Terry Fox Drive CEAA Screening Final Report – April 2010...6.7.1.3 Breeding Bird Survey One formal breeding bird survey was conducted in the Study Area on June 2, 2009. Birds were

Terry Fox Drive CEAA Screening Part B Richardson Side Road to Second Line Road Final Report – April 2010

Project No. 09-1518 96

Table 6-9 – Summary of Effects on Vegetation

Project

Interaction Potential Effects

Mitigative Factor and Measure

Significance Criteria Assessment of Significance)

Timing: Construction Site Preparation

• Loss of natural vegetation communities

• Loss of SAR plants;

• Loss of regionally and locally significant plant species

• Prepare edge management landscaping plans for implementation;

• Avoid importation of exotic plant species; use only native species in all landscaping and ecological restoration works;

• Provide follow up monitoring of vegetation and replace dead stock within two years of planting.

Not significant with mitigation and compensation.

Demobilization / Cleanup

• Edge effects • Wind-throw

of trees along edge.

• Compensation through the creation of a 8.2 ha forested swamp constructed wetland on the Carp River floodplain.

• Afforest 2 ha of the Carp River floodplain to offset remainder of woodland losses.

• Nature of Effect – Negative, direct

• Magnitude – Medium • Geographic Extent -

Local • Duration – Short-term • Frequency - Low • Permanence – Permanent Recovery expected to occur within 3 years of substantial completion.

Not significant with restoration strategy and mitigation.

Timing: Operations Site disturbance associated with routine operations and maintenance

• Introduction of invasive species affecting community;

• Conversion from interior forest conditions to edge habitat.

• Invasive species management following OIPWG guidance and City environmental sustainability policy;

• Development of an Edge Management Plan for the interface between the road infrastructure and the adjacent natural lands.

• Nature of Effect – Negative, indirect

• Magnitude – Low • Geographic Extent –

Local • Duration - Long-term • Frequency – Periodic

(medium) • Permanence - Permanent

Not significant with mitigation.

6.7 Wildlife

6.7.1 Survey Methods In general, wildlife such as reptiles and mammals were recorded through focused and incidental observations noted during all field investigations for the TFD alignment. Figure 7 indicates the range and locations of the surveys during the spring and summer of 2009. The location and species of each observation was recorded along with a photograph, if possible, for inclusion into the report. Field



documentation was supplemented through a review and evaluation of supporting source information pertaining to historic wildlife occurrences in the South March Highlands PSW and ANSI lands.

6.7.1.1 Nocturnal Amphibian Surveys

Amphibians form a Class of Vertebrates with a few common characteristics:

• They are ectotherms (or poikilotherm - often referred to as cold-blooded);

• They have soft, generally moist skin without scales; and,

• Their eggs do not have shells and so must be laid in water or a damp environment to keep from drying out.

Amphibians are divided into three major groups or Orders. Two of these, the Frogs (including toads) and the Salamanders are found in Canada (and in the TFD study area). Amphibians go through a two-stage life cycle. When an amphibian hatches it is in a gilled larval form. After a few weeks or months the larvae transform into the adult form of a frog or salamander, however it may still take a few years to become mature. (Source: CARCNET 2009)

$

$

$

$

²Figure 7: Wildlife Survey

Locations

Terry Fox DriveRoad Corridor

Canadian EnvironmentalAssessment Screening

0 250 500 750 1,000125

Meters

Project Name: Terry Fox Drive EAMap Created By: BCMap Checked By: AZ/SFGDate Created: July 14, 2009Date Modified: April 1, 2010File Name: I:\GIS\091518 - Terry Fox Drive FinalDesign\Mapping\Part B Figures - CEAA 113009/Figure 7 Natural Environment Survey Locations.mxd

Projection: UTM NAD83, Zone 18

1:15,000

Legend

TerryFoxDr

Richardson Side RdSecondLineRd

MarchRd

InnovationDr

FlamboroughWay

Breeding Bird Area Searched

Railway

Hydro Lines

Amphibian Count

Breeding Bird Point Count

Salamander Boards

TFD Right of Way

Road Centreline

Grading Limit Footprint

PARTB

PART A

FirstLineRoadAllowance

Shirley'sBrook

CarpRiver

Watercourse

Floodplain Cut Area

Wetland

KanataAve

Future Land Development

InfrastructureCanada & Fisheries and Oceans

Canada



Nocturnal amphibian survey methods were adapted from the Marsh Monitoring Program protocol (Bird Studies Canada, 1994). In areas where appropriate habitats existed within and adjacent to the TFD alignment, vernal pools were identified and two nocturnal breeding survey events were conducted on April 16 and May 15, 2009. Habitats were also sampled for egg masses and amphibian larvae, using a dip net when necessary. Amphibian surveys took place when evening temperatures exceeded 5ºC in early spring. An attempt was made to distribute the surveys evenly between evenings that exceeded 5ºC and 10ºC. Surveys were conducted at 9 stations (Figure 7), beginning at dusk and ending before midnight. Evenings with moderate to heavy precipitation and strong winds were avoided. In general, surveys were conducted when wind strength was Code 0, 1, 2, or 3 on the Beaufort Wind Scale. Point counts involved standing at a station for 3 minutes and listening for frog calls. The calling activity of individuals estimated to be within 100 m of the observation point were documented. All individuals beyond 100 m were recorded as outside of the count circle and calling activity was not recorded. Calling activity was ranked using one of the following three abundance code categories, followed by an abundance estimate of individuals calling:

• Code 1: Calls not simultaneous, number of individuals can be accurately counted;

• Code 2: Some calls simultaneous, number of individuals can be reliably estimated; and,

• Code 3: Calls continuous and overlapping, number of individuals cannot be estimated. A full list of amphibian species that may be expected to occur in the Study Area is provided in Table K2 of Appendix K.

6.7.1.2 Salamander Surveys

The salamander monitoring program was undertaken to establish the presence of salamanders within or immediately adjacent to the proposed TFD alignment. The methods used were adapted from the EMAN/Parks Canada 2004 document, Joint EMAN/Parks Canada National Monitoring Protocol for Plethodontid Salamanders (Zorn et al., 2004). This non-intrusive sampling method involved setting out 30cm x 30cm x 2cm cover boards made from untreated spruce plywood to provide cover and attract salamanders. Seven sampling stations were established in close proximity to wetlands within, or adjacent to, the proposed TFD alignment. These station locations were selected to provide a representative sample of available habitats and most likely to contain salamanders. Cover boards were laid singly out in straight line transects of three, and placed approximately 5 m apart to avoid territorial exclusion. Cover boards were laid down on top of bare soil and partially covered over with leaf litter. If a layer of organic matter was present that prevented direct contact of the board with soil, this matter was moved and then used to cover the board. The location of each board was marked by GPS and is shown on Figure 7. Monitoring of the cover boards began immediately after winter thaw in early April and extended until early June. The cover boards were checked every two weeks through this period. Weather conditions were monitored and, as much as was possible, sampling occurred when temperatures were above 5ºC and the ground was wet. Cover boards were checked during morning hours. Monitoring station number, general habitat notes, and local weather conditions were recorded for each sampling event. Board-specific information collected included the unique cover board number, disturbances to the board and any additional comments as necessary. When checking cover boards, the observer lifted the board, counted and recorded the number of each species of salamander found underneath. Cover boards were then replaced as soon as possible to ensure


Project No. 09-1518 100

that no objects fell into place, preventing the board from lying directly on the ground. If space is left between the cover board and the ground, soil will dry out making the habitat unsuitable for salamanders. Any salamanders found were gently moved from under the boards to avoid crushing them upon replacing the board. Salamanders were then placed down beside the board once it had been set down again so they could crawl back under. Field personnel ensured that their hands were not contaminated with insect repellent or any other chemicals that could harm a salamander’s delicate skin. A full list of amphibian species that may be expected to occur in the Study Area is provided in Table K2 of Appendix K.

6.7.1.3 Breeding Bird Survey

One formal breeding bird survey was conducted in the Study Area on June 2, 2009. Birds were also documented on an earlier visit from April 27-29, 2009, intended to locate and buffer nests during drill-rig path clearing activities, and during vegetation surveys conducted May 5-6and July 15th. The assessment was used in conjunction with historical rare bird species accounts from the NHIC and Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas data to determine which species regularly use the area for nesting, for foraging during the breeding season, raising their young, and to obtain measures of abundance of bird species in each Study Area. Based on this general assessment, species that may be of management concern were noted. Such data can then be used to predict the potential impact of the road extension project on bird populations and to quantify the actual impact, in order to test the predictions. Our work plan combined point counts with area search methodology, which followed the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas (2001) guide for participants, to develop an overall species list for the Study Area. Nineteen ten-minute fixed/non-fixed radius point counts were used to establish quantitative estimates of bird abundance in major habitat types of the Study Area (Figure 7). Point counts were used only where habitat was of a sufficient size to be accommodated (i.e. 100 m from the edge of a habitat, spaced 250m apart in forested habitats and 500 m apart in open habitats). For all point count locations, a GPS coordinate in NAD 83 was documented. Point count stations generally occurred within 50m of the proposed alignment but occasionally were positioned further from the alignment if habitat conditions were significantly different. Area searches were conducted by visiting each major habitat type during the breeding season, at various times of day (primarily between dawn and 5hrs after sunrise). A summary list of all bird species encountered along with conservation status is presented in Appendix L.

6.7.1.4 Pre-Clearance Nest Survey for Geotechnical Testing

Site visits were carried out from April 27 – 29, 2009 to confirm that active nests were neither disturbed nor destroyed during the clearing of a path for a drill rig. The nesting bird survey was conducted according to the federal Migratory Birds Convention Act or provincial Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act. Any active nest found was identified with caution tape and forestry technicians were instructed to avoid removing any trees within 5 meters of the identified nest or operate heavy machinery within 15 meters of the identified nesting area.

6.7.2 Current Baseline Conditions - Wildlife

6.7.2.1 Mammals

As described in the baseline conditions section of the Class EA report (Dillon Consulting, 2000), a number of mammal species are known to exist in the Study Area. Further studies were completed during 2009 to update records. Figure 7 provides the locations of the various wildlife studies, which were based on the recommendations of the earlier Class EA studies of the same area.


Project No. 09-1518 101

Mammal species present are generally common in the surrounding area. The combination of large uninterrupted forested areas, wetlands, abandoned farm fields and hedgerows, especially in the northern portion of the Study Area (i.e. the South March Highlands) supports a high diversity of wildlife. Of the mammal species known to exist in the Study Area, black bear (Ursus americanus) and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) are considered regionally significant species (Brunton, 1992; Dillon Consulting, 2000). Much of the Study Area is considered a winter deer yard by the MNR. The following mammal species were noted as incidental observations throughout the 2000 and 2009 studies. A full list of mammal species that may be expected to occur in the TFD Study Area is provided in Table K1 Appendix K:

• White-tailed deer;

• Porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum);

• Red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus);

• Grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis);

• Chipmunk (Tamias striatus);

• Snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus);

• Cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus);

• Black bear (occasional visitor);

• Coyote (Canis latrans);

• Red fox (Vulpes vulpes);

• Skunk (Mephitis mephitis);

• Fisher (Martes pennanti); and,

• Raccoon (Procyon lotor). These species are considered secure in the Province of Ontario and are not listed on the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA) or the provincial Endangered Species Act (ESA).

6.7.2.2 Herptofauna

This section summarizes the results of amphibian surveys (e.g., Nocturnal Amphibian Surveys and Salamander Surveys) as well as reptile species and habitat incidentally documented in the Study Area (e.g., snakes, turtles, etc.) or evaluated through the examination of secondary information resources. An inventory of available herptofauna habitat (e.g., vernal pools, wetlands) potentially affected by the TFD road extension is also summarized below.

6.7.2.2.1 Nocturnal Amphibians Surveys Fieldwork documented 5 frog species including: wood frog (Rana sylvatica), western chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata), spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer), green frog (Rana clamitans melanota) and northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens). Table 6-10 details results of amphibian surveys. Breeding evidence found during diurnal surveys consisted of either egg masses or tadpoles identified by field staff. All frog species observed during these studies are considered secure (common) in the Province of Ontario.


Project No. 09-1518 102

Western chorus frog (Great Lakes/St. Lawrence population) is listed as Threatened by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). Currently, the western chorus frog is not listed on Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA). However, it is expected to be federally listed as Threatened on SARA’s Schedule 1 during the period of review, approvals and construction of this project during 2010. A Notice of the Order Amending Schedules 1 to 3 to the Species at Risk Act to include Western Chorus Frog in the list of Threatened species was published in the March 17th edition of the Canada Gazette. The expected date of the Order is not yet known and will be subject to public comment and discussion before the Order is executed at a later date. Once listed, all current and future federal Environmental Assessments will be required to identify adverse environmental effects, mitigation measures and follow up monitoring. Therefore, although this species currently does not have “Status” under the Act, we have treated it in this effects assessment as if it is currently listed on Schedule 1. As it is neither a bird nor a fish species, the federal designation does not require protection of the habitat, but does prohibit the killing or undue disturbance of a listed species. Western chorus frogs have been classified in Ontario as “Not at Risk” by COSSARO in 2009. Table 6-8 indicates that Western Chorus Frog were identified and breeding evidence observed in the pond at 15+600, 60m north of the alignment centerline, which is part of PSW #4. Breeding calls were heard 80m northwest of the alignment along the East Shirley’s Brook at Stn 15+350 at the interface of PSW #3, but there were no egg masses found at that time. Both of these locations are outside of the grading limits of the road. In light of its pending federal and existing provincial status, mitigation strategies identified to address impacts to western chorus frogs will be discussed concurrently with other listed species in Chapter 9, effectively affording all the encountered species a higher level of mitigation than currently required by federal or provincial regulations. A full list of herptile species that may be expected to occur in the Study Area is provided in Table K2, Appendix K.


Project No. 09-1518 103

Table 6-10 – Breeding Frog Survey Results

6.7.2.2.2 Salamander Surveys No salamanders were observed in the spring / summer during the cover board surveys. However, during the fisheries survey of open water habitats, 16 individuals of 2 species of salamander were captured in a minnow trap in the PSW#4 pond located at station 15+600 as shown on Figure 8. These included: one 13 cm yellow-spotted (Ambystoma maculatum) (Plate 7) and fifteen 11.0-11.5 cm blue-spotted (Ambystoma laterale) salamander (Plate 8). Outside of the early summer survey period, one yellow-spotted salamander was found under cover board 7a, located immediately north of vernal pool (VP) 15+640, near station 15+625, on September 14th 2009. This location is close to the pond at 15+600 where they were found in the spring.

Amphibian Breeding Area Species VP 16+000 VP 15+64 Pond 15+600 VP 15+500 Stn 15+350

Date Breeding

Calls Breeding Evidence

Breeding Calls

Breeding Evidence

Breeding Calls

Breeding Evidence

Breeding Calls

Breeding Evidence

Breeding Calls

Breeding Evidence

Wood Frog

April 16, 2009

1-5 3

May 15, 2009

W.Chorus Frog

April 16, 2009

3 3

May 15, 2009

Spring Peeper

April 16, 2009

1-4 1-3

May 15, 2009

2-6 2-7

Green Frog

April 16, 2009

May 15, 2009

1-2

Leopard Frog

April 16, 2009

May 15, 2009

2-5


Project No. 09-1518 104

Plate 7:

13 cm Yellow Spotted Salamander from the PSW#4 Pond at Stn 15+600.

Plate 8: 11.5 cm Blue Spotted Salamander from the PSW#4

Pond at Stn 15+600. The blue-spotted salamander (Ambystoma laterale) is a medium sized salamander that is widespread and locally common in southern and central Ontario, with a range that includes most of the Great Lakes basin, extending north to the Quebec and Manitoba borders. The breeding habitat of the blue spotted salamander is vernal pools or ephemeral wetlands adjacent to woodlands. During non-breeding season, they are found in moist to dry, bottomland to upland forests. Additionally, they can be found in fields and backyards. The yellow-spotted salamander or spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum) is a large, robust salamander that is widespread and locally common in southern and central Ontario. The breeding habitat of the spotted salamander is vernal pools or ephemeral wetlands adjacent to woodlands. During non-breeding season, they are found in moist deciduous and mixed forests with closed canopy.

14+21014+210

15+600

13+400

14+600

15+235 16+00015+500

15+640

Figure 8: Species at Risk

Terry Fox DrivePart A & B

0 250 500 750 1,000125

Meters

Project Name: Terry Fox Drive EAMap Created By: SGMap Modified By: AZDate Created: July 16, 2009Date Modified: April 1st, 2010File Name: G:\cad\2009\09-1518 Ottawa - Terry Fox Drive Final Design\Design_GIS\MXDs\Edits for Fisheries and INFC

Projection: UTM NAD83, Zone 181:15,000

LegendSpecies at Risk

Other Significant FeaturesVernal PoolHerpetofauna Habitat

Terry

Fox D

r

Richardson Side RdSe

cond

Line

Rd

March

Rd

Innov

ation

DrFla

mborou

gh W

ay

RailwayHydro LinesWatercourse

TFD Right of WayRoad Centreline


Realigned Shirleys Brook

PART

B

PART A

First

Line R

oad A

llowa

nce

Shirley's Brook

Carp

Rive

r

Floodplain Cut AreaWetland

Kana

ta Ave

Heron Pond

Future Land Development

PSW#5

PSW#2

PSW#3

PSW#4PSW#1

PSW#6

Provincially Significant Wetland

InfrastructureCanada

Fisheries and OceansCanada&

Blandings Turtle (Location Confidential)Butternut (Retainable)Butternut (Non-Retainable)American Ginseng (LocationConfidential)

Eastern MilksnakeGolden Winged Warbler

Western Chorus Frog


Project No. 09-1518 106

Within the forest environments of the TFD Study Area salamander habitat could be generally described as spaces under leaf litter and logs or in rock crevices. These salamander species live typically within 800 metres of their breeding pool. Both observed species are considered secure and common in the Province of Ontario and are not a listed Species at Risk by either the COSEWIC (federal) or COSSARO (provincial) committees.

6.7.2.2.3 Snakes Incidental observations noted during field investigations for the TFD alignment found numerous occurrences of the provincially secure eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis) throughout the Study Area. One dead specimen of the eastern milk snake (Lampropeltis triangulum triangulum) was found in a tire track near the barnyard of the Richardson farm, just west of Richardson’s Sideroad in the Carp River floodplain (Figure 8). Eastern Milk Snake is provincially listed as Special Concern on the Ontario Endangered Species List and will be considered further in Chapter 9. A full list of herptile species that may be expected to occur in the Study Area is provided in Table K2, Appendix K.

6.7.2.2.4 Turtles Incidental observations noted during 1999 field investigations for the TFD alignment found two juveniles of one turtle species, Blanding’s turtle (Emydoidea blandingii), federally and provincially listed as Threatened. This observation was documented to occur along the West Shirley’s Brook as it flows down the farmer’s field east of station 14+550 (Figure 8) on the KNL Development lands. Additional observations of Blanding’s turtle are reported from 2004, and also occurred during spring 2009 geotechnical fieldwork within the forest cover, south of the alignment between station 15+600 and 15+650. Geotechnical drilling staff from Golder Associates Ltd. made this observation, photographing the turtle in an upland habitat, a considerable distance from water (Plate 9). During a public meeting on June 22, 2009, a local couple commented on a turtle in their home garden on Statewood Avenue east of Second Line. When queried further, it was found out that they had photographed the animal, which was confirmed as a Blanding’s turtle by Dillon biology staff present at the open house.

Plate 9:

Blanding’s Turtle found by a Field Technician on the alignment near Stn 15+600 In addition, one midland painted turtle (Chrysemys picta marginata) was observed in the large cattail marsh west of 2nd line on July 15 2009. This species is considered secure in Ontario. More details on the Blanding’s turtle are presented in the Chapter 9: Species at Risk.


Project No. 09-1518 107

6.7.2.3 Herptofauna Habitat in the TFD Study Area

Sensitive amphibian breeding habitat in the TFD Study Area includes vernal pools, wetlands and watercourses utilized by frog and salamander species identified during the nocturnal amphibian surveys and salamander surveys. Vernal pools and other herptofauna habitat are identified on Figure 8. Based on wildlife activity, breeding evidence, suitable habitat (e.g. considering type and size) and both present and future wildlife habitat connectivity, significant breeding habitat for amphibians and other herptiles was documented at the following locations with respect to the TFD alignment:

• Kizel Drain wetland/Carp River floodplain at Stn. 13+400;

• South March Highland PSW #1 / vernal pools in the forested swamp at Stn. 14+600;

• South March Highland PSW #3 / East Shirley’s Brook tributary approx. 80m northwest of Stn. 15+350; and,

• South March Highland PSW #4 / permanent pond approx. 60m northwest of Stn. 15+600. Kizel Drain Wetland/Carp River Floodplain at Stn. 13+400

The first herptofaunal habitat area is located east of the road alignment at station 13+400. A series of small VPs identified as VP 13+400, lie within a larger wetland that may seasonally connect the South Kizel Drain sub-watershed overland to the Carp River through at least two ephemeral channels. Observations here include three species of frogs and tadpoles in the pooling water east of the farmer’s access road, approximately 250 m east of the road alignment. South March Highland PSW #1/Vernal Pools at Stn. 14+600

Identified as Freeman’s Maple Mineral Deciduous Swamp on Figure 6, part of PSW #1 (Figure 4) in the South March Highlands PSW Complex, VP 14+600 is the largest group of vernal pool habitats identified that lies within the TFD alignment. The west tributary of Shirley’s Brook was ditched through this area several years ago, and will be directly impacted by the road construction. Water depth ranged from 0.3 – 0.6 m in early spring and was observed to be receding in mid-spring. The treed pool is filled with leaf litter and deadfall, and is adjacent to a large thicket swamp to the west, open abandoned fields to the east, Shirley’s Brook to the south and additional tree cover to the north. Observations in this area included four species of frogs, including a large amount of wood frog breeding activity. Two juvenile Blanding’s turtle were identified here in 1999 during the fieldwork for the EA (Dillon Consulting, 2000). South March Highland PSW Unit #3/Shirley’s Brook tributary (approx. 80m northwest of Stn. 15+350)

Identified as Broad-leaved Sedge Organic Shallow Marsh on Figure 6, PSW Unit #3 (Figure 4) has Shirley’s Brook East Tributary flowing through it. This large vegetated wetland is located approximately 80 meters northwest of the alignment at station 15+350. Observations here of mammals included three species of frog, muskrat and beaver. Breeding calls for Western Chorus Frog were heard during the evening surveys. South March Highland PSW Unit #4/Permanent Pond (approx. 60m northwest of Stn. 15+600)

Identified as Speckled Alder Mineral Deciduous Swamp on Figure 6 and PSW#4 (Figure 4) the pond on the north side of the road, 75 m from the centerline at 15+600, is a large vegetated pond with approx. ¾ of it covered by speckled alder thicket (Plate 10). This pond was found to be a permanent water body and an important habitat for salamanders and frogs. Water depth in the pond was a consistent 0.6 to 1.0 m in both early and mid-spring, with the pond staying full year round. There is no clearly defined overland flow outlet, however it is believed that overflows would tend to move northwest towards PSW #3, another part of the wetland complex. Mapping based on aerial images, shows drainage to the south,


Project No. 09-1518 108

which is incorrect. The wetland area is identified as unit of the South March Highlands PSW Complex, Unit #4. High breeding activity was noted here from mid April through to late May, with observations of four species of frogs, two species of salamanders, frog and salamander egg masses, tadpoles and a Blanding’s turtle in the upland forest nearby. Breeding activity for Western Chorus Frog was confirmed in this location. A nearby ephemeral pool, VP 15+640 (Plate 11), located nearby approximately 60m south of the center line, has a clearly defined outlet leading towards the southwest. Although wet in the early spring, with up to 1.2 m of water, it was dry by mid June. Sampling and observations in the pool found amphibian breeding activity, so it may be considered potential habitat, but not critical habitat.

Plate 10:

(presented previously) showing the amphibian breeding pond on the north side of the alignment

at 15+600 in PSW#4.

Plate 11: Setting minnow traps in the ephemeral pool on

the south side of the alignment at 15+640. No fish or salamanders were found in this pool.

6.7.2.4 Other Herptofauna Habitat (Vernal Pools)

Aquatic habitat for amphibian and reptile reproduction and juvenile development was also identified as vernal pools (Figure 8) with seasonally dry, temporary ponds, mainly within the South March Highlands PSW Complex. There are five vernal pools identified in the TFD ROW. Vernal pools were typically areas of pooling water filled with leaf litter, short semi-aquatic emergent plants and broken deadfall. Herptofauna activity at vernal pools ranged from individual species to documented breeding evidence (e.g. egg masses). These small vernal pools in the TFD alignment were not significant amphibian breeding habitat, but displayed characteristics that could support one or more stages of the amphibian lifecycle. The location of these vernal pools with respect to the road station markers is as follows:

• Stn. 14+210; • Stn. 15+235; • Stn. 15+500; • Stn. 15+640; and, • Stn. 16+000.

Vernal Pool (VP) 14+210 (Plate 12) is a typical, ephemeral wet depression located directly on the alignment near Stn. 14+200.


Project No. 09-1518 109

Plate 12:

Vernal Pool near Station 14+210.

6.7.3 Effects Assessment and Specific Mitigation: Wildlife This section of the report describes the potential effects of the TFD extension on wildlife and wildlife habitat. Also described are the recommended mitigation strategies. The potential effects on wildlife, considered include: the direct impacts associated with the construction phase (e.g., loss of habitat within the ROW), interim barrier effects and habitat fragmentation effects (until natural areas inside the urban area are developed) and long term disruption impacts from road operations. Potential impacts of the Terry Fox Drive, Part B extension on wildlife and wildlife habitat include:

• The roadway will form a barrier to wildlife movement to search for feeding, breeding or over wintering areas (this will be an interim impact and would cease to be an issue with the natural areas inside the roadway alignment are developed for urban use);

• Forest and wetland habitat will be removed or altered during the road construction: o Removal of 11.5 ha of deer wintering yard and the fragmentation of the wintering yard into

two pieces. These are entirely located in the forested reaches on the Canadian Shield bedrock beyond the Carp River flats;

o A total of 11.2 ha of primary and secondary lands; o A total of 1.05 ha of provincially significant wetlands in three of the wetland units;

• Loss of interior forest conditions which provide shelter, unique food resources and high quality habitat conditions (this will be an interim impact as interior habitat will be converted to edge habitat overtime with the planned developments in the area);

• Fragmentation of habitats and the creation of new edge habitats allowing exploitation by aggressive invaders displacing them in urban habitats, ie. opossum, racoon;

• Introduction of the risk of road kill, where no similar risk currently exists;

• Increased accessibility to disturbance from human interactions;

• Increase in noise levels that could disturb some species;

• Changes to air quality and water quality; and,

• Loss of secluded bedding areas, increasing the risk of predation.


Project No. 09-1518 110

Fragmentation of habitat is probably the most pervasive of the effects and without mitigation, could separate wildlife populations, reducing the exchange of genetic variability and it isolates populations that may not have the ability to quickly move or adapt to the changing conditions. The current road project will bisect the forested lands, with a RoW width varying between 45-60 m, depending on the terrain. This will alter the existing internal forest habitat by dividing it into two sections. With a busy roadway, animals that now move freely through the area will have to cross the road, with the risk of being struck and possibly killed by a vehicle. Breeding areas may be separated from dens and burrows or upland feeding areas may be separated from drinking water sources. Fragmentation can therefore have indirect population-level effects as well as direct effects on an individual. As the road cuts through the forest, new edge habitats are created that tend to favour the more aggressive, tolerant species, and hinder the more sensitive species, thereby affecting the diversity and abundance of each species. The Terry Fox Drive roadway will be the first piece of infrastructure constructed in this long-planned area, but it will be quickly followed by residential development clearing the forests and former agricultural areas now used as wildlife habitat. This process has already started with the existing developments south of Kanata Avenue, and building is currently progressing on the Broughton Lands (Figure 3). It is expected to fully build out to the limits of Terry Fox drive by approximately 2020, so the fragmentation and edge effects noted above will be brief and transitory as development proceeds. Ultimately, depending on the site-level planning decisions in the future, potentially all of the wildlife habitats within the arc prescribed by Terry Fox Drive may be removed or significantly altered by land development. Further discussion on this is presented in the description of cumulative effects in Chapter 11.

6.7.3.1 Mitigation Measures: Wildlife

Mitigation to reduce the impacts of these effects on the existing, interim and future wildlife populations are as follows: Construction Period Mitigation

• A continuous barrier to movement across the road will be erected as a combination of the following three components: o Four purpose-built culverts to allow wildlife passage beneath the roadway and three sets of

hydraulic culverts through which wildlife can also migrate; o Seven sets of wildlife guide walls, spanning the width of the low valley points, on both

sides of the road, complete with an overhanging lip so animals will be unable to successfully climb the walls;

o Purpose-built wildlife guide fencing on either side of the roadway, with overhanging edges facing the habitat to inhibit animals from scaling the fences. The fences and walls are intended to guide the animals towards the culvert openings, so they can pass beneath the road without the risk of road kill;

• Construction personnel and all people regularly entering or working on the site in any capacity will be trained to avoid disturbing or harming wildlife. When wildlife are encountered, a protocol will be in place to contact the MNR biologist to aid in relocating the animal if necessary or otherwise leave the animals unharmed: o All on-site staff will be required to display their training status using a specific sticker,

signed by the Environmental Monitor, attached to their hard hat;


Project No. 09-1518 111

o All on-site staff how will be on site regularly will be issued a laminate quick reference guide so staff can recognize the most sensitive species that they need to have caution around;

• Weekly environmental awareness tailgate meetings to be held with construction staff; and,

• Either silt or orange safety fencing will line the perimeter of the work area; wildlife will need an avenue of escape if they are trapped between fences – this will be managed at the field level. Additional material may be added to the bottom of safety fence if turtles are found to be climbing overtop, so the smoother opaque material will guide them to safer crossing points where they will not be harmed by construction equipment.

Interim Period

• The road infrastructure will temporarily fragment the natural landscape, with consequences to wildlife habitat and wildlife movement. Once land development proceeds, the habitats will be removed, edge habitats along the inner arc will be altered and Terry Fox Drive will define the boundary of the outer arc habitats moving on to the future;

• As land development proceeds, the wildlife culverts and guide system will therefore allow animals to safely move out of the inner arc to available habitats in the preserved forest lands outside the road arc,

• Forest and wetland habitats will remain on both sides of the roadway until the developments are fully built out; the desire for animals to continue to cross will be strong, resulting in the potential for a high incidence of road kill in the early years of operation without the wildlife guide system in place, and;

• The inner guide fence will be constructed with a 10 year lifespan, using wooden posts as an interim measure until the residential development removes the adjacent habitats or otherwise alters the conditions along the inner arc of the road.

Long-Term Operations Period

• High volumes of vehicular movements with the associated noise and light may deter use of the wildlife passage culverts for some species. Experience in the USA shows that as traffic volumes increase, some animals resist migration until night-time or off-peak hours;

• Edge communities may attract some wildlife to the edge of the roadway to feed or lick salt; and,

• Increased potential for the colonization/proliferation of non-native invasive plants.

6.7.3.2 Wildlife Migration Corridor Mitigation

The South March Highlands Candidate ANSI/PSW has been characterized as a mix of deciduous upland forest, mixed upland forest, coniferous upland forest, deciduous swamp forest, thicket swamp, rock barrens and cultural meadows consisting of active agricultural pastures or abandoned fields that are in various stages of ecological succession (Brunton 1992). The Shirley’s Brook/Watts Creek Subwatershed Plan identified a wildlife corridor that extends from the lands north of Richardson Side Road and continues north-east towards the Ottawa River. This wildlife corridor is not continuous and is fragmented by roads, development and agricultural land. In 2000, Dillon also conducted in-depth terrestrial studies in the TFD study area and found high levels of wildlife activity in several locations. For example, large numbers of white-tailed deer (i.e., 50+) were often seen grazing in farm fields adjacent to the railway as well as along the flood plain of the Carp River. The concern was that high levels of vehicle/deer collisions would occur once the TFD route was fully


Project No. 09-1518 112

operational. In addition, it was noted that high levels of other smaller wildlife species including porcupine, red-fox, fisher, raccoon, etc., would also be struck if they migrated across the TFD corridor. Based on past and current wildlife survey results that examined species presence and suitable wildlife habitat in the TFD study area, three potential wildlife migration corridors were documented.

• Through the swamp forest of PSW #1 and along the West Shirley’s Brook corridor at Stn 14+600 towards the east, on development lands owned by KNL;

• From the highland ridge lying between Kizel Drain and along the Carp River Tributary #1, via the small wetland at Stn 13+450; and,

• Between the small pools and ponds in the South March Highlands and along the East Shirley’s Brook creek valley.

Considering the relatively unspoiled areas of wildlife habitat in the South March Highlands to be temporarily bisected by the Terry Fox Drive project, and then later removed through land development, it was recognized early on that addressing wildlife migration would be an important factor in the early stages of the new road. Since the early stages of the environmental assessment process and related planning decisions, considerable changes have been made, both to the road design and to the property fabric surrounding the road. Each of these changes has affected the future plans for the wildlife crossings envisioned in the earlier stages of planning. During the initial Class EA assessments, several mitigation measures for offsetting the impacts of road development were considered, including:

• Providing oversized culverts to allow crossing of the ROW by animals;

• Providing warning signage (i.e., deer crossing) to drivers to reduce the potential of animal deaths;

• Reduce the maintenance within the ROW to allow vegetation to return to a more wild state; and,

• Replant the right-of-way with salt tolerant species. It was also suggested that a detailed mitigation plan for both roadway corridor construction and operation would need to be prepared during detailed design. The intent was that as much environmental enhancement measures should be incorporated into the design of the facility, and that these measures should have consideration for the Official Plan policies including:

Protection of Vegetative Cover (Policy 5.2.1) – which suggests reforestation/planting; identification of priority trees; outline protection measures for specimen trees or stands of trees being retained; use of native species; and

Design with Nature (Policy 5.2.3) – which suggests incorporating methods to design with nature, use of the natural characteristics of the site including retaining as much natural vegetation as possible and maintaining natural contours through road design.

During the current detailed design phase, the directives of the OMB (1983) have been followed and two additional key strategies that were committed to in the 2000 ESR have been reintroduced. The OMB decision directed the City to abide by the 40% rule when considering a development application for the KNL lands. From the 2000 ESR, the strategy first involved a storm water management strategy, while the second was a natural environment impact mitigation plan that was developed for the recommended alignment. Together, this plan consisted of a series of mitigation treatments to reduce the following impacts:


Project No. 09-1518 113

• The barrier impact of the road on movement of terrestrial wildlife in the South March Highland Candidate ANSI;

• The impact of the road on the South March Highland Provincially Significant Wetlands Complex in the area of the rail crossing (Arnprior / Nepean Railway), now owned by the City as a future transit link;

• The impact of the road on the woodlands (Primary Natural Lands) habitat through which the road passes from west of Goulbourn Forced Road to north of Richardson Side Road; and,

• The impact of the road on the aquatic habitat of Shirley’s Brook and its tributaries (Chapter 8). The mitigation strategy included the establishment of several, small ecological passageways underneath the road to permit the free movement of wildlife and, in some cases, to jointly accommodate drainage. The strategy also proposed a single, large ecological passageway underneath the road at in an upland area southwest of the rail line level crossing, at Stn 14+322, known as the “Saddle”. The location of this passageway was based on following a three-month study of patterns of movement of upland wildlife in the winter and spring of 2001, as undertaken by a local sub consultant who specializes in wildlife studies (Brunton, 2001). It should also be noted that the actual dimensions of this structure were not calculated in the 2001 FDB study and its specific location was not established. The July 2001 Functional Design Brief indicated significant modifications to the 2000 ESR alignment that would be necessary as it moved toward preliminary design. In 2006, the City of Ottawa made amendments to the Official Plan that effectively creates the TFD roadway as the outer edge of its’ western urban boundary. Inside the curve of TFD (east of alignment), areas previously identified as Natural Environment Area were changed to General Urban Area or to Urban Natural Feature (ie. the Carp Ridge Forest). In effect most of the forested area would be converted to general urban uses inside the arc, while outside the roadway arc lands would remain as conservation forest, agricultural or greenbelt rural. Following public input rebutting the re-designation, the decisions made by the City were upheld by a decision by the Ontario Municipal Board in 2007 (Annex R26, OPA No. 76). The changes made in the 2007 EA Addendum were primarily related to the roadway cross-section, alignment and rail grade-separation property requirements and together, required the preparation of an addendum to the originally-approved environmental assessment (Dillon Consulting, 2007). In Appendix A of the 2007 EA Addendum, an Environmental Impact Mitigation Strategy was written to reflect “the continuity of ecological functions within this surrounding landscape, especially the maintenance of ecological connectivity through the maintenance of wildlife corridors, natural drainage systems and the extent of interior forest habitat within the Provincially Significant South March Highlands”. The Mitigation Strategy was written in part to protect the NEA-A and NEA-B designations, which at the time occurred within much of the South March Highlands and were reflected in the City of Ottawa Official Plan (April 2003) and in Official Plan Amendment (OPA) 16. As well during this period, the City acquired over 600 acres abutting the north side of the TFD corridor, designating the lands as a natural conservation area. As part of the mitigation options presented in the 2007 EA addendum, three distinct objectives were suggested to reduce the loss of terrestrial connectivity between natural environment lands. These included:

• Maintaining ground level and subsoil connectivity;

• Maintaining ground level connection for herptofauna and small mammals; and,

• Maintaining connectivity for larger mammals (i.e. deer) across the road corridor.


Project No. 09-1518 114

To meet these objectives, several terrestrial connectivity mitigation options were suggested including:

• Option 1 – Do nothing;

• Option 2 – Maintain natural habitat along the narrowest right-of-way feasible while maintaining acceptable design parameters to minimize wildlife vulnerability during crossings; and,

• Option 3 – Maintain upland and wetland environmental linkages across the road that would provide both grade-separated animal crossing opportunities and would offer continued ecological connectivity between the separated portions of the South March Highlands natural conservation area.

It was found that Option 3 was the best option as it satisfied all the mitigation objectives listed above. Through the provision of at-grade wildlife passageways and culverts, ground-level connections could be made to maintain subsoil, herptofauna and small mammal connectivity without hindering the movement of large mammals (deer). Option 3 also had the highest capital cost, and could be configured with a recreational trail to access proposed parkland to the south, outside the urban boundary. It is noted that in order to meet the objectives, the land use designations as described in the previous studies would have had to remain unchanged, which they did not. In other words, sufficient wildlife habitat including mixed, deciduous and coniferous forests, wetlands, cultural meadows and agricultural uses would have to remain on both sides of TFD in order to validate the three terrestrial connectivity mitigation options which were considered in 2007. Urban Planning Revisions

As part of the Detailed Design process, the 2006 Official Plan Amendment was reviewed to determine if the wildlife mitigation strategy outlined in the 2007 EA Addendum Environmental Impact Mitigation Strategy document was still valid with respect to the new land use designations. Amendment 16 is relevant to this study. The review included examining the future land uses in the vicinity of existing forest cover to determine if terrestrial Connectivity Mitigation Options (i.e., Option 3) is still an appropriate strategy. From examining recent planning documents including Schedule “B” of Amendment 16, it appears that more extensive development will occur to the east of the TFD alignment than originally planned. With the exception of an Urban Natural Feature (South Kizel Drain wetland complex) and a narrow Major Open Space Area that extends southward along the First Line Road allowance from the railway to the Kizel Pond, the existing agricultural and forested areas will be eventually developed for residential and commercial uses (Figure 3). Only one woodlot at the southwest end of the Kizel Wetland Complex and an Open Space area along First Line will remain (Figure 3). Therefore, this requires a re-examination of the wildlife mitigation objectives and the three options discussed in the 2007 Preliminary Design EA Addendum (Dillon Consulting, 2007). Additionally, the Endangered Species Act, enacted later in 2007, may influence the ultimate development configuration of the KNL lands since species at risk, such as butternut, American ginseng, western chorus frog, eastern milk snake and Blanding’s turtle have been found in the area. Based on the currently best available information, it is expected that the full area will be subdivided for house lots, schools and recreational amenities as shown in the preliminary draft plans proposed for the area (Figure 3), but that lot fabric may change in the future. As a result of the decisions that defined the future development fabric, the need for a large animal culvert at the saddle became redundant, as there would no longer be any appreciable amount of habitat for deer within the urban area, and therefore a large-opening culvert was no longer necessary. The recreational linkages to the south were deemed undesirable by the city, which reduced the viability of a large culvert considerably given the high cost. In the interim situation, until the lands are fully developed and there are


Project No. 09-1518 115

no more forested lands within the arc to attract deer, large animal movements across the road will need to be managed as they may cause a safety risk to drivers using the road. Through previous and present field work programs, it is apparent that maintaining ground level and subsoil connectivity as well as maintaining ground level connection for herptofauna and small mammals will still be important to support their habitats. Important habitats such as wetlands, vernal pools, seasonal ponds and upland forests will remain within and around Shirley’s Brook and the Kizel Pond Urban Natural Feature to support fish, birds, amphibians, reptiles and small mammal species. Movement of these species south to the Carp River watershed will be supported across the TFD corridor by providing multi-cell culverts with guide walls at varying elevations in the area of the small wetland features (Figure 9). Wildlife movement will also occur in the Major Open Space Area running northwest along the First Line Road allowance to intersect West Shirley’s Brook, and will be influenced by the design of the future recreational spaces and what remains of the forested areas in each subdivision plan. For example, passive recreational use within the existing woodlots would leave some wildlife habitats intact, a preferred condition over active recreational usage where tree removals are necessary, but this decision will be made during the Draft Plan approval stages as each subdivision develops. The mitigation plans proposed herein allows for the flexibility needed for the future, while respecting the existing wildlife populations and their needs to continue their life cycle processes now, while providing them a route to safely leave the area over the next several years.

Figure 9: Culverts, Wildlife Passage and Guide Walls

Blandings Turtle Mitigation Plan Report

0 250 500 750125

Meters

Created By: SFGModified By: STDate Created: January 10, 2010Date Modified: April 1st, 2010File Path: G:\cad\2009\09-1518 Ottawa - Terry Fox Drive Final Design\Design_GIS\MXDs\Edits for Fisheries and INFC

Legend

Terry

Fox D

r

Richardson Side RdSe

cond

Line

Rd

March

Rd

Innov

ation

DrFla

mborou

gh W

ay

Railway

Hydro LinesWatercourse

TFD Right of WayRoad Centreline


Realigned Shirleys Brook

PART

B

PART A

First

Line R

oad A

llowa

nce

Shirley's Brook

Carp

Rive

r

Floodplain Cut AreaWetland

Kana

ta Ave

Heron Pond

Future Baseline Development

PSW#5

PSW#2

PSW#3

PSW#4PSW#1

PSW#6

Provincially Significant Wetland

City of Ottawa - Key Plan

Kana

ta Ave

CV7TCV4CV6TCV3TCV2

CV5

RCV1

TCV1

CV4

CV3cCV3bCV3a

CV2CV2 Stn.12+600; 1.5 X 1.2 m concrete box, 65 m long; sheet flow drainageCV3a Stn 13+340;1.8 X 1.2 m concrete box, on skew 77 m long; Carp Tributary 1CV3b Stn 13+360;1.8 X 1.2 m concrete box, 67 m long; Carp Tributary 1CV3c Stn 13+400; 1.8 X 1.2 m, concrete box, on slight skew 67 m long; Carp

Tributary 1CV4 Stn 14+000; 1.8 X 1.2 m, concrete box, on skew 86 m long; Carp Tributary 2CV5 14+570; 4.27 X 1.83 m; concrete arch open footing, on skew; 65 m long; West

Shirley’s Brook, wet and dry passageRCV1 204 m west of road centreline under railway track; 2.13 m X 0.91 m concrete

box wide; 25 m long for future Shirley’s Brook realignmentCV6 15+500; 1.22 m X 0.91 m, concrete box, 45 m long; East Shirley’s Brook, will

also convey wildlife. Interim measure until creek is realigned. CV7 16+200 (In TFD Part A); 1.8 X 0.9 m. concrete box; conveys sheet runoff from

west of the second line road allowance.

TCV1 Stn 14+250; 1.2 wide X 0.6 m high, concrete box dry passage, on skew 58 mlong with ramping at either end,

TCV2 14+820; 1.2 m X 1.2 m concrete box culvert; 60 m long railway ditch drainunder at-grade crossing

TCV3 Stn 15+150; 1.2 X 0.6 m, concrete box dry passage, 51 m long with ramping ateither end, will convey seepage also.

TCV4 Stn 15+650; 1.8 X 1.2 m, concrete box dry culvert on skew, 64 m long withramping

Dry Wildlife Crossings ( TCV: Terrestrial Culverts)

Wet Hydraulic / Wildlife Crossings:

Projection: UTM NAD83, Zone 18

1:15,000

Permanent Wildlife Guide FenceInterm Wildlife Guide FenceWildlife Guide WallsWildlife Funnel Rock CutHydraulic Culverts and Wildlife Passage

InfrastructureCanada

Fisheries and OceansCanada&


Project No. 09-1518 117

6.7.3.3 Wildlife Barrier Mitigation As a result of field work in 2009, two federal and provincial listed Threatened species, Blanding’s Turtle and Western Chorus Frog have been confirmed within the immediate area of the TFD alignment (Figure 8). Blanding’s turtle are known to over-winter in creeks and wetlands, and then wander the adjacent forests in search for warm sand or gravel deposits in which to lay their eggs. Due to the incidence of many small pools and ponds, both seasonal (ephemeral) and permanent, several species of frog and at least two species of salamander are known to breed in close proximity to the planned roadway. This includes the Western Chorus Frog, presently being listed as Threatened under the federal Species at Risk Act. These small amphibians are disappearing worldwide and although considered secure in Ontario, their breeding habitat, wet depressions and migration corridors deserve protection and offsetting compensation wherever possible. A Blanding’s Turtle Mitigation plan has been prepared to detail the work being undertaken to control this species from mounting the roadway. On an interim basis, prior to build out to the future four lane condition, placing ‘wet’ culverts that convey both the hydraulic creek flows and the aquatic species (fish, amphibians, turtles, insects) and some small mammals will be important in the low lying areas (Figure 9). In addition to mammals, Blanding’s turtle, snapping turtle and frogs also migrate overland between their wetland habitats, in some cases covering several kilometres, in search of mates or nesting / spawning sites. If forest habitats remain on both sides of the roadway barrier, they will try to reach them by crawling over the road unless a passage below is available. Culverts with dry to moist environments will therefore be needed in locations where we expect migration between the wet lowlands and dry highlands may be occurring (Figure 9). Four locations have been selected to facilitate this movement. In both the wet and dry passages, training the wildlife to use the passageways may be necessary through guide fencing along both sides, and wildlife guides walls integrated with the culverts and adjustments to the roadway side slope embankments in the wetlands. Therefore, the proposed mitigation measures to ensure wildlife passage are as follows:

• To reduce the barrier to ecological connectivity, multi-celled or over-wide arch culverts will be placed at wet crossings where high wildlife activity is known to occur, or may be expected to occur. For example: o Existing drainage ditches, wetlands and creeks along the Shirley’s Brook tributaries; o Multiple (3) culverts placed within the small wetland linking the Kizel Pond Complex to

the Carp River along Carp Tributary 1; and, o Dry culverts (4) along natural corridors in the hollows between rocky outcrops and adjacent

high-diversity habitats.

• To minimize the incidence of road kill: o The toe of side slopes of the right-of-way will be steepened with a minimum 0.6 m vertical

‘guide wall’ of armour stone or poured concrete for 50-100 m either side of the culvert crossing, depending on the topography;

o Ramps of gravel leading into the dry culverts be made to ensure a gradual transition; o To guide the animals to the culverts, barrier fencing will be installed at least 1.4 m high

with the top panel angled backwards and the bottom panel entrenched to resist burrowing. The fence fabric openings will be quite narrow, with a mesh size of 50 mm wide by 100 mm tall made of galvanized welded wire, plastic coated; and,


Project No. 09-1518 118

o Wildlife crossing warning signs should be increased in those areas where wildlife activity will remain high (i.e., Kizel Pond Urban Natural Features area, Shirley’s Brook watercourse crossings, PSW #1, #2, #3 & #4).

Wildlife Passage culverts will be located at the following stations along the road as shown on Figure 9. A set of three culverts (CV3) are placed at the ‘other’ wetland on the Carp River floodplain to allow equalization of flood waters, which will periodically reverse the flow from the river into the wetland to maintain the required flood storage capacity. Wildlife will be able to use these passages to migrate along the corridor of the Carp Tributary 1 into the Richardson’s Ridge Forest and east to Kizel Drain wetland complex.

• Wet Hydraulic / Wildlife Crossings: o CV2 - Stn.12+600; 1.5 X 1.2 m concrete box, 65 m long; sheet flow drainage; o CV3a – Stn 13+340;1.8 X 1.2 m concrete box, on skew 77 m long; Carp Tributary 1; o CV3b – Stn 13+360;1.8 X 1.2 m concrete box, 67 m long; Carp Tributary 1; o CV3c – Stn 13+400; 1.8 X 1.2 m, concrete box, on slight skew 67 m long; Carp Tributary

1; o CV4 – Stn 14+000; 1.8 X 1.2 m, concrete box, on skew 86 m long; Carp Tributary 2; o CV5 – 14+570; 4.27 X 1.83 m; concrete arch open footing, on skew; 65 m long; West

Shirley’s Brook, wet and dry passage; o CV6 – 15+500; 1.8 m X 0.9 m, concrete box, 45 m long; East Shirley’s Brook, will also

convey wildlife. Interim measure until creek is realigned; and, o CV7 – 16+200 (In TFD Part A); 1.8 X 0.9 m. concrete box; conveys sheet runoff from west

of the second line road allowance.

• Dry Wildlife Crossings (TCV: Terrestrial Culverts): o TCV1 – Stn 14+250; 1.2 wide X 0.9 m high, concrete box dry passage, on skew 58 m long

with ramping at either end; o TCV2 – 14+820; 1.2 m X 0.9 m concrete box culvert; 60 m long. Usually dry, will also

carry railway ditch drain (East Shirley’s Brook tributary 1) under the at-grade level crossing;

o TCV3 – Stn 15+150; 1.2 X 0.9 m, concrete box dry passage, 51 m long with ramping at either end, will convey seepage also; and,

o TCV4 – Stn 15+650; 1.2 X 0.9 m, concrete box dry culvert on skew, 64 m long with ramping.

As noted above, most culverts will include a guide-wall that is intended to lead animals into the culvert. The toe, or guide wall, will be a minimum of 0.60 m high, the same height as the dry wildlife culverts, so that migrating animals encountering the wall, will need to turn down-slope in the direction of the culvert and so come upon the culvert where it will find a place to cross. The top slab will overhang at least 200 mm to provide an additional barrier to those animals that can scale the vertical wall. Each of the culverts will have a three modified catch-basins incorporated into the median, and each boulevard, a so-called sky-light, to aid in encouraging the animals to use the crossing. Two culverts will have a dry granular bottom and two will have native soil bottoms, which should stay slightly moist. The two with native soil bottoms will also be colonized with 30 pieces each of large woody debris. Follow up monitoring is proposed to be conducted by the City as these culverts are experimental and data needs to be developed to demonstrate whether they work for animals or need to be modified on future road projects in the Province.


Project No. 09-1518 119

The wildlife passages are expected to be effective for reptiles, other than snakes, most amphibians, meso-mammals and small mammals but are not expected to provide a barrier to larger mammals that can leap, such as white-tailed deer. Smaller animals, that can fit through the 50 mm X 100 mm (2” X 4” tall) gap in the fence fabric may also be able to migrate beyond the fence line and possibly onto the roadway, but we expect the incidence of this occurrence to be low.

6.7.4 Effects Assessment and Specific Mitigation: Herptofauna Amphibians are particularly sensitive to environmental degradation and pollutants due to their unique anatomy (i.e. soft, moist skins), physiology (i.e. respiration through skin) and complex, two-stage life cycle (Source: Ontario Vernal Pools (a), 2009). With few exceptions, amphibians require relatively undisturbed habitat. Because of these attributes, frogs and salamanders documented in the study area (e.g. Yellow-spotted salamander, blue- spotted salamander, Western chorus frog, wood frog, spring peeper, northern leopard frog, etc.) are considered sensitive species. Habitat loss, pollutants and fatal encounters with automobiles during migration may reduce numbers in populations. The TFD extension will have both direct and indirect impacts on sensitive amphibian habitat. Direct impacts include the loss of 1.81 ha of wetland/vernal pool aquatic breeding habitat in wetland areas (Figure 5 and Figure 8), alteration to the hydrology of aquatic breeding pools/wetlands, habitat fragmentation and increased mortality during construction (e.g. hibernating individuals) and operational phases (e.g. vehicular traffic kills – Fahrig et al. 1995). An indirect impact of the TFD extension on sensitive amphibian habitat is habitat degradation due to chemical pollutants from road runoff (e.g. salt, hydrocarbons, etc.) and anthropogenic disturbances. Further, traffic disturbance to wetlands is a long-term impact, which could disrupt sensitive time periods for wildlife species (i.e. breeding) and/or lead to a general reduction in the condition of wildlife habitat (Josselyn, 1989). Carp River floodplain at Stn. 13+400

Approximately, 0.26 ha of the western edge of Carp River Tributary 1 other wetland (WL-04) falls within the TFD grading limit and will be disturbed. This encroachment will result in a small loss of amphibian habitat during the construction phase. No interim measures are required. Operational impacts include general disruption to amphibian habitat, runoff salt contamination and the potential hydrological alteration of the remaining wetland. Mitigation for the disturbance of wetland amphibian habitat at this location will involve installation of a set of three culverts set under the road profile around station 13+365 to maintain proper hydraulics of the 100 year flood lines. Partially to compensate for the loss of 0.26 ha of wetland habitat, an 8.2 ha of wetland habitat compensation area will be developed in the Carp River floodplain cut area, reusing the donor soils, genetic diversity and valuable seed bank stripped from this wetland will help the rapid colonization of the new wetland with organisms such as frogs and toads. South March Highland PSW #1/Vernal Pools at Stn. 14+600

VP 14+600 is a wooded swamp community that contains a large vernal pool area within the wooded swamp. The TFD alignment is proposed to bisect through the middle of VP 14+600, affecting the form and function of this wetland area. No land development is expected in the future. The road alignment will require extensive dredging of organic soils, filling of a substantial portion of the forest swamp habitat. Filling in this large vernal pool/wetland will result in the direct loss of 0.69 ha of amphibian breeding habitat, fragmentation of the remaining habitat and the probable displacement of area-sensitive, pollution-intolerant herptofauna as well as other wildlife species. Mitigation of the impacts to herptofauna habitat involved changes to the proposed location of the road alignment during preliminary design. For example, the road alignment has been shifted 30 m west to


Project No. 09-1518 120

avoid as much of the flooded swamp as possible. Further, the road sections have been adjusted to have steeper slopes and a lower profile to minimize the footprint here as much as possible. Other mitigation and compensation strategies will focus on avoiding losses in biodiversity and preservation of wetland hydrology. Vegetation clearing in this area will have restrictions from May 1 to July 31 to respect the migratory bird nesting period. An Edge Management Plan (EMP) / landscaping will be developed for the interface between the road infrastructure and the adjacent natural areas. Non-scalable guide walls will be installed up to 100 m either side of watercourses, or where in close proximity to sensitive wetlands. The width of the Shirley’s Brook culvert at the TFD crossing has been expanded to convey hydraulic flow through a central channel in the culvert as well as allow dry passage for wildlife. Live willow cuttings and the organically-rich ‘seedbank’ soil excavated from the wetland will be reused over the bottom of the rock cut to help restore the vegetative and soil microbial community. Lastly, a new 8.2 ha constructed wetland habitat will be created in Carp River floodplain offset cut to compensate for impacts here and create similar forested swamp herptofauna habitat. South March Highland PSW #3/Shirley’s Brook tributary (approx. 80m northwest of Stn. 15+350)

No encroachment of the road bed is expected to impact PSW#3 and affect herptofauna habitats. South March Highland PSW #4 / Permanent Pond (approx. 60m northwest of Stn. 15+600)

Pond 15+600 is part of a semi-open thicket swamp wetland PSW #4 of the South March Highlands Complex. The wetland feature is approximately 60 m north from the TFD alignment grading easement on lands protected by the City of Ottawa as conservation forest. The zone of influence for potential hydrogeological impacts during construction dewatering (e.g. water balance, water table elevation, surface water flow characterization, groundwater recharge/discharge, etc.) has been assessed and does not extend to this highly active, amphibian aquatic breeding habitat. As a result, the TFD road infrastructure and associated conventional construction dewatering is unlikely to have an effect on the form and function of PSW #4. Where blasting is used to excavate the road bed or to install storm sewers, there is a potential for the bedrock surrounding the pond to become fractured and no longer able to hold water year-round. A blasting management program will be called for in the specifications. This would include closer spacing of pilot holes, reduced charges in each hole and adjustments to the blast timing to minimize the percussive strength of the blast as it is transmitted through the ground. A blasting management zone of 50 m either side of the wetland is deemed to be an appropriate mitigation technique to reduce the risk of fracturing the bedrock. The City will monitor wetland water levels, turbidity and watercourse features during construction and for an appropriate duration after construction to ensure that the fluctuation of water levels, the patterns of surface water hydrology and local hydrogeology are maintained as currently existing. Vernal Pools 15+500 & 16+000

Half of Vernal Pool (VP) 15+500 is located within the TFD alignment at Stn. 15+500 on the south side. Roughly, 0.039 ha will be removed by the roadway footprint and longitudinal ditching and the remainder by the land developments pending future planning decisions. VP 16+000 is also located within the road alignment at Stn. 16+000. Approximately, an area of 0.031 ha will be removed by the road and the remainder by the land developments. During the early spring survey water depths were 0.3-1.0 m and the bottom of these pools were filled with leaf litter and dead fall. No amphibian species were noted in either area. During the mid-spring survey, the water level in these ephemeral depressions was substantially lower or completely dry. The brevity of vernal pool inundation at these sites suggests that they are not aquatic amphibian breeding habitat; therefore, removal of these vernal pools will have no impact on the local amphibian breeding success within the TFD area and will not require mitigation.


Project No. 09-1518 121

Vernal Pools 14+210, 15+235 & 15+ 640

All of these vernal pools are similar in size (i.e. 14+210 – 0.079 ha, 15+235 – 0.040 ha & 15+ 640 – 0.043 ha) and functionality. They are located within the roadway arc, south of the road alignment. Construction of the TFD alignment and future land developments will eliminate these vernal pools. VP 15+235 and VP 15+640 are close in proximity to other major wetlands/pond. VP 14+210 is an isolated ephemeral pool that is located a far distance from other wetland areas. Mitigation for the loss of these vernal pool will be partially offset by the 8.2 ha swamp wetland to be constructed within the Carp River floodplain offset cut area. During the road construction process, a silt fence, properly installed with the lower fabric flap buried in gravel, should be in place on either side of the right-of-way as to deter any amphibians from attempting to return to these ponds. In addition, road design has considered an embankment design that would inhibit herptofauna from crossing the road. Embankments up to 100 m either side of a watercourse crossing or dry wildlife crossing culvert have been steepened to 1:1 slopes, using shot-rock fill, to inhibit herptofauna from climbing onto the roadway. Distances either side of the crossing have been adjusted based on the vertical profile and local terrain, considering that guard rails will need to be installed in these locations to protect public safety.

6.7.5 Migratory Nesting Birds Effects Assessment The TFD road extension will be routed through existing migratory nesting bird habitat. To adequately assess the impact of the TFD extension on migratory nesting bird communities, a breeding bird survey and review of secondary source avian information was completed. Breeding bird habitat was documented in deciduous and mixed forests as well as various wetland (e.g., treed swamp, thicket swamp, marsh and meadow marsh) and open-country (e.g., shrub thicket, meadow and agricultural field) vegetation communities. The results of the breeding bird surveys are discussed below. The habitat for avian species at risk documented in the TFD Study Area is evaluated in Chapter 9.

6.7.5.1 Current Baseline: Breeding Bird Surveys Breeding bird surveys identified 70 species, and additional observations during other phases of fieldwork bring the total to 89 species observed. Additionally, data from the 2nd Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas (BBA) indicates that a total of 122 and 105 bird species were found as possible, probable or confirmed breeders in atlas squares 18VR22 and 18VR21 respectively, which encompass the Terry Fox Drive Study Area. The BBA data indicates that 2 Species at Risk were found with breeding evidence in atlas square 18VR22 during the second atlas project: black tern (Chlidonias niger), provincially listed as Special Concern, and golden-winged warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera), federally listed as Threatened and Provincially listed as Special Concern. Furthermore, NHIC database information indicates a historical record for breeding loggerhead shrike, federally and provincially listed as Endangered, near the Study Area dating back to 1981. During fieldwork one singing golden-winged warbler was observed in the Study Area, well west of where the proposed alignment crosses the Arnprior-Nepean rail line, nearest to station 14+800 (Figure 8). No black terns' or loggerhead shrike were observed at any time despite several trips through the area. Several of the birds observed on breeding surveys are considered area-sensitive forest interior species including: wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina), scarlet tanager (Piranga olivacea), ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus), blue-headed vireo (Vireo solitarius), ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus) and pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus). There were also 36 Ottawa-Carleton Regional Conservation Priority species observed on breeding bird surveys.


Project No. 09-1518 122

A list of birds observed during fieldwork along with conservation status is presented in Appendix L – Table 2. Pre-Clearance Nest Survey for Geotechnical Testing

A short study was conducted April 27 – 29, 2009 just as nesting season was beginning, to provide a clear path for the geotechnical drill rig to follow. Overall there were 6 confirmed and 3 suspected nesting sites within 50 meters of the proposed drill rig path found during the nesting survey. Five nests (confirmed or suspected) were within 20 meters of the path and were flagged with caution tape to inform the forestry technicians so the rig could be routed around the nests without disturbing the birds. Species found nesting during this early season survey include northern flicker, American robin, white-breasted nuthatch, black-capped chickadee and hairy woodpecker.

6.7.5.2 Effects Assessment and Specific Mitigation: Migratory Nesting Birds The future land development and extension of Terry Fox Drive through the South March Highlands will impact breeding bird species in several ways. On an interim basis until the land is fully developed, forest habitat will be fragmented, creating double-edge effect, with altered vegetation communities as well as allowing easier access for humans, predators and bird-nest parasites. Fragmenting the forest will also reduce the suitability of habitat for interior forest specialists that require larger unbroken sections of forest habitat as noted above for wildife. Once the land development is complete, the habitat will no longer be fragmented, but will be reduced in area and quality considerably. Internal forest conditions will no longer be available until well north of the road. Woodland bird species have been shown to suffer more negative impacts relating to habitat fragmentation and are less willing to cross highways compared to open country birds (Keller et al 1996). Loss of forest cover may have a negative effect on the distribution of forest breeding birds on site level (Trzcinski et al, 1999) and landscape level scales (Austen et al, 2001). However, though some interior forest habitat will be fragmented and lost due to the road extension, sufficient interior habitat will remain in the South March Highlands northwest of the Study Area to support most forest interior dependant bird species in the area. It is suggested that a forest 200 hectares in size is required to support 80% of interior nesting species, and forest patches of 100 hectares will support 60% (Environment Canada, 2004). Forest patch sizes in the range of 50-75 hectares tend to be dominated by edge tolerant species with few interior species present (Environment Canada, 2004). Forest patches left over on the south side of the Terry Fox ROW will be smaller, pending future planning decisions on the draft plans of subdivision, and are likely to lose a greater percentage of the local population of interior forest bird species. The remaining ANSI woodlots, wetlands and wintering areas that will remain as conservation forests will still be over 700 ha and will retain the internal forest conditions over a wide range of habitat types and vertical relief supporting many of the bird species observed here in 2009. Road traffic will increase the amount of disturbance to the wildlife community through excess noise and movement (Young, 1989) making these habitats less attractive to wildlife. Roads may act as a barrier to dispersal for birds, through combination of disturbance and avoidance (Clarke et al, 1998). It is unlikely that Terry Fox Drive will be an insurmountable physical barrier during the interim period, and forest interior birds should be able to disperse across gaps as necessary, though some behavioral aversion may result (Canadian Wildlife Service, 2007). Some forest interior species (e.g., hooded warbler (Wilsonia citrina) have been documented crossing openings up to 465 m (Norris and Stutchbury, 2001). It is also likely that bird kills in the area as a result of vehicular collisions will increase; however, contemporary research on wildlife road kills has focused more on mammal and herptile impacts and mitigation and less on birds (Canadian Wildlife Service, 2007).


Project No. 09-1518 123

Developing housing and extending Terry Fox Drive through the South March highlands will likely increase human access to habitats considerably. Increased human presence will likely have a disturbing effect on sensitive forest interior species, interrupting their important life processes like feeding, territorial behavior, breeding and rearing young (Canadian Wildlife Service, 2007). Miller et al (1998) found that presence of sensitive forest species is much reduced near trail systems. Other generalist species such as American robin, or Bluejay may be expected to adapt well to the altered environment. The City of Ottawa’s Environmental Noise Control Guidelines (ENCG, 2006) will be applied to this project. In spite of these measures, vehicular traffic noise could be a significant stressor to breeding birds and deleterious noise disturbances at forest edge may extend over 100 m into the undisturbed forest interior habitat. Noise studies have shown that road traffic can increase the amount of disturbance to the wildlife community through excess noise and movement (Reijnen et al 1995, Stone 2000 in Jacobsen 2005) making otherwise suitable habitats less attractive to wildlife. Noise pollution may interfere with auditory detection of singing male songbirds, reducing mating success and making the establishment and defense of territories more difficult (Reijnen and Foppen, 1994 in Jacobsen 2005). Increased noise may also make it more difficult for birds to detect predators (Scherzinger, 1973 IN Jacobsen, 2005). Forest vegetation structure will be altered near the roadway and residential communities, negatively impacting interior forest species by changing the abundance of low vegetation, which is used as nesting habitat. It is also possible that increased presence of invasive species may be less suitable as nesting habitat. Schmidt and Whelan (1999) found that nest predation rates are higher in non-native shrubs like honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii) and common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica). In addition, the urban development and road may increase the access for cavity nesting European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris), which compete with native cavity nesting species like nuthatches and small woodpeckers (Koenig 2003). Access will also increase for the native nest parasites brown-headed cowbirds, which actively seek edge habitats like stream corridors and roadways (Canadian Wildlife Service, 2007). Opening up the roadway will increase access for both common urban native predators like raccoons, blue jays, crows and non-native, domestic predators like cats (Canadian Wildlife Service, 2007). Potential adverse effects may result from the destruction or permanent abandonment of a nest or the increased predation of eggs and young during temporary abandonment. These predation and disturbance impacts could result in a decrease in passerine nesting success for some species (Friesen et al, 1999). During construction the incremental impacts to migratory birds breeding within the work area will begin to occur during the road site preparation activities and continue as the lands subsequently develop afterwards. A short-term in-direct disturbance to migratory nesting birds could occur during the preconstruction period when vegetation is physically cleared within the grading limit of the ROW. It is recognized that the projects will need to comply with the federal Migratory Birds Convention Act (MBCA) (1994) and the provincial Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (FWCA) (1997). Further, the City is also aware that the “incidental take” of migratory birds and the disturbance, destruction or taking of the nest of a migratory bird are prohibited under Section 6 of the Migratory Bird Regulations. “Incidental take” is defined as the killing or harming of migratory birds due to actions, such as economic development, which are not primarily focused on taking migratory birds.

6.7.5.3 Mitigation: Nesting Migratory Birds

There is minimal documentation in the scientific literature on the effectiveness of mitigation measures in avoiding or reducing the impacts of road infrastructure development on migratory nesting birds. Most mitigation options suggested for birds have been developed for other wildlife species, particularly large mammals, but these techniques may also be effective for birds (Jacobsen, 2005). Mitigation efficacy will


Project No. 09-1518 124

vary in different habitat types and sensitivities and no mitigation program will completely eliminate the disturbance impacts to area-sensitive interior forest birds. No permit can be issued for the incidental take of migratory birds or their nests. Anticipating the construction activities that are necessary, including blasting, mitigation will focus on avoid the disturbance of nesting birds during vegetation clearing. To mitigate contravening the Migratory Bird Conventions Act (MBCA), the OFWCA or the ESA by disturbing breeding or nesting birds, vegetation clearing, grubbing, materials stockpiling and/or general construction activities adjacent to forested natural features will not occur between May 1st and July 23rd. In areas of wetland, scrub thicket and open fields, clearing is not to occur between May 1st and July 31st . If site clearing must occur during this time period, a qualified avian biologist will complete a nesting survey in the area to pre-clear areas for clearing. If no active nests are observed in the area, clearing will be allowed to occur for a predetermined period (e.g., 3 to 5 days) before activities must cease and another nest survey must be completed. However, if breeding bird activity is observed within the construction area, specific mitigation measures, such as prohibition of clearing until after the nesting period or establishment of appropriate buffers around active nests, will be implemented to avoid direct impacts on breeding birds and/or their habitats. Additional guidance on this matter may be provided by Environment Canada – Canadian Wildlife Service or the MNR. To recap the restrictive dates to be used to control clearing:

Forested Areas: May 1st to July 23rd Wetlands, scrub thickets, open fields: May 1st to July 31st

Blasting will be carried out, predominantly in the highland areas between Stn 14+000 and 15+700. Excavations to install storm sewers, sanitary sewers, water mains, culverts and the road bed will be conducted throughout the year. During land developments, the same procedures will be followed. Blasting mats will be draped over all areas to be removed, both to muffle the sound and to reduce the incidence of flying stone and dust. Although the percussive noise of modern explosives is not particularly load, the vibration effects can be disturbing for a considerable distance, of up to 5 km away. It may be expected that vibrations such as this will disturb nesting birds sufficiently that they may need to move further into the forest for breeding and nesting. Competition for nesting space may therefore result, but this is a short term impact that will occur only once as the roadbed is prepared.

6.7.6 Assessment of Significance: All Wildlife Species Table 6-11 provides a summary of the wildlife effects assessment. The relative significance of the incremental environmental effects on the current baseline for each activity is evaluated.


Project No. 09-1518 125

Table 6-11 – Summary of Effects on Wildlife on the Current Baseline Conditions

Project Interaction Potential Effect Mitigative Factor and Measure Significance

Criteria Rationale of Significance Statement

Assessment of

Significance

Timing: Construction Site Preparation: Tree Clearing, Grubbing, Blasting

• Direct loss of wildlife habitat 10.4 ha

• Bird mortality or loss of migratory bird nests

• Road barrier and fragmentation

• Risk of road kill during migration movements

• Increased edge effect

• Disturbance to Species at risk

• Vibrations due to blasting may cause relocation

• Compensate loss with constructed wetland and afforestation totalling 10.2 ha.

• Clearing and grubbing of the ROW in forested sections will be conducted outside of the general nesting window (May 1st to July 23rd) and in wetland /scrub/open sections (May 1st to July 31st) to avoid destruction of nests.

• Install wildlife guide fencing, walls and passage culverts to reduce roadkill and allow animals to safely migrate across the road.

• Wildlife fencing limits edge effects to within the ROW by restricting human access, trapping litter, stopping predation by domestic pets.

• Training provided to construction crews in recognizing, avoiding and properly dealing with the wildlife encountered.

• Manage blasting with reduced charges, baffle mats, and tighter pilot hole spacing

Nature of Effect: negative, direct Magnitude – Moderate Geographic Extent - Local Duration - Short-term Frequency - Once Permanence – Permanent Ecological Context-Regional, population-scale effects

• Offsetting compensation.

• Clearing not significant to migratory birds with timing restrictions followed.

Fragmentation and road kill risk not significant with guide fencing / walls as they allow animals to move to new habitats over next 7-10 yrs. • Edge impacts not

significant; residual interim effects as future development eliminates remaining habitat.

• MNR to assist with safely relocating animals when needed.

• Temporary vibrations not significant for internal species with mitigation.


Construction in Wetland Habitats

• Potential to excavate hibernating turtles

• May alter migration routes further away from road

• Removes tree cover and organic soils

• Blasting near water may stun or kill animals

• Tree clearing and blasting may interrupt nesting birds

• Construction in open water areas has been avoided

• Conduct risk-based decision on construction through wetland to determine the best timing

• Altered migration route may be a positive effect

• Clear trees outside May 1 – July 31 window.

• No in-water works March 15 – June 30 to protect aquatic wildlife breeding periods.

• Manage blasting to reduce percussive forces near water

• Integrate organic wetland soils into bottom of streambed to support the microrganisms that in turn support amphibians and reptiles.

Nature of Effect: overall positive, direct Magnitude – Moderate Geographic Extent - Local Duration - interim Frequency - Once Permanence – Permanent Ecological Context- Local, small scale effects on fishery

• Significant blasting required;

• Mitigation is practical;

• Restoration normally shows good rates of recovery of aquatic biota and surrounding vegetation.

• Constructed habitats need to be cultured with soil microbes, phytoplankton, zooplankton and good bacterial colonies



Project No. 09-1518 126

Project Interaction Potential Effect Mitigative Factor and Measure Significance

Criteria Rationale of Significance Statement

Assessment of

Significance

Timing: Operations Routine operations and maintenance

• Wildlife road kill

• Mortality associated with ROW maintenance

• Noise disturbance

• Interim habitat fragmentation

• Permanent edge effects

• Regular cutting of brush near fencing and inspections of fence fabric to repair cuts in wire

• Monitor wildlife mortality and adjust program of avoidance

• Installation of wide arch culverts with guiding ramps in areas of high wildlife traffic

• Steepened slopes on road shoulder to discourage wildlife crossings

• Installation of wildlife crossing signage at key points

• Edge Management Plan for interface between road and natural area to minimize noise

Nature of Effect: negative, indirect Magnitude – Medium Geographic Extent - Local Duration - Long-term, continuous Frequency - Periodic Permanence – PermanentEcological Context- -Local, population-scale effects

• Wildlife mortalities can be significantly reduced with guide fencing and culverts

• Minor Displacement of area-sensitive interior species for 100 m or greater from forest edge.


Documents

Terry Fox Drive CEAA Screening Final Report – April 2010...6.7.1.3 Breeding Bird Survey One formal breeding bird survey was conducted in the Study Area on June 2, 2009. Birds were