environmental impact assessment glen abbey golf club ... planning/da-15190901...w o o l w i c h s t...

GUIDING SOLUTIONS IN THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

3 3 7 W O O L W I C H S T R E E T , G U E L P H O N T A R I O C A N A D A N 1 H 3 W 4 T e l : ( 5 1 9 ) 8 2 6 - 0 4 1 9 F a x : ( 5 1 9 ) 8 2 6 - 9 3 0 6

Environmental Impact Assessment Glen Abbey Golf Club Redevelopment

Town of Oakville, Ontario

Prepared For:

ClubLink Corporation ULC and ClubLink Holdings Limited

Prepared By:

Beacon Environmental Limited

Date: Project:

October 2016 215131

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6

G l e n A b b e y R e d e v e l o p m e n t E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t A s s e s s m e n t

T o w n o f O a k v i l l e

T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s

p a g e

1. Introduction .................................................................................................. 1

2. Policy Framework ........................................................................................ 1

2.1 Federal Fisheries Act (1985)......................................................................................... 1

2.2 Provincial Policy Statement (2014) ............................................................................... 3 2.3 Regional Municipality of Halton Official Plan (September 2015) ................................... 5 2.4 Liveable Oakville Plan (2009) ....................................................................................... 6 2.5 Conservation Halton and the Conservation Authorities Act ........................................... 7

2.6 Provincial Endangered Species Act .............................................................................. 7

3. Methodology ................................................................................................ 8

3.1 Field Investigations ....................................................................................................... 8 3.2 Aquatic Resources ....................................................................................................... 9 3.3 Vegetation Inventory and Ecological Land Classification .............................................. 9 3.4 Breeding Bird Surveys ................................................................................................ 10 3.5 Amphibian Surveys ..................................................................................................... 10 3.6 Odonata and Butterfly Surveys ................................................................................... 10 3.7 Incidental Wildlife Observations .................................................................................. 10

4. Existing Conditions ................................................................................... 11

4.1 Aquatic Resources ..................................................................................................... 11 4.1.1 Sixteen Mile Creek ..................................................................................................... 11 4.1.2 Glen Oak Tributary ..................................................................................................... 12 4.1.3 Headwater Drainage Feature Assessment ................................................................. 13 4.1.4 Golf Course Features/Irrigation Ponds........................................................................ 14 4.1.5 Fish Community ......................................................................................................... 14 4.1.6 Species at Risk .......................................................................................................... 14

4.2 Ecological Land Classification and Flora .................................................................... 15 4.2.1 Flora .......................................................................................................................... 25 4.2.2 Regionally Rare and Uncommon Species................................................................... 25 4.2.3 Species at Risk .......................................................................................................... 26 4.2.4 Amphibians ................................................................................................................ 27 4.2.5 Turtles and Snakes .................................................................................................... 28 4.2.6 Mammals ................................................................................................................... 29 4.2.7 Breeding Birds ........................................................................................................... 29 4.2.8 Butterflies and Odonates ............................................................................................ 30

4.3 Endangered and Threatened Species ........................................................................ 33 4.4 Landscape Connectivity.............................................................................................. 34

5. Proposed Development ............................................................................ 35

6. Key Natural Heritage Features and Functions ....................................... 35

7. Potential Effects and Mitigation ............................................................... 37

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



7.1 Effects Assessment .................................................................................................... 38 7.2 Recommended Mitigation Measures........................................................................... 40 7.3 Net Effects .................................................................................................................. 48

8. Policy Conformity ...................................................................................... 48

8.1 Federal Fisheries Act .................................................................................................. 48 8.2 Provincial Policy Statement ........................................................................................ 49 8.3 Regional Municipality of Halton Official Plan (September 2015) ................................. 50 8.4 Liveable Oakville Plan (2009) ..................................................................................... 50 8.5 Conservation Halton and the Conservation Authorities Act ......................................... 50

8.6 Endangered Species Act ............................................................................................ 51

9. Review of Recommendations .................................................................. 51

10. Conclusion ................................................................................................. 52

11. References ................................................................................................. 53

F i g u r e s

Figure 1. Site Location ...................................................................................................... after page 2 Figure 2. Existing Conditions .......................................................................................... after page 12 Figure 3. Staked Features .............................................................................................. after page 38 Figure 4. Proposed Development .................................................................................... after page 40 T a b l e s

Table 1. Field Study Timetable ........................................................................................................... 8

Table 2. Regionally Rare and Uncommon Vascular Plant Species ................................................... 25

Table 3. Preliminary Results of Butternut Health Assessment .......................................................... 27

Table 4. Amphibian Calling Count Results ........................................................................................ 28

Table 5. Butterfly and Odonate Survey Details ................................................................................. 31

Table 6. Dragonflies and Damselflies (Odonata) Recorded on the Subject Property ......................... 31

Table 7. Butterflies Recorded on the Subject Property ...................................................................... 32

Table 8. Summary of Key Natural Heritage Features and Functions ................................................. 36

A p p e n d i c e s A. Breeding Birds B. Vascular Plant Species List C. MNRF SAR Letter

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 1

1. Introduction

Beacon Environmental Limited (Beacon) was retained in early 2015 by ClubLink Corporation ULC and ClubLink Holdings Limited (ClubLink) to prepare an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the property generally known as the Glen Abbey Golf Club. The subject property (Figure 1), approximately 93 ha in area, is located in the southeast quadrant of Upper Middle Road and Dorval Drive in the Town of Oakville, Ontario. In general terms, it includes an operating golf course, RayDor Estate, Sixteen Mile Creek and associated valleylands as well as some areas of tableland woodland, one of which includes a shallow seasonal pond. ClubLink is proposing a redevelopment of the property to include residential and commercial development, as well as the protection of various natural features. An EIA is required as the subject property includes several key natural heritage and key hydrological features that trigger official plan and conservation authority policies and regulations.

2. Policy Framework

This section provides an overview of key federal, provincial, and local environmental policies, legislation, and regulations that are directly relevant to this EIA and land use planning relating to natural features for the subject property. This includes a review of the following legislation, policies and regulations:

Federal Fisheries Act;

Provincial Policy Statement;

Regional Municpality of Halton Official Plan;

Town of Oakville Official Plan (Livable Oakville);

Conservation Authorities Act and Ontario Regulation 162/06; and

Ontario Endangered Species Act. This review highlights key policy, regulatory and legislative requirements as they relate to environmental planning and natural heritage protection for the subject property to ensure conformity with the existing policy framework.

2.1 Federal Fisheries Act (1985)

The subject property and adjacent lands contains one watercourse that supports fish habitat. As direct fish habitat is present within the subject property, which has potential to be affected by the proposed development, the federal Fisheries Act (1985) is a key piece of legislation to be considered. Fish habitat is protected under the Federal Fisheries Act (1985). In Ontario, the federal department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) manages fish habitat and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) manages fisheries.

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 2

The Fisheries Act has been updated through Bill C-38 which came into effect November 25th, 2013.

Key changes include the combination of former Sections 32 and 35 into a new Section 35 addressing the removal of Harmful Alteration, Disruption or Destruction (HADD) of fish habitat. The prohibitions on killing fish and causing harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat (HADD) have been replaced with a single prohibition in Section 35 against causing ‘serious harm to fish’ that are part of a

commercial, recreational or aboriginal fishery, or to fish that support such a fishery.

“Serious harm to fish” is defined as "the death of fish or any permanent alteration to, or destruction of, fish habitat". “Serious harm to fish” includes the following:

1. The death of fish; 2. A permanent alteration to fish habitat of a spatial scale, duration or intensity that

limits or diminishes the ability of fish to use such habitats as spawning grounds, or as nursery, rearing, or food supply areas, or as a migration corridor, or any other area in order to carry out one or more of their life processes; or

3. The destruction of fish habitat of a spatial scale, duration, or intensity that fish can no longer rely upon such habitats for use as spawning grounds, or as nursery, rearing, or food supply areas, or as a migration corridor, or any other area in order to carry out one or more of their life processes.

Commercial, recreational or aboriginal fisheries include those fish that fall within the scope of applicable federal or provincial fisheries regulations as well as those that can be fished by aboriginal organizations or their members for food, social or ceremonial purposes, or for purposes set out in a land claims agreement. Fish that support these fisheries are those that contribute to the productivity of a fishery and may reside in bodies of water that contain fisheries or in waterbodies that are connected by a watercourse to such waterbodies. Determining the applicability of the Section 35 prohibition to particular waterbodies is now made on a case-by-case basis through a self-assessment process to determine effects on fish and fish habitat and next steps. Development activities taking place in or near water may affect fisheries by adversely affecting fish or fish habitat. DFO recommends that proponents of these activities should:

understand the types of impacts their projects are likely to cause; take measures to avoid and mitigate impacts to the extent possible; and, request authorization from the Minister and abide by the conditions of any such

authorization, when it is not possible to avoid and mitigate impacts of projects that are likely to cause serious harm to fish.

Definitions of “avoidance”, “mitigation” and “offsetting” are outlined below and taken from the Fisheries Protection Policy Statement (2013): Avoidance

Avoidance is the undertaking of measures to completely prevent serious harm to fish. Avoidance measures may include locating infrastructure or designing a project or one or more of its components to avoid serious harm to fish. Careful timing of certain activities may also avoid harm to fish and fish habitat.

Dorval Drive

Upper Middle Road West

McCra ney Stre

et West

Golfview

Court

RayDor Estate

Project: 215131October 2016

-1:10,000

0 180 36090 Metres

UTM Zone 17 N, NAD 83

Site Location Figure 1

First Base SolutionsWeb Mapping Service 2015

Clublink Corporation ULC. Glen Abbey CommunityOakville

Dundas Street

Upper Middle R

oad

Neyagawa Boulevard

Dorval Drive

QEW

Trafalgar Road

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 3

For some projects, serious harm to fish may be fully avoided while for others, serious harm to fish may only be partially avoided. When serious harm to fish cannot be fully avoided, mitigation measures should be undertaken.

Mitigation

Mitigation is a measure to reduce the spatial scale, duration, or intensity of serious harm to fish that cannot be completely avoided. The best available mitigation measures or standards should be implemented by proponents as much as is practically feasible.

Mitigation measures include the implementation of best management practices during the construction, maintenance, operation and decommissioning of a project.

Offsetting

If all efforts have been made to avoid and mitigate impacts, any residual serious harm to fish can be addressed by offsetting. An offset measure is one that counterbalances unavoidable serious harm to fish resulting from a project with the goal of maintaining or improving the productivity of the commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery. Offset measures should support available fisheries management objectives and local restoration priorities.

2.2 Provincial Policy Statement (2014)

The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) (MMAH 2014) provides policy direction to municipalities on matters of provincial interest as they relate to land use planning and development. The PPS provides for appropriate land use planning and development while protecting Ontario’s natural heritage. Development governed by the Planning Act must be consistent with the policy statements issued under

the PPS. Land use planning within the subject property must be undertaken in a manner that is consistent with the corresponding PPS policies relating to the natural environment. These are outlined in Section 2.1 - Natural Heritage, Section 2.2 – Water, and to some extent Section 3.1 - Natural Hazards of the PPS, and relevant sections from each are provided in the following paragraphs. The PPS includes policies that speak to the identification and protection of natural heritage systems, as well as levels of protection for the various components that comprise such systems. A number of these feature components, as well as a connected Natural Heritage System, have been identified on the subject property, and must be assessed in the context of these policies. The policies specific to natural heritage are found in Section 2.1 of the PPS and those that are relevant to this project are provided below:

2.1.1 Natural features and areas shall be protected for the long term.

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 4

2.1.2 The diversity and connectivity of natural features in an area, and the long-term ecological function and biodiversity of natural heritage systems, should be maintained, restored or, where possible, improved, recognizing linkages between and among natural heritage features and areas, surface water features and

ground water features.

2.1.3 Natural heritage systems shall be identified in Ecoregions 6E & 7E, recognizing that natural heritage systems will vary in size and form in settlement areas, rural areas, and prime agricultural areas.

2.1.4 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in: a) significant wetlands in Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E1; and b) significant coastal wetlands.

2.1.5 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in:

a. significant woodlands in Ecoregions 6E and 7E;

b. significant valleylands in Ecoregions 6E and 7E;

c. significant wildlife habitat…; and

d. significant areas of natural and scientific interest.

unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions.

2.1.6 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in fish habitat except in accordance with provincial and federal requirements.

2.1.7 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in habitat of endangered species and threatened species, except in accordance with provincial and federal

requirements.

2.1.8 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on adjacent lands to the natural heritage features and areas identified in policies 2.1.4, 2.1.5 and 2.1.6 unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on their ecological functions.

Implementation, identification of the various natural heritage features noted above is a responsibility shared by the MNRF and the municipal planning authority. The MNRF is responsible for the confirmation of habitat of endangered species and threatened species, and for its regulation (under the Act as described above), as well as for the identification of Provincially Significant Wetlands and Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs). Local and regional planning authorities are responsible for the identification of Significant Woodlands, Significant Valleylands, and Significant Wildlife Habitat, with support from applicable guidance documents (i.e., Natural Heritage Reference Manual, OMNR 2010; Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guidelines, OMNR 2000; suggested Significant Wildlife Habitat Criteria for Ecoregion 7E, MNRF 2016).

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 5

Local and regional planning authorities in southern Ontario also typically work with their local conservation authorities to identify and confirm non-provincially significant wetlands that may have importance at the local or regional level. As described in Section 2.1 above, identification and verification of fish habitat is now self-regulated although enforcement of the related policies and regulations is still managed by MNRF and regulated by DFO. In areas where significant natural heritage features have been identified by the appropriate agency or planning authority, the boundaries of such features are typically refined through site-specific studies undertaken as part of the planning process, with input from the responsible agency and/or planning authority.

2.3 Regional Municipality of Halton Official Plan (September 2015)

The Halton Regional Municipality Official Plan (ROP), was last consolidated in 2015. The Regional Official Plan Amendment 38 (ROPA 38), has been approved by the Ontario Municipal Board. The 2015 interim office consolidation was prepared on September 28, 2015. Section 118(3) of the ROP states that it is the policy of the Region to:

Require the proponent of any development or site alteration that meets the criteria set out in Section 118(3.1) to carry out an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)…

The purpose of an EIA is to demonstrate that the proposed development or site alteration will result in no negative impacts to that portion of the Regional Natural Heritage System or unmapped Key Features affected by the development or site alteration by identifying components of the Regional Natural Heritage System as listed in Section 115.3 and their associated ecological functions and assessing the potential environmental impacts, requirements for impact avoidance and mitigation measures, and opportunities for enhancement. The EIA, shall, as a first step, identify Key Features on or near the subject site that are not mapped on Map 1G.

Map 1 – Regional Structure of the 2015 Office Consolidation identifies the following overlays within the subject property which are described in the following sections.

Urban Area

Regional Natural Heritage System The subject property is contained within the Urban Area and subject to the Urban System policies. Regional Natural Heritage System

The Sixteen Mile Creek valley which is located on the subject property is identified as part of the Regional Natural Heritage System (RNHS). The valley system is entirely within the RNHS, along with several small wooded areas on the tableland. These wooded areas are found in the southeast portion of the subject property near Dorval Drive.

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 6

2.4 Liveable Oakville Plan (2009)

As the subject property is entirely within the Town of Oakville, it is also subject to the Town’s in force Official Plan, Liveable Oakville (2009).

Schedule A-1 of the Livable Oakville Plan establishes the general ‘Urban Structure’. The subject property is located entirely within Residential Areas.

Schedule B of the Liveable Oakville Plan designates Natural Features and Hazard lands as occurring on the subject property including Significant Wildlife Habitat, Valleylands and Woodlands.

In these schedules, the subject property is identified as having the following Natural Feature and Natural Hazards overlays: Floodplain (Sixteen Mile Creek), Woodlands, and Environmentally Sensitive Area (Sixteen Mile Creek valleylands). Policies relating to Natural Areas are provided in Section 16 of Livable Oakville. The purpose of the Natural Area designation is to ensure the long term protection of natural features and functions. The policies state that features may also have some passive recreation opportunity, including trails and education. Natural Areas include:

i. significant habitat of endangered species and threatened species; ii. wetlands; iii. woodlands; iv. valleylands; v. significant wildlife habitat; vi. Environmentally Sensitive Areas; vii. Areas of Natural or Scientific Interest; viii. fish habitat; or, ix. natural corridors.

Section 16.1.7 contains policies relating to wetlands. It states that development and site alteration are not permitted within a provincially, regionally or locally significant wetland or within the 30 m buffer. The final width of a wetland buffer is to be established through an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) or subwatershed study. Development within 120 m of a wetland must demonstrate through an EIS that there are no negative impacts to the features of ecological functions of the wetland. There are no evaluated wetlands or “other wetlands“ identified in the Official Plan within the subject property. Section 16.1.8 contains policies relating to woodlands. It states that development or site alteration is not permitted within regionally significant woodlands or within their required minimum 10 m buffers. Any development within 120 m of a regionally significant woodland must be supported by an EIS that can demonstrate that the proposed development will not negatively impact the woodland or its ecological functions, this policy does apply to the subject property.

Section 16.1.9 contains policies relating to valleylands. It states that development and site alteration are not permitted within valleylands or their setbacks, with the exception of recreational uses and essential public works and utilities. The limits of valleylands are defined by their long-term stable top of

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 7

bank as determined through geotechnical assessments. A setback of 15 m is assigned to major valley systems (such as Sixteen Mile Creek valley). Section 16.1.10 contains policies relating to significant wildlife habitat. It states that development or site alteration is not permitted in significant wildlife habitat. Further unless otherwise directed by a conservation authority development proposed within 120 m of significant wildlife habitat shall require a satisfactory EIS/EIA to demonstrate that there will be no negative impact on the significant wildlife habitat features or functions.

2.5 Conservation Halton and the Conservation Authorities Act

The subject property includes regulated areas such as valleylands, floodplains, watercourses and wetlands. Ontario Regulation (Ont. Reg. 162/06) under the Conservation Authorities Act relates to

Regulation of Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shoreline and Watercourses. Under this regulation, any development or site alteration within a regulated area may require a permit from Conservation Halton. According to the Policy and Guidelines for the Administration of Ont. Reg. 162/06 & Land Use Planning Document (Conservation Halton 2011), development is prohibited within 15 m of the stable top of bank of major valleys such as Sixteen Mile Creek. In addition, proposals for development within 30 m of any wetland features require that an EIS be prepared to the satisfaction of the Conservation Authority.

2.6 Provincial Endangered Species Act

This Endangered Species Act (ESA) regulates the habitat and individuals of those species that are designated Endangered or Threatened. For context, relevant excerpts from this Act are included below:

Subsection 9(1) of the Act states that:

No person shall, (a) kill, harm, harass, capture or take a living member of a species that is listed on the

Species at Risk in Ontario List as an extirpated, endangered or threatened species; (b) possess, transport, collect, buy, sell, lease, trade or offer to buy, sell, lease or

trade, (i) a living or dead member of a species that is listed on the Species at

Risk in Ontario List as an extirpated, endangered or threatened species,

(ii) any part of a living or dead member of a species referred to in subclause (i),

(iii) anything derived from a living or dead member of a species referred to in subclause (i); or

(c) sell, lease, trade or offer to sell, lease or trade anything that the person represents to be a thing described in subclause (b) (i), (ii) or (iii).

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 8

Subsection 10(1)(a) of the Act states that:

No person shall damage or destroy the habitat of a species that is listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario list as an endangered or threatened species.

3. Methodology

This section details how the EIA was undertaken. Although an initial pre-consultation meeting was undertaken On November 18th 2015 with the Halton Region Conservation Authority (CH) and Town staff, a site specific terms of reference was not provided to ClubLink. In lieu of this Beacon staff relied

upon the generic EIA guidelines posted on the Town’s website and by CH (Conservation Halton 2005) and on our extensive professional experience and judgement having undertaken hundreds of similar studies in Ontario.

3.1 Field Investigations

Field investigations of the subject property were undertaken by Beacon staff throughout 2015 and 2016. These included: aquatic habitat assessment, breeding amphibian surveys, breeding bird surveys, Odonata surveys, butterfly surveys and vegetation community mapping (using Ecological Land Classification) and Arborist Report (see separate report, Beacon [2016a]). Table 1 provides a chronological summary of specific field studies. Additional site visits were also

undertaken.

Table 1. Field Study Timetable

Survey Type Dates Undertaken

Feature Staking (Region, Town, CH) November 2 and December 3, 2015

Aquatic Habitat and Headwater Drainage Feature Assessment

April 28, May 12, June 4 2015 and August 15 2016

Breeding Birds Surveys May 27 and June 10, 2015

Amphibian Surveys April 16 and May 26, 2015

ELC and Flora September 10, 2015, and May 6, July 20, and August 8, 2016

Butternut Health Assessments June 20 and August 8, 2016

Odonate Surveys June 20, July 15, August 28 and September 17, 2015

Butterfly Surveys June 20, July 15, August 28 and September 17, 2015

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 9

Feature Staking

Beacon staff performed a feature staking exercise on November 2 and December 3, 2015 accompanied by planners and representatives from the Region of Halton, Conservation Halton, and the Town of Oakville. Woodland dripline were staked at that time.

3.2 Aquatic Resources

Beacon aquatic ecologists completed an aquatic habitat assessment of Sixteen Mile Creek within the subject property in the spring of 2015 and summer of 2016. The assessment of aquatic resources and habitat within the subject property was completed following a modified version of the Rapid Assessment Methodology. The survey involved a visual assessment of the following characteristics of each watercourse:

stream morphology, runs, pools, riffles;

channel width and depth profile, bank height, bank stability;

substrate types and distribution;

seepage areas;

dams and obstructions;

riparian and in-stream cover type and extent;

floodplain vegetation; and

side channels and floodplain. Observed flow conditions were also noted and recorded as dry conditions, standing water or flowing water. Headwater Drainage Feature Assessment

A Headwater Drainage Feature Assessment (HDFA) was completed on April 28th and June 4th, 2015, according to the Evaluation, Classification and Management of Headwater Drainage Features Guidelines (CVC and TRCA 2014).

3.3 Vegetation Inventory and Ecological Land Classification

Vegetation communities were classified according to the Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario (Lee et al. 1998), which involved delineating distinct vegetation communities on an aerial photograph and recording information on the structure and composition of the vegetation in each community and other notable characteristics. Concurrently a list of vascular plant species was compiled for the property. The locations of regionally rare species and Species at Risk were recorded.

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 10

3.4 Breeding Bird Surveys

Breeding bird surveys were completed during the spring of 2015 to record all of the breeding bird species that utilize the habitat present on the subject property, including any potential Species at Risk. This consisted of two surveys that were conducted:

May 27 and June 10 survey dates during the peak breeding bird season;

Between shortly after dawn and approximately 10:30 am; and

Under suitable weather conditions (low wind, no rain, no unusual temperatures). The subject property was walked such that all singing birds within cultural or natural communities could be heard or observed and recorded (i.e., within about 50 m). All birds heard and seen were recorded in the location observed on an aerial photograph of the site. Specific surveys for Barn Swallow nests were undertaken after the breeding bird surveys on June 10, 2015 by directly examining all potential nesting structures on the subject property.

3.5 Amphibian Surveys

Amphibian surveys were under taken on the evenings of April 16 and May 26 2015. Eight survey locations were checked on these dates. A third survey was not undertaken based on the results of the earlier survey and habitat conditions.

3.6 Odonata and Butterfly Surveys

Field investigations for species of Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies) and butterflies were conducted for a total of over 24 hours of total survey time. Butterfly and most dragonfly/damselfly species were identified using binoculars. However, some species of bluets, meadowhawks and spreadwings were netted and examined using a hand lens (and released afterwards). Species were noted as to exact location provided they met one of the following criteria; a species had a ranking of S4 or lower (more sensitive), or a species generally occurs in densities low enough as to warrant mention. Some highly mobile, migratory breeding species such as Monarch, Black Saddlebags and Red Admiral were not mapped.

3.7 Incidental Wildlife Observations

Incidental wildlife observations for other wildlife groups were recorded during the course of regular fieldwork conducted in 2015 and 2016.

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 11

4. Existing Conditions

The existing natural heritage features and functions have been identified through a review of background information and field investigations conducted from 2015 through to 2016 and are described in this section and presented in Figure 2. Golder (2016) notes that the subject property surface conditions comprise various depths of fill underlain by cohesive till material. Shale bedrock is located at 0.9 to 5.6 m below surface, with groundwater levels ranging from approximately 2 m to 27 m below ground level. The Sixteen Mile Creek and river valley is located along the northeastern section of the subject property. This is a deep steep sided valley, and groundwater is likely to appear as seepage in some areas of the steep slopes.

4.1 Aquatic Resources

The subject property is located in the lower portions of the Sixteen Mile Creek watershed. The 2011 Long Term Environmental Monitoring Program Grindstone Creek, Sixteen Mile Creek and Supplemental Monitoring prepared by Conservation Halton was reviewed for background information. 4.1.1 Sixteen Mile Creek

Sixteen Mile Creek meanders through the subject property along the eastern property boundary (Photographs 1 and 2). The creek is generally uniform, with wide flat floodplains and is confined within

the valley system. Several reaches of the watercourse have been stabilized with gabion baskets to accommodate the golf course. The creek is predominately riffle-pool morphology throughout the subject property. The wetted width of the creek on average was 10 m throughout the study reach. Channel substrates were described as cobble/shale, boulders, gravel and sand. The riparian habitat is dominated by large mature trees and cultural meadow along the right bank (facing upstream) and cultural meadow and manicured golf course along the left bank. Areas of severe erosion were observed. Sixteen Mile Creek is crossed by three bridges to accommodate golf carts. No fish barriers were observed throughout Sixteen Mile Creek within the subject property.

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 12

Photograph 1.

Sixteen Mile Creek facing upstream at proposed

outfall location for SWM Pond C

Photograph 2.

Sixteen Mile Creek facing downstream at

proposed outfall location for SWM Pond C

4.1.2 Glen Oak Tributary

The Glen Oak Tributary is located within the Oakville West Urban Creeks watershed. Glen Oak Creek is a tributary to McCraney Creek. The Glen Oak Creek tributary appears to originate off site south of Dorval Drive (Photograph 3). It flows in a south easterly direction adjacent to Dorval Drive to its

confluence with Glen Oak Creek approximately 700 m downstream. This watercourse is entrenched with an average wetted width of 0.6 m. The creek meanders downstream of the subject property and areas of active erosion and sedimentation due to slumping banks were evident. Substrates consisted mostly of weathered shale with gravel and sand. Large and small woody debris were observed throughout the channel. Stream morphology was riffle/run with some small pools. Two fish barriers were observed, the first at the culvert immediately downstream of Dorval Drive and the second, a pedestrian crossing culvert, approximately 300 m downstream of Dorval Drive. The second barrier had an approximate 0.30 m drop from the culvert to top of water level (Photograph 4). No fish passage structure was observed.

Fish were not observed in the tributary, however, fish were observed further downstream in the main Glen Oak Creek.

k_k_

k_!

n

nnn

kj

kj

kj

kj

kj

kj

kj

kj

Dorval Drive

Upper Middle Road WestMcCran

eyStre

et West

GolfviewCourt

1

11

23

1012

987

65

4

13

4cRayDor Estate

S4S3

S2

S1

H1H2c

H2aH2b

OAO

4c

4b1b

GC

4a

5a

GC

GC

3c

1h

GC

3i

8b

3f

3h

5b

2a

OAO1g

3b

6d

6e

3g

4d

6a

1f

1d

6g

1a

3e

8a

3d

1c

2b

6b

6c

3a

1e

6f

7b 6h

7a

Project 215131October 2016

-1:5,5000 100 20050 Metres


ExistingConditions Figure 2

Clublink Corporation ULCGlen Abbey Community


LegendSubject PropertyELC Communities16-mile CreekEphemeral Drainage Features

n Aquatic Habitat Assessment Locationskj Amphibian Breeding Locationkj Amphibian Survey Locationk_

Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica)ThreatenedNon-Retainable Butternut (Juglans cinerea)Retainable Butternut (Juglans cinerea)

!Virginia Bluebells (Mertensia virginica)Regionally rare

Code ELC Code Description1 CUM Cultural Meadow2 CUT Cultural Thicket3 CUW Cultural Woodland4 FOD5-3 Dry-Fresh Sugar Maple - Oak Deciduous Forest5 FOD2-2 Dry-Fresh Oak - Hickory Deciduous Forest6 MAM2 Mineral Meadow Marsh7 MAS2 Mineral Shallow Marsh8 SWT2-2 Willow Mineral Thicket Swamp

OAO Open AquaticGC Golf Course Irrigation Feature

DRAFT

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 13

Photograph 3.

Tributary of Glen Oak Creek at existing outfall

location south of Dorval Drive

Photograph 4.

View of 2nd fish barrier in Glen Oak Creek Tributary

4.1.3 Headwater Drainage Feature Assessment

A total of five Headwater Drainage Features (HDFs) were assessed according to the CVC/TRCA Headwater Drainage Feature Guidelines. SMC-H1

Drainage Feature SMC-H1 originates approximately 90 m north of Dorval Drive on the rough of the golf course. The feature flows in a south easterly direction through a grass swale on the course and a Dry-Fresh-Oak-Hickory Deciduous Forest (ELC Unit #5a) towards Dorval Drive. The average bankfull width is 1 m and bankfull depth is 0.10 m. At the time of the investigation the upper portion of the feature was dry, while standing water was observe throughout (ELC unit). The feature drains into a catch basin near Dorval Drive. SMC-H2

Drainage Feature SMC-H2 originates in the south central portion of the subject property. There are several small swales that originate on the golf course green and eventually drain into the main drainage feature. SMC-H2 flows through a Dry-Fresh-Oak-Hickory Deciduous Forest (ELC Unit 5a), Meadow Marsh (ELC Unit 6h) and Mineral Shallow Marsh (ELC unit 7b) in a south easterly direction towards Dorval Drive. The average bankfull width was 2.0 with a bankfull height of 0.15 m. Some areas of the feature were dry and standing water was observed in the lower reaches. Two small wetland areas are located in ELC unit 5a that all three of the swales flow into.

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 14

SMC-H3, H4 and H5 map these

These are three swale features that likely receive water from the golf course collection system and during storm events. These features originate at the top of the valley via outlet structures. These

features are well defined with steep valley walls and steep grades down towards Sixteen Mile Creek. At the time of the investigation these features were dry and likely only flow in response to the spring freshet and rain events. 4.1.4 Golf Course Features/Irrigation Ponds

There are a total of seven (7) constructed golf course features/irrigatiuon ponds on the subject property, of which one is located within the Sixteen Mile Creek floodplain and the remaining six are located on the tableland throughout the golf course. The ponds are used for a variety of reasons including stormwater, irrigation and as golf course hazards. These ponds are likely occupied by warmwater fish species. The feature located in the floodplain is an on-line pond that has an inlet and outlet to Sixteen Mile Creek. During each of the aquatic field visits the pond was discharging into Sixteen Mile Creek. There are two small ponds that are associated with the HDF SMC-H2 described above. 4.1.5 Fish Community

In 2011, Conservation Halton conducted fish community monitoring on Sixteen Mile Creek using Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol (OSAP) standards. A total of 1,859 fish, consisting of 30 species were captured. The fish species recorded were a mix of warmwater, coolwater and coldwater species which indicated high species and habitat diversity within the watershed. The species distribution indicated a minor shift towards more tolerant species able to endure stream instability and urban conditions (Conservation Halton 2013). The Lower Main Branch of the Creek (Sampling station SXM-108, downstream of the subject property) displayed a high diversity of fish species but a low number of total fish, indicating poor stream productivity likely due to the limited diverse habitat at the sampling stations (Conservation Halton 2013). Sixteen Mile Creek is monitored for Species at Risk (SAR) including Redside Dace (Notropis photogensis), (endangered) and Silver Shiner (Clinostomus elongatus) (threatened) (Conservation

Halton 2013). 4.1.6 Species at Risk

A request for a Species at Risk (SAR) screening for the subject property was submitted to the MNRF and a response was received on May 20th, 2015 from A. Godfrey (Fish and Wildlife Technical Specialist, Aurora District).

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 15

Silver Shiner

Silver Shiner is a relatively large, slender minnow that can grow to about 14 cm long (MNRF, 2014). The Silver Shiner is silver with iridescent gold or blue stripes. In Canada, this species is present only in south western Ontario where it occurs most frequently in medium to large sized streams including the Thames Rives, Grand River, Bronte Creek and Sixteen Mile Creek. They are found in deep riffles or pools with substrates ranging from course boulders, gravel and pebbles to finer sand, mud and clay. Silver Shiner are a warmwater species and spawning occurs when water temperature reaches 17°C to 23.5°C on deep riffles. Threats to the Silver Shiner are poorly understood. Ontario is the Silver Shiners northern limit, therefore water temperature is likely a limiting factor. Sportfish stocking likely have an impact on the fish as bass are known predators of the fish. Deteriorating water quality associated with agriculture and urban development also pose a threat to the species. Silver Shiner is listed as Threatened by COSSARO (Committee on the Status of Species At Risk in Ontario) and is therefore protected under the Ontario Endangered Species Act (2007). It has an S-rank of S2S3 which indicates there is a range of uncertainty about the status of the species (NHIC 2012). COSEWIC (Committee On the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada) also lists it as threatened, and it is under consideration to be listed under the federal Species at Risk Act. A recovery strategy for Silver Shiner has not been released by MNRF. A General Habitat Description has been prepared by MRNF.

4.2 Ecological Land Classification and Flora

Vegetation Communities

The majority of the subject property, including the valley land floor, consists of an existing golf course. Unlike some golf courses Glen Abbey is highly manicured. The areas of rough and water features do not comprise vegetation communities of any natural heritage importance. As the course is only about 40 years old, and due to the highly manicured nature, tableland vegetation is limited to scattered tree cover, several small remnant woodlands, and patches of open meadow and thicket. Individual planted trees that are isolated within the golf course are generally less than 40 years old and many are non-native species. The valley slopes along Sixteen Mile Creek support mature deciduous forest. Floodplain vegetation is primarily limited to narrow bands of meadow marsh and woodland along the edge of Sixteen Mile Creek. Vegetation communities are illustrated in Figure 2. The following is a summary of the various

vegetation communities on the property. Unit 1: Cultural Meadow (CUM1)

There are several small open meadow features (Units 1a – 1h) on the subject property, which occur in disturbed locations and areas that are not regularly mowed, notably around pond margins. These communities consist of common, weedy forbs and grasses including Tall Goldenrod (Solidago canadensis var. scabra), Crown Vetch (Coronilla varia), Kentucky Blue Grass (Poa pratensis), Burdock (Arctium sp.), Queen Anne’s Lace (Daucus carotta), and Creeping Thistle (Cirsium arvensis). Tree and shrub cover is generally sparse (less than 25% by cover), with occurrences of Trembling Aspen

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 16

(Populus tremuloides), Black Locust (Robinia pseudo-acacia), Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), Staghorn Sumac (Rhus hirta), and Multiflora Rose (Rosa multiflora) (Photograph 5). There are many golf course areas that are highly manicured and frequently mowed; they do not have the characteristics of Cultural Meadow communities that support a variety of grass and forb species. They resemble lawn in their function. Almost all of the tableland portion of the golf course is of this type.

Photograph 5. Unit 1h – Cultural Meadow (CUM1) on valley slope, mown golf course area in background and foreground

Unit 2: Cultural Thicket (CUT1) Two small cultural thickets are located on the subject property. Unit 2a is located north of the existing maintenance building. It is dominated by Staghorn Sumac, with lesser amounts of White Mulberry (Morus alba) and Black Walnut (Juglans nigra). Ground covers are sparse but include Tall Goldenrod, Urban Avens (Geum urbanum), and Hedge Parsley (Torilis japonica).

Unit 2b is located along the shore of Sixteen Mile Creek, and is adjacent to golf green and meadow marsh. Trees present are limited to Black Walnut, Manitoba Maple and Crack Willow, with Red Raspberry dominating the understory. Ground covers include meadow species such as Tall Goldenrod and Common Milkweed. Unit 3: Cultural Woodland (CUW1)

There are several cultural woodland communities on the property. This classification was applied to treed communities that have less than 60% tree cover, they are frequently dominated by non-native species, and they have often been significantly altered or managed through human activity. Unit 3a is located near the existing maintenance building. The canopy consists of Black Walnut (Juglans nigra), Norway Maple (Acer platanoides), and Horse-chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum). The

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 17

understory is sparse, but includes Black Raspberry (Rubus occidentalis), Common Buckthorn, and White Ash. Ground covers include Garlic Mustard (Alliaria petiolata), Thicket Creeper (Parthenocissus vitacea), Tall Goldenrod, and Virginia Stickseed (Hackelia virginiana).

Unit 3b is located at the base of the north valley slope. The canopy consists of Manitoba Maple (Acer negundo), apple (Malus sp.), and White Ash. The subcanopy/understory consists of Common Buckthorn, apple, Black Walnut, and Staghorn Sumac. Ground cover included Garlic Mustard, Hedge Parsley, Burdock, and Thicket Creeper. Unit 3c is located at the northern tip of the subject property, and lies between golf green and meadow marsh. It is comprised of a mix of native and non-native tree species, dominated by Black Walnut with Manitoba Maple, Norway Maple and Basswood (Tilia americana) present. The understory contains Staghorn Sumac and European Buckthorn, as well as a mix of saplings from the aforementioned canopy trees. The understory contains common woodland herbaceous plants including; Tall Goldenrod, Wild Grape (Vitis riparia), Black Raspberry, Red Raspberry, Burdock, and Garlic Mustard.

Units 3d and 3e occur along Sixteen Mile Creek adjacent to meadow marsh and golf green. The canopy contains White Ash (Fraxinus americanus), Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), Manitoba Maple,

Weeping Willow, and Basswood. The understory is a diverse mix of shrubs and herbs including: Virginia Stickseed, Thicket Creeper, New England Aster (Aster novae-angliae), Water Hemlock (Cicuta maculata), European Buckthorn, Tall Goldenrod, Jerusalem Artichoke (Helianthus tuberosa), and Tall Ragweed (Ambrosia trifida). Unit 3f is unique on the subject property in that it is only occupied by one species, Red Oak (Photograph 6). All trees in this community are mature and there is no subcanopy or understory. Aside from the

canopy trees there has been a high level of disturbance to this community.

Photograph 6. Unit 3f – Cultural Woodland, Red Oak canopy with no native understory

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 18

Unit 3g occurs between the driveway to the RayDor Estate, and the neighboring housing complex to the east. The canopy contains Shagbark Hickory, White Oak, Red Oak and White Pine. The understory is dense with European Buckthorn and hawthorns. The understory is low in diversity due to the level of fragmentation and introduction of densely growing shrub species. Unit 3h is fragmented and surrounded by golf green and Dorval Drive, at the southeast corner of the subject property. It appears to exhibit a high degree of disturbance as there are some pathways through it creating gaps in the understory (Photograph 7). There is a small area Unit 6(a) dominated by the

highly invasive Common Reed within this woodland. The woodland canopy contains Shagbark Hickory, Bur Oak, Weeping Willow, Trembling Aspen, Norway Maple, Red Oak and White Pine. The patchy understory contains European Buckthorn, Climbing Nightshade and Tall Goldenrod. Unit 3i is a small cluster of trees and shrubs, with an open canopy of Shagbark Hickory (Carya ovata), Bur Oak (Quercus macrocarpa), White Oak (Quercus alba), and Weeping Willow (Salix x sepulcralis) (Photograph 8). The subcanopy is dense with Common Buckthorn. The understory consists of Common Buckthorn, Wild Red Rapsberry (Rubus idaeus ssp. strigosus), and White Ash (Fraxinus americana). Ground covers are sparse with Crown Vetch, Buckthorn seedlings, Tall Goldenrod, and

Thicket Creeper.

Photograph 7. Unit 3h – Cultural Woodland with open canopy of oak and hickory and highly disturbed understory

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 19

Photograph 8. Unit 3i – Cultural Woodland, with sparse canopy of oak and hickory and dense buckthorn understory

Unit 4: Dry – Fresh Sugar Maple-Oak Deciduous Forest (FOD5-3) This mature deciduous forest community occurs on the northern and southern valley slopes along Sixteen Mile Creek.

Unit 4a is separated from the main forest community on the south valley slope (Unit 4c), yet is nonetheless a high quality woodland. Canopy species in order of abundance are; Sugar Maple, Basswood, Shagbark Hickory and American Beech. The understory is occupied by Staghorn Sumac, Garlic Mustard, Pale Jewelweed (Impatiens pallida) and Spotted Jewelweed (Impatiens capensis). There is a steep drainage feature within this community leading down to the valley where both species of jewelweed are growing in dominance indicating likely groundwater seepage. Unit 4b occurs on the northern valley slope. It is dominated by Sugar Maple, Red Oak, White Ash, and Black Cherry (Prunus serotina). The understory consists predominantly of Common Buckthorn, with occurrences of Tartarian Honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica), European Euonymous (Euonymous europaeus), Choke Cherry (Prunus virginiana), and White Snowberry (Symphoricarpos alba). Ground covers are sparse but include Zig Zag Goldenrod (Solidago flexicaulis), Early Meadow-rue (Thalictrum dioicum), Poison Ivy (Toxicodendron rhydbergi), and Solomon’s Seal (Maianthemum racemosum). Unit 4c occurs along the southern valley slope. It is dominated by mature Sugar Maple, Red Oak, Basswood, White Oak, and others (Photograph 9). The subcanopy consists predominantly of Sugar

Maple and Ironwood. The understory is sparse, but includes Common Buckthorn, Choke Cherry, Sugar Maple saplings, and Round-leaved Dogwood (Cornus rugosa). Ground covers are also sparse, but include a variety of species including Zig-Zag Goldenrod, Garlic Mustard, Early Meadow-rue, Blue-stem Goldenrod (Solidago caesia), False Solomon’s Seal and Blue Cohosh (Caulophyllum giganteum).

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 20

Photograph 9. Unit 4c – Dry-Fresh Sugar Maple-Oak Forest on steep valley slope

Unit 5: Forb Mineral Meadow Marsh (MAM2-10)

There are a number of small meadow marsh features on the property, primarily located along the margins of Sixteen Mile Creek. Units 5a – 5h are all located along Sixteen Mile Creek. These features are comprised largely of common meadow marsh species, with various upland meadow species mixed in along the edges. Meadow marsh species include Rice Cutgrass, Boneset, Spotted Joe-pye Weed, Blue Vervain, Purple Loosestrife, Reed Canary Grass, and Broad-leaved Cattail. Upland meadow species include: Crown Vetch, Tall Goldenrod, Yellow Foxtail, New England Aster, Creeping Thistle, and Common Milkweed, among others. Tree cover is sparse and includes occurrences of Manitoba Maple, Crack Willow and Black Walnut. Occasional shrubs include Red-osier Dogwood and Wild Red Raspberry. Unit 5i is small meadow marsh within a remnant forest patch (Unit 8a) near the south end of the property. This feature is disturbed and dominated by Purple Loosestrife and Panicled Aster (Symphyotrichum lanceolatum) with lesser amounts of Broad-leaved Cattail, Northern Bugleweed (Lycopus uniflorus), and Green Bulrush (Scirpus atrovirens).

Unit 6: Mineral Shallow Marsh (MAS2)

Unit 6a is a small shallow marsh located within a cultural woodland (Unit 3h) in the southeast of the subject property near Dorval Drive, which occurs along a drainage feature from the golf course which enters the woodland at the northwest corner. This community is dominated by the highly invasive Common Reed (Phragmites australis), with smartweed and Purple Loosestrife also present.

Units 6b and 6c are small cattail marsh feature associated with a remnant forest patch (Unit 8a) near the south end of the property. Unit 6b is dominated by Hybrid Cattail (Tyhpa x glauca) with occurrences of Cursed Crowfoot (Ranunculus sceleratus), Blunt Spike Rush (Eleocharis obtusa), Nodding Beggars

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 21

Tick, Purple Loosestrife, and Lesser Duckweed (Lemna minor). Unit 6c consists of Broad-leaved Cattail with Purple Loosestrife, Bittersweet Nightshade, Grass-leaved Goldenrod (Euthamia graminifolia), Panicled Aster, Lesser Duckweed, and others. Ponding appears to occur at wetter times

of the year. Unit 7: Willow Mineral Thicket Swamp (SWT2-2) Unit 7a is located along Sixteen Mile Creek and is dominated by Sandbar Willow (Salix exigua), with lesser amounts of Black Alder (Alnus glutinosa) and Heart-leaved Willow (Salix eriocephala). Dominant

ground covers are Reed Canary Grass, Panicled Aster, Purple Loosestrife, and Indian Hemp (Apocynum canabinum).

Unit 7b is located at the bottom of the valley slope and borders the eastern side of the subject property. The feature received drainage from two culverts, likely originating from the tablelands and standing water is present in the spring in the form of an open water (OAO) ponded area. Square-stem Monkey Flower (Mimulus ringens) is abundant (Photograph 10), in association with Water Smartweed,

Softstem Bulrush, Broad-leaved Cattail, and Rice Cut Grass.

Photograph 10. Unit 7b – Dense colony of Square-stem Monkey Flower

Unit 8: Dry-Fresh Oak-Hickory Deciduous Forest (FOD2-2) There are two remnant forest fragments on the tableland of the subject property. Unit 8a is the larger forest remnant, which is dominated by Red Oak, Shagbark Hickory, Bur Oak, and White Oak. Common Buckthorn is dense and dominant in the subcanopy, with lesser amounts of White Ash, and Shagbark Hickory. The understory consists of Common Buckthorn, White Ash, Shagbark Hickory, and Gray Dogwood (Cornus racemosa). Ground covers are sparse but include: Tall Goldenrod, Pennsylvania Sedge (Carex pennsylvanica), Wild Strawberry (Fragaria virginiana), and Thicket Creeper, and

Kentucky Blue Grass.

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 22

Unit 8b (Photograph 11) is smaller but similar in structure and composition to Unit 8a; however, ground

cover diversity is lower, with sparse occurrences of Garlic Mustard and Tall Goldenrod.

Photograph 11. Unit 8b – Dry-Fresh Oak-Hickory Deciduous Forest

Unit 9: Open Water Aquatic (OAO)

There is one pond on the property that functions as open water aquatic community. It is an on-line pond in the valley that is a golf course feature. Water is diverted into this pond from the river at its northern end and flows out at the southern end. Aquatic vegetation is largely limited to the margins of the pond. Emergent vegetation along the pond edges includes Broad-leaved Cattail (Typha latifolia), Rice Cutgrass, Softstem Bulrush, Purple Loosestrife, and Yellow Iris (Iris pseudacorus). A small amount of milfoil (Myriophyllum sp.) was also present. Fish are present in this pond and there is wildlife use of the

area. Golf Course Irrigation Ponds

On the tablelands there are four golf course irrigation ponds, three of which also function as golf course features, while one is strictly for irrigation (Photograph 12). These ponds have fluctuating water levels

and are quite steep sided, limiting the development of wetland vegetation. Being heavily managed they have limited value as vegetation communities.

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 23

Photograph 12. Golf Course Irrigation Pond Unit 10: Hedgerow

A hedgerow is situated along the southern property boundary. Tree cover is approximately 25-35% and consists of remnant native trees including: White Oak, Shagbark Hickory, Bur Oak, Red Oak, Sugar Maple, American Beech (Fagus grandifolia), and White Elm (Ulmus americana). Common Buckthorn

is dense and dominates the understory. Ground covers are sparse, but include Buckthorn seedlings, Tall Goldenrod, grasses, and Burdock. Golf Course

The majority of the subject property consists of active golf course and associated buildings and infrastructure, including constructed water features (Photograph 13). The dominant vegetation is

manicured lawn, and the rough areas are relatively well-maintained, being mowed and dominated by non-native grasses with few forbs (Photograph 14). This is in contrast to other golf courses where

extensive areas of rough can be classified as Cultural Meadow. There are various planted trees across the golf course, most of which are less than approximately 50 years old. This includes, native and non-native spruces (Picea sp.), Bur Oak, Austrian Pine (Pinus nigra), Freeman’s Maple (Acer x freemanii), and others. An inventory of these trees was completed by Beacon (Beacon 2016).

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 24

Photograph 13. Golf Course Irrigation/Feature Pond and Course

Photograph 14. Golf Course showing manicured aspect and isolated younger trees

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 25

4.2.1 Flora

A total of 154 taxa were identified during botanical field investigations, of which 149 were identified to species. The majority of plants on the property are non-native or common native species in Ontario. Of the 149 species, 44 (30%) are ranked SNA in Ontario, indicating they are exotic/introduced in the province. Ninety-five (64%) of the species are ranked S5, indicating they are common and secure provincially. One species, Water Dock (Rumex orbiculatus) is classified S4S5 (Secure/Apparently Secure). Two species, Blue Cattail (Typha X glauca) and Black Maple (Acer nigrum), are both ranked S4? (“?” indicates that the status is uncertain) and Black Walnut (Juglans nigra) is S4, indicating these species are Apparently Secure. Two species are ranked S3, Butternut (Juglans cinerea) and Virginia Bluebells (Mertensia virginica), indicating these species are Vulnerable provincially. Butternut is also designated as an Endangered species in Ontario and is discussed in greater detail in section 4.2.3. 4.2.2 Regionally Rare and Uncommon Species

In Halton Region, ten species occurring on the subject property are considered uncommon, while two are considered rare (Crins et al. 2006). A list of regionally rare and uncommon species is provided in Table 2. Red Pine is only considered rare where it occurs naturally in Halton Region; those identified on the property have been introduced through planting. The only regionally rare species that occurs naturally on the property is Virginia Bluebells, located along Sixteen Mile Creek (see Figure 2).

Table 2. Regionally Rare and Uncommon Vascular Plant Species

Scientific Name Common Name S-Rank1 Halton2 ELC Unit

Caulophyllum giganteum Blue Cohosh S5 H?

4c, valleylands

Mertensia virginica Virginia Bluebells S3 HR 5a, valleylands

Pinus resinosa** Red Pine S5

HR - native sites only (not planted)

Planted, golf course

Heracleum maximum Cow-parsnip S5 HU 7a, along creek

Ambrosia trifida Great Ragweed S5 HU 5, along creek

Hackelia virginiana Virginia Stickseed S5 HU 3 a, 3d, 3e, valleylands

Eleocharis obtusa Blunt Spikerush S5 HU 6c

Nymphaea odorata**

Fragrant Water-lily (Pink variety) S5 HU

Irrigation pond

Persicaria amphibia Water Smartweed S5 HU 7b, valleylands

Rumex orbiculatus Water Dock S4S5 HU Along creek, unit 7a

Penthorum sedoides Ditch-stonecrop S5 HU 6c, tableland

Mimulus ringens Square-stem Monkey-flower S5 HU

7b, valleylands

Picea glauca**

White Spruce S5

HU - native sites only (not planted)

Planted golf course

1 Provincial Status. S5 = Secure; S4 = Apparently Secure; S3 = Vulnerable; S? indicates that the status is uncertain 2 Regional Status (Crins et al. 2006). HR = Rare, HU = Uncommon. **Planted/Introduced on property

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 26

4.2.3 Species at Risk

Two vascular plant species at risk were identified on/adjacent to the subject property, Butternut (Endangered) and Kentucky Coffee-tree (Threatened). Both species are protected under the Ontario Endangered Species Act.

Butternut

The Butternut tree is designated Endangered in Ontario due to a fungal disease known as Butternut Canker, which kills most trees once they are infected. A total of 13 Butternuts were found on the subject property, ten occurring within the valley of Sixteen Mile creek and three on the tablelands (see Figure 2).

Under the ESA, if proposed development or site alteration may affect a Butternut tree or its habitat

(currently considered the area within 50 m of a tree, although a regulation is pending), the tree must be assessed to determine its health and confirm its status under the ESA. Under the assessment process, there are three categories of Butternut trees. These are:

Category 1 (Non-retainable): the Butternut tree is affected by butternut canker to such an advanced degree that retaining the tree would not support the protection or recovery of butternut trees in the area in which the tree is located;

Category 2 (Retainable): the Butternut tree is not affected by butternut canker or the butternut tree is affected by butternut canker but the degree to which it is affected is not too advanced and retaining the tree could support the protection or recovery of butternut trees in the area in which the tree is located; and

Category 3 (Archivable): the Butternut tree may be useful in determining sources of resistance to butternut canker. Archivable trees are Category 2 trees that are over 20 cm DBH and within 40 m of a badly cankered Butternut.

Non-retainable trees (Category 1) are not protected under the ESA, whereas Retainable and Archivable trees (Categories 2 and 3) are protected. A Butternut health assessment was conducted on June 20, 2016 and August 8, 2016 by a Beacon staff member who is a certified Butternut Health Assessor (BHA). The results the assessment are presented in Table 3. The findings of this assessment are preliminary and ultimately will need to be confirmed

with MNRF.

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 27

Table 3. Preliminary Results of Butternut Health Assessment

Tree Identification No.

Butternut Health Assessment Notes

1 Retainable Good condition

2 Non-retainable Young tree, several cankers, branch dieback

3 Non-retainable Extensive dieback

4 Archivable Fair condition, some canker and dieback

5 Non-retainable Heavily cankered, dieback


7 Retainable Young tree, damage to trunk

8 Non-retainable Heavily cankered

9 Non-retainable Heavily cankered

10 Retainable No obvious cankers, lower trunk and root flare partially buried by slumping soil on slope


12 Non-retainable Heavily cankered, poor condition

13 Retainable Main trunk cut down by American Beaver in 2016, two small sprouts from base

Kentucky Coffee-tree

Several planted Kentucky Coffee-trees were documented off-site along Dorval Drive on property and a single Kentucky Coffee-tree was identified within the Enbridge pipeline easement at the north end of the property. The species is designated as Threatened on Ontario, but is not native to Halton Region. Extant populations of Kentucky Coffee-tree are limited to extreme southwestern Ontario (Counties of Lambton, Kent, and Essex) (Environment Canada 2014). This tree was very likely planted or an escape from cultivation as Kentucky Coffee-tree is frequently planted as an ornamental tree (often from questionable genetic stock) and in those circumstances it occurs well beyond the species known native range in Ontario (Environment Canada 2014). 4.2.4 Amphibians

All of the calling count surveys commenced just after dusk and the weather details for each 2015 count were as follows:

April 16 14C (water 7 to 9C), wind Beaufort 2, cloud 8/8, clear, 8:30 pm - 11.00 pm.

May 26 24C (water 10 to 19C) wind Beaufort 2, cloud 1/8, humid, clear, 9.30 pm to midnight.

The stations are indicated on Figure 2. Each station was surveyed for ten minutes. The amphibian calling count monitoring results for 2015 are provided in Table 4.

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 28

Table 4. Amphibian Calling Count Results

Date Location Species Chorus

Code Notes

April 16 Irrigation pond None

Calling elsewhere

off site

Golf course

ponds - tableland None

Golf course pond

– valley None

8a woodland pool None

7 b woodland

pool None

May 26 Irrigation Pond None

Golf course

ponds - tableland None

Golf course pond

– valley

American Toad

Green Frog

02

02

four calling

two calling

8a woodland pool None

7b woodland pool None

Chorus Code: 1 ....... individuals of one species can be counted, calls not simultaneous; 2 ....... some calls of one species simultaneous, numbers can be reliably estimated; and, 3 ....... full chorus, calls continuous and overlapping.

The amphibian population on the subject property is very low in species richness and in diversity. There are no fish-free habitats with sufficient hydroperiod to support breeding amphibians. Even those species that are somewhat tolerant of fish, were either absent or present in only one breeding location (the valleyland golf course feature pond) and in very low numbers. Other than toads and frogs the only other amphibian recorded was a single Eastern Red-backed

Salamander (Plethodon cinereus) that was found under debris on the forest slope, although more might

be expected on either slope of the valleylands. This is a common species in Ontario, but generally absent from urban areas, other than in larger valley systems such as Sixteen Mile Creek. 4.2.5 Turtles and Snakes

The golf course maintenance staff reported that turtles have not been recorded on the tableland golf course or the associated water features. Despite multiple visits Beacon did not observe any live turtles during any of the site visits. A single dead Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentine) was observed near

the Sixteen Mile Creek in the valleylands during the summer of 2015. This is the only area where this species of Special Concern might be anticipated to occur; no other Species at Risk turtles are anticipated to occur. No snakes were observed on the subject property. The highly manicured nature of the golf course makes it unlikely that snakes would survive for long on the tablelands due to the frequent mowing and lack of cover. Within the valleylands, snakes could be anticipated and the most likely species to occur would be Eastern Gartersnake (Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis). Other species could occur, but the

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 29

presence of very busy roads and urbanization around the subject property indicates that such species would likely be confined to the valleylands, if they occurred at all. 4.2.6 Mammals

A wide range of urban tolerant species are likely to use the property. Wildlife observed on the subject property during field investigations and site visits was recorded. This includes the following species:

American Beaver (Castor canadiensis)

Northern Raccoon (Procyon lotor);

Gray Squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis);

Eastern Chipmunk (Tamias striatus);

Eastern Cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus);

White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus); and

Coyote (Canis latrans).

These species are commonly observed in the rural and urban landscapes of southern Ontario. None of these species are Endangered or Threatened or of Special Concern. Other common mammals, especially urban tolerant ones, are also likely to occur especially within the valleylands. Bats

Following the bat survey guidelines provided by MNRF there are no wooded areas within the potentially developable area that require bat surveys. However, if any wooded areas are to be removed for the provision of storm water outfalls, and prior to the removal of any buildings, it will be necessary to conduct visual and acoustic surveys for bats generally and Species at Risk specifically during the period June- August. Buildings close to forested or wetland areas are ideal locations to support maternity roosts as they provide pockets of warm microclimates and have dark and poorly ventilated attics and/or chimneys. 4.2.7 Breeding Birds

Breeding bird surveys were conducted on the mornings of May 27th and June 10th, 2015. Weather conditions for the surveys were ideal, with temperatures within 5°C of normal and no precipitation or excessive winds. Surveys commenced at 06.00 am. Breeding birds were considered likely to be breeding if they were observed or heard in suitable habitat during the survey. Species that were foraging over the property but that were likely nesting outside of the subject property were also noted. Breeding bird surveys recorded 39 species of breeding birds on the subject property (Appendix B). The most numerous breeding species were: American Robin (Turdus migratorius), Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) and Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica). Other common species included Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia), American Goldfinch (Spinus tristis) and House Sparrow (Passer domesticus). The birds occupying the golf course were those typical of urban environments that include

occasional trees and large areas of lawn.

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 30

Barn Swallow and Chimney Swift, both of which are listed as Threatened under the ESA, were observed on the subject property during breeding bird surveys. Wood Thrush, which is a Species at Risk listed as Special Concern was also observed. Twenty one Barn Swallow nests were counted beneath the three golf cart bridges that cross Sixteen Mile Creek. No other nests sites were located. Barn Swallow is an open country species, which primarily nests primarily in/under abandoned buildings, barns, open sheds, culverts, and bridges. Although Barn Swallow has been listed as Threatened due to recent population declines, the species is still very common and widespread throughout the rural (agricultural) areas of southern Ontario. Prior to removal of any structures, nest surveys should be replicated and the ESA addressed for this species. Chimney Swift were observed flying over the club house during both breeding bird surveys indicating that they could potentially be roosting or nesting in that building. Prior to European settlement, Chimney Swift nested on cave walls and in hollow trees or tree cavities. Today they nest and roost almost exclusively in chimneys or other similar artificial structures. Prior to removal of any structures nest searches will be required to see if any chimneys are occupied on the subject property. A single Wood Thrush was heard calling from woodlands along the Sixteen Mile Creek valleylands. Wood Thrushes are most typically associated with large mature deciduous and mixed forests with well-developed undergrowth and tall trees for singing perches. This species is most often found in more extensive areas of forest. Other bird species that are considered by the MNRF to be area sensitive (successfully breeding in larger areas of habitat) that were observed during the breeding bird surveys included Hairy Woodpecker (Picoides villosus), Red-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta canadensis) and White-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis). The valleylands provide the primary habitat for all three species although they may also use the golf course trees. Hairy Woodpecker is most widely distributed in areas where mature woodlands are present. It can also be associated with smaller woodlots, wooded parks, cemeteries, shaded residential areas and other urban areas with mature trees. Red-breasted Nuthatch is most abundant in mature and diverse stands of coniferous forest. In southern Ontario it can also be associated with a wide range of forest types ranging from pure coniferous forest to mixed stands that have a significant deciduous component. White-breasted Nuthatch is most commonly associated with mature deciduous woodlands. It can also be associated with mixed deciduous and coniferous forests and residential areas as well. While all of these species are considered to be area sensitive by MNRF, they can also commonly be observed in smaller patches of suitable habitat. 4.2.8 Butterflies and Odonates

Specialist surveys were undertaken for Odonates (dragonflies and damselflies) and for butterflies. The following table provides details of the surveys (weather is a critical parameter for surveys of insects).

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 31

Table 5. Butterfly and Odonate Survey Details

Date (2015)

Time Temp. Cloud Cover (tenths)

Wind Speed

June 20 09:30 am to 4:00 pm 17 to 24C 1/10 Light

July 15 10:00 am to 4:00 pm 19 to 24C 0/10 Light

August 28 10:00 am to 4:00 pm 22 to 25C 2/10 Light

September 17 10:30 am to 4:30 pm 25 to 29C 0/10 Light

Odonata Results

A total of twenty-three species and 1,477 individuals were observed at the subject property. Of the taxa identified to species level, seventeen of these species are ranked as S5, five are S4. While some of these species are of southern distribution, none were unexpected. Table 6 provides the results of the

Odonata surveys.

Table 6. Dragonflies and Damselflies (Odonata) Recorded on the Subject Property

Common Name Scientific Name Total

Recorded Provincial

Srank Primary Areas of

Occurrence

River Jewelwing Calopteryx aequabilis 1 S5 River valley

Ebony Jewelwing Calopteryx maculata 36 S5 River valley

American Rubyspot Hetaerina americana 74 S4 River valley

Slender Spreadwing Lestes rectangularis 25 S5 Golf course features,

7b

Violet Dancer Argia fumipennis violacea 2 S5 River valley

Blue-fronted Dancer Argia apicalis 4 S4 River valley

Powdered Dancer Argia moesta 541 S5 Mostly River valley

Stream Bluet Enallagma exsulans 94 S5 Mostly River valley

Familiar Bluet Enallagma civile 325 S5 All water features

Bluet sp. Enallagma sp. 12 n/a River valley

Eastern Forktail Ischnura verticalis 188 S5 Most water features

Shadow Darner Aeshna umbrosa 2 S5 River valley

Aeshna Darner sp. Aeshna sp. 9 n/a River valley

Green Darner Anax junius 59 S5 Widespread

Widow Skimmer Libellula luctuosa 8 S5 Most water features

Twelve-spotted Skimmer Libellula pulchella 12 S5 Widespread

Blue Dasher Pachydiplax longipennis 2 S5 River valley

Glider sp. Pantala sp. 1 n/a Golf course feature

Eastern Amberwing Perithemis tenera 1 S4 Gold course feature

Common Whitetail Plathemis lydia 5 S5 River valley 7b

Band-winged Meadowhawk Sympetrum semicinctum 1 S4 River valley 7b

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 32


Recorded Provincial

Srank Primary Areas of

Occurrence

White-faced Meadowhawk Sympetrum obtrusum 23 S5 Mostly River valley

Cherry-faced Meadowhawk Sympetrum internum 1 S5 5h

Autumn Meadowhawk Sympetrum semicinctum 12 S5 Most still water

features

Meadowhawk sp. Sympetrum sp. 27 n/a Widespread, tenerals

Black Saddlebags Tramea lacerata 13 S4 Over most still water

features

Legend: Provincial Status (Srank): S5 = Secure; S4 = Apparently Secure; S3 = Vulnerable; B = Breeding. Tenerals are recently hatched immatures. By far the most productive areas were associated with Sixteen Mile Creek. The five ponds were not good habitat for Odonates with little floating plant or emergent vegetation present. In addition, there is little in the way of natural cover next to the ponds as they are frequently mown to the water’s edge. For example, 217 individuals representing eight species of Odonate were recorded during the four visits in the largest golf course water feature. Only four of the eight dragonfly/damselfly species noted were using that water feature as potential breeding habitat while the remaining four were seen foraging or migrating some distance from the water. This was a very poor result for such a large feature. Common Carp are likely present in all water features (except the water irrigation pond) and these fish limit Odonate diversity. The only water feature that had a reasonable diversity of Odonates was the valley pond, probably due to its proximity to the productive creek system. Butterfly Results

A total of 28 species of 753 individuals were documented. Of the taxa identified to species 22 are ranked as S5, three as S4, and one, Monarch, as S2N, S4 (the imperilled status S2N applying to non-breeding aggregations). Table 7 provides the results of the butterfly surveys.

Table 7. Butterflies Recorded on the Subject Property


Recorded Provincial

Srank1 Primary Areas of

Occurrence

Eastern Tiger Swallowtail Pterourus glaucus 4 S5 Mostly northwest

area

Clouded Sulphur Colias philodice 9 S5 Widespread

Orange Sulphur Colias eurytheme 4 S5 Golf course

Cabbage White Pieris rapae 385 SNA Widespread

Banded Hairstreak Satyrium calamus 7 S4 River valley and irrigation pond

Hickory Hairstreak Satyrium caryaevorus 1 S4 Vicinity of 8a

Eastern Tailed Blue Cupido comyntas 9 S5 River valley and irrigation pond

Summer Azure Celastrina neglecta 2 S5 Vicinity of 8a and

River valley

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 33


Recorded Provincial

Srank1 Primary Areas of

Occurrence

Monarch Danaus plexippus 20 S2N/S4B Widespread

Viceroy Limenitis archippus 1 S5 River valley

Great Spangled Fritillary Speyeria cybele 1 S5 River valley

Painted Lady Vanessa cardui 1 S5 Golf course

Red Admiral Vanessa atalanta 15 S5 Widespread

Mourning Cloak Nymphalis antiopa 1 S5 River valley

Question Mark Polygonia interrrogationis 8 S5 Mostly River valley

Eastern Comma Polygonia comma 3 S5 River valley

Gray Comma Polygonia progne 1 S5 Valley ski slope

Pearl Crescent Phyciodes throstle 3 S5 River valley

Crescent sp. Phyciodes sp. 33 n/a Widespread

Northern Pearly-Eye Lethe anthedon 1 S5 River valley

Common Ringlet Coenonympha tullia 2 S5 River valley

Little Wood-Satyr Megisto cymela 55 S5 Widespread

Common Wood-Nymph Cercyonis pegala 1 S5 8a

Wild Indigo Duskywing Erynnis baptisiae 78 S4 Widespread

Least Skipper Ancyloxypha numitor 37 S5 Widespread

European Skipper Thymelicus lineola 24 n/a River valley and irrigation pond

Peck's Skipper Polites peckius 44 S5 Mostly River valley

Tawny-edged Skipper Polites themistocles 1 S5 River valley

Northern Broken-Dash Wallengrenia egeremet 2 S5 River valley

Legend: Provincial Status (Srank): S5 = Secure; S4 = Apparently Secure; S3 = Vulnerable; S2N Non-breeding population imperilled; B = Breeding. Similar to the Odonata, the most productive areas were within the valleylands associated with the Sixteen Mile Creek. Within the valley the northern portion had the highest diversity; this area had the most natural cover adjacent to the creek. The remainder of the subject property provided few habitat opportunities for butterflies due to large areas of mown grass (golf course habitats). The hedgerows and areas of cultural habitat bordering the fairways provided some foraging opportunities for butterflies.

4.3 Endangered and Threatened Species

The NHIC database was searched for existing records of endangered or threatened species on or in the vicinity of the subject property. The most recent record was 20 years old and the majority were 34 years old or older.

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 34

The MNRF was contacted directly to obtain existing records for Species at Risk on the subject property in 2015. In their response (Appendix C), the MNRF indicated the following records:

Silver Shiner (Notropis photogenis) Threatened; Butternut (Juglans cinerea) Endangered; and

Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia) Threatened.

Beacon also considered the potential presence of SAR bat communities as per the 2016 MNRF Guidelines. The document describes the recommended methods to investigate Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis bats and their treed habitat. These two species are listed as Endangered however, they lack specific habitat regulations under the ESA. As per Step 1, candidate maternity roost habitat is assessed in Forest and Swamp ELC communities, neither of which are being removed by the proposed development. If forest is to be removed for a stormwater management facility outfall or a building is to be removed further visual and acoustic surveys would likely be required by MNRF. A search for Butternut was conducted as part of the vegetation mapping and inventory, while the three breeding bird surveys were conducted in accordance with the MNRF guidelines which found two ESA bird species but eliminated the Bank Swallow. We have assumed that the Silver Shiner will be present in Sixteen Mile Creek.

4.4 Landscape Connectivity

Landscape connectivity and natural linkages have become common parlance when discussing environmental planning. The idea is that variously sized habitat patches, so-called ‘core’ natural areas, and supporting features are linked by natural corridors in an often fragmented landscape of land uses. Current planning policy typically includes provisions for the maintenance of such corridors. For example, as in section 2.1.2 of the Provincial Policy Statement (MMAH 2014):

“The diversity and connectivity of natural features in an area, and the long-term ecological function and biodiversity of natural heritage systems, should be maintained, restored or, where possible, improved, recognizing linkages between and among natural heritage features and areas, surface water features and ground water features.”

Corridors can be major river valleys, or smaller in scale such as those associated with creeks. Corridors may serve various ecological functions depending on their size and quality. These functions can include providing shelter from predators and the elements, providing breeding habitat, connecting core natural areas, and facilitating seed dispersal and exchange of genetic material. Wildlife use of corridors likely varies. In the fragmented landscapes of southern Ontario, corridors are usually discontinuous stepping-stones acting as corridors in concert to provide elements of connectivity. On the other hand, some studies have shown that corridors can have some undesirable effects; for example, on the breeding success of certain bird species through increased nest predation facilitated by edge effects and ease of movement for predators (Weldon 2006). The role of corridors or linkages for maintaining plant populations or dispersal of a species at the larger landscape level is still not well-documented, although it has been

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 35

identified as a factor for the spread of some invasive species such as Garlic Mustard. There remains scientific debate surrounding the role of corridors and the importance of connectivity. Urban areas are generally located to the north and south, while the very busy Upper Middle Road West and Dorval Drive surround almost two-thirds of the subject property. These roads provide a formidable barrier for many kinds of dispersal, other than those that rely on the power of flight. However the Sixteen Mile Creek valley is well-defined and has a variety of habitats within it and passes beneath Upper Middle Road. It likely provides an important wildlife corridor for aquatic and terrestrial flora and fauna. Connectivity functions associated with the subject property are captured within these valleylands.

5. Proposed Development

The proposed redevelopment concept is to redevelop the tableland portion of the subject lands into a mix of residential, commercial and open space uses. The residential component will consist of approximately 141 detached dwellings, 299 townhouse and stacked townhouse dwellings, and 2,782 apartment dwellings (extracted from the Draft Plan of Subdivision, September 2016). Office and retail commercial uses in a mixed-use format, community amenity uses, park and open space uses, natural heritage areas, buffers, and stormwater management ponds are also proposed. The portion of Sixteen Mile Creek and its associated valleylands within the subject property, and designated significant woodlands and buffers will be preserved within natural heritage system blocks. The RayDor Estate, which is shown on the plan of subdivision for contextual purposes, will be retained but is not part of the application. A lookout (belverdere) is planned somewhere along the valley edge in the northeast portion of the site (south side of the valley). From a natural heritage perspective the proposed development plan includes protection of all of the valleylands and the features within the valley. Only two stormwater discharge points are planned within the valley. It is proposed that the valleylands be conveyed to a public authority in their current condition, as a condition of approval. A third stormwater outlet is proposed in the southern corner of the subject property from SWM Pond B and will outlet to a tributary of Glen Oak Creek. Thus, the existing designated Significant Woodlands in the Town’s Official Plan will be protected. The plan also features an urban greenway that connects the significant woodland in the south to another small area of wooded trees just west of Dorval Drive, and eastwards across Dorval Drive to the extension of the significant woodland that leads southwards from the main valley to Dorval Drive. While the greenway is primarily designed to provide community benefits rather than ecological ones, it does result in the protection of additional mature trees and provides some connectivity for urban wildlife to the valley system.

6. Key Natural Heritage Features and Functions

For major development proposals it is helpful to identify the key natural heritage features and functions such that an impact assessment can focus on the elements that are of importance. The proposal to

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 36

replace heavily managed golf course turf of various lengths with residential an mixed development will have a negative impact on some abundant urban tolerant wildlife species such as American Robin. However, in the context of a balanced approach to land use change and good planning, such functions do not necessarily amount to constraints. Natural heritage constraints and potential constraints to development within and adjacent to the subject property include:

Fish Habitat;

Habitats for Threatened and Endangered Species;

Wetlands;

Significant Valleylands;

Significant Woodlands;

Significant Wildlife Habitat; and

Natural Heritage System. In this section of the EIA the key features and functions are summarized in Table 8.

Table 8. Summary of Key Natural Heritage Features and Functions

Feature/Function

Category

Description

Habitat of

Threatened and

Endangered

Species

The subject property supports habitat for several species to which the ESA applies

Silver Shiner (a fish): It is assumed that this fish species is present in the Sixteen Mile

Creek. Storm water discharge and outfall locations will need to be discussed with MNRF.

Butternut (a tree): There are 13 Butternut trees on the subject property. MNRF considers

lands within 50 m of Category 3 Butternut trees and within 25 m of Category 2 Butternut

trees to be regulated general habitat. Where impacts to Butternut habitat cannot be

avoided, then pursuant to the ESA, a Notice of Butternut Impact must be submitted for

impacts to ten or less Category 2 Butternuts, and a permit must be obtained for impacts

to Category 3 Butternuts, or, more than ten Category 2 Butternuts.

Kentucky Coffee-tree: Occurrences of this species on and adjacent to the subject

property have been introduced through planting; however, there is no habitat regulation

under the ESA for this species that excludes planted or introduced specimens. If impacts

to the species cannot be avoided, then MNRF will be consulted to confirm that the ESA

does not apply to planted trees.

Barn Swallow: This species was breeding under the creek bridges in 2015. Prior to the

removal of any structures a survey will need to be repeated and if any nesting structures

are to be removed after the 2017 breeding season, a compensation arrangement would

need to be made pursuant to the requirements of regulations under the ESA.

Chimney Swift: Birds were recorded over the subject property, requiring that the removal

of any building must be preceded by a survey to ensure that no nests are located within

the building.

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 37

Feature/Function

Category

Description

Bat Habitat: If any forest is to be removed for stormwater outfalls, or buildings demolished

additional surveys will be required to assess whether or not ESA bat species are present.

Fish Habitat

Fish habitat is restricted to the Sixteen Mile Creek. However, a fish rescue will be required

for any golf course irrigation ponds that are removed.

Other Wetlands The Sixteen Mile Creek floodplain supports several small meadow marsh and thicket

swamp wetlands. These wetlands provide flood attenuation and habitat contributions to

the natural area. There are also several small wetlands on the tableland of the subject

property, two of which are associated with a significant woodland, and one is not.

Significant

Valleylands

The subject property overlaps with the Sixteen Mile Creek valleyland, which is a major

valley system in the Town of Oakville and is considered a significant valleyland. The

valley limits have been determined by calculation of the stable-top-of-slope.

Significant

Woodlands

The subject property supports portions of woodlands that have been identified in planning

documents as significant. In addition to the valleyland woodlands, this includes the

valleyland extension along the entire southeastern border of the property to Dorval Drive.

One isolated tableland woodlot (ELC unit 8a) is also a significant woodland; although the

actual characteristics of this unit are relatively low in function, it has been identified as a

significant unit for retention by the municipality.

These woodlands have been defined by the staking of the dripline limits.

Significant Wildlife

Habitat

The Sixteen Mile Creek valleylands could be considered Significant Wildlife Habitat

primarily on account of the landscape connectivity function they provide. The occurrence

of Wood Thrush, amphibian breeding functions, and turtle habitat may not each reach

the test of Significant Wildlife Habitat, but these features and functions are all located

within the valleylands in any case.

Natural Heritage

System/Landscape

Connectivity

ROPA 38 Map 1G identifies an NHS on the subject property. The NHS generally follows

the limits of the Sixteen Mile Creek valley, but also includes significant woodlands on the

tablelands.

In summary, while there are small extensions of significant woodland and some tiny wetland patches on the tablelands, the important features and functions are located within the highly significant Sixteen Mile Creek Valley. The tableland golf course lands and features do not represent important natural heritage features. Staked features and resulting development limits are illustrated on Figure 3.

7. Potential Effects and Mitigation

The following sections present some of the key potential negative effects of the proposed residential and commercial development and identify mitigation opportunities and compensation measures to be utilized to minimize potential adverse effects of the project.

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 38

7.1 Effects Assessment

The current property, is predominantly either golf course or valleylands, and the change to urban on the tablelands represents the primary element of change given the proposed development plan. The proposed development entails the removal of the golf course and some of its associated constructed features, a very small area of trees, shrubs and some cultural meadow.

Given the proposed land use, potential impacts typical of landscapes undergoing residential and commercial development could include the following:

Loss of golf course habitats;

Removal of vegetation/trees;

Changes to hydrology/water balance to woodlands, wetlands and watercourses;

Indirect noise and light effects on wildlife;

Rear yard waste dumping into the natural system;

Run-off of lawn chemicals into adjacent natural areas; and

Stormwater discharge to Sixteen Mile Creek and Glen Oak Creek tributary;

People and their companion animals venturing into natural areas providing direct disturbance, trampling and introduction of non-native plants.

Loss of Golf Course Habitats

Wildlife (flora and fauna) do use golf course habitats. However, not all golf courses have the same level of wildlife use. Some courses are carved out of significant natural features, others have large areas of well-developed rough lands, and some golf course feature ponds are wildlife friendly. Glen Abbey does not have these characteristics. The areas of rough are regularly maintained, the constructed feature ponds are steep, support little vegetation and are often mown to the water’s edge. They do not support a high level of wildlife functions and may also have Common Carp in them which further reduces their wildlife values. The proposed redevelopment of the golf course for residential and commercial land uses does reduce the amount of available habitat. However, in this case the lost features and functions are not important from a natural heritage perspective. Removal of Vegetation/Trees

All the significant woodlands are being retained, and additional woodland units are also being retained in the southeast and near the RayDor Estate. Only very minor removals of a small group of trees (8B, 3a) and cultural thicket, and cultural meadow will be removed. There are many planted golf course trees that are being removed (approximately 1,200 non-hazard trees according to Beacon [2016]). These trees have been surveyed and cataloged (see Beacon 2016). Most of these trees are less than 50 years old, since the golf course itself is only 40 years old. Many of the trees are non-native species and their wildlife values are generally low. Removal of trees and vegetation could also be associated with the stormwater management facility outfalls. One is located in the northwest and it will necessitate the removal of a swath 12 m wide of significant woodland. The other is located within a cultural meadow community.

Dorval Drive


eyStre

et West

Golfview Court

RayDor Estate


-1:5,5000 100 20050 Metres


Staked Featuresand

Development LimitFigure 3

ClubLink Corporation ULCGlen Abbey Community


LegendSubject PropertyStable Top of Bank (Golder, 2016)Dripline (Staked by Beacon EnvironmentalDecember 3rd 2015)Stable Top of Bank 10m BufferDripline 10m BufferLimit of Development

DRAFT

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 39

The proposed Belverdere Lookout location is to be determined in conjunction with Conservation Halton and the Town, and depending on the exact location and design, any potential impacts on the forest that it overlooks may need to be addressed. Changes to Hydrology/Water Balance to Wetlands

There are three tiny pockets of wetlands on the tableland. Of these, the one just west of the intersection of Dorval Drive and the entrance road to the subject property is dominated by the invasive Phragmites

Common Reed and is not important and the vegetation should be removed to avoid further spread, although most of the area will be retained within the greenway. The two other small pockets are located within the significant woodland along the north side of Dorval Drive about half way along the southern boundary of the subject property (Units 6b and 5h). They are thicket communities that dry out early in the season and do not support rare flora, or wetland wildlife on account of their small size, brief hydroperiod and location close to the busy Dorval Drive. All other wetlands are located within the bottom of the valleylands and are not likely to be affected by the proposed development. However, one wetland pond in Unit 7b receives storm drainage from two sources that likely originate from an old pipe system related to the tableland development. Changes to Hydrology/Water Balance to Valleyland Woodlands

The valleyland slope woodland, which contains a number of Butternut trees, has developed on a slope system that has likely received some if its moisture from surface water runoff and groundwater seepage from the tablelands. Changes in surface water drainage and groundwater conditions could alter the water balance to this significant woodland, and affect some of the mature trees growing within, including some protected by the ESA. Noise and Light Effects

These effects are very difficult to quantify. Noise in particular may be a reason why landscape-level effects are known to occur within urban matrices even as natural areas are set aside. The effects of these stressors would be important except that this system is relatively protected by virtue that most of the forest is located within a large valley system and the edges of the system are relatively well-sealed. There is also existing noise associated with Upper Middle Road in particular. Based on this assessment, we do not anticipate a measurable effect provided that access issues are addressed (see People and their Companion Animals below). Rear Yard Waste Dumping

Generally speaking, residential dumping into natural areas, particularly of yard waste, can be anticipated when ground-level residential development backs onto natural systems. Such dumping can smother native species, encourage non-native plants and disturb wildlife habitat. The proposed development plan effectively eliminates this situation as only three residential blocks back onto the natural system, all of which are proposed to be multiple unit dwellings with ground maintenance being centrally and professionally managed, and a trail system is located between them.

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 40

Lawn Chemicals

Unmitigated, the run-off of yard and swimming pool chemicals into natural systems can create unwanted negative effects. In particular, many pool chemicals are harmful to aquatic life. The potential negative effects are all but eliminated in this case as there are no amphibian breeding ponds downslope of the proposed development and no residential development is proposed adjacent to natural areas where swimming pools could be constructed. Stormwater Discharge to Sixteen Mile Creek and Glen Oak Creek Tributary

A stormwater management plan has been developed by SCS Consulting Group (SCS, 2016). The study determined that three wet SWM Facilities will be required for quality control and quantity attenuation for the proposed development. The locations of these facilities are provided on Figure 4. Two of the SWM ponds will outlet to Sixteen Mile Creek which provides habitat for the threatened Silver Shiner. Final outlet locations and their detailed design will be determined at a later stage. Stormwater drainage is proposed to be discharged to Sixteen Mile Creek via two outlets located down the valley wall. The drainage from the northeast portion of the subject property will be piped down the valley slope toward the existing pond facility and discharge through the existing pond facility. The drainage from the southeast portion of the property will be piped down the open area of the valley walk through a channelized drainage route to Sixteen Mile Creek. This will be a new drainage outlet location to Sixteen Mile Creek. The southwest catchment area will maintain existing drainage to the Dorval Drive storm sewer via SWM

Pond B which will outlet to the Glen Oak tributary. Potential impacts to Sixteen Mile Creek and Glen Oak tributary from the proposed SWM facilities and outlet locations may include:

increased erosion at the discharge location;

impacts to water quality; and

thermal impacts. People and their Companion Animals

Uncontrolled access into natural areas will result in trampling, a proliferation or trails and direct effects on flora and fauna. Non-native invasive plant species are also spread in this manner, and overuse can result in physical damage and degradation of the natural system that is being protected from development.

7.2 Recommended Mitigation Measures

The following sections detail the anticipated impacts of the proposed development and identify mitigation and compensation measures to be utilized to minimize effects of the project.

Dorval Drive


eyStre

et West

GolfviewCourt

RayDor Estate


-1:5,5000 100 20050 Metres


ProposedDevelopment Figure 4


LegendSubject PropertyProposed DevelopmentLimit of Development

ClubLink Corporation ULCGlen Abbey Community

DRAFT

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 41

Mitigation by Design

As the key natural heritage functions and features of the subject property are largely contained within the valley or are being maintained on the landscape as woodlands, the site specific effects have, to a large extent, been mitigated by the design of the development plan. Planting of Trees

The removal of golf course trees (approximately 1,200 non-hazard trees) is matched by the proposed planting of street trees (approximately 1,200). Significant Woodland - Buffers

From an ecological perspective, the majority of the potential interface between the proposed redevelopment and the natural system is with woodlands. The limit of the woodlands has been established through a staking exercise that used the dripline (not the tree trunks as on, for example, the Oak Ridges Moraine) to define the limit of woodlands. Before considering the application of mitigative buffers to be applied to the dripline it is important to consider two areas of information. These are: 1) the sensitivity of the features and functions within the woodland, and 2) the exact nature of the immediate stressors. It is important to recognise that buffers are not able to mitigate for the broader effects of landscape change. That is to say, adjustments of buffer widths and types cannot protect all functions within a woodland feature that lies within an urban matrix. The following paragraphs explore these issues. Broader Landscape and Existing Adjacent Land Uses Evidence suggests that the broader landscape is a better predictor of what wildlife species might use a woodland. For example, buffers will not be able to protect area-sensitive forest breeding birds from fragmentation effects if there is an inadequate level of overall forest cover in the given landscape (e.g., Donnelly and Marzluff 1994; Donnelly and Marzluff 2006). In another example, in urban valley systems in Toronto for which breeding bird data are available, up to 70% of the species that are within range and for which habitat appears suitable are absent (Canadian Wildlife Service 2006). Clearly, although buffers are able to mitigate some stressors, such as noise and light, the buffer itself cannot compensate for the overall reduction or loss of forested habitat. While this functional reality is less well-established for groups other than birds, it is reasonable to suppose that other faunal groups might be similarly (or perhaps even more) affected. In this case although the existing adjacent land uses on the subject property are semi-urban (e.g., golf course, roads, trails, car parking, RayDor Estate buildings), north and south of the subject property (south of Dundas Street West) intensive urban development occurs on both sides of Sixteen Mile Creek, with the principal exception of the Glen Abbey golf course itself. Urban development (residential, commercial and infrastructure) is located immediately adjacent to the treed valley, including the north side of the valley opposite the subject property. This is an important consideration, not because it should be used as a precedent to argue for the same, but rather because the stressors associated with adjacent urban land uses are already manifest within this valley system. The species using the woodland are already demonstrating an ability to use lands that are otherwise surrounded by urbanization. Therefore

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 42

it can reasonably deduced that most are species that can tolerate some measures of disturbance related both to the immediate adjacent land uses with their lack of buffers, and the broader urban landscape. Sensitivity of Functions and Features

The very steep valley slopes are difficult to safely survey, and surveys have focussed on areas that might be developed. Notwithstanding, the current uses within and adjacent to the valley (both sides) and the flora and fauna recorded to-date do not indicate the presence of species that might drive buffer requirements either by the species that are present or in the case of Butternuts by their location within the forested area (hydrology aside). In an already urban landscape this is to be expected as most species that are present have already adapted to the present conditions. Nature of the Adjacent Land Uses In considering buffer design, the immediate vicinity of the developable area is an important consideration. It is reasonable to suggest, for example, that certain land uses are less impactful than others. The design of a redevelopment plan can contribute in meaningful ways to enhancing the function of the buffer lands. For example, stormwater management facilities can contribute both barrier functions (i.e., the open water portion) and wildlife habitat (i.e., the surrounding upland edges) to an adjacent feature. Indeed, Livable Oakville policies do allow for recreational uses such as trails and parkland within buffers as well as essential public works and utilities. In the case of the proposed redevelopment plan, there has been a concerted effort to place less impactful land uses immediately adjacent to the buffer lands. In the west, this is achieved by the following land uses approximated by the percentage of the interface with the continuous valleylands and significant woodland (all percentages are approximate):

1. Stormwater Management Facility. Approximately 10% of the valleyland interface is with the Block 189 SWM facility. A SWM facility can add important separation between urban disturbances and natural features and are often used as barriers. In this case the width of the SWM facility add considerably to the effective buffer. The second facility (Block 190) has parkland between it and the valley, so its contribution as a barrier or buffer enhancement is somewhat diminished compared to Block 189, but it does add extra separation.

2. Parkland. Approximately 51% of the interface of the buffer is with parkland. This occurs in

two blocks (20% and 31%) and is of a greatly variable width ranging from approximately 15 m to hundreds of metres. The contribution of parkland to the buffering effect will vary depending on the specific uses of the adjacent area. In many situations the development of passive park uses adjacent to the valleyland will be similar to the uses that occur today. Compared to private lots backing directly onto the valley system this is an important enhancement.

3. Trail and Townhouse/Appartment Block 163. For approximately 11% of the valleyland

interface a 5 m trail lies adjacent to the buffer, after which is the Townhouse/Apartment Block. The trail effectively adds 5 m to the buffer area.

4. Existing RayDor Estate. Approximately 21% of the valleyland interface is with the RayDor

Estate which is not part of this application. 5. Access at Dorval Drive. Due to road geometry, the access road necessarily impinges upon

the contiguous Significant Woodland for approximately 6% of the interface length.

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 43

In summary, along the length of the interface between the proposed re-development and the valleyland/significant woodland system, over half interfaces with park, 21% is an existing condition, and 10% is a SWM facility. Even where residential development is interfacing (for 11%) an additional 5 m wide trail is provided. Thus, the proposed minimum buffer is greatly enhanced by the proposed adjacent land uses (except at Dorval Drive, where the issue is solely related to woodland, not valleyland). Buffers Widths to Woodland – Current Practice

In many jurisdictions a 10 m dripline buffer is added to woodlands when they are being retained in the face of adjacent land use change or land development. Seldom are these buffers expanded due to attributes of the feature. Even on the Oak Ridges Moraine, within settlement areas buffers are often reduced from the Oak Ridge Moraine Conservation Plan prescribed 30 m from tree trunk to 10 m from dripline. Although not explicitly adopted by Ontario municipalities, the guidelines provided through the Carolinian Canada Committee (2003) in their Draft Guidelines for Environmental Impact Statements are often used as a reference. Their generic buffer guidelines, based on best available science at the time, are 10 m buffers for woodlands measured from the dripline. In summary, although there are some exceptions, the standard woodland buffer in many southern Ontario jurisdictions has become 10 m on dripline. In this case, the minimum required woodland buffer is also 10 m. However, this is a minimum and it is necessary to make sure that wider buffers are not required through the EIS process. Buffers and Science In 2012, Beacon authored a report entitled “Ecological Buffer Guideline Review” (Beacon 2012) that

was prepared for a consortium of conservation authorities led by Credit Valley Conservation. The findings of that comprehensive review are helpful to provide an overview of buffer science as it relates to woodland. The following summary of the literature review is excerpted from that document:

“Water Quality Functions: No empirical or technical evidence is available to support this function for upland woodland or forest buffers. Water Quantity Functions: No empirical or technical evidence is available to support this function for upland woodland or forest buffers. Screening of Human Disturbance / Changes in Land Use: Most readily measurable effects of immediate human disturbance (e.g., trampling, dumping of waste, yard extensions, spray or road salts) are documented as occurring within the first 10 m to 20 m of the forest edge, but can extend up to 50 m. Responses of wildlife species to human-related disturbances in adjacent lands have been documented to be limited within the first few metres for some species in some situations, but have also been documented as extending into the wooded feature dozens and hundreds of metres. Based on this edge effect an appropriate buffer for the direct disturbances may be in the range of 10 m to 20 m, additional buffer width for screening impacts of human disturbances for wildlife would need to consider the species or guilds being targeted for protection, the land use context, the vegetative structure of the buffer, and possibly the natural heritage system context in which the given feature is located. Core Habitat Protection: Zones to provide additional rooting area for large trees along the edges of wooded features may range from 3 to 12 m, while edge effects range from

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 44

a few to about 100 m on average for abiotic and biotic impacts that are indirectly related to anthropogenic activities. As with riparian and wetland buffers, it is important to consider site-specific factors (e.g., local hydrologic dynamics, soils, slopes, woodland / forest type and size), species and functions which the buffer is expected to protect, as well as land use context as part of buffer determination.”

The Beacon (2012) report went on to discuss zoned buffers. In these buffer designs bands are created to provide differing levels of protection. Duerksen et al. (1996) addressed zoned buffers, in the context

of having two zones to protect natural areas from anthropogenic physical disturbances. The first zone, closer to the protected feature, would be managed to restrict permitted uses to relatively low impact activities (such as hiking or cycling), while another zone around this would permit low density development but exclude high density development and busy roads. In the case of the proposed re-development, the provision of more compatible land uses (i.e., swm facility, parkland, trail corridor) could be considered to be an integral part of the ultimate buffer design. Many of the wider buffer recommendations pertain to possible effects that will not occur here (e.g., encroachments from rear backyards, road spray, trampling). The reasons these will not occur is related to the adjacent land uses including the lack of private lots backing onto the feature and the steepness of the forest slopes. It remains true today that there are very few buffer studies addressing upland forests. As Beacon (2012) noted, there has been a fair amount of research examining edge effects from changes in land uses on wooded natural areas, and specific impacts from the matrix, but there have been very few studies that examine the effectiveness of different widths and types of buffers in mitigating stressors and their effects. This makes it very difficult to recommend appropriate buffers to forested areas based on the science. Buffer Conclusion

The staked significant woodland on the subject property should have a no development buffer of 10 m width measured from the dripline. This proposed buffer takes account of the proposed adjacent land uses as detailed in the preceding paragraphs. Casual trails (with pervious surfaces) could be placed within this buffer but impervious graded trails should be outside. No grading should occur within the buffer other than minor “feather grading” in the outside 5 m, where necessary. Existing trails may be utilized where they fall within buffers. The only area where a 10 m buffer is not being applied to significant woodland is at the existing entrance to the subject property off Dorval Drive. The road is currently within 10 m of the dripline. This area is subject to road geometry constraints. During detailed design appropriate effort should be made to protect the woodland edge with appropriate enhancements. In addition to the woodland buffer, a stable-top-of-bank/physical top-of-bank buffer of 10 m has been applied (thus the development limit becomes the greater of the three). This buffer is not driven by ecological considerations and is 5 m less than that required for a major valley system by Conservation Halton and the Town. From an ecological perspective, and in this particular case, the difference in function created by a 10 m versus a 15 m stable-top-of-bank buffer, in our professional opinion, would not be measurable.

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 45

Significant Woodland - Hydrology

A feature-based water budget for the woodland on the south side of the valley will be required to demonstrate that any existing ground-water discharge can be maintained. Specifically, it will likely be necessary to determine which areas of the woodland are groundwater-fed versus surface-water fed (i.e. where seepage zones are located and what times of year they flow). To achieve this understanding more detailed groundwater information is required, and the issue will be addressed once additional monitoring information is gathered by Golder, starting with the installation of monitoring equipment as the golf season winds down in 2016. “Other” Wetlands - Buffers

There is no development proposed adjacent to the wetland located in the valleylands. The wetlands located within woodlot 8a will be adequately protected by the woodland buffer. Other Wetlands - Hydrology

For the wetland pond in the southeast that is apparently fed by piped water SCS (2016), note that an adjustable inlet control can be provided to allow future calibration for contribution to this wetland pond, and this will be siphoned off from the storm water outfall. As the pond currently dries out early in the season, it may be possible to extend the hydroperiod such that it could be used by a wider range of wildlife species. Watercourse Buffers

There is no development proposed within the valleylands in the vicinity of the Sixteen Mile Creek itself (but see stormwater outfalls) and therefore no additional buffers are required. The ephemeral drainage feature close to Dorval Drive will be piped to the storm sewer that it currently empties into. Access Restrictions

A chain-link fence should be placed along the outside edge of residential units that back onto the natural system to manage access into the natural system and mitigate against potential rear-yard dumping. Stormwater Outfalls

The western outfall will result in the removal of a 12 m wide area of significant woodland down the valley wall. Detailed design should address construction mitigation to ensure that the disturbance to trees is maintained to a minimum. The design of this outfall would be addressed at the detailed design stage. The eastern outfall will be directed towards the creek along a shallow swale after passing through the old ski slope which is currently a cultural meadow. The design of this outfall, including a diversion of some water westwards towards the wetland pond in 7b, would be addressed at the detailed design stage.

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 46

According to SCS (2016), all three SWM ponds have been designed to provide a minimum 48 hour extended detention of the runoff from a 25 mm rainfall event. The SWM ponds will consist of a permanent pool according to the MOE’s Enhanced Level Protection guidelines. The post development peak flows will be below the existing condition peak flows for the two to 100 year storm event, and further details are outlined in the FSR prepared by SCS (2016). The proposed end-of-pipe stormwater management facilities have been designed to treat stormwater according to Provincial and Town standards. Stormwater Management Facilities must be put in place before development occurs on-site. Timing – Breeding Birds

The federal Migratory Bird Convention Act (1994) protects the nests, eggs and young of most bird

species from harm or destruction. Environment Canada considers the ‘general nesting period’ of breeding birds in southern Ontario to be between late March and the end of August. This includes times at the beginning and end of the season when only a few species might be nesting. In light of this, it is recommend that during the peak period of bird nesting, no vegetation clearing or disturbance to nesting bird habitat occur between May 01 and mid-July. In the ‘shoulder’ seasons of April 1 to 30, and July 16 to August 31, we suggest that vegetation clearing could occur, but only after an ecologist with appropriate avian knowledge has surveyed the area to confirm lack of nesting. If nesting is found then vegetation clearing (in an area around the nest) has to wait until nesting has concluded. Generally speaking, the smaller and simpler the habitat is, the easier it is to confirm that no nesting is occurring. The likelihood of nesting birds being present in the ‘shoulder’ seasons also depends on the habitat type. From September 1 through to March 31, of any year, vegetation clearing can occur without nest surveys, but the law for nest protection still applies (i.e. if an active nest is known it should be protected). Timing – Bats

As Big Brown Bats may overwinter and breed in buildings, buildings or trees should be removed in April prior to breeding in May, or in the fall after mid-August and prior to the onset of hibernation (mid-October). Prior to the removal of any bat habitat (i.e., forest or buildings) surveys will be required to ensure conformity with the ESA. Fisheries Protection

Construction works such as grading, grubbing and excavation have the potential to result in the movement of sediment into the onsite watercourses. A sediment control plan should be prepared for the construction phase of the development and approved by the Conservation Halton, prior to the start of construction works and to the standard of “Erosion and Sediment Control Guideline for Urban Construction (December 2006)”. General elements of the sediment and erosion control plan should focus on preventing erosion and include, but not be limited to, the following:

Where the contract does not require work in a watercourse or within the valley lands, equipment should not be operated within such areas;

All erosion and sediment control measures should be integrated with a construction operation schedule as determined by the Contractor(s). Operations near any watercourse should not commence until temporary erosion and sediment control measures have been installed;

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 47

Temporary erosion and sediment control measures should be maintained and kept in place until all work near a watercourse has been completed and stabilized;

Temporary control measures should be removed at the completion of the work but not until permanent erosion control measures, as specified in the contract, have been established. This may necessitate removal by others;

The Contractor should monitor the erosion and sediment control measures and if the measures are found to be ineffective, the Contractor should immediately make changes in order to control erosion and sediment;

Standard Best Management Practices should also be employed during the construction process; and

In order to prevent degradation (including thermal) to the onsite watercourse, storm water management systems should be designed to meet Level 1 Ministry of Environment criteria.

Discussions with MNRF are required to determine what measures are required to address the discharge of stormwater into the valley system with respect to not having a negative impact on the habitat of the threatened fish species, the Silver Shiner. A fish rescue plan will be developed (that includes other wildlife species that may be encountered) for the decommissioning of the constructed golf course ponds. Lighting

To the extent possible, lighting along the western and southern edges of the proposed development should be directed away from all natural features (i.e., existing and future woodlands) to minimize the impact of adjacent development on the function of these areas. This includes street lighting along natural features and backyard lighting as part of the future development. Tree Protection

The accompanying Tree Inventory & Preservation Letter Report (Beacon 2016) identifies trees on the

subject property that are proposed to be preserved, and those that will require removal. Tree Protection Zones (TPZs) should be established on the ground consistent with tree protection fencing as outlined in the accompanying report prior to the start of construction and shall remain in good condition throughout the duration of all site work. No grading, soil disturbance or surface treatments shall occur within the TPZ. No equipment or materials shall be stored inside the TPZ. If grading or site alteration is required within the TPZs an ISA certified arborist should be consulted. Where trees have been identified for retention, tree protection fencing will be erected and maintained throughout the duration of all construction activity. There shall be no disturbance within the TPZ. Refer to the companion Tree Inventory and Preservation Letter Report (Beacon 2016a) for further details.

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 48

Restoration Opportunities and Monitoring

Although the planting of street trees will compensate for many of the planted golf course trees that are to be removed, compensation may still be required for the following negative effects:

1. Removal of golf course trees; 2. Forest removal associated with the stormwater outfall; and 3. The Belverdere Lookout.

The pathway for this compensation should be through discussions - with the Region of Halton, Town of Oakville and the Halton Region Conservation Authority - and the ultimate development of a Restoration Plan. There are many opportunities for restoration related to natural heritage protection on the slopes and bottomlands associated with the valley and in the feature buffers on the tablelands. As the proposed monitoring program will require an understanding of proposed compensation and integration with future investigations related to woodland hydrology, it is proposed that a monitoring program be incorporated into the Restoration Plan.

7.3 Net Effects

The primary loss will be a limited number and diversity of species of wildlife associated with the golf course lands. After mitigation the natural heritage system will be maintained and protected. Ultimately it can be enhanced; if properly managed, and after approximately 20 years or so, any planted forest created through the Restoration Plan process will increase the current forest cover and will result in an overall benefit to the current natural heritage functions on the subject property.

8. Policy Conformity

Section 2 of this report provided an overview of the natural heritage policies and regulations of the Provincial Policy Statement, Halton Region, the Town of Oakville, CH and the Endangered Species Act.

This section examines conformity with those policies and regulations.

8.1 Federal Fisheries Act

No works are proposed within fish habitat. A fish salvage under permit from the MNRF will ensure conformity regarding protection of individual fish that may occur in the constructed golf course features.

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 49

8.2 Provincial Policy Statement

Significant Wetlands

None have been identified by MNRF on the subject property. Significant Woodlands

The designated significant woodlands have all been staked with the approval authorities and retained with a protective 10 m buffer. Exceptions are the stormwater outfall, and where the existing entrance off Dorval Drive does not allow for a 10 m buffer. Significant Valleylands

The valleylands have been delimited through a stable–top-of-bank study (Golder 2016) and the provision of a 10 m buffer to this or the physical top-of-bank limit whichever is greater (Figure 3). Significant Wildlife Habitat

The identification of this element is the responsibility of the planning authority as it requires the relative assessment of features and the determination of thresholds. In this case, in our professional opinion, there would be no Significant Wildlife habitat on the subject property were such a study undertaken other than the valleylands themselves which form an important wildlife corridor and which will be protected. Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest

None have been identified by the MNRF on the subject property. Habitat of Endangered and Threatened Species

There are several species to which the provisions of the ESA may apply on the subject property. These include: Silver Shiner, Butternut and Barn Swallow. In addition, Chimney Swift may use the buildings and bats may use the buildings and forest that needs to be removed for the storm water outflow. Prior to the next stage of planning, these will all need to be addressed to the satisfaction of the MNRF who administer this Act and the regulations thereunder. Information on habitat occupancy for birds and bats must be current, such that surveys need to be completed and structures removed prior to the subsequent field season (generally commencing in April).

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 50

Fish Habitat

Fish habitat occurs within the creek and is being addressed in accordance with the federal Fisheries Act by the application of buffers and appropriate storm water management measures.

Natural Heritage Systems

The project as proposed strengthens the Natural Heritage System which generally follows the Sixteen Mile Creek valley as described in the section addressing Landscape Connectivity. In addition the existing significant woodland will be protected and improved from a functional perspective, strengthening “stepping-stone” links eastwards.

8.3 Regional Municipality of Halton Official Plan (September 2015)

This EIA has been prepared to address the requirements in the Halton Region Official Plan. Through this process key natural heritage features have been identified and it has been demonstrated that the Regional Natural Heritage System, which comprises the valleylands and significant woodlands, have been maintained and protected against negative effects. It is proposed that enhancements to the NHS be addressed through a Restoration and Monitoring Plan to be prepared in consultation with the Region, the Town and CH.

8.4 Liveable Oakville Plan (2009)

The woodlands, valleylands, Environmentally Sensitive Area (Sixteen Mile Creek valleylands) and Significant Wildlife Habitat associated with the valley have been identified and protected as required by the Official Plan, with the exception of the 10 m stable-top-of-bank/physical top-of-bank buffer (rather than 15 m). Buffers have been applied to the valleylands, Significant Wildlife Habitat and Significant Woodland (which include some small wetland patches). This EIA demonstrates how the features will be protected for the long term and that no negative ecological effects are anticipated.

8.5 Conservation Halton and the Conservation Authorities Act

The subject property includes regulated areas such as valleylands, floodplains, watercourses and wetlands and these are being retained and protected within the proposed development plan. As there is development within a regulated area this may require a permit from Conservation Halton. A 10 m buffer has been applied to the stable top of bank of the major valley (Sixteen Mile Creek). The EIA has addressed the very small wetland areas in the south of the plan area, and the rest of the wetlands are within the valleylands and will be protected.

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 51

8.6 Endangered Species Act

As previously noted, discussion will be required with MNRF regarding storm water discharge into the Sixteen Mile Creek and Butternut trees. Removal of golf course bridges in the valley would trigger the need to address Barn Swallows (although no changes are proposed within the valleylands). Removal of structures or forest will require surveys for bats, Chimney Swift and Barn Swallows. Surveys are conducted in June or July and are good until April of the following year.

9. Review of Recommendations

The following is an abbreviated review of the recommendations provided in this report (in addition to the design elements already built into the plan):

1. More detailed groundwater information is required and will be addressed as additional monitoring information is gathered by Golder, incorporating a detailed water balance for the valleyland woodland on the south slope of the valley, and starting with the installation of monitoring equipment as the 2016 golf season winds down;

2. Except in the case of multi-unit managed units, a chain-link fence should be placed along the outside edge of ground-level residential development where (or if) it interfaces directly with the natural area buffers;

3. The western stormwater outfall will require detailed design to address the protection of areas and trees outside the 12 m cut;

4. The eastern stormwater outfall will direct some storm flows to the wetland pond in unit 7b to compensate for the loss of storm flows that currently support the feature;

5. Clearing of any vegetation including grasses should respect the federal Migratory Bird Convention Act (1994) requirements;

6. A sediment and erosion control plan should be prepared for the construction phase of the development and approved by the CH, prior to the start of construction works and to the standard of “Erosion and Sediment Control Guideline for Urban Construction (December 2006)”;

7. To protect bats and ensure compliance with the ESA, surveys should be completed prior to removal of buildings or forest (in June and July), the survey is good until the following April, and timing constraints should be followed;

8. To protect Barn Swallows all structures on the golf course should be resurveyed prior to any removals. Golf course bridge removal over Sixteen Mile Creek would require an application under the ESA;

9. MNRF should be engaged regarding the status and protection of Butternuts and their general habitat under the ESA, prior to moving to the next phase of the development approvals process;

10. Lighting along the edges of the proposed development near the valleylands should be directed away from natural features;

11. Tree protection measures should be employed as per Beacon (2016a); and 12. A detailed Restoration and Monitoring Plan be prepared to address tree removals in

consultation with the Region of Halton, the Town of Oakville and the CH.

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 52

10. Conclusion

A background review and field investigations were conducted on the subject property to identify environmental constraints pertaining to development under various policies, regulations and guidelines. Portions of the subject property are constrained from development by natural features (valleylands and woodlands), as well as features within the valley. The proposed development will occur within lands that are mostly an active golf course. No development is proposed within the significant features with the exception of infrastructure associated with storm water outfalls. Subject to addressing the requirements of the ESA, mitigative measures when completed will, in our professional opinion, provide for the protection of features and functions consistent with various levels of policy and regulations regarding natural heritage protection. Report prepared by: Beacon Environmental

Report prepared by Beacon Environmental

Ryan Morin, B.Sc. Ecologist/GIS Specialist

Lindsey Waterworth, B.Sc. Aquatic Ecologist

Report prepared by: Beacon Environmental

Report prepared and reviewed by: Beacon Environmental

Carolyn Glass, BSc. MES Ecologist

Brian E. Henshaw Principal

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 53

11. References

Beacon Environmental Limited. 2012. Ecological Buffer Guideline Review. Prepared for Credit Valley Conservation. Beacon Environmental Limited. 2016a. Arborist Report. Prepared for ClubLink Corporation ULC and ClubLink Holdings Limited. Canadian Wildlife Service (Environment Canada). 2006. Area-Sensitive Forest Birds in Urban Areas. Summary available on line: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2009/ec/CW66-260-2006E.pdf Conservation Halton. 2006a.

Halton Region Conservation Authority: Regulation of Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shoreline and Watercourses: Ontario Regulation 162/06. Approved May 4, 2006.

Conservation Halton. 2006b.

Policies, Procedures and Guidelines for the Administration of Ontario Regulation 162/06 and Land Use Planning Policy Document. April 2006. (revised August 2011)

Conservation Halton. 2005.

Environmental Impact Study Guidelines. November 2005. Crins, W.J., McIlveen, W.D., Goodban, A.G., and O’Hara, P.G. 2006.

The Vascular Plants of Halton Region, Ontario. In: Dwyer, J.K. 2006. Halton Natural Areas Inventory 2006. Volume 2: Species Lists. Halton/North Peel Naturalists’ Club, Conservation Halton, South Peel Naturalists’ Club, Region of Halton and the Hamilton Naturalists’ Club.

Donnelly, R. and J. M. Marzluff. 2004. Importance of reserve size and landscape context to urban bird conservation. Conservation Biology, Vol. 18, Issue 3, pp. 733-745. Donnelly, R. and J. M. Marzluff. 2006. Forest bird breeding success and abundance linked to forests with closed canopies, and dominated by native species. Urban Ecosystem, Vol. 9, pp. 99-117. Duerksen, C.J., D.A. Elliot, N.T. Hobbs, E. Johnson, and J.R. Milar. 1996. Five biological principles for habitat protection at the site scale. In: Habitat Protection Planning: Where the Wild Things Area, American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Service. Report # 470/471. Golder Associates Inc. 2016. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Glen Abbey Golf Club Redevelopment. Prepared for ClubLink Corporation ULC and ClubLink Holdings Limited.

O c t o b e r 2 0 1 6



Page 54

Government of Canada. 1985. Federal Fisheries Act. Available online at: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-14/

Government of Canada. 1994.

Migratory Birds Convention Act. Available online at: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/M-7.01/

Government of Ontario. 2007.

Endangered Species Act. Halton Region. 2013.

Regional Official Plan Amendment 38 – Office Consolidation – September 28, 2015. Lee, H.T., W.D. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig and S. McMurray. 1998.

Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: First Approximation and Its Application. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. SCSS Field Guide FG-02. 225 pp.

Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (OMMAH). 2014.

Provincial Policy Statement. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). 2015. Silver Shiner.

https://www.ontario.ca/page/silver-shiner. Accessed August 16, 2016. Regional Municipality of Halton and North - South Environmental Inc. 2005.

Halton Region Environmentally Sensitive Areas Consolidation Report. Unpublished report prepared by Halton Region Planning and Public Works Department in conjunction with North - South Environmental Inc. 222 pp. + app.

SCS Consulting. 2016. Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report. Prepared for ClubLink Corporation ULC and ClubLink Holdings Limited. The Livable Oakville Plan. 2009. Town of Oakville Official Plan Office Consolidation February 23, 2015. http://www.oakville.ca/townhall/livable-oakville-official-plan.html

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_07e06_e.htm

http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Asset1421.aspx

https://www.ontario.ca/page/silver-shiner

http://www.oakville.ca/townhall/livable-oakville-official-plan.html

Appendix A

B r e e d i n g B i r d s

A p p e n d i x A

Page A-1

A p p e n d i x A

Breeding Birds

Common Name Scientific Name

Status Su

rvey 1

May 2

7, 2

015

e

Su

rvey 2

Ju

ne 1

0, 2

015

e

National Species at

Risk COSEWICa

Species at Risk in Ontario Listingb

Provincial Breeding Season SRANKc

Area-sensitive (OMNR)d

Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias S4 F

Wild Turkey Meleagris gallopavo S5 Track 2

Killdeer Charadrius vociferus S5 1

Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura S5 1

Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens S5 1

Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus S4 1

Great Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus S4 1

Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus S4 1

Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris S5 1 2

Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor S4 1

Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica THR THR S4 F F

Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata S5 1 2

American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos S5 2 1

Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus S5 2 2

House Wren Troglodytes aedon S5 1 2

American Robin Turdus migratorius S5 4 4

Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis S4 1

Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum S5 1

A p p e n d i x A

Page A-2

Common Name Scientific Name

Status Su

rvey 1

May 2

7, 2

015

e

Su

rvey 2

Ju

ne 1

0, 2

015

e

National Species at

Risk COSEWICa

Species at Risk in Ontario Listingb

Provincial Breeding Season SRANKc

Area-sensitive (OMNR)d

Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus S5 2 2

Yellow Warbler Setophaga petechia S5 1

Pine Warbler Setophaga pinus S5 A 1 1

Common Yellowthroat Geothlyphis trichas S5 2 1

Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis S5 2

Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea S4 5 5

Eastern Towhee Pipilio erythrophthalmus S4 1

Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina S5 2 2

Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla S4 4 1

Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus S4 1 2

Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis S4 A 3 2

Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia S5 13 19

Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater S4 1

American Goldfinch Spinus tristis S5 2 4

a – COSEWIC = Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. END = Endangered, THR = Threatened, SC = Special Concern b - Species at Risk in Ontario List (as applies to ESA) as designated by COSSARO (Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario) END = Endangered, THR =

Threatened, SC = Special Concern c - SRANK (from Natural Heritage Information Centre) for breeding status if: S1 (Critically Imperiled), S2 (Imperiled),S3 (Vulnerable), S4 (Apparently Secure), S5 (Secure),

SNA (Not applicable…'because the species is not a suitable target for conservation activities'; includes non-native species). d - Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2000. Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide e - # = number of individuals recorded, F = Flyover, TK = Tracks

Appendix B

V a s c u l a r P l a n t S p e c i e s L i s t

A p p e n d i x B

Page B-1

A p p e n d i x B

Vascular Plant Species List

Family Name Common Name (FOIBIS)

Genus (FOIBIS)

Species (FOIBIS)

COSEWIC COSSARO S-RANK HALTON

Rosaceae Serviceberry Species Amelanchier sp.

Asteraceae Knapweed Species Centaurea sp.

Apiaceae Water-hemlock Species Cicuta sp.

Rosaceae Hawthorn Species Crataegus sp.

Rosaceae Apple Species Malus sp.

Haloragaceae Water-milfoil Species Myriophyllum sp.

Boraginaceae Bluebells Mertensia virginica S3 R2

Juglandaceae Butternut Juglans cinerea END END S3?

Juglandaceae Black Walnut Juglans nigra S4

Aceraceae Black Maple Acer nigrum S4?

Typhaceae Blue Cattail Typha X glauca S4?

Polygonaceae Water Dock Rumex orbiculatus S4S5 R3

Aceraceae Manitoba Maple Acer negundo S5

Aceraceae Red Maple Acer rubrum S5

Aceraceae Silver Maple Acer saccharinum S5

Aceraceae Sugar Maple Acer saccharum S5

Poaceae Spreading Bentgrass Agrostis stolonifera S5

Asteraceae Annual Ragweed Ambrosia artemisiifolia S5

Asteraceae Great Ragweed Ambrosia trifida S5

Apocynaceae Spreading Dogbane Apocynum androsaemifolium S5

Asclepiadaceae Common Milkweed Asclepias syriaca S5

A p p e n d i x B

Page B-2


Genus (FOIBIS)

Species (FOIBIS)


Asteraceae Panicled Aster Symphyotrichum lanceolatus S5

Asteraceae Calico Aster Symphyotrichum lateriflorus S5

Asteraceae New England Aster Symphyotrichum novae-angliae S5

Betulaceae Paper Birch Betula papyrifera S5

Asteraceae Nodding Beggar's Ticks Bidens cernua S5

Asteraceae Devil's Beggar's Ticks Bidens frondosa S5

Cyperaceae Pennsylvania Sedge Carex pensylvanica S5

Betulaceae American Hornbeam Carpinus caroliniana S5

Juglandaceae Shagbark Hickory Carya ovata S5 U

Berberidaceae Blue Cohosh Caulophyllum giganteum S5

Cornaceae Gray Dogwood Cornus racemosa S5

Cornaceae Round-leaved Dogwood Cornus rugosa S5

Cornaceae Red-osier Dogwood Cornus sericea S5

Dryopteridaceae Spinulose Wood Fern Dryopteris carthusiana S5

Cucurbitaceae Wild Mock-cucumber Echinocystis lobata S5

Cyperaceae Blunt Spikerush Eleocharis obtusa S5 U

Asteraceae Spotted Joe-pye Weed Eupatorium maculatum S5

Asteraceae Common Boneset Eupatorium perfoliatum S5

Asteraceae Grass-leaved Goldenrod Euthamia graminifolia S5

Fagaceae American Beech Fagus grandifolia S5

Oleaceae White Ash Fraxinus americana S5

Oleaceae Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica S5

Boraginaceae Virginia Stickseed Hackelia virginiana S5 U

Hamamelidaceae American Witch-hazel Hamamelis virginiana S5

Apiaceae Cow-parsnip Heracleum maximum S5 R5

Balsaminaceae Spotted Jewel-weed Impatiens capensis S5

A p p e n d i x B

Page B-3


Genus (FOIBIS)

Species (FOIBIS)


Balsaminaceae Pale Jewel-weed Impatiens pallida S5

Poaceae Rice Cutgrass Leersia oryzoides S5

Lemnaceae Lesser Duckweed Lemna minor S5

Campanulaceae Great Blue Lobelia Lobelia siphilitica S5

Lamiaceae American Bugleweed Lycopus americanus S5

Lamiaceae Northern Bugleweed Lycopus uniflorus S5

Liliaceae False Solomon's Seal Maianthemum racemosum S5

Liliaceae Starflower False Solomon's Seal Maianthemum stellatum S5

Betulaceae Eastern Hop-hornbeam Ostrya virginiana S5

Oxalidaceae Upright Yellow Wood Sorrel Oxalis stricta S5

Vitaceae Thicket Creeper Parthenocissus vitacea S5

Saxifragaceae Ditch-stonecrop Penthorum sedoides S5 U

Poaceae Reed Canary Grass Phalaris arundinacea S5

Poaceae Common Reed Phragmites australis S5

Pinaceae White Spruce Picea glauca S5 U

Pinaceae Red Pine Pinus resinosa S5 R1

Pinaceae Eastern White Pine Pinus strobus S5

Poaceae Kentucky Bluegrass Poa pratensis S5

Polygalaceae Water Smartweed Polygonum amphibium S5 U

Salicaceae Quaking Aspen Populus tremuloides S5

Rosaceae Wild Black Cherry Prunus serotina S5

Rosaceae Choke Cherry Prunus virginiana S5

Fagaceae White Oak Quercus alba S5

Fagaceae Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa S5

Fagaceae Red Oak Quercus rubra S5

A p p e n d i x B

Page B-4


Genus (FOIBIS)

Species (FOIBIS)


Ranunculaceae Cursed Crowfoot Ranunculus sceleratus S5

Anacardiaceae Western Poison Ivy Toxicodendron rydbergii S5

Anacardiaceae Staghorn Sumac Rhus hirta S5

Rosaceae Wild Red Raspberry Rubus idaeus S5

Rosaceae Black Raspberry Rubus occidentalis S5

Rosaceae Purple-flowering Raspberry Rubus odoratus S5

Asteraceae Black-eyed Susan Rudbeckia hirta S5

Alismataceae Broadleaf Arrowhead Sagittaria latifolia S5

Salicaceae Pussy Willow Salix discolor S5

Salicaceae Heart-leaved Willow Salix eriocephala S5

Salicaceae Sandbar Willow Salix exigua S5 U

Caprifoliaceae Red-berried Elder Sambucus racemosa S5

Cyperaceae Woolgrass Bulrush Scirpus atrovirens S5

Cyperaceae Soft-stemmed Bulrush Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani S5

Asteraceae Tall Goldenrod Solidago canadensis S5

Asteraceae Bluestem Goldenrod Solidago caesia S5

Asteraceae Broad-leaved Goldenrod Solidago flexicaulis S5

Caprifoliaceae Snowberry Symphoricarpos albus S5

Ranunculaceae Early Meadowrue Thalictrum dioicum S5

Cupressaceae Northern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis S5

Tiliaceae American Basswood Tilia americana S5

Pinaceae Eastern Hemlock Tsuga canadensis S5

Typhaceae Broad-leaf Cattail Typha latifolia S5

Ulmaceae American Elm Ulmus americana S5

Urticaceae Slender Stinging Nettle Urtica dioica S5

Verbenaceae Blue Vervain Verbena hastata S5

A p p e n d i x B

Page B-5


Genus (FOIBIS)

Species (FOIBIS)


Verbenaceae White Vervain Verbena urticifolia S5

Vitaceae Riverbank Grape Vitis riparia S5

Asteraceae Rough Cockle-bur Xanthium strumarium S5

Nymphaeaceae Fragrant White Water-lily Nymphaea odorata S5

Aceraceae Norway Maple Acer platanoides SNA Hippocastanaceae Horse Chestnut Aesculus hippocastanum SNA

Brassicaceae Garlic Mustard Alliaria petiolata SNA

Asteraceae Greater Burdock Arctium lappa SNA

Berberidaceae Japanese Barberry Berberis thunbergii SNA

Asteraceae Bull Thistle Cirsium vulgare SNA

Fabaceae Crown-vetch Coronilla varia SNA

Poaceae Orchard Grass Dactylis glomerata SNA

Apiaceae Queen Anne's Lace Daucus carota SNA

Caryophyllaceae Deptford-pink Dianthus armeria SNA

Dipsacaceae Common Teasel Dipsacus fullonum SNA

Poaceae Barnyard Grass Echinochloa crusgalli SNA

Celastraceae European Spindle-tree Euonymus europaea SNA

Celastraceae Winter-creeper Euonymus fortunei SNA

Rosaceae Clover-root Geum urbanum SNA

Asteraceae Jerusalem Artichoke Helianthus tuberosus SNA

Iridaceae Yellow Iris Iris pseudacorus SNA

Lamiaceae Common Motherwort Leonurus cardiaca SNA

Scrophulariaceae Butter-and-eggs Linaria vulgaris SNA

Caprifoliaceae Tartarian Honeysuckle Lonicera tatarica SNA

Lythraceae Slender-spike Loosestrife Lythrum salicaria SNA

Fabaceae Black Medic Medicago lupulina SNA

A p p e n d i x B

Page B-6


Genus (FOIBIS)

Species (FOIBIS)


Moraceae White Mulberry Morus alba SNA

Apiaceae Wild Parsnip Pastinaca sativa SNA

Pinaceae Norway Spruce Picea abies SNA

Rhamnaceae Buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica SNA

Fabaceae Black Locust Robinia pseudo-acacia SNA

Rosaceae Rambler Rose Rosa multiflora SNA

Salicaceae Crack Willow Salix fragilis SNA

Salicaceae Weeping Willow Salix X sepulcralis SNA

Caryophyllaceae Bouncing-bet Saponaria officinalis SNA

Poaceae Yellow Foxtail Setaria pumila SNA

Solanaceae Climbing Nightshade Solanum dulcamara SNA

Oleaceae Common Lilac Syringa vulgaris SNA

Apiaceae Erect Hedge-parsley Torilis japonica SNA

Asteraceae Colt's Foot Tussilago farfara SNA

Scrophulariaceae Common Mullein Verbascum thapsus SNA

Pinaceae Black Pine Pinus nigra SNA

Asteraceae Taraxacum officinale SU Legend COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). END = Endangered COSARO (Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario). END = Endangered S-Rank (Provincial Status - NHIC) S1 = critically imperilled; S2 = imperilled; S3 = vulnerable; S4 = apparently secure; S5 = secure; SNA= Not Applicable, the species is not a suitable target for conservation activities, exotic/introduced. Halton (Regional Status - Crins et al., 2006). HU – Uncommon; HR – Rare; H? – Status uncertain; requires further review

FOIBIS Flora Ontario Integrated Botanical Information System

Appendix C

M N R F S AR L e t t e r

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

May 20, 2015

Sarah Aitken Beacon Environmental 337 Woolwich St. Guelph, ON, N1H 3W4 519-826-0419 [email protected] Re: Sixteen Mile Creek Bank Rehabilitation at Glen Abbey Golf Course Dear Ms. Aitken, In your email dated May 1, 2015 you requested information on natural heritage features and element occurrences occurring on or adjacent to the above mentioned location. There are Species at Risk recorded for your study area. As of the date of this letter, we have records of:

Silver Shiner THR Bank Swallow THR

Additionally, the species listed below have the potential to occur in your study area and may require further assessment or field studies to determine presence. Butternut END These species receive protection under the Endangered Species Act 2007 and thus, an approval from MNRF may be required if the work you are proposing could cause harm to these species or their habitats. If the Species at Risk in Ontario List is amended, additional species may be listed and protected under the ESA 2007 or the status and protection levels of currently listed species may change. We require more detailed information on the proposed project in order to assess the impacts of the works on Species at Risk. When project details have been determined, please fill out an Information Gathering Form (IGF) for any threatened or endangered species listed in the provided letter and submit it to our office (to [email protected]). The IGF can be found here (along with its associated guide). Please include detailed descriptions of the undertakings such as proposed timing and phasing of the project and details on what is required at each phase. All sections and tables should be filled out in their entirety – incomplete forms will be returned and may delay the review process. Any applicable supplemental information that will assist with the review process should also be submitted with the IGF (e.g. field survey results, site plan/drawings, ELC mapping, etc.). Please note that forms are reviewed in the order in which they are received by MNRF and we will contact you with our response once the review is complete. Absence of information provided by MNRF for a given geographic area, or lack of current information for a given area or element, does not categorically mean the absence of sensitive species or features. Many areas in Ontario have never been surveyed and new plant and animal species records are still being discovered for many localities. For these reasons, the MNRF cannot provide a definitive statement on the presence, absence or condition of biological elements in any part of Ontario. This species at risk information is highly sensitive and is not intended for any person or project unrelated to this undertaking. Please do not include any specific information in reports that will be available for public record. As you complete your fieldwork in these areas, please report all information related to any

species at risk to our office. This will assist with updating our database and facilitate early consultation regarding your project. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at 905-713-6483. Sincerely,

Andrew Godfrey Fish and Wildlife Technical Specialist Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Aurora District

environmental impact assessment glen abbey golf club ... planning/da-15190901...w o o l w i c h s t...

Documents