prestonvale subdivision north east corner of bloor … · environmental impact study (2nd...

PRESTONVALE SUBDIVISION NORTH EAST CORNER OF BLOOR ST. & PRESTONVALE RD.

PART LOT 33, CONCESSION 2 TOWN OF COURTICE

MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY (2nd Submission)

Prepared for: National Homes (Prestonvale) Inc.Submitted by: Niblett Environmental Associates Inc. File: PN 17-025 Original Date: September 2017 2nd Submission: May 29, 2019

55MaryStreetWest,Suite112,Lindsay,OntarioK9V5Z6Tel:(705)878‐9399Fax:(705)878‐9390

Email:[email protected]:www.niblett.ca

May29,2019 PN17‐025 TravisNolan,BESDevelopmentManagerNationalHomes(Prestonvale)Inc.291EdgeleyBlvd.,Suite1Concord,OntarioL4K3Z4SUBJECT: PART OF LOT 33, CONCESSION 2

NORTHEAST CORNER OF BLOOR ST. AND PRESTONVALE ROAD TOWN OF COURTICE, MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON

DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY (2nd submission) DearMr.Nolan,Please findenclosed the2nd submissionofourEnvironmental ImpactStudy (EIS) for theproposed residentialdevelopment locatedonPartLot33,Concession2, at thenortheastcorner of Bloor Street and Prestonvale Road in the Town of Courtice, Municipality ofClarington.We have updated our earlier report (Sept. 2017) to incorporate changes made to thedevelopmentplan(latestdatedJan.4,2019)andMarch2018commentsfromtheagencies.Thisreportstillcontainstheresultsofourbiological inventoriesandassessments. Italsocontainsrecommendationstomitigatetheimpactsfromthelatestdevelopmentplan.Pleasecontactourofficeifyouhaveanyquestionsorrequirefurtherprojectsupport.Sincerely,

ChrisEllingwoodPresidentandSr.TerrestrialandWetlandBiologist

Prestonvale Road‐Plan of Subdivision Environmental Impact Study

Niblett Environmental Associates Inc. ii PN 17‐025

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

ThefollowingNEAstaffcontributedtothisproject:Projectco‐ordinator: ChrisEllingwood,SeniorTerrestrialandWetlandBiologistAuthors: ChrisEllingwood,SeniorTerrestrialandWetlandBiologist

KatherineRyan,TerrestrialandWetlandBiologist AmandaSmith,SeniorFisheriesBiologist KariVanAllen,TerrestrialandWetlandBiologist StaceyZwiers,FisheriesBiologist FieldCrew: KristinaDomsic,formerTerrestrialandWetlandBiologist KatherineRyan,TerrestrialandWetlandBiologist ErnieSilhanek,formerTerrestrialandWetlandBiologist ChrisEllingwood,SeniorTerrestrialandWetlandBiologist Graphics: WillPridham,CartographyandGISSpecialist


Niblett Environmental Associates Inc. iii PN 17‐025

TABLE OF CONTENTS CoverLetter.....................................................................................................................................................iAcknowledgement...........................................................................................................................................ii

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………..……………………………1

Background........................................................................................................................................1 LocationandStudyArea...............................................................................................................2 RelevantStudies...............................................................................................................................2

StudyRationale…………………………………………………………………………………………………...2

LocalandOtherRegulatoryBodies...........................................................................2 DurhamRegionalOfficialPlan(2015).....................................................................5 ProvincialLegislation......................................................................................................6 FederalLegislation...........................................................................................................8

StudyMethods…………………………………………………………………………………………………..10

GeneralApproach.........................................................................................................................10 DetailedStudyMethodology....................................................................................................10

LiteratureReview...........................................................................................................10 BiophysicalInventory..................................................................................................11

3.2.2.1. Vegetation.............................................................................................................113.2.2.2. BreedingBirds....................................................................................................113.2.2.3. MammalsandHerpetozoa.............................................................................123.2.2.4. SignificantWoodlandandValleyland.......................................................123.2.2.5. WildlifeHabitatandCorridors....................................................................123.2.2.6. FishandAquaticHabitat................................................................................133.2.2.7. SpeciesatRisk(SAR).......................................................................................13

ResourceInventory…………………………………………………………………………………………...14

Vegetation........................................................................................................................................14 Birds...................................................................................................................................................21 MammalsandAmphibians.......................................................................................................21 FishandAquaticHabitat...........................................................................................................21

ResourceSignificance………………………………………………………………………………………..24

Vegetation........................................................................................................................................24 Birds...................................................................................................................................................24 MammalsandHerpetozoa........................................................................................................29 WildlifeHabitatandCorridors...............................................................................................29 FishandFishHabitat..................................................................................................................30

DescriptionofProposedDevelopment……………………………………………………………….30

ImpactAssessment……………………………………………………………………………………………31

KeyNaturalHeritageSystemFeaturesandFunctions.................................................31


Niblett Environmental Associates Inc. iv PN 17‐025

DefinitionofNaturalHeritageSystem..................................................................31 NaturalHeritageSystem.............................................................................................31 Valleylands........................................................................................................................32 SignificantSpeciesandHabitat................................................................................32 UnevaluatedWetlands.................................................................................................32

Vegetation........................................................................................................................................33 Birds...................................................................................................................................................34 WildlifeCorridorsandLinkages............................................................................................35 FishandFishHabitat..................................................................................................................35 GroundwaterandHydrogeology...........................................................................................36

PoliciesandLegislativeCompliance…………………………………………………………………...36

FederalLegislation.......................................................................................................................36 ProvincialLegislation.................................................................................................................37 LocalandOtherRegulatoryBodies......................................................................................38

Conclusion…………………………………………………………………….…………………………………..38

Recommendations………………………………………………………………….…………………………39

General............................................................................................................................................39GroundwaterDischargeandRechargeFunctions.......................................................40Stormwater...................................................................................................................................40OperationofMachinery...........................................................................................................40FishandFishHabitat................................................................................................................41SedimentandErosionControl..............................................................................................41ContaminantandSpillManagement..................................................................................42

References………………………………………………………………………………………………………..44


Niblett Environmental Associates Inc. v PN 17‐025

LIST OF TABLES

Table1.FishSpeciesListforRobinsonCreek..........................................................................................23 Table2:ProvinciallyRareSpeciesatRiskRecordedfortheAtlasoftheBreeding

BirdsofOntario(17PJ76).................................................................................................................26

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure1:VegetationCommunitiesandConstraints..............................................................................15

LIST OF APPENDICES AppendixI‐A:PlantSpeciesbyCommunityAppendixI‐B:ListofSignificantPlantSpeciesAppendixII: BirdStatusReportAppendixIII:CompensationOptionsAppendixIV:CLOCACommentsMarch13,2018


Niblett Environmental Associates Inc. 1 PN 17‐025

PRESTONVALE SUBDIVISION

NORTH EAST CORNER OF BLOOR ST. AND PRESTONVALE RD. PART LOT 33, CONCESSION 2

TOWN OF COURTICE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY (2nd Submission)

Introduction

Background

NiblettEnvironmentalAssociatesInc.(NEA)wasretainedbyNationalHomes(Prestonvale)Inc.,hereinreferredtoas‘NationalHomes’,tocompleteafullEnvironmentalImpactStudy(EIS)foraproposedresidentialsubdivisiondevelopmentintheMunicipalityofClarington.In 2014, the property owner, working with Weston Consulting, requested that NEAundertake a preliminary review of the property to understand the environmentalconstraints to the development potential of the site. That report was completed andsubmittedtotheclientonSept5,2014.TheduediligencereportoutlinedthebuildableareaandtheneedforafullEISatthedevelopmentstage.ItincludedEcologicalLandClassification(ELC)mapping,birdsurveysandsearchesforbutternut(Juglanscinerea).Some of the potential environmental constraints identified were: Robinson Creek,woodlands, potential habitat for species at risk (grassland birds), unevaluated wetland,valleylands and the possibility of finding butternut, an endangered tree species, beinglocatedwithinthestudyarea.NoProvinciallySignificantWetlands(PSW),AreasofNaturaland Scientific Interest (ANSI), Environmentally SensitiveAreas (ESA)or other provincialdesignationsoccurredtheproperty.ATermsofReferencewascreatedandapprovedbyCLOCAandtheMunicipalityoutliningNEA’sworkplanforthestudy.ItwasapprovedinApril,2017.TheEISReportwassubmittedas part of the first submission for the project in September, 2017. CLOCA providedcommentsontheEISonMarch13,2018(AppendixIV). Adjustmentstothedevelopmentplanhavebeenmade since that time. ThisupdatedEIShasbeenwritten to incorporatechangestoimpactsofsitespecificdevelopmentfeaturesandtheupdateddevelopmentplanandincorporateourresponsesandadditionaltextrequirements.



Location and Study Area

ThepropertyislocatednorthofBloorStreet,ontheeastsideofPrestonvaleRoadatPartLot33,Concession2,intheTownofCourtice,MunicipalityofClarington(Figure1).

Relevant Studies Robinson Creek and Tooley Creek Watershed Management Plan (AECOM, 2011)TheMunicipalityofClaringtonincooperationwithAECOM,undertookawatershedstudytoget a greater understanding of the natural heritage and groundwater features of thewatershedinordertoapplyabroad‐basedwatershedplanningprocess.Suchaprocesswasdesigned to help protect the integrity of the ecological and hydrological functions of thewatershed.Thefinalresultwasthecreationofamanagementplanthatwouldguidefutureplanningdecisionsthatuseenvironmentallysoundknowledgeandhaveregardforpotentialcumulativeimpactsonallcomponentsoftheecosystem.

Study Rationale Thissection identifies federal,provincialandotherregulatory legislation,policies,officialplans(OP)andOPamendmentsthatareapplicableandrelevanttothestudyareaandtheimmediatevicinity.This includespolicies that triggeredthestudy.Thesedocumentsmayrefertonaturalfeatures,SpeciesatRiskandwildlifehabitatandotherfeaturesrelevanttothisstudy.

Local and Other Regulatory Bodies Municipality of Clarington Official Plan (1996 and OPA 107) Section 4 of the MCOP 1996 aims to enhance and protect the natural heritage system,promotestewardshipandthewiseuseoftheMunicipality’snaturalresourcesinordertoprovidelongtermandsustainableenvironmental,economicandsocialbenefits.ItisrecognizedthroughPolicies4.3.3and4.3.4,landownersareencouragedtorespecttheintegrityofthenaturalenvironmentthroughresponsiblestewardshipandtheparticipateinforestmanagement,soilandwaterconservationprograms.Policies4.3.5,4.4.6,4.4.7,4.4.8and4.4.10,outlinestheMCOP1996policieswithregardstositealterationanddevelopmentonlandsadjacenttoorsubjecttonaturalheritagefeatures



andhydrologicalsensitivefeaturesidentifiedonMapCoftheMCOP1996.BasedonMapC,aportionofthesubjectpropertyislocatedwithintheNaturalHeritageSystem.MapA2 (LandUse,CourticeUrbanArea) indicates thepropertyhas “RegionalCorridor”,“UrbanResidential”and “EnvironmentalProtectionArea”designations. MapC1 (NaturalFeaturesandLandCharacteristics,SouthDarlington,)identifiesnaturalfeaturesonandadjacenttothepropertyarea.

14.4.2NodevelopmentshallbepermittedonlandsdesignatedEnvironmentalProtectionAreas, except low‐intensity recreation and uses related to forest, fish and wildlifemanagementorerosioncontrolandstormwatermanagement.14.4.3WiththeexceptionoflandsdesignatedEnvironmentalProtectionAreawithintheOak RidgesMoraine, all other lands designated Environmental Protection Area shallincludeasetbackfordevelopmenttobedeterminedinconsultationwiththeConservationAuthorityandtheProvince.Inthecaseofastreamvalley,thesetbackshallbedeterminedfromthetop‐of‐bankandshallbebasedonastableslopeandthesensitivityofthestreamvalley.Thesetback forallothernaturalheritage featuresdesignatedasEnvironmentalProtectionAreashallbedeterminedbasedonthesensitivityofthespecificnaturalheritagefeature.Innocasewouldthesetbackbe lessthan5metres inwidth.Inthecaseofnewplansofsubdivisionorconsents,lotlinesshallnotextendbeyondtheestablishedsetback.With the exception of designated Environmental Protection Areas in the Oak RidgesMoraine, the extent of the Environmental Protection Areas designated on Map A isapproximateonly.Thepreciselimitsoftheseareasshallbedetailedthroughthereviewofdevelopmentapplicationsand/orinconsultationwiththeConservationAuthority.WithintheOakRidgesMoraine, the areas designated Environmental Protection shall includethose features identified in Sections 4.4.2 and 4.4.3 of this Plan and the establishedminimumvegetativebufferzoneasdescribedinTable4‐1ofthisPlan.

Natural Heritage System

MapDC1 (NaturalHeritageSystem– SouthDarlington)of theMunicipalityofClaringtonOfficialPlan(OPA107‐2016)identifiesthepropertyasbeingpartoftheNaturalHeritageSystem.adjacenttoSignificantValleylands.Section4.4.35requiresthepreparationofanEnvironmentalImpactStudyfordevelopmentproposedadjacenttothesenaturalfeatures.ThatsectionoutlinestherequiredcontentofanEIS.



4.4.35AnEnvironmentalImpactStudyshallbeundertakenfordevelopmentapplicationslocated on landswithin or adjacent to the Lake IroquoisBeach, any natural heritagefeatureidentifiedonMapC,andanynaturalheritagefeaturewhichmayexistbutwhichisnotpresentlyidentifiedonMapCbutofwhichnoticeisgiveninaccordancewithSection4.4.9.TheTerms ofReference for thepreparation of theEIS shallbeapprovedby theMunicipalityinconsultationwiththeConservationAuthoritypriortothepreparationoftheEnvironmentalImpactStudy.

AppendixA‐GeneralDescriptionofStudiesoutlinestherequirementsoftheEnvironmentalImpactStudy

The purpose of an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) is to determine the potential fordevelopmenttoadverselyimpactenvironmentallysignificantandsensitiveareas,andnaturalheritagefeatures.

Thestudyshall:

a)examinethefunctionsofthenaturalheritagefeatures,;b)identifythelocationandextentofnaturalheritagefeatures;c)identifythepotentialimpactsoftheproposeddevelopmentonthenaturalheritagefeaturesandtheirecologicalfunctions;d)identifyanylandstobepreservedintheirnaturalstate;e)identifymitigatingmeasurestoaddresstheadverseeffectsofdevelopmentonthenaturalheritagefeatures,andtheirecologicalfunctions,includingsetbacksfordevelopment;f)identifythepotentialforrestorationand/orcreationofwildlifehabitat;andg) examine the cumulative impact of the existing, proposed and potentialdevelopment,includingtheimpactongroundwaterfunctionandquality.

ThedrafttextofOPA107wasreviewed.ThePlanningReportprovidesfurtherdetails.The Municipality of Clarington completed a comprehensive review of its Official Plan.Amendment No. 107was adopted by Council in November 2016 and received RegionalapprovalonJune19,2017.ThePlanwassubsequentappealedtotheBoard.Atthetimeofsubmittingtheenclosedapplications,theBoardhadnotreleasedaProceduralOrderbringAmendment No. 107 into force and effect. Recognizing Amendment No. 107 representsCouncils updated goals and objectives for development within the Municipality, theproposeddevelopmentandsupportingapplicationshavebeenpreparedinaccordancewiththepoliciesofAmendmentNo.107.



Exhibit6and7oftheOPA107showstheoriginalEPdesignationandachangetoextendtheEP area westward to roughly the top of bank, from Future Urban Residential toEnvironmental Protection. Schedule D1 shows the new boundary of the EP area. In theredlinerevisionsoftheOPontheClaringtonwebsite(datedNovember2016),Section4.3.35thatrequiredanEIS,hasbeenupdatedandrenumberedsection3.4.Sections3.4.12to3.4.16areapplicabletothisprojectandarecoveredintheEIS.ThescopeandcontentrequirementsofanEISareoutlinedinAppendixAofthe2016OfficialPlan.Table3‐1oftheOP,outlinesthe minimum areas of influence and minimum vegetation protection zones for the keynaturalheritagesystemfeatures.Theprojectiswithinthe‘urbanarea’ofCourtice.

Durham Regional Official Plan (2015)

TheDurhamRegionalPlandesignatesthepropertyoftheproposeddevelopmentas“LivingArea” within the Courtice Urban Area Boundary. This designation allows for thedevelopmentofcommunitieswithavarietyofhousingtypes,sizesandtenures.Section2.3.43oftheDurhamOfficialPlanstatesthefollowing:Any proposal for development or site alteration in proximity to key natural heritage orhydrological features, or which may have major environmental impacts, the Region, inconsultation with the respective area municipality, shall select and retain a qualifiedenvironmentalconsultant toprepareanEnvironmental ImpactStudyat theexpenseof theproponents.Suchastudyshallapplytotheareatobedeveloped,ormaybeexpandedtoincludeadditional lands, as may be deemed necessary by the Region, in consultation with theconservationauthorityandanyotherappropriateagency,anditshalladdressthefollowing:

a)thelocationandnatureofthedevelopment;b)themappingofthelocationandextentoftheenvironmentalconditions,whichmayincludekeynaturalheritageorhydrologicfeatures;c)thedegreeofsensitivityoftheenvironmentalconditionsandanevaluationofsuchconditions;d)anassessmentofthepotentialcumulativeimpactsontheenvironment;e) theneed foranymeasures toprotectormitigatenegative impacts tokeynaturalheritageorhydrologic featuresand functionsandthesurroundingenvironment,anddefinitionsofsuchmeasures;andf)applicableenvironmentalconsiderationsoftheGreenbeltPlan;g)whereapplicable,assessthesignificanceofthekeynaturalheritageandhydrologicfeatures;andh)anyothermattersdeemednecessarybyRegionalCouncil.



Provincial Legislation

Provincial Policy Statement (2014)TheProvincialPolicyStatement,2014(PPS)isthestatementoftheOntariogovernment’spolicies on landuse planning. It applies province‐wide (in the province ofOntario) andprovides provincial policy direction on land use planning. Municipalities use the PPS todeveloptheirofficialplansandtoguideandinformdecisionsonotherplanningmatters.ThePPSisissuedunderSection3ofthePlanningActandalldecisionsaffectinglanduseplanningmatters`shallbeconsistentwith’theProvincialPolicyStatement(GovernmentofOntario,2014).TheextentofNaturalHeritagefeaturesfoundonoradjacenttothestudyareahavebeeninvestigatedwithinthisEIS(Figure1),andportionsofSections2.1.5through2.1.8ofthePPSapplytothisproject.2.1.4Developmentandsitealterationshallnotbepermittedin:

a) significantwetlandsinEcoregions5E,6Eand7E1;andb) significantcoastalwetlands.

2.1.5Developmentandsitealterationshallnotbepermittedin:

a) significantwetlandsintheCanadianShieldnorthofEcoregions5E,6Eand7E;b) significantwoodlandsinEcoregions6Eand7E(excludingislandsinLakeHuronandthe

St.MarysRiver);c) significantvalleylandsinEcoregions6Eand7E(excludingislandsinLakeHuronand

theSt.MarysRiver);d) significantwildlifehabitat;e) significantareasofnaturalandscientificinterest;andf) coastalwetlands inEcoregions5E,6Eand7E thatarenot subjecttopolicy2.1.4(b)

unlessithasbeendemonstratedthattherewillbenonegativeimpactsonthenaturalfeaturesortheirecologicalfunctions.

2.1.6 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in fish habitat except inaccordancewithprovincialandfederalrequirements.2.1.7 Developmentandsitealterationshallnotbepermittedinhabitatofendangeredspeciesandthreatenedspecies,exceptinaccordancewithprovincialandfederalrequirements.2.1.8 Developmentandsitealterationshallnotbepermittedonadjacentlandstothenatural



heritagefeaturesandareasidentifiedinpolicies2.1.4,2.1.5,and2.1.6unlesstheecologicalfunctionoftheadjacentlandshasbeenevaluatedandithasbeendemonstratedthattherewillbenonegativeimpactsonthenaturalfeaturesorontheirecologicalfunctions.Endangered Species Act, 2007 ThepurposesoftheOntarioEndangeredSpeciesAct(ESA2007)areto:

1. Toidentifyspeciesatriskbasedonthebestavailablescientificinformation,includinginformation obtained from community knowledge and aboriginal traditionalknowledge;

2. Toprotectspeciesthatareatriskandtheirhabitats,andtopromotetherecoveryof

speciesthatareatrisk;

3. Topromotestewardshipactivitiestoassistintheprotectionandrecoveryofspeciesthatareatrisk.2007,c.6,s.1.(GovernmentofOntario,2018)

The ESA clearly defines the five classifications of species status as extinct, extirpated,endangered,threatened,orspecialconcern,andprovidesguidelinesontheprocessofspeciesstatusdetermination.Regulationsmadeunderthisactinclude:OntarioRegulation230/08and242/08.OntarioRegulation230/08providesthelistofSpeciesatRisk(SAR)inOntario,whichisupdatedregularly. This list was most recently consolidated on August 1, 2018 (Government ofOntario,2018b).Speciesstatusprovidedinthelistisassessedbyanindependentbody,theCommitteeontheStatusofSpeciesatRiskinOntario(COSSARO),basedonthebest‐availablescienceandAboriginalTraditionalKnowledge.General habitat protection is afforded to all species listed as endangered or threatened.General habitat descriptions are technical, science‐based documents that have beendeveloped for some of the species that aremost likely to be affected by human activity(Government of Ontario 2018c). Further information including a Recovery Strategy orManagementPlan isrequiredforeachlistedspecies,onatimelinedictatedbythespeciesstatus.OntarioRegulation242/08explainspossibleexemptionstotheESAanddetailsonhowthepurposeoftheESAistobecarriedout.



Federal Legislation Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 (S.C. 1994, c.22) The purpose of the Migratory Birds Convention Act (MBCA 1994) is to implement theConvention by protecting and conservingmigratory birds as populations and individualbirdsandtheirnests.Nowork ispermittedtoproceedthatwouldresult in thedestructionofactivenests(i.e.,nestswitheggsoryoungbirds),orthewoundingorkillingofbirdspeciesprotectedundertheMBCAand/orRegulationsunderthatAct.Fisheries Act FisheriesProtectionandPollutionPrevention

Section34.(1)Forthepurposesofsections35to43,

“deleterioussubstance”means

(a)anysubstancethat,ifaddedtoanywater,woulddegradeoralterorformpartofaprocessofdegradationoralterationofthequalityofthatwatersothatitisrenderedorislikelytoberendereddeleterioustofishorfishhabitatortotheusebymanoffishthatfrequentthatwater,or

(b)anywaterthatcontainsasubstanceinsuchquantityorconcentration,orthathasbeensotreated,processedorchanged,byheatorothermeans,fromanaturalstatethatitwould,ifadded to any otherwater, degrade or alter or form part of a process of degradation oralterationofthequalityofthatwatersothatitisrenderedorislikelytoberendereddeleterioustofishorfishhabitatortotheusebymanoffishthatfrequentthatwater,andwithoutlimitingthegeneralityoftheforegoingincludes

(c)anysubstanceorclassofsubstancesprescribedpursuanttoparagraph(2)(a),

(d)anywaterthatcontainsanysubstanceorclassofsubstancesinaquantityorconcentrationthat is equal to or in excess of a quantity or concentration prescribed in respect of thatsubstanceorclassofsubstancespursuanttoparagraph(2)(b),and

(e)anywaterthathasbeensubjectedtoatreatment,processorchangeprescribedpursuanttoparagraph(2)(c);



Section35.(1)No person shall carry on anywork, undertaking or activity that results inseriousharmtofishthatarepartofacommercial,recreationalorAboriginalfishery,ortofishthatsupportsuchafishery.

(2)Apersonmaycarryonawork,undertakingoractivitywithoutcontraveningsubsection(1)if

(a)thework,undertakingoractivityisaprescribedwork,undertakingoractivity,oriscarriedoninoraroundprescribedCanadianfisherieswaters,andthework,undertakingoractivityiscarriedoninaccordancewiththeprescribedconditions;

(b)thecarryingonofthework,undertakingoractivityisauthorizedbytheMinisterandthework,undertakingoractivityiscarriedoninaccordancewiththeconditionsestablishedbytheMinister;

(c)thecarryingonofthework,undertakingoractivityisauthorizedbyaprescribedpersonorentityandthework,undertakingoractivity iscarriedon inaccordancewiththeprescribedconditions;

(d)theseriousharm isproducedasaresultofdoinganythingthat isauthorized,otherwisepermittedorrequiredunderthisAct;or

(e)thework,undertakingoractivityiscarriedoninaccordancewiththeregulations.

Section36(3).Nopersonshalldepositorpermitthedepositofadeleterioussubstanceofanytype inwater frequentedby fishor inanyplaceunderanyconditionswherethedeleterioussubstanceoranyotherdeleterioussubstancethatresultsfromthedepositofthedeleterioussubstancemayenteranysuchwater.



Study Methods

General Approach

The study was completed in four distinct phases. The first phase included NEA’s duediligencestudy(in2014)andthesubsequentcreationofaTermsofReferencetoensurethefinal EIS would meet all requirements. During this phase, the scope of the study wasdiscussedwithCLOCA.The second phase of the EIS involved collecting and reviewing all available informationaboutthestudysiteandsitevicinity. Informationwasgatheredfromavarietyofsourcesincluding:reportsaboutthestudyarea,keynaturalfeaturesmappinganddescriptions,airphotographs,historicalfisheriesdataandGISmapping.ThethirdphaseinvolvedsitevisitsbyNEAbiologiststoconfirmthedatacollectedinthebackgroundinformationreviewandtocollectnewsite‐specificinformationaboutthestudyarea. SitevisitswereconductedonApril20th,May2nd,May30th, June1standJune14th,2017.Whencombinedwiththesitevisitsconducted in2014aspartof theduediligencestudy,thesesurveysresultedinadetailedinventoryoftheentireproperty.Theboundariesofthenaturalheritagesystem,topofbankanddriplinewereconfirmedinthefieldwithCLOCAduringasitewalkonMay2,2017.Theinventoryincludedvegetationcommunitymappinganddeterminationofsignificantfeaturesonsite.Allfieldstudieswereconductedduring theappropriategrowingseason (forplants)andbreedingseasons (foramphibiansandbirds)toadequatelyinventoryplantandwildlifepopulations.The final phase involved preparation of this EIS report, including specific mitigationmeasuresforprotectingsensitivespeciesandothernaturalfeaturesonoradjacenttothestudy site. This report also includes a figure that illustrates the location of vegetationcommunities,wildlifesurveystationsandenvironmentalconstraintareas.

Detailed Study Methodology

Literature Review

LiteraturereviewedfortheEISincludedcommunitymapping,previouslycompletedreportsandnaturalheritagestudiesof theareacompletedbyCentralLakeOntarioConservationAuthority(CLOCA)andtheMunicipalityofClarington.This includedthe finaldraftof theRobinsonandTooleyCreekWatershedManagementPlan(2011).AerialphotosandOfficial



Planscheduleswereexamined.Othersourcesofinformationincluded:

DepartmentofFisheriesandOceans(DFO)AquaticSpeciesatRiskCriticalHabitatMapping;

OntarioBreedingBirdAtlas(OBBA)data(BirdStudiesCanada,2007); Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (OMNRF)’s Natural Heritage

Information Centre (NHIC) make a map online database and Land InformationOntario(LIO)database.

Biophysical Inventory

3.2.2.1. Vegetation

AllvegetationcommunitiesonandadjacenttothesubjectpropertywerevisitedonJune10th,30thandAugust5th,2014(aspartoftheduediligencestudy)aswellasonJune1st,2017.Speciescompositionanddominantspeciesinalllayersweredetermined.CommunitiesweredelineatedbasedontheEcologicalLandClassificationforSouthernOntario(ELC)(Leeetal.,1998).Generalnotesondisturbance,topography,soiltypes,soilmoistureandstateofeachcommunitywerealsocompiled.Rare,significantorunusualspeciesweresearched for.Speciessignificanceorrarityonanational,provincial,regionalandlocallevelwasbasedonpublishedliteratureandstandardstatus lists. These included SARA (2018), COSEWIC (2018), COSSARO (2018), OntarioEndangeredSpeciesAct(2008),Vargaetal.(2000)andGartnerLee(1978).Photographsand/orspecimensweretakenofplantsrequiringverificationofidentification.

3.2.2.2. Breeding Birds

BreedingbirdsurveyswereconductedfollowingtheprotocolsoftheOntarioBreedingBirdAtlas(OBBA)pointcount.ThesurveyswereconductedduringthebreedingseasononMay30thandJune14th,2017.Surveysweretimedtocoincidewiththedawnchorusandwithinacceptableweatherparameters.Thesurveyswereacombinationofpointcountsandareasearches and covered all portions of the property. Previous breeding bird surveyswereconductedaspartoftheduediligencestudyonJune10thand30th,2014.AbreedingbirdspecieslistwasgeneratedfromtheAtlasoftheBreedingBirdsofOntarioBirdStudiesCanada(2007)forthe10x10kmatlassquarethatcontainedthestudyarea(17PJ76).Thedatawasreviewedtodetermineifanysensitiveorsignificantbreedingbirdspecieshadbeenrecordedinthebroadvicinityofthedevelopment.RecordsofanySpecialConcern, Threatened or Endangered species were also acquired from OMNRF’s NHIC



database.

3.2.2.3. Mammals and Herpetozoa

IncidentalobservationsofmammalsandherpetozoaweremadeduringthesitevisitonJune1st,2017.RecordsofincidentalanimalencountershadalsobeenkeptontheJune10th,30thandAugust5th,2014sitevisitsfortheduediligencestudy.Observationskeptincludeddirectsightings and indirect evidence of species on the property (such as calls, tracks, scat,burrows,densandbrowse).OneamphibiansurveywasconductedusingtheMarshMonitoringProtocol(MMP)onApril20th,2017.Nofrogsweredetected(eithervisuallyorthroughcalls).Observersnotedthatminimalstandingwaterexistedonthesubjectpropertyoutsideoftheflowingcreek,located90metres from thedevelopment envelope,withdense cattailsdominating thewetlands.After discussions with CLOCA, due to the lack of amphibian breeding habitat and theanticipationofdrierconditionsinMayandJune,itwasdeterminedthatthelattertwoMMPsurveyswerenotrequiredatthissite.

3.2.2.4. Significant Woodland and Valleyland

TheboundaryofthetopofthebankforthevalleylandwasconfirmedinthefieldandtheboundarywasstakedonMay2,2017.Itwassubsequentlytiedinbyasurveyorandthelinewaswalkedtoconfirmthelimitofdevelopment.TheboundaryofthesignificantwoodlandasdepictedinMapC1oftheClaringtonOfficialplan(1996)wasconfirmedinthefieldinconjunctionwithELCcommunitydelineation.AsitewalkwithCLOCAstaffonMay2,2017alsoincludedstakingofthedriplineontheeasternpartoftheproperty.

3.2.2.5. Wildlife Habitat and Corridors

NEA considered the importanceof the study area and adjacent lands forwildlife habitatconsideringsizeandfragmentation.Habitatforwildlife,includingsnakehibernacula,cavitytrees,dens,nests,burrowsandothersignsofwildlifeweresearchedforduringfieldsurveys.NEA also examined the role that the natural features present on site (e.g., watercourse,valleylandsandwoodlands)mighthaveinprovidinglinkagesandmovementcorridorsforwildlifeinthegreaterlandscape.NEAalsodeterminedthepotentialimpactstheproposeddevelopmentwouldhaveonwildlifehabitatandlinkagesonandimmediatelyadjacenttothesubjectproperty.



3.2.2.6. Fish and Aquatic Habitat

The majority of Robinson Creek is outside of the property and no in‐water works areproposed. Due to the limited potential for impacts on the creek, and the availability ofexistingbackgroundinformation.NEAdidnotconductdetailedaquatichabitatsurveysorfishcommunitysurveysinRobinsonCreek.DetailedaquatichabitatinformationwasobtainedfromAECOMsRobinsonCreek&TooleyCreekWatershedPlan‐ExistingConditionsReport(AECOM,2011).FishcommunitydatawascompiledfromCLOCA(CLOCA,2011),OMNRF(OMNR,2012)andAECOM(AECOM,2011).Fish community data for Robinson Creek from the Eastvale Subdivision EnvironmentalImpactStudy (NEA, 2011) thatNEA completed south of the study areawas also used tocompile a study area fish species list. Fish spawning information from CLOCA’sAquaticMonitoringReport(CLOCA,2013)hasbeensummarizedandincludedinthisreport.

3.2.2.7. Species at Risk (SAR)

TheOntarioEndangeredSpeciesAct(ESA)wasenactedin2007.Toensuretheprojectmetthe requirements of this act, relevant background information was reviewed from theOMNRFNHICdatabase,DFO,CLOCAandtheOBBA.PotentialforSARtobepresentonsitewasassessedbasedonavailablerecordsfrombackgroundsources,knownspeciesranges,andavailabilityofsuitablehabitatonsite.TheneedfortargetedsurveyswasdeterminedbasedonthepotentialforSARpresenceand/orhabitatsuitability.TheOMNRFidentifiedtwospeciesatriskbirds‐easternmeadowlark(Sturnellamagna)andbobolink(Dolichonyxoryzivorus)–thathadthepotentialtoinhabitthegeneralvicinityofthestudyareainaletterdatedAugust29th,2014.Species‐specificsurveyswereconductedin2014and2017byNEAbiologists.OMNRFalsoindicatedthatbutternutwasknowntobepresent in the area surrounding the site. Therefore, butternut was searched for duringvegetation inventory and community delineation surveys. Finally, NEA biologists alsoconductedanassessmentofhabitatsuitabilityforSARbats(small‐footedbat/Myotisleibii,northern long‐earedbat/Myotis septentrionalis and tri‐colouredbat/Perimyotis subflavus)bysearchingforcavitytreeswithinthestudyarea.



Resource Inventory

Vegetation

Eight(8)vegetationcommunitiesweredelineatedwithinthestudyarea(Figure1).Atotalof98plantspecieswereidentifiedontheproperty.Thepropertywasdominatedbyculturalwoodlandtotheeastandplowedfieldtothewest.Eachofthevegetationcommunitiesisdescribedbelow.AfullplantlistisprovidedinAppendixI‐A.Community 1 Dry‐Moist Old Field Meadow (ELC Code: CUM1‐1)

Theinitialsitevisitin2014identifiedthisfieldasaculturalmeadowdominatedbygroundspeciesincludingagrimony(Agrimoniagryposepela),awnlessbromegrass(Bromusinermisssp inermis), black medick (Medicago lupulina), broad‐leaved plantain (Plantagomajor),Canadagoldenrod(Solidagocanadensis),Canadathistle(Cirsiumarvense),earlygoldenrod(Solidagojuncea),NewEnglandaster(Symphyotrichumnovae‐anglae),Kentuckybluegrassandcommonmilkweed(Asclepiassyriaca).Successionalregenerationofeasternwhitecedar(Thujaoccidentalis), eastern red cedar (Juniperusvirginiana), red‐osier dogwood (Cornusstolonifera)andEuropeanbuckthorn(Rhamnuscathartica)wasalsooccurringinthisfield.InJune2017thefieldhadbeenplowedforarchaeologicalinvestigations.

Photo 1. Cultural Meadow (June 10, 2014) Photo 2. Plowed Meadow (June 1, 2017)

FUTURE MEDIUMDENSITY RESIDENTIAL

PRESTONVALE ROAD

CALE AVE.

MEADOWGALDE RD.

FUTURE LOW-RISERESIDENTIAL

ESTIMATED ROAD WIDENING

ESTIMATED ROAD WIDENING

BLOOR STREET

NATURAL HERITAGESYSTEM BOUNDARY

30M SETBACK FROM CREEKRECOMMENDED BY NIBLETTENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATESCONSTRAINTS REPORT DATEDSEPTEMBER 2014.

CREEK DIGITIZED FROM NIBLETTENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATESCONSTRAINTS REPORT DATEDSEPTEMBER 2014.

BLOCK E 3 STOREY DUAL FRONTAGETOWNHOUSE (6 UNITS) BLOCK F 3 STOREY DUAL FRONTAGETOWNHOUSE (6 UNITS)

STREET 'D' (6.5m)

STREET 'C' (6.5m)

STREET 'A' (9.0m)

STREET 'C' (6.5m)

STREET 'F' (6.5m)

R = 9.0m R = 6.0m

R = 9.0m

R = 9.0m

R = 9.0m

R = 9.0m

R = 9.0m

R = 9.0m

STREET 'F' (6.5m)

STREET 'E' (6.5m)R = 6.0m

R = 6.0m

R = 6.0m

R = 6.0m

BLOCK N 2 STOREYTOWNHOUSE(8 UNITS)

BLOCK O 2 STOREYTOWNHOUSE(6 UNITS)

BLOCK G 3 STOREY DUAL FRONTAGETOWNHOUSE (6 UNITS)STREET 'B' (6.5m)

STREET 'B' (6.5m)

1.5m SIDEWALK

1.5m SIDEWALK

1.5m SIDEWALK

1.5m SIDEWALK

1.5m SIDEWALK

1.5m SIDEWALK

1.5m SIDEWALK

1.5m SIDEWALK1.5m SIDEWALK 1.5m SIDEWALK

R = 9.0m

R = 9.0m

STREET 'B' (6.5m)STREET 'G' (6.5m)

1 ACCESSIBLE + 5VISITOR PARKING SPACES

1 ACCESSIBLE+ 2 VISITORPARKING SPACES R = 9.0m

BLOCK I 3 STOREYTOWNHOUSE(7 UNITS)

BLOCK J 3 STOREYTOWNHOUSE(8 UNITS)

BLOCK H 3 STOREYTOWNHOUSE(5 UNITS)

1.5m SIDEWALK

1.5m SID EWALK

9 VISITOR PARKINGSPACES

9 VISITORPARKING SPACES

PARKETTE AREA=0.040 ha

R = 6.0m

BLOCK B4 STOREYSTACKED(8 UNITS)

BLOCK C4 STOREYSTACKED(14 UNITS)

BLOCK D4 STOREYSTACKED(14 UNITS)

SWM AREA= 0.052 ha

SWM = 0.0620 ha

FIRE ROU TE

FIRE ROUTE

FIRE ROUTE

FIRE ROU TE

FIRE ROUTE

FIRE ROU TE

BLOCK A4 STOREYSTACKED(2 UNITS)

1.5m SIDEWALK

1 VISITOR

P

NATURE TRAIL

L

PL

AA

SECTION A-A

BB

PL

PL

NATURE TRAILSECTION B-B

CC

PL

PL

NATURE TRAILSECTION C-C

PRIVATE LANE

PRIVATE LANE

PRIVATE LANE

LANDSCAPEBUFFEREXISTING TREESTO BE PRESERVED

EXISTING TREESTO BE PRESERVED



EXISTINGTREES TO BEPRESERVED

3:1 SLOPE

3:1 SLOPE

3:1 SLOPE

21

34

56

78

910

1817

1615

1413

1211

2423

2221

2019

44 43 42 41 40 39 50 49 48 47 46 45

56 55 54 53 52 51

5758

5960

61

6263

6465

6667

68

7574

7372

76

99100

101102105106

107

108109

110111112

2 VISITOR PARKING SPACES

2M WALKWAY

CMB

CMB

SNOWSTORAGEAREA

SNOW STORAGEAREA

SWM EASEMENT

1.5m SID EWALK

1.5m SID EWALK

1.5m SIDEWALK

EX.DWELLING

3M X 3M COMB.WATER METERAND BACKFLOWPREVENTER ROOM

MULTI-USE PATH

1.5m SID EWALK

1.5m SID EWALK

SNOWSTORAGEAREA

CLOCA STAKED TOP OF BANKAND DRIPLINE (MAY 2, 2017)

CLOCA STAKED TOP OF BANK

(MAY 2, 2017)

25

7071

69

BLOCK K 3 STOREYTOWNHOUSE(8 UNITS)

7879

8081

7783

8284

103104939495969798

BLOCK M 2 STOREYTOWNHOUSE(6 UNITS)

BLOCK L 3 STOREYTOWNHOUSE(8 UNITS)

9190

8988

9286

8785

1.5m SIDEWALK

26272829303132333435363738

FIREROUTE

R = 12.0m

FIREROUTER = 12.0m

FIRE ROUTE

R = 12.0m

FIRE ROUTE

R = 12.0m

FIRE ROUTE

R = 12.0m

EXISTINGDWELLING

EXISTINGDWELLING

AMENITY AREA=0.013 ha

2-STOREY UNIT

PRIVACYFEN CE

1.8m HIGH WOOD FENCE

FIREROUTER = 12.0m

R =13.0m

R =13.0m

R =13.0m

FIRE ROUTER =13.0m

R =13.0m

R =13.0m

R =13.0mR =13.0m

R =13.0mR =13.0m

R =13.0m

R =13.0m

R =13.0m

R =13.0m

R =13.0m

reducedunit here(garage)

PR. 2.4m TRAIL

PR. 3.0m TRAIL

PR. 3.0m TRAIL

PR. 3.0m TRAIL

1:1,400UTM Zone 17WKID: 26917 Authority: EPSGTransverse MercatorGCS North American 1983, ESRI ArcGIS 10.1

Map was produced byNEA under public license from Ontario

Ministry of Natural Resources,Copyright (c) Queens Printer 2017.

NIBLETT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES INC.

REVISIONSDESCRIPTIONDATEBYNO

ELC TYPES (1ST APPROXIMATION)TYPE DESCRIPTIONCODE

LEGEND FIGURE 1: VEGETATION COMMUNITIES& CONSTRAINTS

PROJECT:

SCALE:CONTACT:

PHONE/FAX:EMAIL:

PROJECT NO:

CLIENT:

HWY 401

HWY401 TOWNLINE RD S

BLOOR ST

TRULLS RD

PRESTONVALE RD

TRULLS RD

HWY 2

REVISION NO.:

© Niblett Environmental Associates Inc. 2017.

1 CUM1-1

1 CUM1-1

3 CUP3-2

4 CUW1

4 CUW1

7 CUW1

LAWN

2 NO CODE

8 SWT2-1

5 MAS2-15 MAS2-1

6 SWD4-1

^

Ro b i n so n C r e e k

!H Breeding Bird SurveyMaximum Buffer*Top of Bank (Surveyed May 11, 2017. J.D. Barnes)StreamStudy Property (CAD)

Vegetation Community15 m Buffer from Top of BankWetland Community

* Based on a 10 m buffer from NHS and 15 m from top of bank.** Obtained from the Regulated Area layer (CLOCA).

©

0 30 60 90 12015

Meters



Community 2 Hedgerow (No ELC Code Applicable) Community2islocatedonthesouthernsideofthesubjectpropertyandconsistsofasmallhedgerow bordering the plowed field on the adjacent property. This hedgerow wasdominatedbyconiferspeciesincludingColoradospruce(Piceapungens),easternredcedar,easternwhitecedarandeasternwhitepine(Pinusstrobus).OtherspeciesfoundgrowingupthroughthehedgerowincludedEuropeanbuckthorn,Freeman’smaple(AcerxFreemanii),tartarian honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica), swallow‐wort (Cynanchum rossicum) andwildgrape(Vitisriparia).

Photo 3: Community 2 – small hedgerow; view looking east (June 10, 2014).

Community 3 White Pine Plantation (ELC code: CUP3‐2) Evidence of an old conifer plantation was found in the central portion of the propertyincludingthecentralareaoftheslope.Treespresentincludeeasternwhitepine,Scot’spine(Pinussylvestris)andwhitespruce(Piceaglauca).Averagediameterswere18‐26cmdbh.Fewwoodyorherbaceousspecieswereidentifiedintheunderstoryduetothedensecanopyand leaf litter and limited sunlight penetration. Scattered species that existed in theunderstory included alternate‐leaf dogwood (Cornus alternifolia), Canada plum (Prunusnigra), choke cherry (Prunus virginiana), European buckthorn and pin cherry (Prunuspensylvanica). The few ground species included agrimony, Canada goldenrod (Solidagocanadensis), cleavers (Galium aparine), common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) andcommonstrawberry(Fragariavirginiana).



Photo 4: Community 3 – conifer plantation (June 10, 2014).

Community 4 Mineral Cultural Woodland (ELC code: CUW1) Community 4 is located along the eastern slopes of the Robinson Creek valley. ThiswoodlandisdominatedbydenseEuropeanbuckthornonthenorthsideandcontainsamoreopencanopywithlargermorematuredeciduoustreesonthesouthernendoftheproperty.Deciduoustreespresentonthesouthernendofthepropertyincludedgreenash(Fraxinuspennsylvanicavar.subintege),whichdominatedapproximately15%ofthecanopy,Manitobamaple(Acernegundo),Norwaymaple(Acerplatanoides),sugarmaple(Acersaccharumsspsaccharum)andwhitebirch(Betulapapyrifera).Alargeabundanceofstaghornsumac(Rhustyphina) was identified in the sub‐canopy and were quite mature to overmature. Theunderstorycontainedred‐panicleddogwood(CornusfoeminaMillersspracemosa)andred‐osierdogwoodwhichmostlyborderedthewetlandboundaryandthetoeofthevalleyslope.Amixtureofgroundspecieswereidentifiedinthiscommunitywiththemostdominantbeingtallgoldenrod(Solidagoaltissima)andCanadagoldenrod.



Photo 5. Northern portion of cultural woodland (June 10, 2014)

Community 5 Cattail Mineral Shallow Marsh (ELC code MAS2‐1) Community5wasidentifiedonthenorth‐easternsideofthepropertyatthetoeoftheslopeoftheRobinsonCreekValley.ThiswetlandispartofthefloodplainassociatedwithRobinsonCreek. This community was dominated with common cattail (Typha latifolia) withapproximately 75% coverage of the floodplain. Red‐osier dogwood was also identifiedscatteredthroughoutthecommunityandwasthedominantshrub.Purple‐stemmedaster(Symphyotrichum puniceum) was identified on the ground later growing up through thecattails.

Photo 6. Cattail marsh (June 1, 2017)



Community 6 Willow Mineral Deciduous Swamp (ELC Code: SWD4‐1) Community 6 was identified on the eastern edge of the property and continues off thepropertyeastofRobinsonCreek.ThiscommunityispartofthefloodplainofRobinsoncreekandisdominatedbymaturecrackwillow(Salixfragilis).Theunderstoryisdominatedbyred‐osier dogwood with some European buckthorn, Morrow’s honeysuckle (Loniceramorrowii)andnarrow‐leavedmeadowsweet(Spiraeaalba).Thesemi‐opencanopyallowedagooddiversityofgroundspeciestothriveintheseconditionsincludingcoltsfoot(Tussilagofarfara),commoncattail,commondandelion,commonreed(Phragmitesaustralis)andfalseSolomon’sseal(Smilacinaracemosa).

Photo 7. Willow swamp (June 10, 2014)

Community 7 Mineral Cultural Woodland (ELC Code: CUW1) Community 7 was identified as a cultural woodland, like Community 4, however thiswoodland is dominated mostly by coniferous trees. Located along the central easternportion of the property lining the slope of theRobinson Creek valley, this community isdominatedbyeasternwhitepine,Scot’spineandwhitespruce.Theconifertreesweremid‐agedwithsomeyoungdeciduousspeciesgrowingintheunderstoryincludingblackcherry(Prunus serotina), green ash, sugarmaple, Manitobamaple and Europeanmountain ash(Sorbusaucuparia). Shrubspeciesidentifiedintheunderstoryincludechokecherry,red‐panicleddogwood,Europeanbuckthornandtartarianhoneysuckle.GroundspeciesincludeavarietyofspeciescommontotheareaincludingCanadagoldenrod,commonstrawberry,fieldhorsetail (Equisetumarvense)andtallbuttercup(Ranunculusacris)andthe invasiveswallow‐wort(Cynanchumrossicum).



Photo 8. Cultural woodland (June 1, 2017)

Community 8 Red‐osier Mineral thicket Swamp (ELC Code: SWT2‐1) Community8wasidentifiedasasmallpocketwithinthefloodplainofRobinsonCreek.Thispocket is on the northern limits of the property and has greater than 25% shrub coverdominatedbyred‐osierdogwood.Thegroundspecieshereincludewesternpoisonivy(Rhusrydbergii),tallgoldenrod,grass‐leavedgoldenrod(Euthamiagraminifolia),commoncattail,purple‐stemmedasterandreedcanarygrass(Phalarisarundinacea).

Photo 9. Red‐osier dogwood thicket (June 1, 2017)



Birds

Atotalofthirty‐four(34)birdspecieswererecordedwithinthestudyarea(AppendixII).Thespeciesdetectedweretypicalof forestedvalleysandedgehabitatsandincludedred‐eyedvireo(Vireoolivaceous),easternkingbird(Tyrannustyrannus),rose‐breastedgrosbeak(Pheucticus ludovicianus), cedarwaxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum), black‐capped chickadee(Poecile atricapillus), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis) and warbling vireo (Vireogilvus).

Mammals and Amphibians Evidenceofsix(6)mammalspeciesweredetectedduringfieldsurveysincluding:easternchipmunk(Tamiasstriatus),raccoon(Procyon lotor),coyote(Canis latrans),stripedskunk(Mephitis mephitis), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus) and white‐tailed deer(Odocoileusvirginianus).No amphibian breeding habitat was present on the property. A small wetland pocketadjacenttothecreekandBloorStreetwasvisitedduringNEA’ssurveysandnoamphibianspecieswereobservedorheard.Onereptilewasobservedduringfieldvisits:commongartersnake(Thamnophissirtalis).

Fish and Aquatic Habitat Aquatic Habitat‐Robinson CreekRobinson Creek traverses the eastern portion of the study area. The Robinson Creekwatershedmeasures approximately578ha and it is considered tobeoneof the smallerwatersheds within CLOCA’s jurisdiction. Robinson Creek flows (north to south) forapproximately 6.7 km and outlets into Lake Ontario through part of the provinciallysignificantMcLauglinBayWetlandComplex. (AECOM,2011). RobinsonCreekhasa coolwaterthermalregime(CLOCA,2013).



Fish SpawningCLOCA conducts long term watershed monitoring within their jurisdiction. Spawningsurveysareoneofthecomponentstothemonitoringprogramandaretypicallyconductedinthespringandfall.Adultmigratoryrainbowtrout(Oncorhynchusmykiss)andwhitesucker(Catostomuscommersonii)surveysareconductedinthespringandadultmigratorychinooksalmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), brown trout(Salmo trutta) and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) surveys are conducted in the fall.During the2013surveys,no individualswereobservedspawning inRobinsonCreek. InCLOCA’sAquaticMonitoringReportitwassuggestedthatbasedonhistoricalresults,rainbowtroutmightinhabitRobinsonCreek(CLOCA,2013).Fish Community Fishcommunitysamplingwasconductedin2009and2011inRobinsonCreekbyAECOM,CLOCAandNEA.A total of five fish community surveys locationwithinRobinsonCreekwere sampled byAECOM in 2009. One of the sampling sites was located north of Bloor Street, slightlysoutheastof the studyarea.The fish communitywas representedby11 fish speciesandrepresented the following families: Catostomidae, Centrarchidae, Cyprinidae, Fundulidae¸Gasterosteidae,PercidaeandSalmonidae.NEAconductedfishcommunitysurveys inApril2011attwolocationssouthofthestudyarea(southofBloorStreet).Nofishwerecapturedduringthesampling(NEA,2011).FishspeciesidentifiedinCLOCAs2011AquaticMonitoringReport(CLOCA,2011)andtheOMNRFAquaticResourceAreaSurvey(OMNR,2012)havealsobeenprovidedascontextforcontributing fish habitat value (Table 1). It should be noted that during CLOCA’s 2013sampling year, fish community samplingwas not conducted directly in Robinson Creek.Therefore,resultsfrom2011yearhavebeenexcluded.The fish communityofRobinsonCreek representsawarm‐to‐coolwater community. It iscomposed of fish species that are all common to the watershed and widely distributedthroughoutsouthernOntario.

Prestonvale Subdivision Environmental Impact Study


Table 1. Fish Species List for Robinson Creek.

Note: Fish species list obtained from AECOMs Robinson Creek & Tooley Creek Watershed Plan‐Existing Conditions Report (AECOM, 2011), CLOCA (CLOCA, 2011)and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (OMNR, 2012). The thermal regime and spawning season for each fish species was obtained from Ontario Freshwater Fishes Life History Database (Eakins, 2017).

Family Common Name Scientific Name Thermal Regime Spawning Season AECOM2009

CLOCA 2011

MNRF 2012

Catostomidae White Sucker Catostomus commersonii Coolwater Spring (April‐

June) • • •

Centrarchidae Pumkpinseed Lepomis gibbosus Warmwater Spring‐summer (May‐August)

•

Cyprinidae

Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys obtusus Coolwater Spring (May‐

June) • • •

Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus Coolwater Spring (May‐

June) • • •

Fathead Minnow Pimephales promelas Warmwater Spring

(May‐August) • •

Longnose Dace Rhinichthys cataractae Coolwater Spring‐Summer

(May‐July) •

Northern Redbelly Dace Chrosomus eos Coolwater Spring‐summer (May‐July)

•

Fundulidae Banded Killifish Fundulus diaphanus Coolwater Summer (June‐

August) •

Gasterosteidae Brook Stickleback Culaea inconstans Coolwater Spring‐summer (May‐July)

• • •

Percidae Johnny darter Etheostoma nigrum Coolwater Spring (May‐

June) • • •

Salmonidae Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss Coldwater Spring (March ‐

May) • •



Resource Significance

Vegetation

Themajorityofthevegetationpresentonthesubjectpropertyisculturalinnature.NEAdidnot find any nationally or provincially significant plants during their field inventories(COSEWIC,2018;SARA,2018;COSSARO,2018). Noneoftheecologicallandclassificationvegetationtypesidentifiedonthepropertyareconsideredprovinciallyrare(NHIC,2018).Althoughonespeciesatriskplant,butternut,hadbeenidentifiedaspotentiallyoccurringwithinthevicinityoftheproperty(basedondiscussionswithOMNRF),nobutternutwerefoundbyNEAbiologistsduring fieldsurveys.Theprojectarboristalsoconfirmedthatnobutternutispresentonthesubjectproperty.NEAbiologistsfoundtwoplantsthatareconsideredregionallyrareinVarga(2000):red‐panicleddogwood(CornusfoeminaMillerssp.racemosa)andpricklyrose(Rosaacicularis)(Appendix I‐B). Red‐panicled dogwood was found in Communities 4 and 7, and will beretained post‐construction in the protected valleyland. Prickly rose was found inCommunity6,whichislocatedonthefarsideofRobinsonCreek,andwillalsoberetainedpost‐construction.

Birds

Areviewofthelistofbirdspecies(AppendixII) indicatesthatnonearesignificantattheprovincialornationallevel(COSSARO,2018;COSEWIC,2018).TheOMNRFhadidentifiedtwospeciesatriskbirdswiththepotentialtooccuronthesubjectproperty(letterdatedAugust29th,2014).Thesebirdswereeasternmeadowlark(Sturnellamagna)andbobolink(Dolichonyxoryzivorus).Birdsurveysconductedin2014aspartoftheduediligencestudydidnot findeitherspecieson thesite.Althoughanold fieldmeadowexistedon the subject property at that time (Community1), the areawasplowed in thespringof2017 for therequiredarchaeologicalassessment. Nosuitablehabitatcurrentlyexistsonthesubjectpropertyforeasternmeadowlarkorbobolink.Three(3)areasensitivespecieswererecordedwithinthestudyarea.Areasensitivespeciesarethosethatrequireaminimumhectarageofcontiguoussuitablehabitattosuccessfullybreed (OMNR, 2000). The three species detected were: least flycatcher (Empidonaxminimus),white‐breastednuthatch (Sitta carolinensis) andAmerican redstart (Setophagaruticilla).



A review of the OMNRF’s make‐a‐map feature included a record of one significant birdspecieswithin the 1 kmby1 kmarea containing the study area, the northernbobwhite(Colinusvirginianus).Therecordwouldbeconsideredhistorical,asthespecieshasnotbeenobservedsince1885.AreviewofthelistofbirdspeciesrecordedduringtheOntarioBreedingBirdAtlasforthe10kmx10kmsquare(17PJ76)overlappingthepropertyincludedthirteen(13)provinciallyand/or federally listed species. These species were least bittern (Ixobrychus exilis)(Threatened: Federal and Provincial); black tern (Chlidonias niger) (Special Concern:Provincial); common nighthawk (Chordeiles minor) (Special Concern: Provincial;Threatened: Federal); eastern whip‐poor‐will (Antrostomus vociferous) (Threatened:Federal and Provincial); chimney swift (Chaetura pelagica) (Threatened: Provincial andFederal); red‐headed woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus) (Threatened: Federal;Special Concern: Provincial); eastern wood‐pewee (Contopus virens) (Special Concern:Federal and Provincial), bank swallow (Riparia riparia) (Threatened: Provincial andFederal);barnswallow(Hirundorustica)(Threatened:FederalandProvincial);woodthrush(Hylocichla mustelina) (Special Concern: Provincial, Threatened: Federal); grasshoppersparrow(Ammodramus savannarum) (SpecialConcern:Federal andProvincial);bobolink(Threatened: Provincial and Federal) and easternmeadowlark (Threatened: Federal andProvincial).Table2describesthepreferredhabitatofthesespecies.Thosewithpotentialhabitatonsiteareidentified.



Table 2: Provincially Rare Species at Risk Recorded for the Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario (17PJ76)

Species COSEWIC (2018)

COSSARO (2018)

Habitat Preferences (OMNR 2000) Habitat found on subject property

Recorded during field visits

Eastern Whip‐poor‐will

THR THR Mix of open and forested areas such as open woodlands or openings in more mature, deciduous, coniferous and mixed forests

No No

Least Bittern THR THR Nests in large freshwater marshes interspersed with open water and dense emergent vegetation. They require marshes of at least 5 ha in size and populations are not supported by smaller wetlands

No No

Chimney Swift THR THR Found within 1 km of a waterbody and, as its name implies, predominantly nests within old chimneys in urban and suburban areas. Prior to European settlement, chimney swifts nested in old growth forests. As an aerial forager, the species feeds on insects in urban areas

No No

Red‐headed woodpecker

THR SC Found in habitats dominated by oak and beech or forests within a floodplain area. It is also found in a variety of more open habitats (such as pastureland, golf courses, and cemeteries) however these areas must also contain a large number of over mature deciduous and dead trees for perching and nesting

No No




COSSARO (2018)



Common Nighthawk

THR SC Prefers open ground; clearings in dense forests; ploughed fields; gravel beaches or barren areas with rocky soils; open woodlands; flat gravel roofs

No No

Black Tern NAR SC Prefers wetlands, coastal or inland marshes; large cattail marshes, marshy edges of rivers, lakes or ponds, wet open fens, wet meadows;

No No

Eastern Wood‐pewee SC SC Breeding habitat is deciduous, mixed woods, or pine plantations. They feed on insects and other arthropods in flight.

Possible in Community 4 or 7 in valley

No

Barn swallow THR THR prefers open rural and urban areas where bridges, culverts and buildings are found near rivers, lakes, marshes or ponds

No No

Wood Thrush THR SC Breeds in deciduous and mixed forests where there are large trees, moderate understory, shade and abundant leaf litter for foraging.

No No

Bank Swallow THR THR Nests in colonies in streamside banks No No

Grasshopper Sparrow SC SC Inhabits grasslands and prairies with patches of bare ground

No No

Bobolink THR THR Prefers tall, grassy meadows, abandoned farmland, grasslands, hayfields and some croplands

No No




COSSARO (2018)



Eastern Meadowlark THR THR Prefers tall, grassy meadows, abandoned farmland, grasslands, hayfields and some croplands

No No



Mammals and Herpetozoa

A query of OMNRF‐NHIC’sMake‐a‐map feature identified one reptile and one restrictedspecies that had been recorded within the 1km x 1km square containing the subjectproperty. These records were for eastern milksnake (Lampropeltis triangulum) and arestricted species. The eastern milksnake, a species listed federally as Special Concern,prefersopenhabitats,includingrockoutcropsandmeadows.Thereisnosuitablehabitatforthisspeciesonthesubjectproperty.NEAcontactedOMNRFtodeterminetheidentityoftherestrictedspeciesrecordedonNHIC.However,nofurtherinformationhasbeenmadeavailable.Nosignificantmammalorreptilespecieswererecordedforthestudyproperty.

Wildlife Habitat and Corridors

Thesitecouldprovidehabitatforsmallurbanmammalsincludingeasterncottontail,redfox(Vulpes vulpes), groundhogs (Marmota monax), raccoons and squirrels. The propertyprovideswildlifecover,adrinkingsource,wildlifecorridorsandadiversityofhabitattypes(forest,wetland,creek)toattractadiversityofspecies.Surveyorsfoundlittlesuitablehabitatforbatsontheproperty.Treesonthepropertywerefairly young. They were likely not large enough to provide appropriate nesting orhibernationhabitats.Theshrublayersinthewoodlandcommunitieswerequitedenseandwould limit bat movement. The field had been plowed and contained little remainingvegetation.Asaresult,thisopenareaprovidedlimitedbatforaginghabitat.Thevalleyhascommutercorridorcharacteristics.Nodens,snakehibernacula,cavitytreesornestswereidentifiedduringNEAfieldsurveys.One vernal pool was identified within Community 4. The vernal pool contained somestandingwaterwithwetlandvegetation,butnofrogs,tadpolesoreggmasseswereobserved.An existingwildlife corridorwas oriented north‐south along the Robinson Creek Valley.Althoughthecorridorstopsjustnorthofthesubjectproperty,itcontinuessouthofBloorStreet.Thiscouldpermitsomeanimalstomoveacrossthelandscape.



Fish and Fish Habitat

The literature review found no provincially and/or nationally rare species documentedwithinthestudyarea(COSEWIC,2018;COSSARO,2018;SARA,2018;OMNR,2012;OMNRF,2014). Inaddition,nocriticalhabitatforaquaticSpeciesatRisk(DFO,2016)orsensitivespawninghabitatwasidentifiedwithinthestudyarea(OMNR,2012).

Description of Proposed Development TheproposeddevelopmentconceptwaspreparedbyWestonConsultingCassidyandCo.(March11,2019).Thedevelopmentgrosssiteareais5.37ha.Theproposeddevelopmentincludesatotalunitcountof112unitswithamixoftownhousetypes.Theoverallfootprintofthedevelopmenthaschangedbasedona15metersetbackfromthetopofbank/driplinestakedwithCLOCAonApril2,2017.Twonewpointsofaccessareproposedtobeprovidedforthesubjectdevelopment(bothoffofPrestonvaleRoad).There isasmallparkette (0.040ha)at thenorthernportionof thedevelopmentandtwoundergroundstormwatermanagementareas (one0.052haat thenorthendofthedevelopment,andasecond0.0620haareaatthesoutheastend)comprisedofundergroundstoragetanks.TheflowfromthenorthernSMWfacilitywillbepipedtoacombinedoutletwiththesouthernfacilityandthenoutlettotheslopeoftheRobinsonCreekvalleyviaaneasement.CrosssectionCwiththesiteplanshowsthedetails,aswellasontheLandscapePlan.Nodevelopmentwilloccurbelowthetopofbank,excepttheSWMoutleteasement.TheTOBlineiswelloutsideofthe30mcreeksetback.A15‐metervegetationprotectionzone(VPZ)fromthevalleylandstabletopofbank/dripline,asstakedbyNEA,CLOCAandthestudyteamhasbeenproposedandthedevelopmentenvelopeadjustedaccordingly(Figure1).



Impact Assessment

Key Natural Heritage System Features and Functions

Definition of Natural Heritage System AportionofthesubjectpropertyispartoftheMunicipality’sNaturalHeritageSystem.ThepropertyisincloseproximitytoRobinsonCreek,thevalleysystemassociatedwithRobinsonCreekanddownstreamwildlifehabitatconnections.AccordingtotheMunicipalityofClarington’sOfficialPlan,aNaturalHeritageSystem(NHS)is:asystemmadeupofnaturalheritagefeaturesandareas,hydrologicallysensitivefeaturesandlinkages intendedtoprovideconnectivity(attheregionalorsite level)andsupportnaturalprocesses which are necessary to maintain biological and geological diversity, naturalfunctions,viablepopulationsofindigenousspecies,andecosystems.Thesesystemscanincludenaturalheritagefeaturesandareas,hydrologicallysensitivefeatures,federalandprovincialparksandconservationreserves,othernaturalheritagefeatures,landsthathavebeenrestoredorhavethepotentialtoberestoredtoanaturalstate,areasthatsupporthydrologicfunctions,andworkinglandscapesthatenableecologicalfunctionstocontinue.

Natural Heritage System TheNHSdesignationcoincideswiththestreamvalleytopofbankandhasbeenstakedandsurveyed as the development limit. The Clarington Official Plan (OPA 107) requires aminimum15metresetbackfromtheNHSboundaryinurbansettlementareas(Table3.1inOP).Implementingthis15mtopofbankbufferwillofferprotectionoftheNHSareaanditsfeaturesandfunctions.Theproposeddevelopmentwillonlydirectly impactthetablelandwoodlandandculturalmeadowsabovethetopofbankandareoutsidetheNHS.The15mvegetationprotectionzone recommendedwill prevent potential development impacts on the natural features.Generally, the 15mVPZ should be left in natural vegetation including trees and shrubs,whereoutsideofgradingzones.A2.4mtrailisshownonthesiteplanattheouteredgeofthe setback behind the townhouses that will be graded level. The remaining 13metresshouldbevegetatedinnaturalvegetationwithnativeplantingsinstalledwheregapsexistorwhere grading is proposed. The landswithin the valley, such as thewooded slopes andbottomlandwetland features that also provide habitat towildlife and serve as local andregionalwildlifecorridors.Sedimentanderosioncontrolmeasuresaretobeinstalledatthe



10 m line in the buffer that defines the development limit including the proposedrecreationaltrail.ALID(LowImpactDevelopment)isproposedwithinthe5metertraileasementadjacentthetrail.TheLIDwillconsistofastonegallerybelowaswale.Theproposedgallerywillprovidewaterstorageforrunofffromsite(Crozier,2019).

Valleylands

The Robinson Creek valley is part of the Municipality of Clarington’s Natural HeritageSystem.TheRobinsonCreekandTooleyCreekWatershedManagementPlan(AECOM,2011)indicatesthatthevalleyactsasaconveyoroflocalsurfacedrainageandtheportionneartheproposed development has low tomoderate sensitivity. TheMunicipality of Clarington’sOfficialPlanAmendment(OPA107)requiresa15msetbackfromthestabletopofbankforvalleylandsinordertoensuretheirfunctionsaremaintained.TheTOBhadbeenstakedonthepropertybyCLOCA.Installationofasetbackand/orsiltfenceisrecommendedatthecreeksideoftheproposedrecreationaltrail(first2metresofthe15mVPZbuffer).Thiswilldefinethe limitofgrading, trail installationandthenaturalpartof thebuffer. Itwillalsoprevent encroachment into the woodland and associated protected buffer and possiblesedimentanderosionissuesintotheRobinsonCreek.Thelandscapeplan/treepreservationplanhasbeenupdatedtoincluderetentionofexistingvegetation, including trees, within portions of the buffer up to the development limit.Additionalrecommendationsfortreepreservationandplantingshavebeenincludedinthebufferzone(StrybosBarrenKing,2019).

Significant Species and Habitat

As outlined in the above sections on Resource Inventory and Resource Significance, noprovinciallyorfederallysignificantspeciesortheirhabitatwerefoundonsitebyNEAstaff.Tworegionallyrareplantspecies,red‐panicleddogwoodandpricklyrose,weredetected.ThelocationsoftheseobservationsarebelowthetopofbankoftheRobinsonCreekvalley.Asaresult,thesespecieswillberetainedpost‐constructionaspartoftheoverallvalleylandprotectionmeasures.

Unevaluated Wetlands

Wetlands were identified on the subject property associated with the Robinson Creek.Various policy documents, including theMunicipality of ClaringtonOP (June 2018OfficeConsolidation),recommenda30‐metresetbackfromunevaluatedwetlands.Thewetlands



on the subject property were identified on average 90meters away from the proposeddevelopment.The15mbufferwhichhasbeenrecommendedfromthestabletopofbankofthevalleyprovidesmorethanthe30mbufferthatwouldberecommendedforthewetland.No construction works are proposed in the vicinity of the wetlands. Additionally, thesedimentanderosioncontrolplanincludesaheavydutywire‐backedsilt fencealongthedevelopment limitwhichwillpreventanysedimentanderosionissuesfromaffectingthedownslopewetlandsandassociatedcreek.

Vegetation

ThemajorityofthedevelopmentisproposedtooccurwithintheareacurrentlyidentifiedasCommunity 1 (i.e., plowed cultural meadow). This community would be completelyremoved as part of the development process. Community 2 and a large portion ofCommunity 3 will also be removed in order to accommodate portions of the proposedsubdivision.Community2wasidentifiedasaplantedhedgerowthatcontainednovegetationspeciesofsignificance. Community3was identifiedasamature,un‐managedplantation.LimiteddiversitywasidentifiedinCommunity3andnospeciesofsignificancewerefound.Theremovalofthesecommunitieswithinthedevelopmentenvelopewillnotimpactonthediversityorhabitatfunctionofthesite.NodevelopmentwilloccurintheRobinsonCreekValley,includingitsassociatedwetlandhabitats.Asthetreedareas(partofCommunity2andallofCommunity3)onthetablelandswillberemovedasaresultofthedevelopment(5000squaremetres),compensation/offsettingwillberequiredforthelossoftreecover.DiscussionswithCLOCAwillberequiredinordertodetermine the nature of the plantings and the ratio of replacement. A 1:1 area ratio istypically required. Community 4 located below the top of bank offers opportunities forcompensation/enhancement.Theopencanopy,openregeneratingfieldsandpatchygrowthoftreesprovidesgoodopportunityonthesouthsideofthepropertytofill ingaps intheforestcoveranddiversifywithnativespecies.Theemeraldashborerwill/haskilledmanyoftheashtreesinthevalley.Theplanwouldalsoreplacethosedeadtreeswithothernativespecies.Thiswouldreinstatetheforestcoverlossplusensurealongtermforestcommunityinthevalley.ThenorthernportionofCommunity4inthevalleyisdominatedbytheinvasiveEuropeanbuckthorn.Althoughthisspeciescurrentlyprovidescover,removingaportionofthismonoculturebuckthorn community and replanting itwithnative tree specieswouldimprove the habitat and increase species diversity in the valley (Appendix III).Recommended species for restoration/replanting include trees such as red oak, easternwhitepine,whitebirch,sugarmapleandeasternwhitecedar.Plantingssuchspeciesinthevalleylandwouldcreateamixedforestandwouldprovideamorerobustcanopycover.InthelongtermthiswouldenhancetheecologicalfunctionsofthevalleylandandtheNHS.



Benefitstotheenhancementplaninclude:

increaseinavailablewildlifehabitat, increasediversityofwildlifespecies, increasethenativecomponentofthetreecover, enhanceslopestabilityanderosionprotection buffernoise,activityandlightingfromthedevelopment reforestationofvalleyandtreecanopy

TheNHSdesignationgenerally followsthe topof thevalley feature. Assuch,neither theproposeddevelopment,norproposedenhancementmeasureswould increase theNHS inthis area. The NHS boundary follows the staked top of bank limit. The removal of thetablelandwoodlands,dominatedby scotspine,wouldnothaveanegative impacton thecurrent functionsof thevalley.DiscussionswithCLOCAwillbecompletedat thedetaileddesignstagetoaddresstheappropriatecompensation/enhancementmeasureseitheron‐site,orifnecessaryoff‐site.

Birds

Areviewofthebirdspeciesdetectedonthesubjectpropertyincludesmanyspeciestypicallyfoundindisturbedhabitatsandalongforestedges(AppendixII).Therefore,developmentofthe propertywill not have a significant impact onwhich kinds of birds inhabit the area.Speciesthatinhabitsmallwoodlands,edgehabitatsandsuburbanenvironmentswillpersist.Birdthatprefermorematureforestenvironmentswillcontinuetoresideinadjacentareas.Three(3)areasensitivespecieswererecordedwithinthestudyarea:leastflycatcher,white‐breastednuthatchandAmericanredstart.Areasensitive speciesare those that requireaminimum hectarage of contiguous suitable habitat to successfully breed (OMNR, 2000).These species were all detected from within the cultural woodland communities in thevalleyland.Least flycatchers breed in semi‐openwoodlands and shrubby fields. The valleylandwillcontinuetoprovidebreedinghabitatforthisspeciespost‐construction.The white‐breasted nuthatch inhabits mature woods and woodland edges, particularlyassociated with deciduous stands. Habitat was identified on the property within thevalleyland.Thevegetationwithinthevalleylandwillbepreserved.Noimpactstothehabitatofthewhite‐breastednuthatchareanticipated.



TheAmericanredstartbreedsinopenwoodedhabitats,especiallydominatedbydeciduoustrees. Habitat existswithin thevalleyland,whichwillbe retainedpost construction. NoimpactstoAmericanredstarthabitatareanticipated.

Wildlife Corridors and Linkages

The proposed development will not significantly impact the function of the valley andassociatedwoodlands as a linkage area. TheRobinsonCreek valley presently provides acorridor for themovement ofwildlife that arewell adapted to urbanized environments.These(adjacent)landswillcontinuetoservethisfunction.NocoreareasorinteriorforesthavebeenidentifiedintheRobinsonCreekvalleyadjacentto theproposeddevelopment (AECOM2011).TheRobinsonCreekvalleydoes, however,function as a local corridor forwildlifemovement fromnorth to south.Maintaining thiscorridorisespeciallyimportantinanotherwisefragmentedlandscape(i.e., furthertothenorthoftheproposeddevelopment).


Theproposeddevelopmentislocatedapproximately70mawayfromRobinsonCreek.Noin‐waterworkshavebeenproposedbelowthehigh‐watermark.Thestormwatermanagementfacilitieswillrequireoneoutletatthesouthendofthesiteadjacenttothestormwaterblock.Theoutletwillbedeisngedto:avoidphysicalworkbelowthehighwaterwork,providebankandvalleyerosionprotectionfrompointsource flows.Detail design will be developmed in consultation with agencies, the engineers and NEAfisheriesbiologists.Giventheabsenceof in‐waterwork,adetailedsedimentanderosioncontrolplanwillbedevelopedtoisolatealldisturbedsoilsandtominimizethetransportationoferodedsoilsoutsideofthedevelopmentareaintoRobinsonCreek.Ataminimum,sedimentanderosioncontrol measures will include: perimeter silt fencing, stabilization of disturbed soils,minimizingdurationofexposedsoils,avoidingworkduringprecipitationevents,catchbasinfiltration, regularmonitoring andmaintenance of sediment and erosion control features.AdditionalmitigationmeasuresasoutlinedinSection8.0ofthisreportwillbeimplemented.Nosignificantimpactstofishorfishhabitatareanticipatedfromtheproposeddevelopmentprovidiedallmitigationmeasuresandrecommendationsareimplementedasoutlinedinthisreport.



Groundwater and Hydrogeology

AECOMperformedhydrogeologystudiesaspartof theRobinsonCreekandTooleyCreekWatershedstudy(AECOM,2011).ResultsandfindingsforRobinsonCreekhavebeentakendirectlyfromthisstudy.TheRobinsonCreekWatershed isprimarilyunderlainby lowpermeability,NewmarketTillsoils, which restricts groundwater recharge and promotes surface runoff. Water budgetcalculationsshowthatrunoffexceededinfiltrationbyapproximately1.5:1.MinoramountsofgroundwaterrechargeoccurintheweatheredtillsoilsandflowslaterallytowardsdischargeareasintheRobinsonCreekrivervalley.GroundwaterdischargefromtheweatheredtillzoneissufficienttosustainbaseflowinRobinsonCreekduringperiodswithlimitedprecipitation.Nosignificant regional confined aquiferswere identifiedwithin thewatershed and thereforegroundwater that is recharged locally supports groundwater discharge and baseflow inRobinsonCreek.Lossesofsomeinfiltrationinthewatershedduetodevelopmentwillnothaveanadverseimpacton the overallwater balance.However, a target of 143.9mm/yr of infiltration should bemaintained in the vicinity of Robinson Creek and its tributaries tomaintain the existingbaseflowconditions.To prevent impacts from surface runoff draining towards Robinson Creek duringconstruction,asedimentanderosioncontrolplanisrequired.Similarly,gradingshouldbescheduledtoavoidhighrun‐offtimesinthespringandfall.

Policies and Legislative Compliance Thefollowingsectiondescribeshowtheproposeddevelopmentwillbeinconformancewiththerelevantfederal,provincialandotherregulatorylegislation,policies,officialplansandOP amendments that are applicable and relevant to the study area and the immediatevicinity.

Federal Legislation Migratory Birds Convention Act The core breeding period in Ontario for migratory birds under the MBCA for BirdConservationRegion13(i.e., theonethesubjectproperty lieswithin)extendsfromApril



15thtoAugust15th(EnvironmentandClimateChangeCanada,2014).Assuchclearingofthetreesandothervegetationforthedevelopmentcannotoccurduringthistimingwindow.

Fisheries Act

TheFisheriesActrequiresallprojectsavoidcausingseriousharmtofishunlessauthorizedbytheMinisterofFisheriesandOceansCanada(DFO).Thisappliestoworkbeingconductedin or near waterbodies that support fish that are part of or that support acommercial,recreational or Aboriginal fishery and includes Robinson Creek. To protect fish and fishhabitat,DFOrequireseffortsshouldbemadetoavoid,mitigateand/oroffsetharm.Theproposeddevelopmentandgradingwillnotextendbeyondthetopofbank,avoidingpotentialnegativeimpactstofishandfishhabitat.Overall,theprojecthasbeendesigntoavoidfishmortalityandalterationoffishhabitatinRobinsonCreek.ThePrestonvalesubdivisionprojectworkswillnothaveresidualnegativeeffectsonfishorfish habitat given all mitigation measures, sediment and erosion measures, and bestmanagementpracticesprescribedfortheprojectarefollowedtothebestofthecontractor’sabilities.Therefore,thePrestonvalesubdivisionprojectworkswillavoidseriousharmtofishand furtherreviewbyDFOstaff isnot required for theprojectdevelopmentat this time.Shouldtheprojectscopechangeinanyway,consultaprofessionalbiologist,DFOwebsiteorDFOstafftoensuretheprojectremainsincompliancewiththeFisheriesAct.

Provincial Legislation

Endangered Species Act, 2007 Therewerenothreatenedorendangeredspeciesortheirhabitatfoundontheproperty.Provincial Policy Statement ThesubjectpropertylieswithintheNonquonRiverWetlandComplex,aPSW.Asaresult,Sections2.1.4,andSectionsof2.1.5of theProvincialPolicyStatementapply. ThereportcontainrecommendationsthatallowtheproposeddevelopmenttobeconsistentwiththeremainingSectionsof2.1.5,2.1.7and2.1.8oftheProvincialPolicyStatement(PPS).



Local and Other Regulatory Bodies Municipality of Clarington Official Plan TheEIShasbeenpreparedinamannerthatcomplieswiththeMunicipalityofClaringtonOfficialPlan(1996andOPA107).Theapproximatelocationofkeynaturalheritageand/orhydrologic featureswere investigatedbasedoninformationcontainedintheOfficialPlanschedules.GuidelinesforthepreparationofanEIS(i.e.,content)wereusedandappropriatesections of the OP were consulted for the definition, approximate location and policydirection fornaturalheritage features. RecommendedbufferwidthsareconsistentwithTable3‐1oftheplan.Region of Durham Official Plan TheEIShasbeenpreparedinamannerthatcomplieswiththeDurhamRegionalOfficialPlan(Consolidation 2015). The general location of key natural heritage and/or hydrologicfeatureswasobtainedfromtheOfficialPlanschedules.TheappropriatesectionsoftheOPwereconsultedfordevelopmentconstraints,recommendedvegetationprotectionzonesandotherrequirements.

Conclusion Thedevelopmentofaplanofsubdivisiononthepropertywillnothaveasignificantimpacton the natural heritage system, EP area, significant valleyland, unevaluatedwetlands orRobinsonCreekprovidedourmitigationmeasuresandrecommendationsareimplemented.Anumberofrecommendationsregardingtheprotectionoftheadjacentnaturalfeaturesandcompensationforlossoftablelandwoodlandhavebeenmadetominimizeimpactsduringthe site preparation, construction and post‐construction period. These are outlined inSection10.0.



Recommendations

General

1) The Project Manager and Contractor are obligated to ensure that all mitigationmeasuresarestrictlyobserved.

2) Theconstructionenvelopemustbeclearlydelineatedandalinestakedandclearly

markedinthefieldpriortoanydevelopmentactivitiesoccurringonthesite. Thislimitshouldbedefinedbasedon the15msetback fromthesurveyedtopofbank(TOB)andthestakeddripline.AtrailandLIDwillbelocatedwithinthefirst2meterbufferwithminorlocalizedgradingandrestorationplantingproposedinportionsoftheremaining13metersofthebuffer.

3) Priortoanysitepreparationactivities(e.g.,grading,placementof fill)erosionand

sediment control measures should be installed along all sides of constructionenvelopetoensuresedimentladenrunoffdoesnotinterferewithadjacentvegetationor natural features (i.e., valleyland). The silt fence should be inspected andmaintainedthroughouttheconstructionphaseandremaininplaceuntilthesoilsarestabilizedandre‐vegetated.

4) Constructionshouldbeundertakenduringnormalweatherconditions,totheextent

possible,andtheprojectshallbedesignedtoappropriatespecificationstowithstandvariableweatherconditions.

5) Nodevelopment,grading,fillorbuildingenvelopesaretointrudeintotheretained

treedareas(community4and7). Theseareasshouldbeleft intheirnaturalstateunlessvegetationenhancementiscarriedoutinthisarea.

6) Stockpiling of material (stored or excavated), placing of stumps, constructionmaterials and/or vehicles shall not be permitted outside of the developmentenvelope.

7) Clearing of vegetation should occur outside of the April 15th‐August 15th timingwindowforbreedingbirdsasperEnvironmentCanadaguidelines.

8) ShouldanySARbeencounteredduringworkrelatedactivities,orifthereispotentialto negatively impact SAR, or wildlife more generally, OMNRF must be contactedimmediatelyfordirectionsonhowtoproceed.



9) A planting plan for compensation has been prepared by a qualified landscapearchitect.Theplanincludesonlynativespeciesoftrees,aswasrecommendedbyNEA,and has beendesigned to include only species indigenous to the local area. ThecompensationplanisdatedJanuary4,2019.

10) A ratio of tree replacement be completed at 1:1 per area for the compensation

requiredforthetablelandtreesandNHS.

11) Adetailedsitespecificsedimentanderosionplanwillbepreparedandreviewedbyaprofessionalbiologist.

12) No‐waterworksorworkbelowthehighwatermarkofawatercourse.

Groundwater Discharge and Recharge Functions

1) Proposedbuildingsshouldbedesignedtoensuremuchoftheprecipitationcapturedbytheroofswillbeinfiltratedbackintothegroundonsitetomaintaintherechargeanddischargefunctionsofthearea.

Stormwater

1) Low Impact Development (LID) features to be used for stormwatermanagement

wherefeasible.

2) Stormwater outlet detailed design will be deveopled in consultation with aprofessionalbiologistandwillavoidseriousharmtofish.

Operation of Machinery

1) Checkheavyequipment,machineryandtoolspriortoenteringtheworksitetoensure

theyareclean,freeofleaks,invasivespeciesandnoxiousweeds.

2) Allheavyequipment,machinery,andtoolsrequired for theworkwillberegularlyinspectedandmaintainedtoavoidleakageoffuelsandliquidsandwillbestoredinamanner thatpreventsanydeleterious substance fromentering the soil, ornearbywatercourses.

3) Vehicleandequipmentrefuellingand/ormaintenanceshallbeconductedwithinadefinedstagingarea30mfromanywatercourse.



4) Machinerywillnotcrossorentureawatercourse.


1) Noin‐waterworksarepermittedinRobinsonCreek.

2) A30mbuffershallbeestablishedfromthesurveyedhigh‐watermarkofthecreek.

3) The Project Manager/Contractor shall not allow any deleterious substances asdefinedintheCanadianFisheriesAct(suchassilt),causedbythework,toenterorre‐enterthewatercourse.

Sediment and Erosion Control

Aheavydutyreinforcedsiltfenceandsnowfencewillbeinstalledandmaintainedalongdevelopmentenvelopeboundary.Thislineshouldbesurveyedandstakedinthefieldpriortoanysitepreparationactivities.

Gradingofthesiteandremovaloradditionoffillwillberestrictedtotheareaoutsidethelandscapebuffers/setbackfencingandwatercoursebuffer.Functioningsedimentcontrolmeasuresmustbeinplacepriortoandduringtheconstructionphase,andremaininplaceuntilallbareorexposedsoilshavebecomestabilized.

Sedimentcontrolmeasuresshallbe installedprior to thecommencementofwork,andshallbemaintainedthroughouttheprojecttopreventtheentry/outwardflowofsediment into the watercourse. Silt fence to be installed on all sides of thedevelopmentenvelopewithmeasurestopreventflowofsedimentladenwaterfromentering the valleyland. Sediment and erosion controlmeasures shall be removedpostconstructionwhensoilshavestabilizedandvegetated.

Allsedimentanderosioncontrolmeasuresshallbeinspectedduringtheconstructionphase and periodically thereafter to ensure they are functioning properly andregularlymaintainedafterrainfallevent,andupgradedasrequired.Accumulatedsiltanddebriswillberemovedfromthefenceandsiteaftereveryprecipitationevent.

Gradingofthesiteandremovaloradditionoffillwillberestrictedtotheareaoutsideofwatercourse buffers. Functioning sediment controlmeasuresmust be in placeprior to and during the construction phase and remain in place until all bare orexposedsoilshavebecomestabilized.



Track pads, concreate wash stations, refueling stations, and stock pile locationsshouldbeidentifiedontheSECplanandisolatedusingsedimentcontrolmaterials.

Allsedimentanderosioncontrolproductswillbeselectedforthesitebasedonthemanufacturer’s product specifications. Biodegradable products should be selected.Productinstallationandmaintenancewillfollowthemanufacturesguidelines.

Sedimentcontrolmeasuresshallbeinstalledpriortothecommencementofworkandshall bemaintained throughout the project to prevent the entry/outward flow ofsedimentintoawaterbody.

In the event sediment and erosion control measures are not functioning theconstructionsupervisorshallordertheworktobestopped.Nofurtherworkshallbecarried out until the construction methods and/or the sediment control plan isadjustedtoaddressthesediment/erosionproblem(s). The Project Manager/Contractor shall not allow any deleterious substances asdefinedintheCanadianFisheriesAct(suchassilt),causedbythework,toenterorre‐enterthewatercourse. Disturbedsoilswillbeimmediatelystabilizedandre‐vegetationwithnativespeciessuitableforthesite. Allconstructionmaterialswillberemovedfromsiteuponprojectcompletion.

Contaminant and Spill Management

1. Anemergencyspillkitshallbekeptonsiteandemployedimmediatelyshouldaspilloccur. In the case of a spill, the Ontario Spill Action Center shall be notifiedimmediately at 1‐800‐268‐6060; all provincial and federal regulations shall beadheredto.

2. Vehicle and equipment refueling shall be conducted on impermeable pads/panswithinadefinedstagingarea.

3. Refuelingandmaintenanceofequipmentshallbeconductedoffslopesandawayfromwater bodies on impermeable pads to allow full containment of spills at arecommendeddistanceofaminimumof30metersfromthewatercourse.



4. Materialsclassifiedaspotentialcontaminants(e.g.paint,primers,gas,oil,degreasers,

grout,orotherchemicals)willbeusedaminimumof30mfromthewatercourse.

5. Concreteleachateisalkalineandhighlytoxictofishandaquaticlife.Measureswillbe

taken topreventany incidenceofconcreteorconcrete leachate fromentering thewatercourse.

6. Ensure that all works involving the use of concrete, cement, mortars, and otherPortland cement or lime‐containing construction materials (concrete) will notdeposit, directly or indirectly, sediments, debris, concrete, concrete fines,washorcontactwaterintoanywatercourse.

7. All concrete, sealants or other compounds used for this project shall be utilizedaccording to the appropriateProductTechnicalData Sheet, stating guidelines andmethodsforproperuse,andprovidedbythemanufactureroftheproduct.



References AECOM. 2011. MunicipalityofClarington:RobinsonCreekandTooleyCreekWatershed

ManagementPlan.127p.AECOM. 2009. Robinson Creek and Tooley Creek Watershed Plan‐Existing Conditions

Report.123p.Bird Studies Canada. 2007. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario square summary

information sheets. Accessed on the World Wide Web November 30, 2018 at:https://www.birdsontario.org/atlas/squareinfo.jsp.

COSEWIC. 2018. Canadian Species at Risk, April 2018. Committee on the Status of

Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Accessed on the World Wide Web at:https://www.canada.ca/en/environment‐climate‐change/services/committee‐status‐endangered‐wildlife.html.AccessedNovember30,2018.

COSSARO.2018.SpeciesatRiskinOntario(SARO),May2018.OntarioMinistryofNatural

Resources Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario. Retrieved fromGovernmentofOntario:https://www.ontario.ca/environment‐and‐energy/species‐risk‐ontario‐list.AccessedSeptember30,2018

Crozier, C.F & Associates Inc. December 2018. Functional Servicing & Preliminary

StormwaterManagementReport.Gartner Lee Limited. 1978. Environmental SensitivityMapping Project. Prepared for the

CentralLakeOntarioConservationAuthority.GovernmentofOntario.2018.EndangeredSpeciesAct,2007,S.O.2007,c.6.Accessedon

the World Wide Web at: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/07e06#BK2AccessedNovember30,2018.

GovernmentofOntario.2018b.OntarioRegulation230/08:SpeciesatRiskinOntariolist

under theEndangeredSpeciesAct,2007,S.O.2007,c.6. Accessed fromtheWorldWideWebat:https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/080230AccessedNovember30,2018.

GovernmentofOntario.2018c.OntarioRegulation242/08:GeneralundertheEndangered

Species Act, 2007, S.O. 2007, c.6 Accessed from the World Wide Web at:https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/080242.AccessedNovember30,2018.



Government of Ontario. 2014. Provincial Policy Statement, 2014. Ministry of Municipal

AffairsandHousing.Queen’sPrinterforOntario.AccessedontheWorldWideWebat:http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page215.aspx.AccessedSeptember21,2018.

Lee,H.,Bakowsky,W.,Riley, J.,Bowles, J.,Puddister,M.,Uhlig,P.andS.McMurray.1998.

Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: First Approximation and itsApplication.OMNR,SouthCentralScienceSection,ScienceDevelopmentandTransferBranch.SCSSFieldGuideFG‐02.

Municipality of Clarington. 2018. Official Plan – Municipality of Clarington, Last Office

Consolidation,June2018.277pages+Appendices.NiblettEnvironmentalAssociates(NEA)Inc.2011.PreliminaryConstraintReport–Bloor

StreetandPrestonvaleRoadDevelopment.7pages.OntarioMinistryofNaturalResources(OMNR).2000.SignificantWildlifeHabitatTechnical

Guide.Peterborough,384p.Ontario Natural Heritage Information Centre. 2018. Make A Natural Heritage AreaMap.

Accessed from the World Wide Web at: http://www.gisapplication.lrc.gov.on.ca/mamnh/Index.html?site=MNR_NHLUPS_NaturalHeritage&viewer=NaturalHeritage&locale=en‐USAccessedNovember30,2018.

RegionalMunicipalityofDurham.2017.DurhamRegionalOfficialPlan:ConsolidationMay

11,2017.165pp+SchedulesandAppendices.SARA.2018.SARA(SpeciesatRiskAct)Schedule1(Subsections2(1),42(2)and68(2)):List

of Wildlife species at risk, Parts 1‐4. Accessed on the World Wide Web at:http://www.registrelep‐sararegistry.gc.ca/sar/index/default_e.cfm. AccessedNovember30,2018.

StrybosBarronKingLandscapeArchitecture.2019.ArboristReport,proposedresidential

development(includestreepreservationplan)Varga,S.,D.Leadbeater,J.Webber,J.Kaiser,B.Crins,J.Kamstra,D.Banville,E.Ashley,G.

Miller,C.Kingsley,C.Jacobsen,K.Mewa,L.Tebby,E.Mosley,E.Zajc.2000.DistributionandStatusoftheVascularPlantsoftheGreaterTorontoArea.OntarioMinistryofNaturalResources,AuroraDistrict.

Appendix I-A

Plant Species by Community

APPENDIX I ‐ A Plant Species by Community

Families and genera for the plant species found in this appendix are listed in taxonomic order. The species are listed alphabetically by scientific name within each genus.

Three standard reference works were used for the botanical nomenclature and taxonomy (Newmaster et. al., 1998; Gleason and Cronquist 1991; Voss 1980; 1985). Other published works for botanical names included; ferns (Cody and Britton 1989); grasses (Dore and McNeill 1980); orchids (Whiting and Catling 1986); shrubs (Soper and Heimburger 1982) and trees (Farrar 1995).

Total: X :

Number of communities where plant species was recordedPlant species recorded

Common Name Scientific Name Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

COMMUNITY NUMBER

HORSETAIL FAMILY EQUISETACEAE

field horsetail Equisetum arvense 5 X X X X X

PINE FAMILY PINACEAE

white spruce Picea glauca 4 X X X X

Colorado spruce Picea pungens 1 X

red pine Pinus resinosa 1 X

eastern white pine Pinus strobus 5 X X X X X

Scot's pine Pinus sylvestris 4 X X X X

CYPRESS FAMILY CUPRESSACEAE

eastern red cedar Juniperus virginiana 5 X X X X X

eastern white cedar Thuja occidentalis 3 X X X

BUTTERCUP FAMILY RANUNCULACEAE

tall buttercup Ranunculus acris 5 X X X X X

Appendix I ‐ A 1 of 7Niblett Environmental Associates Inc. PN 17‐025


COMMUNITY NUMBER

BIRCH FAMILY BETULACEAE

white birch Betula papyrifera 2 X X

ST. JOHN'S‐WORT FAMILY GUTTIFERAE

common St. John's‐wort Hypericum perforatum 1 X

GOURD FAMILY CUCURBITACEAE

wild cucumber Echinocystis lobata 2 X X

WILLOW FAMILY SALICACEAE

Bebb's willow Salix bebbiana 2 X X

pussy willow Salix discolor 1 X

crack willow Salix fragilis 1 X

slender willow Salix petiolaris 4 X X X X

GOOSEBERRY FAMILY GROSSULARIACEAE

red currant Ribes rubrum 2 X X



COMMUNITY NUMBER

ROSE FAMILY ROSACEAE

agrimony Agrimonia gryposepela 2 X X

English hawthorn Crataegus monogyna 2 X X

common strawberry Fragaria virginiana 3 X X X

yellow avens Geum aleppicum 1 X

white avens Geum canadense 1 X

apple Malus domestica 2 X X

sulfur cinquefoil Potentilla recta 1 X

Canada plum Prunus nigra 1 X

pin cherry Prunus pensylvanica 2 X X

black cherry Prunus serotina 1 X

choke cherry Prunus virginiana 4 X X X X

prickly rose Rosa acicularis 1 X

rugosa rose Rosa rugosa 2 X X

European mountain ash Sorbus aucuparia 2 X X

showy mountain ash Sorbus decora 1 X

narrow‐leaved meadowsweet Spiraea alba 1 X

PEA FAMILY FABACEAE

black medick Medicago lupulina 1 X

white sweet‐clover Melilotus alba 1 X

red clover Trifolium pratense 1 X

white clover Trifolium repens 1 X

cow vetch Vicia cracca 2 X X

OLEASTER FAMILY ELAEAGNACEAE

russian olive Elaeagnus angustifolia 1 X

LOOSESTRIFE FAMILY LYTHRACEAE

purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria 1 X



COMMUNITY NUMBER

EVENING PRIMROSE FAMILY ONAGRACEAE

Canada enchanter's nightshade Circaea lutetiana L. ssp.canadensis 1 X

common evening primrose Oenothera biennis 1 X

DOGWOOD FAMILY CORNACEAE

alternate‐leaf dogwood Cornus alternifolia 2 X X

red panicled dogwood Cornus foemina Miller ssp.racemosa 2 X X

round‐leaved dogwood Cornus rugosa 1 X

red‐osier dogwood Cornus stolonifera 7 X X X X X X X

BUCKTHORN FAMILY RHAMNACEAE

European buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica 7 X X X X X X X

GRAPE FAMILY VITACEAE

Virginia creeper Parthenocissus inserta 2 X X

wild grape Vitis riparia 6 X X X X X X

MAPLE FAMILY ACERACEAE

Manitoba maple Acer negundo 3 X X X

Norway maple Acer platanoides 1 X

sugar maple Acer saccharum ssp.saccharum 2 X X

Freeman's maple Acer x freemanii 1 X

CASHEW FAMILY ANACARDIACEAE

western poison‐ivy Rhus rydbergii 3 X X X

staghorn sumac Rhus typhina 1 X

TOUCH‐ME‐NOT FAMILY BALSAMINACEAE

spotted jewelweed Impatiens capensis 2 X X

CARROT FAMILY APIACEAE

Queen‐Anne's lace Daucus carota 1 X

MILKWEED FAMILY ASCLEPIADACEAE

common milkweed Asclepias syriaca 1 X

swallow‐wort Cynanchum rossicum 6 X X X X X X



COMMUNITY NUMBER

MINT FAMILY LAMIACEAE

American water‐horehound Lycopus americanus 1 X

wild mint Mentha arvensis 2 X X

heal‐all Prunella vulgaris ssp. Lanceolata 1 X

PLANTAIN FAMILY PLANTAGINACEAE

narrow‐leaved plantain Plantago lanceolata 1 X

broad‐leaved plantain Plantago major 1 X

OLIVE FAMILY OLEACEAE

white ash Fraxinus americana 2 X X

green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica var. subintegerri 3 X X X

FIGWORT FAMILY SCROPHULARIACEAE

butter‐and‐eggs Linaria vulgaris 1 X

MADDER FAMILY RUBIACEAE

cleavers Galium aparine 3 X X X

white bedstraw Galium mollugo 2 X X

blunt‐leaved bedstraw Galium obtususm 1 X

HONEYSUCKLE FAMILY CAPRIFOLIACEAE

Morrow's honeysuckle Lonicera morrowii 1 X

tartarian honeysuckle Lonicera tatarica 2 X X



COMMUNITY NUMBER

ASTER FAMILY ASTERACEAE

common yarrow Achillea millefolium 3 X X X

brown knapweed Centaurea jacea 1 X

ox‐eye daisy Chrysanthemum leucanthemum 1 X

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense 1 X

Philadelphia fleabane Erigeron philadelphicus ssp. philadelphic 1 X

grass‐leaved goldenrod Euthamia graminifolia 2 X X

king devil hawkweed Hieracium x florbundum 1 X

tall goldenrod Solidago altissima 5 X X X X X

Canada goldenrod Solidago canadensis 5 X X X X X

early goldenrod Solidago juncea 2 X X

gray goldenrod Solidago nemoralis ssp. Nemoralis 1 X

New England aster Symphyotrichum novae‐ angliae 1 X

purple‐stemmed aster Symphyotrichum puniceum 4 X X X X

common dandelion Taraxacum officinale 4 X X X X

coltsfoot Tussilago farfara 1 X

SEDGE FAMILY CYPERACEAE

golden‐fruited sedge Carex aurea 1 X

softstem bulrush Scirpus validus 1 X

GRASS FAMILY POACEAE

redtop Agrostis gigantea 1 X

awnless brome grass Bromus inermis ssp.inermis 1 X

orchard grass Dactylis glomerata 1 X

reed canary grass Phalaris arundinacea 4 X X X X

common reed Phragmites australis 1 X

Kentucky blue grass Poa pratensis 2 X X

CATTAIL FAMILY TYPHACEAE

common cattail Typha latifolia 3 X X X



COMMUNITY NUMBER

LILY FAMILY LILIACEAE

false Solomon's seal Smilacina racemosa 1 X

ORCHID FAMILY ORCHIDACEAE

small yellow lady's slipper Cypripedium calceolus var. parviflorum 2 X X

Total Number of Plant Species 98 51 12 28 32 14 16 28 24

Number of Plant Species Per Community


Appendix I-B

List of Significant Plant Species

APPENDIX I ‐ B List of Significant Plant Species

Plant species observed by NEA with significant status on national, provincial and relevant regional lists are listed with status codes and where applicable the most current year of publication. Three standard reference works were used for the botanical nomenclature and taxonomy (Newmaster et. al., 1998; Gleason and Cronquist 1991; Voss 1980; 1985). Other published works for botanical names included; ferns (Cody and Britton 1989); grasses (Dore and McNeill 1980); orchids (Whiting and Catling 1986); shrubs (Soper and Heimburger 1982) and trees (Farrar 1995).

NATIONAL RANKING

PROVINCIAL RANKING

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), Government of Canada

Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO), Government of Ontario

Species at Risk Act (SARA), SCHEDULE 1 (Subsections 2(1), 42(2) and 68(2)), Government of Canada

NATIONAL RANKINGS PROVINCIAL RANKINGS

REGIONAL RANKING Varga, Durham Varga et al., 2001, Durham

Provincial Rank (SRANK), Natural Heritage Information Center, Government of Ontario

END *THR *SC *

‐ Endangered Species ‐ Threatened Species ‐ Species of Concern

STATUS CODES *Year of Status Publication included in CodeCOSEWICCOSSARO SARA

SRANK S1S2S3

‐ Extremely Rare ‐ Very Rare ‐ Rare to Uncommon

Other national or provincial codes not listed

Regional Lists REXP

‐ Rare native species‐ Extirpated native species

Other Regional codes not listed

REGIONAL RANKINGS

Common Name Scientific Name COSEWIC COSSAROSARA SRank

Varga, Durham

RRosa acicularisprickly rose

RCornus foemina Miller ssp.racemosared panicled dogwood

2 0 0 0 00 0 0Plants with Ranking Total: 2 Status List Totals:

Appendix I ‐ B 1 of 1Niblett Environmental Associates In 17‐025PN

Appendix II

Project Bird Status Report

Bird species observed by NEA are listed in the order followed the American Ornithologists' Union (AOU) Check-list of North American birds (7th edition, 1999, 47th Supplement). Common and scientific nomenclature are based on those used by AOU. Breeding status and breeding evidence code are listed when observed. Any significant status for a species on national and provincial lists is displayed as well as those from relevant regional lists.

Breeding Status: (Observed By NEA)

B -species observed in breeding season in suitable habitat with some evidence of breeding (confirmed, probable or possible as per Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas, 2002).F -species observed in breeding season but no evidence of breeding or suitable nest sites available on the study site (includes flyovers, migrants and foraging colonial breeders).M -species observed outside of breeding season for that species and in area outside of the known

APPENDIX II Bird Status Report

List Status :

List Sources:

END - endangered END-R -endangered regulated

THR - threatened SC - special concern YES - Area Sensitive * Other status levels are not displayed

COSEWIC COSSARO SARA Area Sensitive

A wildlife species facing imminent extirpation or extinction.A wildlife species facing imminent extirpation or extinction in Ontario which has been regulated under Ontario's Endangered Species Act (ESA). A wildlife species likely to become endangered if limiting factors are not reversed.A wildlife species that may become threatened or an endangered species because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats. A wildlife species that requires large areas of suitable habitat in order to sustain their population numbers.

The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, May 2018.The Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario, June 2018.Species At Risk Act, Schedule 1, Government of Canada, 2018.Significant Wildlife Technical Guide, Appendix C, OMNR, Oct. 2000

CLOCA

Appendix II Page 1 of 4 17-025PN

Breeding Evidence Code: (Observed By NEA)

OBSERVEDX -species observed in its breeding season (no evidence of breeding).

POSSIBLE BREEDINGH -species observed in its breeding season in suitable nesting habitatS -singing male present, or breeding calls heard, in its breeding season in suitable nesting habitat

PROBABLE BREEDINGP -pair observed in their breeding season in suitable nesting habitatT -permanent territory presumed through registration of territorial song on at least 2days, a week or more apart, at the same placeD -courtship or display between a male and a female or 2 males, including courtship feeding or copulationV -visiting probable nest siteA -agitated behaviour or anxiety calls of an adultB -brood patch on adult female or cloacal protuberance on adult maleN -nest-building or excavation of nest hole

CONFIRMED BREEDINGDD -distraction display or injury feigningNU -used nest or egg shell found (occupied or laid within the period of study)FY -recently fledged young or downy young, including young incapable of sustained flightAE -adults leaving or entering nest site in circumstances indicating occupied nestFS -adult carrying fecal sacCF -adult carrying food for youngNE -nest containing eggsNY -nest with young seen or heard SOURCE: Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas March 2001


Scientific Name

Observed Breeding

StatusCommon Name COSEWIC COSSARO SARA

Area Sensitive

AOU Code CLOCA

Breed Evidence

Code

RBGU Larus delawarensisRing-billed Gull B NoNone

ROPI Columbia liviaRock Pigeon B NoH

MODO Zenaida macrouraMourning Dove B NoP

WIFL Empidonax trailliiWillow Flycatcher B NoS

LEFL Empidonax minimusLeast Flycatcher B NoS

GCFL Myiarchus crinitusGreat Crested Flycatcher B NoH

EAKI Tyrannus tyrannusEastern Kingbird B NoH

WAVI Vireo gilvusWarbling Vireo B NoS

REVI Vireo olivaceusRed-eyed Vireo B NoS

BLJY Cyanocitta cristataBlue Jay B NoH

AMCR Corvus brachyrhynchosAmerican Crow B NoNone

TRSW Tachycineta bicolorTree Swallow B NoH

BCCH Poecile atricapillusBlack-capped Chickadee B NoS

WBNU Sitta carolinensisWhite-breasted Nuthatch B NoS

HOWR Troglodytes aedonHouse Wren B NoS

AMRO Turdus migratoriusAmerican Robin B NoCF

GRCA Dumetella carolinensisGray Catbird B NoS

BRTH Toxostoma rufumBrown Thrasher B NoH

EUST Sturnus vulgarisEuropean Starling B NoNY

CEWX Bombycilla cedrorumCedar Waxwing B NoP

YEWA Dendroica petechiaYellow Warbler B NoS

AMRE Setophaga ruticillaAmerican Redstart B NoS

COYE Geothlypis trichasCommon Yellowthroat B NoS

CHSP Spizella passerinaChipping Sparrow B NoP

FISP Spizella pusillaField Sparrow B NoS

SOSP Melospiza melodiaSong Sparrow B NoS


SWSP Melospiza georgianaSwamp Sparrow B NoS

NOCA Cardinalis cardinalisNorthern Cardinal B NoS

RBGR Pheucticus ludovicianusRose-breasted Grosbeak B NoX

RWBL Agelaius phoeniceusRed-winged Blackbird B NoS

COGR Quiscalus quisculaCommon Grackle B NoFY

BHCO Molothrus aterBrown-headed Cowbird B NoS

BAOR Icterus galbulaBaltimore Oriole B NoS

AMGO Carduelis tristisAmerican Goldfinch B NoP

34 BREEDING SPECIES OBSERVED:

34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0TOTAL SPECIES OBSERVED:


Appendix III

Compensation

Options

1:1,400

UTM Zone 17WKID: 26917 Authority: EPSGTransverse MercatorGCS North American 1983, ESRI ArcGIS 10.1

Map was produced byNEA under public license from Ontario

Ministry of Natural Resources,Copyright (c) Queens Printer 2017.

NIBLETT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES INC.

REVISIONSDESCRIPTIONDATEBYNO

ELC TYPES (1ST APPROXIMATION)TYPE DESCRIPTIONCODE

LEGEND FIGURE 1: VEGETATION COMMUNITIES& CONSTRAINTS

PROJECT:

SCALE:CONTACT:

PHONE/FAX:

EMAIL:

PROJECT NO:

CLIENT:

HWY 401

HWY401 TOWNLINE RD S

BLOO

RST

TRULLS RD

PRESTONVALE RD

TRULLS RD

HWY

2

REVISION NO.:

© Niblett Environmental Associates Inc. 2017.

1 CUM1-1

1 CUM1-1

3 CUP3-2

4 CUW1

4 CUW1

7 CUW1

LAWN

2 NO CODE

8 SWT2-1

5 MAS2-15 MAS2-1

6 SWD4-1

^

Rob i n son C re ek

!H Breeding Bird Survey

Maximum Buffer*

Top of Bank (Surveyed May 11, 2017. J.D. Barnes)

Stream

Study Property (CAD)

Vegetation Community

NHS, Functional (CLOCA)

Wetland Community

* Based on a 10 m buffer from NHS and 15 m from top of bank.** Obtained from the Regulated Area layer (CLOCA).

©

0 30 60 90 12015

Meters

Appendix 3: Poten�al tree compensa�on/enhancement areas

Appendix IV: CLOCA Comments March 13, 2018

March 13, 2018

March 13, 2018

G \planning\planning\comments\2018\S-C-2017-0010_National Homes_1 Page 1 of 3

What we do on the land is mirrored in the water

Member of Conservation Ontario

100 Whiting Avenue Oshawa, Ontario

L1H 3T3 Phone (905) 579-0411

Fax (905) 579-0994

Web: www.cloca.com Email: [email protected]

Ms. Anne Taylor Scott, Senior Planner

Municipality of Clarington

Planning Services Department

40 Temperance Street

Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6

Dear Madame:

Subject: S-C-2017-0010, National Homes (Prestonavle) Inc.

Part Lot 33, Concession 2, Former Township of Darlington)

CLOCA File No: S-C-2017-0010; CLOCA IMS No: PSDG986

Purpose: Proposed draft plan of subdivision to create a Townhouse Condominium Block with

111 units, an Open Space Block (2.5ha) and a road widening along Bloor Street.

To rezone the lands from agriculture to an appropriate zone to implement the proposed draft

plan of subdivision.

CLOCA staff has reviewed the submission for draft plan of subdivision as well as the submitted reports

including the following:

Environmental Impact Study, dated September 2017 completed by Niblett Environmental

Associates;

Arborist report dated September 21, 2017 completed by Strybos Barron King;

Slope Stability investigation dated September 27, 2017 completed by Sirati & Partners Consultants

Limited;

Results on Soils Sampling, dated November 8, 2016 completed by Sirati & Partners Consultants

Limited; and

Hydrogeological Impact Study dated September 1, 2017 completed by Sirati & Partners Consultants

Limited.

CLOCA has also received the Stormwater Management Report which is currently under review by CLOCA

engineering staff. Comments will follow under separate cover.

http://www.cloca.com/

Central Lake Ontario Conservation


Attention: Ms. Anne Taylor-Scott March 13, 2018


Based on CLOCA staff review of the above noted reports and the accompanying drawings, it is CLOCAs

opinion that there are a number of fundamental items relating to the development limit that will need to be

addressed prior to staffs support of the development and issuance of draft conditions.

Development Limit and Valley Feature

i. As proposed, the current development limit cannot be supported by CLOCA. The valley feature,

although deemed stable by the Slope Stability Report, is a valleyland feature within the Natural

Heritage System that is protected through Clarington Official Plan (COP) policies (section 3.4).

ii. Within the Environmental Impact Study (EIS), section 7.1.2 suggests that a 10 metre buffer from the

top of bank would be sufficient to protect the Natural Heritage System (NHS). COP section 3.4.16

indicates that the EIS can determine the Vegetation Protection Zone (VPZ), but in no case will it be

less than the VPZ as identified in Table 3-1. The COP Table 3-1 requires a minimum VPZ of 15

metres from the valley land feature. Please adjust the setback from the top of the valley bank to 15

metres in accordance with the official plan.

iii. Please provide a Constraints Plan showing the features on the site including the NHS plus 10 metre

buffer, the valleyland plus 15 metre buffer, as well as Robinson Creek and its associated floodplain.

The most extensive buffer will inform the development limit.

iv. All development, including grading is to be located beyond the buffers. Therefore the toe of any

graded slope needs to be located beyond the buffer

v. If a municipal/public trail system is proposed within the valley or buffer, it would be CLOCA’s

preference that it be located within the outer 5metre edge of the buffer.

Overland Flow – geotechnical & EIS

vi. The geotechnical report recommends that the surface water must be directed away from the slope or

carried down the slope in suitable conduits. The stormwater management scheme shows 3 areas

where overland flow is being directed down the slope, as well as a new outlet and headwall proposed

at the top of the slope. This was not addressed in the geotechnical report or the EIS.

a. Please provide comments on how the integrity of the slope will be maintained.

b. Please provide comment on the impacts to the valley feature from a natural heritage

perspective, including amount of vegetation removal.

c. Please show the full extent of disturbance and grading required for the installation and

construction of the headwall, outlet and flow paths.

d. Please provide recommendations for conceptual erosion protection

vii. The geotechnical report recommends that the snow storage location must be located away from the

slope. Please show the location of the proposed snow storage.

Compensation

viii. Further to comments in the attached Natural Heritage memo regarding compensation and

enhancement, please note that typically the compensation, once approved is to be completed prior to

the removal of the feature being compensated for occurs.

Central Lake Ontario Conservation


Attention: Ms. Anne Taylor-Scott March 13, 2018


ix. Further to items vi, if vegetation is removed as a result of providing a suitable and stable flow path

for the overland flow and the flow from the headwall, compensation will be required for the

vegetation that is lost, and a restoration plan will be required for the areas that are destroyed during

any installation and construction of the outlets and flow paths.

There are also a number of technical comments outlined within the attached memos that will need to be

addressed prior to CLOCA support of the proposed subdivision application. Comments pertaining to the

stormwater management submission will follow under separate cover.

Based on the above comments and attached memos, there are items that will need to be addressed including

modifications to the Draft Plan as currently proposed. Once appropriate modifications to the draft plan have

been made and fundamental items relating to the development limits and areas of disturbance have been

addressed, CLOCA will be in a position to issue draft conditions for the subdivision application.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this application. Please feel free to contact us should you have

any questions.

Yours truly,

Stefanie Penney

Planner/Enforcement Officer

Attach. CLOCA Memo, Groundwater Resources Department, G. (Fred) Carpio

CLOCA Memo, Natural Heritage Department, K. Luttrell

cc. Ms. Karen Richardson, Municipality of Clarington

Mr. Jason Pantalone, National Homes

Mr. Mark Pantalone, National Homes

Mr. Ryan Guetter, Weston Consulting

MEMO FROM

Environmental Engineering Groundwater Resources

File: w:\groundwater resources\devplanrev\2018\psdg986\psdg986_12022018v2.docx Page 1 of 2

To Stefanie Penney cc Perry Sisson From Godofredo Carpio Date 12 February 2018 File No. PSDG986 Subject National Homes – Hydrogeological Study and Slope Stability

Investigation Review Materials Reviewed

Results of Soil Sampling, Part Lot 33, Concession 2 (NE corner Prestonvale Rd) Clarington, ON (Sirati & Partners Consultants Ltd., November 8, 2017) Hydrogeological Impact Study, Part Lot 33, Concession 2 (NE corner Prestonvale Rd) Clarington, ON (Sirati & Partners Consultants Ltd., September 1, 2017) Report on Slope Stability Investigation, Proposed Residential Development, Bloor Street and Prestonvale Road, Clarington, ON (Sirati & Partners Consultants Ltd., September 1, 2017)

Comments

The area of the property for development is 5.158 Ha as stated on the three reports reviewed. The property boundary as shown in Figures 1 and 2 of the Soil Report, Figure 1-1 of the Hydrogeological Study and Drawing No. 1 of the Slope Stability Investigation report was geometrically calculated using ArcGIS and came up with a total area of 7.31 Ha. Is the area difference of about 2.152 Ha for future development as mentioned on the first page, paragraph 3 of the Soil Sampling Report? Please clarify.

Hydrogeological Study

The water balance presented on page 13 is different from the calculated water balance shown on Appendix D. Please clarify the numbers particularly the area of the property (as mentioned above) and the average annual precipitation.

On Slope Stability

The parameters and method used in the slope stability analysis are acceptable. The slope analysis suggests the existing top of bank is also the long-term-stable-

Central Lake Ontario Conservation MEMO FROM Environmental Engineering

Groundwater Resources

File: w:\groundwater resources\devplanrev\2018\psdg986\psdg986_12022018v2.docx Page 2 of 2

top-of-slope (LTSTOS). To preserve the valley slope formed by natural processes, development limit should be confined within the tableland west of the top of bank plus 6-m erosion access allowance.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this application.

MEMO FROM

N A T U R A L H E R I T A G E : t e r r e s t r i a l & w i l d l i f e r e s o u r c e s

FILE: S:\KATHY\COMMENT\Stefanie\NationalHomes PSDG986 EIS and Arborist

report.docx

Page 1 of 2

To Stefanie Penney

Cc

From Kathy Luttrell, Natural Heritage Ecologist

Date February 9, 2018

File No. PSDG986-6

Subject Prestonvale Subdivision (Northeast Corner of Prestonvale and Bloor, Clarington)

Materials Reviewed

EIS by NEA Arborist Report – Strybos Barron King Ltd.

Rec’d By Planning

December 19, 2017

COMMENTS: Niblett EIS: I have reviewed the above noted EIS and provide the following comments for consideration. The survey requirements for the EIS have been fulfilled and are were conducted under appropriate timing. A figure depicting the full suite of constraints should be presented in the EIS without a “modified” top of bank limit. These constraints would include, but not be limited to, extent of NHS, top of bank, dripline + 10 buffer, 30 m watercourse buffer and stable slope setbacks. With respect to the NHS, it is anticipated that site level investigations will refine gross-scale mapping of these limits to be presented in an EIS. In many cases the limits of the NHS should reflect the limit of the feature or the corridor that is required for wildlife travel. The CLOCA mapped NHS for this area appears to omit a portion of community 4 and all of community 3. The EIS accepts the CLOCA/Clarington mapped limits without discussion of the exclusion of the functionally connected vegetation communities 3 and 4. Further discussion is warranted to support the exclusion of these communities from the NHS.

of 2

In order to achieve true compensation for lost features, no net loss in the NHS must occur. The EIS speaks to the inability to deliver such compensation, therefore enhancement is proposed. In order to support an enhancement proposal, staff would need to review a draft compensation or enhancement proposal that would adequately address the proposed loss. This should include area calculations as well as proposed ratios for enhancements. The preference of staff would be to see like for like compensation for features lost. Arborist Report – Strybos Barron King Ltd.: The arborist report appears to overgeneralize and suggest large areas (groupings of trees) for removal without analysis, based on a conclusion drawn from the EIS that the tableland woodland can be removed without impact. Key #49 (Upper Valley Buffer) on page 3, directs preservation for the whole community, however page 6 (Appendix B) shows 4-untis of two-storey townhouses on top of a portion of this grouping.

prestonvale subdivision north east corner of bloor … · environmental impact study (2nd...

Documents