Ontario Naturalists, Don Mills. Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (OMMAH). 2005. Provincial Policy

Statement. Queen‟s Printer for Ontario, 2005. http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Asset1421.aspx

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2000a. Significant Wildlife Habitat

Technical Guide. October 2000. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2000b. Addendum to Significant Wildlife

Habitat Technical Guide: Appendix G. http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@mnr/@fw/documents/document/mnr_e001287.pdf

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2009. Ontario Wetland Evaluation

System: Southern Manual. 3rd Edition. Including OMNR Interpretations of Current Ontario Wetland Evaluation Systems Manuals.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2010a. Natural Heritage Information

Centre: Biodiversity Explorer. https://www.biodiversityexplorer.mnr.gov.on.ca/nhicWEB/mainSubmit.do

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2010b. Natural Heritage Reference

Manual. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2012. Significant Wildlife Habitat

Ecoregion Criteria Schedules: Addendum to Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide. OMNR, February 2012.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2013a. Species at Risk in Ontario

(SARA) List. Last updated September 29, 2010. http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Species/2ColumnSubPage/246809.html

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2013b. Natural Heritage Information

Centre: Biodiversity Explorer. Ontario Nature. 2013. Ontario Reptile and Amphibian Atlas.

http://www.ontarionature.org/protect/species/reptiles_and_amphibians/index.php

http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/nhic/herps/ohs.html

http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Asset1421.aspx

http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@mnr/@fw/documents/document/mnr_e001287.pdf

http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@mnr/@fw/documents/document/mnr_e001287.pdf

https://www.biodiversityexplorer.mnr.gov.on.ca/nhicWEB/mainSubmit.do

http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Species/2ColumnSubPage/246809.html

http://www.ontarionature.org/protect/species/reptiles_and_amphibians/index.php


Riley, J.L. 1989. Distribution and Status of the Vascular Plants of Central Region. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.

Rising, J.D. and N.J. Flood. 1998. Baltimore Oriole (Icterus galbula), The Birds of North

America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/384

Thomas, T.W. and R.T. Holmes. 1997. American Redstart (Setophaga ruticilla), The

Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithica: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/277

Toronto Entomologists‟ Association (TEA). 2013. Ontario Butterfly Atlas Online.

http://www.ontarioinsects.org/atlas_online.htm

Varga, S., Leadbeater, D., Webber, J., Kaiser, J., Crins, B., Kamstra, J., Banville, D., Ashley, E., Miller, G., Kingsley, C., Jacobsen, C., Mewa, K., Tebby, L., Mosley, E., Zajc, E. 2000. Distribution and Status of the Vascular Plants of the Greater Toronto Area. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Aurora District.103 pp.

Zammit, Tony. 2009. Ecologist, Grand River Conservation Authority. Personal

Communication, June 8, 2009.

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/384

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/277

http://www.ontarioinsects.org/atlas_online.htm

Natural Resource Solutions Inc. Appendices

APPENDIX I Cityview Drive Property Terms of Reference, April 27, 2009

50 Westmount Rd. N., Unit 230, Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 2R5 Tel: (519) 725-2227 Fax: (519) 725-2575 Web: www.nrsi.on.ca

924 April 27, 2009 Mr. Jamie Ferguson Resource Planner Grand River Conservation Authority 400 Clyde Road, Cambridge, Ontario, N1R 5W6 Dear Mr. Ferguson, Re: Environmental Impact Study- Cityview Drive Property, Guelph, Ontario Terms of Reference On behalf of Natural Resource Solutions, Inc., I am pleased to provide the following Terms of Reference (TOR) to prepare an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) for a property located on Cityview Drive in Guelph, Ontario. Natural Resource Solutions Inc. (NRSI) has been retained to characterize the natural features on the subject property and complete an analysis of impacts based on the proposed development of a residential subdivision. The subject property is within the Clythe Creek Subwatershed and the City of Guelph. The subject lands are characterized by old fields, hedgerows, cultural woodland and a portion of a swamp thicket. According to the Grand River Conservation Authority, wetlands on the property are classified as Provincially Significant. Grand River watershed mapping indicates a tributary of Clythe Creek crosses the eastern corner of the subject lands, although no defined channel currently exists on the property. The proposed development of these lands has triggered an Environmental Impact Study (EIS). The Draft Terms of Reference for this EIS are attached for your review. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or comments on this. Sincerely, Natural Resource Solutions Inc.

M. Jessica E. Grealey, M.E.S. Candidate Terrestrial and Wetland Biologist

cc. Odete Gomes, IBI Group Suzanne Young, City of Guelph

2

Cityview Drive, Guelph, Ontario Environmental Impact Study

Terms of Reference April 27, 2009

Introduction The subject property is approximately 14.9 hectares in size and is legally described as Part of Lots 25, 31, and 32, Registered Plan 53, Part of Lot 4, Concession 3, Division “C”, City of Guelph, Former Township of Guelph (see attached map). The property does not have an assigned municipal address but is located off Cityview Drive in the City of Guelph. The southern two thirds of the property consist of old fields with scattered hedgerows and a small wooded area in the southwest corner of the property. The northern portion of the subject lands contain cultural woodland that varies from densely vegetated to open areas, and a portion of a Provincially Significant swamp wetland. The location of the study area is shown on Figure 1, attached. The subject property is within the Clythe Creek subwatershed and GRCA mapping indicates a tributary of Clythe Creek may transect the northeastern corner of the property. This tributary and the floodplain fall within the GRCA Regulation Limit, which encompasses the northeast corner of the subject property. The Guelph Natural Heritage Strategy mapping indicates that this tributary no longer exists and during an initial site visit by a terrestrial biologist, no evidence of a creek was observed. According to the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) no significant species or natural areas are within the vicinity of the subject lands. NRSI is in the process of collecting available background information on the subject lands to ensure this information is up-to-date. The proposed Environmental Impact Study (EIS) is intended to build upon background information through the collection of original field data by NRSI in the spring/summer of 2009. Proposed Undertaking The land owner is proposing to develop the subject property as a residential neighbourhood in three phases. This may include a variety of housing types, road network, stormwater management facility, open spaces and parks.

Study Approach

Collection and Review of Background Information Background information on the biological and physical features within the study area is being collected and reviewed by NRSI and has assisted in guiding the study approach in this Terms of Reference and includes the following sources:

• Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA Information Network); • Natural Heritage Information Centre database; • Ministry of Natural Resources, Guelph District; • City of Guelph Official Plan; • Guelph Natural Heritage System Report; • GRCA Wetland Policy and EIS Guidelines; • Clythe Creek Subwatershed Study; • Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas;

3

• Ontario Herpetofaunal Database; • Mammal Atlas of Ontario; and • Butterflies of Canada;

This background information will be compiled and integrated with original data collected by NRSI during the 2009 field surveys to form the characterization component of the EIS. This will allow for the identification of data deficiencies, such as outdated and missing data, data collected at unsuitable scales, etc.

Field Surveys Field surveys of the project area will be undertaken in spring and summer 2009, building on the background information collected. The following is a description of the surveys which will be conducted:

Vegetation Community Mapping Vegetation communities on the site will be characterized and mapped using the Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario. Wetland boundaries will be staked for review by agency staff, and subsequently surveyed. Vascular Flora Inventories Spring and summer surveys will be conducted to record all species of vascular flora on the subject lands. In the spring/summer of 2009, the subject lands will be systematically searched for plant species and any rare species or vegetation communities and there location(s) will be recorded with a handheld GPS unit and shown on map in the final EIS. Herpetofauna Surveys Evening surveys for calling frogs and toads will be conducted in late April, mid-May, and early June using methods based on the Marsh Monitoring Program (Bird Studies Canada 2003). This will involve point counts during peak breeding periods to record species calling and their abundance. Habitat within the subject lands may provide habitat for several snake species, particularly in the open meadows and densely vegetated shrubland. Cover boards will be placed throughout the study area in early spring in order to record snake diversity and approximate abundance. These boards will be checked during subsequent field visits. Breeding Bird Surveys Detailed breeding bird surveys will occur in June 2009 which will use the standard Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas methodology combining point counts with transect surveys through the site. Special attention will be paid to open country and grassland breeding birds that may be affected by the proposed development. Standard breeding evidence will be recorded during two focused early morning surveys in June (typically 10 days apart). Odonata and Lepidoptera Surveys Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies) as well as Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths) will be recorded during all field surveys.

4

Mammals Mammals will be recorded during all field surveys. Direct observations of mammals, as well as signs such as dens, tracks, scats, etc will be used to record mammal species in the study area. Aquatic Habitat Surveys An aquatic biologist from NRSI will conduct a site visit to confirm the presence or absence of a tributary within the subject lands. If aquatic habitat is present, an aquatic biologist will map aquatic habitat characteristics including measurements of flow and temperature. Electro-shocking to determine the fish community present within the subject lands will be conducted if this information is not available from the GRCA or MNR. Seepage Identification There may be existing groundwater seepages associated with the slopes on the subject lands. All seepages within the subject lands will be identified and mapped.

Data Analysis Identification of Significant/Sensitive Terrestrial Features Significant biological features will be identified based on current species and habitat status listings. This will include national, provincial, regional and local rarity. As well, the sensitivity of species and habitats will be documented based on current ecological trends, research and professional experience and input from local agency staff. Natural features will be mapped on a digital base map. These maps will include: vegetation communities, designated natural features, aquatic habitats, wetland boundaries and significant species. Current and potential linkages will be identified. This will include the recommended buffers from natural features, etc.

Implications of natural features based on current Policies and regulations will be identified, including the GRCA Wetlands Policy, the City of Guelph Official Plan, City of Guelph Tree Bylaw, the Guelph Natural Heritage Strategy, and the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). Impact Analysis The analysis of impacts will be divided into:

• Direct impacts associated with disruption or displacement caused by the actual proposed 'footprint' of the undertaking, such as tree removal.

• Indirect impacts associated with changes in site conditions such as drainage and

water quantity/quality.

• Induced impacts associated with impacts after the development is constructed such as subsequent demand on the resources created by habitation/use of the area and vicinity.

Each of these impact types are described further below.

5

Direct Impacts The approach to identifying and delineating constraint areas, discussed above, will be used to avoid direct impacts from the development on important natural features. The delineation of natural features with buffers will be provided to the study team to guide the proposed development layout. Any overlaps will be identified and addressed. Indirect Impacts The approach to assessing the potential for indirect impacts will include an integrated analysis of proposed management of the natural features on the subject lands in conjunction with neighbouring lands. For the purposes of the analysis of potential indirect impacts, the analysis will be divided into the following: Sediment and erosion Sediment control measures will be identified. Included in this will be the recommended buffers from natural features. Changes to groundwater and surface water flow patterns This section of the impact analysis will focus on the potential changes to the flow patterns and quantity of groundwater and surface water flows that currently supply the creek and wetlands on and off the subject property. The percent imperviousness for the development is anticipated to be high, emphasizing the need for suitable stormwater management techniques. NRSI will work with IBI Group to determine a water balance for the nearby watercourse and wetlands. The development is anticipated to be designed in a manner such that pre-development recharge rates can be maintained post-development. Wildlife Habitat Impacts Indirect impacts to the natural resources from tree loss and potential impacts to l habitat linkages will be avoided based on retention of the features with buffers as discussed above. Induced Impacts Induced impacts are described as those that are not directly related to the construction of the undertaking, but rather arise as a result of the use of the natural areas as a result of the development. In this case, potential induced impacts could include increased use of natural areas by residents, feral domestic wildlife, and unauthorized trail/pathway construction.

Monitoring Recommendations will be provided for monitoring the success of the recommendations. The possible role of existing biological data for monitoring, as well as the need for additional baseline monitoring will be identified. The methodologies, timing etc. will be identified Reporting The findings of the characterization and the impact analysis will be prepared in a written report. The report will include appendices, such as species lists and figures including the location of the project area, existing natural environment conditions and proposed undertaking. The report will be provided in draft for review by the client. Upon finalization, the report will be submitted to the authorities for review.


APPENDIX II Cityview Drive Property Draft EIS November 2011 - Agency Comments

City of Guelph

Cityview Drive EIS EAC Comments

of 4

July 25th, 2012 Environmental Advisory Committee

Item 1 55&75 Cityview Drive EIS

File #: 23T-12501 / ZC1202 Cityview Drive Property – Environmental Impact Study (EIS) (November 2011) Prepared by Natural Resource Solutions Inc.

Proposal The draft proposal will allow for the creation of a subdivision comprised of a mix of detached, semi-detached, townhouse and apartment units. Total area of the site is 15.2 hectares.

Location The subject property is located northwest of the intersection of York Road and Watson Parkway, fronting the intersection of Cityview Drive and Cedarvale Ave., and north of the CNR Line. The subject site is comprised of Part Lots 25, 31, and 32, and Part Lot 4, Concession 3, in the City of Guelph.

Background ▪ The lands fall entirely within the Clythe Creek Subwatershed.

▪ The lands also fall within the Eastview Community Secondary Plan in the Official Plan which designates them as General Residential, Mixed Use Node, Open Space, Core Greenlands and Non-Core Greenlands on Schedule 1. Schedule 2 identifies Regulatory Floodline on this site.

▪ Under the current consolidated Official Plan mapping the natural heritage constraints include Significant Wetlands, Significant Valleylands and Cultural Woodlands.

▪ The properties are currently zoned UR (Urban Reserve) and FL (Floodplain), but are proposed to be re-zoned to P.1 (Conservation Land), P.2 (Neighborhood Park), WL(Wetland), and R.1C, R.1C8, R.1D, R2, R.2-6, R.3A, R4.A (various types of Residential).

Comments Staff has reviewed the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) prepared by Natural Resource Solutions Inc. (November 2011) and have the following comments:

WETLANDS:

The Provincially Significant Wetland mapping that extends into the southern property (Figure 1) is consistent with what is currently on the GRCA’s website (and OMNR records), but has been updated based on recent field work. Please remove the off-site mapping or request updated layers from GRCA.

Similarly, the Unevaluated Wetland mapping (Figure 1) that extends to the northern property (as shown with a hatched line) is also incorrect. Based on recent discussions with GRCA they have indicated that these lands have been assessed and determined not to be wetland. Please remove the off-site mapping or request updated layers from GRCA. It would also be clearer if these wetlands were more clearly differentiated from the PSW with a lighter or different colour.

The assessment of significance (Section 6) needs to be revised to reflect the areal calculations from the most current wetland mapping.

The screening of the SWT2-5 unit will require summer and fall botanical surveys for this unit in addition to the data already collected to ensure there are no

of 4

provincially or locally significant plant species.

SEEPAGE AREAS AND HYDROGEOLOGY:

Seepage areas are noted in the report (p. 9) but not mapped. These seepage areas should be discussed in terms of their relationship to the PSW and evaluated as candidate Significant Wildlife Habitat (i.e., support for significant plant and/or wildlife species).

AQUATIC HABITAT

Under Section 5 (p.20) the presence of a watercourse which is described both as ephemeral and intermittent is confirmed. Under OPA 42 an intermittent watercourse would require protection as well as a 15 m buffer. The status of this watercourse needs to be reviewed in the field with City and GRCA staff. It also needs to be identified and labeled appropriately on Figures 1 through 3.

Please elaborate on why the watercourse is not considered to provide, at minimum, contributing fish habitat. Ephemeral and/or intermittent regimes do not preclude habitat functions.

WOODLANDS

The criterion for cultural woodlands under OPA 42 is 1 ha (not 4 ha) and the area is referred to as both CUW and WOD; this should be corrected.

Buffers should not be mapped off-site (Figure 4), nor should off-site buffering be discussed in this EIS. Notably, in this case 10 m buffers are not necessarily required because the wooded areas are plantations and not significant woodlands.

HABITAT FOR SIGNIFICANT SPECIES:

Two locally significant species (Baltimore Oriole and American Redstart) are confirmed on site in the CUW1 unit (p.15); however potential protection or mitigation of impacts to their habitats is not considered (p. 24). This requires more discussion and consideration.

TREES OUTSIDE THE NATURAL AREAS

“H1” is described as a “deciduous hedgerow consisting of mainly sugar maple trees”. These trees should be assessed in terms of their health and condition, and assuming they are mature, reasonably healthy trees, opportunities for preservation should be integrated into the Plan.

The Bur Oak in “CUS1” should also be assessed and considered for preservation.

The hedgerow along the southern property limit appears to have been overlooked. These trees need to be assessed by a Certified Arborist and mapped as well.

The CUP3-3 label on the lands to the south should be removed; although this habitat type is described as being on the subject lands it is not mapped on Figure 2 as such. This needs to be clarified.

FIGURE 3: There are a number of inconsistencies between the ELC mapping in Figures 2 and 3.

VALLEYLANDS & STEEP SLOPES

The EIS generically identifies “valleylands” in Figure 1 but does not provide any characterization or assessment of this feature, nor is it recognized in any way through the impact analysis or recommendations. This feature needs to be

of 4

considered in light of applicable GRCA and OPA 42 policies.

HYDROLOGY & HYDROGEOLOGY

The GRCA in their comments (March 26, 2012) have raised a number of concerns with respect to SWM on this site. These comments need to be addressed and considered in relation to the proposed development to the south and the cumulative inputs proposed for the Valleyhaven facility.

The GRCA in their comments (March 26, 2012) have also raised concerns about ensuring the hydrologic regime of the PSW and water quality, are to be maintained. This also needs to be addressed, along with their comments regarding erosion and sediment controls.

Proximity and relationships to Clythe Creek, a cold water fisheries to the south, need to be considered and addressed.

BIG PICTURE PLANNING & REVIEW

The current plans show a road going through the steep slope and natural areas, and immediately adjacent to the PSW (and encroaching into the 30 m buffer). Although this general road alignment was originally identified through earlier plans for this area, City staff (engineering, planning and environment) have determined that alternatives should be explored in order to protect the integrity of the natural heritage system.

Please revise the plan for the site to fully address the protection (or mitigation where required) of the various natural features and functions, as well as the storm water management requirements, as per the comments above. Alternate road configurations and alignments should be discussed with City staff.

Section 7 will, obviously, need to be revised to reflect anticipated impacts related to the revised draft plan.

Suggested Motion

Given the above concerns, staff recommends that the Environmental Advisory Committee defer making a decision on the Environmental Impact Study prepared by Natural Resource Solutions Inc. for 55 & 75 Cityview Drive until the above mentioned items are addressed.

Grand River Conservation Area

Cityview Drive EIS Comments


APPENDIX III Significant Wildlife Habitat Screening Tables

Natural Resource Solutions Inc. 1 55 & 75 Cityview Drive Property – SWH Habitat Screening

Appendix III. Significant Wildlife Habitat Screening Tables

Table 1. Characteristics of Seasonal Concentration Areas for Ecoregion 6E

Wildlife Species

1 Candidate SWH Confirmed SWH Cityview Drive

ELC Ecosite Codes1

Habitat Criteria and Information Sources

1 Defining Criteria

1 Assessment Details

Wildlife Habitat: Waterfowl Stopover and Staging Areas (Terrestrial)

American Black Duck Wood Duck Green-winged Teal Blue-winged Teal Mallard Northern Pintail Northern Shoveler American Wigeon Gadwall

CUM1 CUT1 Plus evidence of annual spring flooding from melt water or run-off within these Ecosites.

Fields with sheet water during Spring (mid-March to May).

Fields flooding during spring melt and run-off provide important invertebrate foraging habitat for migrating waterfowl.

Agricultural fields with waste grains are commonly used by waterfowl, these are not considered SWH.

Information Sources

Anecdotal information from the landowner, adjacent landowners or local naturalist clubs may be good information in determining occurrence.

Reports and other information available from Conservation Authorities (CAs)

Sites documented through waterfowl planning processes (eg. EHJV implementation plan)

Naturalist Clubs

Ducks Unlimited Canada

Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) Waterfowl Concentration Area

Studies carried out and verified presence of an annual concentration of any listed species, evaluation methods to follow “Bird and Bird Habitats: Guidelines for Wind Power Projects”

ccxi

Any mixed species aggregations of 100Í or more individuals required.

The area of the flooded field ecosite habitat plus a 100-300m radius buffer dependent on local site conditions and adjacent land use is the significant wildlife habitat

cxlviii.

Annual use of habitat is documented from information sources or field studies (annual use can be based on studies or determined by past surveys with species numbers and dates).

SWHDSScxlix

Index #7 provides development effects and mitigation measures.

Suitable habitat not present within the study area. Not SWH


Wildlife Species1

Candidate SWH Confirmed SWH Cityview Drive

ELC Ecosite Codes

1 Habitat Criteria and Information Sources

1 Defining Criteria


Wildlife Habitat: Waterfowl Stopover and Staging Areas (Aquatic)

Canada Goose Cackling Goose Snow Goose American Black Duck Northern Pintail Northern Shoveler American Wigeon Gadwall Green-winged Teal Blue-winged Teal Hooded Merganser Common Merganser Lesser Scaup Greater Scaup Long-tailed Duck Surf Scoter White-winged Scoter Black Scoter Ring-necked duck Common Goldeneye Bufflehead Redhead Ruddy Duck Red-breasted Merganser Brant Canvasback Ruddy Duck

MAM1 MAM2 MAM3 MAM4 MAM5 MAM6 MAS1 MAS2 MAS3 SAS1 SAM1 SAF1 SWD1 SWD2 SWD3 SWD4 SWD5 SWD6 SWD7

Ponds, marshes, lakes, bays, coastal inlets, and watercourses used during migration. Sewage treatment ponds and storm water ponds do not qualify as a SWH; however a reservoir managed as a large wetland or pond/lake does qualify.

These habitats have an abundant food supply (mostly aquatic invertebrates and vegetation in shallow water);

Information Sources

Canadian Wildlife Service staff know the larger, most significant sites. Check website: http://wildspace.ec.gc.ca

Naturalist clubs often are aware of staging/stopover areas.

OMNR Wetland Evaluations indicate presence of locally and regionally significant waterfowl staging.

Sites documented through waterfowl planning processes (eg. EHJV implementation plan)

Ducks Unlimited projects

Element occurrence specification by Nature Serve: http://www.natureserve.org

NHIC Waterfowl Concentration Area

Studies carried out and verified presence of:

Aggregations of 100Í or more of

listed species for 7 daysÍ, results in > 700 waterfowl use days.

Areas with annual staging of ruddy ducks, canvasbacks, and redheads are SWH

cxlix

The combined area of the ELC ecosites and a 100m radius area is the SWH

cxlviii

Wetland area and shorelines associated with sites identified within the SWHTG

cxlviii Appendix

K cxlix

are significant wildlife habitat.

Evaluation methods to follow “Bird and Bird Habitats: Guidelines for Wind Power Projects”

ccxi

Annual Use of Habitat is Documented from Information Sources or Field Studies (Annual can be based on completed studies or determined from past surveys with species numbers and dates recorded).

SWHDSScxlix


Reed Canary Grass Mineral Meadow Marsh (MAMM1-3) is present within the subject property; however, this is a relatively small wetland feature. Deciduous swamp habitat exists within the subject property, although with very little open water. NRSI field surveys completed in 2009 and 2013 did not document the presence of waterfowl species in abundances that would afford significance to this feature. Not SWH

http://www.natureserve.org/


Wildlife Species1


ELC Ecosite Codes


1 Defining Criteria


Wildlife Habitat: Shorebird Migratory Stopover Area

Greater Yellowlegs Lesser Yellowlegs Marbled Godwit Hudsonian Godwit Black-bellied Plover American Golden-Plover Semipalmated Plover Solitary Sandpiper Spotted Sandpiper Semipalmated Sandpiper Pectoral Sandpiper White-rumped Sandpiper Baird’s Sandpiper Least Sandpiper Purple Sandpiper Stilt Sandpiper Short-billed Dowitcher Red-necked Phalarope Whimbrel Ruddy Turnstone Sanderling Dunlin

BBO1 BBO2 BBS1 BBS2 BBT1 BBT2 SDO1 SDS2 SDT1 MAM1 MAM2 MAM3 MAM4 MAM5

Shorelines of lakes, rivers and wetlands, including beach areas, bars and seasonally flooded, muddy and un-vegetated shoreline habitats. Great Lakes coastal shorelines, including groynes and other forms of armour rock lakeshores, are extremely important for migratory shorebirds in May to mid-June and early July to October. Sewage treatment ponds and storm water ponds do not qualify as a SWH. Information Sources

Western hemisphere shorebird reserve network.

Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) Ontario Shorebird Survey.

Bird Studies Canada

Ontario Nature

Local birders and naturalist clubs

NHIC Shorebird Migratory Concentration Area

Studies confirming:

Presence of 3 or more of listed

species and > 1000Í shorebird use days during spring or fall migration period. (shorebird use days are the accumulated number of shorebirds counted per day over the course of the fall or spring migration period)

Whimbrel stop briefly (<24hrs) during spring migration, any site with

>100Í Whimbrel used for 3 years or more is significant.

The area of significant shorebird habitat includes the mapped ELC shoreline ecosites plus a 100m radius area

cxlviii


ccxi

SWHDSScxlix


Reed Canary Grass Mineral Meadow Marsh (MAMM1-3) is present within the subject property; however, this is a relatively small wetland feature. None of the target species were observed within the study area during 2009 and 2013 field surveys conducted by NRSI. Not SWH


Wildlife Species1


ELC Ecosite Codes


1 Defining Criteria


Wildlife Habitat: Raptor Wintering Area

Rough-legged Hawk Red-tailed Hawk Northern Harrier American Kestrel Snowy Owl Special Concern:

Short-eared Owl

Combination of ELC Community Series; need to have present one Community Series from each land class; Forest: FOD, FOM, FOC. Upland: CUM; CUT; CUS; CUW.

The habitat provides a combination of fields and woodlands that provide roosting, foraging and resting habitats for wintering raptors. Raptor wintering sites need to be > 20 ha

cxlviii,

cxlix with a combination of forest and upland

xvi,

xvii, xviii, xix, xx, xxi.

Least disturbed sites, idle/fallow or lightly grazed field/meadow with adjacent woodlands

cxlix

Information Sources:

OMNR Ecologist or Biologist may be aware of locations of wintering raptors. In addition, these staff may know local naturalists that may be aware of the locations of raptor wintering habitats.

NHIC Raptor Winter Concentration Area

Data from Bird Studies Canada, most notably for Short-eared Owls.

Reports and other information available from CAs.

Studies confirm the use of these habitats by:

One or more Short-eared Owls or;

At least 10 individuals and two listed

spp Í

.

To be significant a site must be used regularly (3 in 5 years)

cxlix for a

minimum of 20 days by the above

number of birdsÍ

.


ccxi

SWHDSScxlix


The subject property and the adjacent Cityview Ridge property contain fallow open lands adjacent to woodlands/thickets; however, these areas are too small (<20 ha) to support significant raptor overwintering habitat. Not SWH


Wildlife Species1


ELC Ecosite Codes


1 Defining Criteria


Wildlife Habitat: Bat Hibernacula

Big Brown Bat Little Brown Myotis Eastern Pipistrelle/Tri-coloured Bat Northern Myotis Eastern Small-footed Myotis

Bat Hibernacula may be found in these ecosites: CCR1 CCR2 CCA1 CCA2 (Note: buildings are not considered to be SWH)

Hibernacula may be found in caves, mine shafts, underground foundations and Karsts. The locations of bat hibernacula are relatively poorly known. Information Sources

OMNR for possible locations and contact for local experts

NHIC Bat Hibernaculum/Nursery

Ministry of Northern Development and Mines for location of mine shafts.

Clubs that explore caves (eg. Sierra Club)

University Biology Departments with bat experts.

All sites with confirmed hibernating

bats are SWH Í.

The area includes 1000m radius around the entrance of the

hibernaculum cxlviii, ccvii, Í.

Studies are to be conducted during the peak swarming period (Aug. – Sept.). Surveys should be conducted following methods outlined in the “Guideline for Wind Power Projects Potential Impacts to Bats and Bat Habitats”

ccv.

SWHDSScxlix




Wildlife Species1


ELC Ecosite Codes


1 Defining Criteria


Wildlife Habitat: Bat Maternity Colonies

Big Brown Bat Little Brown Myotis Silver-haired Bat Northern Myotis

Maternity colonies considered SWH are found in forested Ecosites. All ELC Ecosites in ELC Community Series: FOD FOM

Maternity colonies can be found in tree cavities, vegetation and often in buildings

xxii, xxv,

xxvi, xxvii, xxxi (buildings are not considered to be

SWH). Maternity roosts are not found in caves and mines in Ontario

xxii.

Maternity colonies located in Mature deciduous or mixed forest stands

ccix, ccx

with >10/ha large diameter (>25cm dbh) wildlife trees

ccvii

Female Bats prefer wildlife tree (snags) in early stages of decay, class 1-3

ccxiv or

class 1 or 2 ccxii

.

Northern Myotis prefer contiguous tracts of older forest cover for foraging and roosting in snags and trees

ccix

Silver-haired Bats prefer older mixed or deciduous forest and form maternity colonies in tree cavities and small hollows. Older forest areas with at least 21 snags/ha are preferred

ccx

Information Sources


University Biology Departments with bat experts.

Maternity Colonies with confirmed use by;

>20 Northern Myotiscxlix

>10 Big Brown BatsÍ

>20 Little Brown MyotisÍ

>5 Adult Female Silver-haired

BatsÍ

The area of the habitat includes the entire woodland or the forest stand ELC Ecosite containing the

maternity coloniesÍ.

Evaluation methods for maternity colonies should be conducted following methods outlined in the “Guideline for Wind Power Projects Potential Impacts to Bats and Bat Habitats”

ccv.

SWHDSScxlix


The cultural thickets/swamp communities within the subject property do not contain a density of suitable cavity trees that would afford significance for this habitat type (refer to Tree Inventory data). Wooded areas within the subject property are not classified as mixed or deciduous forest. Woodlands within the adjacent Cityview Ridge property are predominantly coniferous plantation, which do not provide significant bat maternity colony habitats. Not SWH


Wildlife Species1


ELC Ecosite Codes


1 Defining Criteria


Wildlife Habitat: Bat Migratory Stopover Area

Hoary Bat Eastern Red Bat Silver-haired Bat

No specific ELC types.

Long distance migratory bats typically migrate during late summer and early fall from summer breeding habitats throughout Ontario to southern wintering areas. Their annual fall migrations concentrate these species of bats at stopover areas. The location and characteristics of stopover habitats are generally unknown. Information Sources


University of Waterloo, Biology Department

Long Point (42°35’N, 80°30’E, to 42°33’N, 80°03’E) has been identified as a significant stop-over habitat for fall migrating Silver-haired Bats, due to significant increases in abundance, activity and feeding that was documented during fall migration

ccxv.

The confirmation criteria and habitat areas for this SWH are still being determined.

SWHDSS cxlix Index #38 provides development effects and mitigation measures

Criteria for this SWH type have not been defined by the OMNR. Category not assessed.


Wildlife Species1


ELC Ecosite Codes


1 Defining Criteria


Wildlife Habitat: Turtle Wintering Areas

Midland Painted Turtle Special Concern:

Northern Map Turtle Snapping Turtle

Snapping and Midland Painted turtles, ELC Community Classes; SW, MA, OA and SA, ELC Community Series; FEO and BOO Northern Map Turtle - Open Water areas such as deeper rivers or streams and lakes with current can also be used as over-wintering habitat.

For most turtles, wintering areas are in the same general area as their core habitat. Water has to be deep enough not to freeze and have soft mud substrates.

Over-wintering sites are permanent water bodies, large wetlands, and bogs or fens

with adequate Dissolved Oxygen. cix, cx,

cxi, cxviii Information Sources

EIS studies carried out by Conservation Authorities.

Local naturalists and experts, as well as university herpetologists may also know where to find some of these sites.

OMNR ecologist or biologist may be aware of locations of wintering turtles

NHIC

Presence of 5 over-wintering Midland Painted Turtles is

significantÍ.

One or more Northern Map Turtle or Snapping Turtle over-wintering

within a wetland is significantÍ.

The mapped ELC ecosite area with the over wintering turtles is the SWH. If the hibernation site is within a stream or river, the deep-water pool where the turtles are over wintering is the SWH.

Over wintering areas may be identified by searching for congregations (Basking Areas) of turtles on warm, sunny days during the fall (Sept. – Oct.) or spring (Mar. – May)

cvii. Congregation of turtles is

more common where wintering areas are limited and therefore significant

cix, cx, cxi, cxii.

SWHDSScxlix

Index #28 provides development effects and mitigation measures for turtle wintering habitat.

Deciduous and thicket swamp habitats, and meadow marsh habitat occurs within the subject property. Suitable open water habitat is not present within these features to provide significant turtle overwintering habitat. No turtle species were observed on-site during 2009 and 2013 NRSI field surveys. Not SWH


Wildlife Species1


ELC Ecosite Codes1

Habitat Criteria and Information Sources1

Defining Criteria1

Assessment Details

Wildlife Habitat: Snake Hibernaculum Snakes:

Eastern Gartersnake Northern Watersnake Northern Red-bellied Snake Northern Brownsnake Smooth Green Snake Northern Ring-necked Snake Special Concern:

Milksnake Eastern Ribbonsnake Lizard: Special Concern (Southern Shield population):

Five-lined Skink

For all snakes, habitat may be found in any ecosite in central Ontario other than very wet ones. Talus, Rock Barren, Crevice and Cave, and Alvar sites may be directly related to these habitats.

Observation of congregations of snakes on sunny warm days in the spring or fall is a good indicator. The existence of rock piles or slopes, stone fences, and crumbling foundations assist in identifying candidate SWH.

For Five-lined Skink, ELC Community Series of FOD and FOM and Ecosites: FOC1 FOC3

For snakes, hibernation takes place in sites located below frost lines in burrows, rock crevices and other natural locations. Areas of broken and fissured rock are particularly valuable since they provide access to subterranean sites below the frost line

xliv, l, li, lii,

cxii. Wetlands can also be important over-

wintering habitat in conifer or shrub swamps and swales, poor fens, or depressions in bedrock terrain with sparse trees or shrubs with sphagnum moss or sedge hummock ground cover. Information Sources

In spring, local residents or landowners may have observed the emergence of snakes on their property (e.g.old dug wells).



NHIC Five-lined skink prefer mixed forests with rock outcrop openings providing cover rock overlaying granite bedrock with fissures

cciii.

Information Sources



OMNR ecologist or biologist may be aware of locations of wintering skinks

NHIC

Studies confirming:

Presence of snake hibernacula used by a minimum of five individuals of a snake sp. or; individuals of two or more snake spp.

Congregations of a minimum of five individuals of a snake sp. or; individuals of two or more snake spp. near potential hibernacula (e.g. foundation or rocky slope) on sunny warm days in Spring

(Apr/May) and Fall (Sept/Oct)Í.

Note: If there are Special Concern Species present, then site is SWH

Note: Sites for hibernation possess specific habitat parameters (e.g. temperature, humidity, etc.) and consequently are used annually, often by many of the same individuals of a local population [i.e. strong hibernation site fidelity.]. Other critical life processes (e.g. mating) often take place in close proximity to hibernacula. The the feature in which the hibernacula is located

plus a 30 m buffer is the SWHÍ

SWHDSScxlix

Index #13 provides development effects and mitigation measures for snake hibernacula.

Presence of any active hibernaculum for skink is significant.

SWHDSScxlix

Index #37 provides development effects and mitigation measures for five-lined skink wintering habitat.

NRSI field surveys completed within the subject property in 2009 did not document the presence of any potential snake hibernaculum features. Not SWH


Wildlife Species1


ELC Ecosite Codes


1 Defining Criteria


Wildlife Habitat: Colonially – Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat (Bank and Cliff)

Bank Swallow Cliff Swallow Northern Rough-winged Swallow

Eroding banks, sandy hills, borrow pits, steep slopes, and sand piles (Bank Swallow and N. Rough-winged Swallow). Cliff faces, bridge abutments, silos, barns (Cliff Swallows). Habitat found in the following ecosites: CUM1 CUT1 CUS1 BLO1 BLS1 BLT1 CLO1 CLS1 CLT1

Any site or areas with exposed soil banks, undisturbed or naturally eroding that is not a licensed/permitted aggregate area.

Does not include man-made structures (bridges or buildings) or recently (2 years) disturbed soil areas, such as berms, embankments, soil or aggregate stockpiles.

Does not include a licensed/permitted Mineral Aggregate Operation.

Information Sources

Reports and other information available from CAs

Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas ccv

.

Bird Studies Canada; NatureCounts http://www.birdscanada.org/birdmon/

Naturalist clubs.

Studies confirming:

Presence of 1 or more nesting sites with 8

cxlvix or more cliff swallow pairs

or 50Í bank swallow and rough-winged swallow pairs during the breeding season.

A colony identified as SWH will include a 50m radius habitat area from the peripheral nests

ccvii

Field surveys to observe and count swallow nests are to be completed during the breeding season (May-June). Evaluation methods to follow “Bird and Bird Habitats: Guidelines for Wind Power Projects”

ccxi

SWHDSScxlix

Index #4 provides development effects and mitigation measures

The subject property and adjacent Cityview Ridge property contain a relatively steep slope at the interface between the shrub thickets and the deciduous woodland and conifer plantation. Species listed were not observed during surveys conducted by NRSI. A majority of the slope area is being retained as part of the Draft Plan of Subdivision. Not SWH


Wildlife Species1


ELC Ecosite Codes


1 Defining Criteria


Wildlife Habitat: Colonially – Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat (Tree/Shrubs)

Great Blue Heron Black-crowned Night-Heron Great Egret Green Heron

SWM2 SWM3 SWM5 SWM6 SWD1 SWD2 SWD3 SWD4 SWD5 SWD6 SWD7 FET1

Nests in live or dead standing trees in wetlands, lakes, islands, and peninsulas. Shrubs and occasionally emergent vegetation may also be used.

Most nests in trees are 11 to 15 m from ground, near the top of the tree.

Information Sources


, colonial nest records.

Ontario Heronry Inventory 1991 available from Bird Studies Canada or NHIC (OMNR).

NHIC Mixed Wader Nesting Colony

Aerial photographs can help identify large heronries.


MNR District Offices.

Local naturalist clubs.

Studies confirming:

Presence of 5Í or more active nests of Great Blue Heron.

The edge of the colony and a minimum 300m area of habitat or extent of the Forest Ecosite containing the colony or any island <15.0ha with a colony is the SWH

cc,

ccvii

Confirmation of active heronries are to be achieved through site visits conducted during the nesting season (April to August) or by evidence such as the presence of fresh guano, dead young and/or eggshells

SWHDSScxlix


Suitable habitat is not present within the subject property. Poplar Mineral Deciduous Swamp (SWDM4-5) occurs adjacent to the subject property, within the Cityview Drive property. However, NRSI field surveys completed within the Cityview Drive property did not document the presence of colonial bird nesting areas. Not SWH


Wildlife Species1


ELC Ecosite Codes


1 Defining Criteria


Wildlife Habitat: Colonially – Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat (Ground)

Herring Gull Great Black-backed Gull Little Gull Ring-billed Gull Common Tern Caspian Tern Brewer’s Blackbird

Any rocky island or peninsula (natural or artificial) within a lake or large river (two-lined on a 1;50,000 NTS map). Close proximity to watercourses in open fields or pastures with scattered trees or shrubs (Brewer’s Blackbird) MAM1 – 6; MAS1 – 3; CUM CUT CUS

Nesting colonies of gulls and terns are on islands or peninsulas associated with open water or in marshy areas.

Brewers Blackbird colonies are found loosely on the ground in or in low bushes in close proximity to streams and irrigation ditches within farmlands.

Information Sources


, rare/colonial species records.

Canadian Wildlife Service


NHIC Colonial Waterbird Nesting Area


Local naturalist clubs.

Studies confirming:

Presence of > 25 active nests for Herring Gulls or Ring-billed Gulls, >5 active nests for Common Tern or >2

active nests for Caspian TernÍ.

Presence of 5 or more pairs for

Brewer’s BlackbirdÍ.

Any active nesting colony of one or more Little Gull, and Great Black-

backed Gull is significantÍ.

The edge of the colony and a minimum 150m area of habitat, or the extent of the ELC ecosites containing the colony or any island <3.0ha with a colony is the SWH

cc,

ccvii

Studies would be done during May/June when actively nesting. Evaluation methods to follow “Bird and Bird Habitats: Guidelines for Wind Power Projects”

ccxi

SWHDSScxlix


Suitable habitat not present within the subject property. Not SWH


Wildlife Species1


ELC Ecosite Codes


1 Defining Criteria


Wildlife Habitat: Migratory Butterfly Stopover Areas

Painted Lady White Admiral Special Concern Monarch

Combination of ELC Community Series; need to have present one Community Series from each landclass: Field: CUM CUT CUS Forest: FOC FOD FOM CUP Anecdotally, a candidate sight for butterfly stopover will have a history of butterflies being observed.

A butterfly stopover area will be a minimum of 10 ha in size with a combination of field and forest habitat present, and will be located

within 5 km of Lake Ontario cxlix.

The habitat is typically a combination of field and forest, and provides the butterflies with a location to rest prior to

their long migration south xxxii, xxxiii,

xxxiv, xxxv, xxxvi.

The habitat should not be disturbed, fields/meadows with an abundance of preferred nectar plants and woodland edge providing shelter are requirements for this habitat

cxlviii, cxlix.

Staging areas usually provide protection from the elements and are often spits of land or areas with the shortest distance

to cross the Great Lakes xxxvii, xxxviii,

xxxix, xl, xli. Information Sources

OMNR (NHIC)

Agriculture Canada in Ottawa may have list of butterfly experts.

Naturalist Clubs

Toronto Entomologists Association

Conservation Authorities

Studies confirm:

The presence of Monarch Use Days (MUD) during fall migration

(Aug/Oct)xliii. MUD is based on the number of days a site is used by Monarchs, multiplied by the number of individuals using the site. Numbers of butterflies can range

from 100-500/dayxxxvii, significant variation can occur between years and multiple years of sampling

should occur xl, xlii.

MUD of >5000 or >3000 with the

presence of Painted Ladies or White Admiral’s is to be considered

significant.Í

SWHDSS cxlix Index #16 provides development effects and mitigation measures.

The subject property is not within 5 km of Lake Ontario. Not SWH


Wildlife Species1


ELC Ecosite Codes


1 Defining Criteria


Wildlife Habitat: Landbird Migratory Stopover Areas

All migratory songbirds. Canadian Wildlife Service Ontario website: http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/wildlife_e.html All migrant raptors species: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources: Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997. Schedule 7: Specially Protected Birds (Raptors)

All Ecosites associated with these ELC Community Series; FOC FOM FOD SWC SWM SWD

Woodlots need to be >10 haÍ in size and

within 5 km iv, v, vi, vii, viii, ix, x, xi, xii, xiii, xiv,

xv of Lake Ontario.

Woodlands <2km from Lake Ontario are more significant

cxlix

Sites have a variety of habitats; forest, grassland and wetland complexes

cxlix.

The largest sites are more significant cxlix

Woodlots and forest fragments are important habitats to migrating birds

ccxviii,

these features located along the shore and located within 5km of Lake Ontario

are Candidate SWH cxlviii. Information Sources

Bird Studies Canada

Ontario Nature

Local birders and naturalist club

Ontario Important Bird Areas (IBA) Program

Studies confirm:

Use of the woodlot by >200 birds/day and with >35 spp. with at least 10 bird spp. recorded on at

least 5 different survey datesÍ. This abundance and diversity of migrant bird species is considered above average and significant.

Studies should be completed during spring (Apr./May) and fall (Aug/Oct) migration using standardized assessment techniques. Evaluation methods to follow “Bird and Bird Habitats: Guidelines for Wind Power Projects”

ccxi

SWHDSS cxlix


The subject property is not within 5 km of Lake Ontario. Not SWH

http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/wildlife_e.html

http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/wildlife_e.html


Wildlife Species1


ELC Ecosite Codes


1 Defining Criteria


Wildlife Habitat: Deer Yarding Areas

White-tailed Deer Note: OMNR to determine this habitat. ELC Community Series providing a thermal cover component for a deer yard would include; FOM, FOC, SWM and SWC. Or these ELC Ecosites; CUP2 CUP3 FOD3 CUT

Deer yarding areas or winter concentration areas (yards) are areas deer move to in response to the onset of winter snow and cold. This is a behavioural response and deer will establish traditional use areas. The yard is composed of two areas referred to as Stratum I and Stratum II. Stratum II covers the entire winter yard area and is usually a mixed or deciduous forest with plenty of browse available for food. Agricultural lands can also be included in this area. Deer move to these areas in early winter and generally, when snow depths reach 20 cm, most of the deer will have moved here. If the snow is light and fluffy, deer may continue to use this area until 30 cm snow depth. In mild winters, deer may remain in the Stratum II area the entire winter.

The Core of a deer yard (Stratum I) is located within the Stratum II area and is critical for deer survival in areas where winters become severe. It is primarily composed of coniferous trees (pine, hemlock, cedar, spruce) with a canopy cover of more than 60%

cxciv.

OMNR determines deer yards following methods outlined in “Selected Wildlife and

Habitat Features: Inventory Manual" cxcv

Woodlots with high densities of deer due to

artificial feeding are not significantÍ.

No Studies Required: Snow depth and temperature are

the greatest influence on deer use of winter yards. Snow depths > 40cm for more than 60 days in a typically winter are minimum criteria

for a deer yard to be considered as

SWH. lvi, lvii, lviii, lix, lx,

Í

Deer Yards are mapped by OMNR District offices. Locations of Core or Stratum 1 and Stratum 2 Deer yards considered significant by OMNR will be available at local MNR offices or via Land Information Ontario (LIO).

Field investigations that record deer tracks in winter are done to confirm use (best done from an aircraft). Preferably, this is done over a series of winters to establish the boundary of the Stratum I and Stratum II yard in an "average" winter. MNR will complete these

field investigations. cxcv

If a SWH is determined for Deer Wintering Area or if a proposed development is within Stratum II yarding area then Movement Corridors are to be considered as outlined in Table 1.4.1 of this Schedule.

SWHDSScxlix


There are no OMNR records of deer overwintering habitat within the subject property, or within 120m of the study area. Not SWH


Wildlife Species1


ELC Ecosite Codes


1 Defining Criteria


Wildlife Habitat: Deer Winter Congregation Areas

White-tailed Deer All Forested Ecosites with these ELC Community Series; FOC FOM FOD SWC SWM SWD Conifer plantations much smaller than 50 ha may also be used.

Woodlots will typically be >100 ha in sizeÍ. Woodlots <100ha may be considered as significant based on MNR studies or assessment.

Deer movement during winter in the southern areas of Eco-region 6E are not constrained by snow depth, however deer will annually congregate in large numbers in suitable woodlands

cxlviii.

If deer are constrained by snow depth refer to the Deer Yarding Area habitat within Table 1.1 of this Schedule.

Large woodlots > 100ha and up to 1500 ha are known to be used annually by densities of deer that range from 0.1-1.5 deer/ha ccxxiv

.

Woodlots with high densities of deer due to

artificial feeding are not significantÍ. Information Sources


LIO/NRVIS

Studies confirm:

Deer management is an MNR responsibility, deer winter congregation areas considered significant will be mapped by MNR cxlviii

.

Use of the woodlot by white-tailed deer will be determined by MNR, all woodlots exceeding the area criteria are significant, unless determined

not to be significant by MNR Í..

Studies should be completed during winter (Jan/Feb) when >20cm of snow is on the ground using aerial survey techniques

ccxxiv , ground or

road surveys. or a pellet count deer density survey

ccxxv.

SWHDSS cxlix


There are no OMNR records of deer overwintering habitat within the subject property, or within 120m of the study area. Not SWH


Table 2: Characteristics of Rare Vegetation Communities in Ecoregion 6E

Rare Vegetation Community


ELC Ecosite Code

1 Habitat Description

1 Detailed Information and Sources

Defining Criteria


Cliffs and Talus Slopes Rationale;

Cliffs and Talus Slopes are extremely rare habitats in Ontario.

Any ELC Ecosite within Community Series: TAO CLO TAS CLS TAT CLT

A Cliff is vertical to near vertical bedrock >3m in height. A Talus Slope is rock rubble at the base of a cliff made up of coarse rocky debris

Most cliff and talus slopes occur along the Niagara Escarpment.

Information Sources

The Niagara Escarpment Commission has detailed information on location of these habitats.

OMNR Planner, Forester, Ecologist or Biologist

NHIC has location information on some cliff and talus occurrences, which is available on their website (Biodiversity Explorer).

Local naturalist clubs


Confirm any ELC Vegetation Type for Cliffs or Talus Slopes lxxviii

SWHDSScxlix


Vegetation communities not present within the subject property. Not SWH




ELC Ecosite Code



Defining Criteria


Sand Barren

Rationale;

Sand barrens are rare in Ontario and support rare species. Most Sand Barrens have been lost due to cottage development and forestry

SBO1 SBS1 SBT1 Vegetation cover varies from patchy and barren to continuous meadow (SBO1), thicket-like (SBS1), or more closed and treed (SBT1). Tree cover always < 60%.

Sand Barrens typically are exposed sand, generally sparsely vegetated and caused by lack of moisture, periodic fires and erosion. They have little or no soil and the underlying rock protrudes through the surface. Usually located within other types of natural habitat such as forest or savannah. Vegetation can vary from patchy and barren to tree covered but less than 60%.

No minimum size for sand barren area.

Sand Barrens support rare species such as provincially Endangered Forked Three-awned Grass

and American

Badger lxxxv, lxxxvi. By extension, sand barren sites that could support these rare species (close proximity to other populations), historically or currently should be considered for higher priority conservation.

Information Sources

OMNR Planner, Forester, Ecologist or Biologist

NHIC has location information on some sand barren occurrences, this information is available on their website (Biodiversity Explorer).



Confirm any ELC Vegetation Type for

Sand Barrens lxxviii

Site must not be dominated by exotic or introduced species (<50% vegetative cover

exotics)Í.

SWHDSScxlix






ELC Ecosite Code



Defining Criteria


Alvar Rationale;

Alvars are extremely rare habitats in Ontario.

ALO1 ALS1 ALT1

An alvar is typically a level, mostly unfractured calcareous bedrock feature with a mosaic of rock pavements and bedrock overlain by a thin veneer of soil. The hydrology of alvars is complex, with alternating periods of inundation and drought. Vegetation cover varies from sparse lichen-moss associations to grasslands and shrublands and comprising a number of characteristic or indicator plant. Undisturbed alvars can be phyto- and zoogeographically diverse, supporting many uncommon or are relict plant and animal species. Vegetation cover varies from patchy to barren with a less than 60% tree cover

lxxviii.

An Alvar site > 0.5 ha in size lxxv

. Alvar is particularly rare in ecoregion 7E where the only known sites are found in the western islands of Lake

Erie.cxcix Information Sources

Alvars of Ontario (2000), Federation of Ontario Naturalists

lxxvi.

Ontario Nature – Conserving Great Lakes Alvars

ccviii.

NHIC has location information on many alvar occurrences. This information is available on their website (Biodiversity Explorer).

OMNR Ecologists or Biologists.

Local Naturalist clubs.

Conservation Authorities.

Field studies identify three or more of the Alvar indicator species

lxxv listed

in OMNR (2000b) cxlix

Appendix N should be present. Note: Alvar plant spp. list from Eco-region 7E should be used.

Confirm and map ELC Vegetation Type polygons for Alvars lxxviii

Site must not be dominated by exotic or introduced species (<50% vegetative cover exotics).

The alvar must be in excellent condition and fit in with surrounding landscape with few conflicting land uses

lxxv.

SWHDSScxlix






ELC Ecosite Code



Defining Criteria


Old Growth Forest Rationale;

Old Growth forest stands are rare in S. Ontario

Forest Community Series: FOD FOC FOM

Old-growth forests tend to be relatively undisturbed, structurally complex, and contain a wide variety of trees and shrubs in various age classes. These habitats usually support a high diversity of wildlife species.

No minimum size to siteÍ. Information Sources

OMNR Forest Resource Inventory mapping

OMNR Forester, Ecologist or Biologist.



Municipal forestry departments

Field Studies will determine:

If dominant trees species of the ecosite are >140 years old, then stand is Significant Wildlife Habitat

cxlviii.

The stand will have experienced no recognizable forestry activities

cxlviii

Determine ELC Vegetation Type for

forest stand lxxviii.

SWHDSScxlix






ELC Ecosite Code



Defining Criteria


Savannah Rationale:

Savannahs are extremely rare habitats in Ontario.

TPS1 TPS2 TPW1 TPW2 CUS2

A Savannah is a tallgrass prairie habitat that has tree cover between 25 – 60%. Tallgrass Prairie (TGP) and savannah were historically common in the near-shore areas of the Great Lakes. In ecoregion 7E, known Tallgrass Prairie and savannah remnants are scattered between Lake Huron and Lake Erie, near Lake St. Clair, north of and along the Lake Erie shoreline, in Brantford and in the Toronto area (north of Lake Ontario).

cc

No minimum size to site Í Site must be restored or a natural site. Remnant sites such as railway right of ways are not considered to be SWH. Information Sources

OMNR Forester, Ecologist or Biologist.

NHIC has location information on many savannah occurrences. This information is available on their website (Biodiversity Explorer).

Local naturalists clubs.


Field studies confirm one or more of the Savannah indicator species listed in

lxxv

Appendix N should be

present Í. Note: Savannah plant spp. list from Ecoregion 7E should be used

Area of the ELC Vegetaion type is the

SWH lxxviii.


SWHDSScxlix






ELC Ecosite Code



Defining Criteria


Tallgrass Prairie Rationale:

Tallgrass Prairies are extremely rare habitats in Ontario.

TPO1 TPO2

A Tallgrass Prairie has ground cover dominated by prairie grasses. An open Tallgrass Prairie habitat has < 25% tree cover. Tallgrass Prairie (TGP) and savannah were historically common in the near-shore areas of the Great Lakes In ecoregion 7E, known Tallgrass Prairie and savannah remnants are scattered between Lake Huron and Lake Erie, near Lake St. Clair, north of and along the Lake Erie shoreline, in Brantford and in the Toronto area (north of Lake Ontario).

cc

No minimum size to site Í. Site must be restored or a natural site. Remnant sites such as railway right of ways are not considered to be SWH. Information Sources

NHIC has location information on some tallgrass prairie occurrences, this information is available on their website (Biodiversity Explorer).

OMNR Ecologists and Biologists.



Field studies confirm one or more of the Prairie indicator species listed in

lxxv Appendix

N should be present Í. Note: Prairie plant spp. list from Ecoregion 7E should be used

Area of the ELC Vegetation Type is the

SWH lxxviii.


SWHDSScxlix






ELC Ecosite Code



Defining Criteria


Other Rare Vegetation Communities Rationale:

Plant communities that often contain rare species which depend on the habitat for survival.

Provincially Rare S1, S2 and S3 vegetation communities are listed in Appendix M of the SWHTG

cxlviii .

Any ELC Ecosite Code that has a possible ELC Vegetation Type that is Provincially Rare is Candidate SWH.

Rare Vegetation Communities may include beaches, fens, forest, marsh, barrens, dunes and swamps.

ELC Ecosite codes that have the potential to be a rare ELC Vegetation Type as outlined in appendix M

cxlviii

The OMNR/NHIC will have up to date listing for rare vegetation communities. Information Sources

NHIC has location information on other rare vegetation types, this information is available on their website (Biodiversity Explorer)

OMNR Ecologists and Biologists.



Field studies should confirm if an ELC Vegetation Type is a rare vegetation community based on listing within Appendix M of SWHTG

cxlvii.

Area of the ELC Vegetation Type polygon is the SWH.

SWHDSS cxlix


Other rare vegetation communities not present within the subject property. Not SWH


Table 3. Characteristics of Specialized Wildlife Habitat for Ecoregion 6E

Wildlife Species


ELC Ecosite Codes


1 Defining Criteria


Wildlife Habitat: Waterfowl Nesting Area American Black Duck Northern Pintail Northern Shoveler Gadwall Blue-winged Teal Green-winged Teal Wood Duck Hooded Merganser Mallard

All upland habitats located adjacent to these wetland ELC Ecosites are Candidate SWH: MAS1 MAS2 MAS3 SAS1 SAM1 SAF1 MAM1 MAM2 MAM3 MAM4 MAM5 MAM6 SWT1 SWT2 SWD1 SWD2 SWD3 SWD4 Note: includes adjacency to Provincially Significant Wetlands

A waterfowl nesting area extends 120 m

cxlix from a wetland (> 0.5 ha) or

a wetland (>0.5 ha) with small wetlands (<0.5ha) within 120m or a cluster of 3 or more small (<0.5 ha) wetlands within 120 m of each individual wetland where waterfowl nesting is known to occur

cxlix.

Upland areas should be at least 120m wide so that predators such as raccoons, skunks, and foxes have difficulty finding nests.

Wood Ducks and Hooded Mergansers utilize large diameter trees (>40cm dbh) in woodlands for cavity nest sites.

Information Sources

Ducks Unlimited staff may know the locations of particularly productive nesting sites.

OMNR Wetland Evaluations for indication of significant waterfowl nesting habitat.

Reports and other information available from CAs

Studies confirmed:

Presence of 3 or more nesting pairs for

listed species excluding MallardsÍ, or;

Presence of 10 or more nesting pairs

for listed species including MallardsÍ.

Any active nesting site of an American Black Duck is considered significant.

Nesting studies should be completed during the spring breeding season (April - June). Evaluation methods to follow “Bird and Bird Habitats: Guidelines for Wind Power Projects”

ccxi

A field study confirming waterfowl nesting habitat will determine the boundary of the waterfowl nesting habitat for the SWH, this may be greater or less than 120 m

cxlviii from the

wetland and will provide enough habitat for waterfowl to successfully nest.

SWHDSScxlix


Deciduous and thicket swamp habitat is present within the Cityview Drive property; however, NRSI field studies completed within the Cityview Drive property did not identify waterfowl nesting habitat. Not SWH


Wildlife Species


ELC Ecosite Codes1


1 Defining Criteria


Wildlife Habitat: Bald Eagle and Osprey Nesting Habitat

Osprey Special Concern

Bald Eagle

ELC Forest Community Series: FOD, FOM, FOC, SWD, SWM and SWC directly adjacent to riparian areas – rivers, lakes, ponds and wetlands

Nests are associated with lakes, ponds, rivers or wetlands along forested shorelines, islands, or on structures over water. Osprey nests are usually at the top a tree whereas Bald Eagle nests are typically in super canopy trees in a notch within the tree’s canopy.

Nests located on man-made objects are not to be included as SWH (e.g. telephone poles and constructed nesting platforms). Information Sources

NHIC compiles all known nesting sites for Bald Eagles in Ontario.

MNR values information (LIO/NRVIS) will list known nesting locations. Note: data from NRVIS is provided as a point and does not represent all the habitat.

Nature Counts, Ontario Nest Records Scheme data.

OMNR Ecologist or Biologist may be aware of locations of nesting raptors. In addition, these staff may know local naturalists that may be aware of the locations of raptor nests.

Sustainable Forestry License (SFL) companies will identify additional nesting locations through field operations.

Check the Ontario Breeding Bird

Studies confirm the use of these nests by:

One or more active Osprey or Bald Eagle nests in an area

cxlvii.

Some species have more than one nest in a given area and priority is given to the primary nest with alternate nests included within the area of the SWH.

For an Osprey, the active nest and a 300 m radius around the nest or the contiguous woodland stand is the SWH ccvii

, maintaining undisturbed shorelines with large trees within this area is important

cxlviii.

For a Bald Eagle the active nest and a 400-800 m radius around the nest is the SWH.

cvi, ccvii Area of the habitat from 400-

800m is dependant on site lines from the nest to the development and inclusion of perching and foraging habitat

cvi

To be significant a site must be used annually. When found inactive, the site must be known to be inactive for > 3 years or suspected of not being used for >5 years before being considered not significant.

ccvii

Observational studies to determine nest site use, perching sites and foraging areas need to be done from mid-March to mid-August.


ccxi

SWHDSScxlix


Suitable habitat not present within the study area. No Ospreys or Bald Eagles were identified during previous NRSI field surveys within the Cityview Drive property. Not SWH


Wildlife Species


ELC Ecosite Codes1


1 Defining Criteria


Atlas ccv

or Rare Breeding Birds in Ontario for species documented


Local naturalists may know of other locations.

Use maps and aerial photographs to identify forests with few roads that tend to have less human disturbance.


Wildlife Species1


ELC Ecosite Codes1


1 Defining Criteria


Wildlife Habitat: Woodland Raptor Nesting Habitat

Northern Goshawk Cooper’s Hawk Sharp-shinned Hawk Red-shouldered Hawk Barred Owl Broad-winged Hawk

May be found in all forested ELC Ecosites. May also be found in SWC, SWM, SWD and CUP3

All natural or conifer plantation woodland/forest stands >30ha with >10ha of interior habitat

lxxxviiii, lxxxix, xc, xci,

xciii, xciv, xcv,xcvi, cxxxiii. Interior habitat

determined with a 200m buffercxlviii

Stick nests found in a variety of intermediate-aged to mature conifer, deciduous or mixed forests within tops or crotches of trees. Species such as Coopers hawk nest along forest edges sometimes on peninsulas or small off-shore islands.

In disturbed sites, nests may be used again, or a new nest will be in close proximity to old nest.

Information Sources

OMNR Ecologist or Biologist may be aware of locations of nesting raptors.

Sustainable Forestry Licence (SFL) companies will identify additional nesting locations through field operations.

Check the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas

ccv or Rare Breeding Birds in

Ontario for species documented.

Check data from Bird Studies Canada.


Use maps and aerial photographs to identify forests with few roads that tend to have less human disturbance.

Studies confirm:

Presence of 1 or more active nests from species list is considered significant

cxlviii.

Red-shouldered Hawk and Northern Goshawk – A 400m radius around the nest or 28 ha of suitable habitat is the SWH

ccvii.

Barred Owl – A 200m radius around the nest is the SWH

ccvii.

Broad-winged Hawk and Coopers Hawk,– A 100m radius around the nest is the SWH

ccvii.

Sharp-Shinned Hawk – A 50m radius around the nest is the SWH

ccvii.

Conduct field investigations from mid-March to end of May. The use of call broadcasts can help in locating territorial (courting/nesting) raptors and facilitate the discovery of nests by narrowing down the search area.

SWHDSS cxlix


Swamp communities are present within the Cityview Drive and adjacent Cityview Ridge properties; however, wooded habitats within these areas are not large enough (>30 ha) to provide significant raptor nesting habitat. Not SWH


Wildlife Species1


ELC Ecosite Codes1


1 Defining Criteria


Wildlife Habitat: Turtle Nesting Areas

Midland Painted Turtle Special Concern Species Northern Map Turtle Snapping Turtle

Exposed mineral soil (sand or gravel) areas adjacent (<100m)

cxlviii or within the

following ELC Ecosites: MAM2 MAM3 MAM4 MAM5 MAM6 MAM1 MAM2 MAM3 SAS1 SAM1 SAF1 BOO1 FEO1

Best nesting habitat for turtles are close to water and away from roads and sites less prone to loss of eggs by predation from skunks, raccoons or other animals.

For an area to function as a turtle-nesting area, it must provide sand and gravel that turtles are able to dig in and are located in open, sunny areas. Nesting areas on the sides of municipal or provincial road embankments and shoulders are not SWH.

Sand and gravel beaches adjacent to undisturbed shallow weedy areas of marshes, lakes, and rivers are most frequently used.

Information Sources

Use Ontario Soil Survey reports and maps to help find suitable substrate for nesting turtles (well-drained sands and fine gravels).

Check the Ontario Herpetofaunal Summary Atlas records or other similar atlases for uncommon turtles; location information may help to find potential nesting habitat for them.

NHIC

Use aerial photographs and maps to narrow the search for prime nesting areas including shoreline beaches located near weedy areas of wetlands, lake and river shorelines, road embankments near turtle habitat, and stream crossings/culverts.

Studies confirm:

Presence of 5 or more nesting Midland Painted

TurtlesÍ

One or more Northern Map Turtle or Snapping Turtle

nesting is a SWHÍ.

The area or collection of sites within an area of exposed mineral soils where the turtles nest, plus a radius of 30-100m around the nesting area dependant on slope, riparian vegetation and adjacent land use is the SWH.

cxlviii

Travel routes from wetland to nesting area are to be considered within the SWH.

cxlix

Field investigations should be conducted in prime nesting season typically late spring to early summer.

SWHDSS cxlix

Index #28 provides development effects and mitigation measures for turtle nesting habitat.

Suitable habitat not present within the subject property. Not SWH


Wildlife Species1


ELC Ecosite Codes1


1 Defining Criteria


Skinks will nest under logs, in stumps or under loose rock in partially wooded areas


Sightings by local Naturalist groups


Wildlife Species1


ELC Ecosite Codes1

Habitat Criteria and Information Sources1

Defining Criteria1

Assessment Details

Wildlife Habitat: Seeps and Springs

Wild Turkey Ruffed Grouse Spruce Grouse White-tailed Deer Salamander spp.

Seeps/Springs are areas where ground water comes to the surface. Often they are found within headwater areas within forested habitats. Any forested Ecosite within the headwater areas of a stream could have seeps/springs.

Any forested area (with <25% meadow/field/pasture) within the headwaters of a stream or river system

cxvii, cxlix.

Seeps and springs are important feeding and drinking areas especially in the winter will typically support a variety of plant and animal species

cxix, cxx, cxxi, cxxii, cxiii, cxiv.

Information Sources

Topographical Map.

Thermography.

Hydrological surveys conducted by CAs and MOE.

Local naturalists and landowners may know some locations.

Municipalities and Conservation Authorities may have drainage maps and headwater areas mapped.

Field Studies confirm:

Presence of a site with 2 or moreÍ seeps/springs should be considered SWH.

The area of a ELC forest ecosite containing the seeps/springs is the SWH. The protection of the recharge area considering the slope, vegetation, height of trees and groundwater condition need to be considered in delineation the habitat

cxlviii.

SWHDSS cxlix


Suitable habitat is not present within the subject property. Previous studies within the forested areas of the Cityview Drive and Cityview Ridge properties did not document seeps or springs within 120 m of the subject property. Not SWH


Wildlife Species1


ELC Ecosite Codes1


1 Defining Criteria


Wildlife Habitat: Amphibian Breeding Habitat (Woodland)

Eastern Newt Blue-spotted Salamander Spotted Salamander Gray Treefrog Spring Peeper Western Chorus Frog Wood Frog

All Ecosites associated with these ELC Community Series; FOC FOM FOD SWC SWM SWD Breeding pools within the woodland or the shortest distance from forest habitat are more significant because they are more likely to be used due to reduced risk to migrating amphibians

Presence of a wetland, lake, or pond within or adjacent (within 120m) to a woodland (no minimum

size).clxxxii, lxiii, lxv, lxvi, lxvii, lxviii,

lxix, lxx. Some small wetlands may not be

mapped and may be important breeding pools for amphibians.

Woodlands with permanent ponds or those containing water in most years until mid-July are more likely to be used as breeding habitat cxlviii

Information Sources

Ontario Herpetofaunal Summary Atlas (or other similar atlases) for records

Local landowners may also provide assistance as they may hear spring-time choruses of amphibians on their property.

Local OMNR Ecologist

OMNR wetland evaluations

Local field naturalist clubs

Canadian Wildlife Service Amphibian Road Call Survey

Ontario Vernal Pool Association: http://www.ontariovernalpools.org

Studies confirm;

Presence of breeding population of 1 or more of the listed species with at least 20 individuals (adults, juveniles,

eggs/larval masses) lxxi.

An observational study to determine breeding/larval stages will be required during the spring (Apr-June) when amphibians are concentrated around suitable breeding habitat within or near the woodland.

The habitat is the woodland (ELC polygons) and wetland (ELC polygons) combined. A travel corridor connecting the woodland and wetland polygons is to be included within the habitat.


Deciduous swamp habitat is present within the subject property; however, field surveys conducted by NRSI within the Cityview Drive property, including amphibian call surveys, resulted in only one species being recorded. The PSW, plus a 30m buffer, is being retained as part of the Draft Plan of Subdivision. Not SWH


Wildlife Species1


ELC Ecosite Codes1


1 Defining Criteria


Wildlife Habitat: Amphibian Breeding Habitat (Wetlands)

Eastern Newt American Toad Spotted Salamander Four-toed Salamander Blue-spotted Salamander Gray Treefrog Western Chorus Frog Northern Leopard Frog Pickerel Frog Green Frog Mink Frog Bullfrog

ELC Community Classes SW, MA, FE, BO, OA and SA.

Wetlands and pools (including vernal pools) >500m

2 (about 25m

diameter) ccvii

isolated from woodlands (>120m), supporting high species diversity are significant; some small or ephemeral habitats may not be identified on MNR mapping and could be important amphibian breeding habitats

clxxxiv.

Presence of shrubs and logs increase significance of pond for some amphibian species because of available structure for calling, foraging, escape and concealment from predators.

Bullfrogs require permanent water bodies with abundant emergent vegetation.

Information Sources

Ontario Herpetofaunal Summary Atlas (or other similar atlases)

Canadian Wildlife Service Amphibian Road Surveys and Backyard Amphibian Call Count.

OMNR Ecologist or Biologist may know of populations, wetland evaluations may be a good source of information..

Use maps or aerial photography to locate marsh habitat.


Studies confirm:

Presence of breeding population of 1or more of the listed salamander species or 3 or more of the listed frog or toad species and with at least 20 breeding individuals (adults, juveniles, eggs/larval masses)

lxxi, lxxiii or;

Wetland with confirmed breeding Bullfrogs are

significantÍ.

The ELC ecosite wetland area and the shoreline are the SWH.

Surveys to confirm breeding to be completed during spring (Apr to June) when amphibians are migrating, calling and breeding within the wetland habitats.

If a SWH is determined for Amphibian Breeding Habitat (Wetlands) then Movement Corridors are to be considered as outlined in Table 1.4.1 of this Schedule.

SWHDSS cxlix


Suitable amphibian breeding habitat is present within the swamp communities along the eastern edge of the subject property; however, amphibian call surveys documented only 1 species within this area. PSW and 30m buffer are being retained as part of the Draft Plan of Subdivision. Not SWH


Table 4. Characteristics of Habitat for Species of Conservation Concern for Ecoregion 6E

Wildlife Species Candidate SWH Confirmed SWH Cityview Drive

ELC Ecosite Codes Habitat Criteria and Information Sources Defining Criteria Assessment Details

Wildlife Habitat: Marsh Bird Breeding Habitat

American Bittern Virginia Rail Sora Common Moorhen American Coot Pied-billed Grebe Marsh Wren Sedge Wren Common Loon Sandhill Crane Green Heron Trumpeter Swan Special Concern:

Black Tern Yellow Rail

MAM1 MAM2 MAM3 MAM4 MAM5 MAM6 SAS1 SAM1 SAF1 FEO1 BOO1 For Green Heron: All SW, MA and CUM1 sites.

Nesting occurs in wetlands.

All wetland habitat is to be considered as long as there is shallow water with emergent aquatic vegetation present cxxiv

.

For Green Heron, habitat is at the edge of water such as sluggish streams, ponds and marshes sheltered by shrubs and trees. Less frequently, it may be found in upland shrubs or forest a considerable distance from water.

Information Sources

Contact OMNR, wetland evaluations are a good source of information.


NHIC Records.



.

Studies confirm:

Presence of 5 or more nesting pairs of Sedge Wren or Marsh Wren or

1 pair of Sandhill Cranes; or breeding by

any combination of 5 or more of the listed

species Í.

Note: any wetland with breeding of 1 or more Black Terns, Trumpeter Swan, Green Heron or

Yellow Rail is SWH Í.

Area of the ELC ecosite is the SWH.

Breeding surveys should be done in May/June when these species are actively nesting in wetland habitats.


ccxi

SWHDSS cxlix


Suitable habitat not present within the study area. Species listed were not observed during breeding bird surveys conducted by NRSI. Not SWH




Wildlife Habitat: Woodland Area-Sensitive Bird Breeding Habitat Wildlife

Yellow-bellied sapsucker Red-breasted nuthatch Veery Blue-headed vireo Northern parula Black-throated green warbler Blackburnian warbler Black-throated blue warbler Ovenbird Scarlet tanager Winter wren Special Concern: Cerulean Warbler Canada Warbler

All Ecosites associated with these ELC Community Series; FOC FOM FOD SWC SWM SWD

Habitats where interior forest breeding birds are breeding, typically large mature (>60 yrs old) forest stands or

woodlots >30 ha. cv, cxxxi, cxxxii,

cxxxiii, cxxxiv, cxxxv, cxxxvi, cxxxvii, cxxxviii, cxxxix, cxl, cxli, cxlii, cxliii, cxliv, cxlv, cxlvi, cl, cli, clii, cliii, cliv, clv, clvi, clvii, clviii, clix,

Interior forest habitat is at least 200 m

from forest edge habitat. clxiv Information Sources

Ask local birders for local forests that support abundant and species-rich populations of area-sensitive species.

Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) for the location of forest bird monitoring sites and names of volunteers who might assist the planning authority in locating important areas.

Bird Studies Canada conducted a 3-year study of 287 woodlands to determine the effects of forest fragmentation on forest birds and to determine what forests were of greatest value to interior species


Studies confirm:

Presence of nesting or breeding pairs of 3 or more of the listed wildlife

species. Í

Note: any site with breeding Cerulean Warblers or Canada Warblers is to be

considered SWH.Í

Conduct field investigations in spring and early summer when birds are singing and defending their territories.


ccxi


Deciduous swamp occurs within the subject property; however, the area of this habitat is too small (<30ha) to support significant area-sensitive breeding bird habitat. Species listed were not observed during breeding bird surveys conducted by NRSI. Not SWH




Wildlife Habitat: Open Country Bird Breeding Habitat

Upland sandpiper Grasshopper sparrow Vesper sparrow Northern harrier Savannah sparrow Special Concern

Short-eared owl

CUM1 CUM2

Large grassland areas (includes natural and cultural fields and meadows) >30 ha

clx, clxi,

clxii, clxiii, clxiv, clxv, clxvi, clxvii, clxviii, clxix. Grasslands

not Class 1 or 2 agricultural lands, and not being actively used for farming (i.e. no row cropping or intensive hay or livestock

pasturing in the last 5 years) Í. Grassland sites considered significant should have a history of longevity, either abandoned fields, mature hayfields and pasturelands that are at least 5 years or older.

The Indicator bird species are area sensitive requiring larger grassland areas than the common grassland species. Information Sources

Use Agricultural land classification maps with aerial photographs to determine the potential grasslands that might be candidate sites.

Ask local birders for location of grasslands that support abundant and species rich populations of area-sensitive species.




Presence of nesting or breeding of 2 or more of

the listed species.Í

A field with 1 or more breeding Short-eared Owls is to be considered SWH.

The area of SWH is the contiguous ELC ecosite field areas.

Conduct field investigations of the most likely areas in spring and early summer when birds are singing and defending their territories.


ccxi

SWHDSS cxlix


Suitable open country breeding bird habitat is present within the cultural meadow areas (fallow fields); however, species listed were not observed during breeding bird surveys conducted by NRSI. Not SWH




Wildlife Habitat: Shrub/Early Successional Bird Breeding Habitat

Indicator Spp: Brown Thrasher Clay-coloured Sparrow Common Spp. Field Sparrow Black-billed Cuckoo Eastern Towhee Willow Flycatcher Special Concern:

Yellow-breasted Chat Golden-winged Warbler

CUT1 CUT2 CUS1 CUS2 CUW1 CUW2 Patches of shrub ecosites can be complexed into a larger habitat for some bird species

Large field areas succeeding to shrub and

thicket habitats>10haclxiv in size. Shrub land or early successional fields, not class 1 or 2 agricultural lands, not being actively used for farming (i.e. no row-cropping, haying or live-stock pasturing in the last 5

years) Í. Shrub thicket habitats (>10 ha) are most likely to support and sustain a diversity of these species

clxxiii.

Shrub and thicket habitat sites considered significant should have a history of longevity, either abandoned fields or pasturelands.

Information Sources

Use agricultural land classification maps and recent aerial photographs to determine the amount of potential shrub and thicket habitats.

Ask local birders for location of shrub and thicket habitats that support abundant and species rich populations of area-sensitive species.




Presence of nesting or breeding of 1 of the indicator species and at least 2 of the common

species.Í

A field with breeding Yellow-breasted Chat or Golden-winged Warbler is to be considered as Significant Wildlife

Habitat. Í

The area of the SWH is the contiguous ELC ecosite field/thicket area.

Conduct field investigations of the most likely areas in spring and early summer when birds are singing and defending their territories


ccxi

SWHDSS cxlix






Wildlife Habitat: Terrestrial Crayfish

Chimney or Digger Crayfish; (Fallicambarus fodiens) Devil Crawfish or Meadow Crayfish; (Cambarus Diogenes)

MAM1 MAM2 MAM3 MAM4 MAM5 MAM6 MAS1 MAS2 MAS3

Meadow and edges of shallow marshes (no minimum size) identified should be surveyed for terrestrial crayfish.

Constructs burrows in marshes, mudflats, meadows. The ground can’t be too moist. Can often be found far from water.

Both species are a semi-terrestrial burrower which spends most of its life within burrows consisting of a network of tunnels. Usually the soil is not too moist so that the tunnel is well formed.

Information Sources

Information sources from “Conservation Status of Freshwater Crayfishes” by Dr. Premek Hamr for the WWF and CNF March 1998

Studies Confirm:

Presence of 1 or more individuals of species listed or their chimneys (burrows) in suitable marsh meadow or

terrestrial sites cci

Area of ELC Ecosite polygon is the SWH

Surveys should be done during adult breeding season (April to late June) and in late summer-early August in nearby temporary or permanent water for juveniles. Note the presence of burrows or chimneys are often the only indicator of presence, observance or collection of individuals is

very difficult cci


Suitable habitat is present within the non-PSW community (MAMM1-3) located along the southern edge of the site; however, NRSI did not observe any terrestrial crayfish or signs during field surveys conducted in 2009, 2010 and 2013. Not SWH


Table 5. Characteristics of Animal Movement Corridors for Ecoregion 6E



Wildlife Habitat: Amphibian Movement Corridors

Eastern Newt Blue-spotted Salamander Spotted Salamander Gray Treefrog Spring Peeper Western Chorus Frog Wood Frog

Corridors may be found in all ecosites associated with water.

Corridors will be determined based on identifying the significant breeding habitat for these species in Table 1.1

Movement corridors between breeding habitat and summer habitat

clxxiv, clxxv, clxxvi,

clxxvii, clxxviii, clxxix, clxxx, clxxxi.

Movement corridors must be determined when Amphibian breeding habitat is confirmed as SWH from Table 1.2.2 (Amphibian Breeding Habitat –Wetland)

of this Schedule Í. Information Sources

MNR District Office.

NHIC.


Naturalist Clubs.

Field Studies must be conducted at the time of year when species are expected to be migrating or entering breeding sites.

Corridors should consist of native vegetation, roadless area, no gaps such as fields, waterways or bodies, and undeveloped areas are most significant

cxlix

Corridors should be at least 200m wide

cxlix with gaps

<20mcxlix

and if following riparian area with at least 15m of vegetation on both sides of waterway

cxlix.

Shorter corridors are more significant than longer corridors; however amphibians must be able to get to and from their summer and breeding habitat

cxlix.

SWHDSS cxlix


The study area does not provide significant amphibian breeding habitat. Not SWH




Wildlife Habitat: Deer Movement Corridors

White-tailed Deer

Corridors may be found in all forested ecosites. A Project Proposal in Stratum II Deer Wintering Area has potential to contain corridors.

Movement corridor must be determined when Deer Wintering Habitat is confirmed

as SWH from Table 1.1 from Table 1.2.2 of

this schedule. Í

A deer wintering habitat identified by the OMNR as SWH in Table 1.1 of this Schedule will have corridors that the deer use during fall migration and spring dispersion

clxxxii, clxxxiii, cxlix, cxciv.

Corridors typically follow riparian areas, woodlots, areas of physical geography (ravines, or ridges).

Information Sources

MNR District Office.

NHIC.


Naturalist Clubs.

Studies must be conducted at the time of year when deer are migrating or moving to and from winter concentration areas.

Corridors that lead to a deer wintering yard should be unbroken by roads and residential areas.

Corridors should be at least 200m wide

cxlix with gaps

<20mcxlix

and if following riparian area with at least 15m of vegetation on both sides of waterway

cxlix

Shorter corridors are more significant than longer corridors,

cxlix.

SWHDSS cxlix


The study area does not provide significant deer overwintering habitat. Not SWH


APPENDIX IV Tree Protection Plan

55 & 75 Cityview Drive Property Tree Protection Plan

Prepared for: Robert Saroli

Debrob Investments Limited 85 Parkshore Drive Brampton, Ontario

L6T 5M1

Project No. 924 Date: July 2013

225 Labrador Drive, Waterloo, Ontario, N2K 4M8 Tel: (519) 725-2227 Fax: (519) 725-257 Web: www.nrsi.on.ca Email: [email protected]

55 & 75 Cityview Drive Property Tree Protection Plan

Project Team:

Staff Role

David Stephenson Project Advisor, Senior Biologist, Certified Arborist

Tara Brenton Project Manager, Terrestrial/Wetland Biologist, Certified Arborist

Pamela Tucciarone Terrestrial/Wetland Biologist, Certified Arborist

Pat Deacon Terrestrial/Wetland Biologist

Tyler Bradley Certified Arborist

Kaitlin Boddaert GIS Technician

Report submitted on July 31, 2013

________________________________

Tara Brenton, Project Manager

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction......................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Tree Inventory and Methodology ....................................................................... 3

3.0 Summary of Tree Inventory ............................................................................. 13

4.0 Tree Removal and Retention Analysis ............................................................ 15

5.0 Tree Compensation Plan .................................................................................. 17

6.0 Tree Protection Measures and Recommended Mitigation ............................. 19

6.1 Prior to Construction ........................................................................................... 19

6.2 During Construction ............................................................................................ 21

6.3 Post-Construction ............................................................................................... 21

6.4 Mitigation ............................................................................................................ 21

7.0 References ........................................................................................................ 23

List of Tables Table 1. Tree Assessment Criteria ................................................................................. 5 Table 2. Overall Condition of Trees Inventoried ............................................................ 13 Table 3. Summary of Trees Species Inventoried .......................................................... 14 Table 4. Summary of Trees to be Removed and Recommended Compensation Plan .. 18

List of Figures Figure 1. Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan – Key Plan / Western Extent ................ 6 Figure 2. Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan ............................................................. 7 Figure 3. Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan ............................................................. 8 Figure 4. Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan ............................................................. 9 Figure 5. Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan ........................................................... 10 Figure 6. Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan ........................................................... 11 Figure 7. Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan ........................................................... 12 Figure 8. Tree Protection Fencing Plan ........................................................................ 20

List of Appendices Appendix I 55 & 75 Cityview Drive Property – Tree Inventory Data

Natural Resource Solutions Inc. 1 55 & 75 Cityview Drive Property – Tree Protection Plan

1.0 Introduction

Natural Resource Solutions Inc. (NRSI) was retained by IBI Group on behalf of Debrob

Investments Limited to undertake a Tree Protection Plan (TPP) as part of the Scoped

Environmental Impact Study (EIS) for a proposed residential development on the 55 &

75 Cityview Drive property in the City of Guelph. The landowner is proposing to develop

the 55 & 75 Cityview Drive property as a residential neighbourhood which will include a

variety of housing types, a road network, open spaces and parks.

The subject property is approximately 15.217 hectares in size. The majority of the

subject property is legally described as Part of Lots 25, 31, and 32, Registered Plan 53,

Part of Lot 4, Concession 3, Division “C”, City of Guelph, Former Township of Guelph.

These lands have the physical address of 55 & 75 Cityview Drive. The subject property

also includes the 0.25 hectare parcel located at 75 Cityview Drive which contains an

existing residential dwelling. The southwest portion of the property is mainly comprised

of fallow agricultural fields, with a few scattered trees and a hedgerow. Two small

unevaluated wetland features are present along the southwest and southeast property

boundaries. The north portion of the subject property contains wooded area that varies

from densely vegetated to open areas, thicket, savannah, plantation, and a swamp

which is part of the Clythe Creek Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) Complex. The

area surrounding the subject property is comprised primarily of existing and proposed

low/medium density residential development.

The reader is referred to the Scoped Environmental Impact Study (EIS) completed by

Natural Resource Solutions Inc. (NRSI) in July 2013 (NRSI 2013a).

The Tree Protection Plan was conducted in accordance with City of Guelph By-law

(2010)-19058. This by-law states that a tree inventory and conservation plan

satisfactory to the City Engineer must be completed prior to any grading or construction

on-site. Within the By-law, a regulated tree is defined as

“a specimen of any species including deciduous or coniferous growing woody

perennial plant, supported by a single root system, which has reached, or could

have reached a height at least 4.5m from the ground at physiological maturity, is


located on a lot that is greater than 0.2 hectares (0.5 acres) in size and has a

DBH of 10cm”.

The City of Guelph‟s Official Plan Amendment Number 42: Natural Heritage System

(July 2010b – currently under appeal) also requires that a Tree Inventory and

Preservation Plan be required for the replacement of all healthy indigenous trees

measuring over 10cm DBH. Although OPA 42 is currently under appeal, the tree

inventory was conducted to satisfy relevant policies.

Section 6.2.5 Tree Inventory and Tree Preservation Plan within OPA 42 notes:

1. “Tree Inventory and Tree Preservation Plans shall as a minimum include:

i) A Tree Inventory measuring all trees over 10cm diameter at breast height

(dbh), including the size, species composition and health, and indigenous

shrubs in accordance with the City’s tree inventory guidelines,

ii) A Tree Preservation Plan identifying healthy indigenous and non-invasive

trees to be protected, including those that may be transplanted (e.g. small

specimens),

iii) The protective measures required for tree protection during construction,

and

iv) Measures for avoiding disturbance to any breeding birds during

construction”

This report summarizes the following:

findings of the tree inventory,

assessment of existing health and/or structural integrity of inventoried trees,

tree retention analysis based on details of the proposed development,

protection measures for trees to be retained, and,

recommended mitigation and compensation measures.


2.0 Tree Inventory and Methodology

A comprehensive inventory of trees ≥10cm in Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) on the

subject property was completed by NRSI Certified Arborists in August 2010, and in

March, May, and June 2013 (see Appendix I for the full inventory). Trees located within

approximately 5m of the development limit line were included in the inventory. In

preparation of the Draft EIS prepared by NRSI for the property (2011) which proposed a

roadway in close proximity to the on-site Provincially Significant Wetland, a number of

trees within the Open Space Block were tagged and inventoried. Although, well outside

the limits of the updated Draft Plan of Subdivision, these trees have been included in the

assessment outlined below and existing tree tag numbers were used in the updated tree

inventory. All newly assessed trees were tagged with a pre-numbered aluminum

forestry tag, with the exception of the trees within the Coniferous Plantation (TAGM1),

Red-osier Dogwood Mineral Swamp Thicket (SWTM2-1) and 75 Cityview property

located in the south end of the subject property. Due to dense plantings, a polygon

approach was taken for these areas, which summarizes the number of trees and

provides the overall health and potential for structural failure. It is proposed that these

trees will all be removed due to site grading, and therefore do not have the potential to

be retained and were not tagged. The following information was recorded for each on-

site tree:

species,

Diameter at Breast Height measurement (DBH),

crown radius (metres),

general health (excellent, good, fair, poor, very poor, snag),

potential for structural failure (low, medium, high),

tree location (lot or block number), and,

general comments (i.e. disease, aesthetic quality, development constraints,

sensitivity to development).

A separate Tree Protection Plan to assess the hedgerow trees that run along the

extreme eastern boundary of the 55 & 75 Cityview Drive property was prepared by NRSI

and submitted as part of the Starwood Drive EIS (NRSI 2013b). In addition, trees along


the neighbouring property to the south, Cityview Ridge were inventoried and assessed

by North-South Environmental as part of the Cityview Ridge EIS (2012).

As part of the tree health assessment, NRSI biologists who are trained and experienced

in the OMNR bat habitat assessment protocol visually scanned all trees ≥10cm DBH for

the presence of cavities that may provide bat maternity colony habitat. Although the

OMNR‟s guidance document Bats and Bat Habitats: Guidelines for Wind Power

Projects, July 2011 (OMNR 2011) specifies trees ≥25cm DBH, all trees ≥10cm DBH

were scanned for cavities as a means of thoroughly searching for any potential habitat

for bats.

The general health and potential for failure of each tree was assessed based on the

criteria outlined in Table 3. Summary. The locations of inventoried trees in relation to

the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision, which includes the preliminary grading plan, lot

and road layout are shown on Figures 1-7.

The completed tree inventory mapping, with associated tree condition data, was

compared to the layout of the proposed site development layout and preliminary grading

plan (Figures 1-7, IBI Group 2013) to assess the best opportunities for tree retention.


Table 1. Tree Assessment Criteria

Assessment Criteria Definition

1

Health Rating*

Excellent Represents a tree in near perfect form, health, and vigor. This tree would exhibit no deadwood, no decline, and no visible defects.

Good Represents a tree ranging from a generally healthy tree to a near perfect tree in terms of health, vigor and structure. This tree exhibits a complete, balanced crown structure with little to no deadwood and minimal defects as well as a properly formed root flare.

Fair Represents a tree with minor health, balance or structural issues with minimal to moderate deadwood. Branching structure shows signs of included bark or minor rot within the branch connections or trunk wood. The root flare shows minimal signs of mechanical injury, decay, poor callusing, or girdling roots. Trees in the category require minor remedial actions to improve the vigor and structure of the tree.

Poor Represents a tree that exhibits a poor vigor, reduced crown size (<30% of crown typical of species caused by overcrowding or decline), extreme crown unbalance, or extensive rot in the branching and trunk wood. Fungus could be seen from these rotting areas, suggesting further decay. These trees have extensive crown die back with a large amount of deadwood, and possibly dead sections. These weakened areas can lead to a potential failure of tree sections. Rooting zones show signs of extensive root decay or damage (fruiting bodies or mechanical damage) or girdling roots. Trees in this category require more extensive actions to prevent failure. A tree identified as poor would be a candidate for removal in the near future.

Very Poor Represents a tree that exhibits major health and structural defects. Quite often the defects or diseases affecting this tree will be fatal. Large quantities of fungus, large dead sections with possible cavities and bark falling off all are signs that a tree is in a major state of decline and would be identified as very poor. These trees have a high potential for structural failure. These trees should be identified for removal.

Potential for Structural Failure Rating*

Low Trees that show good vigor and structure and show little to no signs of decline or structural issues.

Medium Trees with some structural issues that are forming which could lead to failure if not addressed and properly treated (i.e. pruned). Symptoms of these structural issues include cavity openings/stem damage <30% of the circumference of the tree, poor branching union within the scaffold branches (signs of canker or decay within branch union), signs of historic branch failure throughout the crown, or advanced signs of included bark within the branch unions throughout the tree (water staining, tight angled branch unions, noticeable gap in branch union).

High Trees with a large number of structural issues (i.e. poor branch union, decay) which could lead to the failure of large scaffold branches or major sections. Major defects include: large cavities within stem or branch wood, historic crown damage of the majority of the canopy, extensive lean due to recent or historic root damage/decay, or large dead crown limbs with fruiting bodies present. If trees identified as a High Potential for Structural Failure are located within striking distance of a target (high traffic place, person, or high value thing), the tree should be identified for removal as soon as possible.

* Trees which are located within dense groupings are evaluated as individual specimens. Trees within these stands quite often have a reduced crown size (<30% of crown typical of species), off balanced crowns, and prioritized upward growth (i.e. low trunk taper and few lateral branches). As such, these trees would be considered to have poor vigour. As well, these trees pose a high potential for structural failure when newly exposed edges or individual trees are isolated through removal of surrounding trees. This is often the case with overstocked plantations. Individual trees which meet the above criteria will be identified as poor or high potential for structural failure.

1Based on Dunster 2009

1

97

BLOCK 147

BLOCK 146

BLOCK 148

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

98

99

100

122

121

120

118

119

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

104

101

102

103

106

105

108

107

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

69

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64 65 66 67 68 70

90

71

85

84

83

82

81

80

79

78

7776

75

74

73

72

86

87

88

89

92

91

93

95

94

96

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134135

136

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26

109

(18 trees to be removed)(42 trees to

be removed)

(34 trees to beremoved from75 Cityview)

Street A

Stre

et B St

reet

C Keati

ng St

Street

D

CITY

VIEW

DRIVE

SILURIAN

DRIVE

STARWOOD DRIVE

CITY

VIEW

DRIVE

NOR

TH

KEAT

ING

STRE

ET

MEFM4

THDM2-6

THDM2-3

SWTM2-1

SWDM4-5

SVDM3

SWTM2-1

TAGM1

THDM2-8

TAGM1

MAMM1-3

BLOCK 148

BLOCK 147

BLOCK 146

PARK BLOCK 150

PARK BLOCK 149

OPEN SPACE BLOCK 152


Figure 6

Figure 7

Figure 2Figure 3

Figure 4 Figure 5

3b2b

361360

359

357

1779

244b

243b

236b

235b

227b226b

225b224b223b

221b

218b217b

216b215b214b213b

212b211b

210b209b208b

207b206b

205b204b202b

9

74

21

99 98

9796

95

94929190

8988

87 86

84

838281

79

77 76

7372

6968

6766

6564

6362

6160

59

57

56 55

545251

48 474645

44

363432

20

455452

449

448447

446445

441

436 435

433425

424423

421

417

416

414407401

372371

369 368

363356351

280

275274273272

271

270269

268

263261

254

248

243242

241240239238

237236

234

233232

231230229228

227226

225222

221

218215

214213212

210

207 206

204

203

202

201

200199198

197196195

194193

192

191190

188

187

186185

184183

182181

180

179 178 177 176

175174

173

172171

169165

163159

158

157156

155153

152

149144

142

141

140

138137

136135

134133

132129

122

121120

118

113 112111 110

109

108 106104

100

1932

1929

1928

1927

1916191519131905

1901

1798 1794 17931791 1784

1780

1466

146514611460

1452

452b

1449

14481447446b445b

444b443b

441b439b

437b436b 435b

433b

431b428b

417b416b

415b

414b413b

412b 411b

407b406b

405b

404b403b

402b

401b

300b

286b283b

276b274b 273b

264b

258b

257b256b

255b

251b250b

192b191b

184c 183b 182b 181b 180b

1778 (1b)

Path: X:\0924_CityViewDrive\NRSI_0924_Fig1-7_TreeProtec tionPlan_2K_2013_08_20_GCS.m xd

Map Produced by Natural Resource Solutions Inc. This m ap is p rop rietary andc onfid ential and m ust not be d up lic ated or d istributed by any m eans without exp resswritten p erm ission of NRSI. Sourc e: Data and Im agery p rovid ed by MNR and SWOOP© Cop yright: Q ueen’s Printer Ontario


´

0 40 80 120Meters


Project: NRSI-0924Date: August 20, 2013

Figure 1

Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan

LegendSubjec t Prop ertyProp osed Develop m ent

Prop osed Grad ing

Grad ing Lim it for Lots 123-136PSW

PSW 30m BufferTree to be Retained (c rown to sc ale)Tree to be Rem oved (c rown to sc ale)Starwood InventoryEc ologic al Land Classific ation (ELC)

(MAMM1-3) Reed -c anary Grass Gram inoid Mineral Mead ow Marsh(MEFM4) Fresh-Moist Forb Mead ow Ec osite(TAGM1) Coniferous Plantation(THDM2-3) Chokec herry Dec id uous Shrub Thic ket(THDM2-6) Buc kthorn Dec id uous Shrub Thic ket(THDM2-8) Rasp berry Dec id uous Shrub Thic ket(SVDM3) Dry - Fresh Dec id uous Savanna Ec osite(SWDM4-5) Pop lar Mineral Dec id uous Ec osite(SWTM2-1) Red -osier Dogwood Mineral Dec id uous Thic ket Swam p(H1) Dec id uous Hed gerow

Map Extents

Key Plan/Western Extent

97

98

99

100

122

121

120

118

119

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117101

102

103

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

Keati

ng St

Street

D

SILURIAN

DRIVE

THDM2-6

THDM2-3

MEFM4

THDM2-8


89

8382

81

80

79

77

76

7574

7372

7170

6968

67 66

6564

63

62

61

60

59

57

5655

54

53

52

515049

4847

4645

457

455

452451448

447

184

183

182181

180

172

171

169168

167166

165

163162161160

159158

157 156152

135

134133

132

131

130129128127 126

123122

121

120119

118

117116

115

114

113

112

111

110

109

108 107

106105

104

103102

101

1939

1938

19371936

1935

1934

1933

1932

1931

1930

1929

1457

1456

1452

1451

285b

284b283b

278b

277b276b

275b

274b

273b

272b

271b

270b

269b268b

267b

192b

191b

190b

186b

184b

170b

Path: X:\0924_ CityVie wDrive \NRSI_ 0924_ Fig1-7_ Tre e Prote ctionPlan_ 2K_ 2013_ 08_ 20_ GCS.m xd

Map Produced by Natural Resource Solutions Inc. This m ap is proprie tary andconfid e ntial and m ust not be d uplicate d or d istribute d by any m e ans without e xpre sswritte n pe rm ission of NRSI. Source : Data and Im age ry provid e d by MNR and SWOOP© Copyright: Q ue e n’s Printe r Ontario


´

0 10 20 30Me te rs



Figure 2


LegendSubje ct Prope rtyPropose d De ve lopm e nt

Propose d Grad ing


PSW 30m Buffe rTre e to be Re taine d (crown to scale )Tre e to be Re m ove d (crown to scale )Starwood Inve ntoryEcological Land Classification (ELC)

(MAMM1-3) Re e d -canary Grass Gram inoid Mine ral Me ad ow Marsh Type(MEFM4) Fre sh-Moist Forb Me ad ow Ecosite(TAGM1) Conife rous Plantation(THDM2-3) Choke che rry De cid uous Shrub Thicke t Type(THDM2-6) Buckthorn De cid uous Shrub Thicke t Type(THDM2-8) Raspbe rry De cid uous Shrub Thicke t Type(SVDM3) Dry - Fre sh De cid uous Savanna Ecosite(SWDM4-5) Poplar Mine ral De cid uous Ecosite(SWTM2-1) Re d -osie r Dogwood Mine ral De cid uous Thicke t Swam p Type(H1) De cid uous He d ge row

122

121

120

118

119

116

117

123

124

125

126

Street

D

SILURIAN

DRIVE

STARWOOD DRIVE

THDM2-6

THDM2-3

THDM2-8

SWDM4-5


361360

359358

357

1779

237b

236b

235b

234b233b232b

230b

228b

227b

226b

225b224b

223b

222b

221b

220b219b

218b

98

7

6

54

3 21

83

79

7877

76

7574

7372

64

63

62

61

60

59

57

5655

54

53

52

515049

4847

4645 44

4342

41

40

3938

37

36353433

32

31

30 2928272625

242322

2120

1918

1716

15 14

13

12 1110

455

452451

364 363362

356355354

353352351350

307306

305304

303

302301300299

298297

296295

294

293

292291

290289288

287286285284

283282281

280279

278277276

275274273

272271

101

1939

1938

19371936

1934

1933

1932

1931

1930

1929

1928

1927

1926

19251924

1923

1922

19211920

1918

1917

19161915

19141913

19121911

19101909 1908

19061905

19041903

190219011799

1798

1797

17961795

17941793

17921791

1790 17891788

17861785

1784

1782

1781

1780

Path: X:\0924_ CityVie wDrive \NRSI_ 0924_ Fig1-7_ Tre e Prote ctionPlan_ 2K_ 2013_ 08_ 20_ GCS.m xd

Map Produced by Natural Resource Solutions Inc. This m ap is proprie tary andconfid e ntial and m ust not be d uplicate d or d istribute d by any m e ans without e xpre sswritte n pe rm ission of NRSI. Source : Data and Im age ry provid e d by MNR and SWOOP© Copyright: Q ue e n’s Printe r Ontario


´

0 10 20 30Me te rs



Figure 3


LegendSubje ct Prope rtyPropose d De ve lopm e nt

Propose d Grad ing


PSW 30m Buffe rTre e to be Re taine d (crown to scale )Tre e to be Re m ove d (crown to scale )Starwood Inve ntoryEcological Land Classification (ELC)

(MAMM1-3) Re e d -canary Grass Gram inoid Mine ral Me ad ow Marsh Type(MEFM4) Fre sh-Moist Forb Me ad ow Ecosite(TAGM1) Conife rous Plantation(THDM2-3) Choke che rry De cid uous Shrub Thicke t Type(THDM2-6) Buckthorn De cid uous Shrub Thicke t Type(THDM2-8) Raspbe rry De cid uous Shrub Thicke t Type(SVDM3) Dry - Fre sh De cid uous Savanna Ecosite(SWDM4-5) Poplar Mine ral De cid uous Ecosite(SWTM2-1) Re d -osie r Dogwood Mine ral De cid uous Thicke t Swam p Type(H1) De cid uous He d ge row

122

118

119

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

104

106

105

108

107

137

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134135

136

109

Keati

ng St

Street

D

THDM2-6

THDM2-3MEFM4

TAGM1

THDM2-6


99

98

9796

95

94 9392 91

90

89

88

87

8685

84

8382

81

80

79

77

76

7574

7372

7170

6968

48

456454453

450

449

446445444

443442

441

440439438437

436435

434

433

432431

430429

428427 426

425

424

423

422

421420419

418

416415

414413412

411410409

408407406

405404

403401

372371

269268

267 266265

264263

262261

260

259258

257256

255254

253

252 251250

249247

246

245244

243

172

171

169168

167166

165

163162161160

159158

157 156

155154

153

152

151

150

149 148 147146

145

144143

142

141

140

139

138

136

135

131

123122

121

120119

118

117116

100

1452

452b

1451

451b

1450

1449

448b447b

292b

290b289b

288b 287b

286b

285b

284b283b

282b281b

280b279b

278b

277b276b

275b

274b

273b

271b

170b

Pa th: X:\0924_ CityVie wDrive \NRSI_ 0924_ Fig1-7_ Tre e Prote ctionPla n_ 2K_ 2013_ 08_ 20_ GCS.m xd

Map Produced by Natural Resource Solutions Inc. This m a p is proprie ta ry a ndconfide ntia l a nd m us t not be duplica te d or dis tribute d by a ny m e a ns without e xpre s swritte n pe rm is s ion of NRSI. Source : Da ta a nd Im a ge ry provide d by MNR a nd SWOOP© Copyright: Q ue e n’s Printe r Onta rio


´

0 10 20 30Me te rs



Figure 4


LegendSubje ct Prope rtyPropos e d De ve lopm e nt

Propos e d Gra ding

Gra ding Lim it for Lots 123-136PSW

PSW 30m Buffe rTre e to be Re ta ine d (crown to s ca le )Tre e to be Re m ove d (crown to s ca le )Sta rwood Inve ntoryEcologica l La nd Cla s s ifica tion (ELC)

(MAMM1-3) Re e d-ca na ry Gra s s Gra m inoid Mine ra l Me a dow Ma rs h Type(MEFM4) Fre s h-Mois t Forb Me a dow Ecos ite(TAGM1) Conife rous Pla nta tion(THDM2-3) Choke che rry De ciduous Shrub Thicke t Type(THDM2-6) Buckthorn De ciduous Shrub Thicke t Type(THDM2-8) Ra s pbe rry De ciduous Shrub Thicke t Type(SVDM3) Dry - Fre s h De ciduous Sa va nna Ecos ite(SWDM4-5) Popla r Mine ra l De ciduous Ecos ite(SWTM2-1) Re d-os ie r Dogwood Mine ra l De ciduous Thicke t Swa m p Type(H1) De ciduous He dge row

122

121

120

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

Street

D

STARWOOD DRIVE

THDM2-3

THDM2-6

SWDM4-5

TAGM1

SWTM2-1THDM2-6

THDM2-3


226b

225b224b

223b

221b

220b219b

218b

217b

216b215b

214b

213b

212b211b

210b 209b

208b

207b

205b

204b

203b

9392 91

90

88

87

8685

84

8382

81

80

79

77

76

48 47

4645 44

4342

41

40

39 1716

15 14

13 302301300

299290289288

287286285284

283282281

280279

278277276

275274273

272271

270269

268

267 266265

264263

262261

260

259258

257256

255254

253

252 251250249

247

246

245244

243

242Pa th: X:\0924_ CityVie wDrive \NRSI_ 0924_ Fig1-7_ Tre e Prote ctionPla n_ 2K_ 2013_ 08_ 20_ GCS.m xd



´

0 10 20 30Me te rs



Figure 5



Propos e d Gra ding




110

111

112

113

114

115

116

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

71

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134135

136

28 27 26

109

Street

D

THDM2-6MEFM4

THDM2-3

TAGM1

SWTM2-1

THDM2-3


99

98

96 94 9392 91

449

446445444

443442

441

440439438437

436435

433

432431

430

425

424

423

422

421420419

418

416

414413

411410409

408407406

405404

403401

372371370

369 368367

366365

244

243

242

241

240

239238

237236235

234

233

232

231230

229

228227

226

225224223222

221

220

219

218217

216215

214

213212

211

210

209

208207

206205

149 148 147146

145

144143

142

141

140

139

100

1467

1466

14651464

1463 1462

1461

146014591458

1450

1449

1448

448b

1447

447b

446b

445b

444b

443b 442b

441b440b

439b438b

437b

434b433b

300b298b297b

296b295b

294b

293b

292b




´

0 10 20 30Me te rs



Figure 6



Propos e d Gra ding




137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

135136

24 25

28 27 26

MEFM4THDM2-6


417

227226

225224223222

221

220

219

218217

216215

214

213212

211

210

209

208207

206205

204201

1467

1466

14651464

1463 1462

1461444b

443b 442b

441b440b

439b438b

437b

436b 435b

434b433b

431b430b429b428b

427b426b425b424b423b422b420b

300b298b297b

296b295b

294b

293b

203c202c




´

0 10 20 30Me te rs



Figure 7



Propos e d Gra ding





3.0 Summary of Tree Inventory

In total, 705 trees were inventoried, of which 350 (49.6%) are native species and 355

(50.4%) are non-native. A number of trees within Block 152 Open Space were

inventoried by NRSI based on the previous development layout as part of the Draft EIS

(2011) and are well-removed from the updated Draft Plan of Subdivision. These trees,

however, have been included in the current analysis.

Twenty-eight tree species were identified. A complete list of trees inventoried is

provided in Appendix I and tree locations within the subject property are shown on

Figures 1-7. The majority of the trees inventoried are located along the northern

property boundary within the shrub thicket communities.

Table 2 provides a summary of the overall condition of trees inventoried within the

subject property, along with their structural failure rating. A large proportion of trees

were found to be in good to fair condition.

Table 2. Overall Condition of Trees Inventoried

Structural Failure Rating

Overall Condition

Total Excellent Good Fair Poor Very Poor Snag

Low 7 218 143 10 1 2 381

Medium 33 172 33 7 5 250

High 2 17 38 13 4 74

Total 7 253 332 81 21 11 705

Table 3. Summary provides a list of trees species inventoried within the subject

property, whether they are native or non-native and their overall condition.


Table 3. Summary of Trees Species Inventoried

Common Name Scientific Name Excellent Good Fair Poor Very Poor Snag Total

Native Species

Balsam poplar Populus balsamifera 9 18 1 28

Basswood Tilia americana 5 14 2 21

Black ash Fraxinus nigra 4 4

Black cherry Prunus serotina 1 14 3 2 20

Black walnut Juglans nigra 1 11 5 17

Bur oak Quercus macrocarpa 3 5 1 1 10

Freeman‟s maple Acer x freemanii 1 1

Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 1 12 8 3 4 4 32

Hawthorn species Crataegus sp. 1 19 20 7 1 48

Jack pine Pinus banksiana 1 1

Peach-leaved willow Salix amygdaloides 1 1

Red pine Pinus resinosa 3 3

Serviceberry species Amelanchier sp. 1 1 2

Silver maple Acer saccharinum 1 4 2 1 8

Sugar maple Acer saccharum 3 1 5 1 10

Trembling aspen Populus tremuloides 35 17 3 5 60

White ash Fraxinus americana 15 17 12 7 51

White cedar Thuja occidentalis 13 5 18

White elm Ulmus americana 5 3 8

White spruce Picea glauca 1 1

Willow species Salix sp. 5 1 6

Total 7 151 135 32 15 10 350

Non-Native Species

Apple species Malus sp. 22 31 12 2 67

Common pear Pryrus communis 1 1 2

Manitoba maple Acer negundo 55 78 32 4 169

Ornamental cedar Unknown 7 10 17

Scotch pine Pinus sylvestris 14 75 4 1 94

Siberian elm Ulmus pumila 1 1

White willow Salix alba 3 2 5

Total 0 102 197 49 6 1 355

Overall Total 7 253 332 81 21 11 705


4.0 Tree Removal and Retention Analysis

Tree removal and retention was based on two considerations:

1) Trees identified as having a high potential for structural failure or poor condition. The

removal of these trees would be recommended for safety etc., especially if they are

located within striking distance of a component of the proposed development, or existing

off-site sidewalks, roads or buildings. They would be given a rating of high potential for

structural failure. For the purpose of this report, trees which fall into this category are

identified for removal,

2) Trees that require removal based on the extent of proposed site grading. This was

determined by comparing the location of the trees to the location of the components of

the development proposal as shown on Figures 1-7.

Of the 705 trees inventoried, 478 are anticipated to be removed. This includes 83 trees that

have been identified as being in poor or very poor condition, and/or have a high risk of structural

failure, and/or have been identified as snags. An additional 34 trees under these conditions are

located greater than 10m from the development limit line, and therefore will be retained.

The remaining 327 trees require removal based on the extent of the proposed site grading,

which is required to effectively service the lands. This includes trees situated along the grading

limit or in close proximity that may incur root damage as a result of grading. Most of these trees

are in fair condition with medium to low risk of structural failure, and range in size from 10cm

DBH to 110cm DBH. Approximately half of these trees are native and are dominated by

trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides), white ash (Fraxinus americana), and hawthorn species

(Craetaegus ssp.). Non-native trees are dominated by Manitoba maple (Acer negundo) and

Scotch pine (Pinus sylvestris).

Several trees have been identified in this study as shared trees between the neighbouring lands

for the Starwood Drive and Cityview Ridge properties. It is possible that shared trees that have

been identified as being retained in this study may require removal as a result of development

on the neighbouring properties. As well, at the detailed design stage, the location of tree

protection fencing should be reviewed in light of these neighbouring developments. If shared or

off-site trees identified in this study for protection are determined to be removed based on


neighbouring developments, the need for, and location of, tree protection fencing should be

reviewed.

In addition, several shared trees have been identified as being removed in this study as a result

of grading and/or safety concerns. The removal of these trees will require the permission of the

adjacent property landowner.


5.0 Tree Compensation Plan

Overall compensation for tree loss is a requirement of the City of Guelph. Although the current

tree by-law or tree protection guidelines do not stipulate specific compensation requirements,

through discussions with the City‟s Environmental Planner (Adèle Labbé) and from experience

on other projects throughout the City, a compensation ratio of 2:1 or 3:1 is suggested to be

applied for all trees removed that are native or non-native and in excellent to fair condition.

According to City of Guelph Tree By-law Number (2010)-19058, trees exempt from

compensation must have the following site specific criteria:

“A tree having no living tissue, having 70% or more of its crown dead, or being infected

by a lethal pathogen, fungus or insect (including the Emerald Ash Borer or the Asian

Longhorned Beetle), and where required, a certificate issued by an Arborist, confirming

this justification for Destruction or Injuring, has been submitted to an Inspector” [Part 4,

section (a)],

“A tree which is Hazardous, and where required, a certificate issued by an Arborist,

confirming this justification for Destruction or Injuring, has been submitted to an

Inspector” [Part 4, section (b)]

“A specimen of Rhamnus cathartica (common buckthorn), Rhamnus frangula (European

or glossy buckthorn), Alnus glutinosa (black alder), Elaeagnus umbellate (autumn olive),

or Morus alba (white mulberry)” [Part 4, section (g)],

“A fruit tree that is capable of producing fruit for human consumption” [Part 4, section

(h)].

As discussed above, approximately 473 trees have been identified for removal due to the

proposed grading for installation of roads and services and residential development blocks.

This includes trees requiring removal due to safety concerns.

There are approximately 392 native and non-native trees in excellent to fair condition proposed

for removal, of which 29 are fruit trees. This includes 56 native and non-native trees (9 of which

are fruit trees) that are proposed for removal as a result of Street D, which is a City approved

extension of Silurian Drive from adjacent property. As the alignment of Street D was required

by the City as an extension of the adjacent property, it is suggested that the native and non-

native trees in excellent to fair condition (excluding fruit trees) be compensated at a 2:1 ratio (94


trees). For the remaining trees proposed for removal as a result of lot grading and safety

concerns, a ratio of up to 3:1 is proposed as compensation for native and non-native trees in

excellent to fair condition (excluding fruit trees), for a total of approximately 948 trees.

Therefore, approximately 1,042 trees could be considered for compensation. Table 4 provides

a summary of the trees inventoried throughout the property, total number proposed for removal

and the proposed compensation plan.

Table 4. Summary of Trees to be Removed and Recommended Compensation Plan

Tree Inventory Total

Total number of trees inventoried 705

Total number of trees to be removed 478

→Non-native trees to be removed (including 46 fruit trees) 243

→Native trees to be removed 235

Tree Compensation

Native/Non-native trees in excellent to fair condition to be removed for Street D Grading 47

2:1 Compensation 94

Native/Non-native trees in excellent to fair condition to be removed for Lot Grading/Safety 316

3:1 Compensation (Native/Non-Native) 948

Approximate Number of Compensation Trees Recommended 1,042

Our analysis indicates the number of trees that could be considered for retention/removal and

compensation as part of the proposed development plan. It is understood that this will be

refined upon finalization of the grading plans. Detailed landscaping plans will be required for the

property at the Environmental Implementation (EIR) Stage or Site Plan Stage; however, it is

anticipated that compensation plantings can be provided throughout all of Open Space Block

151, along the western edge of Open Space Block 152 and scattered throughout Park Blocks

149 and 150, as well as any street tree plantings required by the City of Guelph through the Site

Plan Approval stage.

The overall compensation strategy as outlined in the Scoped EIS (NRSI 2013a), is proposed to

implement a re-vegetation program within the Open Space and Park Blocks that would provide

opportunities for additional wildlife habitat, aesthetic properties for the subdivision and active

restoration and enhancement. To achieve this goal, it is recommended that the final

compensation strategy, including appropriate species and potential use of trees and shrubs, be

negotiated with the City of Guelph prior to the development of landscaping plans.


6.0 Tree Protection Measures and Recommended Mitigation

6.1 Prior to Construction

Temporary tree protection fencing will be situated where trees are adjacent to the limit of

disturbance/grading as shown on Figure 8. A combined sediment and erosion control fencing

(i.e. silt fence) and tree protection fence is recommended where trees are situated adjacent to

the limit of disturbance. This tree protection fencing is to take the form of 1200mm high heavy-

duty paige-wire fencing.

The temporary tree protection fencing will be installed and maintained by the Developer. Prior

to any construction activities (rough grading, vegetation and tree removal), the tree protection

fencing, in the form of 1200mm high heavy-duty paige-wire fencing, will be installed at the limit

of the associated buffer (minimum 5m beyond the dripline) of trees to be retained in order to

protect the root systems. Prior to works commencing on-site, fence installation and location is

to be inspected by a Certified Arborist and/or the on-site Environmental Inspector. Signage

indicating the purpose of protection fencing will be attached to the paige-wire fencing every 100-

150m. Recommended fencing locations are shown on Figure 8.

In most cases, the temporary tree protection fencing will correspond to the placement of

sediment and erosion control paige-wire fencing associated with protected natural areas (Open

Space Blocks 151 and 152).

As recommended above, a number of trees are recommended for removal due to their high

potential for structural failure, that are located in areas that also contain trees to be retained. As

such, prior to installation of the tree protection fence, these trees will need to be clearly marked

for removal by a Certified Arborist and then removed. The trees should then be felled and

removed with minimal disturbance to neighbouring trees.

The Tree Protection Plan is to be reviewed and approved by the City of Guelph. Upon approval

of the Tree Protection Plan, and prior to any on-site works (i.e. rough grading, tree removal), a

qualified environmental consultant is to submit written verification to the City that all of the

recommended tree protection measures have been installed in accordance with the Tree

Protection Plan.

Street A

Stre

et B

Stre

et C

Keati

ng St

Street

D

CITY

VIEW

DRIVE

SILURIAN

DRIVE

STARWOOD DRIVE

CITY

VIEW

DRIVE

NOR

TH

KEAT

ING

STRE

ETBLOCK 148

BLOCK 147

BLOCK 146

PARK BLOCK 150

PARK BLOCK 149




3b2b

361359

1779

244b

243b

237b

236b

230b228b227b226b225b224b

223b

222b

221b219b

218b217b

216b215b214b213b

212b211b210b209b208b

207b205b204b202b

981

9994

93

8684

838281

4645 43

4241

403937

1514

13457

372371369

368367

355305304

285280

275274

272271

270269268267265

264263255254245244243

242241240

239238237

236233231229228

227226

225222215

214212

210209

207205204201

183182181180

149148

146141

115114

1466

146514641463

1460

1457

1448

443b442b

437b436b 435b431b430b

429b

360358357

235b234b233b232b

229b

220b

206b

203b

Path: X:\0924_CityViewDrive\NRSI_0924_Fig8_TreeFenc ingPlan_2K_2013_08_20_GCS.m xd

Map Produced by Natural Resource Solutions Inc. This m ap is proprietary andc onfid ential and m ust not be d uplic ated or d istributed by any m eans without expresswritten perm ission of NRSI. Sourc e: Data and Im agery provid ed by MNR and SWOOP© Copyright: Q ueen’s Printer Ontario


´

0 40 80 120Meters



Figure 8

Tree Protection Fencing Plan

LegendSubjec t PropertyProposed Tree Protec tion Fenc ingProposed Developm entProposed Grad ingGrad ing Lim it for Lots 123-136PSWPSW 30m BufferTrees to be Retained (c rown to sc ale)Starwood Inventory


6.2 During Construction

Temporary tree protection fencing is to be maintained by the Developer during the entire

construction period to ensure that trees being retained and their root systems are protected.

Any minimal damage (i.e. damage to limbs or roots) to trees to be retained during construction

must be pruned using proper arboricultural techniques. Should any of the trees intended to be

retained be seriously damaged or die as a result of construction activities, the owner will remove

and replace the tree at their own expense at a 3:1 ratio. Replacement species are to be

reviewed by a Certified Ontario Landscape Architect (OLA) or Certified Arborist. Watering and

pruning of newly planted trees will be carried out by the owner/contractor as required during the

warranty period (approximately 2 years).

6.3 Post-Construction

As tree being retained are situated along the boundaries of Open Space and Park Blocks and

along the back of lots 123 - 136, it is recommended that the temporary tree protection fencing

be removed upon completion of construction activities and adjacent areas are stabilized with a

vegetative cover (i.e. sod in urban area or native vegetation along buffer edge) to the

satisfaction of the Environmental Inspector or qualified biologist.

6.4 Mitigation

The recommendations provided below are aimed at protecting retained trees and associated

natural features. Species used for replacement/enhancement plantings, with the exception of

street trees, should be native to Wellington County and not include any species that are listed

as introduced, or locally, provincially or federally significant. The use of hardy species will

ensure successful early establishment and minimize the potential for invasive species

proliferation. For street tree plantings, the use of non-native species that are sometime more

tolerant of urban conditions (i.e. salt and drought tolerant) may be suitable as long as they do

not include invasive species such as Norway maple (Acer platanoides).

At the detailed design stage, it is recommended that the following criteria be followed during the

development of proposed planting plans:


plantings within open space blocks be limited to native, non-invasive tree and shrub

species indigenous to Wellington County that complement the surrounding natural

features,

tree species to be situated in close proximity to roads should be salt tolerant,

avoid ash species due to the risk of the emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis),

avoid „messy trees‟, such as fruiting trees or poplars (Populus spp.) where plantings

occur in close proximity to driveways and roadways,

all plant material is to conform to the latest edition of the Canadian Nursery Trades

Association Specifications and Standards,

plantings installed as per specifications outlined in planting plans to be prepared by an

OLA or Certified Arborist (e.g. place a minimum of 10cm of shredded pine-bark mulch or

equivalent around all planted material),

spacing of plant material should account for the ultimate size and form of the selected

species and also the purpose of the planting, whether it be for screening, shade,

naturalizing, rehabilitation, etc.,

special attention to location and height of trees in proximity to utilities, and,

ensure that there is sufficient soil volume for all plantings.


7.0 References

City of Guelph. 2010a. The Official Plan of The City of Guelph By-law Number (2010)-19058. City of Guelph. 2010b. Amendment Number 42 to the Official Plan for the Corporation of the

City of Guelph: Natural Heritage System Amendment. Adopted by Guelph City Council July 27, 2010 – Currently under Appeal. http://www.guelph.ca/uploads/PBS_Dept/planning/PDF/OP%20Update/OPA%2042%20-%20final.pdf

Dunster, J. 2009. Tree Risk Assessment in Urban Areas and the Urban/Rural Interface: Course

Manual. Silverton, Oregon: Pacific Northwest Chapter, International Society of Arboriculture.

IBI Group. 2013b. Functional Servicing Report, Draft Plan of Subdivision, Cityview Drive, City

of Guelph. Prepared for Debrob Investments Limited. July 2013.

Natural Resource Solutions Inc. (NRSI). 2013a. 55 & 75 Cityview Drive Property Scoped Environmental Impact Study (EIS). Prepared for Dehrob Investments Limited. July 2013.

Natural Resource Solutions Inc. (NRSI). 2013b. Starwood Drive Property Scoped

Environmental Impact Study. Prepared for Coletera Developments. July 2013. North-South Environmental Ltd. 2012. Cityview Ridge Environmental Impact Study. Prepared

for Carson Reid Homes Ltd. February 2012. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2011. Bats and Bat Habitats: Guidelines for

Wind Power Projects. First edition. July, 2011.




APPENDIX I 55 & 75 Cityview Drive Property - Tree Inventory Data

Appendix I. 55 & 75 Cityview Drive Property Tree Protection Plan

Summary of Trees Inventoried

Tree

Number Common Name Scientific Name Native/Non-native

DBH

(cm)

Stem

Count

Crown

Radius

(m)

Potential for

Structural Failure

Overall

Condition

Proposed

Action

Rationale for

Removal Comments

1 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 22.0 1 2.0 Medium Fair Retain Small crown with some dieback; growing on slight angle.

2 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 26.7 1 1.5 Medium Fair Remove Grading Small crown with some dieback; growing on slight angle.

2b Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa Native 56.0 2 10.00 Medium Fair Retain Inventoried and assessed as per Project #1367 Starwood.

3 White Elm Ulmus americana Native 18.3 1 3.0 Low Good Remove Grading Some light pruned scaffold branches.

3b Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa Native 60.0 1 10.00 Low Fair Remove Grading Inventoried and assessed as per Project #1367 Starwood.

4 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 11.5 1 2.5 Low Good Remove Grading Slight lean.

5 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 18.6 1 3.0 Low Good Remove Grading Slight lean.

6 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 33.8 1 3.5 Low Good Remove Grading A few light pruned branches; prune dead branches.

7 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 38.7 1 4.0 Low Good Remove Grading Could prune some scaffold branches; otherwise good condition.

8 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 24.1 1 3.0 Medium Fair Retain Slight angle at crown; some crown dieback.

9 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 13.6 1 2.0 Low Good Retain Crown on angle; tree overall good condition.

10 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 16.6 1 1.0 Medium Fair Retain Crown small with dieback; draped in grape.

11 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 24.8 1 2.5 Low Good Retain Growing on slight angle; otherwise good condition.

12 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 23.1 2 3.5 High Poor Retain Very little crown growth; draped in grape.

13 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 15.7 1 2.5 Medium Fair Retain Growing on 45 degree angle.

14 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 10.2 1 1.5 Low Good Retain

15 Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa Native 20.7 1 3.0 Low Good Retain One-sided crown due to Tree 014; prune scaffold branches if retained.

16 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 20.3 1 4.5 Medium Good Retain Some light pruned scaffold branches; growing on slight angle.

17 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 23.5 1 5.0 Medium Good Retain Growing on 10 degree angle; some light pruned scaffold branches.

18 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 31.5 4 4.0 Medium Fair Retain One branch dead; crown still full on main stem.

19 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 10.9 1 2.0 Low Good Retain Upper stem growing on slight angle; otherwise good.

20 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 15.9 1 2.0 Low Good Remove Grading Upper stem growing on slight angle; otherwise good.

21 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 18.0 1 2.5 Low Good Remove Grading Slight angle but otherwise good.

22 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 20.2 1 3.0 Low Good Remove Grading Upper stem growing on slight angle; otherwise good.

23 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 24.2 1 2.5 Low Good Remove Grading

24 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 14.4 1 1.5 Low Good Remove Grading Very small crown; hazard will increase if tree is retained and if Tree 023 is removed.

25 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 17.4 1 2.5 Low Good Remove Grading Growing on slight angle.

26 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 10.1 1 3.0 Low Good Remove Grading Fallen manitoba maple leaning on crown.

27 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 20.2 1 3.5 Low Good Remove Grading Small amount of light; prune scaffold branches.

28 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 19.6 1 2.0 Low Good Remove Grading Small crown but otherwise good.

29 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 11.5 1 1.5 Low Fair Remove Grading Some light pruned branches.

30 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 14.8 2 2.0 Low Good Remove Grading 1 stem dead; main stem good.

31 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 15.4 1 3.0 Medium Fair Remove Grading Upper stem growing on 45 degree angle.

32 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 25.4 1 4.0 High Very Poor Remove Safety Bark cracks; insect activity; fruiting bodies at root flare.

33 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 10.1 1 1.0 Low Good Remove Grading Growing on slight angle.

34 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 11.4 1 2.0 Low Good Remove Grading Crown competing with Tree 035.

35 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 25.9 3 4.0 Medium Good Remove Grading Hazard due to stem growing on 45 degree angle; crown healthy.

36 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 35.5 1 5.0 Low Good Remove Grading Very few light pruned branches in crown.

37 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 19.1 1 3.0 Low Good Retain Some grape in crown; no visible signs of EAB.

38 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 20.5 3 3.5 Medium Good Retain Hazard due to growth form; twsiting stem but healthy stems and crown.

39 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 17.3 2 4.0 Low Good Retain Some grape in crown.

40 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 18.4 2 2.5 Low Good Retain Small stem dead; some grape in crown.

41 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 11.5 1 1.5 Medium Fair Retain Signs of sapsucker; moderate amount of dieback.

42 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 29.5 1 5.0 Medium Fair Retain Some bark cracks and wounds.

43 Serviceberry Species Amelanchier sp. Native 13.9 3 0.5 Low Fair Retain Small tree being over crowded by buckthorn.

44 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 20.4 1 3.0 Low Good Retain Some grape in crown; otherwise good.

45 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 11.3 1 1.5 Low Good Retain Some grape, otherwise healthy crown.

46 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 12.2 1 3.0 Low Excellent Retain Great looking ash.

47 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 10.9 1 2.0 Low Good Remove Grading Lower stem competing with small serviceberry.

48 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 37.8 1 5.0 Low Good Remove Grading Small light pruned crown branches.

49 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 15.7 1 4.0 Low Good Remove Grading Very healthy crown.

50 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 21.2 1 3.0 Low Good Remove Grading Some crown dieback; otherwise good.

51 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 21.3 2 4.0 Medium Fair Remove Grading Quite a few dead scaffold branches.

52 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 15.3 1 2.0 High Poor Remove Safety Fruiting bodies on main stem and some on root flare.

53 White Elm Ulmus americana Native 10.7 1 2.5 Low Good Remove Grading One-sided crown, but otherwise good.

54 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 24.0 2 3.0 Medium Fair Remove Grading One-sided crown; some dead scaffold branches.

55 White Willow Salix alba Non-native 10.9 2 2.0 High Fair Remove Street D Grading Hollow between 2 stems; splitting on bark with gypsy moth egg mass.

56 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 16.5 2 4.0 Medium Fair Remove Street D Grading Fruiting bodies on one stem; weak union between stems.

Page 1 of 13



Tree


DBH

(cm)

Stem

Count

Crown

Radius

(m)

Potential for

Structural Failure

Overall

Condition

Proposed

Action

Rationale for

Removal Comments

57 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 16.8 1 2.5 Low Good Remove Grading Approximately 7m from development line stake.

59 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 11.5 1 2.0 Low Good Remove Street D Grading Small amount of light pruned scaffold branches.

60 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 20.7 1 3.0 Medium Fair Remove Street D Grading Stem healthy; moderate crown dieback.

61 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 10.6 3 3.5 Medium Fair Remove Street D Grading Weak union between stems.

62 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 21.2 1 3.5 Low Good Remove Street D Grading Some light pruned scaffold branches.

63 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 21.9 1 3.0 High Fair Remove Street D Grading Main stem fair condition; a lot of crown dieback.

64 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 24.0 1 4.0 High Poor Remove Street D Grading A lot of crown dieback.

65 Hawthorn Species Crataegus sp. Native 14.2 6 2.0 Medium Fair Remove Street D Grading Main stem good; other stems dead or declining.

66 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 16.9 2 3.0 Medium Fair Remove Street D Grading Crown dieback.

67 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 15.7 1 2.5 Medium Fair Remove Street D Grading Main stem good; moderate crown dieback.

68 Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 13.3 1 3.0 Medium Good Remove Street D Grading Hazard due to included bark; codominant stems.

69 Common Pear Pryrus communis Non-native 23.4 2 2.0 High Poor Remove Street D Grading 1 stem dead; lots of woodpecker holes with cavity between stems.

70 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 10.2 3 2.5 Low Good Remove Street D Grading Crown competing with Tree 071 slightly.

71 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum Native 18.5 1 4.0 Low Excellent Remove Street D Grading Healthy crown; stem of Tree 070 could start to compete.

72 Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 18.8 1 2.5 Low Good Remove Grading One scaffold branch could be pruned if retained.

73 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 15.3 7 3.0 Low Good Remove Grading Multiple stems, but otherwise good.

74 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 18.6 3 2.5 Low Good Remove Grading Some light pruned scaffold branches.

75 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 15.9 1 2.0 Low Good Remove Grading Healthy looking tree.

76 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 17.5 5 4.0 Low Good Remove Grading 2 side stems fair, but main stem good.

77 Hawthorn Species Crataegus sp. Native 13.3 3 4.0 Medium Fair Remove Grading Quite a bit of crown dieback.

78 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum Native 14.0 1 3.0 Low Excellent Remove Grading Great looking tree.

79 White Elm Ulmus americana Native 19.0 1 4.0 Low Good Remove Grading Small amount of light pruned scaffold branches.

80 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 13.1 1 2.5 High Poor Remove Safety Almost no crown growth.

81 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 14.2 1 1.5 Low Good Retain Some minor signs of scorch on leaves.

82 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 19.1 5 4.0 Low Good Retain Beside IBI stake 1652.

83 White Elm Ulmus americana Native 11.6 1 2.0 Low Good Remove Grading Small crown but otherwise good; close to IBI stake 1652.

84 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 13.4 1 2.0 Low Good Retain Small amount of light pruned scaffold branches.

85 White Cedar Thuja occidentalis Native 12.0 1 1.5 Low Good Retain Adjacent to back lot line.

86 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 19.2 3 4.5 Medium Fair Retain 1 stem in fair to poor condition; some dieback.

87 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 10.9 1 3.0 Low Good Remove Grading Has potential to be crowded out by buckthorn.

88 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 22.6 1 4.6 Low Good Remove Grading Some light pruned scaffold branches; healthy crown.

89 Hawthorn Species Crataegus sp. Native 10.2 2 3.0 Low Good Remove Grading Some light pruned scaffold branches.

90 Scotch Pine Pinus sylvestris Non-native 19.4 1 1.5 Low Good Remove Grading

91 Scotch Pine Pinus sylvestris Non-native 24.2 1 3.0 Low Good Remove Grading Main stem good; approximately 6m from back lot line.

92 Scotch Pine Pinus sylvestris Non-native 19.8 1 1.5 Low Good Remove Grading Small crown but otherwise good; approximately 6.5m from back lot line.

93 Scotch Pine Pinus sylvestris Non-native 16.8 1 3.5 Low Good Retain Growing immediately adjacent to small scots pine.

94 Scotch Pine Pinus sylvestris Non-native 16.1 1 3.0 Low Good Retain

95 Scotch Pine Pinus sylvestris Non-native 16.5 1 2.0 Low Good Remove Grading

96 Scotch Pine Pinus sylvestris Non-native 11.3 1 2.5 Low Good Remove Grading Crown growing on slight angle.

97 Hawthorn Species Crataegus sp. Native 12.4 2 2.5 Low Good Remove Grading

98 Common Pear Pryrus communis Non-native 16.7 1 3.0 Low Good Retain Very few leaves with rust, but otherwise good.

99 Scotch Pine Pinus sylvestris Non-native 29.4 1 4.5 Low Good Retain Some light pruned scaffold branches.

100 Scotch Pine Pinus sylvestris Non-native 28.1 1 4.5 Low Good Remove Grading Approximately 5m from back lot.

101 Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 16.2 1 3.5 Low Poor Remove Safety Crown dieback.

102 Hawthorn Species Crataegus sp. Native 17.5 1 3.0 Low Fair Remove Grading

103 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 17.3 1 3.0 Low Poor Remove Safety Rot on trunk.

104 Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 15.4 1 2.5 Low Good Remove Grading

105 Hawthorn Species Crataegus sp. Native 16.9 1 3.5 Low Excellent Remove Grading



108 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 11.8 1 1.5 Medium Very Poor Remove Safety Significant crown dieback; no signs of EAB; stem leaning.

109 Hawthorn Species Crataegus sp. Native 10.2 5 2.5 Medium Fair Remove Grading Rot on stem.

110 Hawthorn Species Crataegus sp. Native 15.5 4 4.0 Medium Fair Remove Grading 1 dead stem.

111 Hawthorn Species Crataegus sp. Native 15.0 2 3.5 Medium Fair Remove Grading



114 Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 15.8 1 2.5 Low Good Retain

115 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 14.4 2 4.5 Medium Fair Retain

Page 2 of 13



Tree


DBH

(cm)

Stem

Count

Crown

Radius

(m)

Potential for

Structural Failure

Overall

Condition

Proposed

Action

Rationale for

Removal Comments

116 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 17.5 1 5.0 Low Good Remove Grading Grape throughout crown.

117 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 14.5 2 3.5 Medium Fair Remove Grading Grape throughout crown.

118 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 28.4 1 4.0 Low Poor Remove Safety

119 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 16.6 1 2.5 Medium Very Poor Remove Safety Significant crown dieback.

120 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 17.9 3 4.5 Medium Fair Remove Grading Grape throughout crown.

121 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 23.3 2 4.0 Low Fair Remove Grading 1 stem dead.

122 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 31.0 2 5.0 Medium Fair Remove Grading 1 stem hollow.

123 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 21.0 6 4.0 Medium Poor Remove Safety Crown dieback.

124 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 23.3 2 3.5 Medium Fair Remove Grading Crown dieback.

125 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 21.1 3 3.0 Medium Poor Remove Safety Significant crown dieback.

126 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 14.0 1 2.0 Medium Fair Remove Grading Stem leaning.




130 Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 13.9 1 2.5 Low Fair Remove Grading Crown dieback.

131 Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 13.1 1 3.0 Low Excellent Remove Grading

132 Hawthorn Species Crataegus sp. Native 12.0 2 3.5 Low Fair Remove Grading Grape throughout crown.



135 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 17.2 1 2.5 Low Good Remove Grading

136 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 15.5 1 2.5 Low Good Remove Grading


138 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 25.0 3 3.5 Medium Fair Remove Grading Stem leaning.

139 Red Pine Pinus resinosa Native 10.4 1 1.5 Low Fair Remove Grading

140 Red Pine Pinus resinosa Native 18.0 1 2.0 Low Fair Remove Grading

141 Red Pine Pinus resinosa Native 16.5 1 2.0 Low Fair Retain Crown dieback.

142 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 15.3 1 2.0 Low Very Poor Remove Safety Significant crown dieback; no signs of EAB.

143 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 11.6 1 1.5 Medium Very Poor Remove Safety Significant crown dieback.

144 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 17.0 1 2.0 Low Poor Remove Safety Crown dieback.

145 Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 11.1 1 2.5 Low Good Retain

146 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 11.2 1 1.5 Low Fair Retain Crown dieback.

147 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 15.2 1 3.0 Low Fair Retain

148 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 16.3 1 3.0 Low Fair Retain Stem leaning.

149 Hawthorn Species Crataegus sp. Native 11.7 2 2.0 Low Fair Retain

150 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 25.5 1 2.5 Low Poor Remove Safety Crown dieback.

151 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 16.8 1 2.5 Medium Poor Remove Safety Significant crown dieback; grape throughout crown.

152 Hawthorn Species Crataegus sp. Native 13.4 1 4.5 Medium Good Remove Street D Grading

153 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 11.2 2 4.0 Medium Fair Remove Street D Grading

154 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 21.5 1 4.0 Low Poor Remove Street D Grading Crown dieback; no sign of EAB.

155 Hawthorn Species Crataegus sp. Native 10.0 2 2.0 Low Fair Remove Street D Grading

156 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 21.6 1 4.5 Low Good Remove Street D Grading

157 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 20.3 1 4.0 Medium Poor Remove Street D Grading Significant crown dieback.

158 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 22.2 1 3.5 Low Fair Remove Street D Grading Dead scaffold branches.


160 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 14.0 1 2.5 Medium Good Remove Street D Grading Stem leaning.



163 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 14.4 1 2.0 High Poor Remove Street D Grading Stem split at 2m.

165 Hawthorn Species Crataegus sp. Native 12.3 1 3.0 Low Good Remove Street D Grading

166 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 11.0 2 3.5 Low Good Remove Street D Grading

167 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 14.3 2 3.0 Low Good Remove Street D Grading

168 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 12.7 1 1.0 Medium Very Poor Remove Street D Grading Significant crown dieback.


170b White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 15.2 1 2.0 Low Good Remove Street D Grading

170 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum Native 43.2 1 4 High Very Poor Remove Safety Several large dead limbs, extensive die-back

171 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 20.0 2 3.0 Medium Fair Remove Grading

172 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 18.5 1 3.0 Low Good Remove Grading Stem leaning.

173 White Elm Ulmus americana Native 36.5 1 4.5 Low Good Remove Grading

Page 3 of 13



Tree


DBH

(cm)

Stem

Count

Crown

Radius

(m)

Potential for

Structural Failure

Overall

Condition

Proposed

Action

Rationale for

Removal Comments

174 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 32.5 1 3.5 Medium Poor Remove Safety

175 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 40.0 4 6.0 High Very Poor Remove Safety Significant crown dieback.

176 Hawthorn Species Crataegus sp. Native 16.0 1 3.0 Low Good Remove Grading Immediately NW of Tree 406.

177 Balsam Poplar Populus balsamifera Native 42.0 1 5.0 High Very Poor Remove Safety

178 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 46.0 2 5.0 Medium Good Remove Grading

179 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 25.0 3 4.0 Medium Very Poor Remove Safety Significant crown dieback.

180 Hawthorn Species Crataegus sp. Native 18.0 1 5.0 Medium Fair Remove Grading

180b White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 23.0 1 2.5 Medium Very Poor Retain Safety Significant crown dieback.

181b Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 47.0 1 6.0 Medium Poor Remove Safety Stem leaning.

181 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 12.3 1 3.5 Low Fair Retain Epicormics; peeling bark; phototrophic.

182b Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 34.0 1 3.0 Low Good Remove Grading

182 Black Walnut Juglans nigra Native 40.3 1 7.0 Medium Fair Retain Cankered; fairly well healed.

183b Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 55.0 1 5.0 Medium Poor Remove Safety

183 Black Walnut Juglans nigra Native 26.3 1 6.0 Low Good Retain

184 Black Walnut Juglans nigra Native 37.5 1 8.0 Medium Good Remove Grading

184c White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 20.0 1 1.0 High Very Poor Remove Safety Nearly dead.

184b Black Walnut Juglans nigra Native 31.3 3 7 Medium Fair Remove Grading DBH other stems: 30.4, 29.0, cavity at the base may rot

185 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 40.0 3 5.0 High Poor Remove Safety 1 stem snapped off.

186 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum Native 120.0 4 8.0 High Fair Remove Safety dead base at trunk

186b White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 25.4 1 3.5 Low Fair Remove Grading Early dieback; no sign of EAB.

187 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 29.0 1 4.5 Low Fair Remove Grading

188 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 40.0 1 5.0 Medium Poor Remove Safety Crown dieback.

189b Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 20.0 1 3.0 Medium Fair Remove Grading Stem leaning.

189 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 27.3 1 5.0 Low Good Remove Grading

190b Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 25.2 1 3.0 Low Good Remove Grading

190 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 42.0 1 3.5 Medium Fair Remove Grading Stem leaning.

191 Freeman's Maple Acer X freemanii Native 18.0 1 3.0 Low Fair Remove Grading Topped.

191b White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 23.4 1 4.0 Low Good Remove Grading

192 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum Native 110.0 1 7.5 High Poor Remove Safety 2 young stems from root flare.

192b White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 15.0 1 2.0 Low Fair Remove Grading Crown dieback.

193 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 12.0 1 3.0 Low Good Remove Grading Stem leaning.

194 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum Native 110.0 2 12.0 Medium Fair Remove Grading

195 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum Native 35.0 1 6.0 Low Excellent Remove Grading



198 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum Native 105.0 1 7.0 High Very Poor Remove Safety 1 young stem from root flare; significant crown dieback.

199 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum Native 37.0 1 5.0 Low Good Remove Grading

200 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum Native 100.0 1 7.0 Medium Poor Remove Safety Crown dieback.

201b White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 43.0 1 5.0 Medium Poor Remove Safety Crown dieback; EAB damage.

201 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 13.0 5 3.0 High Poor Retain Safety Many dead branches; crown sparse; included bark.

202 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 48.0 1 6.5 Medium Poor Remove Safety Crown dieback; EAB damage.

202b Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 11.0 1 1.00 Medium Poor Retain Safety Inventoried and assessed as per Project #1367 Starwood.

202c Manitoba maple Acer negundo Non-native 16.5 5 2 High Poor Remove Safety A lot of canopy die-back. Two stems dead.

203 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum Native 28.0 2 3.5 Low Fair Remove Grading Crown dieback.

203c Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 14.8 5 2.0 High Poor Retain Safety

203b Willow Species Salix sp. Native 12.0 2 1.00 Low Good Retain Inventoried and assessed as per Project #1367 Starwood.

204 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 13.8 1 3.0 Medium Fair Retain Growing on slight angle; one-sided crown.

204b Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 24.0 1 2.00 Medium Poor Remove Safety Inventoried and assessed as per Project #1367 Starwood.

205 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 23.4 6 5.5 Medium Fair Retain DBH of other stems: 21.6, 23.4, 19, 27.7, 25.3, 21.7, 28.8; a bit of crown dieback; large

stems.

205b Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 20.0 1 2.00 Medium Fair Retain Inventoried and assessed as per Project #1367 Starwood.

206 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 24.7 9 5.0 Medium Fair Retain DBH of other stems: 19.5, 11.3, 24.5, 14.1, 24.7; 4 stems dead.


207 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 26.6 3 6.0 Medium Fair Retain Has some dieback in understory branches; DBH of other stems: 17.8, 30.1, 26.6.

207b Balsam Poplar Populus balsamifera Native 13.0 1 1.00 Low Good Retain Inventoried and assessed as per Project #1367 Starwood.

208 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 17.0 1 4.5 Medium Fair Retain Growing on 45 degree angle with one-sided growth.

208b Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila Non-native 60.0 1 9.00 Low Fair Retain Inventoried and assessed as per Project #1367 Starwood.

209 Hawthorn Species Crataegus sp. Native 26.3 1 4.0 Low Good Retain Overall tree healthy with a few lower branches dead.

Page 4 of 13



Tree


DBH

(cm)

Stem

Count

Crown

Radius

(m)

Potential for

Structural Failure

Overall

Condition

Proposed

Action

Rationale for

Removal Comments


210 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 22.1 8 5.0 Medium Good Retain DBH of other stems: 11, 13.8, 18.2, 14.6, 12.4, 9.0, 14.2, 22.1.

210b Willow Species Salix sp. Native 18.0 1 1.00 Low Fair Retain Inventoried and assessed as per Project #1367 Starwood.

211 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 13.3 1 2.5 Medium Good Retain Growing on 45 degree angle with one-sided growth; co-dominant stems.


212 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 17.2 1 2.0 High Very Poor Retain Crown almost dead; draped in riverbank grape.


213 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 10.7 1 1.5 High Very Poor Retain Little crown growth; draped in riverbank grape.

213b Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa Native 53.0 2 10.00 High Poor Remove Safety Inventoried and assessed as per Project #1367 Starwood.

214 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 28.2 1 3.0 Low Good Retain If retained, lower branches should be pruned.


215 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 11.0 1 1.5 Medium Fair Retain Crown healthy; main stem has irregular growth due to hawthorn.

215b Willow Species Salix sp. Native 16.0 1 1.00 High Good Remove Safety Inventoried and assessed as per Project #1367 Starwood.

216 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 11.4 1 N/A High Snag Retain


217 Hawthorn Species Crataegus sp. Native 25.1 2 3.5 Medium Fair Retain DBH of other stem: 14.2; weak branch union; some crown dieback.


218 Hawthorn Species Crataegus sp. Native 13.0 1 3.5 Low Good Retain DBH of other stem: 10.2.

218b Basswood Tilia americana Native 16.0 1 1.00 Low Fair Retain Inventoried and assessed as per Project #1367 Starwood.

219 Hawthorn Species Crataegus sp. Native 12.3 1 2.5 High Poor Retain DBH of other stem: 11.7.


220 Hawthorn Species Crataegus sp. Native 11.7 1 2.0 High Poor Retain DBH of other stem: 6.0.

220b Basswood Tilia americana Native 21.0 1 1.00 Medium Poor Remove Safety Inventoried and assessed as per Project #1367 Starwood.

221 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 17.9 5 4.0 Medium Fair Retain DBH of other stems: 14.9, 15.8, 12.2, 16.3.


222 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 25.7 1 2.0 Medium Fair Retain Part of crown snapped off; healthy growth on scaffold branches.

222b Balsam Poplar Populus balsamifera Native 32.0 1 3.00 Low Fair Retain Inventoried and assessed as per Project #1367 Starwood.

223 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 10.8 1 N/A High Snag Retain

223b Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa Native 95.0 1 6.00 High Very Poor Remove Safety Inventoried and assessed as per Project #1367 Starwood.

224 Hawthorn Species Crataegus sp. Native 18.1 3 2.0 Low Good Retain DBH of other stems: 7.7, 6.7.

224b Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 26.0 1 3.00 High Poor Remove Safety Inventoried and assessed as per Project #1367 Starwood.

225 Serviceberry Species Amelanchier sp. Native 10.0 3 2.5 Low Good Retain DBH of other stems: 8.6, 8.0.


226 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 18.9 1 N/A High Snag Retain Potential hazard due to proximity to road.


227 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 32.8 1 3.0 Medium Good Retain Potential hazard due to proximity to road.


228 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 33.6 1 4.5 Medium Good Retain Potential hazard due to proximity to road.

228b Balsam Poplar Populus balsamifera Native 16.0 1 2.00 Medium Fair Retain Inventoried and assessed as per Project #1367 Starwood.

229 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 15.6 1 N/A Medium Snag Retain Potential hazard due to proximity to road.

229b Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 15.0 1 1.00 Low Fair Remove Grading Inventoried and assessed as per Project #1367 Starwood.

230 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 13.9 1 1.5 Medium Fair Retain Potential hazard due to proximity to road.


231 Hawthorn Species Crataegus sp. Native 18.5 3 2.5 Medium Fair Retain DBH of other stems: 10.5, 4.0; some crown dieback.

232 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 28.1 1 4.0 Medium Good Retain


233 Hawthorn Species Crataegus sp. Native 10.2 1 2.0 Low Poor Retain Overtaken by buckthorn.


234 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 31.2 1 4.5 Low Good Retain


235 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 43.8 1 5.5 Medium Fair Retain If retained, lower branches should be pruned.


236 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 14.8 2 3.0 Medium Good Retain DBH of other stem: 14.1; growing phototrophic lean.

236b Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 11.0 1 1.00 Low Good Retain Inventoried and assessed as per Project #1367 Starwood.

237 Hawthorn Species Crataegus sp. Native 12.5 5 3.0 High Poor Retain DBH of other stems: 11.6, 10.4, 7.6, 3.7; several stems are dead; phototrophic growth.


238 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 22.3 2 5.0 Medium Fair Retain DBH of other stem: 17.0; lower scaffold branches are dead.

Page 5 of 13



Tree


DBH

(cm)

Stem

Count

Crown

Radius

(m)

Potential for

Structural Failure

Overall

Condition

Proposed

Action

Rationale for

Removal Comments

239 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 14.5 1 3.5 Medium Fair Retain Irregular growth form.

240 Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 24.1 1 4.0 Medium Good Retain Roots likely impacted by road development.

241 Scotch Pine Pinus sylvestris Non-native 17.5 1 1.5 Low Fair Retain

242 Scotch Pine Pinus sylvestris Non-native 15.0 1 2.0 High Fair Retain Almost on road alignment; roots likely to be impacted.

243 Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 17.6 1 2.5 Low Good Retain Hazard may increase if roots damaged.

243b Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 19.0 1 2.00 High Fair Remove Safety Inventoried and assessed as per Project #1367 Starwood.

244 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 18.8 4 4.5 High Fair Retain DBH of other stems: 15.8, 18.0, 15.6; 2 stems are poor-very poor.

244b Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa Native 22.0 1 2.00 Low Good Retain Inventoried and assessed as per Project #1367 Starwood.



247 Scotch Pine Pinus sylvestris Non-native 10.4 1 1.0 Medium Fair Retain

248b Scotch Pine Pinus sylvestris Non-native 14.1 1 1.5 Low Good Retain

248 Basswood Tilia americana Native 21.0 1 2.00 Medium Poor Remove Safety

249 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 11.3 1 1.5 Low Fair Retain Some dieback.

249b Balsam Poplar Populus balsamifera Native 12.0 1 1.00 Low Fair Remove Grading


250b Balsam Poplar Populus balsamifera Native 12.0 1 1.00 Low Good Remove Grading




252b Basswood Tilia americana Native 12.0 1 1.00 Low Good Remove Grading

253 Scotch Pine Pinus sylvestris Non-native 14.6 1 1.0 Medium Poor Retain




255b Black Walnut Juglans nigra Native 28.0 1 2.00 Low Fair Remove Grading

256 Scotch Pine Pinus sylvestris Non-native 10.0 1 1.5 Medium Poor Retain

256b Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 15.0 1 2.00 Low Fair Remove Grading



258 Scotch Pine Pinus sylvestris Non-native 16.4 1 2.5 High Fair Retain

258b Scotch Pine Pinus sylvestris Non-native 18.0 1 1.00 Low Good Remove Grading

259 Scotch Pine Pinus sylvestris Non-native 12.6 1 2.0 High Poor Retain






264b Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 13.0 1 1.00 Low Fair Remove Grading



267 Scotch Pine Pinus sylvestris Non-native 14.6 1 2.0 High Fair Retain Safety

267b Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 16.0 1 1.00 Low Fair Remove Grading

268 White Cedar Thuja occidentalis Native 12.4 8 1.0 Low Good Retain Improper pruning from trail alignment near stake 5; DBH of other stems: 7.1, 7.6, 8.3,

6.4, 6.9, 4.0, and 3.0.

268b White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 26.0 0 2.00 Medium Poor Remove Safety


269b Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 20.0 2 2.00 Medium Poor Remove Safety


270b Hawthorn Species Crataegus sp. Native 20.0 2 2.00 Medium Fair Remove Grading

271 Scotch Pine Pinus sylvestris Non-native 12.5 1 N/A Low Snag Retain Insect and woodpecker holes.

271b Black Walnut Juglans nigra Native 23.0 1 2.00 Low Fair Remove Grading


272b White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 17.0 1 1.00 Low Fair Retain

273 Hawthorn Species Crataegus sp. Native 14.3 1 2.5 Low Good Retain


274 Hawthorn Species Crataegus sp. Native 24.5 1 2.0 Low Good Retain

274b Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 37.0 1 3.00 Medium Fair Remove Grading

Page 6 of 13



Tree


DBH

(cm)

Stem

Count

Crown

Radius

(m)

Potential for

Structural Failure

Overall

Condition

Proposed

Action

Rationale for

Removal Comments

275 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 30.1 2 4.0 Low Good Retain DBH of other stem: 19.6, 13.2.


276 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 20.6 4 4.5 Medium Good Retain


277 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 15.7 2 2.5 Medium Very Poor Retain DBH of other stem: 13.3.


278 Hawthorn Species Crataegus sp. Native 18.5 1 2.5 Medium Fair Retain DBH of other stem: 19.4; dead branch in crotch increasing hazard potential.


279 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 16.2 1 3.5 Low Fair Retain Stem sloping towards road alignmemt.


280 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 29.4 2 5.0 Medium Good Retain Stem sloping away from road alignment.

280b Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 18.0 2 3.00 High Fair Remove Safety

281 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 14.2 1 2.5 Medium Good Retain



282b Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 22.0 1 2.00 Low Fair Remove Grading



284 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 10.2 1 2.0 High Fair Retain


285 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 13.3 1 1.5 Medium Fair Retain Dead fall surrounding the base; has a lean.


286 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 28.5 1 3.5 High Poor Retain Large crack down center stem; sloping towards road alignment.

286b Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 12.0 1 1.00 Low Fair Remove Grading

287 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 14.7 1 2.0 Medium Fair Retain

287b White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 20.0 1 2.00 Low Fair Remove Street D Grading

288 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 19.4 1 3.0 Low Good Retain Stem is angled at 45 degrees.

288b White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 21.0 1 2.00 Low Fair Remove Street D Grading


289b Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 30.0 1 2.00 High Poor Remove Street D Grading

290 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 18.2 1 3.5 Low Good Retain


291 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 29.0 1 4.0 Low Good Retain Low scaffold branches may have to be removed due to proximity to road alignment.


292 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 16.0 1 N/A High Snag Retain

292b Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 30.0 2 3.00 High Fair Remove Street D Grading

293 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 14.7 1 2.5 High Good Retain Leaning over road alignment; riverbank grape at base.

293b Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 44.0 2 5.00 High Poor Retain

294 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 16.6 1 2.0 Medium Good Retain Riverbank grape at base.

294b Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 20.0 2 2.00 Medium Fair Retain

294c Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 23.8 1 4.0 Medium Fair Remove Grading Codominant stems; slight lean; grape covering crown.

295 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 20.7 1 3.5 Low Good Retain Some dieback.

295b Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 15.0 1 1.00 High Poor Remove Safety

295c Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 22.8 1 4.0 Medium Fair Remove Grading Slight lean; grape covering crown.



297 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 15.9 2 2.5 Low Good Retain Main stem has a 45 degree lean; DBH of other stem: 7.1.

297b Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 12.0 1 1.00 Low Fair Retain

298 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 11.3 2 2.0 Low Good Retain Stems fused at base; DBH of other stem: 11.2; dead scaffold branches.


299 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 11.8 2 2.5 Low Good Retain Codominant stems; DBH of other stem: 10.4.


300 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 15.8 1 3.0 Low Good Retain Slight lean towards PSW.


301 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 19.6 1 3.5 Low Good Retain Dead scaffold branches.



Page 7 of 13



Tree


DBH

(cm)

Stem

Count

Crown

Radius

(m)

Potential for

Structural Failure

Overall

Condition

Proposed

Action

Rationale for

Removal Comments

304 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 39.6 1 4.0 Low Fair Retain Dead scaffold branches; some dieback; wood dust from mites around base.

305 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 44.2 1 4.0 Medium Good Retain Heavy lean due to surrounding deadfall.

306 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 25.6 1 N/A Medium Snag Retain

307 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 30.9 1 N/A Medium Snag Remove Safety

350 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 25.4 1 3.5 Low Good Retain Slight lean; self-corrected.

351 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 34.0 1 3.0 Low Good Retain Dead scaffold branches.

352 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 45.0 2 3.0 High Poor Remove Safety DBH of other stem: 37.0; larger stem has split and is on ground actively growing (roots

exposed); base may soon be compromised by rot.

353 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 27.1 1 3.5 Medium Poor Remove Safety Most of upper crown has dieback.

354 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 10.0 1 2.5 Medium Fair Retain Stem has fair phototrophic lean; may be on road alignment.

355 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 18.7 1 5.0 Medium Fair Retain Lean is self-corrected; epicormics at base; may be close to road alignment.

356 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 22.4 1 N/A Medium Snag Remove Safety

357 Balsam Poplar Populus balsamifera Native 35.0 1 3.00 Medium Fair Retain Inventoried and assessed as per Project #1367 Starwood.

358 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 21.3 1 N/A Medium Snag Retain Bark peeling.

359 Basswood Tilia americana Native 20.4 1 4.0 Low Good Retain Edge of woodlot (Starwood Rd.).



362 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 31.9 1 5.0 High Poor Remove Safety Staining on base of stem; bark falling off; dieback throughout, including large scaffold

branches.

363 Hawthorn Species Crataegus sp. Native 11.0 1 2.0 Low Fair Remove Grading Stem has lean away from road alignment.

364 Hawthorn Species Crataegus sp. Native 10.8 1 2.5 Medium Poor Remove Safety Bark peeling with dieback.

365 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 26.1 1 2.5 High Fair Remove Safety Scar at the base is rotting.



368 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 18.6 2 3.5 Medium Good Retain Slight lean; DBH of other stem: 11.6; dead scaffold branches.

369 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 21.0 1 4.0 Low Good Retain Phototrophic; epicormics at base.

370 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 36.8 1 5.5 Low Fair Remove Grading Dead scaffold branches.

371 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 13.6 2 3.5 Low Good Retain DBH of other stem: 6.2.

372 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 12.0 1 1.5 Low Fair Retain

401 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 22.2 1 5.0 Medium Fair Remove Grading Substantial lean; dead scaffold branches.

401b White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 76.0 1 5.0 Medium Fair Remove Grading

402 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 24.0 1 3.0 Medium Good Remove Grading Substantial lean.

402b Sugar Maple Acer saccharum Native 66.0 1 4.0 Low Fair Remove Grading

403 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 10.4 1 2.0 Low Good Remove Grading




405 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 10.9 1 2.0 Medium Fair Remove Grading Substantial lean.

405b Sugar Maple Acer saccharum Native 64.0 1 4.0 Medium Fair Remove Grading

406 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 14.3 1 3.5 High Fair Remove Safety Substantial lean.

406b Basswood Tilia americana Native 16.0 1 1.0 Low Fair Remove Grading

407 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 17.2 1 3.5 High Fair Remove Safety Large, dead scaffold branches; substantial lean.


408 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 24.9 1 3.5 High Fair Remove Safety Large, dead scaffold branches; substantial lean.

408b Basswood Tilia americana Native 22.0 1 3.0 Low Good Remove Grading



410 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 22.1 1 3.5 High Fair Remove Safety Substantial lean.







414 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 44.3 5 6.0 High Poor Remove Safety Rotting at spot where stems split; DBH of other stems: 18.1, 29.7, 35.2, 26.5.




Page 8 of 13



Tree


DBH

(cm)

Stem

Count

Crown

Radius

(m)

Potential for

Structural Failure

Overall

Condition

Proposed

Action

Rationale for

Removal Comments



417 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 24.2 4 6.0 Medium Fair Remove Grading Bark peeling; DBH of other stems: 21.9, 23.1, 13.2.


418 Hawthorn Species Crataegus sp. Native 11.9 2 7.0 Low Good Remove Grading Codominant stems; DBH of other stem: 9.6.


420 Hawthorn Species Crataegus sp. Native 17.1 1 N/A Low Snag Remove Safety

420b Black Walnut Juglans nigra Native 25.0 1 4.5 Low Good Remove Grading

421 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 12.6 2 4.0 Low Fair Remove Grading DBH of other stem: 11.6; peeling bark.

422 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 25.4 1 3.0 Medium Poor Remove Safety Bark peeling.


423 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 12.4 1 3.0 Low Good Remove Grading

423b Black Walnut Juglans nigra Native 18.7 1 3.0 Low Good Remove Grading A few dead scaffold branches could be pruned.

424 Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 13.0 1 2.5 Low Poor Remove Safety Grape at base and crown.

424b Black Walnut Juglans nigra Native 17.6 1 4.0 Low Good Remove Grading One-sided crown with a few dead branches that should be pruned.

425 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 10.4 1 2.5 Low Good Remove Grading Grape at base.


426 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 47.0 1 5.0 High Poor Remove Street D Grading Significant lean; peeling bark; dead scaffold branches.

426b Black Walnut Juglans nigra Native 26.8 1 4.0 Medium Good Remove Grading Has a few scars on the main stem that have calloused over.

427 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 18.5 1 3.0 Low Good Remove Street D Grading Self-corrected lean.

427b White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 14.1 1 0.5 High Very Poor Remove Safety Declining tree with quite a few dead branches.


428b Hawthorn Species Crataegus sp. Native 17.8 1 3.5 Low Good Remove Grading Has a slight lean (due to adjacent growing buckthorn), but overall good condition.

429 White Willow Salix alba Non-native 92.0 4 14.0 Medium Fair Remove Street D Grading DBH of other stems: 38.1, 86, 83; bark peeling; large center cavity in stems.

429b Black Walnut Juglans nigra Native 17.5 1 3.0 Low Good Retain


430b Black Walnut Juglans nigra Native 10.7 1 1.5 Low Good Retain

431 White Willow Salix alba Non-native 62.0 1 10.0 Low Good Remove Street D Grading

431b Black Walnut Juglans nigra Native 26.2 1 4.5 Medium Fair Retain Crown healthy and vigorous, but has a few scars that aren't callousing over.

432 White Willow Salix alba Non-native 55.5 1 10.0 Low Good Remove Street D Grading

433 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 10.3 1 3.0 Low Good Remove Street D Grading Phototrophic lean.

433b Hawthorn Species Crataegus sp. Native 24.0 1 2.0 Medium Poor Retain

434 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 13.6 1 3.5 Low Fair Remove Street D Grading Growing in among white willow.

434b Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 20.0 1 2.0 Low Good Retain

435 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 74.7 2 5.0 Medium Fair Remove Grading Codominant stems; DBH of other stem: 10.4.


436 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 25.7 1 4.0 Medium Fair Remove Grading Significant lean (phototrophic/edge).

436b Scotch Pine Pinus sylvestris Non-native 17.0 1 1.0 Low Fair Retain

437 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 26.6 1 5.5 Low Good Remove Grading Grape in lower crown.

437b Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 16.0 1 1.0 Low Fair Retain

438 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 31.0 1 4.0 Low Fair Remove Grading Significant lean; canker that has healed.


439 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 11.9 1 4.5 Low Fair Remove Grading Significant lean (phototrophic).

439b White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 25.0 2 3.0 Medium Fair Retain

440 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 29.8 1 3.5 High Poor Remove Safety Very significant lean; cracks at base; dead scaffold branches.

440b Hawthorn Species Crataegus sp. Native 13.0 5 2.0 Medium Poor Retain

441 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 28.2 5 5.0 High Very Poor Remove Safety Very significant lean; large canker not healed; rotting at base; DBH of other stems:

20.0, 39.3, 62.2, 51.2.

441b Jack Pine Pinus banksiana Native 31.0 1 2.0 High Fair Retain

442 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 37.7 1 4.0 Low Good Remove Street D Grading

442b Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 23.0 1 2.0 Low Fair Retain

443 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 32.1 1 10.0 Medium Fair Remove Street D Grading Very significant lean.


444 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 24.6 1 3.5 Low Fair Remove Street D Grading Slight lean.


445 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 56.3 1 10.0 Medium Fair Remove Street D Grading Bark peeling; leaning; dead scattered branches.


446 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 54.6 2 12.0 Medium Fair Remove Street D Grading Grape climbing stems; epicormics; DBH of other stem: 38.6.

Page 9 of 13



Tree


DBH

(cm)

Stem

Count

Crown

Radius

(m)

Potential for

Structural Failure

Overall

Condition

Proposed

Action

Rationale for

Removal Comments


447 Black Ash Fraxinus nigra Native 18.7 1 2.5 Low Fair Remove Grading Dead scaffold branches.

447b Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 13.9 1 3.5 Low Good Remove Street D Grading

448b Black Walnut Juglans nigra Native 26.4 1 4.0 Low Excellent Remove Street D Grading

448 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 26.2 1 4.0 Low Fair Remove Grading Epicormics; slight lean.


450 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 28.9 1 3.5 Low Fair Remove Street D Grading Phototrophic lean.

451 Black Ash Fraxinus nigra Native 22.5 1 3.0 Low Fair Remove Grading Crown dieback.

451b Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 40.6 1 6.0 Medium Good Remove Grading Slight lean.

452 Black Ash Fraxinus nigra Native 30.2 1 5.0 Low Fair Remove Street D Grading Crown dieback.

452b Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 56.5 4 9.0 High Very Poor Remove Safety DBH of other stems: 64.2, 29.2, 40.6; woodpecker holes; rotting; riverbank grape at

base.


454 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 16.4 1 3.0 Low Fair Remove Grading Phototrophic.

455 Black Ash Fraxinus nigra Native 28.9 1 4.0 Low Fair Remove Street D Grading Crown dieback.

455b Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 40.3 1 7.0 Low Fair Remove Grading Slight lean.

456 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 33.9 2 5.0 Medium Fair Remove Grading Epicormics; significant lean; DBH of other stem: 15.6.

457 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 36.3 1 5.0 Low Poor Remove Safety Crown covered in grape.

1447 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 15.0 1 1.0 Low Poor Remove Safety

1448 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 22.0 1 2.0 Low Good Retain

1449 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 20.0 1 2.0 Low Fair Remove Grading

1450 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 12.0 1 1.0 Medium Fair Remove Grading


1452 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 12.0 1 1.0 Low Good Retain

1456 White Elm Ulmus americana Native 41.0 1 1.0 Medium Fair Retain

1457 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 52.0 1 4.0 Low Fair Retain

1458 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 25.0 3 3.0 High Poor Remove Safety




1462 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 13.0 1 1.0 Low Fair Retain




1466 Hawthorn Species Crataegus sp. Native 14.0 1 1.0 Medium Fair Retain

1467 Hawthorn Species Crataegus sp. Native 13.0 1 1.0 Medium Fair Retain

1778 Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa Native 71.0 1 8.0 Medium Fair Remove Grading Identified as Tree #1 on Project # 1367 Starwood. Re-tagged as could not find original

tree tag.

1779 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 17.8 1 3.0 High Poor Remove Safety Strong lean with large wound; split on main stem; some staining.

1780 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 28.5 1 2.0 High Poor Remove Safety Almost completely dead with the exception of one live small branch; roots girdled.

1781 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 12.5 2 2.5 Medium Fair Remove Grading Codominant stems with included bark; one stem with canker and some staining;

damage to one stem due to nearby buckthorn growing into the tree.

1782 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 13.0 1 2.0 Low Good Remove Grading Poor root flare.

1783 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 16.8 1 3.0 Medium Fair Remove Grading Some bark cracking with staining; minimal dieback.

1784 Basswood Tilia americana Native 19.8 2 2.5 Medium Fair Remove Grading Reduced crown; foliage feeding; some chlorosis; poor root flare.

1785 Basswood Tilia americana Native 11.2 2 1.0 Low Fair Remove Grading Foliage feeding; some cankers on main stem; competing with other trees.

1786 Basswood Tilia americana Native 18.4 1 2.0 Medium Fair Remove Grading Some dieback; codominant stems with included bark; cankers on some branches;

sapsucker damage

1787 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 13.7 1 3.0 Medium Good Remove Grading Lean; several epicormic shoots at base of tree.

1788 Hawthorn Species Crataegus sp. Native 12.7 1 2.0 Medium Fair Remove Grading Some dead branches; reduced crown; leaning towards canopy opening.

1789 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 29.3 4 2.5 High Poor Remove Safety 3 stems dead; tree in heavy decline; several dead scaffold branches.

1790 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 30.0 2 3.0 High Poor Remove Safety 1 stem dead; fruiting bodies at root flare and in split stem; some crown left.

1791 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 12.0 2 2.0 Low Good Remove Grading Leaning towards canopy opening; some deadwood.

1792 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 12.0 2 3.0 Medium Fair Remove Grading Several bark cracks with exuding sap; some dieback; galls of foliage.

1793 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 12.6 1 3.0 Low Good Remove Grading Some foliage feeding.

1794 White Willow Salix alba Non-native 89.4 2 9.5 Medium Good Remove Grading Some staining; minimal dieback; history of branch failure; hanger.

1795 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 14.8 1 4.0 Low Good Remove Grading Leaning towards canopy opening; minimal dieback; some grape in canopy.

Page 10 of 13



Tree


DBH

(cm)

Stem

Count

Crown

Radius

(m)

Potential for

Structural Failure

Overall

Condition

Proposed

Action

Rationale for

Removal Comments

1796 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 29.8 2 7.0 Medium Fair Remove Grading Codominant stems with included bark; grap up the stem; some dieback and staining.

1797 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 11.7 1 3.0 Low Good Remove Grading Slight lean; minimal dieback.

1798 Peach-leaved Willow Salix amygdaloides Native 13.3 1 3.0 Low Good Remove Grading Some dead branches near bottom of stem.

1799 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 17.2 2 3.5 Low Good Remove Grading Some cankers where old branches pruned; minimal dieback.

1901 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 11.8 1 2.5 Low Good Remove Grading Small cankers on root flare.

1902 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 23.8 2 5.0 Medium Fair Remove Grading Codominant stems with included bark; some dieback throughout canopy; some staining

on stem.

1903 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 18.2 1 2.0 Low Fair Remove Grading Some dieback; leaning towards canopy opening.

1904 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 13.8 1 2.5 Medium Fair Remove Grading Some dieback; leaning towards canopy opening; cankers near base of stem.

1905 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 21.9 1 3.0 Low Fair Remove Grading Some dieback.

1906 Basswood Tilia americana Native 21.3 1 4.0 Low Fair Remove Grading Some dieback and foliage feeding; small canker on root flare.

1907 Basswood Tilia americana Native 15.1 1 4.0 Medium Fair Remove Grading some dieback; reduced crown; cankers along stem.

1908 Basswood Tilia americana Native 77.7 1 7.0 Medium Good Remove Grading Codominant stems with included bark; staining; poor branch unions; foliage feeding.

1909 Basswood Tilia americana Native 11.0 2 2.5 Low Fair Remove Grading Reduced crown; foliage feeding; canker on stem.

1910 Basswood Tilia americana Native 21.2 1 4.0 Low Good Remove Grading Foliage feeding.

1911 Basswood Tilia americana Native 18.5 1 3.5 Low Fair Remove Grading Some dieback; foliage feeding; competing with nearby trees.

1912 Basswood Tilia americana Native 12.6 1 3.0 Low Fair Remove Grading Reduced crown; some dieback; foliage feeding; competing with nearby trees.

1913 Basswood Tilia americana Native 16.2 1 3.0 Medium Fair Remove Grading Reduced crown; some dieback; foliage feeding; competing with nearby trees; large

hanger.

1914 Basswood Tilia americana Native 12.8 1 3.0 Low Fair Remove Grading Reduced crown; some dieback; foliage feeding; competing with nearby trees.

1915 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 14.1 1 3.0 Low Fair Remove Grading Some dieback and grape.

1916 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 29.4 1 3.5 High Poor Remove Safety Dieback throughout canopy; some damage and staining on root flare.

1917 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 16.0 1 5.0 Low Fair Remove Grading Dieback.

1918 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 20.5 1 3.5 Low Fair Remove Grading Dieback.

1919 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 27.5 1 3.5 Medium Fair Remove Grading Dieback; history of branch failure; small hanger.

1920 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 17.8 1 3.0 Low Good Remove Grading Lean towards canopy opening.

1921 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 68.4 1 8.0 Medium Fair Remove Grading Dieback; poor branch unions; history of branch failure; multiple hangers.

1922 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 20.0 5 5.0 High Poor Remove Safety 4 stems dead; reduced crown; dieback; competing with other trees.

1923 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 22.9 1 4.0 Medium Fair Remove Grading Dieback; history of branch failure; some splits in main branches; small hangers.

1924 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 10.0 1 3.0 Low Fair Remove Grading Dieback; lean towards canopy opening.

1925 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 12.5 1 3.0 Low Fair Remove Grading Dieback; lean towards canopy opening.

1926 Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Native 17.8 2 3.0 Medium Fair Remove Grading One stem dead; codominant stems with included bark; dieback.

1927 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 18.2 2 4.0 Low Good Remove Grading Foliage feeding; codominant stems with included bark.

1928 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 20.5 2 4.0 Low Fair Remove Grading Codominant stems with included bark; dieback.

1929 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 11.3 1 2.5 Low Good Remove Street D Grading Grape throughout.

1930 Black Walnut Juglans nigra Native 10.0 1 3.0 Low Good Remove Street D Grading Foliage feeding.

1931 Hawthorn Species Crataegus sp. Native 16.1 3 3.0 Medium Good Remove Street D Grading Staining on stem; bark crack.

1932 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 22.2 3 4.0 High Poor Remove Street D Grading Lots of frass, cankers and staining on stem; dieback.

1933 Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa Native 23.0 1 5.0 Low Good Remove Street D Grading Minimal dieback; some foliage feeding.

1934 Hawthorn Species Crataegus sp. Native 16.3 2 4.5 Medium Fair Remove Grading Staining on stem; some dieback.

1935 Hawthorn Species Crataegus sp. Native 15.0 2 3.0 Medium Fair Remove Grading Staining on stem; some dieback.

1936 White Elm Ulmus americana Native 15.1 1 3.5 Low Fair Remove Street D Grading Some dieback; foliage feeding.

1937 White Elm Ulmus americana Native 13.1 1 3.0 Low Fair Remove Street D Grading Some dieback; foliage feeding; poor branch union.

1938 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 17.2 1 4.0 High Very Poor Remove Street D Grading Almost completely dead with one small live branch.

1939 Apple Species Malus sp. Non-native 16.5 3 5.5 Medium Fair Remove Street D Grading One stem dead with fruiting bodies; other stems have dieback and some staining.

Scotch Pine Pinus sylvestris Non-native 10.4 1 2.5 Medium Fair Remove Grading










CUP3-3

Page 11 of 13



Tree


DBH

(cm)

Stem

Count

Crown

Radius

(m)

Potential for

Structural Failure

Overall

Condition

Proposed

Action

Rationale for

Removal Comments










Scotch Pine Pinus sylvestris Non-native 11.2 1 2.0 Low Fair Remove Grading


Scotch Pine Pinus sylvestris Non-native 12.9 1 2.5 Low Good Remove Grading








Scotch Pine Pinus sylvestris Non-native 21.9 1 3.5 Low Fair Remove Grading Self-corrected lean.





Silver Maple Acer saccharinum Native 37.3 1 4.5 Low Good Remove Grading

Silver Maple Acer saccharinum Native 40.6 1 8.5 Medium Fair Remove Grading Sapsucker holes.

Scotch Pine Pinus sylvestris Non-native 10.6 1 1.0 Medium Poor Remove Safety







Scotch Pine Pinus sylvestris Non-native 14.8 1 2.0 Medium Fair Remove Grading Slight lean.



White Cedar Thuja occidentalis Native 16.4 1 1.0 Low Good Remove Grading







Scotch Pine Pinus sylvestris Non-native 20.2 1 2.5 Medium Fair Remove Grading Galls on stems and branches.



Scotch Pine Pinus sylvestris Non-native 23.5 1 4.0 Medium Fair Remove Grading Bark peeling.





White Cedar Thuja occidentalis Native 15.0 1 3.5 Low Fair Remove Grading





CUP3-3

75 Cityview

Page 12 of 13



Tree


DBH

(cm)

Stem

Count

Crown

Radius

(m)

Potential for

Structural Failure

Overall

Condition

Proposed

Action

Rationale for

Removal Comments



White Cedar Thuja occidentalis Native 17.5 2 3.5 Low Fair Remove Grading DBH other stem: 16.6.


White Cedar Thuja occidentalis Native 18.5 2 2.0 Low Good Remove Grading DBH other stem: 28.6; split at base.


White Cedar Thuja occidentalis Native 20.0 2 3.0 Low Fair Remove Grading DBH other stem: 11.5; peeling bark.

White Cedar Thuja occidentalis Native 20.5 3 2.0 Low Good Remove Grading DBH other stems: 15.4, 18.3; split at base.


Ornamental Cedar Unknown Non-native 21.4 4 3.0 Low Good Remove Grading DBH other stems: 10.4, 16.9, 17.3.

Ornamental Cedar Unknown Non-native 22.3 1 4.0 Low Fair Remove Grading



Ornamental Cedar Unknown Non-native 23.8 3 2.0 Low Good Remove Grading DBH other stems: 17.0, 16.1.


Ornamental Cedar Unknown Non-native 25.2 2 2.0 Medium Good Remove Grading DBH other stem: 18.0; split at base.


Ornamental Cedar Unknown Non-native 25.8 1 2.0 Low Good Remove Grading Codominant stems.



Ornamental Cedar Unknown Non-native 31.0 1 2.0 Low Good Remove Grading


Ornamental Cedar Unknown Non-native 34.7 1 2.0 Low Good Remove Grading Codominant stems.

Ornamental Cedar Unknown Non-native 37.5 1 3.0 Low Good Remove Grading

Ornamental Cedar Unknown Non-native 41.9 1 3.0 Low Fair Remove Grading Split stem; hollow.

Ornamental Cedar Unknown Non-native 42.0 1 4.0 Medium Fair Remove Grading Codominant stems.

White Spruce Picea glauca Native 49.5 1 6.0 Low Good Remove Grading

Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Non-native 20.4 1 4.0 Medium Good Remove Grading Slight lean.

75 Cityview

Page 13 of 13


APPENDIX V Vascular Flora Species Observed in the Subject Property

Appendix V. Vascular Flora Species Observed in the Subject Property

THDM2-3

SWDM4-5

SWTM2-1 THDM2-6 MEFM4 SWTM2-1 SVDM3 MAMM1-3 TAGM1

PTERIDOPHYTES FERNS & ALLIES

Dryopteridaceae Wood Fern Family

Dryopteris carthusiana Spinulose Wood Fern 5 -2 S5 x

Matteuccia struthiopteris var. pensylvanica Ostrich Fern 5 -3 S5 x x

Onoclea sensibilis Sensitive Fern 4 -3 S5 x

Equisetaceae Horsetail Family

Equisetum arvense Field Horsetail 0 0 S5 x x x x

Lycopodiaceae Clubmoss Family

Lycopodium spp. Clubmoss species x

GYMNOSPERMS CONIFERS

Cupressaceae Cypress Family

Juniperus virginiana Eastern Red Cedar 4 3 S5 x

Thuja occidentalis White Cedar 4 -3 S5 x x

Pinaceae Pine Family

Picea glauca White Spruce 6 3 S5 x

Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine 4 3 S5 x

Pinus sylvestris Scot's Pine 5 -3 SE5 x x x x x

DICOTYLEDONS DICOTS

Aceraceae Maple Family

Acer negundo Manitoba Maple 0 -2 S5 x x x x x

Acer platanoides Norway Maple 5 -3 SE5 x

Acer rubrum Red Maple 4 0 S5 x x

Acer saccharinum Silver Maple 5 -3 S5 x x

Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Sugar Maple 4 3 S5 x

Acer X freemanii Freeman's Maple x

Anacardiaceae Sumac or Cashew Family

Rhus typhina Staghorn Sumac 1 5 S5 x x

Apiaceae Carrot or Parsley Family

Daucus carota Wild Carrot 5 -2 SE5 x x x x x x

Asclepiadaceae Milkweed Family

Asclepias syriaca Common Milkweed 0 5 S5 x x x

Asteraceae Composite or Aster Family

Achillea millefolium ssp. millefolium Common Yarrow 3 -1 SE?

Ambrosia artemisiifolia Common Ragweed 0 3 S5 x

Arctium minus ssp. minus Common Burdock 5 -2 SE5 x x x x

Bidens frondosa Devil's Beggar-ticks 3 -3 S5 x

Cichorium intybus Chicory 5 -1 SE5 x

Cirsium arvense Canada Thistle 3 -1 SE5 x x x x x

Cirsium vulgare Bull Thistle 4 -1 SE5 x x x x x

Erigeron annuus Daisy Fleabane 0 1 S5 x x x x

Erigeron philadelphicus ssp. philadelphicus Philadelphia Fleabane 1 -3 S5 x x x x x

SRANK2

Wellington

Status5

NRSI Observations By Vegetation Community

Scientific Name Common name CC1

CW1

WEED1

Page 1 of 6


THDM2-3

SWDM4-5

SWTM2-1 THDM2-6 MEFM4 SWTM2-1 SVDM3 MAMM1-3 TAGM1SRANK2

Wellington

Status5



CW1

WEED1

Eupatorium maculatum ssp. maculatum Spotted Joe-pye-weed 3 -5 S5 x

Euthamia graminifolia Flat-topped Bushy Goldenrod 2 -2 S5 x x

Hieracium caespitosum ssp. caespitosum Field Hawkweed 5 -2 SE5 x x x x

Lactuca serriola Prickly Lettuce 0 -1 SE5 x x

Leucanthemum vulgare Ox-eye Daisy 5 -1 SE5 x x x

Rudbeckia hirta Black-eyed Susan 0 3 S5 x

Solidago altissima var. altissima Tall Goldenrod 1 3 S5 x x x x x x x

Solidago canadensis Canada Goldenrod 1 3 S5 x x x x x

Solidago gigantea Giant Goldenrod 4 -3 S5 x

Solidago nemoralis ssp. nemoralis Gray Goldenrod 2 5 S5 x x x

Solidago patula Rough-leaved Goldenrod 8 -5 S5 R x x

Sonchus arvensis ssp. arvensis Field Sow-thistle SE5 x x

Symphyotrichum cordifolium Heart-leaved Aster 5 5 S5 R x

Symphyotrichum ericoides var. ericoides White Heath Aster S5 x x x

Symphyotrichum lanceolatum var. hesperium Panicled Aster S5 x x x x x x x

Symphyotrichum lanceolatum var. lanceolatum Tall White Aster 3 -3 S5 x x

Symphyotrichum lateriflorum var. lateriflorum Calico Aster 3 -2 S5

Symphyotrichum species Aster species x x

Symphyotrichum novae-angliae New England Aster 2 -3 S5 x x x x x x

Symphyotrichum puniceum Purple-stemmed Aster S5 x

Taraxacum officinale Common Dandelion 3 -2 SE5 x x x x x x

Tragopogon dubius Doubtful Goat's-beard 5 -1 SE5 x x

Tussilago farfara Coltsfoot 3 -2 SE5 x

Balsaminaceae Touch-me-not Family

Impatiens capensis Spotted Touch-me-not 4 -3 S5 x

Boraginaceae Borage Family

Echium vulgare Blueweed 5 -2 SE5

Brassicaceae Mustard Family

Alliaria petiolata Garlic Mustard 0 -3 SE5 x x

Barbarea vulgaris Yellow Rocket 0 -1 SE5 x

Cardamine diphylla Two-leaved Toothwort 7 5 S5 x

Hesperis matronalis Dame's Rocket 5 -3 SE5 x

Caprifoliaceae Honeysuckle Family

Lonicera tatarica Tartarian Honeysuckle 3 -3 SE5 x x x x

Sambucus canadensis Common Elderberry 5 -2 S5 x

Viburnum lantana Bending Wayfaring-tree 5 -1 SE2 x

Viburnum lantanoides Hobblebush 8 0 S5 x

Viburnum lentago Nannyberry 4 -1 S5 x x x

Viburnum opulus Guelder Rose 0 -1 SE4 x x x x

Viburnum trilobum High Bush Cranberry 5 -3 S5 x

Caryophyllaceae Pink Family

Dianthus armeria Deptford Pink 5 -1 SE5 x

Page 2 of 6


THDM2-3

SWDM4-5


Wellington

Status5



CW1

WEED1

Cornaceae Dogwood Family

Cornus amomum ssp. obliqua Silky Dogwood 5 -4 S5 x x

Cornus foemina ssp. racemosa Red Panicled Dogwood 2 -2 S5 x x x

Cornus stolonifera Red-osier Dogwood 2 -3 S5 x x x x x

Sedum species Stonecrop species x

Cucurbitaceae Gourd Family

Cucumis sativus Cucumber SE1 x x x

Dipsacaceae Teasel Family

Dipsacus fullonum ssp. sylvestris Wild Teasel 5 -1 SE5 x x

Fabaceae Pea Family

Coronilla varia Variable Crown-vetch 5 -2 SE5 x

Medicago lupulina Black Medick 1 -1 SE5 x x

Trifolium pratense Red Clover 2 -2 SE5 x x

Trifolium repens White Clover 2 -1 SE5 x

Vicia cracca Tufted Vetch 5 -1 SE5 x x

Fagaceae Beech Family

Quercus alba White Oak 6 3 S5 x

Quercus macrocarpa Bur Oak 5 1 S5 x x

Grossulariaceae Currant Family

Ribes americanum Wild Black Currant 4 -3 S5 x x

Ribes vulgare Red Garden Currant x

Guttiferae St. John's-wort Family

Hypericum perforatum Common St. John's-wort 5 -3 SE5 x x x x

Hippocastanaceae Buckeye Family

Aesculus hippocastanum Horse Chestnut 5 -1 SE2 x

Juglandaceae Walnut Family

Juglans nigra Black Walnut 5 3 S4 x x x x

Lamiaceae Mint Family

Clinopodium vulgare Wild Basil 4 5 S5 x x x

Leonurus cardiaca ssp. cardiaca Common Motherwort 5 -2 SE5 x x

Lycopus uniflorus Northern Water-horehound 5 -5 S5 x x

Nepeta cataria Catnip 1 -2 SE5 x

Prunella vulgaris ssp. vulgaris Common Heal-all 0 -1 SE3 x x

Oleaceae Olive Family

Fraxinus americana White Ash 4 3 S5 x x x x x

Fraxinus nigra Black Ash 7 -4 S5 x

Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 3 -3 S5 x x x

Ligustrum vulgare Common Privet 1 -2 SE5 x x

Syringa vulgaris Common Lilac 5 -2 SE5 x

Page 3 of 6


THDM2-3

SWDM4-5


Wellington

Status5



CW1

WEED1

Onagraceae Evening-primrose Family

Epilobium strictum Soft Willow-herb 9 -5 S5 R x x x

Oenothera biennis Common Evening-primrose 0 3 S5 x

Oxalidaceae Wood Sorrel Family

Oxalis stricta Upright Yellow Wood-sorrel 0 3 S5 x

Plantaginaceae Plantain Family

Plantago lanceolata Ribgrass 0 -1 SE5 x x x

Plantago major Common Plantain -1 -1 SE5 x x x

Polygonaceae Smartweed Family

Rumex crispus Curly-leaf Dock -1 -2 SE5 x x

Ranunculaceae Buttercup Family

Ranunculus acris Tall Buttercup -2 -2 SE5 x x x

Ranunculus pensylvanicus Bristly Buttercup 3 -5 S5 x x

Rhamnaceae Buckthorn Family

Rhamnus cathartica Common Buckthorn 3 -3 SE5 x x x x x x

Frangula alnus Glossy Buckthorn -1 -3 SE5 x x x x x x

Rosaceae Rose Family

Agrimonia gryposepala Tall Hairy Agrimony 2 2 S5

Amelanchier laevis Smooth Juneberry 5 5 S5

Crataegus species Hawthorn species x x x

Fragaria virginiana Wild Strawberry S5 x x x x

Fragaria virginiana ssp. virginiana Scarlet Strawberry 2 1 SU x

Geum aleppicum Yellow Avens 2 -1 S5 x x x

Geum canadense White Avens 3 0 S5 x x x x

Malus pumila Common Crabapple 5 -1 SE5 x x x

Potentilla nivea Snowy Cinquefoil S2 x

Potentilla recta Rough-fruited Cinquefoil 5 -2 SE5 x

Prunus serotina Black Cherry 3 3 S5 x x

Prunus virginiana ssp. virginiana Choke Cherry 2 1 S5 x x x x

Pyrus communis Common Pear 5 -1 SE4 x

Rubus idaeus ssp. idaeus Red Raspberry SE1 x x x

Rubiaceae Madder Family

Galium mollugo White Bedstraw 5 -2 SE5 x

Galium palustre Marsh Bedstraw 5 -5 S5 x x

Salicaceae Willow Family

Populus balsamifera ssp. balsamifera Balsam Poplar 4 -3 S5 x

Populus deltoides ssp. deltoides Eastern Cottonwood 4 -1 SU x

Populus tremuloides Trembling Aspen 2 0 S5 x x x

Salix alba var. alba White Willow -2 SE4 x x

Salix bebbiana Long-beaked Willow 4 -4 S5 x

Salix discolor Pussy Willow 3 -3 S5 x

Salix eriocephala Heart-leaved Willow 4 -3 S5 x x

Page 4 of 6


THDM2-3

SWDM4-5


Wellington

Status5



CW1

WEED1

Salix exigua Sandbar Willow 3 -5 S5 x

Salix fragilis Crack Willow -1 -3 SE5 x

Scrophulariaceae Figwort Family

Linaria vulgaris Butter-and-eggs 5 -1 SE5 x x

Verbascum thapsus Common Mullein 5 -2 SE5 x x x

Veronica officinalis Common Speedwell 5 -2 SE5 x x

Solanaceae Nightshade Family

Solanum dulcamara Bitter Nightshade 0 -2 SE5 x

Tiliaceae Linden Family

Tilia americana American Basswood 4 3 S5 x

Ulmaceae Elm Family

Ulmus americana White Elm 3 -2 S5 x x x

Vitaceae Grape Family

Parthenocissus inserta Woodbine 3 3 S5 x x x

Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia-creeper 6 1 S4? x x x

Vitis riparia Riverbank Grape 0 -2 S5 x x x x x x x

MONOCOTYLEDONS MONOCOTS

Cyperaceae Sedge Family

Carex species Sedge species x x x x x

Carex alopecoidea Foxtail Sedge 6 -4 S5 x

Carex bebbii Bebb's Sedge 3 -5 S5 x

Carex eburnea Bristle-leaved Sedge 6 4 S5 x

Carex flava Yellow Sedge 5 -5 S5 x

Carex gracillima Graceful Sedge 4 3 S5 x x x

Carex hystericina Porcupine Sedge 5 -5 S5 x

Carex plantaginea Plantain-leaved Sedge 7 5 S5 x

Carex rostrata Beaked Sedge SU x

Carex vulpinoidea Fox Sedge 3 -5 S5 x x x

Scirpus atrovirens Dark-green Bulrush 3 -5 S5 x

Scirpus cyperinus var. cyperinus Wool-grass 4 -5 S5 x

Juncaceae Rush Family

Juncus tenuis Path Rush 0 0 S5 x x

Liliaceae Lily Family

Erythronium americanum ssp. americanum Yellow Dog's-tooth Violet 5 5 S5 x

Maianthemum stellatum Star-flowered Solomon's Seal 6 1 S5 x

Orchidaceae Orchid Family

Epipactis helleborine Common Helleborine 5 -2 SE5 x x

Poaceae Grass Family

Bromus inermis ssp. inermis Awnless Brome 5 -3 SE5 x x

Dactylis glomerata Orchard Grass 3 -1 SE5 x x x x

Page 5 of 6


THDM2-3

SWDM4-5


Wellington

Status5



CW1

WEED1

Echinochloa crusgalli Common Barnyard Grass -3 -1 SE5 x x x

Elymus repens Quack Grass 3 -3 SE5 x

Panicum virgatum Switch Grass 6 -1 S4 x

Phalaris arundinacea Reed Canary Grass 0 -4 S5 x x x x

Phleum pratense Timothy 3 -1 SE5 x x x x

Poa nemoralis Woodland Spear Grass 0 -1 SE3 x

Poa palustris Fowl Meadow Grass 5 -4 S5 x x

Poa pratensis ssp. pratensis Kentucky Bluegrass 0 1 S5 x x x

Typhaceae Cattail Family

Typha angustifolia Narrow-leaved Cattail 3 -5 S5 x

Typha latifolia Broad-leaved Cattail 3 -5 S5 x x

3 48 47 64 51 73 41 22 24

160

1Oldham et al. 1995,

2OMNR 2009,

3OMNR 2013,

4Government of Canada 2013,

5Dougan & Associates 2009

Total Number of Species

Total

Page 6 of 6

SRANK

S2 Imperiled

S4 Apparently Secure

S5 Secure

SU Unrankable

SE Exotic

S#? Rank Uncertain

Wellington County StatusR Native, Present, and Provincially or

Otherwise Rare

Weediness Index (Weed)

-1: little or no impact on natural areas (most

non-native plants are in this category)

-2: occasional impacts on natural areas,

generally infrequent or localized

-3: major potential impacts on natural areas

FACU-: 4

OBL (Obligate Wetland): occurs almost always in wetlands under natural conditions (estimated >99% probability)

FACW (Facultative Wetland): usually occurs in wetlands, occasionally found in non-wetlands (estimated 67-99%

probability)

FACW (Facultative Wetland): usually occurs in wetlands, but occasionally found in non-wetlands (estimated 67-99%

probability)

FAC (Facultative): equally likely to occur in wetlands or non-wetlands (estimated 34-66% probability)

UPL: 5

FAC+: -1

FAC: 0

FAC-: 1

FACU+: 2

FACU: 3

0-3: species found in a wide variety of communities, including disturbed sites

4-6: species associated with a specific community, but tolerate moderate disturbance

7-8: species associated with a community in an advanced successional stage, tolerant of minor disturbances

9-10: species with a high degree of fidelity to a narrow range of synecological parameters

Wetness Index (CW)

LEGEND

OBL : -5

FACW+: -4

FACW: -3

FACW-: -2

Floral Quality Index and Coefficient of Conservatism Values (CC)

FACU (Facultative Upland): occasionally occurs in wetlands, but usually occurs in non-wetlands (estimated 1-33%

probability)

UPL (Upland): occurs almost never in wetlands under natural conditions (estimated <1% probability)

General habitat values associated with the CC values are:


APPENDIX VI Bird Species Reported from the Study Area

Appendix VI. Bird Species Reported From the Study Area

Visit 1 Visit 2 Visit 1 Visit 2 Visit 1 Visit 2

10-Jun-09 24-Jun-09 10-Jun-09 24-Jun-09 10-Jun-09 24-Jun-09

DUCKS, GEESE & SWANS

Branta canadensis Canada Goose S5 AE X

Cygnus olor Mute Swan SNA X

Cygnus columbianus Tundra Swan S4 X X

Aix sponsa Wood Duck S5 FY

Anas platyrhynchos Mallard S5 FY

Mergus merganser Common Merganser S5B, S5N √ FY

LOONS

Gavia immer Common Loon S5B, S5N NAR NAR √ H

GREBES

Podilymbus podiceps Pied-billed Grebe S4B, S4N √ CF

HERONS & BITTERNS

Ixobrychus exilis Least Bittern S4B THR THR √ S

Ardea herodias Great Blue Heron S4B ** V

Butorides virescens Green Heron S4B ** FY

VULTURES

Cathartes aura Turkey Vulture S5B √ H

HAWKS, KITES & EAGLES

Pandion haliaetus Osprey S5B √ NY

Circus cyaneus Northern Harrier S4B NAR NAR √* H

Accipiter striatus Sharp-shinned Hawk S5 NAR √* A H

Accipiter cooperii Cooper's Hawk S4 NAR NAR √* CF

Buteo platypterus Broad-winged Hawk S5B √ H

Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed Hawk S5 NAR NAR AE X

CARACARAS & FALCONS

Falco sparverius American Kestrel S4 √* H

PARTRIDGES, GROUSE & TURKEY

Bonasa umbellus Ruffed Grouse S4 T

Meleagris gallopavo Wild Turkey S5 H

RAILS, GALLINULES & COOTS

Rallus limicola Virgiania Rail S5B A

Porzana carolina Sora S4B √ T

PLOVERS

Charadrius vociferus Killdeer S5B, S5N FY S S

SANDPIPERS & PHALAROPES

Actitis macularia Spotted Sandpiper S5 FY H

Gallingo gallingo Wilson's Snipe S5B S

Scolopax minor American Woodcock S4B D H

DOVES

Columba livia Rock Pigeon SNA NY X X X X

Zenaida macroura Mourning Dove S5 FY H H

Scientific Name Common Name SRANK1

COSEWIC3

COSSARO2

SWT CUM1-1 THDM2-6/THDM2-3

Wellington

Status4

NRSI Breeding

Evidence

OBBA

(17NJ62)5

NRSI Point Count Data

Page 1 of 4



10-Jun-09 24-Jun-09 10-Jun-09 24-Jun-09 10-Jun-09 24-Jun-09Scientific Name Common Name SRANK1

COSEWIC3

COSSARO2


Wellington

Status4

NRSI Breeding

Evidence

OBBA

(17NJ62)5


CUCKOOS

Coccyzus erythropthalmus Black-billed Cuckoo S5B √* H

OWLS

Otus asio Eastern Screech Owl S4 NAR NAR FY

Bubo virgianus Great Horned Owl S4 FY

Asio otus Long-eared Owl S4 √ FY

SWIFTS

Chaetura pelagica Chimney Swift S4B, S4N THR T √ T

HUMMINGBIRDS

Archilochus colubris Ruby-throated Hummingbird S5B D X X

KINGFISHERS

Ceryle alcyon Belted Kingfisher S4B CF CF CF

WOODPECKERS

Melanerpes erythrocephalus Red-headed Woodpecker S4B SC T √ H

Picoides pubescens Downy Woodpecker S5 FY S

Picoides villosus Hairy Woodpecker S5 √* FY

Colaptes auratus Northern Flicker S4B √* NY

Dryocopus pileatus Pileated Woodpecker S5 √* N

FLYCATCHERS

Contopus virens Eastern Wood-pewee S4B SC √ T

Empidonax alnorum Alder Flycatcher S5B T S S

Empidonax traillii Willow Flycatcher S5B √ S

Empidonax minimus Least Flycatcher S4B √ T

Sayornis phoebe Eastern Phoebe S5B NE S

Myiarchus crinitus Great Crested Flycatcher S4B CF S

Tyrannus tyrannus Eastern Kingbird S4B √* FY

LARKS

Eremophila alpestris Horned Lark S5B T

SWALLOWS

Tachycineta bicolor Tree Swallow S4B NY H H X

Stelgidopteryx serripennis Northern Rough-winged Swallow S4B NY

Riparia riparia Bank Swallow S4B T NY X

Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Cliff Swallow S4B NE

Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow S4B THR T FY X X

CROWS & JAYS

Cyanocitta cristata Blue Jay S5 FY CF S X CF S

Corvus brachyrhynchos American Crow S5B CF H S X H

Corvus corax Common Raven S5 √ H

CHICKADEES

Poecile atricapillus Black-capped Chickadee S5 NE P S S P S

NUTHATCHES

Sitta canadensis Red-breasted Nuthatch S5 √* FY

Sitta carolinensis White-breasted Nuthatch S5 AE

Page 2 of 4




COSEWIC3

COSSARO2


Wellington

Status4

NRSI Breeding

Evidence

OBBA

(17NJ62)5


CREEPERS

Certhia americana Brown Creeper S5B √* CF

WRENS

Thryothorus ludovicianus Carolina Wren S4 NY

Troglodytes aedon House Wren S5B AE S S S

Troglodytes troglodytes Winter Wren S5B T

Cistothorus palustris Marsh Wren S4B S

THRUSHES

Sialia sialis Eastern Bluebird S5B NAR NAR NY

Catharus fuscescens Veery S4B √* T

Hylocichla mustelina Wood Thrush S4B √* T

Turdus migratorius American Robin S5B FY FY FY P S S FY

MIMIDS

Dumetella carolinensis Gray Catbird S4B A P P S S H

Toxostoma rufum Brown Thrasher S4B √ CF

WAXWINGS

Bombycilla cedrorum Cedar Waxwing S5B NB S X

STARLINGS

Sturnus vulgaris European Starling SNA NY S X S H S

VIREOS

Vireo gilvis Warbling Vireo S5B FY

Vireo olivaceus Red-eyed Vireo S5B CF S S

WOOD WARBLERS

Vermivora pinus Blue-winged Warbler S4B √ S

Vermivora ruficapilla Nashville Warbler S5B Y

Dendroica petechia Yellow Warbler S5B CF S S

Dendroica pensylvanica Chestnut-sided Warbler S5B S

Dendroica magnolia Magnolia Warbler S5B √

Dendroica coronata Yellow-rumped Warbler S5B T

Dendroica virens Black-throated Green Warbler S5B √ T

Page 3 of 4




COSEWIC3

COSSARO2


Wellington

Status4

NRSI Breeding

Evidence

OBBA

(17NJ62)5


Dendroica fusca Blackburnian Warbler S5B √ S

Dendroica pinus Pine Warbler SNRB √* T

Mniotilta varia Black-and-white Warbler S5B √* NY

Setophaga ruticilla American Redstart S5B √* T P P

Seiurus aurocapillus Ovenbird S4B √* CF

Seiurus noveboracensis Northern Waterthrush S5B CF

Oporornis philadelphia Mourning Warbler S4B T

Geothlypis trichas Common Yellowthroat S5B AE S S

TANAGERS

Piranga olivacea Scarlet Tanager S4B √ S

CARDINALS

Cardinalis cardinalis Northern Cardinal S5 FY S S S S S

SUMMER FINCHES

Pheucticus ludovicianus Rose-breasted Grosbeak S4B √* T

Passerina cyanea Indigo Bunting S4B T

SPARROWS

Pipilo erythrophthalmus Eastern Towhee S4B √* NB

Spizella passerina Chipping Sparrow S5B FY FY FY

Spizella pallida Clay-coloured Sparrow S4B √ CF

Spizella pusilla Field Sparrow S4B √* FY

Passerculus sandwichensis Savannah Sparrow S4B √* NE

Ammodramus savannarum Grasshopper Sparrow S4B √ P

Melospiza melodia Song Sparrow S5B NY CF P P CF P S

Melospiza georgiana Swamp Sparrow S5B CF

Zonotrichia albicollis White-throated Sparrow S5B T

BLACKBIRDS

Dolichonyx oryzivorus Bobolink S4B THR T √ T

Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged Blackbird S4 NY A P P A P S

Sturnella magna Eastern Meadowlark S4B THR T √* T

Quiscalus quiscula Common Grackle S5B CF

Molothrus ater Brown-headed Cowbird S4B NY P P S

ORIOLES

Icterus galbula Baltimore Oriole S4B √* FY NU S H

WINTER FINCHES

Carpodacus purpureus Purple Finch S4B FY

Carpodacus mexicanus House Finch SNA FY

Carduelis pinus Pine Siskin S4B T

Carduelis tristis American Goldfinch S5B FY P S H P P

OLD WORLD SPARROWS

Passer domesticus House Sparrow SNA T A A S

49 112 38 8 8 9 8 21 14

1OMNR 2010;

2OMNR 2013;

3COSEWIC 2013;

4 Dougan & Associates 2009,

5 OBBA 2006.

Total

Page 4 of 4

SRANK Wellington County Status

S4 Apparently Secure √ Significant and rare

S5 Secure √* Significant but not rare

SU Unrankable ** Only habitats that support or have recently supported active nests should be considered signficant

SNA Unranked COSSARO/COSEWIC

N Non-breeding NAR Not at Risk

B Breeding SC Special Concern

THR/T Threatened

Probable

P Pair observed in their breeding season in suitable nesting habitat

T Permanent territory presumed through registration of territorial song on at least 2 days, one week or more apart at the same place

D Courtship or display between a male and female or 2 males including courtship feeding and copulation

CF Adult carrying food for young

H Species observed in its breeding season in suitable nesting habitat

LEGEND

OBBA Breeding Evidence

Observed

X Species observed in its breeding season with no evidence of breeding

Possible

S Singing male present of breeding calls heard in breeding season in suitable nesting habitat

NY Nest with young seen or heard

V Visiting probable nest site

A Agitated behaviour or anxiety calls of an adult

Confirmed

NU Used nest or egg shell found (occupied/laid this season)

FY Recently fledged young or downy young

AE Adults leaving or entering nest site in circumstances indicating occupied nest

NE Nest containing eggs


APPENDIX VII Herpetofauna Species Reported from the Study Area

Appendix VII. Reptile and Amphibian Species Reported From the Study Area


COSSARO2

COSEWIC3

Ontario Herp

Atlas5,6

Wellington

County Status7

NRSI

Observations

Chelydra serpentina serpentina Common Snapping Turtle S3 SC SC X

Chrysemys picta marginata Midland Painted Turtle S5 X

Emydoidea blandingii Blanding's Turtle (Great Lakes/St Lawrence population ) S3 THR T X X

Graptemys geographica Northern Map Turtle S3 SC SC X X

Lampropeltis taylori triangulum Eastern Milksnake S3 SC SC X X

Opheodrys vernalis Smooth Greensnake S4 X X

Nerodia sipedon sipedon Common Watersnake S5 NAR NAR X X

Storeria dekayi dekayi Northern Brownsnake S5 NAR NAR X

Storeria occipitomaculata occipitomaculata Northern Red-bellied Snake S5 X

Thamnophis sauritus septentrionalis Northern Ribbonsnake S3 SC SC X X

Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis Eastern Gartersnake S5 X

Ambystoma jeffersonianum Jefferson Salamander S2 END E X X

Ambystoma hybrid pop. 1 Jefferson x Blue-spotted Salamander; Jefferson genome dominates S2 X X

Ambystoma hybrid pop. 2 Jefferson x Blue-spotted Salamander; Blue-spotted genome dominates S2 X

Ambystoma hybrid pop. 3 Jefferson/Blue-spotted Salamander Complex S2 X X

Ambystoma laterale Blue-spotted Salamander S4 X X

Ambystoma maculatum Spotted Salamander S4 X X

Necturus maculosus Mudpuppy S4 NAR NAR X X

Bufo americanus American Toad S5 X X

Hyla versicolor Tetraploid Gray Treefrog S5 X X

Pseudacris triseriata pop. 2 Western Chorus Frog (Great Lakes/St. Lawrence - Canadian Shield Population) S3 NAR T X

Pseudacris crucifer Spring Peeper S5 X

Rana catesbeiana American Bullfrog S4 X

Rana clamitans melanota Northern Green Frog S5 X

Rana palustris Pickerel Frog S4 NAR NAR X

Rana pipiens Northern Leopard Frog S5 NAR NAR X

Rana septentrionalis Mink Frog S5 X X

Rana sylvatica Wood Frog S5 X

28 14 1

1OMNR 2010;

2OMNR 2012;

3COSEWIC 2012;

4Government of Canada 2012;

5Oldham and Weller 2000;

6Ontario Nature 2012;

7Dougan & Associates 2009.

SRANK COSSARO/COSEWIC

S2 Imperiled NAR Not at Risk

S3 Vulnerable SC Special Concern

S4 Apparently Secure THR/T Threatened

S5 Secure END/E Endangered

Wellington County Status

X Significant

LEGEND

Total

Turtles

Snakes

Salamanders

Toads and Frogs

Page 1 of 1


APPENDIX VIII Mammal Species Reported from the Study Area

Appendix VIII. Mammal Species Reported From the Study Area


COSSARO2

COSEWIC3

Ontario

Mammal

Atlas4

Wellington

Status5

NRSI Observed

Castor canadensis Beaver S5 X

Eptesicus fuscus Big Brown Bat S5 X

Canis latrans Coyote S5 X Den on Property/ Fresh Scat Observed

Peromyscus maniculatus Deer Mouse S5 X

Tamias striatus Eastern Chipmunk S5 X

Sylvilagus floridanus Eastern Cottontail S5 X Scat Observed/Direct Observation

Mustela erminea Ermine S5 X

Lepus europaeus European Hare SE X

Sciurus carolinensis Gray Squirrel Black Morph S5 X Observed in Woodland

Sciurus carolinensis Gray Squirrel Gray Morph S5 X

Mus musculus House Mouse SE X

Myotis lucifugus Little Myotis S5 END E X

Sorex cinereus Masked (Common) Shrew S5 X

Zapus hudsonius Meadow Jumping Mouse S5 X

Microtus pennsylvanicus Meadow Vole S5 X

Mustela vison Mink S5 X

Ondatra zibethicus Muskrat S5 X

Myotis septentrionalis Northern Myotis S3? END E X X

Blarina brevicauda Northern Short-tailed Shrew S5 X

Rattus norvegicus Norway Rat SE X

Erethizon dorsatum Porcupine S5 X

Procyon lotor Raccoon S5 X Tracks Observed

Lasiurus borealis Red Bat S4 X

Vulpes vulpes Red Fox S5 X

Tamiasciurus hudsonicus Red Squirrel S5 X

Sorex fumeus Smokey Shrew S5 X

Glaucomys volans Southern Flying Squirrel S4 NAR X X

Condylura cristata Star-nosed Mole S5 X Observed Under Snake Board

Mephitis mephitis Striped Skunk S5 X

Didelphis virginiana Virginia Opossum S4 X Skull Found at Coyote Den

Peromyscus leucopus White-footed Mouse S5 X

Odocoileus virginianus White-tailed Deer S5 X Tracks Observed/Direct Observation

Marmota monax Woodchuck S5 X

33 2 7

1OMNR 2010;

2OMNR 2012;

3COSEWIC 2012;

4 Dobbyn 1994;

5Dougan & Associates 2009.

SRANK COSSARO

S3 Vulnerable END Endangered

S4 Apparently Secure COSEWIC

S5 Secure NAR Not at Risk

SE Exotic E Endangered

S#? Rank Uncertain


X Significant

Total

LEGEND

Page 1 of 1


APPENDIX IX Lepidoptera Species Reported from the Study Area

Appendix IX. Lepidoptera Species Reported From the Study Area


COSSARO2

COSEWIC3

Butterfly

Atlas4

Wellington

County Status5

NRSI

Observations

Cartercephalus palaemon Arctic Skipper S5 X

Euphyes conspicua Black Dash S3 X X

Poanes viator Broad-winged Skipper S4 X

Erynnis Lucilius Columbine Duskywing S4 X

Pholisora catullus Common Sootywing S3 X X

Polites origenes Cross Line Skipper S4 X

Anatrytone logan Delaware Skipper S4 X X

Euphyes dion Dion Skipper S3 X X

Erynnis icelus Dreamy Duskywing S5 X

Euphyes vestris Dun Skipper S5 X

Thymelicus lineola European Skipper SNA X X

Poanes hobomok Hobomok Skipper S5 X X

Erynnis juvenalis Juvenal’s Duskywing S5 X

Ancyloxpha numitor Least Skipper S5 X

Hesperia leonardus Leonards Skipper S4 X

Polites mystic Long Dash Skipper S5 X

Wallengrenia egeremet Northern Broken Dash S5 X

Thorybes pylades Northern Cloudy Wing S5 X

Polites peckius Peck’s Skipper S5 X

Amblyscirtes vialis Common Roadside Skipper S4 X

Epargyreus clarus Silver Spotted Skipper S4 X

Polites themistocles Tawny Edged Skipper S5 X X

Papilio polyxenes Black Swallowtail S5 X X

Papilio glaucus Eastern Tiger Swallowtail S5 X X

Pieris rapae Cabbage White SNA X X

Colias philodice Common (clouded) Sulphur S5 X

Colias eurytheme Orange Sulphur S5 X

Hesperiidae

Papilionidae

Pieridae

Page 1 of 3



COSSARO2

COSEWIC3

Butterfly

Atlas4

Wellington

County Status5

NRSI

Observations

Hesperiidae

Satyrium acadicum Acadian Hairstreak S4 X

Lycaeana phlaeas American Copper S5 X

Satyrium calanus Banded Hairstreak S4 X

Lycaena hyllus Bronze Copper S5 X

Harkenclenus titus Coral Hairstreak S5 X

Callophrys niphon Eastern Pine Elfin S5 X

Everes comyntas Eastern Tailed Blue S5 X

Glaucopsyche lygdamus Silvery Blue S5 X

Celastrina ladon Spring Azure S5 X X

Satyrium liparops Striped Hairstreak S5 X

Celastrina neglecta Summer Azure S5 X

Vanessa virginiensis American Lady S5 X

Speyeria aphrodite Aphrodite Fritillary S5 X

Satyrodes appalachia Appalachian Eyed Brown S4 X

Speyeria atlantis Atlantis Fritillary S5 X

Cercyonis pegala Common Wood-Nymph S5 X

Nympahlis vaualbum Compton Tortoiseshell S5 X

Polygonia comma Eastern comma S5 X

Lethe eurydice Eyed Brown S5 X

Speyeria cybele Great Spangled Fritillary S5 X

Polygonia progne Grey Comma S5 X

Coenonympha tullia inornata Inornate Ringlet X X

Megisto cymela Little Wood-Satyr S5 X X

Boloria bellona Meadow Fritillary S5 X

Nymphalis milberti Milbert’s Tortoiseshell S5 X

Danaus plexippus Monarch S2N, S4B SC SC X X X

Nymphalis antiopa Mourning Cloak S5 X X

Phyciodes pascoensis Northern Crescent S5 X X

Enodia anthedon Northern Pearly-Eye S4 X

Vanessa cardui Painted Lady S5 X

Phyciodes tharos Pearl Crescent S4 X

Polygonia interrogationis Question Mark S5 X

Lycaenidae

Nymphalidae

Page 2 of 3



COSSARO2

COSEWIC3

Butterfly

Atlas4

Wellington

County Status5

NRSI

Observations

HesperiidaeVanessa atalanta Red Admiral S5 X

Boloria selene Silver Bordered Fritillary S5 X

Chlosyne nycteis Silvery Checkerspot S5 X

Limenitis archippus Viceroy S5 X

Limenitis arthemis arthemis White Admiral/Banded Purple S5 X

64 5 12

¹OMNR 2010; ²OMNR 2012; ³COSEWIC 2012; ⁴TEA 2001; 5Dougan & Associates 2009

LEGEND

SRANK

S2 Imperiled

S3 Vulnerable


S5 Secure

SNA Unranked

COSSARO/COSEWIC

SC Special Concern

Wellington County StatusX Significant

Total

Page 3 of 3


APPENDIX X Odonata Species Reported from the Study Area

Appendix X. Odonata Species Reported from the Study Area

Scientific Name Comon Name SRANK1

Atlas4

Wellington

County Status5

NRSI

Observations

Aeshna canadensis Canada Darner S5 X

Aeshna clepsydra Mottled Darner S3 X Y

Aeshna eremita Lance-tipped Darner S5 X X

Aeshna interrupta Variable Darner S5 X Y

Aeshna tuberculifera Black-tipped Darner S4 X Y

Aeshna umbrosa Shadow Darner S5 X

Aeshna verticalis Green-striped Darner S2 X Y

Amphiagrion saucium Eastern Red Damsel S3 X Y

Anax junius Common Green Darner S5 X

Argia fumipennis violacea Violet Dancer S5 X

Argia moesta Powdered Dancer S5 X

Arigomphus villosipes Unicorn Clubtail S1S2 X Y

Boyeria vinosa Fawn Darner S5 X

Calopteryx aequabilis River Jewelwing S5 X

Calopteryx maculata Ebony Jewelwing S5 X X

Celithemis elisa Calico Pennant S5 X

Celithemis eponina Halloween Pennant S3 X Y X

Chromagrion conditum Aurora Damsel S5 X Y

Coenagrion resolutum Taiga Bluet S5 X Y

Enallagma anna River Bluet S2 X Y

Enallagma aspersum Azure Bluet S3 X Y

Enallagma carunculatum Tule Bluet S5 X

Enallagma civile Familiar Bluet S5 X

Enallagma cyanthigerum Northern Bluet S3 X Y

Enallagma ebrium Marsh Bluet S5 X

Enallagma exsulans Stream Bluet S5 X

Enallagma geminatum Skimming Bluet S4 X Y

Enallagma hageni Hagen's Bluet S5 X

Enallagma signatum Orange Bluet S4 X

Epiaeschna heros Swamp Darner S2S3 X Y

Epitheca canis Beaverpond Baskettail S5 X

Epitheca cynosura Common Baskettail S5 X

Epitheca pinceps Prince Baskettail S5 X

Epitheca spinigera Spiny Baskettail S5 X Y

Erythemis simplicicollis Eastern Pondhawk S5 X

Gomphus lividus Ashy Clubtail S4 X Y

Gomphus spicatus Dusky Clubtail S5 X Y

Hetaerina americana American Rubyspot S4 X

Ischnura posita Fragile Forktail S4 X

Ischnura vericalis Eastern Forktail S5 X

Ladona julia Chalk-fronted Corporal S5 X Y

Lestes congener Spotted Spreadwing S5 X

Lestes disjunctus Common Spreadwing S5 X

Lestes dryas Emerald Spreadwing S5 X

Lestes eurinus Amber-winged Spreadwing S3 X Y

Lestes rectangularis Slender Spreadwing S5 X

Lestes unguiculatus Lyre-tipped Spreadwing S5 X

Leucorrhinia intacta Dot-tailed Whiteface S5 X

Leucorrhinia proxima Red-waisted (Belted) Whiteface S5 X Y

Libellula luctuosa Widow Skimmer S5 X X

Libellula pulchella Twelve-spotted Skimmer S5 X

Libellula quadrimaculata Four-spotted Skimmer S5 X

Libellula semifasciata Painted Skimmer S2 X Y

Nehalennia irene Sedge Sprite S5 X

Pachydiplax longipennis Blue Dasher S5 X

Pantala flavescens Wandering Glider S4 X

Perithemis tenera Eastern Amberwing S3 X Y

Plathemis lydia Common Whitetail S5 X

Somatochlora walshii Brush-tipped Emerald S3 X Y

Somatochlora williamsoni Williamson's Emerald S3 X Y

Sympetrum costiferm Saffron-bordered Meadowhawk S4 X Y

Sympetrum internum Cherry-faced Meadowhawk S5 X

Page 1 of 2

Scientific Name Comon Name SRANK1

Atlas4

Wellington

County Status5

NRSI

Observations

Sympetrum obtrusum White-faced Meadowhawk S5 X

Sympetrum rubicundulum Ruby Meadowhawk S5 X

Sympetrum semicinctum Band-winged Meadowhawk S4 X

Sympetrum vicinum Yellow-legged (Banded) Meadowhawk S5 X

Tramea lacerata Black Saddlebags S4 X

67 25 4

¹OMNR 2010; ²OMNR 2012; ³COSEWIC 2012; ⁴OMNR 2002; 5Dougan & Associates 2009

LEGEND

SRANK

S1 Critically Imperiled

S2 Imperiled

S3 Vulnerable


S5 Secure


Y Locally Significant

Total

Page 2 of 2


APPENDIX XI Aquatic Investigation Photos

Natural Resource Solutions Inc. 1 55 & 75 Cityview Drive Property

Appendix XI – Aquatic Investigation Photos

Photo 1: Ephemeral swale, May 14, 2009, with low water flow


Photo 2: Dry ephemeral swale, June 24

th, 2009

Photo 3: Gabion Baskets at north corner of subject lands


Photo 4: Swale widens between an earth berm and an elevated abandoned field


APPENDIX XII Migratory Bird Convention Act Factsheet

SituationMigratory birds or their habitats could be destroyed by construction activities. During pre-construction or during construction, migratory birds may inhabit developmentsites for feeding, shelter or raising their young.

ConsequencesMigratory birds are protected by federal legislation.Harming migratory birds or destroying their habitats can lead to prosecution of the project owner, consultant and contractor, as well as individuals representing these parties. Under the federal Migratory Birds Convention Act, successful prosecution of corporations can result infines of up to $250,000 or for individuals, fines of up to $100,000 and/or imprisonment (up to five years).Subsequent or continuing offences can result in substantial fines.

SolutionEvery project owner, consultant and contractor must carry out due diligence toprotect migratory birds from harm on all construction projects.

CONTRACT DOCUMENTS

Standard contract documents fail to address wildlife protection. Such provisionscan be addressed in the project special conditions or specifications.Circumstances for the potential presence of migratory birds should be described. Mitigation procedures to avoid harm to migratory birds and their habitats should be prescribed.

PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETINGS

All meeting agendas should contain a standard item on the protectionof wildlife and their habitats. Procedures in the contract documentspertaining to wildlife protection and mitigation should be clearlycommunicated to front-line workers on the project.

DURING CONSTRUCTION

If there is evidence that migratory birds are actively inhabiting anarea that may be affected by construction, all work in the immediatevicinity should STOP immediately. The site supervisor shouldcontact the appropriate authorities for advice and assistance.Until permission is granted to the owner, consultant, or sitesupervisor to proceed with construction, construction activitieswill remain suspended.

FOR MORE INFORMATIONCanadian Wildlife Service Ontario RegionTel: 905-336-6410Web: www.on.ec.gc.ca/wildlife

Ontario Society for the Prevention ofCruelty to AnimalsTel: 1-888-ONT-SPCA (668-7722)Web: www.ospca.on.ca

You may have obligations under the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA) with regard to theprotection of species at risk of extinction or extirpation in Canada.

Information is available on the public registry: www.sararegistry.gc.ca

Construction & the Protectionof Migratory Birds

The information presented has been approved by Environment Canada.

KNOW YOUR LEGAL OBLIGATIONS

Red-headed Woodpecker/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Caspian Tern/John Mitchell

American Robin/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Great Blue Heron/John Mitchell

Bank Swallow/Jim Richards

Mallard Duck/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The information presented has been approved by Environment Canada.Canada Goose/Eric Dresser

55 & 75 Cityview Drive Property Scoped Environmental...

Documents

Transcript of 55 & 75 Cityview Drive Property Scoped Environmental...