Natural Science Reportgreenspace-alliance.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/...Natural Science Report...

i

Capability

Appendix G

Natural Science Report

Natural Resource Inventory and Assessment Report

Hope Side/Old Richmond Road Corridor (Terry Fox to Hwy 16) Environmental Assessment Study

Prepared by EcoTec Environmental Consultants Inc. for AECOM on behalf of the City of Ottawa January 2014

NATURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT REPORT

for the

Hope Side/Old Richmond Road Corridor

(Terry Fox to Hwy 416) Environmental Assessment Study

Prepared by EcoTec Environmental Consultants Inc. on behalf of AECOM Canada Ltd.

for the City of Ottawa

January 2014

Prepared By:

Heather Kime, B. Sc. Ecologist EcoTec Environmental Consultants Inc.

Reviewed By:

Megan Lay, B. Sc. Ecologist EcoTec Environmental Consultants Inc.

Natural Resource Inventory and Assessment Report Hope Side/Old Richmond Road Corridor (Terry Fox to Hwy 416) Environmental Assessment Study City of Ottawa i

EcoTec Environmental Consultants Inc. January 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 2.0 STUDY AREA ................................................................................................................. 2 3.0 METHODOLOGY………………….. ................................................................................. 4 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS................................................................................................. 9 4.1 Soils and Physiography ........................................................................................ 9 4.2 Surface Water ...................................................................................................... 9 4.3 Ground Water ..................................................................................................... 10 4.4 Fish and Fish Habitat ......................................................................................... 10 4.4.1 Monahan Drain ....................................................................................... 10 4.4.2 Stillwater Creek ....................................................................................... 12 4.5 Environmentally Significant Areas ...................................................................... 14 4.6 Terrestrial Communities ..................................................................................... 14 4.6.1 Plantation ................................................................................................ 15 4.6.2 Deciduous Forest .................................................................................... 17 4.6.3 Mixed Forest ........................................................................................... 17 4.6.4 Other ....................................................................................................... 17 47 Wetland Communities ........................................................................................ 18 4.7.1 Shallow Marsh ........................................................................................ 20 4.7.2 Thicket Swamp ....................................................................................... 21 4.7.3 Swamp .................................................................................................... 21 4.8 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ................................................................................ 22 4.9 Species at Risk .................................................................................................. 24

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION ................................. 31 5.1 Sediment and Erosion Control ............................................................................ 31 5.2 Surface Water Contamination and Debris Accumulation .................................... 32 5.3 Groundwater ...................................................................................................... 33 5.4 Fish and Fish Habitat ......................................................................................... 33 5.5 Environmentally Significant Areas ...................................................................... 34 5.6 Wetlands ............................................................................................................ 35 5.7 Vegetation .......................................................................................................... 36 5.8 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ................................................................................ 37 5.9 Species at Risk .................................................................................................. 38 6.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 42

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Key map of the Hope Side/Old Richmond Road Corridor (Terry Fox to

Natural Resource Inventory and Assessment Report Hope Side/Old Richmond Road Corridor (Terry Fox to Hwy 416) Environmental Assessment Study City of Ottawa ii


Hwy 416) study limits ........................................................................................... 3 Figure 2: Terrestrial Communities within the Hope Side/Old Richmond Road Corridor

(Terry Fox to Hwy 416) study limits .................................................................... 16 Figure 3: Wetland Communities within the Hope Side/Old Richmond Road Corridor (Terry Fox to Hwy 416) study limits .................................................................... 19

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Summary of 2012 and 2013 field survey dates for the Hope Side/Old Richmond Road Corridor (Terry Fox to Hwy 416) study area ............................... 5 Table 2: Documented fish species within Monahan Drain ................................................ 11 Table 3: Documented fish species within Stillwater Creek ................................................ 13 Table 4: Bird species identified within the Hope Side/Old Richmond Road Corridor (Terry Fox to Hwy 416) study area ..................................................................... 23 Table 5: Summary of results for turtle surveys conducted in the Hope Side/Old Richmond Road Corridor (Terry Fox to Hwy 416) study area during 2013 .......... 28

APPENDICES Appendix A: Study Area Photographs Appendix B: Agency Communication Appendix C: Mapping of Environmental Features Appendix D: Plant Species List

Natural Resource Inventory and Assessment Report Hope Side/Old Richmond Road Corridor (Terry Fox to Hwy 416) Environmental Assessment Study City of Ottawa 1


1.0 INTRODUCTION

The City of Ottawa initiated a Class Environmental Assessment Study (Class EA) for the

proposed extension of Hope Side Road and awarded this EA study to AECOM in September

2008. A large part of the study area for the Hope Side Road Class EA was located within lands

owned by the National Capital Commission (NCC). As such, the participation of NCC in the

study process was required. The NCC, however, was unable to participate until the results of

the NCC’s Greenbelt Master Plan (GMP) were known. As a result, the project was put on hold

until January 2013, when the GMP Review was nearing completion.

As growth and development continue in Kanata’s Monahan Landing community, there is a need

to resume the EA study. As a condition of proceeding, the NCC noted that the extension of

Hope Side Road must be removed from consideration. The main focus of the study now is the

potential widening and realignment of the existing roadway. As such, this EA study is now

referred to as the Hope Side/Old Richmond Road Corridor (Terry Fox to Hwy 416) EA Study.

AECOM retained the services of EcoTec Environmental Consultants Inc. (EcoTec) for the

purpose of preparing a Natural Environmental Inventory and Assessment Report for the project

study area. An early winter field survey was carried out in late November 2012 in order to

assess and document the existing environmental conditions within and adjacent to the study

area. Following the production of an Existing Conditions Report, EcoTec carried out additional

field surveys and background research in order to complete this Natural Inventory and

Assessment Report. The following report includes an overview of existing vegetation and wildlife

communities, fisheries populations and aquatic habitat, environmentally significant areas, and

species at risk found within the project limits, as well as an assessment of potential impacts of

the proposed project.



2.0 STUDY AREA

Due to the focus of the alternatives on the existing road corridors, the primary study area for the

assessment of alternatives extends along Hope Side Road from Terry Fox Drive/Eagleson Road

to Old Richmond Road, along Old Richmond Road from Hope Side Road to West Hunt Club

Road, and along West Hunt Club Road from Old Richmond Road to Highway 416. This primary

study area generally includes lands within 120 m of the existing road right-of-way (ROW)

(Figure 1). A large portion of the study area is located within NCC’s Stony Swamp Conservation

Area, a core natural area within the Greenbelt. The project limits are located in the jurisdiction of

the Ministry of Natural Resources Kemptville Area Office and Rideau Valley Conservation

Authority.

Figure 1:Key map of the Hope Side/Old Richmond Road Corridor (Terry Fox to Hwy 416) study limits.

N

mk 10

Primary study area416

416

Moodie Drive

Cedarview

Moodie Drive

West Hunt Club Road

Stonehaven Drive

Old

Ric

hmon

d R

oad

Hope Side Road

Terry Fox Drive

Eagleson Road

Monahan Drain

Tributary to Stillwater Creek



3.0 METHODOLOGY

In order to acquire up-to-date information and a photographic record of the study area, H. Kime

M. Lay, P. Munz, C. Marcoux and D. Clark of EcoTec undertook a field inventory and

assessment of the existing environmental features found within the primary study limits. This

inventory was conducted over three seasons, including fall, spring, and summer and included

the identification and mapping of existing vegetation, wetland areas, fisheries populations and

aquatic habitat, resident or migrant bird and wildlife species, as well as species at risk and

critical habitat areas. Table 1 provides a summary of field survey dates, the type of survey or

target species, and weather conditions. Refer to Appendix A for a photographic record of the

study area.

Background information was acquired from the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), the

Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC), the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA),

the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM), and the Ottawa Reinforcement Project Environmental and

Cumulative Effects Assessment (Enbridge 2012). A copy of specific agency response

information can be found in Appendix B.

Following communication with the MNR, it was recommended that habitat surveys and species-

specific surveys for a number of species at risk be completed within the study area. These

species-specific surveys were conducted during May, June, and July 2013 by M. Lay and P.

Munz of EcoTec.

In order to address the NCC`s requirement to demonstrate no net loss of ecological function of

wetlands, as well as no net loss of wetland area, a field inventory and assessment of existing

wetlands within the study area was conducted on July 30 and 31 by H. Kime and M. Lay of

EcoTec.



Table 1: Summary of 2012 and 2013 field survey dates for the Hope Side/Old Richmond Road Corridor (Terry Fox to Hwy 416) study area.

Season Date of Field Survey

Type of Survey / Target Species

Air Temperature Personnel

Fall 2012 November 27 Fisheries -6 oC H. Kime, D. Clark, M.

Lay

November 28 Vegetation Communities -4 oC H. Kime

Spring/Summer

2013

April 18 Fisheries 7 oC M. Lay, C. Marcoux

May 16 Blanding`s Turtle 14 oC M. Lay, P. Munz

May 27 Blanding`s Turtle 12oC M. Lay, P. Munz



June 4 Blanding`s Turtle 18 oC M. Lay, P. Munz

June 12 Breeding Bird Bobolink Eastern Meadowlark

20 oC M. Lay

June 13 Least Bittern 14 oC M. Lay, P. Munz


19 oC M. Lay

June 24 Least Bittern 22 oC M. Lay, P. Munz


20 oC M. Lay

July 10 Least Bittern 23 oC M. Lay, P. Munz

July 30 Wetland Communities 20 oC H. Kime, M. Lay

July 31 Wetlands Communities 25 oC H. Kime, M. Lay

Terrestrial and Wetland Communities

In order to document the existing terrestrial and wetland communities within the study area,

EcoTec undertook field investigations on November 27 and 28, 2012 as well as July 30 and 31,

2013. The purpose of the wetland surveys was to allow EcoTec to assess the ecological

function of study area wetlands and the potential impacts as a result of the proposed project.

The evaluation of wetland communities involved the review of reference material provided by

the NCC and the City of Ottawa, including a Technical Memo entitled “Assessment of the



Potential Impacts of Installing Culverts in Stony Swamp During the Richmond Road Widening”

(City of Ottawa 2009). Background data provided by the NCC included mapping of vegetation

units within NCC lands which was ground truthed during field investigations. A review of aerial

photographs was also undertaken as part of the surveys. Wetland boundaries were delineated

as per the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OMNR 2013). Communities were classified

according to the Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario (Lee et al. 1998).

Fish and Fish Habitat

Aquatic field investigations included the identification of the following:

� existing fish communities with the use of a Smith-Root LR-20B backpack electrofisher; � watercourse morphology and flow characteristics; � water temperature and general chemical properties; � key habitat features (e.g. riffles, pools, woody debris, undercut banks, boulder clusters),

potential groundwater seepage areas, watercourse substrate types, bank stability, and riparian and aquatic vegetation;

� critical habitat areas (e.g. potential spawning, nursery, rearing, migratory and feeding areas);

� riparian vegetation communities, significant specimens, and wildlife usage; � species at risk; and � physical barriers to fish passage.

Wildlife

Wildlife species noted during the field investigations were identified by signs, visual

observations, and vocalizations. As animal migration and movement patterns may utilize areas

both within and outside of the study areas, birds and animals observed within and adjacent to

the study limits were recorded and considered to be the residents or visitors of the area for the

purpose of this study.

Species at Risk

The MNR recommended that breeding bird surveys be conducted to assess the presence of

bird species at risk within the study limits, including whip-poor-will, black tern, Henslow’s

sparrow, chimney swift, and short-eared owl. Breeding bird surveys were conducted as per

point count methodology described in the OBBA Guide for Participants (March 2001), with

particular emphasis on targeting appropriate/suitable habitat for each species. Point count

methodology consists of standing at a station and counting all birds seen and heard during a



five minute period. Surveys were done between dawn and 5 hours after dawn between May 24

and July 10 in good weather.

The MNR has also recommended that potential habitat within and in proximity to the study area

be assessed to determine suitability for flooded jellyskin, milksnake, eastern ribbonsnake, and

snapping turtle. Habitat assessments for these species were conducted by examining the study

area for suitable, species-specific habitat.

The MNR indicated that there is a high probability for bobolink, eastern meadowlark, least

bittern, and barn swallow to occur on the site. As such, the MNR had recommended that

species-specific surveys be conducted to assess the presence/absence of these species.

Bobolink and eastern meadowlark surveys were conducted as per methodology provided by the

MNR (December 2011). Three sets of point count surveys, at least one week apart, were

conducted between June 1 and the first week of July. Surveys began 30 minutes after dawn and

continued until no later than 9 am and were conducted under suitable conditions; no rain, no or

low wind speed, and good visibility. For the purpose of these surveys EcoTec used Tasco

binoculars with a 10x50 mm magnification. During surveys, observations on habitat conditions

were also recorded.

Surveys for the barn swallow were conducted as per point count methodology described in the

OBBA Guide for Participants (March 2001), with particular emphasis on targeting

appropriate/suitable habitat for each species. Culverts and bridges within the study area were

also searched for the presence of barn swallow nests.

Surveys for the least bittern were conducted as per the National Least Bittern Survey Protocol

(Jobin et. al 2011). Surveys were conducted in appropriate least bittern habitat within the study

area using the call response broadcast method. Three visits to each survey station were

conducted between mid-late May and mid-July, with a minimum of 10 days between site visits.

Surveys were completed between 30 minutes before sunrise until 10 am on days with no rain,

fog, extreme heat, or winds exceeding 19 km/h. At each pre-determined station a point count of

13 minutes was carried out with 5 minutes of passive listening, followed by 5 minutes of the

least bittern call, followed by 3 more minutes of passive listening. During the 5 minute least



bittern call every 30 seconds of calling was followed by 30 seconds of silence. The volume of

the call was between 80-90 dB and the speaker was placed approximately 1 m above water

level.

The MNR has also recommended that butternut surveys be conducted within the study area (E.

Thompson, pers. comm.). Butternut surveys consisted of identifying and tagging butternut trees

within 25 m of the proposed limit of impact.

Finally, the MNR has recommended that a thorough habitat assessment be conducted for the

Blanding’s turtle in order to evaluate impacts to this species and its habitat. Surveys for the

presence of Blanding’s turtles were not required by the MNR as sighting have already been

recorded in the area; However, in addition to identifying areas of suitable habitat, EcoTec

conducted basking surveys as per the visual encounter surveys outlined in the MNR’s

Occurrence Survey Protocol for Blanding’s Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) in Ontario (2013). As

noted in the protocol, searching for basking turtles is the most effective method of confirming the

presence of this species within suitable habitat.

Basking sites were examined by scanning potential sites where wetland vegetation did not

obstruct view of the shorelines and other available basking sites (such as floating logs or

hummocks). Where possible, EcoTec accessed potential habitat from several different locations

or walked part of the shoreline. Blanding’s turtles are easily startled and will quickly dive into the

water if disturbed, so surveyors were sure to walk slowly and quietly and scan ahead with

binoculars. Basking sites, including hummocks, were viewed from the sunlit side.

Basking surveys were conducted after the ice cover had at least partially melted and before

June 15th. Surveys were conducted during sunny periods between 10 am and 5 pm when

basking sites are receiving full sunlight. Air temperature should be between 5°C and 15°C. Five

surveys were carried out over three weeks. For the purpose of these surveys EcoTec used

Tasco binoculars with a 10x50 mm magnification.



4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

Field surveys were undertaken in order to acquire up-to-date information and a photographic

record of the study area. The intent of the field surveys was to set baseline conditions of existing

environmental sensitivities. The following sections provide a summary of the existing biophysical

resources of the study area.

4.1 Soils and Physiography

The study area falls within the Ottawa Valley Clay Plains physiographic region. The Ottawa

Valley consists of clay plains interrupted by ridges of rock or sand (Chapman and Putnam

1984). Previous reports indicated that a review of soil mapping and associated reports revealed

that there are several soil types that occur within the study area, many of which consist of a

shallow layer of undifferentiated materials overlaying sandstone and bedrock (Enbridge 2012).

The Surficial Geology Map shows that some study area wetlands are represented by deep

organic soils over bedrock limestone (City of Ottawa 2009).

4.2 Surface Water

The study area falls within two watersheds, Rideau River and Ottawa River, both within the

Rideau Valley Conservation Authority’s jurisdiction.

The Jock River subwatershed is one of six major sub-watersheds of the Rideau River. It covers

an area of 555 m2 and includes seven tributaries, including Monahan Drain, which crosses Hope

Side Road near the western limits of the study area (RVCA 2011).

The study area falls within two sub-watersheds of the Ottawa River West watershed; Stillwater

Creek and Graham Creek. A tributary to Stillwater Creek crosses West Hunt Club Road just

east of Moodie Drive. The headwaters of Stillwater Creek begin in Stony Swamp and flow north

through a mix of natural, agricultural, and developed lands before connecting with the Ottawa

River (RVCA 2010). Figure 1 illustrates the location of watercourses within the study area.



4.3 Ground Water

During field investigations conducted by EcoTec in 2012 and 2013, no indication of groundwater

seepage was observed within the study area.

4.4 Fish and Fish Habitat

During the November 2012 and April 2013 field investigations, fisheries surveys were conducted

where Monahan Drain and the tributary to Stillwater Creek cross Hope Side Road and West

Hunt Club Road, respectively. Watercourse crossing photographs are included in Appendix A.

No fish species at risk were identified within the study area during EcoTec’s field surveys. It

should be noted that aquatic habitat usage represents only two days of surveying during each

late fall/early winter and spring conditions. This data does not represent year round fish

assemblages or full habitat and spawning use within the study area watercourses. A list of fish

species found in study area watercourses is included in Tables 2 and 3.

4.1.1 Monahan Drain

The Monahan Drain catchment area covers approximately 4100 ha, representing 7.4% of the

Jock River Subwatershed (RVCA 2010). The subwatershed is predominately rural within

wooded area interspersed throughout (Enbridge 2012). Woodlands represent approximately

315 ha or 8% of the Monahan Drain catchment area, which is less than the 30% required to

maintain a healthy and sustainable ecosystem (RVCA 2010).

Monahan Drain crosses Hope Side Road through a concrete box culvert near the western limits

of the study area. Upstream of Hope Side Road, the watercourse flows through a stormwater

management pond, which is part of the Monahan Drain Stormwater Management Facility.

Downstream of Hope Side Road, the watercourse continues south to join the Jock River.

Flow was observed within Monahan Drain during the November 2012 and April and July 2013

field investigations. At the time of the April 2013 field survey, the upstream reach was

represented by approximately 70% riffle and 30% pool flowing over a mix of detritus, silt, sand,

clay, and gravel. The upstream channel had a mean wetted width and depth of 8 m and 1 m,

respectively and a bankfull width and depth of 9 m and 5 m, respectively.



The channel morphology downstream was represented by approximately 95% riffle and 5% pool

flowing over a mix of muck, detritus, sand, clay, gravel, cobble and boulders. The downstream

channel had mean wetted and bankfull widths and depths of 8 m and 1.2 m, respectively.

During the April 2013 field survey, water quality parameters measured for Monahan Drain

included a water temperature of 8.9°, pH of 7.76, and conductivity of 1460 µS/cm.

Reaches upstream and downstream of Hope Side Road were well-vegetated both in-stream

and within the riparian area (Photos 1 and 2). Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) and

narrow-leaved cattail (Typha angustifolia) were dominant throughout the reaches. In-stream fish

habitat was provided by emergent and floating vegetation and shoreline vegetation, as well as

undercut banks, boulders, cobble, woody and organic debris.

Monahan Drain is a cool water bait fishery connected to a sport fishery (RVCA 2010). During

the 2012 and 2013 field investigations, fish captured within the study limits included white

sucker (Catostomus commersoni), bluntnose minnow (Pimephales notatus), carp (Cyprinus

carpio), common shiner (Luxilus chrysocephalus), creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus),

northern redbelly dace (Phoxinus eos), brook stickleback (Culaea inconstans), pumpkinseed

(Lepomis gibbosus), and Johnny darter (Etheostoma nigrum).

Table 2: Documented fish species within Monahan Drain.

Common Name Scientific Name Monahan Drain

RVCA EcoTec Mudminnows central mudminnow Umbra limi X Suckers white sucker Catostomus commersoni X X Carps and minnows blackchin shiner Notropis heterodon X blacknose shiner Notropis heterolepis X bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus X X common carp Cyprinus carpio X X common shiner Luxilus chrysocephalus X X creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus X X fathead minnow Pimephales promelas X golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas X



Common Name Scientific Name Monahan Drain

RVCA EcoTec northern redbelly dace Phoxinus eos X X mimic shiner Notropis volucellus X spottail shiner Notropis hudsonius X North American catfishes brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus X Topminnows banded killifish Fundulus diaphanus X Sticklebacks brook stickleback Culaea inconstans X X Sunfishes pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus X X rock bass Ambloplites rupestris X sunfish species Lepomis sp. X Perches Johnny darter Etheostoma nigrum X X logperch Percina caprodes X darter species Etheostoma sp. X Sculpins mottled sculpin Cottus bairdi X

4.1.2 Stillwater Creek

Background information provided in a Stream Habitat Assessment conducted by the City of

Ottawa in 2001 (City of Ottawa 2002) indicates Stillwater Creek covers an area of over 2100 ha

and consists of a main channel and two primary tributaries located east of the main channel.

Stillwater Creek receives stormwater inputs from numerous tile drains and outfalls. During the

City of Ottawa’s assessment, localized and cumulative impacts were apparent in the physical

structure and biological community of the Creek, which was dominated by shallow and medium

depth pools, with limited riparian vegetation.

The middle tributary of Stillwater Creek crosses West Hunt Club Road just east of Moodie Drive.

The headwaters of this tributary originate in the Stony Swamp area south of West Hunt Club

Road and flows northerly to where it joins the main tributary of Stillwater Creek. The upstream

reach, south of West Hunt Club Road, was not assessed as part of the 2001 study, as it was

swamp-like, with no defined channel (City of Ottawa 2002).



During EcoTec’s field investigations, the upstream reach was found to exist as an undefined

channel within a wetland area, dominated by willows (Salix spp.) and cattails (Photo 3). The

downstream reach was more defined, and travelled through a similar wetland area, with reed

canary grass, shrubs and trees (Photo 4). Due to ice conditions during the November 2012 field

investigations, fisheries surveys were not conducted within the tributary to Stillwater Creek. A

fish survey was conducted during EcoTec’s April 2013 investigations; however, no fish were

captured.

As part of the City’s Stream Habitat Assessment, a total of 19 fish species were captured in the

main channel of Stillwater Creek, with three species caught in the tributaries. All were

warmwater species with the exception of sculpin (City of Ottawa 2002). During surveys

completed by RVCA in Stillwater Creek during 2001, eight fish species were captured, including

central mudminnnow (Umbra limi), pearl dace (Margariscus margarita), and brook stickleback

(Culaea inconstans).

Table 3: Documented fish species within Stillwater Creek.

Common Name Scientific Name Stillwater Creek

City of Ottawa RVCA EcoTec

Pikes northern pike Esox Lucius X Mudminnows central mudminnow Umbra limi X X Suckers white sucker Catostomus commersoni X X Carps and minnows blackchin shiner Notropis heterodon X blacknose shiner Notropis heterolepis X X bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus X brassy minnow X common carp Cyprinus carpio X common shiner Luxilus chrysocephalus X X creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus X X fathead minnow Pimephales promelas X X pearl dace Margariscus margarita X X longnose dace Rhinichthys cataractae X northern redbelly dace Phoxinus eos X X mimic shiner Notropis volucellus X spottail shiner Notropis hudsonius X X



Common Name Scientific Name Stillwater Creek

City of Ottawa RVCA EcoTec

Topminnows banded killifish Fundulus diaphanus X Sticklebacks brook stickleback Culaea inconstans X X Sunfishes bluegill Lepomis macrochirus X Perches Johnny darter Etheostoma nigrum X logperch Percina caprodes X yellow perch Perca flavescens X X Sculpins mottled sculpin Cottus bairdi X X

4.5 Environmentally Significant Areas

A large part of the study area falls within the NCC’s Stony Swamp Conservation Area. This area

is designated as a Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) complex and is a Candidate Life

Science Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (LS-ANSI) (OMNR 2010). The Stony Swamp

Conservation Area is the most floristically diverse site known in Site District 6E-12. Over 745

species of vascular plants, including 560 native species have been recorded in this LS-ANSI

(NHIC 2010).

The Stony Swamp Conservation Area is composed of open ponds, flooded woodlands, creek

valleys, as well as forest and thicket swamps. Upland forests also exist within the area, largely

represented by young to mature deciduous forest of sugar maple (Acer saccharum) and beech

(Fagus grandifolia). This area provides both high floristic and habitat diversity, as well as an

extensive system of recreational trails for skiers and hikers throughout the year. More detail on

wetlands within this area is provided in the Section 4.6. No other environmentally significant

areas are located within the study limits. Mapping provided by the NCC indicates the location of

LS-ANSI areas within the study area (Appendix C).

4.6 Terrestrial Communities

As noted above, a large portion of the study area is represented by the Stony Swamp

Conservation Area. Information provided by the NHIC indicated that upland vegetation within

this Candidate LS-ANSI is diverse, with shrubby alvar-like plains, a variety of young early



successional deciduous and mixed forests, and young to sub-mature deciduous forests of sugar

maple (Acer saccharum) and beech (Fagus grandifolia).

In order to document terrestrial communities within the study area, preliminary field

investigations were conducted along the study area corridor from the intersection of Eagleson

Road and Hope Side Road to the Highway 416 on-ramp from West Hunt Club Road on

November 28, 2012. Additional field investigations were conducted on July 30 and 31, 2013.

As part of the Ottawa Reinforcement Pipeline EA, Dillon Consulting Limited (Dillon) undertook a

field inventory within the ROW on either side of the road for the Preliminary Preferred Route,

which included the Hope Side/Old Richmond Road Corridor (Terry Fox to Hwy 416) EA study

area. It should be noted that a white elm (Ulmus americana) was identified immediately west of

Old Richmond Road, approximately 750 m north of Stonehaven Drive and was identified as a

significant elm tree (Enbridge 2012).

The following provides a general description of vegetation communities located within the study

area based on background information provided by the NCC, the Ottawa Reinforcement Project

Environmental and Cumulative Effects Assessment (Enbridge 2012), a review of aerial

photography, as well as EcoTec’s November 2012 and July 2013 field investigations. Figure 2

provides and illustration of the location of terrestrial communities within the study area. Refer to

Appendix C for an illustration of vegetation communities within the study area based on

mapping provided by the NCC. Appendix D provides a list of plant species found within the

study area during the 2012 and 2013 field investigations.

4.7.1 Plantation

Mapping provided by the NCC indicated several areas in the vicinity of the study area are

represented by plantation, including an area northeast of the intersection of Hope Side Road

and Old Richmond Road, an area northeast of the intersection of Old Richmond Road and West

Hunt Club Road, as well as areas both north and south of West Hunt Club Road between

Moodie Drive and Highway 416.

During the EcoTec’s field surveys, it was noted that plantations within the study area included

those dominated by white cedar (Thuja occidentalis), white spruce (Picea glauca), and white

N

Figure 2:Terrestrial communities within the Hope Side/Old Richmond Road Corridor (Terry Fox to Hwy 416) study limits.

Primary Study Area

Plantation

Deciduous Forest

Mixed Forest

Watercourses

Other

0 500 1000

Meters

West Hunt Club Rd

Old

Ric

hmon

d R

d.

Eagleson Rd.

Hope Side Rd.



pine (Pinus strobus) (Photo 5). Staghorn sumac (Rhus typhina), black cherry (Prunus serotina),

poplars (Populus spp.), and bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa) were also noted along the edge of

some plantation communities.

4.7.2 Deciduous Forest

Mapping provided by the NCC indicated areas of deciduous forest east of Old Richmond Road

and both north and south of West Hunt Club Road. During EcoTec’s field surveys, it was noted

that the deciduous forest east of Old Richmond Road was predominately represented by poplar

(Populus spp.), ash (Fraxinus spp.), beech (Fagus grandifolia), and oak (Quercus spp.) (Photo

6). Deciduous communities north and south of West Hunt Club Road were predominately

composed of oak, white birch (Betula papyrifera), poplar, as well as some coniferous species.

4.7.3 Mixed Forest

Mixed forest communities existed east and west of Old Richmond Road, as illustrated on

mapping provided by the NCC. During EcoTec’s field investigations, mixed forest communities

were found to include poplar, beech, ash, white birch, and oak, with white spruce, white pine,

and white cedar. Edges of this community included scattered staghorn sumac, buckthorn,

poplars, and white birch (Photo 7).

Vegetation mapping provided by the NCC indicates the occurrence of a silver maple swamp at

one location west of Old Richmond Road; however, mapping illustrating PSW boundaries

indicates that this area is not part of the PSW. During the EcoTec’s field investigations, this area

was found to be represented by a mixed forest community, with red maple (Acer ruburm), white

pine, red pine (Pinus resinosa), black cherry, and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) (Photo 8).

Glossy buckthorn was present in the sub-canopy, and dominant in the understory, and ground

layer. In addition, this area was bordered by a thicket swamp dominated by glossy buckthorn.

4.7.5 Other

A utility corridor exists within the study area, crossing Old Richmond Road approximately 700 m

south of its intersection with Hunt Club Road (Photo 9). Mapping provided by the NCC identifies

the vegetation community within the hydro corridor as other. Typically, vegetation within utility

corridors is maintained and is largely represented by herbaceous species. Communities that are



the result of disturbance and contain a large proportion of herbaceous, non-native species are

classified as cultural meadows based on Ecological Land Classification methodology (Lee et al.

1998).

Along the study area corridor, few areas of cultural meadow existed beyond the ROW. Areas

existing immediately adjacent to the existing roadway, however, were predominately

represented by cultural meadow communities (Photo 10). Dominant species noted in these

roadside areas included birds-foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), wild carrot (Daucus carota),

purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), and cow vetch (Vicia cracca). Scattered tree and shrub

species were noted along fence lines adjacent to the roadside and included white elm, common

buckthorn, and staghorn sumac. The significant white elm tree noted in the Ottawa

Reinforcement Pipeline EA (Enbridge 2012) was found to exist immediately west of Old

Richmond Road, approximately 750 m north of Stonehaven Drive (Photo 11).

During EcoTec’s field investigations, it was noted that a large proportion of the study area along

Hope Side Road was represented by agricultural land (Photo 12). At the time of the July 2013

field investigations, construction activities were underway within the northwest corner of Hope

Side Road and Old Richmond Road (Photo 13).

4.7 Wetlands Communities

Field surveys were undertaken on July 30 and 31, 2013 in order to acquire up-to-date

information on existing wetlands within the study area. During the July 2013 investigations,

EcoTec identified several wetland communities within the study area, including cattail shallow

marsh, willow thicket, glossy buckthorn thicket, white cedar swamp, and black ash swamp. The

location and boundaries of the study area wetlands were found to be consistent with the Stony

Swamp Provincially Significant Wetland Complex mapping. Figure 3 provides and illustration of

the wetland communities within the study area.

The Stony Swamp Provincially Significant Wetland Complex (PSW) is made up of 33 individual

wetlands represented by 80% swamp and 20% marsh (OMNR 2010). The NHIC reports that the

Stony Swamp Conservation Area is represented by a complex of shallow, beaver-enhanced

wetlands, with open ponds, shrubby marshes, flooded woodlands, and forest swamps (OMNR

N

Figure 3:Wetland communities within the Hope Side/Old Richmond Road Corridor (Terry Fox to Hwy 416) study limits.

Primary Study Area

Stony Swamp Provincially Significant Wetland Complex

MAS - Shallow MarshSWT - Swamp ThicketSWD - Deciduous SwampSWC - Coniferous Swamp

Watercourses

0 500 1000

Meters

West Hunt Club Rd

Old

Ric

hmon

d R

d.

Eagleson Rd.

Hope Side Rd.

SWT

SWT

SWT

SWC

SWD SWT

MAS

MAS

MAS



2010). Mapping provided by the NCC indicates the location of PSW areas within the study area

(Appendix C).

A Technical Memo entitled “Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Installing Culverts in Stony

Swamp During the Richmond Road Widening” (City of Ottawa 2009), examined the potential

impacts and advisability of installing culverts under Old Richmond Road as part of its widening

in order to establish a surface water connection between the two portions of the Stony Swamp

PSW Complex. The Memo concluded that there is no ecological reason to install culverts under

Old Richmond Road and that the installation of such culverts would create potential adverse

impacts on the hydrology and ecology of both Stony Swamp and Stillwater Creek.

4.7.1 Shallow Marsh

During EcoTec’s field surveys, cattail shallow marsh communities were found throughout the

study area. Small pockets dominated by broad-leaved cattail (Typha angustifolia) that were too

small to map as separate vegetation units were common bordering wooded areas along the

roadside (Photo 14). Several cattail shallow marsh communities with organic soil were found to

extend beyond the roadside ROW, representing large wetland areas, some of which are PSW.

Mapping provided by the NCC identifies these areas as wetland.

The cattail shallow marsh community west of Old Richmond Road and south of the hydro

corridor was dominated by broad-leaved cattail, with scattered purple loosestrife and reed

canary grass (Photo 15). A narrow band of thicket swamp dominated by glossy buckthorn

bordered this wetland area.

The cattail shallow marsh community located both east and west of Old Richmond Road, north

of the hydro corridor, was also dominated by broad-leaved cattail with scattered purple

loosestrife, maple (Acer sp.), eastern white cedar, and dead standing trees (Photo 16).

The area north and south of West Hunt Club Road, immediately east of Moodie Drive was

represented by a cattail shallow marsh adjacent to the roadside (Photo 4). Farther from the

roadside, this wetland area south of West Hunt Club was represented by a thicket swamp with

scattered pockets of cattail shallow marsh.



4.7.2 Thicket Swamp

Thicket swamp communities were found within the study area along Old Richmond Road and

West Hunt Club Road. Thicket swamps were generally located in the transition zone between

marshes and forest or swamp communities (Photo 7). Most thicket swamp communities within

the study area were dominated by glossy buckthorn (Frangula alnus), while some were

dominated by willows. Glossy buckthorn is becoming a problem in Ottawa-area wetlands where

it is considered to be one the most aggressive alien species (OIPC 2012). Thicket swamp

communities dominated by glossy buckthorn included scattered black ash and willows (Salix

spp.) in the canopy and sub-canopy, as well as cinnamon fern (Osmundastrum cinnamomeum),

and sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis) in the understory and ground layer.

Mapping provided by the NCC indicates an area of PSW located north and south of West Hunt

Club Road, east of Moodie Drive. The wetland area south of the roadway was represented by a

large thicket swamp dominated by slender willow (Salix petiolaris) and meadowsweet (Spiraea

alba) with scattered pockets of cattail shallow marsh (Photo 3). North of the roadway, a small

wetland area was represented by cattail shallow marsh and swamp thicket dominated by glossy

buckthorn (Photo 18).

4.7.3 Swamp

During EcoTec’s field investigations, a white cedar swamp and a black ash swamp with organic

soil were found to exist along Old Richmond Road. It should be noted that mapping provided by

the NCC indicates the occurrence of a silver maple swamp at one location west of Old

Richmond Road. Mapping provided by NCC illustrating the Stony Swamp Wetland Complex

indicated that this area is not represented by PSW. Based on EcoTec’s field investigations, this

area is best described as a mixed forest. Dominant tree species noted within this community

included some wetland species, such as red maple (Acer ruburm), white pine, and green ash

(Fraxinus pennsylvanica) as well as some that are not wetland species, including black cherry

and red pine (Pinus resinosa). Glossy buckthorn was present in the sub-canopy, and dominant

in the understory, and ground layer.

A white cedar swamp community with mineral soil was found to exist northeast of the

intersection of Hope Side Road and Old Richmond Road. This area is illustrated as plantation



on vegetation mapping provided by NCC; however, mapping provided by NCC illustrating the

Stony Swamp Wetland Complex indicated that this area is represented by PSW. During

EcoTec’s field investigations, this community was found to be represented almost entirely by

white cedar in the canopy (Photo 19). Scattered balsam fir (Abies balsamea) and black ash

were also noted. The sub-canopy and understory were dominated by glossy buckthorn. Mosses,

sedges (Carex spp.), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron rydbergii) were evident in the ground layer.

It should be noted that the edge of this community, located adjacent to the existing roadway,

was composed of a mix of white cedar as well as ash (Fraxinus spp.), poplars (Populus spp.),

and glossy buckthorn.

A black ash swamp community with organic soil existed west of Old Richmond Road, north of

the hydro corridor. Mapping provided by the NCC identifies this area as flooded land and PSW

(Appendix C). It should be noted that this community was separated from the roadway be a

cattail shallow marsh. The canopy was dominated by black ash and Freeman’s maple (Acer x.

freemanii). The sub-canopy was represented by glossy buckthorn, alder (Alnus incana), as well

as scattered white cedar and black ash. The understory and ground layer was represented by

sensitive fern, cinnamon fern, with scattered jewelweed (Impatiens capensis). Standing water

was noted throughout this community during the July 2013 field investigations (Photo 21).

4.8 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

The study area and adjacent lands provide a diversity of habitat components essential to life

processes of wildlife utilizing the area. These habitat components include marshes, meadows,

agricultural fields, and forest stands.

Mammals identified during the 2012 field surveys included grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis),

red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), coyote (Canis latrans), and white-tailed deer

(Odocoileus virginianus). A snapping turtle was observed on two occasions within suitable

habitat within the study area. In addition, dead snapping turtles were observed on the road

during the June 6, 2013 field investigations. Painted turtles were also observed during field

investigations.

The Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas (OBBA) provides data in areas defined by 10 kilometre

squares. Square 18VR31 of the database includes the study area and indicates 62 confirmed



bird species and 48 other species of migratory birds with a possible or probable likelihood of

breeding within the area. According to OBBA data, three bird species at risk have been

historically documented within the area including barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), bobolink

(Dolichonyx oryzivorus), and eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna). There is some potential for

these and other bird species at risk to utilize habitat provided within the study area. As such, the

MNR recommended that breeding bird surveys be conducted to assess the presence of bird

species at risk within the study limits. One bird species at risk, the barn swallow, was observed

during EcoTec’s field investigations. Further discussion is provided below in Section 4.9 Species

at Risk. Bird species identified during the site visits are provided in Table 4.

Area sensitive species listed in the SWHTG (MNR 2000) are those requiring large areas of

suitable habitat for long term population survival. Area sensitive bird species identified within the

study area included northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) and black-and-white warbler (Mniotilta

varia).

Table 4: Bird species observed within the Hope Side/Old Richmond Road Corridor (Terry Fox to Hwy 416) study area during the 2013 field surveys.

Common Name Scientific Name Status Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus Canada Goose Branta canadensis Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus AS Wild Turkey Meleagris gallopavo Killdeer Charadrius vociferus Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis Herring Gull Larus argentatus Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica THREATENED Black-capped chickadee Poecile atricapillus American Robin Turdus migratorius European Starling Sturnus vulgaris Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia Black-and-white warbler Mniotilta varia AS



Common Name Scientific Name Status Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina Field Sparrow Spizella pusill Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula House Finch Haemorhous mexicanus American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis

AS – Area sensitive species described in Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000).

4.9 Species at Risk

A review of background information indicated the potential for a number of species at risk to

utilize the study area. The MNR’s NHIC database includes records for least bittern (Ixobrychus

exilis), milksnake (Lampropeltis triangulum), and flooded jellyskin (Leptogium rivulare) within

square 18VR31. Communication with MNR indicated a number of additional documented

species at risk within the site, or in close proximity to it, including butternut, bobolink, whip-poor-

will, black tern, eastern ribbonsnake, Blanding’s turtle and snapping turtle. Communication with

MNR also indicated that potential suitable habitat for eastern meadowlark, barn swallow,

Henslow’s sparrow, chimney swift, and short-eared owl exists within the study area (E.

Thompson, pers. comm.).

As part of the Ottawa Reinforcement Pipeline EA, Dillon Consulting Limited (Dillon) undertook a

field inventory to identify any potential species at risk within the ROW and 50 m on either side of

the road for the Preliminary Preferred Route, which included the Hope Side/Old Richmond Road

Corridor (Terry Fox to Hwy 416) EA study area (Enbridge 2012). Results of these inventories

are included in the following discussion.

Bird Species at Risk Surveys

The MNR recommended that breeding bird surveys be conducted to assess the presence of

bird species at risk within the study limits, including whip-poor-will, black tern, Henslow’s

sparrow, chimney swift, and short-eared owl. The MNR also recommended that potential habitat



within and in proximity to the study area be assessed to determine suitability for these bird

species at risk.

The whip-poor-will, a nationally and provincially threatened species, prefers a mix of open

habitat, suitable for foraging, and forested habitat, suitable for roosting and nesting (ROM 2010).

The main threats to the whip-poor-will are likely habitat loss and degradation (OMNR 2009).

During field inventories conducted by EcoTec and Dillon, whip-poor-wills were not identified

within the study area. It was noted that significant habitat, as defined in the MNR’s Significant

Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000), did not exist within or adjacent to the

Preliminary Preferred Route (Enbridge 2012).

The black tern, a species of special concern in Ontario, is a small bird that inhabits shallow

marshes. Declines have been occurring since the 1980s due to wetland drainage and alteration,

water pollution, and human disturbance, such as boating, at nesting colonies (ROM 2006).

Areas of cattail shallow marsh within the study area may provide habitat for the black tern;

however, this species was not observed during EcoTec’s field investigations.

Henslow’s sparrow is endangered nationally and provincially. This species breeds only in old

fields, pastures, and wet meadows, where succession to thicket and forest has not yet occurred

(ROM 2008). Henslow’s sparrow was not observed during field investigations conducted by

Dillon, nor was this species observed during EcoTec’s field investigations. It was noted that

suitable habitat may exist in the area adjacent to the Preferred Preliminary Route (Enbridge

2012). Similarly, suitable habitat for this species was found to exist within primary study area for

the Hope Side/Old Richmond Road Corridor (Terry Fox to Hwy 416) EA.

The chimney swift, a nationally and provincially threatened species, nests almost exclusively in

man-made structures, in particular chimneys (ROM 2010). Threats to the chimney swift are

believed to be related to declines in their prey, flying insects (OMNR 2009). The Ottawa

Reinforcement Pipeline EA noted that suitable habitat for the chimney swift was not observed

immediately adjacent to the Preferred Preliminary Route (Enbridge 2012). During EcoTec’s field

investigations, it was noted that some houses with chimneys exist within the study area and

may provide suitable habitat for this species. It should be noted, however, that the chimney swift

was not observed during EcoTec’s surveys.



The short-eared owl, a species of special concern provincially and nationally, prefers open

areas, such as grasslands, marshes, and tundra. Threats to the short-eared owl in Ontario

include loss of marshes (ROM 2005). Study area grasslands and marshes may provide suitable

habitat for the short-eared owl; however, this species was not observed during EcoTec’s field

investigations.

Potential Habitat for Species at Risk

The MNR recommended that potential habitat within and in proximity to the study area be

assessed to determine suitability for flooded jellyskin, milksnake, eastern ribbonsnake, and

snapping turtle.

Flooded jellyskin is a nationally and provincially threatened species of lichen. This species is

found growing on rocks and at the base of living deciduous trees at the margins of vernal pools.

It is rare due to its strict habitat requirements and is threatened by urban development and

recreational activities (COSEWIC 2004). Flooded jellyskin was not observed during surveys

conducted as part of the Ottawa Reinforcement Pipeline EA (Enbridge 2012). Suitable habitat

for flooded jellyskin may exist within the black ash deciduous swamp; however, this species was

not observed during EcoTec’s field investigations.

The milksnake is a species of special concern provincially and nationally. Milksnakes live in a

wide range of habitats, including fields, where rodents are common. This species feeds on small

mammals, including mice, as well as small ground-nesting birds (ROM 2008). Threats to this

species include harm by humans, road kill, and habitat loss due to urbanization (Ontario Nature

2011). Milksnake is a habitat generalist and, as such, the study area may provide suitable

habitat; however, this species was not observed during EcoTec’s field investigations.

The eastern ribbonsnake is a species of special concern nationally and provincially. This

species is usually found close to water and in marshes where it can hunt for frogs and small

fish. Threats to the eastern ribbonsnake are likely related to the reduction of wetland habitat in

Ontario (ROM 2006). Areas of cattail shallow marsh within the study area may provide habitat

for the eastern ribbonsnake; however, this species was not observed during EcoTec’s field

investigations.



Snapping turtles are usually found in small bodies of water and sometimes utilize ponds. Road

mortality and nest predation are among the threats to snapping turtles in Ontario (ROM 2010).

During field investigations conducted by Dillon, snapping turtles were not observed; however, it

was noted that suitable habitat existed within lands adjacent to the Preliminary Preferred Route

(Enbridge 2012). Similarly, during EcoTec’s field investigations, it was noted that suitable habitat

for this species existed within the primary study area for the Hope Side/Old Richmond Road

Corridor (Terry Fox to Hwy 416) EA. Dead snapping turtles were noted along Old Richmond

Road approximately 120 m south of West Hunt Club Road during EcoTec’s June 2013 field

investigations.

Species-specific Surveys for Species at Risk

The MNR has indicated that there is a high probability for Blanding’s turtle, bobolink, eastern

meadowlark, least bittern, and barn swallow to occur on the site. As such, the MNR had

recommended that species-specific surveys be conducted to assess the presence/absence of

these species.

The Blanding’s turtle, a provincially and nationally threatened species, is a medium-sized turtle

that inhabits lakes streams and wetlands, with preference for shallow wetland areas with

abundant vegetation. The Blanding’s turtle is largely threatened by factors reducing nesting

success, such as predation by raccoons and skunks, parasitism, and cool summer

temperatures that result in fewer hatchlings (ROM 2008). Blanding’s turtles were not observed

during surveys conducted by Dillon as part of the Ottawa Reinforcement Pipeline EA. It was

noted, however, that suitable wetland habitat existed adjacent to the Preferred Preliminary

Route (Enbridge 2012).

EcoTec conducted basking surveys as per the visual encounter surveys outlined in the MNR’s

Occurrence Survey Protocol for Blanding’s Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) in Ontario (2013).

Basking surveys were completed on May 16, 27, 28, 31, 2013 and June 4, 2013 at four different

locations in order to assess potential winter habitat for Blanding’s turtles within and adjacent to

the study area. Blanding’s turtles were not observed within the study area or its vicinity.

Potential habitat for Blanding’s turtles was not observed within the scoped study area (120 m

from either side of the existing roadway); however, potential habitat was noted beyond 120 m



southeast of West Hunt Club Road and Moodie Drive intersection and southwest of Old

Richmond Road and West Hunt Club Road. Although no Blanding’s turtles were found, female

Blanding’s turtles have been known to travel up to 6 km in order to nest (MNR, 2013). A

summary of turtle observations can be found in Table 5.

Table 5. Summary of results for turtle surveys conducted in the Hope Side/Old Richmond Road Corridor (Terry Fox to Hwy 416) study area during 2013.

Date Air Temp.

Location

Storm Water Pond (Hope Side Road)

Sarparilla Trail (Richmond Road)

Beaver Trail (Moodie Drive)

Beaver Trail (Hunt Club Road)

May 16, 2013 14 oC No turtles 1 painted turtle 1 snapping turtle No turtles No turtles

May 27, 2013 12 oC 2 painted turtles 7 painted turtles No turtles 1 painted turtle

May 28, 2013 20 oC 7 painted turtles 3 painted turtles (2 mating) No turtles No turtles

May 31, 2013 22 oC 3 painted turtles 4 painted turtles No turtles No turtles

June 4, 2013 18 oC 1 painted turtle 4 painted turtles 1 snapping turtle No turtles 3 painted turtles

The bobolink, a nationally and provincially threatened species, can be found in open meadows

such as tallgrass prairie, grasslands, and hay fields (OMNR 2011). In Ontario, there are a

number of causes for the decline of this species. During field inventories conducted by Dillon,

bobolinks were not observed; however, it was noted that suitable existed in lands adjacent to

the Preliminary Preferred Route (Enbridge 2012). Eastern meadowlark, a nationally and

provincially threatened species, is most common in native grasslands, pastures, and savannahs

and may use a wide variety of other cultural grassland habitats (COSSARO 2011). One of the

main causes of the decline in eastern meadowlark populations is habitat loss.

Bobolink and eastern meadowlark surveys were conducted as per methodology provided by the

MNR (December 2011). EcoTec completed a total of three surveys for the bobolink and eastern

meadowlark on June 12, 21 and 27, 2013 with a minimum of a week between each survey.

During EcoTec’s field investigations, the area south of Hope Side Road was surveyed for the

presence of bobolink and eastern meadowlark, as it is represented by vast open agricultural

land. One small area north of Hope Side Road at Eagleson Road was also surveyed; however,

given the small parcel of land it is unlikely habitat for bobolink.



During the field surveys it was noted that the farmland south of Hope Side Road was planted

with corn and soybean, while the field along West Hunt Club Road was planted with corn. This

large open agricultural area could potentially provide habitat for both bobolink and eastern

meadowlark planted with hay; however, the crops present during the 2013 field surveys did not

provide suitable habitat and, as such, bobolinks or eastern meadowlarks were not observed or

heard during the field surveys.

The least bittern, a nationally and provincially threatened species, is often found in large

marshes with tall emergent vegetation, such as cattails (Gibbs et al. 1992). The main threat to

the least bittern is the conversion of wetlands to farmland and urban development (ROM 2008).

During field inventories conducted by Dillon, least bitterns were not observed; however, it was

noted that suitable wetland habitat was observed within wetland areas adjacent to the

Preliminary Preferred Route (Enbridge 2012).

Species-specific surveys for the least bittern were completed using Environment Canada’s

National Least Bittern Survey Protocol on June 13, 24, and July 10, 2013 at five different

locations within the study area. Suitable habitat for this species was found to exist within the

study area; however, least bitterns were not observed during field investigations. It should be

noted that a pied-billed grebe, which is a priority marsh bird as noted in the protocol, was heard

at station 4 on July 10, 2013. The call was heard during the 9 minute mark into the 13 minute

playback (or 4 min into the 5 min least bittern call). The pied-billed grebe was more than 100 m

away. At all five locations throughout the surveys red-winged blackbirds responded to the least

bittern calls.

The barn swallow is threatened nationally and provincially. This bird species prefers open

habitat, especially fields and agricultural land around buildings near water (ROM 2013). Though

the causes for this species’ decline are not well understood, loss of habitat is believed to be a

contributing factor (COSSARO 2011). Species-specific surveys were conducted for the barn

swallow by searching for this species within study area bridges and culverts. During EcoTec’s

field investigations, a barn swallow was observed within the storm water pond area of Monahan

Drain; however, no nests were found within 120 m of the roadway.



Finally, the MNR recommended that butternut surveys also be conducted within the study area

(E. Thompson, pers. comm.). Butternut is a provincially and nationally endangered tree species

that can be found growing alone or in small groups in deciduous forests in Ontario. Butternut

trees are in decline due to a fungal disease, butternut canker, which can kill a tree within a few

years (OMNR 2012). During field inventories conducted by Dillon, two dead butternut trees were

identified east of Old Richmond Road (Enbridge 2012).

Butternut surveys were conducted within the study area during EcoTec’s July 30 and 31 field

investigations. Three live butternut specimens were found within the study area; however, the

trees are located beyond the proposed project limits.



5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION

This section of the report describes the potential impacts on the natural environment associated

with the proposed project. This section also outlines proposed mitigation measures in order to

minimize or prevent negative impacts of the proposed works.

5.1 Erosion and Sediment Control

Potential Impacts

Road widening and realignment, as well as embankment reconstruction may result in the

suspension of sediment into the study area drainage channels, watercourses, and wetlands.

Similarly, exposed soils and/or stock piles of excess material (such as earth, rock, concrete or

wood) located adjacent to watercourses can result in the release of sediment into watercourses

during rain events.

Mitigation

In order to prevent the entry of sediment into drainage channels, watercourses, and wetlands

various sediment and erosion control measures, as well as operational constraints, should be

incorporated into the final contract package. It is recommended that the following be included:

� In order to mitigate the transport of sediment, environmental protection measures (such as straw bale flow checks, rock flow check dams, silt fence barriers, and erosion control blankets) should be incorporated into the final design and installed during construction. Ontario Provincial Standard Provision (OPSS) 805 Construction Specifications for Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Measure should be included in the final contract package in order to provide construction specifications for these measures;

� Any construction works should be isolated from watercourses and conducted ‘in the dry’;

� Where dewatering is required, effluent should be discharged so as to prevent entry of sediment to watercourses;

� In order to minimize sources of fine sediment that may potentially enter study area watercourses, clean granular materials, free of fines, should be used for road or slope stabilization construction adjacent to study area watercourses;

� Exposed slopes should also be protected by requiring the Contractor to limit the time that such areas are exposed prior to final application of topsoil and seed;



� Following the completion of final site grading and topsoil application, a suitable seed mixture should be applied to all exposed soils;

� Installation of silt fence barriers should be 2 m from the final toe-of-slope for any roadway embankment areas adjacent to watercourses.

5.2 Surface Water Contamination and Debris Accumulation

Potential Impacts

Construction activities, such as refuelling, may increase the potential for accidental fuel or

lubricant spillage, debris accumulation, and subsequent contamination to surface water.

Construction activities may also result in litter and debris accumulation within the study limits.

Mitigation

In order to prevent surface water contamination during construction, measures should be taken

to avoid accidental spillage or discharge of chemical contaminates (e.g., gasoline, oils and

lubricants). It is recommended that the following measures be taken:

� All mobile equipment refuelling should take place no closer than 30 m from wetted

roadside drainage channels, watercourses, and wetlands in order to prevent water contamination due to accidental fuel spillage. For non-mobile equipment, refuelling should be carried out in a controlled manner so as to prevent fuel spillage. In addition, a drip pan should be installed under any non-mobile equipment working within the construction zone.

� All equipment operating near wetted roadside channels, watercourses, and wetlands should be properly maintained in order to avoid contaminant leakage and should be free of excess oil/grease.

� The contract package should provide contact information for the Spills Action Centre (1-800-268-6060). An emergency spill response kit should be on site at all times and in the event that a spill occurs, proper containment, clean up and reporting, in accordance with provincial requirements, is required.

� The Contractor must take all necessary precautions to prevent the accumulation of litter and construction debris within any natural areas outside of the construction grading limits.



5.3 Groundwater

Potential Impacts

Construction activities at locations of groundwater discharge may result in negative impacts to

water levels and flow, as well as potential contamination.

Mitigation

If seepage or areas where the groundwater table is high are identified during project

construction, work within that area should be scheduled from mid to late summer when water

table levels are depressed. This will minimize potential disruption or contamination of

groundwater.

5.4 Fish and Fish Habitat

Potential Impacts

In general, works in and around watercourses may result in the suspension of sediment into

study area watercourses or wetted roadside channels from disturbances and loss of the existing

vegetative cover. Similarly, exposed soils and/or stock piles of excess material (such as earth,

rock, concrete or wood) located adjacent to watercourses can result in the transport of

sediments into the watercourse during rain events.

Suspension of sediments can have direct negative effects on resident fish such as respiratory

stress, reduced feeding efficiency, and impairment of physiologic processes such as growth and

reproduction. Indirect effects may include changes in the diversity of benthic invertebrates (food

source), and the loss of spawning and nursery habitat. Elevated levels of suspended sediments

may result in a shift in fish population diversity and density, as various species will leave the

area for more suitable environments. Therefore, impacts due to construction activities may

affect immediate fish populations, as well as those within downstream reaches.

Mitigation

In order to prevent and minimize unnecessary degradation of fish habitat within study area

watercourses, appropriate environmental protection measures, operational constraints, and in-



water work timing restrictions should applied during activities at all watercourse crossings. It is

recommended the following be included:

� Due to the presence of both warm and cold water fish species in the study area

watercourses, it is anticipated that any required in-water works or work on channel banks will be restricted to a period from July 1 to September 30; however, this will need to be confirmed with the MNR;

� In order to mitigate the transport of sediment along ditch lines, as well as exposed soils adjacent to sensitive areas, environmental protection measures (such as straw bale flow checks, rock flow check dams, silt fence barriers, and erosion control blankets) should be incorporated into the final design, as necessary, and should be installed during construction;

� Any construction works should be isolated from the watercourses and conducted ‘in the dry’;

� Prior to commencement of any in-water work, the work area should be isolated and all fish

and aquatic wildlife should be removed and released upstream of the work area. The fish rescue and relocation must be completed by a qualified Fisheries Biologist under a Licence to Collect Fish (LCF) for Scientific Purposes obtained from the MNR. All captured fish must be identified to species, enumerated and live released downstream of the work area;

� All dewatering operations for embankment construction should be outlet onto a grassed

area away from the nearest watercourse or into an appropriate filtering mechanism/settling pond;

� Silt barriers should be installed approximately 2 m from the final toe-of-slope for any disturbed embankment areas adjacent to watercourses;

� Following the completion of final site grading and top soil application, a seed mixture should be applied to all exposed soils;

� Exposed slopes should be protected to limit the time that such areas are exposed prior to final application of topsoil and seed. In areas adjacent to watercourses, the Contractor should apply topsoil and seed immediately following completion of construction activities; and

� Removal or disturbance of woody riparian vegetation should be minimized during

construction activities in order to prevent unnecessary loss of watercourse shading, over hanging cover, or bank stability.

5.5 Environmentally Significant Areas

Potential Impacts





Science Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (LS-ANSI) (OMNR 2010). Refer to Section 7.7

Wetlands for information on associated potential impacts and mitigation. No other

environmentally significant areas are located within the study limits.

5.6 Terrestrial Communities

Potential Impacts

The proposed project will result in the loss of some vegetation due to widening. Loss of

terrestrial vegetation is expected to occur within areas of cultural meadow existing within the

roadway ROW, as well as the edge of forest communities existing adjacent to the ROW.

Proposed activities are unlikely to have significant negative impacts on vegetation units within

the study area. Impacts to the NCC’s Stony Swamp Conservation Area are expected to be

minimal as the widening zone is limited to the edge of these vegetation communities. During

detail design, an appropriate planting plan will be developed in order to promote regeneration of

suitable native vegetation along the edges following completion of construction.

No vulnerable, threatened, or endangered vegetation species were identified within the

proposed grading limits. As noted in Section 4.9, three live butternut specimens were found

within the study area; however, the trees are located well beyond the proposed grading limits

and no impact to these trees is anticipated.

Construction activities may result in the temporary disturbance of vegetation outside of the

proposed grading limits.

Mitigation

In order to reduce impacts on vegetation units within and adjacent to the grading limits, the

following measures should be implemented:

� Vegetation removal should be minimized where possible;

� Following completion of grading and topsoil application, disturbed areas should be re-seeded with a seed mixture that will promote suitable native vegetation regeneration;

� Tree barrier protection should be in accordance with OPSS 801 Construction Specification for the Protection of Trees in order to demarcate and protect existing trees along cut lines from equipment damage;



� Delineation of vegetation clearing zones and vegetation retention zones should be made

clear on construction specifications and in the field;

� Specifications for appropriate tree felling and grubbing procedures should be implemented in order to minimize impacts on surrounding vegetation;

� Appropriate edge planting strategies, including the installation of native plant species, should be utilized along any newly created edges of wooded areas; and

� A restoration and seeding plan should be developed and a Vegetation Specialist should

monitor that all seeding and plantings are installed and maintained in accordance with the Contract requirements.

5.7 Wetlands

Potential Impacts



Science Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (LS-ANSI) (OMNR 2010). The Stony Swamp

Conservation Area is composed of open ponds, flooded woodlands, creek valleys, as well as

forest and thicket swamps. It is anticipated that the proposed activities will result in the loss of

some wetland area adjacent to the existing ROW.

Construction activities may result in the temporary disturbance of wetland areas outside of the

proposed grading limits. The excavation and grading of earth material due to construction may

result in the release of sediment into the adjacent wetlands. In addition, exposed soils and/or

stockpiles of excess material (such as earth, rock, concrete, or wood) can result in sediment

transport into the adjacent wetlands.

Mitigation

It is recommended that disturbance to the wetland areas be minimized, where possible, and

appropriate restrictions and mitigation measures be implemented in order to reduce the

potential for negative impacts. These measures should include the following:

� Drainage within the project limits should be designed so as to maintain the existing hydrological regime of the area;



� Vegetation clearing within wetland areas should be minimized, where possible;

� Appropriate erosion and sediment control measures should be implemented at locations where there is potential for sediment release to study area wetlands;

� No equipment should enter wetlands outside of the grading limits;

� Construction activities adjacent to wetlands should occur from within the grading limits;

� No long-term stockpiling of excavated material should occur within 30 m of a Provincially Significant Wetland;

� In order to minimize the spread of invasive species, all equipment should be thoroughly

cleaned with water before it is moved from one area to another.

Compensation Strategy

In order to ensure no net loss of wetland function as a result of the proposed project, it is

recommended that compensation be provided. It is anticipated that a more detailed wetland

compensation plan will be developed as the project proceeds; however, some guidelines for the

general strategy are provided below.

It is recommended that compensation be provided through restoration or enhancement of

drained or altered naturally occurring wetlands within the NCC’s Stony Swamp Conservation

Area. Restoration would involve reestablishing a wetland where it previously occurred. Property

acquired as part of the proposed project may provide opportunity for wetland restoration sites.

As noted in Section 4.7.2, most thicket swamp communities within the study area were

dominated by glossy buckthorn, which is becoming a problem in Ottawa-area wetlands where it

is considered to be one the most aggressive alien species (OIPC 2012). As such, removal of

glossy buckthorn should be considered as an enhancement technique. Following completion of

restoration, an assessment of restored areas should be completed.

5.8 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

Potential Impacts

While a variety of wildlife habitat exists within and adjacent to the project limits, no critical

habitat was identified during EcoTec’s field investigations. Based on findings during the 2012

and 2013 field investigations and the nature of the proposed activities, no permanent negative



impacts on wildlife or wildlife habitat are anticipated in the area as a result of the project.

Vegetation removal associated with the proposed project may, however, result in the temporary

displacement of wildlife species utilizing the area.

Potential impacts to wildlife species at risk are provided in the Section 7.9 below.

Mitigation

In order to minimize the temporary displacement of wildlife species potentially utilizing the study

area, it is recommended that efforts be made to minimize vegetation removal within the project

limits.

It is recommended that clearing activities take place outside the bird nesting season of May 1 to

August 1. If clearing work must be conducted during the breeding bird season a detailed

breeding/nesting bird survey should be conducted by an avian specialist prior to the beginning

of clearing activities in order to verify potential nesting activity. If nesting activities are observed

during clearing/construction, works in that area should cease and the MNR should be contacted

immediately.

Additional mitigation measures for wildlife and wildlife species at risk are provided in the

following section.

5.9 Species at Risk

Potential Impacts

EcoTec conducted field investigations within the primary study area in order to document a

number of potential species at risk and their habitat. Three species at risk, the snapping turtle,

butternut, and barn swallow, were observed during EcoTec’s field investigations.

Potential habitat within the study area was assessed for suitability to snapping turtles. A

snapping turtle was observed on two occasions within suitable habitat within the study area. In

addition, dead snapping turtles were observed on the road during the June 6, 2013 field

investigations.



Species-specific surveys were conducted for the barn swallow, a nationally and provincially

threatened species, by searching for this species within study area bridges and culverts. One

barn swallow was observed in the Monahan Drain Stormwater Management Facility, which is in

the vicinity of the study area; however, no nests were found within 120 m of the roadway.

Three live butternut specimens were found within the study area; however, the trees are located

well beyond the proposed project limits and no impact to these trees is anticipated.

Potential habitat for Blanding’s turtles was not observed within the scoped study area (120 m

from either side of the existing roadway); however, potential habitat was noted beyond 120 m

southeast of West Hunt Club Road and Moodie Drive intersection and southwest of Old

Richmond Road and West Hunt Club Road. Although no Blanding’s turtles were found, female

Blanding’s turtles have been known to travel up to 6 km in order to nest (MNR, 2013).

Habitat for bobolink and eastern meadowlark did not exist at the time of the 2013 field surveys.

Based on habitat present during the 2013 field investigations, no impacts are to bobolink or

eastern meadowlark are expected as a result of road construction.

Other species at risk that may occur within in the vicinity of the study area include Henslow’s

sparrow, whip-poor-will, chimney swift, short-eared owl, black tern, flooded jellyskin, milksnake,

eastern ribbonsnake, and least bittern. Based on findings during the 2012 and 2013 surveys

and the nature of the proposed activities, no permanent negative impacts on these species are

anticipated in the area as a result of the project.

Mitigation

No negative impacts to the Blanding’s turtle are anticipated as a result of the proposed project;

however, due to their potential to utilize the study area and its vicinity, a number of mitigation

measures are recommended. These mitigation measures will also function to minimize potential

impacts to snapping turtles and painted turtles. The MNR has indicated that timing restrictions

apply from October 16 – March 15 to protect at risk hibernating turtles. If the proposed project

activities are to occur during this time, the MNR recommends fencing off the site in early fall to

prevent turtle hibernation with the work area. The MNR has also indicated that caution should

be taken during the turtle nesting season in June and early July as turtles use embankments



and other terrestrial sites for nesting. During the active season (April 1 – October 30), the MNR

recommended a thorough sweep of the area before works begin to encourage any turtles using

the site to move away.

Should work be required during the active season (April 1 – October 30), it is recommended that

exclusion fencing (e.g. silt fencing) or another appropriate barrier must be installed in March at a

number of locations in order to deter any nesting turtles (as well as other reptiles or amphibians)

from entering the construction area. These locations include the cattail swales along Old

Richmond Road approximately 1 km north of Stonehaven Drive, approximately 160 m south of

Old Richmond Road, and West Hunt Club Road as well as at Monahan Drain and the Tributary

to Stillwater Creek. Exclusion fencing should be maintained and checked each day prior to

activities commencing to ensure species are not trapped inside the work area.

In order to minimize the risk of turtle road mortality, it is recommended that a system of dry

culverts, barrier walls, and fencing be installed to allow turtle migration under the road. This type

of system has been put in place as part of the Terry Fox Drive Extension Project, within the City

of Ottawa. An on-going study on the effectiveness of the Terry Fox Drive Wildlife Guide System

suggests that culverts work to reduce the potential for road mortality in turtles (Dillon 2013). A

summary of the Terry Fox Wildlife Guide System, information on follow-up monitoring, as well

as future recommendations are provided in the South March Highland’s Blanding’s Turtle

Conservation Needs Assessment (Dillon 2013). It is recommended that the Terry Fox Wildlife

Guide System be utilized as guidance in the design of a similar system as part of this project.

If construction activities be required to occur within 25 m of any butternut tree, the Kemptville

District MNR Species at Risk Biologist should be contacted.

It should be noted that bobolink and eastern meadowlark may begin to inhabit agricultural fields

within the study area if they are left fallow in following seasons. If clearing is required during the

breeding bird season (May 1 – August 1), it is recommended that the areas previously surveyed

for bobolink and eastern meadowlark be surveyed prior to construction to determine whether

these areas provide suitable habitat.



On site personnel should receive training on all potential species at risk. Thorough sweeps of

the work area should be conducted on days when construction is to occur to identify the

occurrence of any species at risk within the work area. Although no negative impacts to species

at risk are anticipated as a result of the proposed widening, if during construction, any species

at risk are observed or it is determined that their habitat may be impacted, the Kemptville District

MNR Species at Risk Biologist should be contacted immediately.



6.0 REFERENCES

Champan, L.J. and D.F. Putnam. 1984. The Physiography of Southern Ontario. Ministry of Natural Resources.

City of Ottawa. 2009. Technical Memo: Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Installing

Culverts in Stony Swamp During the Richmond Road Widening. Prepared by Nicholas Stow, Senior Planner, Policy Development and Urban Design (Natural Systems).

City of Ottawa, 2002. Stream Habitat Assessment, Stillwater Creek – 2001. Prepared by the

Water Protection Program, Utilities Services, transportation, Utilities and Public Works. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2007. COSWIC

Assessment and Status Report on the Flooded Jellyskin Leptogium rivulare in Canada. http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/CW69-14-391-2004E.pdf

Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO). 2011. COSSARO

Candidate Species Risk Evaluation: Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica). http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@mnr/@species/documents/resear

ch/stdprod_091151.pdf Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO). 2011. COSSARO

Candidate Species Risk Evaluation: Eastern Meadowlark. http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@mnr/@species/documents/resear

ch/stdprod_091154.pdf Dillon Consulting Limited (Dillon). 2013. South March Highlands Blanding’s Turtles

Conservation Needs Assessment on behalf of the City of Ottawa. http://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/public-consultations/environment/south-march-highlands-

blandings-turtle-conservation-needs Enbridge Gas Distribution. 2012. Ottawa Reinforcement Project Environmental and Cumulative

Effects Assessment. https://www.enbridgegas.com/about/pipeline-and-construction-projects/ottawa-reinforcement-project.aspx?subpage=3

Gibbs, J. P., F. A. Reid, and S. M. Melvin. 1992. Least Bittern (Ixobrychus exilis). In The Birds of

North America, No. 17 (A. Poole, P. Stettenheim, and F. Gill, eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, DC: The American Ornithologists' Union.

Lee, H.T., W.D. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig and S. McMurray. 1998.

Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.



Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2012. Butternut (Juglans cinerea). http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@mnr/@species/documents/document/stdprod_070895.pdf

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2011. Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus).

Queen’s Printer for Ontario. http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@mnr/@species/documents/document/stdprod_085029.pdf

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2009. Whip-poor-will (Caprimulgus vociferus).

Queen’s Printer for Ontario. http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@mnr/@species/documents/document/276687.pdf

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2000. Significant Wildlife Habitat: Technical

Guide. The Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Ontario Nature. 2011. Ontario’s Reptile and Amphibian Atlas – Milksnake (Lampropeltis

triangulum). http://www.ontarionature.org/protect/species/herpetofaunal_atlas.php Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA). 2010. Jock River Subwatershed Report 2010.

http://204.101.207.53/IM/Documents/watershed_planning/Jock_River/Catchment_Data/Monahan_Drain/Monahan_Drain_Catchment_Features.pdf

Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA). 2009. City Stream Watch 2009 Annual Report.

http://204.101.207.53/im/documents/aquatics/city_stream_watch/2009_CITY_STREAM_WATCH_ANNUAL_REPORT.pdf

Royal Ontario Museum (ROM). 2013. Common Birds of Peel Region. Royal Ontario Museum.

http://www.rom.on.ca/ontario/fieldguides.php?distribution=33&taxon=3&doc_type=fieldguide&page_no=2

Royal Ontario Museum (ROM). 2010. Species at Risk: Chimney Swift. Royal Ontario Museum.

http://www.rom.on.ca/ontario/risk.php?doc_type=fact&lang=en&id=322 Royal Ontario Museum (ROM). 2010. Species at Risk: Snapping Turtle. Royal Ontario Museum.

http://www.rom.on.ca/ontario/risk.php?doc_type=fact&lang=en&id=334 Royal Ontario Museum (ROM). 2010. Species at Risk: Whip-poor-will. Royal Ontario Museum.

http://www.rom.on.ca/ontario/risk.php?doc_type=fact&lang=en&id=332 Royal Ontario Museum (ROM). 2008. Species at Risk: Blanding’s Turtle. Royal Ontario

Museum. http://www.rom.on.ca/ontario/risk.php?doc_type=fact&id=317



Royal Ontario Museum (ROM). 2008. Species at Risk: Henslow’s Sparrow. Royal Ontario

Museum. http://www.rom.on.ca/ontario/risk.php?doc_type=fact&id=130 Royal Ontario Museum (ROM). 2008. Species at Risk: Least Bittern. Royal Ontario Museum.

http://www.rom.on.ca/ontario/risk.php?doc_type=fact&id=104 Royal Ontario Museum (ROM). 2008. Species at Risk: Milksnake. Royal Ontario Museum.

Royal Ontario Museum (ROM). 2008. Species at Risk: Least Bittern. Royal Ontario Museum. http://www.rom.on.ca/ontario/risk.php?doc_type=fact&id=104

Royal Ontario Museum (ROM). 2006. Species at Risk: Black Tern. Royal Ontario Museum.

http://www.rom.on.ca/ontario/risk.php?doc_type=fact&id=115 Royal Ontario Museum (ROM). 2006. Species at Risk: Eastern Ribbonsnake. Royal Ontario

Museum. http://www.rom.on.ca/ontario/risk.php?doc_type=fact&id=295 Royal Ontario Museum (ROM). 2005. Species at Risk: Short-eared Owl. Royal Ontario

Museum. http://www.rom.on.ca/ontario/risk.php?doc_type=fact&id=119 Thompson, E. Personal communications. Ministry of Natural Resources – Kemptville District.

Postal Bag 2002, 10 Campus Drive, Kemptville, Ontario, K0G 1J0.

APPENDIX A: STUDY AREA PHOTOGRAPHS

Natural Science Reportgreenspace-alliance.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/...Natural Science Report...

Documents

Transcript of Natural Science Reportgreenspace-alliance.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/...Natural Science Report...