APPENDIX 4 Natural Sciences Report - Durham

APPENDIX 4

Natural Sciences Report

Cannington Additional Water Supply Capacity


prepared for R.V. Anderson Associates

on behalf of The Regional Municipality of Durham

by

November 2017 LGL File TA8740

Cannington Additional Water Supply Capacity


prepared by:

Digital signature Digital signature

Dana Summach, M.Sc. Aquatic Biologist

Todd Hagedorn, B.Sc. Field Biologist

Digital signature

Reviewed by: Allison Featherstone, Hons.B.Sc.

Senior Planning Ecologist, Manager Cambridge Office

LGL Limited environmental research associates

445 Thompson Drive, Unit 2 Cambridge, Ontario N1T 2K7

Tel: 519-622-3300 Fax: 519-622-3310 Email: [email protected]

URL: www.lgl.com

Version History: Date: August 2017 Version: Vs. 1, Draft October 2017 Vs. 2, Draft November 2017 Vs. 3, Final

November 2017 LGL File TA8740

Cannington Water Supply November 2017 Natural Sciences Report Project No. TA8740

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page i

Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Study Area ............................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Background Review .............................................................................................. 1

1.3 Designated Natural Areas .................................................................................... 2

1.4 Policy Review ....................................................................................................... 2

1.4.1 Township of Brock Official Plan (2006) ......................................................... 2

1.4.2 Durham Regional Official Plan 2015 ............................................................. 2

1.4.3 Greenbelt Plan (2005) ................................................................................... 2

1.4.4 Provincial Policy Statement ........................................................................... 2

1.4.5 Endangered Species Act (2007) .................................................................... 4

2.0 LGL Field Investigations ....................................................................................... 4

2.1 Vegetation and Vegetation Communities ............................................................. 4

2.1.1 Vegetation Communities ............................................................................... 5

2.1.2 Flora .............................................................................................................. 9

2.1.3 Significant Species and Species At Risk (SAR) ............................................ 9

2.2 Wildlife Habitat and Communities ......................................................................... 9

2.2.1 Wildlife Species at Risk ............................................................................... 10

2.3 Aquatic Habitat and Fisheries ............................................................................. 10

3.0 Species at Risk Screening .................................................................................. 11

4.0 Project Description .............................................................................................. 15

5.0 Impact Assessment and Mitigation Recommendations ................................... 15

5.1 Potential Impacts ................................................................................................ 15

5.2 Mitigation ............................................................................................................ 17

5.3 Construction Monitoring Plan ............................................................................. 19

6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................. 19

7.0 References ............................................................................................................ 20


LGL Limited environmental research associates Page ii

List of Tables

Table 1: Summary of Ecological Land Classification Vegetation Communities within the Cannington Water Supply Study Area. ..................................................................... 6

Table 2: Summary of Locally Significant Plant Species within the study area. ............... 9

Table 3: Fish Species from Beaver River (LIO 2017). .................................................. 11

Table 4: Species at Risk Screening of Study Area. ...................................................... 13

List of Figures

Figure 1 Key Map and Property Boundaries ................................................................... 3

Figure 2 ELC ................................................................................................................... 8

Figure 3 Preferred Alternative ....................................................................................... 16

List of Appendices

Appendix A Vegetation Checklist

Appendix B Wildlife Data

Appendix C Agency Correspondence


LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 1

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Study Area

R.V. Anderson Associates Limited (RVA) (for Durham Region) has retained LGL Limited (LGL) for the Natural Sciences portion of the Environmental Assessment (EA) Addendum of the Additional Water Supply Capacity project for Cannington, Ontario. The original EA was completed in 2011.

The Regional Municipality of Durham, through the Class EA evaluation process, selected the preferred alternative to provide additional well capacity through additional municipal wells in association with providing capacity though water conservation. The additional capacity will provide increased security supply for the existing system and to support some future growth in the urban area. The selected site was just east of town on Regional Road 12 and was also recommended to have a pumphouse built on site. It was recommended by the Region that a natural heritage inventory and impact assessment be included in the Class EA addendum in order to review the current environmental setting. Please see Figure 1 for site location and study area boundaries.

The project location is in a rural area to the southeast of Lake Simcoe. The area is mainly rural residential and agricultural. The proposed water supply location is comprised of meadow/agricultural lands with a forest/wetland community associated with Beaver River adjacent. The project area is within the Greenbelt Plan area and the subject property is mapped as part of the Natural Heritage System. Beaver River is found directly north of the subject property, and there are unevaluated wetlands identified at approximately 120 meters away, and within the contiguous vegetation communities (see Figure 1 for site location)

1.2 Background Review

Supporting technical documents, databases and GIS layers reviewed as part of this study included:

• Municipal Class Environmental Assessment for the Provision of Additional Water Supply Capacity for the Community of Cannington in the Township of Brock (AECOM 2011);

• Natural Heritage Memorandum (Genivar 2010);

• Lands Information Ontario data layers (2017);

• Township of Brock Official Plan (2006);

• Durham Region Official Plan (2015);



• Provincial Policy Statement (2014); and,

• Ministry of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Information Centre Database (Accessed May 2017).

1.3 Designated Natural Areas

Designated natural areas include areas identified for protection by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA), and Durham Region. A review of the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC), Land Information Ontario (LIO), and the Durham Region Official Plan indicates that there are no designated natural areas on the subject property (Figure 2). LIO does indicate that there are wooded areas (MNRF) to the east and west, and unevaluated wetlands to the north. LIO also indicates that Beaver River flows just north of the study area (additional information is provided in section 2.3)

1.4 Policy Review

1.4.1 Township of Brock Official Plan (2006)

The subject property is not mapped in the Township of Brock Official Plan as it is just west of the boundary for the Town of Cannington. No particular Natural Heritage features were highlighted in the Official Plan.

1.4.2 Durham Regional Official Plan 2015

In the Region’s Official Plan (2015), the forest surrounding subject property is mapped as Key Natural Heritage and Hydrologic Features in Schedule B, Map B1a. Municipal infrastructure is permitted in this area, provided an impact assessment is completed.

1.4.3 Greenbelt Plan (2005)

Map 9 of the Greenbelt Plan indicates the study area is within the Natural Heritage System and the Protected Countryside. Municipal infrastructure is permitted in this area, provided an impact assessment is completed.

1.4.4 Provincial Policy Statement

Additional water supply measures are to be consistent with the requirements of Section 2.1 (Natural Heritage Policies) of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). The 2014 PPS provides general policy guidance on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development and direction for appropriate development while protecting resources of provincial interest, public health and safety, as well as the quality of the natural environment. The 2014 PPS is issued under Section 3 of the Planning Act. All local planning matters shall be consistent within the 2014 PPS.

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid,IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

KEY MAP

100 0 10050 Metres ´

Figure:Prepared By:Checked By:

TA8740

October, 2017

1

REE

DS

D:\OneDrive - LGL Limited\_TA\TA8740 - Cannington\TA8740_KeyMap.mxd

Provincially Significant Wetland (LIO)

L E G E N D

Watercourse (OHN LIO)

Project:Date:Scale:

Data Sources:

Unevaluated Wetland (LIO)

Greenbelt - Natural Heritage System Area (LIO)Wooded Area (LIO)Study Area

1:8,204

Beaver River

Cameron St. W.

Regional Rd. 12

Sid

eroa

d 18

a

Beaverton River Wetland Complex

Cannington



1.4.5 Endangered Species Act (2007)

The previous natural heritage study did not address Species at Risk (SAR) or the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA). In 2007, Ontario enacted this legislation to protect endangered and threatened species. In order to address the potential for SAR to occur on this site, LGL completed the following steps:

• Reviewed available background information to identify potential or known SAR occurrences;

• Completed site investigations to assess the potential for SAR or SAR habitat to occur; and,

• Submitted a SAR screening request to the Aurora District MNRF to identify if site specific information was available about the potential for SAR occurrences for the study area.

2.0 LGL Field Investigations

LGL conducted a field investigation of the study area on June 6, 2017, and June 19, 2017. Prior to undertaking field investigations, air photo interpretation and a review of background information were completed. The following sections outline the natural heritage features found in the study area.

The study area has been highly altered by previous agricultural use of the property. The main natural heritage features in the study area are the adjacent woodlands and Beaver River.

2.1 Vegetation and Vegetation Communities

The geographical extent, composition, structure and function of vegetation communities within the study area were determined through air photo interpretation and field investigations. The vegetation and vegetation communities field investigation was to investigate the natural/semi-natural vegetation communities occurring within the study area. The field investigation included vegetation communities within the study area delineated by RVA. Vegetation communities were classified according to the Ecological Land Classification (ELC) for Southern Ontario: First Approximation and Its Application (Lee et al. 1998). A plant list and a description of vegetation structure were recorded during the field survey. Plant species status was reviewed for Ontario (Oldham 2009) and for Durham Region (Varga 2000). Vascular plant nomenclature follows Newmaster and Ragupathy (2008).



2.1.1 Vegetation Communities

The subject property has been cleared from its original cover and disturbed in the past. Species and vegetation communities found established on the subject property have resulted from anthropogenic influences. The semi-natural vegetation communities consist of a mixture of naturalized and typically planted species.

Vegetation communities within and surrounding the study area consist of a cultural meadow (CUM1-1), a fresh Moist White Cedar coniferous forest (FOC4), a dry- fresh Sugar Maple deciduous forest (FOD5-1) and a mineral cultural thicket (CUT1). These communities have resulted from previous disturbances. Vegetation communities identified within and adjacent to the property are delineated on Figure 2 and described in Table 1.

The dry- fresh Cedar coniferous forest occurs on the North East corner of the study area. It is dominated by White- Cedar (Thuja Occidentalis), with fewer White Ash (Fraxinus Americana) and to a lesser extent by Trembling Aspen (Populus tremuloides), three species that naturally colonize disturbance areas throughout southern Ontario. The understorey is densely covered with Tartarian Honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica), and Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica).

The cultural meadow is dominated by two different species, which were Tall Manna Grass (Glyceria striata), and Switch Grass (Panicum virgatum). The site appeared to be historically farmed and had recently been left fallow. Species found include Rough-Fruited Cinquefoil (Potentilla recta), Crown-Vetch (Securigera varia) and Canada Goldenrod (Solidago canadensis).



Table 1: Summary of Ecological Land Classification Vegetation Communities within the Cannington Water Supply Study Area.

ELC Code Vegetation Type Species Association Community Characteristics

TERRESTRIAL – NATURAL/SEMI-NATURAL FOC CONIFEROUS FOREST FOC4 Fresh-Moist White Cedar Coniferous Forest FOC4 Fresh Moist

White Cedar Coniferous Forest

Canopy: White - Cedar (Thuja occidentalis), White Ash (Fraxinus Americana) and Trembling Aspen (Populus tremuloides) Understorey: Tartarian Honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica), Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), and Sensitive Fern (Onoclea sensibilis)

Tree cover > 60 % (FO).Coniferous trees > 75 % of canopy cover (C). Fresh to dry soils with moderate to poor drainage typically occurring in the middle to lower slopes, seepage areas and bottomlands (4). Dominated by White- Cedar.

FOD Deciduous Forest FOD5 Dry – Fresh Deciduous Forest FOD5-1 Dry – Fresh

Sugar Maple Deciduous Forest

Canopy: Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum), White Ash (Fraxinus Americana), and Black Walnut (Juglans nigra) Ground Cover: Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), Red-Osier Dogwood (Cornus sericea), and Spinulose Wood fern (Dryopteris carthusiana)

Tree cover > 60 % (FO). Deciduous trees > 75 % of canopy cover (D). Moderately dry to Fresh soils with moderate drainage typically occurring in the upper to middle slopes or tablelands (5). Dominated by Sugar Maple.

TERRESTRIAL – CULTURAL CUT Cultural Thicket CUT1 Mineral Cultural Thicket CUT1 Mineral

Cultural Thicket

Canopy: White - Cedar (Thuja occidentalis), Apple (Malus pumila), and Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum) Ground Cover: Tartarian Honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica), Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), and White Ash (Fraxinus Americana)

Tree cover ≤ 60 %, having a large proportion of non-native plant species (CU). Tree cover ≤ 25 % and shrub cover > 25% (T). Mineral soil.



ELC Code Vegetation Type Species Association Community Characteristics

CUM CULTURAL MEADOW CUM1 Mineral Cultural Meadow CUM1-1 Dry-Moist

Old Field Meadow

Ground Cover: include Tall Manna Grass (Glyceria striata), Switch Grass (Panicum virgatum), Rough-Fruited Cinquefoil (Potentilla recta), Crown-Vetch (Securigera varia) and Canada Goldenrod (Solidago canadensis)

Tree cover and shrub cover < 25 % (CUM). This community can occur on a wide range of soil moisture regimes (Dry-Moist) (1-1). Grass and forb dominant. Community resulting from, or maintained by, anthropogenic-based influences.

!

!

!

! !


ECOLOGICAL LAND CLASSIFICATION

´


TA8740

October, 2017

2

REE

DS

D:\OneDrive - LGL Limited\_TA\TA8740 - Cannington\TA8740_ELC.mxd

Watercourse

Project:Date:Scale:

Study Area

Vegetation Community BoundaryVegetation Communities

CUM1-1 Dry-Moist Old Field Meadow TypeFOC4 Fresh Moist White Cedar Coniferous Forest TypeFOD5-1 Dry Fresh Sugar MapleCUT1 Hedge Row Mineral Cultural Thicket Ecosite

CUM1-1

FOC4

FOD5-1

CUT1

BBS1

BBS2

!

Breeding Bird Survey

1:1,120

Breeding Bird Survey Point

20 0 2010 m



2.1.2 Flora

A total of 49 vascular plant species have been recorded within the study area. One species could only be identified to Genus as it was observed prior to flowering and thus was not included in the following calculations. Fourteen (14) or 29 % of the total flora are considered introduced and non-native to Ontario. They are found throughout the site. A complete list of vascular plants found during the field investigation is included in Appendix A.

2.1.3 Significant Species and Species At Risk (SAR)

No plant species that are regulated under the Ontario Endangered Species Act, 2007 or the Canada Species at Risk Act, 2002 were encountered during the botanical investigation. Two locally significant species were found within the study area (Table 2). These two species are Canada Goldenrod (Solidago canadensis) and Black Walnut (Juglan nigra). Canada Goldenrod is a very common species in Southern Ontario, and was found throughout the CUM1-1. Black Walnut is a common tree that was found in the FOD5-1.

Table 2: Summary of Locally Significant Plant Species within the study area.

Scientific Name Common Name GRank SRank Local

Status Location

Juglans nigra Black Walnut G5 S4 U FOD5-1 Solidago canadensis Canada

Goldenrod G5 S5 U CUM1-1

*for legend, see table 1 in Appendix A

2.2 Wildlife Habitat and Communities

A field investigation was completed by LGL biologists on June 6, 2017, and June 19, 2017 to document wildlife occurrences within the study area.

Breeding bird surveys were completed in accordance with the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas Protocol (2001), including point counts in representative ELC communities across the study area (Figure 2). Data was collected at each location twice to document visual sightings and vocalizations of breeding birds. Two point counts were established in the study area. The observer recorded all birds seen or heard during a 10 minute count period. The location of active or inactive nests was documented where applicable, as well as any relevant breeding evidence that would confirm the presence of nesting birds in the area. During all field investigations, incidental wildlife observations were recorded. A complete list of wildlife observations can be found in Appendix B. A total of 29 species were documented by LGL during field investigations. Wildlife observations were screened for those listed as at risk provincially, federally, or of local concern.



Of the 29 wildlife species documented, all were birds. No reptiles, amphibians, or mammals were observed. The majority of the species are considered common and typical to the community types found on site. Most of the bird species observed are considered migratory and are regulated under the Migratory Birds Convention Act (MBCA). Many of the species not considered migratory are regulated under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (FWCA)

Many of the species observed were found in the forests surrounding the site. These forest dwelling species included Mourning Warbler (Oporornis Philadelphia), Black-throated Green Warbler (Dendritic vixens) and Rose-breasted Grosbeak (Pheucticus ludovicianus). A pair of Broad-winged Hawks was found in the Fresh Moist White Cedar Coniferous Forest (FOC4) during the June 6, 2017 field investigation, and were not found again during the June 19, 2017 visit. Some of the species that used the cultural meadow included Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia) and European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris). Bird species that used the edges of the forest and the cultural meadow include Indigo Bunting (Passerina cyanea), Ruby-throated Hummingbird (Archilochus colubris), and Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis).

2.2.1 Wildlife Species at Risk

No wildlife species documented are listed under the provincial Endangered Species Act (2007), or the Federal Species at Risk Act (2003). Breeding bird surveys were undertaken in an appropriate timing window to find either Eastern Meadowlark or Bobolink, and neither species was determined to be in the study area.

2.3 Aquatic Habitat and Fisheries

The subject property is approximately 300m south of Beaver River (See Figure 2). Beaver River is a warmwater system that supports a warmwater community (LIO 2017). Table 3 provides a list of the species records from the river. As Beaver River is a warmwater community, it is likely not dependent on groundwater inputs. Conservation Authority regulation limits for this watercourse and adjacent wetlands do not extend into the study area.



Table 3: Fish Species from Beaver River (LIO 2017). Common Name Scientific Name Blacknose Shiner Notropis heterolepis Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus Brassy Minnow Hybognathus hankinsoni Brook Stickleback Culaea inconstans Brown Bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus Central Mudminnow Umbra limi Common Shiner Luxilus cornutus Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus Eastern Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys atratulus Fathead Minnow Pimephales promelas Finescale Dace Phoxinus neogaeus Longnose Dace Rhinichthys cataractae Mottled Sculpin Cottus bairdii Northern Redbelly Dace Chrosomus eos Pearl Dace Margariscus margarita Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieu White Sucker Catostomus commersonii

3.0 Species at Risk Screening

To address the requirements of the Endangered Species Act, 2007 a request for available SAR data was submitted to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). In their response, they indicated the potential for the following SAR to occur in the study area:

• Butternut (Juglans cinerea);

• Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus);

• Wood Thrush (Hylocichla mustelina);

• Eastern Wood-peewee(Contopus virens);

• Chimney Swift (Chaetura pelagica);

• Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina);

• Milksnake (Lamprepeltis triangulum Triangulum);

• Little Brown Myotis (Myotis lucifugus);

• Northern Long-eared Myotis (Myotis septentrionalis);

• Eastern Small-footed Myotis (Myotis leibii);

• Tricoloured Bat (Perimyotis sublfavus); and,

• Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina)



In addition, while not specifically listed at this time in the available databases, it was anticipated that habitat for Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna) was available in the study area and therefore it was included in the screening.

To address the possibility of occurrence within the subject property, and in the natural area immediately adjacent to the property, the following method was employed:

1. A botanical inventory of the subject property provided a description of habitat as per the Ecological Land Classification (ELC) for Southern Ontario.

2. The ELC was then used to cross-reference habitat requirements of the species provided in the screening list to ascertain the potential for occurrence on the subject property.

3. Site surveys were employed specifically to search for species at risk whose habitat requirements matched those described in the ELC of the subject property.

4. Wildlife surveys were conducted during the appropriate timing window.

Table 4 provides a list of the potential SAR identified through an NHIC search, MNRF input, and species observed in site visits. The table provides information on available habitat in the study area as well as results of surveys.



Table 4: Species at Risk Screening of Study Area.

Species Designation Habitat Study Area Survey Method Results Butternut Endangered Generally grows in rich, moist, and well-drained soils

often found along streams. It may also be found on well-drained gravel sites, especially those made up of limestone. It is also found, though seldom, on dry, rocky and sterile soils. In Ontario, the Butternut Generally grows alone or in small groups in deciduous forests as well as in hedgerows

Potential habitat found in study area

ELC and vegetation survey

Not observed in study area

Eastern Meadowlark

Endangered This species occurs in tallgrass prairies, open meadows, and fallow agricultural fields.

Potential habitat found in the fallow field on the property

Breeding Bird Survey Not observed in study area

Bobolink Endangered This species occurs in tallgrass prairies, open meadows, and fallow agricultural fields. It’s also often found in hay fields.

Potential habitat found in the fallow field on the property


Wood Thrush Special Concern

Found in mature deciduous and mixed forests with tall trees

Potential habitat found in the forest surrounding the subject property


Eastern Wood-peewee

Special Concern

This species prefers edges of forests, and intermediate ages forests

Potential habitat found in the forest surrounding the subject property


Chimney Swift

Threatened This species prefers to nest in old brick chimneys. No suitable potential habitat in study area.

Breeding Bird Survey Not observed.

Snapping Turtle

Special Concern Can be found in a variety of aquatic habitats, such as

ponds, lakes, rivers, and streams.

Suitable habitat not present in study area. No suitable aquatic habitat available on the property.

General wildlife survey

Not observed

Eastern Small-footed Bat

Endangered Overwintering habitat: Caves and mines Maternal Roosts: Caves, tree cavities, rock outcrops, bridges and buildings

Potential habitat occurs for Maternal Roosting sites within the adjacent forests. No potential for hibernacula identified.


While not specifically observed, these species or SAR bat species have high potential to occur in adjacent forest communities and may also occur in open grown trees or hedgerows. While forest communities are not anticipated to be impacted, avoidance of these features is recommended or additional effort may be required to address the requirements of the ESA.

Little Brown Bat

Endangered Overwintering habitat: Caves and mines that remain above 0. Maternal Roosts: Often associated with buildings (attics, barns etc.). Occasionally found in trees (25-44 cm dbh).




Northern Long Eared Bat

Endangered Overwintering habitat: Caves and mines that remain above 0. Maternal Roosts: Often associated with cavities of large diameter trees (25-44 cm dbh) with cavities and crevices. Occasionally found in structures (attics, barns etc.)




Newcastle WSP November 2016 Natural Sciences Report Project No. TA8740


Species Designation Habitat Study Area Survey Method Results Tri-Colored Bat

Endangered Overwintering habitat: Caves and mines that remain above 0. Maternal Roosts: Often associated with clusters of dead leaves in large diameter Oak or Maple trees




Species Status COSSARO/OMNR Committee On The Status Of Species At Risk In Ontario/Ontario Ministry Of Natural Resources, The Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO)/Ontario

Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) assesses the provincial status of wild species that are considered to be at risk in Ontario. Extinct (EXT) A species that no longer exists anywhere. Extirpated (EXP) A species that no longer exists in the wild in Ontario but still occurs elsewhere. Endangered (Regulated) (END–R)

A species facing imminent extinction or extirpation in Ontario which has be regulated under Ontario’s Endangered Species Act. Endangered (END) A species facing imminent extinction or extirpation in Ontario which is a candidate for regulation under Ontario’s Endangered Species Act. Threatened (THR) A species that is at risk of becoming endangered in Ontario if limiting factors are not reversed. Special Concern (SC) A species with characteristics that make it sensitive to human activities or natural events. Not at Risk (NAR) A species that has been evaluated and found to be not at risk. Data Deficient (DD) A species for which there is insufficient information for a provincial status recommendation.



4.0 Project Description

During the Municipal Class EA, the preferred alternative chosen was to provide additional water supply through the addition of a municipal well. Other works will include the construction of a new pumphouse onsite. Figure 3 visually displays the potential works to upgrade the facility. Note these are conceptual drawings, as the project has not undergone detailed design. Locations and sizes of the proposed buildings and pipes may change at detailed design.

5.0 Impact Assessment and Mitigation Recommendations

5.1 Potential Impacts

Several of the activities required to complete the work associated with the preferred alternative have the potential to impact terrestrial and aquatic habitat within and adjacent to the project site. Some of these impacts are short term, such as construction related impacts, while others may be more long term. It is anticipated that that once mitigation measures are applied, the risk of impact to the natural environment is low.

Potential impacts that have been identified include:

• Loss of vegetation;

• Loss of tree resources;

• Disruption to birds during nesting season;

• Disruption to wildlife and wildlife habitat;

• Drop in baseflow to Beaver River;

• Decrease in wetland upwelling; and,

• Erosion and Sedimentation.

At the time of preparation of this report, preliminary testing of potential impacts to baseflow to Beaver River are being monitored. It will be particularly important to continue monitor the baseflow in Beaver River and the water table levels at the surface in the vicinity of the unevaluated wetlands in order to determine if the drawdown of the aquifer has any impact on these communities and make adjustments accordingly. This monitoring should continue through to the operational phase of the municipal well.


SELECTED SITE

´


TA8740

November, 2017

3

REE

DS

D:\OneDrive - LGL Limited\_TA\TA8740 - Cannington\TA8740_SelectedSite.mxd

Project:Date:Scale: 1:1,120

20 0 2010 m

Study AreaProposed RoadwayProposed Control Generator BuildingProposed Fill AreaProposed Cut Area

Proposed Leaching Bed

Proposed WellProposed Potential Wall



5.2 Mitigation

The following sections summarize general mitigation measures for both terrestrial and aquatic communities in the study area. The mitigation measures are often combined in practice in that mitigation measures for aquatic habitat will in turn protect the terrestrial habitat and vice versa.

The following outlines mitigation recommendations for construction and operational effects to aquatic and vegetation communities. These mitigation measures are designed to prevent or minimize impacts to both communities.

Construction impacts largely relate to the grading and removal of vegetation communities, active construction of new pipes and buildings, etc. Construction mitigation recommendations include:

• Minimizing of the construction and long-term footprint for the well and pumphouse as a first step to avoid impacts;

• Avoidance of edges of forest communities and provide a setback to the extent possible. Tree removals associated with the forest communities may require additional effort to address the requirements of the ESA, such as additional effort to confirm the potential for impacts to bat maternal roosting site habitat;

• Where impacts are unavoidable, restoration or replacement of any impacted terrestrial communities in a one-for-one land basis to as-is or better conditions;

• Any vegetation removals must be in compliance with the Migratory Birds Convention Act (MBCA) including, but not limited to, adhering to timing restrictions during breeding season for tree pruning or removal during construction activities. The breeding bird season typically lasts from early April to late August for nest Zone C2;

• Should vegetation removal be required during the breeding bird season, they should only be completed after a qualified avian biologist has completed a bird nesting survey to ensure no impacts to breeding birds and to ensure compliance with the MBCA (it should be noted that in forested settings, a bird nest survey may not be possible);

• Any wildlife found within the construction zone should be removed by qualified environmental monitor;



• Setbacks from natural features and trees should be clearly demarcated with the installation of silt fencing and/or tree protection fencing along the disturbance limit. No construction activities are to occur outside of these fences (including overhead), nor the piling of construction materials;

• Develop a vegetation management plan during detailed design to confirm vegetation communities and trees with potential to be impacted by construction activities, and to protect trees to be retained; and,

• Ensure that temporarily disturbed areas are adequately restored with native and non-invasive vegetation post-construction, and monitor the effectiveness of restoration making adjustments as necessary; and,

• Ensure that construction activities are adequately contained with erosion and sediment control (ESC) measures and that sediment laden drainage is intercepted as close to the source as possible;

• An erosion and sediment control (ESC) plan should be developed that details the ESC plans, responsibilities and contingencies;

• The contractor should have available on site supplemental erosion and sediment control (ESC) measures that can be utilized should additional ESC measures be warranted;

• Commence work only when all materials are at hand, in order to minimize the potential for disturbance;

• Heavy equipment should access the site through the existing lane on subject property;

• Refueling of equipment should all be done offsite if possible or at minimum 30m away from natural features;

• A spill control plan should be developed in order to provide appropriate spill control and containment if necessary;

• Consistent with other similar construction projects, it is recommended that all construction storage, staging, and refueling areas are located at least 30m away from any watercourse (watercourse is 300m away from this site);

• Ensure tree protection zones are established and maintained to protect the trees to be retained;

• Ensure that disturbed soils are stabilized and restored as soon as possible after disturbance;



• Provide construction monitoring on site by an independent environmental monitor to ensure that erosion and sediment controls are working effectively, inspected regularly and maintained; and,

• In the event that dewatering is required, appropriate erosion and sediment controls should be employed, and pre-treatment for discharged water should be provided prior to release to aquatic habitat.

5.3 Construction Monitoring Plan

The development of a construction monitoring plan is recommended for this project, as well as a monitoring plan to assess the restoration efforts post construction.

The construction monitoring plan will be developed at the detailed design stage in order to monitor for construction and dewatering related impacts, and to provide feedback to the project team to remediate any identified problems with regard to the sediment and erosion control plans implemented during this phase of the project. It will be particularly important to monitor for any impacts related to drawdown of the aquifer.

6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

This Natural Sciences Report was prepared for the proposed additional Cannington well and pumphouse. In order address the EA addendum request, a more extensive review of the natural heritage conditions on site was prepared for this addendum. This report also included updated policy and legislation information, such as the new Regional Official Plan.

Preliminary designs indicate the construction area can be entirely contained within the former agricultural field. As such, there is no anticipated impacts to the terrestrial communities on site, provided mitigation measures are put in place to clearly demarcate construction areas and provide protection for the adjacent terrestrial communities. It is important that monitoring of Beaver River continue through to the operational phase of the municipal well.

This project will impact policy areas identified as part of the natural heritage system of the Region, due to removal of anthropogenic vegetation communities within the former agricultural field. With appropriate mitigation measures and restoration plans to protect the natural heritage system, impacts associated with project works are anticipated to be mitigable. Disturbed terrestrial areas are recommended to be restored post construction using native and non-invasive species that are appropriate in the surrounding site context given the potential to escape to adjacent retained natural heritage features.



7.0 References

Aecom. 2011. Municipal Class Environmental Assessment for the Provision of Additional Water Supply Capacity for the Community of Cannington in the township of Brock

Genivar (September 2010). Class Environmental Assessment Natural Heritage Portion – Proposed Pumping Station and associated structures. Memorandum

Government of Canada. 2002. Species at Risk Act.

Lee, H., W.D. Bakowsky, J.L. Riley, J.M. 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 Science, Southcentral Science Section, Science Development and Transfer Branch. SCSS Field Guide FG-02.

Oldham, M.J. and S.R. Brinker. 2009. Rare Vascular Plants of Ontario. Fourth Edition.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) Database. Accessed May 2017.

Ontario Ministry of the Environment. 2007. Species at Risk in Ontario List. Endangered Species Act. Ontario Regulation 230/08. Available at: Species at Risk in Ontario List

Newmaster, S.G. and S. Ragupathy. 2008. Flora Ontario – Integrated Botanical Information System (FOIBIS) Phase I. University of Guelph, Canada. Available at: Flora Ontario – Integrated Botanical Information System (FOIBIS) Phase I

Regional Municipality of Durham. 2015. Durham Region Official Plan

Township of Brock. 2006. Official Plan.

Varga, S., editor. 2009. Distribution and Status of the Vascular Plants of the Greater Toronto Area. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Aurora District.

http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Species/2ColumnSubPage/MNR_SAR_C%09SSR_SARO_LST_EN.html

http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Species/2ColumnSubPage/MNR_SAR_C%09SSR_SARO_LST_EN.html

http://www.uoguelph.ca/foibis/



Appendices



Appendix A Vegetation Checklist.


LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix A

Scientific Name Common Name

GRa

nk

SRan

k

MN

R

COSE

WIC

Loca

l Sta

tus ELC Communities

CUM

1-1

CUT1

FOC4

FOD5

- 1

EQUISETACEAE HORSETAIL FAMILY

Equisetum arvense field horsetail G5 S5

X

X

DENNSTAEDTIACEAE BRACKEN FERN FAMILY

Pteridium aquilinum var. latiusculum eastern bracken-fern G5T S5

X

X

DRYOPTERIDACEAE WOOD FERN FAMILY

Dryopteris carthusiana spinulose wood fern G5 S5

X

X X Onoclea sensibilis sensitive fern G5 S5

X

X

PINACEAE PINE FAMILY

Picea glauca white spruce G5 S5

X

X

Pinus strobus eastern white pine G5 S5

X

X Tsuga canadensis eastern hemlock G5 S5

X

X

CUPRESSACEAE CEDAR FAMILY

Thuja occidentalis eastern white cedar G5 S5

X

X X X ULMACEAE ELM FAMILY

Ulmus americana white elm G5? S5

X

X

JUGLANDACEAE WALNUT FAMILY

Juglans nigra black walnut G5 S4

U

X TILIACEAE LINDEN FAMILY

Tilia americana basswood G5 S5

X

X X SALICACEAE WILLOW FAMILY

Populus tremuloides trembling aspen G5 S5

X

X

GROSSULARIACEAE GOOSEBERRY FAMILY

Ribes sp. currant

X

ROSACEAE ROSE FAMILY

Fragaria virginiana ssp. virginiana scarlet strawberry G5T? SU

X X

* Malus pumila common apple G5 SE5

X

X

* Potentilla recta rough-fruited cinquefoil G? SE5

X X

Prunus virginiana var. virginiana choke cherry G5T? S5

X

X


LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix B


GRa

nk

SRan

k

MN

R

COSE

WIC

Loca

l Sta

tus ELC Communities

CUM

1-1

CUT1

FOC4

FOD5

- 1

Rubus occidentalis thimble-berry G5 S5

X

X

FABACEAE PEA FAMILY

Desmodium canadense Canadian tick-trefoil G5 S4

X

* Trifolium pratense red clover G? SE5

X X

* Vicia cracca tufted vetch G? SE5

X X

ONAGRACEAE EVENING-PRIMROSE FAMILY

Circaea lutetiana ssp. canadensis yellowish enchanter's nightshade

G5T5 S5

X

X

CORNACEAE DOGWOOD FAMILY

Cornus sericea ssp. sericea red-osier dogwood G5 S5

X

X X RHAMNACEAE BUCKTHORN FAMILY

* Rhamnus cathartica common buckthorn G? SE5

X X X X X VITACEAE GRAPE FAMILY

Parthenocissus quinquefolia five-leaved Virginia-creeper G5 S4?

X

Vitis riparia riverbank grape G5 S5

X

X

POLYGALACEAE MILKWORT FAMILY

Polygala cruciata var. cruciata cross-leaved milkwort G5T4 SX

X

ACERACEAE MAPLE FAMILY

Acer negundo Manitoba maple G5 S5

X

X

Acer saccharinum silver maple G5 S5

X

X

X ANACARDIACEAE SUMAC FAMILY

Rhus hirta staghorn sumac G5 S5

X X

GERANIACEAE GERANIUM FAMILY

* Geranium robertianum herb-robert G5 SE5

X

X

BALSAMINACEAE TOUCH-ME-NOT FAMILY

Impatiens capensis spotted touch-me-not G5 S5

X

X

APIACEAE PARSLEY FAMILY




GRa

nk

SRan

k

MN

R

COSE

WIC

Loca

l Sta

tus ELC Communities

CUM

1-1

CUT1

FOC4

FOD5

- 1

* Daucus carota wild carrot G? SE5

X X

APOCYNACEAE DOGBANE FAMILY

Apocynum cannabinum Indian hemp G5T S5

X X

ASCLEPIADACEAE MILKWEED FAMILY

Asclepias syriaca common milkweed G5 S5

X X

* Plantago major common plantain G5 SE5

X X

OLEACEAE OLIVE FAMILY

Fraxinus americana white ash G5 S5

X

X X X CAPRIFOLIACEAE HONEYSUCKLE FAMILY

* Lonicera tatarica tartarian honeysuckle G? SE5

X

X X X ASTERACEAE ASTER FAMILY

* Arctium minus common burdock G?T? SE5

X X

* Cirsium arvense Canada thistle G? SE5

X X

Erigeron philadelphicus ssp. provancheri

Philadelphia fleabane G5TXT2 SU

X

* Leucanthemum vulgare ox-eye daisy G? SE5

X X

Solidago canadensis canada goldenrod G5 S5

U X

Solidago macrophylla large-leaved goldenrod G5 S4?

X

* Taraxacum officinale common dandelion G5 SE5

X X

* Tussilago farfara coltsfoot G? SE5

X X

ARACEAE ARUM FAMILY

Arisaema triphyllum ssp. triphyllum small jack-in-the-pulpit G5T5 S5

X

X

POACEAE GRASS FAMILY

Glyceria grandis tall manna grass G5 S4S5

X X

Panicum virgatum switch grass G5 S4

X



Legend *non-native species present Acronyms and Definitions Used in Plant Species Lists. 1) G-Rank Global Rank Global ranks are assigned by a consensus of the network of Conservation Data Centres, scientific experts, and the Nature Conservatory to designate a rarity rank based on the range-wide status of a species, subspecies or variety. The most important factors considered in assigning global ranks are the total number of known, extant sites world-wide, and the degree to which they are potentially or actively threatened with destruction. Other criteria the number of known populations considered to be securely protected, the size of the various populations, and the ability of the taxon to persist at its known sites. The taxonomic distinctness of each taxon has also been considered. Hybrids, introduced species, and taxonomically dubious species, subspecies and varieties have not been included. G1= Extremely rare; usually 5 or fewer occurrences in the overall range or very few remaining individuals; or because of some factor(s) making it especially vulnerable to extinction. G2 = Very rare; usually between 5 and 20 occurrences in the overall range or with many individuals in fewer occurrences; or because of some factor(s) making it vulnerable to extinction. G3 = Rare to uncommon; usually between 20 and 100 occurrences; may have fewer occurrences, but with a large number of individuals in some populations; may be susceptible to large-scale disturbances. G4 = Common; usually more than 100 occurrences; usually not susceptible to immediate threats. G5 = Very common; demonstrably secure under present conditions. GH = Historic, no records in the past 20 years. GU = Status uncertain, often because of low search effort or cryptic nature of the species; more data needed. GX = Globally extinct. No recent records despite specific searches. ? = Denotes inexact numeric rank (i.e. G4?). G" " = A "G" (or "T") followed by a blank space means that the NHIC has not yet obtained the Global Rank from The Nature Conservancy. G? = Unranked, or, if following a ranking, rank tentatively assigned (e.g. G3?). Q = Denotes that the taxonomic status of the species, subspecies, or variety is questionable. T = Denotes that the rank applies to a subspecies or variety.



2) S-Rank Provincial Rank Provincial (or Sub-national) ranks are used by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) to set protection priorities for rare species and natural communities. These ranks are not legal designations. Provincial ranks are assigned in a manner similar to that described for the global ranks, but consider only those factors within the political boundaries of Ontario. By comparing the global and provincial ranks, the status, rarity, and the urgency of conservation needs can be ascertained. The NHIC evaluates provincial ranks on a continual basis and produces updated list at least annually. S1 = Critically imperiled in Ontario because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer occurrences) or because of some factor (s) such as very steep declines making it especially vulnerable to extirpation. S2 = Imperiled in Ontario because of rarity due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer occurrences) steep declines or other factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation. S3 = Vulnerable in Ontario due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation. S4 =.Apparently secure - uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. S5 = Secure - common, widespread, and abundant in Ontario. SX = Presumed Extirpated - specie or community is believed to be extirpated from Ontario. SNR = Unranked - conservation status in Ontario not yet assessed. SU = Unrankable - currently unrankable due to lack of information or due to substantially conflicting information about status or trends. SNA = Not applicable - a conservation status rank is not applicable because the species is not a suitable target for conservation activities. SH= Possibly Extirpated (Historical); species occurred historically and here is some possibility that it may be rediscovered. Its presence may not have been verified in the past 20-40 years. S#S# = Range rank - a numeric range rank (e.g. S2S3) is used to indicate any range of uncertainty about the status of the species or community. Ranges cannot skip more than one rank (e.g. SU is used rather than S1S4).

3) COSEWIC Committee On The Status Of Endangered Wildlife In Canada The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) assesses the national status of wild species that are considered to be at risk in Canada. Extinct (X) A wildlife species that no longer exists. Extirpated (XT) A wildlife species no longer existing in the wild in Canada, but occurring elsewhere. Endangered (E) A wildlife species facing imminent extirpation or extinction. Threatened (T) A wildlife species likely to become endangered if limiting factors are not reversed.



Special Concern (SC) A wildlife species that may become a threatened or an endangered species because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats. Not at Risk (NAR) A wildlife species that has been evaluated and found to be not at risk of extinction given the current circumstances. Data Deficient (DD) A category that applies when the available information is insufficient (a) to resolve a wildlife species' eligibility for assessment or (b) to permit an assessment of the wildlife species' risk of extinction.

4) COSSARO/OMNR Committee On The Status Of Species At Risk In Ontario/Ontario Ministry Of Natural Resources The Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO)/Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) assess the provincial status of wild species that are considered to be at risk in Ontario. Extinct (EXT) A species that no longer exists anywhere. Extirpated (EXP) A species that no longer exist in the wild in Ontario but still occurs elsewhere. Endangered (Regulated) (END-R) A species facing imminent extinction or extirpation in Ontario which has been regulated under Ontario's Endangered Species Act. Endangered (END) A species facing imminent extinction or extirpation in Ontario which is a candidate for regulation under Ontario's Endangered Species Act. Threatened (THR) A species that is at risk of becoming endangered in Ontario if limiting factors are not reversed. Special Concern (SC) A species with characteristics that make it sensitive to human activities or natural events. Not at Risk (NAR) A species that has been evaluated and found to be not at risk. Data Deficient (DD) A species for which there is insufficient information for a provincial status recommendations.

5) Local Status – Durham Region x Species status within the Durham Region was used to determine local vascular plant status for the study area. Plant rarity is based on the number of occurrences within the physiographic region. The preceding species status was taken from Varga 2000. R=Rare U = Uncommon



Appendix B Wildlife Data.



Type Scientific Name Common Name

06-J

un-1

7

19-J

un-1

7

OB

BA

Cod

e

Bre

edin

g Ev

iden

ce

G-R

ank

S-R

ank

Sche

dule

CO

SEW

IC

SAR

A

SAR

O

FWC

A

MB

CA

SWH

-TG

Are

a Se

nsiti

ve

Si

Pr

iorit

y Sp

ecie

s D

urha

m

Bird Mniotilta varia Black and White Warbler

X X T Probable G5 S5B X X level 3

Bird Poecile atricapillus Black-capped Chickadee

X X T Probable G5 S5 X level 4

Bird Cyanocitta cristata Blue Jay X X T Probable G5 S5 P Bird Spizella passerina Chipping Sparrow X X T Probable G5 S5B X Bird Quiscalus quiscula Common Grackle X X T Probable G5 S5B Bird Sturnus vulgaris European Starling X X NE Confirmed G5 SNA Bird Myiarchus crinitus Great Crested

Flycatcher X X T Probable G5 S4B X

Bird Troglodytes aedon House Wren X X T Probable G5 S5B X Bird Seiurus aurocapilla Ovenbird X X T Probable G5 S4B X X level

4 Bird Vireo olivaceus Red-eyed Vireo X X T Probable G5 S5B X Bird Melospiza melodia Song Sparrow X X A Probable G5 S5B X Bird Corvus

brachyhrynchos American Crow X H Possible G5 S5B

Bird Buteo platypterus Broad-winged Hawk

X P Probable G5 S5B P X level 1

Bird Pipilo erythrophthalmus

Eastern Towhee X S Possible G5 S4B X level 2

Bird Zenaida macroura Mourning Dove X S Possible G5 S5 X Bird Oporornis

philadelphia Mourning Warbler X S Possible G5 S4B X level

2 Bird Sitta canadensis Red-breasted

Nuthatch X S Possible G5 S5 X X level

3 Bird Pheucticus

ludovicianus Rose-breasted Grosbeak

X H Possible G5 S4B X

Bird Passerculus sandwichensis

Savannah Sparrow X S Possible G5 S4B X X level 1



Type Scientific Name Common Name

06-J

un-1

7

19-J

un-1

7

OB

BA

Cod

e

Bre

edin

g Ev

iden

ce

G-R

ank

S-R

ank

Sche

dule

CO

SEW

IC

SAR

A

SAR

O

FWC

A

MB

CA

SWH

-TG

Are

a Se

nsiti

ve

Si

Pr

iorit

y Sp

ecie

s D

urha

m

Bird Carduelis tristis American Goldfinch X F Observed G5 S5B X level 3

Bird Turdus migratorius American Robin X S Possible G5 S5B X Bird Ceryle alcyon Belted Kingfisher X F Observed G5 S4B P Bird Dendroica virens Black-throated

Green Warbler X S Possible G5 S5B X X level

1 Bird Certhia americana Brown Creeper X S Possible G5 S5B X X level

2 Bird Branta canadensis Canada Goose X F Observed G5 S5 X Bird Passerina cyanea Indigo Bunting X S Possible G5 S4B X Bird Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed Hawk X S Possible G5 S5 NAR P Bird Archilochus

colubris Ruby-throated Hummingbird

X H Possible G5 S5B X level 3

Bird Sitta carolinensis White-breasted Nuthatch

X H Possible G5 S5 X X

Definitions G-Rank (Global Rank) G1- extremely rare; usually 5 or fewer occurrences in the overall range or very few remaining individuals or because of some factor (s) making it especially vulnerable G2-very rare; usually between 5-20 occurrences in the range or with many individuals in fewer occurrences or because of some factor (s) making it vulnerable to extinction G3- rare to uncommon; usually between 20 and 100 occurrences; may have fewer occurrences but with a large number of individuals in some populations or may be susceptible to large-scale disturbances G4-common; usually more than 100 occurrences, usually not susceptible to immediate threats G5-very common; demonstrably secure under present conditions



S-Rank (Provincial Rank) S1-critically imperiled; critically imperiled in the nation or state/province because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer occurrences) or because of some factor (s) such as very steep declines making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the state/province S2-imperilled; imperilled in the nation or state/province because of rarity due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the nation or state/province S3-vulnerable; vulnerable in the nation or state/province due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation S4-apparently secure; uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors S5-secure; common, widespread and abundant in the nation or state/province SNA- not applicable; a conservation status rank is not applicable because species is not a suitable target for conservation activities SZB-breeding migrants/vagrants SZN-non-breeding migrants/vagrants

COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada) NAR- not at risk; a wildlife species that has been evaluated and found to be not at risk of extinction given the current circumstances THR-threatened; a wildlife species likely to become endangered if limiting factors are not reversed END-endangered; a wildlife species facing imminent extirpation or extinction EXT-extirpated; a species no longer existing in the wild in Canada but occurring elsewhere SC-special concern; a wildlife species that may become a threatened or an endangered species because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats DD-data deficient; a wildlife species for which there is in adequate information to make a direct, or indirect, assessment of its risk of extinction

SARA (Species at Risk Act) Schedule 1- official list of wildlife species at risk THR-threatened; a wildlife species likely to become endangered if limiting factors are not reversed END-endangered; a wildlife species facing imminent extirpation or extinction EXT-extirpated; a species no longer existing in the wild in Canada but occurring elsewhere SC-special concern; a wildlife species that may become a threatened or an endangered species because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats SARO (Species at Risk in Ontario)



END-Endangered; a species facing imminent extinction or extirpation in Ontario which is a candidate for regulation under Ontario's ESA EXP-Extirpated; a species that no longer exists in the wild in Ontario but exists elsewhere THR-Threatened; a species that is at risk of becoming endangered in Ontario if limiting factors are not reversed SC-Special Concern; a species with characteristics that make it sensitive to human activities or natural events

FWCA (Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act) P - protected species G - game species F- Furbearing

MBCA (Migratory Birds Convention Act) X - Migrant species with afforded protection



Appendix C Agency Correspondence.

Ministry of Ministère des Natural Resources Richesses naturelles and Forestry et des Forêts Aurora District Office 50 Bloomington Road Telephone: (905) 713-7400 Aurora, Ontario L4G 0L8 Facsimile: (905) 713-7361

August 8, 2017 Dana Summach 445 Thompson Drive, Unit 2 Cambridge Ontario N1T 2K7 Tel 519-622-3300 Re: Request for Information for Cannington Water Supply Class EA (Regional Road 12

and Sideroad 18A), Township of Brock, Regional Municipality of Durham Dear Ms. Summach, In your email dated July 24, 2017 you requested information on Species at Risk and rare species occurring on or adjacent to the above mentioned location. The species listed below have the potential to occur in your study and may require further assessment or field studies to determine presence:

BUTTERNUT (Endangered)

BARN SWALLOW (Threatened)

CHIMNEY SWIFT (Threatened)

LITTLE BROWN MYOTIS (Endangered)

NORTHERN MYOTIS (Endangered)

TRI-COLOURED BAT (Endangered)

EASTERN SMALL-FOOTED MYOTIS (Endangered)

WOOD THRUSH (Special Concern)

EASTERN WOOD-PEWEE (Special Concern)

SNAPPING TURTLE (Special Concern)

Additional natural heritage information including information on wetlands and Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs) can be obtained through Land Information Ontario (LIO). The species listed above may receive protection under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA) and thus, an approval from MNRF may be required if the work you are proposing could cause harm to these species or their habitats. If the Species at Risk in Ontario List is amended, additional species may be listed and protected under the ESA or the status and protection levels of currently listed species may change. We require more detailed information on the proposed project in order to assess the impacts of the works on Species at Risk. When project details have been determined, please fill out an Information Gathering Form (IGF) for any threatened or endangered species listed in the provided letter and submit it to our office (to [email protected]). The IGF can be found here (along with its associated guide). Please include detailed descriptions of the undertakings such as proposed timing and phasing of the project and details on what is required at each phase.

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.forms.ssb.gov.on.ca/mbs/ssb/forms/ssbforms.nsf/GetFileAttach/018-0180E~2/$File/0180E.pdf

http://www.forms.ssb.gov.on.ca/mbs/ssb/forms/ssbforms.nsf/GetFileAttach/018-0180E~1/$File/0180E_guide.pdf

All sections and tables should be filled out in their entirety – incomplete forms will be returned and may delay the review process. Any applicable supplemental information that will assist with the review process should also be submitted with the IGF (e.g. field survey results, site plan/drawings, ELC mapping, etc.). Please note that forms are reviewed in the order in which they are received by MNRF and we will contact you with our response once the review is complete. Absence of information provided by MNRF for a given geographic area, or lack of current information for a given area or element, does not categorically mean the absence of sensitive species or features. Many areas in Ontario have never been surveyed and new plant and animal species records are still being discovered for many localities. For these reasons, the MNRF cannot provide a definitive statement on the presence, absence or condition of biological elements in any part of Ontario. If development or site alteration is proposed, surveys by a qualified professional may need to be undertaken in the future to confirm presence or absence of sensitive species or features. This Species at Risk information is highly sensitive and is not intended for any person or project unrelated to this undertaking. Please do not include any specific information in reports that will be available for public record. As you complete your fieldwork in these areas, please report all information related to any Species at Risk to our office. This will assist with updating our database and facilitate early consultation regarding your project. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact [email protected]. Sincerely,

Melanie Shapiera Management Biologist Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Aurora District

1

Dana Summach

From: Kowalyk, Bohdan (MNRF) [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: August 08 17 11:09 AMTo: Dana Summach <[email protected]>Cc: Shapiera, Melanie (MNRF) <[email protected]>Subject: RE: SAR screening request Cannington Water Supply EA Addendum

Hello Dana,

Since the study area appears to be among significant natural features, this will confirm my interest in the EA results and the consultations for the update.

Regards,

Bohdan Kowalyk, R.P.F. A/District Planner, Aurora District, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry50 Bloomington Road, Aurora, Ontario L4G 0L8Phone: 905-713-7387; Email: [email protected]

From: ESA Aurora (MNRF) Sent: August-08-17 9:36 AM To: 'Dana Summach' Subject: RE: SAR screening request - Cannington Water Supply EA Addendum

Hi Dana

Please see attached

Melanie

Melanie Shapiera

From: Dana Summach [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: July-24-17 3:57 PM To: ESA Aurora (MNRF) Subject: SAR screening request - Cannington Water Supply EA Addendum

Please find attached a Species at Risk Screening request for the Cannington Additional Water Supply Municipal ClassEnvironmental Assessment Addendum.

If you have any question, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thanks,

2

Dana Summach, M.Sc., B.Sc. (Hons.) Aquatic Biologist

LGL Limitedenvironmental research associates 445 Thompson Drive, Unit 2Cambridge Ontario N1T 2K7Tel 519 622 3300 Fax 519 622 3310Visit us on the web at www.lgl.com

APPENDIX 4 Natural Sciences Report - Durham

Documents

Transcript of APPENDIX 4 Natural Sciences Report - Durham