environmental impact assessment addendum

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ADDENDUM

2175 Cornwall Road, Oakville, Ontario

Project No.: 0CP-19-0498

Prepared for:

H&R REIT

Prepared by:

McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineers Ltd.

1329 Gardiners Road

Kingston, Ontario

K0A 1L0

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ADDENDUM

2175 CORNWALL ROAD, OAKVILLE, ONTARIO

Prepared for:

H&R REIT

Prepared by:

McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineers Ltd.

1329 Gardiners Road

Kingston, Ontario

K0A 1L0

April 17, 2020

___________________________ Author: Christian Lyon, B. Sc. Environmental Scientist McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineers Ltd.

_____________________________ Quality Review: Matthew Wheeler, B.A. Senior Ecologist McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineers Ltd.

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineers Ltd (McIntosh Perry) has prepared the following Addendum to address

comments and questions raised by the Town of Oakville, Conservation Halton, and Halton Region regarding

the original Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) completed for HR REIT by McIntosh Perry, dated January

17, 2020. The location that this EIA Addendum is based on is 2175 Cornwall Road, Oakville, Ontario (the site;

Appendix A: Figure 1).

This Addendum intends to supplement information from the original EIA. The following topics will be

discussed in further detail below:

• Tree Compensation Plan and Vegetation Removal

• Regional Natural Heritage System

• Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) Correspondence

• Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) Criteria Schedules for Ecoregion 7E

• Stormwater Management Pond, Pipe and New Driveway

• Wetland Significance

• Recommendations & Mitigation Measures

• Revised EIA Conclusion

Please note that at the time of submission of the original EIA, the property boundary shown on supporting

figures was displayed as an approximate limit. The property boundary has since been surveyed and adjusted

to a more accurate portrayal. The Regional Natural Heritage System (RNHS) component, Joshua’s Creek, is

now adjacent to the site as opposed to within it. Consequently, the size of the significant woodlands within

the site has been reduced marginally.

2.0 TREE COMPENSATION PLAN AND VEGETATION REMOVAL

Requested by: The Town of Oakville; Halton Region

A tree compensation plan has been prepared and submitted for review and approval from the Town of Oakville.

The details of the plan are as follows:

• According to the Town of Oakville’s guidance for tree removal on private property (https://www.oakville.ca/residents/private-tree-protection.html), one (1) compensation tree per ten (10) cm DBH (diameter at breast height) tree removed is required.

• 31, ten (10) cm+ DBH trees plus two dense vegetation units (approximately 0.1 ha and 1.1 ha) are to be removed as outlined in the previously submitted Arborist Report. The vegetation units are dominated by sparse non-native tree species with understory dominated by common buckthorn. Trees include Douglas fir, Norway maple, Manitoba maple, Siberian elm, Scots pine, black pine, white pine, walnut, cedar, aspen, mulberry, yew, birch, ash, apple, and Kentucky-coffee Trees.

• The proposed landscape plan includes the planting of approximately 255, 60 mm caliper trees within the property boundary.

• Most of the proposed tree species are native and are representative of trees found in southern Ontario (no invasive species will be used).

https://www.oakville.ca/residents/private-tree-protection.html

2175 Cornwall Road, Oakville Environmental Impact Assessment Addendum 0CP-190498-00

2

• The new trees will be distributed on the property as closely as possible to what their naturally occurring environment would be.

• Seven (7) native species (also non-invasive) that are widely used in parking lots throughout the Greater Toronto Area and are fairly typical species that do well in parking lot developments, will be used in the design of the new parking lot area. These species include Ulmus americana, Celtis occidentalis, Quercus macrocarpa, Tilia americana, Acer rubrum, Liriodendron tulipifera, and Carya ovata.

• Three (3) non-native species (also non-invasive) that are salt-tolerant and tolerant to urban conditions will be used in the parking lot areas where native tree species are not appropriate. These species include Tilia cordata, Ginkgo biloba, Gleditsia triacanthos.

• The two dense vegetation units that will be removed contain several invasive species, therefore by removing these species and planting new native species throughout the site, the property’s environmental features will be enhanced.

Vegetation removal was recommended in the original EIA to remove invasive species (phragmites and

buckthorn) in various areas of the site. This approach has since been revised as the RNHS is now outside the site

property boundary and is no longer considered an area for revegetation efforts or vegetation management

actions.

The buckthorn that is apparent in the understory of Vegetation Community 4 (Dry-Fresh Deciduous Forest

(FOD4-1)) could possibly be removed to enhance the woodland canopy structure. However, this can be a

difficult, multi-year, task to complete as it requires a significant effort to remove buckthorn, which may not end

up being a successful endeavour. As the location of the buckthorn is within the significant woodlands of

Vegetation Community 4, there will be no treatment of the buckthorn. In addition, the significant woodlands will

be protected by a 10 m buffer during the construction of the newly installed second driveway on the site

(Appendix A: Figure 2). The 10 m buffer will also be revegetated with a variety of native trees and shrubs from

local stock and seed zones.

3.0 REGIONAL NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM

Requested by: The Town of Oakville; Conservation Halton; Halton Region

Additional data outlining the location of the RNHS, significant woodlands and its associated 10 m buffer was

requested to be added to Figure 2. This has been updated and can be found in Appendix A. The 10 m buffer is a

protection measure to the significant woodlands. The buffer will be temporarily fenced off with silt fencing

during construction to visually delineate and adequately protect the significant woodlands. In addition to this, to

help protect and enhance the RNHS and the significant woodlands, vegetative plantings (native shrubs are

recommended) will be established within the 10 m buffer. The 10 m buffer is an adequate buffer width to

protect the RNHS features (significant woodlands), as no construction equipment, or activities will take place

near the RNHS feature, thus maintaining its integrity and importance. This will result in no negative impacts to

the RNHS or its ecological function. Additional measures include implementing an Erosion and Sediment Control

(ESC) Plan for the construction area.


3

4.0 MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, CONSERVATION AND PARKS CORRESPONDENCE

Requested by: The Town of Oakville; Conservation Halton; Halton Region

The MECP has been consulted to discuss the potential of the Kentucky-coffee Trees being landscape trees

for which the provisions of the Endangered Species Act may not apply. MECP was also consulted to determine

if an Overall Benefit Permit is required to alter the site or remove the trees. No tree removal or habitat

alteration will take place before confirming if the provisions of the ESA apply to these trees. Orange snow

fence has already been erected in the site to physically delineate and protect this species and provide a

buffer (Appendix A, Figure 2; “Tree Protection Zone”). If the ESA applies to these trees, an Overall Benefit

Permit will be acquired before habitat alteration or tree removal. Provided these actions are followed, it is

not anticipated that the proposed development will adversely affect species at risk or their habitat. See

Appendix B for correspondence with MECP to-date. Once clarification or approval to proceed is provided

from MECP, this information will be relayed to the Town of Oakville, Conservation Halton, and Halton Region.

Please note that the current site plan will be updated if MECP allows removal of the Kentucky-coffee Trees

without an Overall Benefit Permit. An amendment will be provided at that time.

5.0 SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT CRITERIA SCHEDULES FOR ECOREGION 7E

Requested by: Conservation Halton

A Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) table has been prepared with a desktop analysis of all SWH categories

for Ecoregion 7E. The details can be found in Appendix C.

6.0 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT POND, PIPE AND NEW DRIVEWAY

Requested by: Conservation Halton; Halton Region

The overall stormwater management approach for the site makes use of both proposed and existing

infrastructure to capture, collect, treat, and convey flows to Joshua’s Creek, which flows adjacent to the site.

Within the new parking area to the northeast of the existing building, a new series of catchbasins and

stormwater pipes are proposed to capture and convey runoff. A new stormwater pipe is proposed to convey

runoff south and west across the site where it connects into the existing stormwater system just prior to the

existing pond inlet pipe (Appendix A, Figure 2; also seen on Sediment & Erosion Control Plan Dwg. C103).

Care has been taken to maintain separation from the proposed pipe to the significant woodland buffer near

the southern limit of the property. It is not anticipated that the construction will have any adverse impacts

of the woodlands provided that mitigation measures, such as the installation of silt fencing, are followed

during construction. Additionally, no physical changes are proposed to any part of the existing stormwater

management pond (Vegetation Community 6), which will also eliminate any disruption to the significant

woodlands. For more information, please see the updated Civil Pans (C101-C103).


4

The area where the new stormwater pipe will be installed (along the south side of the existing building) will

be restored to the existing vegetation after it is installed. The new stormwater pipe will respect the 10 m

buffer adjacent to the significant woodlands other than where it is already disturbed by the existing parking

lot.

A second driveway to the site is going to be installed just north of the significant woodland buffer (Appendix

A, Figure 2). It will be installed approximately 10 to 20 m from the 10 m buffer outside the significant

woodlands (Vegetation Community 4). The new driveway is setback sufficiently as to not negatively impact

the RNHS (including significant woodlands and associated buffer). This applies to both construction activities

and operations once the site is operational.

7.0 WETLAND SIGNIFICANCE

Requested by: Halton Region

Vegetation Community 3, as seen in Appendix A, Figure 2 (Cultural Meadow/Mineral Meadow March

(CUM1/MAM2)), located along the north-east property boundary of the site, was assessed against Sections 268

and 276.5 of the Halton Region Official Plan, 2018. Details regarding the assessment are outlined below.

Section 268

“Provincially Significant Wetlands means wetlands so classified by the Ministry of Natural Resources and

Forestry based on the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System 2013 Southern Manual, as amended from time

to time.”

McIntosh Perry did not complete a formal OWES classification on Vegetation Community 3, as in our opinion, it

did not meet the criteria of a wetland that would then require evaluation. The presence of wetlands was

determined based on the OWES “50% Wetland Vegetation Rule” (Ontario Wetland Evaluation System Southern

Manual Southern Manual 3rd Edition, Version 3.3, 2014), where half or more of the vegetation, as judged by

relative abundance, should be wetland plants as opposed to terrestrial plants. The 0.5 ha minimum size

requirement for ELC polygons was also used to identify wetland communities. Vegetation Community 3 did not

meet either of these requirements. OWES scores wetlands based on four (4) main criteria: Biological

Component, Social Component, Hydrological Component, and Special Features Component. As a feature with

less than 0.4 ha ELC polygon size composed entirely of an invasive species (phragmites) that is inedible, poor

habitat structure and common on the landscape, the value of this wetland is mostly hydrological serving as local-

scale flood attenuation to the property.

Section 276.5

“Significant Wetlands means:

1) For lands within the Niagara Escarpment Plan Area, Provincially Significant Wetlands and wetlands as

defined in the Niagara Escarpment Plan that make an important ecological contribution to the RNHS:

2) For lands within the Greenbelt Plan Area but outside the Niagara Escarpment Area, Provincially

Significant Wetlands and wetlands as defined in the Greenbelt Plan;

3) For lands within the RNHS but outside the Greenbelt Plan Area, Provincially Significant Wetlands and

wetlands that make an important ecological contribution to the RNHS; and

4) Outside the RNHS, Provincially Significant Wetlands.”


5

McIntosh Perry’s assessment against this section is as follows:

1) The site is not within the Niagara Escarpment Plan Area;

2) The site is not within the Greenbelt Plan Area;

3) The feature that will be removed, Vegetation Community 3, is over 500 m from the RNHS (Joshua’s

Creek) and significant woodlands (Vegetation Community 4). Due to grade differences and separation, this

feature is not considered to be part of, or make an important ecological contribution, to Joshua’s Creek or

the RNHS; and

4) The feature is not recognized already as a Provincially Significant Wetland.

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS & MITIGATION MEASURES

Requested by: Conservation Halton; Halton Region

Due diligence for the RNHS features, as well as the rest of the natural environment within the site, should

include general mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate potential negative effects. These general

mitigation measures should be applied to the design and construction activities of the proposed

development.

For the Town of Oakville’s Tree By-laws, the following applies:

• An agreement in place with the Town of Oakville for the tree compensation plan outlined in this

Addendum.

• Where possible, trees to be planted should consist of native trees from local stock and seed zones.

• Trees should be planted at a ratio of 1 sugar maple: 1 oak: 1 associate tree. These trees should be

planted in canopy gaps no closer than 3 m apart.

The remaining recommendations and mitigation measures apply to policies outlined in the Halton Region

Official Plan and industry-accepted best practices.

• A 10 m vegetative buffer should be fenced off with silt fencing and maintained along Vegetation

Community 4 adjacent to the construction of the new driveway. This will protect the RNHS feature

from possible interactions during construction and operations. The fence can be removed after

construction, and appropriate native shrub vegetative plantings and trees from local stock and seed

zones will be implemented in the buffer to help maintain, enhance, and protect the significant

woodlands.

• To manage potential hydrological impacts of the proposed removal of Vegetation Community 3,

parking design will require ditching or infiltration trenches dug no less than the amount that is filled.

• The area disturbed from the installation of the stormwater management pipe should be restored to

its pre-disturbance condition.

• Prepare a tree protection plan and clearly delineate/demarcate work areas to avoid encroachment

and incidental damage to native trees and areas of natural vegetation to be retained.


6

• Educate workers on the requirements for and importance of staying outside of the demarcated area

with all equipment, vehicles, and materials.

• Inspectors should ensure construction vehicles and personnel stay within the construction envelope,

thereby limiting the disturbance of natural vegetation.

• In the event of accidental damage to trees that are being retained, or unexpected vegetation

removal, vegetation should be replaced/restored with native species.

• To prevent the introduction and spread of invasive plant species into the site, equipment utilized

during construction should be inspected and cleaned in accordance with the Clean Equipment

Protocol for Industry.

• Vegetation removal should be minimized to only what is required for the proposed works.

• Exposed soils should be revegetated as soon as possible using a seed mix composed of native species,

native trees and shrubs, which are appropriate for the site conditions.

• An ESC Plan should be prepared specific to site conditions.

• Revegetation should consist of vegetation native to the area.

• Before commencing any site alterations, visually inspect the work area for wildlife presence.

• Do not feed any wildlife or leave food out that may attract wildlife.

• If wildlife is encountered within the work area, keep distance and allow the animal to exit the work

area.

• The Migratory Birds Convention Act (MBCA) provides legal protection of migratory birds and their

nests in Canada. The loss of migratory bird nests, eggs and or nestlings due to tree cutting or other

vegetation clearing can be avoided by limiting clearing of vegetation to outside of the general nesting

period for migratory birds in this region as identified by Environment Canada (i.e., between late

March and late August). If work must be performed within this window, a survey for active nests or

breeding should be conducted by a qualified biologist before work commences and additional

mitigation measures (e.g., implementation of avoidance distances during construction) employed if

required.

• All maintenance activities, vehicle refuelling or washing, as well as the storage of chemical and

construction equipment, should be located >30 m from natural areas, including Joshua’s Creek.

• Drip pans shall be placed under all stationary equipment to prevent leaks of fuel, lubricants and other

potentially deleterious substances.

• In the event of an accidental spill, the Ontario Spills Action Centre (1-800-268-6060) should be

contacted and emergency spill procedures implemented immediately.


7

• Install, monitor and maintain proper muffling and maintenance of machinery and equipment.

9.0 REVISED EIA CONCLUSION

Requested by: Halton Region

Based on this EIA Addendum, provided the recommendations and mitigation strategies contained herein are

implemented in full, the proposed redevelopment of 2175 Cornwall Road will result in no overall negative

impacts on the functions and features of the RNHS within the site. There will be removal of vegetation as

described in the previously provided Arborist Report, and compensation requirements must still be arranged

with the Town of Oakville to be compliant with municipal tree protection bylaws.

APPENDIX A – Figure 1 (Study Area Location) and Figure 2 (Vegetation

Communities)

Lake Ontario

8TH LINE

TRAFALGAR ROAD6TH

LINE

LEIGHLANDAV

ENUE

LAKESHORE ROAD WEST

CORNWALLROAD

DORVAL DRIVE

ERIN MILLS PARKWAY

9TH LINE

FORD DRIVE

LAKESHORE ROAD EAST

UPPER MIDDLEROAD EAST

SOUTHDOWN ROADEGLIN

TON

AVENUE WEST

QUEE

NEL

IZ ABE

THW

AY

DUNDAS STREET E

AST

CHARTWELL ROAD

BURNHAMTHORPE ROAD EAST

LEGEND

STUDY AREA LOCATION

1FIGURE:

Apr., 16, 2020LCCL

TITLE:

CLIENT:

PROJECT:

U:\O

ttawa

\01 P

rojec

t - Pr

opos

als\20

19 Jo

bs\C

P\0C

P-Pr

ojects

\0CP-

19-04

98 H

&R R

EIT_

2175

Corn

wall A

venu

e\GIS\

mxd\E

nviro

nmen

tal\C

P-19

-0498

_01_

SiteL

ocati

on_8

x11.m

xd

REFERENCE

Study AreaLocal RoadMajor Road

WatercourseWaterbodyWooded Area

GIS data provided by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, 2020.

PROJECT NO: DateGISChecked By

CP-19-0498

Metres

2,000 0 2,0001,000

Scale 1:55,000

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT2175 CORNWALL ROAD

H&R REIT

115 Walgreen Road, RR3, Carp, ON K0A1L0Tel: 613-836-2184 Fax: 613-836-3742

www.mcintoshperry.com

LEGEND

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT2175 CORNWALL ROAD

VEGETATION COMMUNITIES(ECOLOGICAL LAND CLASSIFICATION)

2FIGURE:

H&R REIT

Apr., 16, 2020LCCL

TITLE:

CLIENT:

PROJECT:

U:\O

ttawa

\01 P

rojec

t - Pr

opos

als\20

19 Jo

bs\C

P\0C

P-Pr

ojects

\0CP-

19-04

98 H

&R R

EIT_

2175

Corn

wall A

venu

e\GIS\

mxd\E

nviro

nmen

tal\C

P-19

-0498

_02_

Vege

tation

Comm

unitie

s.mxd

REFERENCEGIS data provided by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, 2020.

PROJECT NO: DateGISChecked By

CP-19-0498

Metres

100 0 10050

Scale 1:3,500

51

3

2

2

15

61

4

115 Walgreen Road, RR3, Carp, ON K0A1L0Tel: 613-836-2184 Fax: 613-836-3742

www.mcintoshperry.com

New Stormwater PipeExisting Stormwater Pipe

Property BoundaryWatercourseSignificant Woodlands10m Buffer

Existing DisturbanceRegional Natural Heritage SystemVegetation Community 1: Mineral Cultural MeadowVegetation Community 2: Cultural MeadowVegetation Community 3: Cultural Meadow/Mineral MeadowMarsh (CUM1/MAM2)Vegetation Community 4: Dry-Fresh Deciduous Forest(FOD4-1)Vegetation Community 5: Dry-Fresh Deciduous Forest(FOD4)Vegetation Community 6: Cattail Mineral Shallow Marsh(MAS2-1)

Excavation Area For Stormwater Pipe

Existing Building

Proposed Site Layout

Tree Protection Zone


APPENDIX B – MECP Correspondence

1

Christian Lyon

Subject: FW: Kentucky Coffee-tree in Oakville (2175 Cornwall Road.

From: McAllister, Aurora (MECP) <[email protected]>Sent: April 14, 2020 11:51 AMTo: Matthew Wheeler <[email protected]>Subject: RE: Kentucky Coffee-tree in Oakville (2175 Cornwall Road.

Hello,

It’s my approximate timeline, based on how long it takes me to turn around reviews onaverage. Given the current circumstances, many things are taking longer in general. I can assureyou that this file is in my queue.

Thanks again for your patience.

Aurora

From: Matthew Wheeler <[email protected]>Sent: April 13, 2020 9:49 AMTo: McAllister, Aurora (MECP) <[email protected]>Subject: RE: Kentucky Coffee-tree in Oakville (2175 Cornwall Road.

CAUTION -- EXTERNAL E-MAIL - Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.Hi Aurora,

I hope you are well and had a good weekend. Thanks for confirming the review time. I initially contacted you onFebruary 5, 2020. When does MECP start the clock for the 3-4 month review period? So would this mean May 5 (3month) and June 5 (4 month) would be the dates? I’m looking to set calendar reminders to touch base with you andminimize contact so you can move through your other priorities.

Stay well, Matt

Matthew Wheeler, B.A.Senior Ecologist/Project Manager1-1329 Gardiners Road, Kingston, ON, K7P 0L8T. 343.344.2696 | F. 613.542.7583 | C. [email protected] | www.mcintoshperry.com

Confidentiality Notice – If this email wasn’t intended for you, please return or delete it. Click here to read all of the legal language around this concept.

2

From: McAllister, Aurora (MECP) <[email protected]>Sent: April 6, 2020 8:33 AMTo: Matthew Wheeler <[email protected]>Subject: RE: Kentucky Coffee-tree in Oakville (2175 Cornwall Road.

Hello – Review timelines are about 3-4 months right now. I haven’t forgotten –just working through abacklog and balancing a number of priorities. Thanks for your patience.

Aurora

From: Matthew Wheeler <[email protected]>Sent: April 1, 2020 3:50 PMTo: McAllister, Aurora (MECP) <[email protected]>Subject: RE: Kentucky Coffee-tree in Oakville (2175 Cornwall Road.


I hope you are well.

I haven’t touched base in about a month. I wanted to see if you’re still working, if your team has had a chance to reviewthe information provided and if you could please provide an update on my inquiry

Thanks,



From: Matthew WheelerSent: March 6, 2020 3:44 PMTo: McAllister, Aurora (MECP) <[email protected]>Subject: RE: Kentucky Coffee-tree in Oakville (2175 Cornwall Road.

Hi Aurora. I will stand by. Thanks for the update.

Have a good weekend,

From: McAllister, Aurora (MECP) <[email protected]>Sent: March 6, 2020 3:22 PM

3

To: Matthew Wheeler <[email protected]>Subject: RE: Kentucky Coffee-tree in Oakville (2175 Cornwall Road.

Hi Matt – Thanks for providing all the information. It is like going to be a few weeks. Thanks for yourpatience.

Aurora

From: Matthew Wheeler <[email protected]>Sent: March 6, 2020 2:41 PMTo: McAllister, Aurora (MECP) <[email protected]>Subject: RE: Kentucky Coffee-tree in Oakville (2175 Cornwall Road.


I’m touching base to see if you had any updates and to see if you needed any additional information?

Kind regards, Matthew

From: Matthew WheelerSent: February 27, 2020 4:08 PMTo: McAllister, Aurora (MECP) <[email protected]>Subject: RE: Kentucky Coffee-tree in Oakville (2175 Cornwall Road.

Hi Aurora,

I hope you are doing well. I wanted to provide additional information relative to Kentucky Coffee-trees at 2175Cornwall Road, Oakville which have surfaced in the past week.

· The Sheridan Nursery Farm at 2175 Cornwall Road was historically called “The Anderson Farm” and the originalfarm occupied a greater area than the current land parcel at 2175 Cornwall Road according to Murray Greer,40+ year employee of Sheridan Nurseries who spent 9 years working at this location. Sheridan Nurseries movedoff this site in 1987 to move its staff and farm operations to Norval Farm in 1987.

· Bill Stensson noted “Considering the location on the photo I'd say that the trees are remnants from the nurseryplantings, say 99.9% certainty.” Murray Greer noted on the phone today (Feb. 27, 2020) that two formerSheridan Nursery staff that worked on that property agreed that the location of the Kentucky Coffee-trees onthe site are indicative of where the commercial stock was planted.

· On Monday, February 24, 2020, Murry Greer stopped by the former nursery site at 2175 Cornwall Road. Henoted the presence of Corylus contorta (corkscrew hazel) or Corylus pendula (weeping hazelnut) near theKentucky Coffee-trees. This was one of the largest specimens of this horticultural hazelnut he has seen. Thepresence of the hazel is an indicator species of a ‘planted block’ of nursery stock.

· Arborist Nate Torenvliet visited the site on Feb 26, 2020, to mark the trees and so we could apply a snow fenceas a physical buffer around the Kentucky Coffee-trees. He provided additional information regarding the site.

o 58 stems total of Kentucky Coffee-tree are on the site and are divided into the following size classes oftrees (see attached excel sheet summarizing all Kentucky Coffee-trees on site):§ Fourty four (44) trees in the size class of 1-9 cm DBH§ Eleven (11) trees in the size class of 10-15 cm DBH§ Four (4) in the size class of 16-20 cm DBH

o The four largest trees (16-20cm DBH) appear to be the original nursery plantingso There is evidence of historical digging (likely a tree spade) on the site.

4

o A tree core (see photos below) was taken from Kentucky Coffee-tree (tree #145, 19 cm DBH), thelargest trees on site, with the intent of aging the tree. Nate noted “The tree is 34 years old. You can seethat growth really slowed about 14 years ago - probably due to the suckers and other competingtrees…If nursery stock, these trees would have then been planted around 1986. Wire basket/b&b [balland burlap] trees are usually grown for around 6 or 7 years before being harvested at the 50-60mmcaliper size. Planned dig/harvest time might have been around 1993.” This information lines up wellwith the oral history of the site provided by Murray Greer who mentioned Sheridan Nurseries left thesite around 1987. If Sheridan Nurseries planted the trees in 1986 and left the site in 1987, it would makesense that they wouldn’t have uprooted young planting stock and it would explain why the trees arestill present. I believe a portion of the farm was sold in the late 1980s with the remainder of the farmsold in 1997. I believe the land registry records show a transfer of land title from Sheridan Nurseries toanother owner in 1997 for 2175 Cornwall Road. The original Sheridan Nursery Farm at 2175 CornwallRoad (referenced as the “Anderson Farm”.) would have been much larger at one time than the currentparcel size. I believe Sheridan Nurseries may have sold off other portions of land prior to the 1997 sale.

6

From: Matthew WheelerSent: February 25, 2020 3:49 PM

7

To: McAllister, Aurora (MECP) <[email protected]>Subject: RE: Kentucky Coffee-tree in Oakville (2175 Cornwall Road.

Hi Aurora,

Thank you for getting back to me and for discussing this with your team. It is greatly appreciated. I will await yourresponse.

Have a great day,

From: McAllister, Aurora (MECP) <[email protected]>Sent: February 25, 2020 1:25 PMTo: Matthew Wheeler <[email protected]>Subject: RE: Kentucky Coffee-tree in Oakville (2175 Cornwall Road.

Hi Matthew,

Thank you, this is very helpful information. I will put this forward for internal discussion and see whathappens. I likely won’t have a response for you this week. Thanks for your patience.

Aurora

Aurora McAllister | Management Biologist | Permissions and Compliance | Species at Risk Branch |Ontario Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks |50 Bloomington Road, Aurora, Ontario, L4G 0L8 | Email: [email protected]

From: Matthew Wheeler <[email protected]>Sent: February 24, 2020 4:48 PMTo: McAllister, Aurora (MECP) <[email protected]>Subject: RE: Kentucky Coffee-tree in Oakville (2175 Cornwall Road.


I have been in touch with Sheridan Nurseries regarding the Kentucky Coffee-trees as they historically owned this siteand operated it as a tree nursery. I spoke with Murray Greer from Sheridan Nurseries, who has worked from thecompany for 41 years (started in 1979) and who worked at the 2175 Cornwall Road property in the 1980s (i.e. the sitewhere the Kentucky Coffee-trees are located). Murry didn’t have any specific information about the trees but put me intouch with Bill Stensson who did have direct involvement with that property and many others owned by SheridanNurseries.

I believe Bill functioned as the nursery manager and wholesale manager as Sheridan Nurseries, was promoted to variousother roles in the company during his long tenure and he retired 2 years ago. Bill, having worked for Sheridan Nurseriesfor 40+ years, has vast institutional knowledge of this property, and Sheridan’s operations. Bill noted the following whenI inquired about the Kentucky Coffee-trees at 2175 Cornwall Road “Considering the location on the photo I'd say thatthe trees are remnants from the nursery plantings, say 99.9% certainty.”

The Kentucky Coffee-trees are confirmed as landscape plantings for a historical commercial horticultural operation. Thisexplains why the trees are found so far outside of their historical range in Ontario. Given this new information, I was

8

hoping we could have a brief phone call this week to discuss the implications of these plantings under the ESA. Pleaselet me know if you’re free for a short call.

Kind regards,

From: McAllister, Aurora (MECP) <[email protected]>Sent: February 19, 2020 1:02 PMTo: Matthew Wheeler <[email protected]>Subject: RE: Kentucky Coffee-tree in Oakville

Hi Matthew – Great. It will just be me, you can reach me at 289-221-2014. Talk to you then.

Aurora

From: Matthew Wheeler <[email protected]>Sent: February 19, 2020 11:45 AMTo: McAllister, Aurora (MECP) <[email protected]>Subject: RE: Kentucky Coffee-tree in Oakville


No need to apologize for the delay. I’m sure you’ve got a full plate of work.

A phone call at 10am Friday February 21, 2020 works for me. What phone number should I use to call you?Alternatively, if we have more than a couple people attending I can set up a conference call. From McIntosh Perry I willbe the only person on the call.

Thanks in advance,


From: McAllister, Aurora (MECP) <[email protected]>Sent: February 19, 2020 9:24 AMTo: Matthew Wheeler <[email protected]>Subject: RE: Kentucky Coffee-tree in Oakville

Hello – Sorry for the delayed response. Are you available Friday for a call to discuss? Is 10am ok?

Aurora

From: Matthew Wheeler <[email protected]>Sent: February 11, 2020 3:31 PMTo: McAllister, Aurora (MECP) <[email protected]>Subject: RE: Kentucky Coffee-tree in Oakville

CAUTION -- EXTERNAL E-MAIL - Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

9

Hi Aurora,

It’s very likely that these Kentucky Coffee-trees were planted at the property which was owned and occupied bySheridan Nurseries up until 1997 from what I can tell from land registry records. They no longer own or operate at thisproperty. Sheridan Nurseries historically and currently sells ornamental plans, annuals, and garden supplies. Thecompany historically and currently sells a wide selection of trees, shrubs, evergreens, roses, perennials and annuals.Sheridan Nurseries has a long history of providing unique ornamental botanical specimens from boxwoods toMountbatten Junipers, to exotic Lilacs. While I can’t find any historical evidence to support this claim, I’m sure at onepoint in time Kentucky Coffee-tree was offered due to the unique structure and appearance of this species. It’s subtlepanicles of white pea-like flowers, compound leaves and large pods make it an attractive ornamental trees. Plus thespecies is hardy to a wide range of conditions and locations beyond it’s historical native range in Ontario, is long livedand makes an excellent shade tree. All of these attributes would have likely seen it as a desirable plant for a commercialnursery to sell in their wider catalogue of trees, shrubs and other plants.

We had begun to explore the option of genetic testing to determine if these trees originated from native stock. Mycolleague working on this project with me has reached out to the researchers at Trent University that previously didgenetic analysis for Kentucky Coffee-tree. They no longer provide this function for this species. It is my understandingthat the in-house staff member at Trent with the expertise required to perform the tests is no longer there and thus,the lab is not able to perform these tests.

Considering this avenue of investigation is no longer available and the trees are most likely planted by the formernursery owners from unknown stock, how does the ESA apply to these Kentucky Coffee-trees at this site? I understandthat each determination by MECP is site, situation and species specific. Thus, the determination for these trees, on thissite, is not applicable to other sites.

Kind regards, Matthew Wheeler


From: McAllister, Aurora (MECP) <[email protected]>Sent: February 11, 2020 2:58 PMTo: Matthew Wheeler <[email protected]>Subject: RE: Kentucky Coffee-tree in Oakville

Hello Matthew,

It sounds like these are likely planted, and I agree that they are outside of their native range. Eventhough they are technically protected under the Endangered Species Act, in Aurora District MNRF wedid not protect SAR such as Kentucky Coffee-trees that were likely planted. However, we only everdealt with 1 or two trees at a time in manicured, urban areas. Given the large number of trees in thiscase, if the testing is available I think it would be best to confirm whether or not these trees originatedfrom native stock before confirming requirements under the Endangered Species Act.

A professor a Trent University (Dr. Joanna Freeland) has previously done genetic analysis for thisspecies and it is possible that she may be willing to assist in this circumstance as well. Her contactinformation can be found here: https://www.trentu.ca/biology/faculty-research/faculty/joanna-freeland

Regards,

10


From: Matthew Wheeler <[email protected]>Sent: February 5, 2020 3:24 PMTo: McAllister, Aurora (MECP) <[email protected]>Subject: RE: Kentucky Coffee-tree in Oakville


Thank you for getting in touch with me. My apologies for not sending this request into the general email for SAROOntario. I was hoping to speak with someone from MECP to understand the implications under the Endangered SpeciesAct prior to commencing down the application process for an Overall Benefit Permit.

I was hoping to speak with you regarding a property located at 2175 Cornwall Road, Oakville, Ontario (see image below,with approximate Kentucky Coffee-tree location circled). McIntosh Perry was undertaking an Environmental ImpactStatement for this commercial property. The owner would like to extend their parking lot to the northeast to providemore parking for employees and service trucks at the warehouse. During the field work for the EIS, 56 KentuckyCoffee-Trees (DBH range 2cm to 24 cm) were observed. I believe these trees represent landscape trees that wereplanted;

· The property was formerly owned by Sheridan Nurseries (1997 they sold the property) and they likely cultivateda range of trees and shrubs for commercial sales.

· These trees appear to be located approximately 100 km east of the native range of the species.· The trees show no sign of sexual reproduction on trees of sufficient size to bear pods/seeds. This may indicate

that the original planted seeds were of a single sex and that either only male or only female trees are presenton site.

I was hoping to have a brief call with you to discuss this site. My contact information is listed below. Please give me acall when you have a moment.

11

Kind regards,



From: McAllister, Aurora (MECP) <[email protected]>Sent: February 5, 2020 2:43 PMTo: Matthew Wheeler <[email protected]>Subject: Kentucky Coffee-tree in Oakville

12

Hello,

I understand that you left a voicemail with Carolyn Hann about a Kentucky Coffee-tree inOakville. You can direct your question to me as I am the biologist responsible for this geographicregion of the province.

In the future, please direct all inquiries to [email protected] as this is the Ministry’s one-window e-mail account for applications, report submissions and other communications relating toapplications and authorizations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Regards,



APPENDIX C – Significant Wildlife Habitat Table

115 Walgreen Road, R.R.3. Carp, ON K0A 1L0 | T. 613-836-2184 | F. 613-836-3742

[email protected] | www.mcintoshperry.com

SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT FOR ECOREGION 7E

Candidate Wildlife Habitat

Criteria Methods Habitat Assessment of Features Found Within the Study Area

Seasonal Concentration Areas of Animals Waterfowl Stopover and Staging Area (Terrestrial)

Fields with sheet water or utilized by tundra swans during spring (mid-March to May), or annual spring melt water flooding found in any of the following Community Types: Meadow (CUM1), Thicket (CUT1).

Agricultural fields with waste grains are commonly used by waterfowl, and these are not considered SWH unless used by Tundra swans in the Long Point, Rondeau, Lake St. Clair, Grand Bend and Point Pelee Areas.

ELC surveys were used to assess features within the Study Area that may support waterfowl stopover and staging areas (terrestrial).

No candidate habitat for waterfowl stopover and staging areas occurred within the Study Area.

Waterfowl Stopover and Staging Area (Aquatic)

The following Community Types: Shallow Marsh (MAS), Shallow Aquatic (SA), Deciduous Swamp (SWD). Ponds, marshes, lakes, bays, coastal inlets, and watercourses used during migration. The combined area of the ELC ecosites and a 100 m radius area is the SWH. Sewage treatment ponds and storm water ponds do not qualify as a SWH; however, a reservoir managed as a large wetland or pond/lake does qualify. Theses habitats have an abundant food supply (mostly aquatic invertebrates and vegetation in shallow water)

ELC surveys were used to assess features within the Study Area that may support waterfowl stopover and staging areas (aquatic).

No candidate habitat for aquatic waterfowl stopover and staging areas occurred within the Study Area.

Shorebird Migratory Stopover Area

Shorelines of lakes, rivers and wetlands, including beach areas, bars and seasonally flooded, muddy and un-vegetated shoreline habitats.

ELC surveys were used to assess features within the Study Area that may

No candidate habitat for shorebird stopover areas occurred within the Study Area.

Significant Wildlife Habitat for Ecoregion 7E 2175 Cornwall Road, Oakville, Ontario

2



Great Lakes coastal shorelines, including groynes and other forms of amour rock lakeshores, are extremely important for migratory shorebirds in May to mid-June and early July to October. Sewage treatment ponds and storm water ponds do not qualify as a significant wildlife habitat. The following community types: Meadow Marsh (MAM), Beach/Bar (BB), or Sand Dune (SD)

support migratory shorebirds.

Raptor Wintering Area

At least one of the following Forest Community Types: Deciduous Forest (FOD), Mixed Forest (FOM) or Coniferous Forest (FOC), in combination with one of the following Upland Community Types: Meadow (CUM), Thicket (CUT), Savannah (CUS), Woodland (CUW) (<60% cover) that are >20 hectare (ha) and provide roosting, foraging and resting habitats for wintering raptors. Upland habitat (CUM, CUT, CUS, CUW), must represent at least 15 ha of the 20-ha minimum size.

ELC surveys were used to assess features within the Study Area that may support wintering raptors.

No candidate habitat for raptor wintering areas occurred within the Study Area.

Bat Hibernacula

Hibernacula may be found in caves, mine shafts, underground foundations and karsts. May be found in these Community Types: Crevice (CCR), Cave (CCA).

ELC surveys were used to assess features within the Study Area that may support bat hibernacula.

No crevices, caves, karst or abandoned mines are located within the Study Area. No candidate habitat for bat hibernacula occurred within the Study Area.

Bat Maternity Colonies

Maternity colonies considered significant wildlife habitat are found in forested ecosites. Any of the following Community Types: Deciduous Forest (FOD), Mixed Forest (FOM), Deciduous Swamp (SWD), Mixed Swamp (SWM), that have >10/ha wildlife trees >25cm diameter at breast height (dbh).

ELC surveys were used to assess features within the Study Area that may support bat maternity colonies.

The FOD is less than 10 ha in size and is a young stand. No candidate habitat for bat maternity colonies occurred within the Study Area.


3



Maternity colonies can be found in tree cavities, vegetation and often in buildings (buildings are not considered to be SWH). Female Bats prefer wildlife tree (snags) in early stages of decay, class 1-3 or class 1 or 2. Northern Myotis prefer contiguous tracts of older forest cover for foraging and roosting in snags and trees Silver-haired Bats prefer older mixed or deciduous forest and form maternity colonies in tree cavities and small hollows. Older forest areas with at least 21 snags/ha are preferred.

Turtle Wintering Areas

Snapping and Midland Painted turtles utilize ELC community classes: Swamp (SW), Marsh (MA) and Open Water (OA). Shallow water (SA), Open Fen (FEO) and Open Bog (BOO). Northern Map turtle: open water areas such as deeper rivers or streams and lakes can also be used as over-wintering habitat. Water has to be deep enough not to freeze and have soft mud substrate. Over-wintering sites are permanent water bodies, large wetlands, and bogs or fens with adequate dissolved oxygen. Man-made ponds such as sewage lagoons or storm water ponds should not be considered SWH.

ELC surveys were used to assess features within the Study Area that may support areas of permanent standing water but not deep enough to freeze.

The marsh community within the Study Area is a stormwater pond and therefore not considered SWH. No candidate habitat for turtle wintering areas occurred within the Study Area.

Reptile Hibernaculum

Hibernation occurred in sites located below frost lines in burrows, rock crevices, broken and fissured rock and other natural features. Wetlands can also be important over-wintering habitat in conifer or shrub swamps and swales, poor fens, or depressions in bedrock terrain with sparse trees or shrubs with sphagnum moss or sedge hummock ground cover.

ELC surveys and wildlife assessments were used to assess features within the Study Area that may support reptile hibernacula.

Rock crevices, burrows, broken and fissued rock and other natural features possibly used by as candidate reptile hibernacula were not observed within the Study Area.


4



The following Community Types may be directly related to snake hibernacula: Talus (TA), Rock Barren (RB), Crevice (CCR), Cave (CCA), and Alvar (RBOA1, RBSA1, RBTA1).

Colonial-Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat (Bank and Cliff)

Eroding banks, sandy hills, borrow pits, steep slopes, sand piles, cliff faces, bridge abutments, silos, or barns found in any of the following Community Types: Meadow (CUM), Thicket (CUT), Bluff (BL), Cliff (CL). Does not include man-made structures (bridges or buildings) or recently (2 years) disturbed soil areas, such as berms, embankments, soil or aggregate stockpiles. Does not include a licensed/permitted Mineral Aggregate Operation.

ELC surveys were used to assess features within the Study Area that may support colonial bird breeding habitat (Bank and Cliff).

The site has Cultural Meadow features but these have flat topography and lacks necessary bank and cliff features. No candidate habitat for bank or cliff colonial nesting birds occurred within the Study Area.

Colonial-Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat (Tree/Shrubs)

Identification of stick nests in any of the following Community Types: Mixed Swamp (SWM), Deciduous Swamp (SWD), Treed Fen (FET). The edge of the colony and a minimum 300 m area of habitat or extent of the Forest Ecosite containing the colony or any island <15.0 ha with a colony is the SWH. Nests in live or dead standing trees in wetlands, lakes, islands, and peninsulas. Shrubs and occasionally emergent vegetation may also be used

ELC surveys were used to assess features within the Study Area that may support colonial bird breeding habitat (Trees/Shrubs).

No ELC communities were identified within the Study Area that are generally associated with potential candidate habitat for colonial nesting breeding birds. No large stick nests were observed during field surveys. No candidate habitat for tree/shrub colonial nesting birds occurred within the Study Area.

Colonial-Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat (Ground)

Any rocky island or peninsula within a lake or large river. For Brewer’s Blackbird close proximity to watercourses in open fields or pastures with scattered trees or shrubs found in any of the following Community Types: Meadow Marsh (MAM1-6), Shallow Marsh (MAS1-3), Meadow (CUM), Thicket (CUT), Savannah (CUS).

ELC surveys were used to assess features within the Study Area that may support colonial bird breeding habitat (ground).

No rocky islands or peninsulas are present within the Study Area. No candidate habitat for ground colonial nesting breeding birds occurred within the Study Area.


5



Migratory Butterfly Stopover Areas

Located within 5 km of Lake Ontario A combination of ELC communities, one from each land class is required: Field (CUM, CUT, CUS) and Forest (FOC, FOM, FOD, CUP) Minimum of 10 ha in size with a combination of field and forest habitat present

ELC surveys were used to assess features within the Study Area that may support migratory butterfly stopover areas.

No candidate significant wildlife habitat for migratory butterfly stopover areas occurred within the Study Area.

Landbird Migratory Stopover Areas

The following community types: Forest (FOD, FOM, FOC) or Swamp (SWC, SWM, SWD) Woodlots must be >5 ha in size and within 5 km of Lake Ontario – woodlands within 2 km of Lake Ontario are more significant

ELC surveys were used to assess features within the Study Area that may support landbird migratory stopover areas.

No candidate habitat for migratory landbird stopover areas occurred within the Study Area.

Deer Winter Congregation Areas

Woodlots typically > 100 ha in size unless determined by the MNRF as significant. (If large woodlots are rare in a planning area >50ha) All forested ecosites within Community Series: FOC, FOM, FOD, SWC, SWM, SWD Conifer plantations much smaller than 50 ha may also be used

No studies required as the MNRF determines this habitat.

No deer winter congregation areas were identified by the MNRF within the Study Area. The FOD is less than 100 ha in size. No candidate habitat for deer winter congregation areas occurred within the Study Area.

Rare Vegetation Communities Cliffs and Talus Slopes

A Cliff is vertical to near vertical bedrock >3 m in height. A Talus Slope is rock rubble at the base of a cliff made up of coarse rocky debris Any ELC Ecosite within Community Series: TAO, TAS, TAT, CLO, CLS, CLT Most cliff and talus slopes occur along the Niagara Escarpment

ELC surveys were used to assess features within the Study Area that would be considered cliffs or talus slopes.

No cliffs or talus slopes were identified within the Study Area. No candidate wildlife habitat for cliffs or talus slopes occurred within the Study Area.

Sand Barrens Sand barrens typically are exposed sand, generally sparsely vegetated and cause by lack of moisture, periodic fires and erosion. Vegetation can vary from patchy and barren to tree covered but less than 60%.

ELC surveys were used to assess features within the Study Area that would be considered to be sand barrens.

No sand barrens were identified within the Study Area. No candidate wildlife habitat for sand barrens occurred within the Study Area.


6



Any of the following Community Types: SBO1 (Open Sand Barren Ecosite), SBS1 (Shrub Sand Barren Ecosite), SBT1 (Treed Sand Barren Ecosite).

Alvars An alvar is typically a level, mostly unfractured calcareous bedrock feature with a mosaic of rock pavements and bedrock overlain by a thin veneer of soil. Vegetation cover varies from sparse lichen-moss associations to grasslands and shrublands and comprising a number of characteristic or indicator plant. Undisturbed alvars can be phyto- and zoogeographically diverse, supporting many uncommon or are relict plant and animal species. Vegetation cover varies from patchy to barren with a less than 60% tree cover. Any of the following Community Types: ALO1(Open Alvar Rock Barren Ecosite), ALS1 (Alvar Shrub Rock Barren Ecosite), ALT1 (Treed Alvar Rock Barren Ecosite), FOC1 (Dry-Fresh Pine Coniferous Forest), FOC2 (Dry-Fresh Cedar Coniferous Forest), CUM2 (Bedrock Cultural Meadow), CUS2 (Bedrock Cultural Savannah), CUT2-1 (Common Juniper Cultural Alvar Thicket), or CUW2 (Bedrock Cultural Woodland) An Alvar site > 0.5 ha in size

ELC surveys were used to assess features within the Study Area that would be considered to be alvar communities.

No candidate wildlife habitat for alvars occurred within the Study Area.

Old-growth Forest

Old-growth forests are characterized by heavy mortality or turnover of over-storey trees resulting in a mosaic of gaps that encourage development of a multi-layered canopy and an abundance of snags and downed woody debris.

ELC surveys were used to assess features within the Study Area that would be considered to be old-growth forest communities.

No old growth forests were identified within the Study Area. No candidate wildlife habitat for old growth forests occurred within the Study Area.


7



Woodland area is greater than 0,5 ha in the following Community Types: FOD, FOM, FOC, SWD, SWC, and SWM. Dominant trees species greater than 140 years old is considered SWH.

Savannah A Savannah is a tallgrass prairie habitat that has tree cover between 25 – 60%. In Ecoregion 7E, known Tallgrass Prairie and savannah remnants are scattered between Lake Huron and Lake Erie, near Lake St. Clair, north of and along the Lake Erie shoreline, in Brantford and in the Toronto area (north of Lake Ontario). Any of the following Community Types: TPS1 (Dry- Fresh Tallgrass Mixed Savannah Ecosite), TPS2 (Fresh-Moist Tallgrass Deciduous Savannah Ecosite), TPW1 (Dry-Fresh Black Oak Tallgrass Deciduous Woodland Ecosite), TPW2 (Fresh-Moist Tallgrass Deciduous Woodland Ecosite), CUS2 (Bedrock Cultural Savannah Ecosite).

ELC surveys were used to assess features within the Study Area that would be considered to be savannah communities.

No savannahs were identified within the Study Area. No candidate wildlife habitat for savannahs occurred within the Study Area.

Tallgrass Prairies

A Tallgrass Prairie has ground cover dominated by prairie grasses. An open Tallgrass Prairie habitat has < 25% tree cover. In Ecoregion 7E, known Tallgrass Prairie and savannah remnants are scattered between Lake Huron and Lake Erie, near Lake St. Clair, north of and along the Lake Erie shoreline, in Brantford and in the Toronto area (north of Lake Ontario). Any of the following Community Types: TPO1 (Dry Tallgrass Prairie Ecosite), TPO2 (Fresh-Moist Tallgrass Prairie Ecosite).

ELC surveys were used to assess features within the Study Area that would be considered to be tall-grass communities.

No candidate wildlife habitat for tall grass prairies occurred within the Study Area.

Other Rare Vegetation Communities

Provincially Rare S1, S2 and S3 vegetation communities are listed in Appendix M of the SWHTG. Any ELC Ecosite Code that has a possible ELC

ELC surveys were used to assess features within the Study Area that would be

No rare vegetation communities were identified within the Study Area.


8



Vegetation Type that is Provincially Rare is Candidate SWH.

considered to be other rare vegetation communities.

No candidate wildlife habitat for rare vegetation communities occurred within the Study Area.

Specialized Habitat for Wildlife Waterfowl Nesting Area

All upland habitats located adjacent to these wetland ELC Ecosites are Candidate SWH: MAS1, MAS2, MAS3, SAS1, SAM1, SAF1, MAM1, MAM2, MAM3, MAM4, MAM5, MAM6, SWT1, SWT2, SWD1, SWD2, SWD3, SWD4. Waterfowl nesting area extends 120 m from a wetland (> 0.5 ha) or a wetland (> 0.5 ha) and any small wetlands (0.5 ha) within 120 m or a cluster of 3 or more small (< 0.5 ha) wetlands within 120 m of each individual wetland where waterfowl nesting is known to occur. Note: includes adjacency to Provincially Significant Wetlands

ELC surveys were used to assess features within the Study Area that may support nesting waterfowl.

The Study Area has Cultural Meadow features but the biophysical attributes of the phragmites stand and adjacent area does not support the needs of waterfowl during their nesting period. Vegetation Community 3 (CUM1/MAM2) has an area less than 0.5 ha. No candidate wildlife habitat for waterfowl nesting areas occurred within the Study Area.

Bald Eagle and Osprey nesting, Foraging, and Perching Habitat

Nests are associated with lakes, ponds, rivers or wetlands along forested shorelines, islands, or on structures over water. Nests located on man-made objects are not to be included as SWH (e.g. telephone poles and constructed nesting platforms). ELC Forest Community Series: FOD, FOM, FOC, SWD, SWM and SWC directly adjacent to riparian areas – rivers, lakes, ponds and wetlands

ELC surveys were used to assess features within the Study Area that may support nesting, foraging and perching habitat for large raptors.

No large stick nests were identified within the Study Area. No candidate wildlife habitat for Osprey or Bald Eagle habitat occurred within the Study Area.

Woodland Raptor Nesting Habitat

All natural or conifer plantation woodland/forest stands combined >30 ha and with >4 ha of interior habitat. Interior habitat determined with a 200 m buffer. Stick nests found in a variety of intermediate-aged to mature conifer, deciduous or mixed forests within tops or crotches of trees. Species such as Coopers hawk nest along forest edges

ELC surveys were used to assess features within the Study Area that may support nesting habitat for woodland raptors.

There is no woodland >30 ha on or adjacent to the Study Area No candidate wildlife habitat for woodland raptor nesting occurred within the Study Area.


9



sometimes on peninsulas or small off-shore islands. May be found in all forested ELC Ecosites. May also be found in SWC, SWM, SWD and CUP3

Turtle Nesting Areas

Best nesting habitat for turtles is close to water, away from roads and sites less prone to loss of eggs by predation from skunks, raccoons or other animals. For an area to function as a turtle-nesting area, it must provide sand and gravel that turtles are able to dig in and are located in open, sunny areas. Nesting areas on the sides of municipal or provincial road embankments and shoulders are not SWH. Sand and gravel beaches adjacent to undisturbed shallow weedy areas of marshes, lakes, and rivers are most frequently used. Exposed mineral soil (sand or gravel) areas adjacent (< 100 m) or within the following ELC Ecosites: MAM1, MAM2, MAM3, MAM4, MAM5, MAM6, SAS1, SAM1, SAF1, BOO1, FEO1

ELC surveys were used to assess features within the Study Area that may support turtle nesting areas.

The Cultural Meadow feature in Vegetation Community 3 is a phragmites stand and does not provide suitable biophysical conditions for turtle overwintering, basking, foraging or movement. There is also no open sand, gravel or sparsely vegetated pathes suitable for turtle nesting. No candidate wildlife habitat for turtle nesting areas occurred within the Study Area.

Seeps and Springs

Seeps/Springs are areas where ground water comes to the surface. Often, they are found within headwater areas within forested habitats. Any forested Ecosite within the headwater areas of a stream could have seeps/springs. Any forested area (with <25% meadow/field/pasture) within the headwaters of a stream or river system.

ELC surveys were used to assess features within the Study Area that may support the presence of seeps and springs.

No seeps or springs were observed within the Study Area.

Amphibian Breeding Habitat (Woodland)

Presence of a wetland, lake, or pond within or adjacent (within 120 m) to a woodland (no minimum size). Some small wetlands may not

ELC surveys were used to assess features within the Study Area that may

Vegetation Communities 4 and 5 have deciduous forest features but do not have permanent ponds or contain water.


10



be mapped and may be important breeding pools for amphibians. Woodlands with permanent ponds or those containing water in most years until mid-July are more likely to be used as breeding habitat. All Ecosites associated with these ELC Community Series; FOC, FOM, FOD, SWC, SWM, SWD

support woodland breeding amphibians.

No significant woodland amphibian breeding habitat occurred within the Study Area.

Amphibian Breeding Habitat (Wetlands)

Wetland areas >120 m from woodland habitats. Wetlands and pools (including vernal pools) >500 m2 (about 25 m diameter) supporting high species diversity are significant; some small or ephemeral habitats may not be identified on MNRF mapping and could be important amphibian breeding habitats. Presence of shrubs and logs increase significance of pond for some amphibian species because of available structure for calling, foraging, escape and concealment from predators. Bullfrogs require permanent water bodies with abundant emergent vegetation. ELC Community Classes SW, MA, FE, BO, OA and SA.

ELC surveys were used to identify wetland habitat features within the Study Area including those that may support bullfrogs (i.e., natural open aquatic and marsh habitats greater than 1 ha in size).

There are no wetlands within the Study Area that are >120 m from woodland habitat or >500 m2 No significant wetland amphibian breeding habitat occurred within the Study Area.

Woodland Area-Sensitive Bird Breeding Habitat

Habitats > 30ha where interior forest is present (at least 200 m from the forest edge); typically, > 60 years old. These include any of the following Community Types: Forest (FO), Treed Swamp (SW)

ELC surveys were used to determine whether woodlots that occurred within the Study Area that were >30 ha with interior habitat present (>200 m from edge).

No candidate wildlife habitat for woodland area-sensitive breeding bird habitat occurred within the Study Area.


11



Habitat of Species of Conservation Concern considered SWH Marsh Bird Breeding Habitat

All wetland habitats with shallow water and emergent aquatic vegetation. May include any of the following Community Types: Meadow Marsh (MAM), Shallow Aquatic (SA), Open Bog (BOO), Open Fen (FEO), or for Green Heron: Swamp (SW), Marsh (MA) and Meadow (CUM1) Community Types.

ELC surveys were used to identify marshes with shallow water and emergent vegetation that may support marsh breeding birds.

Vegetation Community 3 has Cultural Meadow/Mineral Meadow Marsh features but does not have shallow water and/or emergent aquatic vegetation. It is dominated by phragmites. No candidate wildlife habitat for marsh breeding birds occurred within the Study Area.

Open Country Bird Breeding Habitat

Grassland areas > 30 ha, not Class 1 or Class 2 agricultural lands, with no row-cropping or hay or livestock pasturing in the last 5 years, in the following Community Type: Meadow (CUM).

ELC surveys were used to identify grassland communities within the Study Area that may support area-sensitive breeding birds.

Non-agricultural grassland communities > 30 ha are not present within the Study Area. No candidate wildlife habitat for open country breeding bird habitat occurred within the Study Area.

Shrub/Early Successional Bird Breeding Habitat

Large field areas succeeding to shrub and thicket habitats >10 ha, not Class 1 or Class 2 agricultural lands, with no row-cropping or intensive hay or livestock pasturing in the last 5 years, in the following Community Types: Thickets (CUT), Savannahs (CUS), or Woodlands (CUW). Shrub thicket habitats are most likely to support and sustain a diversity of these species.

ELC surveys were used to identify large CUT, CUS or CUW communities that may support shrub/early successional breeding birds.

Shrubs and treed areas are less than 2 ha. No candidate wildlife habitat for shrub/early successional breeding bird habitat occurred within the Study Area.

Terrestrial Crayfish

Meadow marshes and edges of shallow marshes (no minimum size). Vegetation communities include MAM1, MAM2, MAM3, MAM4, MAM5, MAM6, MAS1, MAS2, MAS3, SWD, SWT, SWM. Construct burrows in marshes, mudflats, meadows Can be found far from water

ELC surveys were used to identify shallow marsh and meadow marsh communities that occurred within the Study Area.

Vegetation Community 3 has Meadow Marsh (MAM2) features and Vegetation Community 6 has Shallow Marsh (MAS2) features. MAM2 is completely dominated by phragmites and does not contain water. Terrestrial Crayfish are most likey to inhabit lake and stream freshwater ecosystems, and are likely to be found along rocky or weedy shorelines in water less than 2 m deep.


12



These conditions do not exist at MAM2 or MAS2. In addition, no Terrestrial Crayfish chimneys were observed within the Study Area. No candidate wildlife habitat for terrestrial crayfish were observed within the Study Area.

Special Concern and Rare Wildlife Species

Linking candidate habitat for all Special Concern and Provincially Rare (S1-S3) plant and animal species identified by elemental occurrence within 1 or 10 km grid.

ELC surveys were used in conjunction with background research and field visits to identify special concern and provincially rare (S1-S3) species within the Study Area.

No special concern or provincially rare (S1-S3) species were observed within the Study Area.

Animal Movement Corridors Amphibian Movement Corridors

Corridors may be found in all ecosites associated with water. Determined based on identifying significant amphibian breeding habitat (wetland).

Identified after Amphibian Breeding Habitat - Wetland is confirmed. Movement corridors should be considered when amphibian breeding habitat is confirmed as SWH from Amphibian Breeding Habitat (Wetland).

No significant amphibian breeding habitat was present within the Study Area. Therefore, no amphibian movement corridors are present within the Study Area.

environmental impact assessment addendum

Documents