Environmental Impact Statement · 1 appendix: van order properties ltd. may 11, 2016 sk ch pp-12-8290 title: client: project # project: date gis checked watercourse wetland waterbody

Environmental Impact Statement

Glasgow Station Subdivision Part Lot 19, Concession 7, Township of McNab/Braeside

Prepared for:

Van Order Properties Inc.

568 Anderson Road, R.R. #2

Arnprior, ON

Prepared by:

McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineers Ltd.

3240 Drummond, Concession 5A, R.R. #7

Perth, ON

K7H 3C9

June 2016

i

Van Order Properties Inc. Project PP-12-8290-01

Environmental Impact Statement Amended June 2016

-

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................1

2.0 STUDY AREA BACKGROUND INFORMATION ........................................................................................................5

3.0 METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................................................7

3.1 Terrestrial Surveys .................................................................................................................................................. 7

3.2 Eastern Whip-poor-will and Common Nighthawk Surveys .................................................................................... 9

3.3 Bobolink and Eastern Meadowlark Surveys ......................................................................................................... 10

3.4 Amphibian Surveys ............................................................................................................................................... 10

3.5 Blanding’s Turtle Surveys...................................................................................................................................... 11

3.6 Bat Surveys ........................................................................................................................................................... 11

4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 12

4.1 Existing Land Use .................................................................................................................................................. 12

4.2 Landforms, Soils and Geology .............................................................................................................................. 12

4.3 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................................................ 14

4.3.1 Community 1: Dry-Fresh Sugar Maple – Oak Deciduous Forest Type (FOD5-3) ........................................... 14

4.3.2 Community 2: Coniferous Plantation Type (CUP3) ....................................................................................... 14

4.3.3 Community 3: Treed Rock Barren (RBT) ....................................................................................................... 15

4.3.4 Community 4: Dry – Fresh White Pine – Maple – Oak Mixed Forest Ecosite (FOM2) .................................. 15

4.3.5 Community 5: White Cedar Mineral Coniferous Swamp (SWC1) ................................................................. 15

4.3.6 Community 6: Dry – Moist Old Field Meadow Type (CUM1-1) .................................................................... 15

4.3.7 Community 7: Mineral Deciduous Swamp Ecosite (SWD3) .......................................................................... 16

4.3.8 Community 8: Willow Mineral Thicket Swamp Type (SWT2-1) .................................................................... 16

4.3.9 Community 9: Submerged Shallow Aquatic (SAS) ........................................................................................ 16

4.4 Significant Areas ................................................................................................................................................... 16

4.5 Wildlife ................................................................................................................................................................. 17

4.6 Species at Risk ...................................................................................................................................................... 18

5.0 IMPACTS AND ASSESSMENT .............................................................................................................................. 21

5.1 Terrestrial ............................................................................................................................................................. 21

ii



-

5.2 Significant Areas ................................................................................................................................................... 22

5.3 Wildlife ................................................................................................................................................................. 22

5.4 Fish and Fish Habitat ............................................................................................................................................ 23

5.5 Species at Risk and their Habitat .......................................................................................................................... 23

5.6 Identifying Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................................ 25

6.0 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION ........................................................................................................................... 27

7.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................................. 29

8.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 31

9.0 LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................................................... 33

FIGURES Figure 1: Key Map ................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Figure 2: Concept Plan ............................................................................................................................................................ 4

Figure 3: Vegetation Communities ......................................................................................................................................... 8

Figure 4: Constraints and Opportunities Map ...................................................................................................................... 13

Figure 5: Blanding's Turtle Habitat Map ............................................................................................................................... 20

TABLES

Table 1: Species at Risk Potentially Present within Study Area .............................................................................................. 6

Table 2: Eastern Whip-poor-will & Common Nighthawk Survey Conditions .......................................................................... 9

Table 3: Bobolink & Eastern Meadowlark Survey Conditions............................................................................................... 10

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Photographs

Appendix B: Species Lists

Appendix C: Correspondence

Appendix D: Recommended Significant Woodland Evaluation Criteria and Standards

1



-

1.0 INTRODUCTION

McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineers Ltd. (McIntosh Perry) was retained by the proponent, Van Order Properties Inc.,

to complete a comprehensive features survey; including the delineation of vegetation community boundaries,

surveying for species at risk (SAR) and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), in order to assess

the environmental impacts that could be associated with the development of the subject property by a rural estate

lot subdivision located at Part Lot 19, Concession 7, Geographic Township of McNab, Township of McNab/Braeside,

County of Renfrew. The location of the subject property is indicated on Figure 1 (Key Map). It is found within the

jurisdiction of the Ministry of Natural Resources & Forestry (MNRF) – Pembroke District.

The property referred to in this EIS is approximately 40 hectares (ha) in area, with frontage of approximately 400

metres (m) on Anderson Road (County Road 63). At the time of preparing this report, the subject lands consisted of

an inactive agricultural operation, with a single-family residence and barn, and accessory farm buildings situated in

the mid-portion of the property. The lands were a mixture of cultural meadow and forested habitat. An unnamed

watercourse flowed across the southwest corner of the property and under Calabogie Road, in the direction of the

Ottawa River. A second unnamed watercourse flowed onto the northwest corner of the subject property. North of

the subject property were several single-detached residences; east was Provincial Highway 17, vacant rural lands, and

the abandoned CP rail line; south were three single-detached residential lots fronting on the north side of Calabogie

Road (County Road 508); and to the west was a farm property and single-detached residences.

McIntosh Perry was retained by Van Order Properties Inc. in May, 2012 to review the feasibility of pursuing a

residential plan of subdivision within the subject lands, taking into consideration the potential impacts of such

development on natural heritage features and their ecological functions. The Concept Plan (Figure 2) has been used

in the investigation of potential environmental impacts stemming from the development. As illustrated in the Concept

Plan, the subdivision would be comprised of 40 residential lots, which have been sized to each accommodate a single-

family detached dwelling and private services (i.e. well and septic). A 10.25 ha retained parcel of land has been defined

along an existing gas easement. The retained parcel encompasses low-lying valley lands which abut a watercourse

and wetland. This block of land is to be retained by the land owner; the future use of the retained block is unknown.

A letter was received on August 22, 2014 from the MNRF, Pembroke District, following their review of the submitted

2012 EIS document, prepared by McIntosh Perry. Based on the recommendations of MNRF, additional field

investigations were conducted in 2015. Additional information concerning existing conditions and potential impacts

of the proposed development has been incorporated into this EIS document.

This EIS has been prepared with regard for the Environmental Protection policies of the Township of McNab-Braeside

Official Plan (i.e. Section 9.0), as well as the policies set out under Section 2.1 (Natural Heritage) of the Provincial

Policy Statement (2014). It is noted that the subject lands, as illustrated in Schedule ‘B’ of the Township’s Official Plan,

are void of designated Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSW), Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI), Local

Wetlands, Significant Woodlands and other Natural Heritage Features. This EIS has been prepared with specific regard

for identified Valley Land areas and the watercourses that flow through the property. Furthermore, in preparing the

2



-

EIS, consultation was initiated with the MNRF to discuss the potential for SAR, as designated under the Endangered

Species Act, 2007 (ESA), within the subject property and adjacent lands. Several targeted SAR surveys were

completed, in accordance with MNRF protocol, to adequately assess the potential impact of the development on

protected plant and animal species and their habitats.

The following report summarizes the biophysical properties of the subject property, the impacts that the proposed

subdivision development may have on the subject property and its features, and where feasible and appropriate,

recommends mitigation measures to lessen these impacts. The mitigation measures are offered as a means of

minimizing and controlling land use impacts, while protecting and enhancing the integrity of natural features and their

ecological functions.

McIntosh Perry carried out field surveys (including terrestrial and SAR surveys) on May 30, June 7, 13, 22, 28, July 5

and 19, 2012. These surveys were conducted in order to acquire current natural resources information on the subject

property for the preparation of this EIS. Additional field visits were conducted on May 28, June 4, 15 and 29, 2015 to

acquire information pertaining to SAR and their habitat identified in the 2014 MNRF letter. This report summarizes

the findings of these surveys. The information contained in this report represents surveys undertaken in the spring

and summer of 2012 and 2015, and is not representative of year-round data.

Drummond Concession 5A, R.R.7, Perth, ON, K7H 3C9Tel.: (613) 267-6524 Fax: (613) 267-7992

ANDERSON RD

LOCATIONPLAN

FIGURE 1

SHORT STANDARD IRON BAR

DENOTES IRON BARDENOTESDENOTES DENOTES DENOTESDENOTESDENOTES

STANDARD IRON BAR

ROCK PLUGROUND IRON BARROCK POSTACCEPTED

LEGEND AND NOTESDENOTES DENOTES

MONUMENT PLANTED

McINTOSH PERRY SURVEYING INC.DENOTES DENOTES

A.C. BOURNE, OLS

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION OF ONTARIODENOTESWITNESSDENOTES

DRAFT PLANOF SUBDIVISION

LOT 19 CONCESSION 7

GEOGRAPHIC TOWNSHIP OF McNABTOWNSHIP OF McNAB/BRAESIDE

COUNTY OF RENFREW

OF PART OF

Paper Size:Date:

36" x 42"Drawing Number:

15-4346

REVISIONSNo. Description Date

BERT HUGHSON, VAN ORDER PROPERTIES LTD.125 DUFF STREETKINGSTON, ONTARIO, K7L 2L6

APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER

BENCHMARK

MAY 26, 2016

DESCRIPTION

Scale

No. ELEVATION

1:1000

Checked By:

Drawn By: SH

BWKProject Number:

Project:

GLASGOW STATION SUBDIVISION

By

TO BE SUBDIVIDED INTO:

NAIL IN ROOT OF 0.6Ø MAPLE LOCATEDON WEST SIDE OF ANDERSON ROADAPPROXIMATELY 50M SOUTH OFPROPOSED SUBDIVISION ENTRANCE

I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF THE LANDS TO BESUBDIVIDED AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TOTHE ADJOINING LANDS ARE ACCURATELY AND CORRECTLY SHOWN.

15-4346-03

SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE

I HEREBY AUTHORIZE MCINTOSH PERRY CONSULTING ENGINEERSLIMITED TO PREPARE AND SUBMIT THIS PLAN TO THE COUNCIL OFTHE COUNTY OF LANARK FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL.

BERT HUGHSONVAN ORDER PROPERTIES LTD.I HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO BIND THE CORPORATION

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED UNDERSECTION 51 (17) OF THE PLANNING ACT

DATED AT THIS DAY OF , 2016.

OWNER'S CERTIFICATE

A. AS SHOWN ON THE DRAFT PLANB. AS SHOWN ON THE DRAFT PLANC. AS SHOWN ON THE KEY PLAND. AS DESCRIBED IN TITLE BLOCKE. AS SHOWN ON THE DRAFT PLANF. AS SHOWN ON THE DRAFT PLANG. AS SHOWN ON THE DRAFT PLANH. PRIVATE WELLS TO SUPPLY DOMESTIC WATERI. SOIL TYPE IS GENERALLY SAND / CLAY WITH VARYING BEDROCKJ. AS SHOWN ON THE DRAFT PLANK. MUNICIPAL WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICES ARE NOT AVAILABLEL. AS SHOWN ON THE DRAFT PLAN

0 25 50 75 100 Metres

SCALE 1 : 1000

BEARINGS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE MTM GRID BEARINGS, AND AREREFERRED TO THE CENTRAL MERIDIAN OF UTM ZONE 18, (75° 00' WESTLONGITUDE) NAD83 (CSRS) (1997.0)

DISTANCES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE GROUND DISTANCES AND CAN BECONVERTED TO GRID DISTANCES BY MULTIPLYING BY A COMBINEDSCALE FACTOR OF 0.999757.

BRIAN W KERR, O.L.S.DATE

137.68mBM#1

LOCATIONOF SITE

508

CALABOGIE ROAD

ANDERSON ROAD

MILTON STEW

ART AVENUE

LAVENTURE ROAD

McLEAN

DRIVE

DAILLEE ROAD

RUSSETT

DRIVE

DAISY

LANE

MILLER ROAD

TRANS CANADA HIGHWAY1763

63

54

RENFREW

ARNPRIOR

CALABOGIE

KEY PLAN1:25,000

STEWARTVILLE

ROAD

LOTS 1-40: FOR SINGLE DETACHED RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS

DISTANCES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE IN METRES AND CAN BECONVERTED TO FEET BY DIVIDING BY 0.3048

SCHEDULE OF AREAS

LOTFRONTAGE

(m)AREA(m²)

1 76.8 10,058

2 80.1 4,705

3 50.8 4,250

4 45.1 4,224

5 45.1 4,497

6 45.1 4,510

7 45.1 4,510

8 45.1 4,512

9 45.1 6,822

10 45.1 11,255

11 45.1 18,793

12 45.1 8,270

13 45.1 5,726

14 45.1 4,510

15 45.1 6,393

16 45.1 11,578

17 45.1 10,097

18 45.1 6,927

19 45.1 4,607

20 45.1 4,510

21 45.1 4,512

22 45.1 4,518

23 45.1 6,246

24 45.1 9,319

25 45.5 19,409

26 45.1 6,740

27 49.8 5,425

28 48.9 5,834

29 62.7 4,414

30 49.7 4,501

31 49.7 5,113

32 49.1 5,441

33 121.5 4,995

34 126.9 4,979

35 45.9 5,173

36 45.3 4,928

37 45.3 4,681

38 47.8 4,762

39 46.2 4,426

40 113.9 4,810

STREETLENGTH

(m)AREA(m²)

STREET A 1,235 24,501

TOTAL AREA (m²) 285,480TOTAL AREA (ha) 28.55

DENOTES PIPE INVERT

WELL

BPED

UGM

DENOTES UNDERGROUND GAS PIPEDENOTES UNDERGROUND GAS MARKER

HP DENOTES HYDRO POLEDENOTES BELL PEDESTALDENOTES OVERHEAD WIRESDENOTES DRILLED WELL LOCATIONDENOTES EXISTING GROUND CONTOUR140DENOTES EXISTING BUSH LINE

MONUMENT FOUND

DENOTES EXISTING WETLAND

5



-

2.0 STUDY AREA BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The subject property is located on Part Lot 19, Concession 7, Geographic Township of McNab, Township of

McNab/Braeside, County of Renfrew. It is found within the jurisdiction of the MNRF Pembroke District. The subject

property was positioned west of Highway 17 and included approximately 400 m of frontage on Anderson Road

(County Road 63) (Figure 1).

The subject property is classified as “Settlement Area” within the Township of McNab-Braeside’s Official Plan Land

Use Schedule ‘A’. Schedule ‘B’ of the Official Plan identifies “Valley Lands” and “Water” features in the southwest and

northwest corners of the subject property. The Zoning By-law No. 2010-49 (which is currently under appeal to the

Ontario Municipal Board), designates a portion of the subject property as “Extractive Industrial Reserve” (EMR),

another portion as “Rural” (RU) and the remaining portion as “Rural Residential Exception 2” (RR-E2).

The topography of the subject property sloped down from higher elevations in the middle of the property, into areas

in the southwest and northwest corners of the subject property that were identified in the Township’s Official Plan

as “Valley Lands”. Soils present on the subject property were classified as part of the Monteagle-Rock Complex. They

were composed of a pattern of Monteagle Sandy Loam, bare rock, and organic soils (muck and peat soils). The soils

are considered well-drained, but with no potential for agriculture, due to the high percentage of rock outcrops present

(Gillespie et. al., 1964).

Information provided by the MNRF Pembroke District Office indicated the potential presence of the following species

within the general vicinity of the subject property: American Ginseng (Panax quinquefolius), endangered; Butternut

(Juglans cinerea), endangered; Eastern Whip-poor-will (Caprimulgus vociferus), threatened; Eastern Meadowlark

(Sturnella magna), threatened; Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), threatened; Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica),

threatened; Blanding’s Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) (within 1 km), threatened; Common Snapping Turtle (Chelydra

serpentina), special concern; Wood Thrush (Hylocichla mustelina), special concern and Eastern Wood-Pewee

(Contopus virens), special concern.

Review of the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas (Cadman et. al., 2007) indicated that the following additional SAR birds

could potentially be present within the vicinity of the subject property: Least Bittern (Ixobrychus exilis), threatened;

Black Tern (Chlidonias niger), special concern; Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), special concern; Common

Nighthawk (Chordeiles minor), special concern; Red-headed Woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus), special

concern; Chimney Swift (Chaetura pelagica), threatened; Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), special concern;

Golden-winged Warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera), special concern; Canada Warbler (Wilsonia canadensis), special

concern and Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica cerulea), threatened.

Table 1 below outlines SAR known to occur within the general study area, their Provincial and Federal status, and

whether habitat was observed within or directly adjacent to the subject property.

6



-

Table 1: Species at Risk Potentially Present within Study Area Common Name

Scientific Name Provincial Status

Federal Status

Potential Habitat Present

Cerulean Warbler

Dendroica cerulea Threatened Endangered No

Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis Threatened Threatened No

Eastern Whip-poor-will

Caprimulgus vociferus

Threatened Threatened Yes

Black Tern Chlidonias niger Special Concern

Not at Risk No

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Special Concern

Not at Risk No

Eastern Wood-Pewee

Contopus virens Special Concern

No Status Yes

Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina

Special Concern

No Status Yes

Common Nighthawk

Chordeiles minor Special Concern

Threatened Yes

Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica Threatened Threatened No

Red-headed Woodpecker

Melanerpes erythrocephalus

Special Concern

Threatened No

Grasshopper Sparrow

Ammodramus savannarum

Special Concern

No Status Yes

Olive-sided Flycatcher

Contopus cooperi Special concern

Threatened No

Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Threatened Threatened Yes

Golden-winged Warbler

Vermivora chrysoptera

Special Concern

Threatened Yes

Canada Warbler

Wilsonia canadensis

Special Concern

Threatened No

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus


Eastern Meadowlark

Sturnella magna Threatened Threatened Yes

Butternut Juglans cinerea Endangered Endangered Yes

American Ginseng

Panax quinquefolius

Endangered Endangered Yes

Blanding’s Turtle

Emydoidea blandingii


Common Snapping Turtle

Chelydra serpentine Special Concern

Special Concern

Yes

7



-

3.0 METHODOLOGY

In order to acquire current information on the terrestrial habitats present on the subject property, field surveys,

including inventory and assessment of the study area, were carried out on May 30, June 7, 13, 22, 28 and July 5 and

19, 2012 by H. Lunn, J. Cavanagh and M. Wheeler of McIntosh Perry. Additional surveys were completed on May 28,

June 4, 15 and 29, 2015 by C. Heffernan and H. Lunn of McIntosh Perry. The surveys included identification of:

existing vegetation communities;

existing wetland areas;

areas of critical or significant habitat;

species at risk and their habitat; and

resident or migrant bird and wildlife species.

3.1 Terrestrial Surveys

Terrestrial vegetation surveys were carried out on the subject property. The vegetation communities were

characterized using the Ecological Land Classification (ELC) protocol (Lee et. al., 1998) and delineated on an aerial

photograph (Figure 3). Photographs were taken of the subject property showing the different vegetation

communities. This photographic record can be found in Appendix ‘A’ of this report.

During the terrestrial surveys, observations were made of resident and migratory wildlife species through sight, sound

and physical evidence. Status information on species in the area of the subject property was obtained from the MNRF,

Pembroke District Office (Appendix ‘C’).

SHEET of

Project Number:

Drawing Number:

PP-12-829

02

Checked By:

Drawn By:

Date:

Paper Size:

MS

HL

11" x 17" N.T.S.

OCTOBER 2012

Designed By:HL

Scale:

Project:

Drawing Title:

VAN ORDER PROPERTIES

VEGETATIONCOMMUNITIES MAP

LUNDYS CORNERS ONTARIO

LEGEND

1 1

Client:

BURT HUGHSON

9



-

3.2 Eastern Whip-poor-will and Common Nighthawk Surveys

Nocturnal Eastern Whip-poor-will and Common Nighthawk surveys were conducted on May 30, June 7 and 28, 2012

and May 28, June 4 and 29, 2015, as per MNRF survey protocols. The survey dates were conducted within the MNRF

recommended survey window of May 1 to July 30.

All surveys were conducted 30 minutes after sunset, and 15 minutes before sunrise, by a two-person crew, during the

optimal moon phase (when 50% or more of the moon face was visible and the moon was above the horizon with little

or no cloud cover blocking illumination). All surveys were conducted on evenings with little to no wind, no

precipitation and night time temperatures above 10oC. See Table 2 below for survey conditions during each survey

date.

Table 2: Eastern Whip-poor-will & Common Nighthawk Survey Conditions

Date

Time Temperature oC

Moon visible

Wind

Sky Condition

Background Noise Start End

May

30,

2012 21:10 21:40 17 Yes Calm

Partially

Cloudy None

June

7,

2012 21:30 22:00 14 Yes Light

Partially

Cloudy None

June

28,

2012 21:15 21:45 23 Yes Calm Clear None

May

28,


June

4,

2015 20:30 21:00 21 Yes Calm

Partially

Cloudy None

June

29,


10



-

3.3 Bobolink and Eastern Meadowlark Surveys

Combined Bobolink and Eastern Meadowlark surveys were conducted on June 13, 22 and July 5, 2012 and June 3, 15

and 29, 2015, as per MNRF survey methodology. The field surveys were conducted within the recommended

Bobolink/Eastern Meadowlark survey period from the last week of May to the first week of July, of any year. All

surveys were conducted under field conditions with no precipitation, no or low wind speed, and good visibility, to

ensure maximum detection of these species. See Table 3 below for survey conditions during each survey date.

Survey points were located approximately 250 m apart within suitable habitat. All surveys were conducted between

dawn and 11:00 a.m. Each survey period lasted 10 minutes and any observations of Bobolinks, Eastern Meadowlarks

and other species observed were recorded.

Table 3: Bobolink & Eastern Meadowlark Survey Conditions

Date

Time Temperature oC

Wind

Sky Condition

Background Noise

Start

(a.m.)

End

(a.m.)

June

13,

2012 6:30 7:15 14 Calm

Partially

Cloudy None

June

22,

2012 6:15 7:00 13 Light

Partially

Cloudy None

July

5,

2012 7:00 7:45 22 Calm Clear None

June

3,

2015 9:00 10:00 13 Light

Mainly

Clear None

June

15,

2015 9:00 10:00 20 Light

Mostly

Cloudy None

June

29,

2015 9:00 10:00 14 Calm

Light

drizzle None

3.4 Amphibian Surveys

Amphibian surveys were conducted to detect the presence of amphibian breeding habitat in relation to the subject

property. These surveys were conducted on May 30, June 7 and June 28, 2012. The surveys followed the protocols

outlined in the Ontario Marsh Monitoring Protocol for Amphibian Monitoring (Konze et. al., 1997). Surveys were

conducted during nocturnal hours during conditions conducive to promote amphibian activity.

11



-

3.5 Blanding’s Turtle Surveys

It was recommended by MNRF Pembroke district that Blanding’s Turtle surveys be undertaken for this site. MNRF

indicated in the August 2014 letter that based on element occurrence data, the Blanding’s Turtle was known to occur

within 1 km of the subject property. Therefore, much of the property is covered by the General Habitat Description

for the species. Due to the fact that both Category 2 and 3 habitat are known to occur within the subject property

boundaries, targeted Blanding’s Turtle surveys were not conducted in 2015.

3.6 Bat Surveys

Acoustic monitoring of Bats was conducted on the subject property, on May 28, June 4 and 29, 2015. A Wildlife

Acoustics handheld EM3+ unit was used as a means of active acoustic monitoring. Acoustic surveys focused on the

area of existing structures (house and barns), that appeared suitable for use as maternity colony sites by the Little

Brown Myotis (Myotis lucifugus).

12



-

4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

The following section outlines existing conditions observed within the subject property during the 2012 and 2015 field

seasons. Existing conditions of the property remained similar between the 2012 and 2015 field investigations.

4.1 Existing Land Use

At the time of the 2012 field surveys approximately 40% of the property was forested, 30% was cultural meadow,

10% was treed rock barren, and the remaining 20% was wetland habitat. Habitat was observed to have remained

unchanged during the 2015 field surveys. A single-family residence, barn and accessory farm buildings were situated

in the mid-portion of the property. A right-of-way was present travelling from Anderson Road, on the west side of the

property, to the residence and farm buildings in the mid-portion of the property. Evidence of an agricultural operation

was observed on the subject property during the 2012 field surveys. The operation was inactive at the time of the

2012 and 2015 surveys.

4.2 Landforms, Soils and Geology

The topography of the subject property included areas of sloping land from higher elevations in the mid-portion of

the property into areas that were identified in the Township’s Official Plan as “Valley Lands” in the southwest and

northwest corners of the subject property (Figure 4). Soils present on the subject property were classified as part of

the Monteagle-Rock Complex. They were composed of a pattern of Monteagle Sandy Loam, bare rock, and muck and

peat soils (organic soils). There was one area of exposed bedrock observed in what was identified as “Community 3”

in Section 4.4.3. The soils were considered well-drained but with no potential for agriculture, due to the high

percentage of rock outcrops present (Gillespie et. al., 1964).

140

145

135

150155

140

135

135

145

145

135

SCALE

PROJECT No.DATE FIGUREOCT. 17, 2012 PP-12-829 -

0 60 120 180 24030

Meters

1:4,000

HIGHWAY 17

SOURCES:GOOGLE EARTH, LAND INFORMATION ONTARIO,

RENFREW COUNTY GIS, TOWNSHIP OF McNAB/BRAESIDEOP SCHEDLUE B

PROJECTION:NAD 1983 UTM ZONE 18N

NOTES

LEGEND

CALABOGIE RD

ANDE

RSON

RD

STEW

ARTV

ILLE

RD 508

63

ABANDONED RAILWAYSITE BOUNDARY

CONTOURS

WATERCOURSE

WATERBODY

VALLEY LANDS

WETLANDS

GLASGOW STATIONDEVELOPMENT

BASE MAP

AREAS RECOMMENDED BY MNR TO BE CONSIDERED SIGNIFICANT WOODLANDS

FIGURE 2 CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES

AREAS FOR NATIVE PLANTINGS

FIGURE 4 CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES

14



-

4.3 Vegetation

The subject property is located in the St-Lawrence Lowlands Ecoregion, within the Mixedwood Plains Ecozone

(Ecological Stratification Working Group, 1995). Approximately 40% of the subject property was forested, 30% was

cultural meadow, 10% was treed rock barrens and the remaining 20% was wetland habitat. The subject property was

a moderately disturbed landscape. Disturbances included: a history of agricultural (not active at the time of the 2012

and 2015 field surveys), multiple mature trees blown down within the plantation forest community and a right-of-

way to the residence, barn and accessory farm buildings.

Vegetation communities observed in 2015 were found to be similar in size and composition to conditions observed

during the 2012 site investigations. As such, observations made in 2012 relating to the location and composition of

vegetation communities have not been changed, based on the 2015 site investigations. The following section outlines

the existing vegetation communities located on the subject property. For a detailed map of vegetation communities

found within the study area, refer to Figure 3. For a complete list of vegetation species refer to Appendix ‘B’.

4.3.1 Community 1: Dry-Fresh Sugar Maple – Oak Deciduous Forest Type (FOD5-3)

Community 1 was classified as a Dry-Fresh Sugar Maple – Oak Deciduous Forest Type (FOD5-3). This mid-age forested

community was located in two main locations; within the northwestern and eastern boundaries of the subject

property (Figure 3). It was an undisturbed community and extended beyond the property boundary. The canopy in

this community consisted mainly of mid-age deciduous trees, including: sugar maple (Acer saccharum), white birch

(Betula papyrifera), ironwood (Ostrya virginiana), red oak (Quercus rubra) and scattered eastern white cedar (Thuja

occidentalis). Dominant vegetation in the sub-canopy included: common juniper (Juniperus communis). Herbaceous

vegetation present in the understory included: Canada mayflower (Maianthemum canadensis), blue-stem goldenrod

(Solidago caesia) and sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis). Refer to Appendix ‘B’ for a complete listing of vegetation

species observed within Community 1.

4.3.2 Community 2: Coniferous Plantation Type (CUP3)

Community 2 was classified as a Coniferous Plantation Type (CUP3-2) (Photos 1 & 2). This community was the largest

forested community present on the subject property (Figure 3). Although in many areas of this community there was

abundant blow-down of the original plantation trees, there were still areas where the plantation form remained

intact. This community appeared to be quite moist, especially in areas of lower elevation, such as on the southwest

side of the subject property. The dominant canopy species in this community included: white pine (Pinus strobus), red

pine (Pinus resinosa) and trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides). Dominant sub-canopy species included: red

raspberry (Rubus idaeus), tartarian honeysuckle (Lonicera tartaria) and staghorn sumac (Rhus typhina). Herbaceous

vegetation species present in the understory included: star flower (Trientalis borealis), Canada mayflower, Joe-pye

weed (Eutrochium purpureum) and enchanter’s nightshade (Circaea lutetiana). Refer to Appendix ‘B’ for a complete

listing of vegetation species observed within Community 2.

15



-

4.3.3 Community 3: Treed Rock Barren (RBT)

Community 3 was classified as a Treed Rock Barren (RBT) (Photo 3 & 4). This community was in a highly elevated

portion of the property (Figure 3). It was vegetated by scattered mid-age coniferous and deciduous trees and shrubs.

The community included areas of exposed rock outcrops, or where rock was close to the surface and covered with

herbaceous vegetation. The dominant canopy trees included: white pine, Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) and American

elm (Ulmus americana). Sub-canopy species included common juniper, prickly ash (Zanthoxylum americanum) and

Juneberry (Amelanchier arborea). Herbaceous vegetation included: goldenrod spp. (Solidago spp.), common

milkweed (Asclepias syriaca), cow vetch (Vicia cracca), common mullein (Verbascum thapsus), silvery cinquefoil

(Potentilla argentea) and grass species. Refer to Appendix ‘B’ for a complete listing of vegetation species observed

within Community 3.

4.3.4 Community 4: Dry – Fresh White Pine – Maple – Oak Mixed Forest Ecosite (FOM2)

Community 4 was classified as a Dry – Fresh White Pine – Maple – Oak Mixed Forest Ecosite (FOM2) (Photo 5 & 6).

This community was similar to Community 1, with the exception of a higher ratio of coniferous trees present. It was

located in smaller pockets within various areas of the subject property, including on the northwest and east sides of

the property, as well as a section in the middle of the property (Figure 3). Dominant canopy species included: white

pine, sugar maple and red oak. The dominant sub-canopy species included common juniper. The understory species

included: wild strawberry (Fragaria vesca), Canada mayflower and bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum). For a complete

listing of vegetation species observed within Community 4, refer to Appendix ‘B’.

4.3.5 Community 5: White Cedar Mineral Coniferous Swamp (SWC1)

Community 5 was classified as a White Cedar Mineral Coniferous Swamp (SWC1) (Photo 7 & 8). This community was

a very moist community, with pooling in some areas during the spring 2012 field surveys. It was found adjacent to the

wetland (Community 7) located in the northwest corner of the subject property (Figure 3). The dominant canopy

species was eastern white cedar. Due to the pooling and high moisture content of the soil, there were relatively few

herbaceous species present in the understory of this community. The species that were observed included: sensitive

fern, ostrich fern and sedge spp. For a complete listing of vegetation species observed within Community 5, refer to

Appendix ‘B’.

4.3.6 Community 6: Dry – Moist Old Field Meadow Type (CUM1-1)

Community 6 was classified as a Moist Old Field Meadow Type (CUM1-1) (Photos 9 & 10). This community comprised

approximately 30% of the subject property’s area (Figure 3). The main portion of this community was present within

the mid-section of the subject property, with some of its area extending to the property’s southeastern boundary. It

was an open community, with very few canopy trees present. Those observed to be present included a very large bur

oak (Quercus macrocarpa), as well as scattered white and scots pine. There were areas of shrubs present within this

community; species included: lilac (Syringa vulgaris), tartarian honeysuckle, spreading dogbane (Apocynum

androsaemifolium), nannyberry (Viburnum lentago) and common juniper. The majority of the community was

16



-

comprised of herbaceous meadow species. These species included the following: different species of grass, common

milkweed, New England aster (Symphyotrichum novae-angliae), St. John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum), brown-eyed

Susan (Rudbeckia hirta), Queen Anne’s lace (Daucus carota) and bladder campion (Silene vulgaris). For a complete

listing of vegetation species observed within Community 6, refer to Appendix ‘B’.

4.3.7 Community 7: Mineral Deciduous Swamp Ecosite (SWD3)

Community 7 was classified as a Mineral Deciduous Swamp Ecosite (SWD3). It was located in the northwest corner of

the subject property (Figure 3). The community was a riparian area, adjacent to a shallow aquatic community, with

submerged vegetation (Photo 11 & 12). The community was wet, forested and heavily vegetated with herbaceous

vegetation species. Canopy species included: eastern white cedar, red maple (Acer rubrum), American elm and white

pine. Herbaceous species included: sensitive fern, marsh fern (Thelypteris palustris) and beggar’s ticks (Bidens

vulgata). For a complete listing of vegetation species observed within Community 7, refer to Appendix ‘B’.

4.3.8 Community 8: Willow Mineral Thicket Swamp Type (SWT2-1)

Community 8 was classified as a Willow Mineral Thicket Swamp Type (SWT2-1). It was located in the southeast corner

of the subject property (Figure 3). The canopy in this community mainly consisted of shrub willow species (Salix spp.),

with the odd scattered young American elm (Photos 13 & 14). Similar to Community 7, there was a shallow aquatic

community present in the middle of Community 8. Herbaceous vegetation species included: broad-leaved cattail

(Typhina latifolia), blue vervain (Verbena hastata), as well as grass and sedge species. For a complete listing of

vegetation species observed within Community 8, refer to Appendix ‘B’.

4.3.9 Community 9: Submerged Shallow Aquatic (SAS)

Community 9 was classified as a Submerged Shallow Aquatic (SAS). It was located adjacent to Communities 7 and 8

(Figure 3). As a purely aquatic and submerged vegetation community, there was no canopy vegetation species present

within Community 9 (Photo 11 & 12). The dominant herbaceous vegetation species observed was chara spp.

4.4 Significant Areas

Based on the background information obtained from the MNRF Pembroke District Office, a large portion of the

forested habitat present on the subject property has been put forward by MNRF to be considered for classification as

Significant Woodland Habitat (refer to correspondence in Appendix ‘C’). The recommended areas are outlined on

Figure 4. Observations during the 2012 field surveys by McIntosh Perry, indicated that the majority of areas outlined

by MNRF as potentially Significant Woodland Habitat were coniferous plantation (Community 2 – Figure 3). The type

of habitat observed would not fall within the criteria outlined by MNRF in the Natural Heritage Reference Manual

(2010) to be considered Significant Woodland Habitat (Refer to Appendix ‘D’ for Recommended Significant Woodland

Evaluation Criteria and Standards).

Schedule ‘B’ of the Township’s Official Plan identifies “Valley Lands” in the southwest and northwest corners of the

subject property (Figure 4). These areas are considered a significant feature on the subject property. They were

17



-

observed to be areas of lower topography adjacent to the water features present in the northwest and southwest

corners of the subject property (Figure 4).

4.5 Wildlife

The following section outlines the existing wildlife observations from the 2012 field surveys for the study area. Wildlife

species observed on the subject property were identified by sight and through direct evidence, including call,

footprints and scat.

The subject property is located in the St. Lawrence Lowlands Ecoregion within the Mixed Plains Ecozone (National

Ecological Framework for Canada, 1995). Characteristic wildlife within this Ecoregion includes: black bear, moose,

deer, wolf, hare, chipmunk, other small mammals, waterfowl, turtles, snakes and various bird species.

Mammal species observed during field surveys included: red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris), grey squirrel (Sciurus

carolinensis), porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum), groundhog (Marmota monax), meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus)

and beaver (Castor canadensis). Forested habitat present on the subject property would provide a wildlife corridor

between forested habitat to the east and west for these species, as well as other mammal species likely present, but

not observed during field surveys [e.g. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus)].

Amphibian species observed during field surveys included: Green Frog (Rana clamitans), Gray Treefrog (Hyla

versicolor) and American Toad (Bufo americanus). These species were also observed during the 2015 field surveys.

Habitat for amphibians was observed within Community 5 (vernal pools), in addition to the more permanent aquatic

habitats observed in Communities 7 and 8. No reptile species were observed on the subject property during either

the 2012 or 2015 field surveys.

Bird species observed during 2012 field surveys included: White-throated Sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis), White-

breasted Nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia), Yellow Warbler (Dendroica petechia),

American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), Common Yellowthroat

(Geothlypis trichas), American Robin (Turdus migratorius), Eastern Wood-Pewee, American Goldfinch (Carduelis

tristis), Eastern Phoebe (Sayornis phoebe), Black-capped Chickadee (Poecile atricapillus), Ovenbird (Seiurus

aurocapillus), Alder Flycatcher (Empidonax alnorum), Indigo Bunting (Passerina cyanea), Turkey Vulture (Cathartes

aura), Green Heron (Butorides virescens), Ring-billed Gull (Larus delawarensis), Brown Thrasher (Toxostoma rufum),

Blue Jay (Cyanocitta cristata), Merlin (Falco columbarius), Northern Waterthrush (Parkesia noveboracensis), Northern

Flicker (Colaptes auratus), Wood Thrush, Cedar Waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum), Yellow-bellied Sapsucker

(Sphyrapicus varius), Red-eyed Vireo (Vireo olivaceus), Raven (Corvus corax) and Belted Kingfisher (Megaceryle

alcyon).

Bird species observed during the 2015 field studies included: White-throated Sparrow, White-breasted Nuthatch,

Song Sparrow, Chestnut-sided Warbler (Setophaga pensylvanica), Magnolia Warbler (Setophaga magnolia), American

Crow, Red-winged Blackbird, Common Yellowthroat, American Robin, American Goldfinch, Eastern Phoebe, Black

Capped Chickadee, Ovenbird, Alder Flycatcher, Indigo Bunting, Turkey Vulture, Ring-billed Gull, Brown Thrasher, Blue

18



-

Jay, Northern Flicker, Cedar Waxwing, Red-eyed Vireo, Raven, Hairy Woodpecker (Leuconotopicus villosus), Pine

Warbler (Setophaga pinus), American Woodcock (Scolopax minor), Wilson’s Snipe (Gallinago delicata), Great Blue

Heron (Ardea herodias), Savanah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis), Ruby-throated Hummingbird (Archilochus

colubris), Veery (Catharus fuscescens) and Grey Catbird (Dumetella carolinensis).

Fisheries surveys were not completed on the subject property during the 2012 or 2015 field seasons. However, the

watercourses that flowed through Communities 7 and 8 in the northwest and southwest corners of the subject

property respectively, were observed to be permanent, and are likely fish-bearing (Figure 4). As tributaries of the

Ottawa River (8 km north of the subject property), these watercourses likely contain warmwater and coolwater fish

species, and have the potential to be of medium sensitivity.

4.6 Species at Risk

Species at risk observations were compiled over the course of the field visits to the subject property. During the 2012

field visits, no SAR were observed associated within or adjacent to the subject property. Despite apparent suitable

habitat (rock outcrops, open woodlands, openings in mature deciduous, coniferous and mixed forests), both the

Eastern Whip-poor-will and Common Nighthawk were absent during 2012 and 2015 targeted nocturnal field surveys.

Despite apparent suitable habitat (hayfields and other grasslands with tall vegetation), the Bobolink, Eastern

Meadowlark and Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) were absent from the subject property during

the 2012 and 2015 targeted surveys. Therefore, the subject property does not currently represent habitat for these

SAR.

The Golden-winged Warbler breeds in successional scrub habitats surrounded by forests, such as those found on the

subject property (Cadman et al., 2007). This species was not observed during the 2012 or 2015 field surveys. However,

appropriate habitat was observed to be present on the east side of the property within Community 6 (Figure 3).

Therefore, the subject property does not currently represent habitat for this SAR.

Habitat for the American Ginseng includes rich, moist, mature deciduous forest (ROM, 2008), such as that found in

some areas of Community 1 (Figure 3). Although appropriate habitat was found to be present, this species was not

observed on the subject property.

Barn Swallows typically build nests on human-made structures, such as ledges or walls, in or outside of barns or

bridges (Cadman et. al., 2007). Cliffs or caves were traditionally used as natural nest sites (Cadman et. al., 2007). The

subject property contained multiple farm outbuildings that would provide appropriate nesting habitat for the Barn

Swallow. No Barn Swallow nests were observed in, or outside, of these structures. The Barn Swallow is a threatened

species that receives species protection and general habitat protection under the ESA. The nests and eggs of the Barn

Swallow are also protected by the MBCA. No Barn Swallows or evidence of Barn Swallow nesting activity was observed

during the 2012 or 2015 field studies within subject property boundaries.

19



-

During the 2012 field visits, both the Eastern Wood-Pewee and Wood Thrush were observed within the subject

property. Since the submission of the original EIS document, these species have been designated as special concern

in Ontario, under the ESA. One of the goals of the 2015 site visits was to re-confirm the presence of these special

concern species within subject property boundaries. Although several site visits were conducted during the breeding

period for these species, neither the Eastern Wood-Pewee nor the Wood Thrush were observed (through visual

observation or through identification of calling males). Although the habitat of special concern species is considered

Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) in the Province of Ontario, the lack of observation of these species in 2015 indicates

that at present they are not currently a part of the avian community found within the subject property. Therefore,

significant habitat for these species does not currently exist within subject property boundaries. It is important to

keep in mind that populations of neo-tropic migrants, such as the Eastern Wood-Pewee and Wood Thrush, are prone

to fluctuations in both density and distribution. Both species are experiencing significant declines across their North

American range.

Habitat for the Common Snapping Turtle is variable and includes large waterbodies, in addition to small ponds

(MacCulloch, 2002). Although no Common Snapping Turtles were observed on the subject property during the 2012

or 2015 field surveys, appropriate habitat was observed within the open water of Communities 7 and 8, on the

northwest and southwest sides of the property (Figure 3). As a special concern species, the Common Snapping Turtle

and its habitat are not afforded protection under the ESA. However, the species is protected from harm under the

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997.

Habitat preferred by the Blanding’s turtle includes large marshes with shallow water, shallow lakes, and similar bodies

of water (MacCulloch, 2002). Although Blanding’s Turtles were not observed on the subject property during the 2012

or 2015 field surveys, appropriate habitat was observed in the open water of Communities 7 and 8, on the northwest

and southwest sides of the property (Figure 3). The Blanding’s Turtle is a threatened species that receives general

habitat protection in Ontario, as defined by the General Habitat Description for the species prepared by MNRF. The

species itself is currently protected from harm by the ESA. MNRF identified an occurrence of the Blanding’s Turtle

within 1 km of the subject property. This occurrence indicates that the subject property is located within the general

habitat of the species. Based on this element occurrence, and the provisions within the General Habitat Description,

Figure 5 outlines both Category 2 and 3 habitat found within subject property boundaries.

Although indicated by background research to potentially be found in the area, habitat for the following species was

not observed to be present on the subject property: Cerulean Warbler, Least Bittern, Black Tern, Bald Eagle, Chimney

Swift, Red-headed Woodpecker, Olive-sided Flycatcher or Canada Warbler. In addition, no butternuts were observed

growing on the subject property.

1

2 34

5

67

89 10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18192324

25

26

2728

38 37 36

2930

333231

STREET 'A'

3940

3534

22 21 20

HIGHWAY 17

CALABOGIE RD

ANDE

RSON

RD

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

LEGEND

H:\01

Proje

ct - P

ropos

als\20

12 Jo

bs\0P

P-12

-829 H

ughs

on_In

vesti

gatio

ns_G

lasgo

w Sta

tion\G

IS\Ma

ps an

d Figu

res\G

IS\PP

-12-82

90 - B

landin

gsTu

rtle.m

xd

REFERENCEPROJECTED IN NAD 1984 UTM ZONE 18N©COUNTY OF RENFREW, 2014©QUEEN'S PRINTER FOR ONTARIO, 2014

HWY 17ARNPRIOR

BRAESIDEGLASGOWSTATION

SUBDIVISIONLOCATION

CTY RD 63

McLEAN DR

CTY RD 2

LAC DES CHATS

LAKE MADAWASKA

QUEBEC

CTY RD 63

CATEGORY 2 HABITAT

CATEGORY 3 HABITAT

GLASGOW STATION SUBDIVISIONBLANDING'S TURTLE HABITAT

1APPENDIX:

VAN ORDER PROPERTIES LTD.

May 11, 2016SKCH

PP-12-8290

TITLE:

CLIENT:

PROJECT #

PROJECT:

DATEGISCHECKED

WATERCOURSE

WETLAND

WATERBODY

SUBDIVISION / LOT LINE

0 50 10025

METRESSCALE 1:2,750

h.lunn

Text Box

5

21



-

5.0 IMPACTS AND ASSESSMENT

This section outlines the potential impacts development of the subject property may have on the habitat and species

present within the study area.

5.1 Terrestrial

The subject property was moderately disturbed at the time of the 2012 and 2015 field surveys. The lands consisted

of forest, cultural meadow, treed rock barren and wetland habitat (Figure 3). Historic impacts to vegetation

composition and distribution were evident on the subject property through a history of agricultural practice, as well

as coniferous (red pine and white pine) plantations.

The Conceptual Site Plan Drawing prepared with the application for subdivision has been reviewed in preparation of

this EIS (Figure 2). The proposed development of 40 lots, for residential use, will result in the disturbance of the site

through removal of woody and herbaceous vegetation, and construction of buildings and associated infrastructure

(septic, driveway, etc.). Provided that mitigation recommended in this EIS, is adhered to and properly implemented,

the removal of habitat from all vegetation communities present on the subject property will have a localized impact

and will not cause a critical level of loss to these habitats in the surrounding area.

The property lies within a corridor of forested habitat that has been previously fragmented by Highway 17 and

Anderson Road. The forested habitat extends north of the property and southwest of the property. Very little forested

habitat exists east of the property. In order to maintain the integrity of the forested corridor, it is recommended that

as much woody vegetation as possible be maintained within each of the proposed lots and on the lot lines, particularly

those proposed on the west and east sides of the property where the most forested habitat is present (Figure 3). The

retention of vegetation will allow for local wildlife movement to continue in corridors throughout the proposed

development, with connection to the forested areas north and southwest of the subject property. In addition, it will

preserve the small amount of interior forested habitat that may be present. It should be noted that the majority of

forested habitat present within the subject property was observed to be coniferous plantation. This type of habitat is

not of natural origin and does not provide selective or rare habitat for species present in the area.

Consequently, it is recommended that the following proposed lots maintain a 30 m rear lot setback: 10 through 25,

inclusive. All vegetation within the 30 m rear lot setback should be retained in present condition, unless other

circumstances (i.e. safety concerns from windfall) require removal. It is recommended that building parcels and

clearing of understory be limited, and that an area of shrubby or early successional vegetation be planted along the

back of each building parcel, to allow for increased stem density. In addition, woody vegetation on lot lines should be

maintained and building envelopes and associated infrastructure, be restricted to approximately 1 hectare.

Maintaining a vegetated corridor will prevent negative impacts to wildlife and vegetation communities on the subject

property.

22



-

5.2 Significant Areas

Although the majority of forested habitat present on the subject property has been recommended by the MNRF to

be considered for classification as Significant Woodland Habitat, the 2012 field surveys conducted by McIntosh Perry

indicated that these areas consist of coniferous plantation. Coniferous plantation habitat does not fall under any of

the Significant Woodland Habitat criteria outlined within the Natural Heritage Reference Manual. Therefore, no

negative impacts would occur to Significant Woodland Habitat as a result of the proposed development.

The Valley Lands identified in Schedule ‘B’ of the Township’s Official Plan are located in the northwest and southwest

corners of the subject property (Figure 4). The Valley Lands within the southwest corner of the subject property will

be protected from any negative impacts due to the fact that they are located within the proposed 10.25 ha retained

area (Figure 2). The portion of Valley Lands within the northwest corner of the subject property, are adjacent to a

watercourse that is recommended to have a development setback of 30 m. Therefore, this area should also be

protected from negative impacts.

Although the Savanah Sparrow is an indicator of Open Country Bird Breeding habitat (a category of SWH) and the

Brown Thrasher is an indicator of Early Successional Bird Breeding Habitat (a category of SWH), the observations of

these species during the 2012 and 2015 field studies do not meet the requirements for either category of SWH (both

categories require two or more indicator species to be nesting, or exhibiting evidence of breeding to be considered

SWH). Although the Eastern Wood-Pewee and Wood Thrush are listed as special concern species under the ESA,

these species were only found to be present on the subject property during the 2012 field studies. They were absent

from the avian community during the 2015 field studies (even though habitat found on the subject property had not

changed between the 2012 and 2015 site visits). Based on SWH Ecoregion 5E Criterion Schedule, no portion of the

subject property represents SWH at the time this EIS document was updated.

5.3 Wildlife

Removal of trees and vegetation, as needed for the anticipated future construction of dwellings and associated

infrastructure, will result in the loss of forest-cover needed by forest-nesting species, such as the Ovenbird. Removal

of forest-cover may decrease the usable area available to forest-nesting species. It may also allow increased access to

this area, to species such as the Brown-headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater) and European Starling (Sturnella vulgaris).

An increase in presence of these species would in turn, increase the instances of nest parasitism and cavity nest site

competition.

Neither the Brown-headed Cowbird nor European Starling were observed to be present on the subject property during

the 2012 or 2015 field investigations. However, there is adequate open habitat present on the subject property, and

therefore it is likely these species are present. The presence of these species would be further encouraged if more

edge habitat were to be created through development. The Brown-headed Cowbird, specifically, is known to select

potential breeding sites based on the presence of edge habitat. Edge habitat provides higher densities of seedlings

and saplings, and consequently higher densities of edge nesting songbirds (Environment Canada, 2007). As the Brown-

23



-

headed Cowbird is attracted to urban areas which provide food resources and grass lawns, the limiting of cleared and

landscaped areas within each building parcel and replanting of woody shrub species to “soften” the abruptness of the

transition from human landscape (backyard) to forest habitat, will greatly reduce potential impacts of Brown-headed

Cowbird parasitism on forest-nesting birds. Although the creation of more edge habitat may influence the presence

of the Brown-headed Cowbird, the avian community may also benefit with the introduction of forest edge habitats

created by the clearing of forest. Species such as the Warbling Vireo (Vireo gilvus), which prefers such successional

habitats, will likely benefit from the opening of forest habitat. This species was not observed to be present on the

subject property during 2012 or 2015 field investigations, but is likely found in the surrounding area where more edge

habitat is present. Forested habitats adjacent north and southwest of the subject property, provide much larger

forested habitat that is more suitable for forest-nesting bird species.

An additional impact that is likely to occur as a result of the proposed development, is the introduction of household

pets into the remaining habitat. The introduction of unnatural predators, such as house cats, to the landscape, may

negatively impact both bird communities and small mammal numbers.

As noted above, removal of vegetation on the subject property will cause some alteration to the forested wildlife

corridor present mainly on the subject property. By maintaining rear lot setbacks of 30 m, on the following proposed

lots – 10 through 25, inclusive - a corridor will continue to be provided for wildlife travelling through the subject

property. In addition, building envelopes and septic on these lots, should be restricted to approximately 1 hectare, in

order to maintain as much vegetation as possible.

5.4 Fish and Fish Habitat

Fisheries Habitat may be located within the watercourses present in the southwest and northwest corners of the

subject property (Figure 4). No negative impacts will occur to fish or fish habitat due to the fact that the watercourse

present in the southwest corner of the subject property is located within the proposed 10.25 ha retained area, and

the watercourse present in the northwest corner of the subject property will have a 30 m development setback.

5.5 Species at Risk and their Habitat

Background research revealed the potential presence for 19 SAR within the general vicinity of the subject property.

However, only habitat for 11 SAR was observed within subject property boundaries. No SAR were observed during

the 2015 field surveys, despite concerted efforts. During the 2012 surveys the Eastern Wood-Pewee and Wood Thrush

were observed on the subject property. However, they were not observed within property boundaries (or adjacent),

in 2015.

Although habitat for the American Ginseng and Butternut was observed, no specimens of these species were observed

to be present on the subject property during field investigations. Therefore, it is unlikely that these species are

present. If they are observed during construction, MNRF should be contacted for further instruction.

24



-

Targeted Whip-poor-will, Common Nighthawk, Grasshopper Sparrow, Eastern Meadowlark and Bobolink surveys

were conducted, during which the species were not observed. Therefore, it can be concluded that the species were

not utilizing the subject property for breeding purposes. The targeted Bobolink/Eastern Meadowlark surveys were

conducted at time that would have been appropriate for observing the Golden-winged Warbler, Eastern Wood-Pewee

and Wood Thrush. These species was not observed during the surveys. Therefore, it can be concluded they were not

utilizing the subject property for breeding purposes during the 2015 field season. Barn Swallows typically nest only

on man-made structures. No nests of this species were observed on or inside of the structures present on the subject

property during either the 2012 or 2015 field surveys. Therefore, it can be concluded that this species did not utilize

the subject property for breeding purposes in either 2012 or 2015. If any SAR bird species are observed on the subject

property during construction, MNRF should be contacted for further instruction.

Habitat for the Snapping Turtle is mainly confined to aquatic areas, although they can travel some amount, looking

for nest sites, during the breeding season (May – September). The aquatic areas, and 30 m adjacent to these areas,

are proposed to be protected. As a special concern species, the Snapping Turtle and its habitat are not protected

under the ESA. The species itself, however, is protected from harm under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997.

Negative impacts to this species are not anticipated due to the fact that the majority of their habitat is not part of the

proposed development.

MNRF identified an occurrence of the Blanding’s Turtle within 1 km of the subject property. Therefore, given the

provisions within the General Habitat Description for the Blanding’s Turtle, Category 2 and 3 habitat is assumed to be

present on the subject property (Figure 5).

Category 2 Blanding’s Turtle habitat is defined in the General Habitat Description for Blanding’s Turtle as “the wetland

complex that extends up to 2 km from an occurrence and 30 m around these suitable

wetlands/waterbodies…Blanding’s Turtles depend on these wetlands and the surrounding habitat throughout their

home range for life processes including feeding, mating, thermoregulation, movement, and protection from

predators”. The open water of Communities 7 and 8, on the northwest and southwest sides of the property, and the

corresponding 30 m buffer around these areas, have been identified as Category 2 Blanding’s Turtle habitat (Figures

3 & 5). No activities associated with the proposed development are anticipated to occur within any of the identified

Category 2 habitat (Figure 5).

Category 3 habitat is defined in the General Habitat Description for Blanding’s Turtle as “the area between 30 m and

250 m around suitable Category 2 wetlands/waterbodies…Blanding’s Turtles depend on these areas as movement

corridors between wetlands, which are essential for carrying out life processes associated with Category 1 and 2

habitats”. The proposed access road to the subdivision, as shown on Figure 5, is located within Category 3 habitat.

The road also lies directly between the two parcels of Category 2 habitat present on the subject property. The road

can only be located where it is currently proposed, with access to Anderson Road. The location of the road may impact

turtles travelling overland, between the two parcels of Category 2 habitat. In addition, the access road would have

increased traffic volume compared to the traffic that currently travels on the present laneway used to access the

25



-

single-family residence. Mitigation measures that could be implemented to decrease negative impacts to turtles on

the proposed road could include:

implementing lower speed limits;

signage;

a migration culvert placed under the road to encourage turtles to travel under, rather than over, the road; and

permanent fencing to exclude turtles from the roadway.

Due to the anticipated potential to negatively impact Category 3 habitat, it is recommended that all provincial

requirements, relating to this habitat, must be fulfilled prior to any site alteration and final subdivision approval by

the municipality. Provincial requirements may include obtaining an Overall Benefit Permit from the MNRF. This option

should be investigated further through correspondence with the MNRF – Pembroke District.

Based on the current proposed plans for the subject property, and the fact that field surveys were conducted at an

appropriate time of year to observe the SAR with potential habitat on the subject property, no negative impacts to

the majority of these species are anticipated. Provided the mitigation measures noted below are properly

implemented, and further correspondence with the MNRF takes place, with regards to an Overall benefit Permit for

Blanding’s Turtle, it is anticipated that the development will not generate major negative impacts to protected

species, or their habitat.

It is important to note that SAR protection in Ontario is constantly changing. Species may be added or removed from

formal protection in the province based on their assessment or re-assessment periodically. Therefore, in the event

that new species are listed or increased habitat protection is afforded to currently listed species, additional studies or

consultation with the MNRF may be required.

5.6 Identifying Cumulative Impacts

Use of land on properties adjacent to the subject property is primarily agricultural or rural residential. There will be

no cumulative environmental impacts to these areas due to the fact that the open farmland southeast and northwest

of the subject property is of limited use to wildlife and does not provide connectivity with forested areas to the north

and southwest. Maintaining connectivity to the forested areas north and southwest of the proposed development

should be of primary concern given the fact that these areas are already previously fragmented by Highway 17 and

Anderson Road. By retaining as much forest cover as is feasible within the proposed development and prescribing

rear lot setbacks, the integrity of the forested wildlife corridor and forested wildlife habitat (including interior habitat)

will be maintained.

There are also two waterbodies present on the subject property; one in the northwest corner and one in the

southwest corner (Figure 4). A watercourse runs through the waterbody in the southwest corner of the subject

property. This area will be included in a 10.25 ha retained area (Figure 2) and will not be affected by the development.

The waterbody present in the northwest corner of the subject property is within proposed lot 25 (Figure 2). It is likely

26



-

this waterbody is fisheries habitat. Therefore, it will be necessary to maintain a development setback of 30 m from

the waterbody in order to maintain aquatic habitat function. This will aid in the maintenance of the wildlife corridor.

27



-

6.0 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION

In order to minimize or eliminate environmental impacts and to help achieve ecological and environmental

improvements from the proposed construction and development, the following mitigation measures are

recommended:

As Category 3 Blanding’s Turtle habitat is present within the subject property, impacts to this species and its

habitat must be addressed through an Overall Benefit Permit as no exemptions for this type of development

of for this species exist under O.reg 242/08. An Overall benefit Permit must be secured prior to site alteration

which would negatively impact the species. Overall benefit may be achieved through the following though

other options may also be considered:

o Implement lower speed limits on the proposed access road.

o Signage on the proposed access road to warn drivers of the presence of turtles in the area.

o A migration culvert could be placed under the proposed access road to encourage turtles to travel

under, rather than over, the road.

o Permanent exclusionary turtle fencing to exclude turtles from the proposed access road.

Retain as much natural vegetation as possible, which includes preventing impacts to tree root systems.

Removal of vegetation should be kept to the minimum required in order to develop the site.

Maintain 30 m rear lot setbacks and retain all vegetation within the setback areas for the following proposed

lots: 10 through 25, inclusive.

Building envelopes on proposed lots 10 through 25, inclusive, and septic on these lots, should be restricted

to approximately 1 hectare, in order to maintain as much vegetation as possible.

Maintain a 30 m development setback from the waterbody present within proposed lot 25.

Potential windfall damage from clearing activity should be kept in mind and remediation of such damage be

conducted when necessary.

Retain woody vegetation on lot lines, especially on proposed lots 10 through 25, inclusive.

Replanting of a “soft” edge comprised of woody shrub species is recommended to reinforce transition of all

cleared areas to forested habitat.

Native woody vegetation planted within areas identified on Figure 4 in the “retained” 10.25 ha portion of the

subject property (retained parcel).

28



-

No removal of woody vegetation should take place between April 15 and August 15 of any year to protect

nesting migratory birds.

If the farm buildings are to be removed during the breeding season of migratory birds (April 15 to August 15),

an avian specialist should be retained in order to confirm that no active nests (in particular, Barn Swallow

nests) are present within the farm buildings prior to their removal. If Barn Swallows are observed nesting

within the structures, appropriate actions should be undertaken in accordance with the ESA to ensure Barn

Swallows and their habitat are protected (e.g. registration of activity under ESA exemption O.reg. 242/08)

Should any SAR be observed during construction, the Pembroke District MNRF office should be contacted

immediately for advice.

Landowners should be provided with information packages conveying the importance of forested areas and

their role in the natural function of the surrounding landscape.

No development should occur within the designated Valley Lands.

29



-

7.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The subject property is located in the Township of McNab/Braeside, County of Renfrew, with frontage on Anderson

Road. The proponent is currently reviewing the feasibility of pursuing a residential plan of subdivision within the

subject lands (Figure 2).

The terrestrial natural features of this site will not be significantly affected if the planned subdivision development

retains the maximum amount of forested cover possible. Provided the 30 m rear lot setbacks are in place on proposed

lots 10 through 25, inclusive, interior forest habitat will remain within the wooded area and wildlife corridor linkages

will be maintained. This will ensure the integrity and quality of the forested habitat on and adjacent to the subject

property.

The integrity of the aquatic natural features (wetlands, waterbody and watercourse) of the subject property will

remain intact provided that a 30 m development setback from the waterbody within proposed lot 25 is maintained,

and that land within 30 m of the waterbody within the 10.25 ha retained portion of the property is not developed.

These measures will protect the aquatic features and maintain their natural functions and aquatic linkage. The Valley

Lands identified in Schedule ‘B’ of the municipality’s Official Plan are located adjacent to the identified aquatic

features. Due to their close proximity to the aquatic features, they will also benefit from the implementation of the

aforementioned protection measures.

Background research revealed the potential for SAR and their habitat to occur with the vicinity of the subject property.

Based on field investigations appropriate habitat for the following species was not observed on the subject property:

Cerulean Warbler, Least Bittern, Black Tern, Bald Eagle, Chimney Swift, Red-headed Woodpecker, Olive-sided

Flycatcher and Canada Warbler. Therefore, negative impacts are not anticipated to these species, as a result of the

proposed development.

Habitat present within the subject property was observed to be suitable for the life processes of the following: Eastern

Whip-poor-will, Barn Swallow, Golden-winged Warbler, Bobolink, Grasshopper Sparrow, Wood Thrush, Eastern

Wood-Pewee, Common Nighthawk, Eastern Meadowlark, Butternut, American Ginseng, Blanding’s Turtle and

Common Snapping Turtle. However, due to a lack of observations during targeted field surveys, the following species

are not expected to utilize or be found within subject property boundaries: Eastern Whip-poor-will, Barn Swallow,

Golden-winged Warbler, Bobolink, Grasshopper Sparrow, Wood Thrush, Eastern Wood-Pewee, Common Nighthawk,

Eastern Meadowlark, Butternut and American Ginseng. Therefore, negative impacts to these species as a result of the

proposed development, are not anticipated.

The Common Snapping Turtle is expected to be present within Communities 7 and 8 (Figure 3) on the subject property.

However, these areas are not proposed for development. Therefore, impacts to this species are not anticipated.

Provided the mitigation measures noted in Section 6.0 are properly implemented, and further correspondence with

the MNRF takes place, with regards to an Overall benefit Permit for Blanding’s Turtle, it is anticipated that the

development will not generate major negative impacts to protected species, or their habitat.

30



-

This EIS has taken into consideration the potential impacts of development as anticipated in the Conceptual Site Plan

Design (Figure 2). If mitigation measures outlined, and recommendations made in this report (i.e. Overall Benefit

Permit for Blanding’s Turtle), are followed, no short-term or long-term negative impacts are anticipated to occur to

identified natural features or their ecological functions. It is noted that the above-described recommendations should

be implemented through a review of the proposal and the subject lands. It is believed that there is ample opportunity

to achieve net environmental gain through the use of environmental controls and sound site planning and engineering

design.

31



-

8.0 REFERENCES

Cadman, M.D., D.A. Sutherland, G.G. Beck, D. Lepage, and A.R. Couturier (eds.). 2007. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of

Ontario, 2001-2005. Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Field Ornithologists, Ontario ministry of

Natural Resources, and Ontario Nature, Toronto, xxii+706 pp.

Ecological Stratification Working Group (1996) A National Ecological Framework for Canada. Agriculture and Agri-Food

Canada, Research Branch, Centre for Land and Biological Resources Research, and Environment Canada. State of the

Environment Directorate; Ecozone Analysis Branch, Ottawa/Hull.

Endangered Species Act, 2007, S.O. 2007, c. 6

Environment Canada. Area-sensitive Forest Birds in Urban Areas. 2007.

http://www.ec.gc.ca/Publications/4742609E-9464-4C88-BB15-

D88636108EB7/AreaSensitiveForestBirdsInUrbanAreas.pdf

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 41

Gillespie, J.E., R.E. Wicklund, B.C. Matthews. 1964. Soil Survey of Renfrew County Report No. 37 of the Ontario Soil

Survey. Guelph, Ontario: Canada Department of Agriculture and Ontario Agricultural College.

Konze, Karl and McLaren, Margaret. 1997. Wildlife Monitoring Programs and Inventory Techniques for Ontario.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Northeast Science and Technology. Technical Manual TM-009. 139 pp.

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

Classification for Southern Ontario. First Approximation and It’s Application. Ministry of Natural Resource.

MacCulloch, R.D. 2002. The ROM Field Guide to Amphibians and Reptiles of Ontario. Toronto: Royal Ontario

Museum and McClelland & Steward Ltd.

Migratory Birds Convention Act 1994, SC 1994, c. 22

Ministry of Natural Resources. 2009. Chimney Swift Fact Sheet. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

Natural Heritage Information Centre (2012) Biodiversity Explorer Species at Risk Element Occurrence Records.

https://www.biodiversityexplorer.mnr.gov.on.ca/nhicWEB/mainSubmit.do

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. March 2010. Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Natural Heritage Policies

of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005. Second Edition. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 248 pp.

https://www.biodiversityexplorer.mnr.gov.on.ca/nhicWEB/mainSubmit.do

32



-

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2000. Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide. 151p. Queen’s Printer for

Ontario, Ontario Canada.

Provincial Policy Statement. 2014. Toronto: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

ROM. 2008 & 2009. Species at risk website

http://www.rom.on.ca/ontario/risk.php?doc_type=fact&lang=&id=298P

Township of McNab/Braeside. Official Plan. 2009.

Township of McNab/Braeside. Zoning By-law No. 2010-49.

http://www.rom.on.ca/ontario/risk.php?doc_type=fact&lang=&id=298P

33



-

9.0 LIMITATIONS

The investigations undertaken by McIntosh Perry with respect to this report and any conclusions or recommendations

made in this report reflect McIntosh Perry’s judgment based on the site conditions observed at the time of the site

inspections on the dates set out in this report and on information available at the time of the preparation of this

report.

This report has been prepared for specific application to this site and it is based, in part, upon visual observation of

the site, and terrestrial and aquatic investigations at various locations during a specific time interval, as described in

this report. Unless otherwise stated, the findings cannot be extended to previous or future site conditions, or portions

of the site which were unavailable for direct investigation.

If site conditions or applicable standards change or if any additional information becomes available at a future date,

modifications to the findings, conclusions and recommendations in this report may be necessary.

If you have any question, comments, or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at McIntosh

Perry at 613-267-6524 (Ext. 213).

Sincerely, McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineers Ltd.

___________________________ Jeffrey King B.Sc. C. Tech. Senior Biologist __________________________ Heather Lunn B.A. Terrestrial Ecologist



Appendix A – Photographs



Photo 1: Community 2 - White Pine/Red Pine Coniferous Plantation Type (CUP3-2), July 19, 2012.

Photo 2: Community 2 – White Pine/Red Pine Coniferous Plantation Type (CUP3-2), June 7, 2012.



Photo 3: Community 3 – Treed Rock Barren (RBT), June 7, 2012.

Photo 4: Community 3 – Treed Rock Barren (RBT), June 7, 2012.



Photo 5: Community 4 – Dry-Fresh White Pine – Maple – Oak – Mixed Forest Ecosite (SWC1), July 19, 2012.

Photo 6: Community 4 – Dry-Fresh White Pine – Maple – Oak – Mixed Forest Ecosite (SWC1), July 19, 2012.



Photo 7: Community 5 – White Cedar Mineral Coniferous Swamp Ecosite (SWC1), June 7, 2012.

Photo 8: Community 5 – White Cedar Mineral Coniferous Swamp Ecosite (SWC1), June 7, 2012.



Photo 9: Community 6 – Dry-Moist Old Field Meadow Type (CUM1-1), June 22, 2012.

Photo 10: Community 6 – Dry-Moist Old Field Meadow Type (CUM1-1), June 7, 2012.



Photo 11: Community 7 – Mineral Deciduous Swamp Ecosite (SWD4), June 7, 2012.

Photo 12: Community 7 – Mineral Deciduous Swamp Ecosite (SWD4), July 19, 2012.



Photo 13: Community 8 – Willow Mineral Thicket Swamp Type (SWT2-1)

Photo 14: Community 8 – Willow Mineral Thicket Swamp Type (SWT2-1), June 7, 2012.



Appendix B – Species Lists



Mammal Species Observed

Common Name Latin Name Black bear Ursus americanus

Grey squirrel Sciurus carolinensis

Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum

Red squirrel Sciurus vulgaris

Beaver Castor canadensis

Amphibian Species Observed

Common Name Latin Name Green Frog Rana clamitans

American Toad Bufo americanus

Gray Treefrog Hyla versicolor

Bird Species Observed

Common Name Latin Name White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis

White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis

Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia

Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia

American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos

Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus

Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas

American Robin Turdus migratorius

Eastern Wood Pewee Contopus virens

American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis

Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe

Black Capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus

Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus

Alder Flycatcher Empidonax alnorum

Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea

Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura

Green Heron Butorides virescens

Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis

Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum

Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata

Merlin Falco columbarius

Northern Waterthrush Parkesia noveboracensis

Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus

Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina

Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius

Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus

Raven Corvus corax

Belted Kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon



Vegetation Species Observed:

Vegetation Communities:

Common Name

Latin Name 1 - Deciduous Forest

2 - Pine Plantation

3 - Treed Rock Barren

4 - White Pine – Maple – Oak Mixed Forest

5 - White Cedar Swamp

6 – Old Field Meadow Type

7 – Deciduous Swamp

8 – Willow Thicket Swamp

Red maple Acer rubrum X X X

Red Pine Pinus resinosa X X X X

White birch

Betula papyrifera

X X X X X

White oak Quercus alba X X

Eastern white cedar

Thuja occidentalis

X X X X X

American elm

Ulmus americana

X X X X

White pine Pinus strobus X X X X X

Ironwood Ostrya virginiana

X

Bur oak Quercus macrocarpa

X X

Trembling aspen

Populus tremuloides

X X

White spruce

Picea glauca X X X

Balsam poplar

Populus balsamifera

X X

Green ash Fraxinus pensylvanica

X X X X X

Red oak Quercus rubra X X X X





Common Name


2 - Pine Plantation







Yellow birch

Betula allegheniensis

X

Basswood Tilia americana X X

Sugar maple

Acer saccharum

X X X X

Scots pine Pinus sylvestris X X

Black locust

Robinia pseudoacacia

X

Rock elm Ulmus thomasii X

Tamarack Larix laricina X

Red osier dogwood

Cornus sericea X

Narrow-leaved meadowsweet

Spiraea alba X X X X X

Speckled alder

Alnus incana X

Riverbank grape

Vitis riparia X X X X X

Red raspberry

Rubus idaeus X X X X X

Juneberry Amelanchier spp.

X

Shrub willow spp.

Salix spp. X X X





Common Name


2 - Pine Plantation







Staghorn sumac

Rhus typhina X X X

Tartarian honeysuckle

Lonicera tartaria

X X X

Wild blackberry

Rubus fruiticosus

X

Virgin’s bower

Clematis virginiana

X

Virginia creeper

Parthenocissus quinquefolia

X X X

Round-leaved dogwood

Cornus rugosa X

Pin cherry Prunus pensylvanica

X X X

Poison ivy Toxicodendron radicans

X X X X X

Spreading dogbane

Apocynum androsaemifolium

X X X X

Partridge berry

Mitchella repens

X

Common elderberry

Sambucus nigra

X X

Common juniper

Juniperus communis

X X X X





Common Name


2 - Pine Plantation







Prickly ash Xanthophylum americanum

X X

Lilac Syringa vulgaris X

Nannyberry

Viburnum lentago

X

Hawthorn spp.

Crataegus spp. X X

Sensitive fern

Onoclea sensibilis

X X X X

Sedge spp. Carex spp. X X

Lady fern Athyrium filix-femina

X

Wool grass Scirpus cyperinus

X X

Marsh fern Thelypteris palustris

X X

Soft rush Juncus effusus X

Ostrich fern

Matteuccia struthiopteris

X X

Royal fern Osmunda regalis

X

Hardstem bulrush

Schoenoplectus acutus

X

Bracken fern

Pteridium aquilinum

X

Giant burreed

Sparganium eurycarpum

X





Common Name


2 - Pine Plantation







Marginal woodfern

Dryopteris marginalis

X X X

Horsetail spp.

Equisetum spp. X

Purple loosestrife

Lythrum salicaria

X

Boneset Eupatorium perforatum

X X

Broad-leaved cattail

Typhus latifolia X X

Colt’s foot Tussilago farfara

X

Veronica speedwell

Veronica spp. X

Spotted jewelweed

Impatiens capensis

X

Water hemlock

Cicuta maculata

X

Beggar’s ticks

Bidens spp. X

Wild mint Mentha arvensis

X X

Common Mullein

Verbascum thapsus

X

Northern bugleweed

Lycopus uniflorus

X





Common Name


2 - Pine Plantation







Common water plantain

Alisma Plantago

X

Blue vervain

Verbena hastata

X X

Common milkweed

Asclepias syriaca

X X

Thimbleweed

Anemone cylindrica

X X

Canada goldenrod

Solidago canadensis

X X

Philadelphia fleabane

Erigeron philadelphicus

X X

Tall buttercup

Ranunculus acris

X X

Bittersweet nightshade

Solanum dulcamara

X

Star flower Trientalis borealis

X X

Canada mayflower

Maianthemum canadensis

X X X

Panicled aster

Symphyotrichum lanceolatum

X

Joe-pye weed

Eupatorium maculatum

X





Common Name


2 - Pine Plantation







Hairy goldenrod

Solidago hispida

X

Enchanter’s nightshade

Circaea lutetiana

X X X

King devil hawkweed

Hieracium caespitosum

X

Orange hawkweed

Pilosella aurantiaca

X X

Toadflax Linaria vulgaris X X

Clammy ground cherry

Physalis heterophylla

X

Cow vetch Vicia cracca X X

Wormseed mustard

Erysimum cheiranthoides

X

Bladder campion

Silene vulgaris X

Bird’s foot trefoil

Lotus corniculatus

X

Queen Anne’s lace

Daucus carota X

Grass-leaved goldenrod

Euthamia graminifolia

X





Common Name


2 - Pine Plantation







Yarrow Achillea millefolium

X X

New England aster

Symphyotrichum novae-angliae

X X

Hop’s clover

Trifolium agrarium

X

Asparagus Asparagus officinalis

X

Silvery cinquefoil

Potentilla argentea

X X

Wild strawberry

Fragaria vesca X X X

Blue-stem goldenrod

Solidago caesia X

Evening primrose

Oenothera macrocarpa

X

Brown-eyed Susan

Rudbeckia trilobia

X

St. John’s wort

Hypericum perforatum

X



Appendix C – Correspondence

“To serve you better, please call ahead to make an appointment with our staff”

Ministry of Ministère des Natural Resources and Forestry Richesses naturelles et des Forêts 31 Riverside Drive Pembroke, ON Telephone: (613) 732-3661 K8A 8R6 Facsimile: (613) 732-2972

August 22, 2014 Township of McNab/Braeside 2508 Russett Drive Arnprior, ON K7S 3G8 Attention: Lindsey Parkes, Deputy Clerk Dear Ms. Parkes: RE: Proposed Official Plan Amendment (OPA 6) Part Lot 19, Concession 7, located on Anderson Road (County Rd. 63) MNR File No. 423-MCN-MPR

Further to your circulation dated July 31, 2014, please be advised that MNRF has reviewed the available information including the Aggregate Resources Assessment (October 2012) prepared by McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineers and the Environmental Impact Statement (December 2012) also prepared by McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineers.

MNRF Comments regarding the Aggregate Resources Assessment (October 2012): It was noted that deposit volumes were calculated from the depth of the test pits which does not represent the depth of the resource deposit for areas where bedrock was not encountered (area 1 and 2). However, MNRF has no concerns from an aggregates perspective with this proposed application for the following reasons:

There are a number of constraints to licence this site, including; streams/wetland features along the south-east and north-west boundary, some residential developments on adjacent lands (within the zone of influence), the existing pipeline through the property and bedrock outcrops through area 3.

Overall the quality of the material on site is lower grade aggregate (clay and sand – with limited gravel potential). There are no significant bedrock deposits mapped for this site location.

The majority of the material will be utilized for the development of the site and will not be sterilized.

There are minimal off-site effects to the remainder of the deposit.

MNRF Comments regarding the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS, December 2012):

MNRF has found the EIS to be incomplete in several areas:

Eastern Wood Pewee and Wood Thrush have been added to the SARO list since the EIS has been written. Status for both is Special Concern. Significant Wildlife Habitat needs to be addressed for these species.

Page 2 of 4

The EIS does not indicate whether Blanding’s Turtle surveys were completed, and if they followed MNRF protocol. The report speaks to amphibian surveys (and Marsh Monitoring Protocol) (no section for reptile surveys), but does not specifically refer to Blanding’s surveys. There is an occurrence of Blanding’s Turtle within 1 km of the property, and habitat is present both on and immediately adjacent to the property. Blanding’s Turtle survey, following protocol, is required for this project.

Further to the recommended mitigation in section 6.0 regarding Barn Swallow: If the farm buildings are to be removed during the breeding season of migratory birds (April 15th to August 15th), an avian specialist should be retained in order to confirm that no active nests (in particular, Barn Swallow nests) are present within the farm buildings prior to their removal. If a barn swallow nest is located, the proponent must follow the rules in regulation: https://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/alter-structure-habitat-barn-swallow

Should Bobolink and Eastern Meadowlark be detected prior to development, please refer to the rules in regulation to determine if the project is eligible for the registry process, or if an ESA authorization is required: https://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/bobolink-and-eastern-meadowlark-habitats-and-land-development

Standard exclusion fencing should be erected around building site, focussing on the lots adjacent to the wetlands/watercourses, to prevent turtles from entering the work site and nesting on exposed aggregate.

No development or site alteration is permitted in habitat of endangered and threatened species in accordance with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS, 2014) unless an exception is authorized by legislation and policies administered by the provincial government or federal government, where applicable, for the purpose of protecting species at risk and their habitat. There are four potential options that can be pursued to allow development to proceed.

1) Delineate the extent of species at risk habitat and demonstrate that there will be no impacts by the proposed development as proposed.

2) Modify the proposed development to avoid impacts to the species and/or habitat. 3) Obtain an exception to the Planning Act by registering the activity under regulation of

the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA). 4) Obtain an exception to the Planning Act through a permit authorization under the ESA.

1) Delineate the extent of species at risk habitat and demonstrate that there will be no impacts by the proposed development as proposed. The role of MNRF is to approve the habitat once it has been confirmed and delineated for the subject property. MNRF has insufficient information at this time to approve the habitat as delineated in the 2012 EIS as submitted. In advance of the Township of McNab/Braeside issuing any approval for development under the Planning Act, it is recommended that the existence and extent of habitat be delineated by a qualified professional and approved by MNRF and this delineation shows that there will be no impacts by the development as proposed. Prior to undertaking further studies to determine the extent of habitat and thereby inform a Planning Act decision, the qualified professional should contact Jeremy Jones, District Resources Management Supervisor at [email protected] for technical advice in

https://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/alter-structure-habitat-barn-swallow

https://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/alter-structure-habitat-barn-swallow

https://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/bobolink-and-eastern-meadowlark-habitats-and-land-development


Page 3 of 4

scoping the work. The resultant study should be sent by the Township to MNRF for approval of the habitat delineation. If the study provides sufficient information, MNRF may be able to advise that the proposed activity is not likely to contravene the ESA or an authorization, as described in options 3 or 4 is recommended. Also, the study may inform the proponent of steps that can be taken to avoid impacts to the species and/or habitat as described in option 2. 2) Modify the proposed development to avoid impacts to the species and/or habitat. The role of MNRF is to approve the habitat once it has been confirmed and delineated for the subject property. MNRF has insufficient information at this time to approve the habitat as delineated in the EIS as submitted. In advance of the Township of McNab/Braeside issuing any approval for development under the Planning Act, it is recommended that the existence and extent of habitat be delineated by a qualified professional and approved by MNRF and this delineation shows that there will be no impacts by the development as proposed. Prior to undertaking further studies to determine the extent of habitat and thereby inform a Planning Act decision, the qualified professional should contact Jeremy Jones, District Resources Management Supervisor at [email protected] for technical advice in scoping the work. The resultant study should be sent by the Township to MNRF for approval of the habitat delineation. Once the habitat is confirmed and the delineation is approved by MNRF then the proponent may be able to take steps to modify the activity to avoid impact to the species and/or habitat. If the study provides sufficient information, MNRF may be able to advise that the modification of the proposed activity is not likely to contravene the ESA. 3) Obtain an exception to the Planning Act by registering the activity under regulation of the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA). Determine if the development activity is eligible to proceed without a permit provided that regulatory conditions that ensure the ongoing protection of the species at risk and their habitats are met. Regulatory conditions are dependent upon the type of species and habitat that are impacted and the type of activity and development that will occur. The website ontario.ca/speciesatrisk will help the proponent and/or qualified professional to determine if the proposed development qualifies for the registry process. If the proposed development meets the eligibility requirements for exemption under Ontario Regulation 242/08 (http://www.search.e-laws.gov.on.ca/en/isysquery/c1cc2b60-0f07-406c-a040-c799ca8a6dd2/3/doc/?search=browseStatutes&context=#hit1), then proceed with the registration process at: https://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/bobolink-and-eastern-meadowlark-habitats-and-land-development and fulfill the requirements of this type of authorization.

http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/species-risk

http://www.search.e-laws.gov.on.ca/en/isysquery/c1cc2b60-0f07-406c-a040-c799ca8a6dd2/3/doc/?search=browseStatutes&context=#hit1

http://www.search.e-laws.gov.on.ca/en/isysquery/c1cc2b60-0f07-406c-a040-c799ca8a6dd2/3/doc/?search=browseStatutes&context=#hit1



Page 4 of 4

4) Obtain an exception to the Planning Act through a permit authorization under the ESA. Pursue an ESA permit authorization. The following link will inform the proponent of the process involved for the permit approval process http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/endangered-species-act-overall-benefit-permits. The proponent owner and/or qualified professional should contact Karen Handford, District Resources Operations Supervisor at [email protected] to initiate the application process. It is important that the ESA permit application process is coordinated with the Township of McNab/Braeside Planning Act application process. Our office will submit the completed application to the Minister for consideration once written notification is received from the Township that confirms the Planning Act application has proceeded far enough into the approval process that the Planning Act application will be approved. This will provide assurance to the Minister to have a sufficient degree of certainty that the activity will proceed, and that it will proceed within the parameters identified in the conditions and appendices of the draft permit. If an ESA permit is approved by the Minister this will thereby authorize an exception to the Planning Act in accordance with the Provincial Policy Statement 2014 for the purpose of protecting species at risk and their habitat. Sincerely,

Karen Handford Resources Operations Supervisor Pembroke District [email protected] 613-732-5510 c. Damien Schaefer, MAH Planner, via email

http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/endangered-species-act-overall-benefit-permits

http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/endangered-species-act-overall-benefit-permits

mailto:[email protected]

1

Heather Lunn

From: Gaweda, Joanna (MNR) <[email protected]>Sent: September-14-12 3:43 PMTo: Heather LunnSubject: MNR file 235 MCN IRAttachments: Information request form.pdf; PembrokeSARList_29Feb.2012.pdf

Follow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Completed

Heather, In response to the below Species at Risk (SAR) / sensitive habitat inquiry, based on review of imagery and other records, MNR offers the following: MNR confirms that there are no known SAR occurrences on the parcel. This does not imply the features are not present, just that MNR does not have occurrence information for the site. Note that gaps in information are significant for private land. Based on imagery interpretation, there are a number of features that possibly contain significant habitat for SAR, namely: a) Field/Barn on property has high probability of providing habitat for Eastern Meadowlark, Bobolink, Barn Swallow b) Wetlands have high probability of providing habitat for Blanding's turtle, snapping turtle c) Wooded areas have high probability of providing habitat for whip-poor-will, and containing Butternut and American Ginseng. Please review the information in the attached SAR list for Renfrew County, which provides that status for the above mentioned species. Please consider that some of the above features and species have specialized habitats. Field work to assess for these species and features requires specific surveys, methods and timing of work. Additional to SAR, we offer: The image below shows the extent of recommended significant woodland habitat for the area (see bright green on top of imagery). The modeling was undertaken by MNR in 2011. Note that the wooded portions of the property contain woodlands that provide a number of ecologic functions or satisfy a number of ecological criteria as per second image below (for instance the red area satisfies 5 criteria, purple 4, green 1 and so on). If you require more information in regards to the woodlands significance, please let me know. Please refer to the OMNR Natural Heritage Reference Manual and Official Plan when considering the woodlands feature. For future reference, we strongly encourage that you contact MNR prior to undertaking field surveys, specifically for SAR, such that we can assist in planning and scoping of surveys to optimize timing and resources spent. If you require additional information or guidance with respect to the species or surveys, please contact Lauren Kruschenske, SAR Biologist, of this office at 6130732-5568. Otherwise contact myself at [email protected] Thanks Heather, Joanna Gaweda

2

4

5

From: Heather Lunn [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: August 27, 2012 11:02 AM To: Gaweda, Joanna (MNR) Subject: RE: Information request Hi Joanna, I didn’t realize your district had a form! Thanks for sending it to me. Please see attached for the completed form and site location map. Thanks, Heather Heather C. Lunn Terrestrial Ecologist McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineers Ltd.

From: Gaweda, Joanna (MNR) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: August-23-12 3:25 PM To: Heather Lunn Subject: RE: Information request Heather, please note the attached form. We do need this filled out to process your request. Also it would be helpful if you could indicate what type of proposal or process is this impact statement associated with. Eg. Residential, pit quarry, MTO project, Then we can begin to process your request. If this is a new request to our office for this site, the timing may be 3-5 weeks.

Joanna Gaweda District Planner Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Pembroke District 31 Riverside Drive, Pembroke, ON K8A 8R6 tel: 613-732-5522 [email protected]

From: Heather Lunn [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: August 23, 2012 11:43 AM To: Gaweda, Joanna (MNR) Subject: Information request Hi Joanna, I am writing to request information on species at risk and sensitive habitat in the vicinity of a property off of Highway 508 (18T 381136 E 5032638 N – location map attached). I am completing an environmental impact statement for the property and require background information from MNR to supplement the field surveys I have completed this year. Thanks for your help! Sincerely, Heather C. Lunn Terrestrial Ecologist 3240 Drummond Concession 5A, R.R. 7, Perth, ON, K7H 3C6 T. 613.267.6524 (213) | F. 613.267.7992 | C. 613.812.8257 [email protected] | www.mcintoshperry.com



Appendix D – Recommended Significant Woodland

Evaluation Criteria and Standards

Documents

Environmental Impact Statement · 1 appendix: van order properties ltd. may 11, 2016 sk ch pp-12-8290 title: client: project # project: date gis checked watercourse wetland waterbody