Brookfield Residential (Ontario) Bolton Limited · 4-7 50 Ann Street Scoped Environmental Impact...

Brookfield Residential (Ontario) Bolton Limited

50 Ann Street Scoped Environmental Impact Study

Revised February 26, 2018

CIMA+ Project No. C14-0227

C14

-022

7

50 Ann Street Scoped Environmental Impact Study

CIMA+ Project no C14-0227

Prepared by : ______________________________ Jennifer Haslett Senior Project Manager, Environment

CIMA+ 55 King Street East

Bowmanville, ON L1C 1N4


Brookfield Residential (Ontario) Bolton Limited 50 Ann Street Scoped Environmental Impact Study


i

C14

-022

7

Table of Contents

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

2. Review of Existing Information ....................................................................... 2

3. Site Context ...................................................................................................... 2

4. Site Investigation .............................................................................................. 4

4.1 Methods.............................................................................................................................................. 4

4.2 Vegetation Community ..................................................................................................................... 4

4.3 Bird Community ................................................................................................................................ 8

5. Assessment of the Natural Heritage System ............................................... 10

5.1 Delineation of the Natural Heritage System .................................................................................. 10

5.2 Evaluation of Feature Significance ................................................................................................ 10

6. Assessment of Natural Heritage System Function ..................................... 19

7. Policy and Legislation Review ...................................................................... 20

7.1 Migratory Birds Convention Act .................................................................................................... 20

7.2 Planning Act .................................................................................................................................... 20

7.2.1 Provincial Policy Statement ........................................................................ 20

7.2.2 Region of Peel Official Plan........................................................................ 21

7.2.3 Town of Caledon Official Plan .................................................................... 22

7.3 Conservation Authorities Act ......................................................................................................... 24

8. Evaluation of Ecological Impacts ................................................................. 24

9. Recommended Mitigation Measures ............................................................ 29

10. Review of Policy Conformance ..................................................................... 31

Brookfield Residential (Ontario) Bolton Limited 50 Ann Street Scoped Environmental Impact Study Revised February 26, 2018

ii

C14

-022

7

List of Tables

Table 1. Floristic Quality Indicator Calculations for the Subject Site ..................................... 8

Table 2. Woodland Significance Criteria Applied to the Forest Patch ................................. 12

Table 3. Assessment of Wildlife Habitat Significance at the Subject Site ............................ 14

Table 4. Habitat Requirements for Species of Conservation Concern at the Subject Site .. 19

Table 5. Summary of Mitigation Measures for Predicted Impacts ....................................... 30

Table 6. Cross-Reference of Policy Requirements and Mitigation/Compensation .............. 31

List of Figures

Figure 1. Location of Subject Site......................................................................................... 1

Figure 2. Natural Heritage System Identified by TRCA ......................................................... 3

Figure 3. Ecological Land Classification on the Subject Site ................................................ 5

Figure 4. Constructed Greenland on the Subject Property ................................................... 6

Figure 5. Dry-Fresh Black Locust Deciduous Forest on the Subject Site .............................. 7

Figure 6. Dry-Fresh Black Locust Deciduous Forest on the Subject Site .............................. 7

Figure 7. Breeding Bird Survey Station Location .................................................................. 9

Figure 8. Chimney of the Former Building on the Subject Site ............................................. 9

Figure 9. Natural Heritage System at the Subject Site........................................................ 10

Figure 10. Contiguous Forest Patch Adjacent the Subject Site .......................................... 12

Figure 11. Revised Development Concept for the Subject Site .......................................... 26

List of Appendices

Appendix 1 Vegetation Species List

Appendix 2 Bird Species List



1

C14

-022

7

1. Introduction

Brookfield Residential (Ontario) Bolton Limited (‘Brookfield’) is proposing an infill

development on a 0.36 ha property known as 50 Ann Street in Bolton, Ontario. The proposed

development consists of a 5-storey, multi-unit residential condominium with underground

parking. The general location of the subject site is shown on Figure 1.

Figure 1. Location of Subject Site

During pre-consultation with the Town of Caledon, it was identified that an Environmental

Impact Study (EIS) would be required as part of the planning approvals, and a permit from

the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) would also be required. This EIS

provides an assessment of impact from the proposed development in support of the planning

approvals and the TRCA permit review. The EIS generally conforms to the requirements of

the 2007 TRCA Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines and the 2016 Consolidation of

the Town of Caledon Official Plan.

Pre-consultation with the TRCA was conducted to define an appropriate scope for the EIS,

recognizing the context of the natural features in the vicinity and that the infill development

will be occurring on a previously developed site. The discussions resulted in an agreement

that the scope would be limited to an investigation of the following natural heritage features:

+ Woodlands

+ Wildlife habitat


2

C14

-022

7

+ Vegetation communities

+ Habitats of Vulnerable, Threatened and Endangered Species (VTEs)

+ Habitats of Species of Conservation Concern

+ TRCA's Terrestrial Natural Heritage System

2. Review of Existing Information

Available existing and secondary source information relevant to the study area was reviewed

to identify preliminary issues, understand information gaps, and confirm the anticipated scope

of work for field surveys and data collection. Background information included:

+ Aerial imagery (Land Information Ontario)

+ Environmental mapping in the Official Plans of the Town of Caledon and Region of Peel

+ Fish and wildlife data records from the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC),

Species at Risk Act (SARA) website, and published atlases

+ Natural heritage feature designations within and adjacent to the site, including:

o Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI)

o Provincially and Locally Significant Wetlands (PSWs and LSWs)

o Environmentally Significant Areas (ESAs)

o Habitat of significant wildlife

+ Natural heritage features and functions identified in the Humber River Watershed Plan

+ Data sets from the TRCA and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF)

3. Site Context

The general site is situated within Ecoregion 6E; part of the Mixedwood Plains of Southern

Ontario. Vegetation within this Ecoregion is relatively diverse. Land cover is predominantly

cropland and abandoned fields, interspersed with forest cover and water features. Ecoregion

6E is the second most densely populated ecoregion in Ontario.

The subject site is specifically located within the Main Branch drainage area of the Humber

River watershed, on the south slope physiographic region where till is the dominant surficial

geological material. Soils in this area are dominated by modern alluvial deposits consisting

of clay, silt, sand, and gravel.

The main channel of the Humber River is located northwest of the subject site (Figure 2), and

the regulated area of the river extends across the entire site due to the flood vulnerability of

the area. No aquatic features or fish habitat are present at or on the subject site.



3

C14

-022

7

Natural cover near the subject site is limited to forested areas interspersed among the

developments at the periphery of downtown Bolton. TRCA has identified some of the forested

areas as part of the Natural Heritage System (NHS), as shown on Figure 2. Habitat patch

quality for this portion of the NHS is identified as Poor in the Humber River Watershed Plan.

No potential natural cover (proposed restoration areas) were identified on the subject site.

Core areas of the Greenlands System as identified by the Region of Peel Official Plan are

located to the north of the subject site and well outside of the study area.

The Town of Caledon has identified an Environmental Policy Area northwest of the subject

site, associated with the Humber River. There are no environmental features identified by the

Town of Caledon on the subject site. The subject site is within a High Density Residential

land use zone within the core settlement area of the community of Bolton. It is also within the

Bolton Special Policy Area as defined in the Town of Caledon Official Plan.

The subject site is not within the Oak Ridges Moraine or the Greenbelt Plan area. There are

no ANSIs, PSWs, LSWs, ESAs, or rare species records identified for the subject site.

Figure 2. Natural Heritage System Identified by TRCA


4

C14

-022

7

4. Site Investigation

4.1 Methods

Field investigations were carried out as per standard protocols between June 2 and 27, 2016.

Field work was coordinated with the arborist representing Bruce Tree Experts to maximize

data collaboration. The arborist report is provided separately by others.

Vegetation surveys followed the Ecological Land Classification method for Southern Ontario

(Lee et al. 1998). Surveys consisted of a characterization of the vegetation in each of the

habitat units, along with soil cores to characterize moisture regime and textures. All growing

layers of vegetation were in growth at the time of inventory.

Breeding bird surveys followed methods from the Breeding Bird Atlas of Ontario (OBBA

2001). Two rounds of breeding bird surveys were completed on June 2 and June 27, 2016.

Weather conditions were favorable with temperatures ranging between 18°C and 20°C.

Winds were calm to light during both surveys. Surveys took place between dawn and 7 AM.

During each survey, a point count consisting of 10 minutes of observation was completed.

All birds seen or heard were recorded. Distance and direction from the observer, behavioural

observations and breeding evidence were noted.

4.2 Vegetation Community

The site is located within an urbanized part of downtown Bolton. It is on a level lot that rises

steeply at the rear of the lot, towards the southwest. At the time of survey, approximately

three-quarters of the site consisted of paved parking and an existing one-storey building. The

remainder of the site had two vegetation units: the first is a Constructed Greenland located

on the level portion of the site and the second is a Deciduous Forest unit that covers the

sloped portion at the rear of the site (Figure 3).

Constructed Greenland (CGL)

The vegetation cover observed in the Constructed Greenland (CGL) consists of non-native

grasses and forbs dominated by Poa species, Common Dandelion (Taraxacum officinale)

and Red Clover (Trifolium pratense). A hedgerow of mature trees that includes Norway Maple

(Acer platanoides), Eastern White Cedar (Thuja occidentalis) and Black Walnut (Juglans

nigra) separates the site from the southeast property. The substrate is a well-drained, well-

graded granular material, likely fill. This area is highly disturbed and has not been recently

maintained. There was an old picnic table, unused planter boxes and a former horseshoe pit.

A Northern Raccoon (Procyon lotor) was observed in a Norway Maple in the hedgerow. Birds

may also find habitat in the mature trees of the hedgerow. Small rodents and insects,

including pollinators, likely use the CGL. A photograph of the CGL is provided as Figure 4.



5

C14

-022

7

Figure 3. Ecological Land Classification on the Subject Site

Dry-Fresh Black Locust Deciduous Forest (FOD4-11)

The deciduous forest (FOD4-11) on the site has a canopy dominated by mature Black Locust

(Robinia pseudoacacia) with associates of White and Green Ash (Fraxinus americana;

Fraxinus pennsylvanica), Norway Maple, and Manitoba Maple (Acer negundo). Sugar Maple

(Acer saccharum) and Black Locust form a layer just below the canopy. The understorey is

well developed and consists of Alternate-leaved Dogwood (Cornus alternifolia) and

Chokecherry (Prunus virginiana). The ground is generally bare due to shading except at the

top and base of the slope, where a dense ground cover of Garlic Mustard (Alliaria petiolata)

and occasional small patches of escaped cultivars such as Lily-of-the-valley (Convallaria

majalis) and Celandine (Chelidonium majus) were observed. There is abundant dead fall of

varying sizes and occasional standing snags. The soil on the slope ranges from silty clay to

sandy clay loam and is moderately well-drained. This forest unit is habitat for birds, Red and

Grey Squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus, Sciurus carolinensis), Eastern Chipmunk (Tamias

striatus) and Northern Raccoon. Many signs of anthropogenic disturbance were observed in

this FOD including strewn garbage, debris and invasive species. Representative photographs

are provided as Figure 5 and Figure 6.


6

C14

-022

7

Figure 4. Constructed Greenland on the Subject Property

It should be noted that only the portion of the forest on the subject site was investigated.

Based on aerial photograph interpretation and observations from public rights-of-way, the

remainder of the forest could potentially be classified as Dry-Fresh Manitoba Maple

Deciduous Forest (FOD4-5) or Dry-Fresh Norway Maple Deciduous Forest (FOD4-6).

A vascular plant list for the subject site is provided as Appendix 1. No species at risk were

identified as part of the survey, and all native species encountered are considered provincially

and globally secure. Of the native species found, all are ranked by TRCA as L4 or L5. The

L5 species are considered generally secure. The L4 species can be considered of

conservation concern in an urban matrix, based on a site-specific assessment.

Floristic quality indicator calculations were completed for all the vegetation on the subject

site, and for the portion of the FOD on the subject site. Values from the Floristic Quality

Assessment System for Southern Ontario were used (Oldham et al 1995). The results are

provided in Table 1.



7

C14

-022

7

Figure 5. Dry-Fresh Black Locust Deciduous Forest on the Subject Site

Figure 6. Dry-Fresh Black Locust Deciduous Forest on the Subject Site


8

C14

-022

7

Table 1. Floristic Quality Indicator Calculations for the Subject Site

Floristic Quality Indicator

Result for All

Vegetation on the

Subject Site

Result for FOD

Vegetation on the

Subject Site

Proportion of native to non-native

species

41% native; 59% non-

native

62% native; 38% non-

native

Average Coefficient of Conservatism

(CC) 1.4

2.4

Number of conservative species 0 0

Floristic Quality Index (FQI) 7.3 9.6

Average Wetness 1.8 1.3

4.3 Bird Community

Eleven species of birds which are commonly associated with human environments were

observed during the breeding bird surveys. One survey station was selected due to the small

size of the property (Figure 7). All species heard and/or seen within 250 m of the observer

were recorded. Information about distance, direction, behaviour, sex and breeding evidence

were also noted. The data results are provided as Appendix 2.

Species observed were American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), American Robin (Turdus

migratorius), House Sparrow (Passer domesticus), European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris),

Blue Jay (Cyanocitta cristata), Northern Cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), Chipping Sparrow

(Spizella passerina), Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia), American Goldfinch (Spinus tristis),

White-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis) and Chimney Swift (Chaetura pelagica). All of

these species are widespread and secure in Ontario except the Chimney Swift which is listed

as threatened and protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA 2007).

Two Chimney Swifts were seen flying over the parking area of the site. These individuals

appeared to be using the general area for foraging and are not likely to be nesting at the site.

The former building at the site had a small brick chimney with a clay tile liner of approximately

20 cm diameter (Figure 8). The remnants of a corroded metal pipe were observed at the edge

of the chimney opening which may have further constricted the diameter of the opening.

Chimney swifts are not known to nest in chimneys with a diameter less than 25 cm.



9

C14

-022

7

Figure 7. Breeding Bird Survey Station Location

Figure 8. Chimney of the Former Building on the Subject Site


10

C14

-022

7

5. Assessment of the Natural Heritage System

The background information and data collected in the field were reviewed together to confirm

the extent of the NHS on the site, determine the significance of the natural heritage features

in the NHS, and assess the ecological function of the NHS at the subject site.

5.1 Delineation of the Natural Heritage System

Based on the review of existing information and field verification of natural heritage features,

the NHS at the subject site consists of the forest patch at the southwest edge, defined by the

drip line as staked in the field by TRCA (Figure 9). There are no other natural features on the

subject site. Planted vegetation such as street trees and hedgerows are examined separately

by Bruce Tree Experts in an arborist report. This EIS focuses on the NHS as identified in this

report.

Figure 9. Natural Heritage System at the Subject Site

5.2 Evaluation of Feature Significance

The 2014 Provincial Policy Statement provides direction on which natural features and areas

in Ontario should be considered significant. The Policy defines these areas as:



11

C14

-022

7

+ Significant wetlands, including coastal wetlands (wetlands evaluated by the MNRF as

Provincially Significant)

+ Significant woodlands (woodlands meeting local or regional tests of significance)

+ Significant valleylands (valleylands meeting local or regional tests of significance)

+ Significant wildlife habitat (habitat meeting MNRF guidelines for significance)

+ Significant areas of natural and scientific interest (features identified as ANSI by MNRF)

+ Fish habitat (watercourses and waterbodies identified by the local Conservation

Authority)

+ Habitat of endangered and threatened species (habitat for species protected under the

Endangered Species Act or Species at Risk Act)

The NHS at the subject site does not include any wetlands, valleylands, ANSIs, fish habitat,

or habitat of endangered and threatened species. Therefore, the assessment of significance

is scoped to woodlands and wildlife habitat.

Woodlands

Significance of woodlands is determined by applying local or regional tests appropriate to the

planning area. In this case, the forest on the subject site was assessed using criteria in the

Region of Peel Official Plan. The patch size of the forest to which the subject site is a part,

was delineated based on guidelines in the Region of Peel Official Plan. Specifically, the

contiguous area of the forest patch was delineated based on the canopy areas unbroken by

urban development and infrastructure. Recreational paths were not considered a break in

contiguous cover. The resulting patch size was calculated as 0.86 ha, and is shown on Figure

10. The significance criteria and evaluation are presented in Table 2.

It should be noted that the Region of Peel Official Plan includes a caveat stating that treed

communities which are dominated by invasive non-native trees species can be excluded from

consideration as significant woodlands, as these species threaten the ecological functions

and biodiversity of native communities.

The vegetation assessment and tree inventory showed that the portion of the FOD on the

subject site was dominated by non-native invasive species (e.g. Black Locust, Manitoba

Maple, Norway Maple). Based on aerial photograph interpretation and visual observation

from public rights-of-way, it is likely that the remainder of the forest patch is also dominated

by poor quality / non-native species such as Manitoba Maple and Norway Maple.

The Floristic Quality Index (FQI) calculated for the FOD is an indication of native vegetative

quality. Generally a score of 1-19 indicates low vegetative quality; 20-35 indicates high

vegetative quality, and >35 indicates quality commensurate with undisturbed natural areas.


12

C14

-022

7

Figure 10. Contiguous Forest Patch Adjacent the Subject Site

The FOD on the subject site has an FQI of 9.6, which is indicative of a poor quality, highly

disturbed vegetation community. This is typical for urban settings, especially in forest patches

where the shape is convoluted and the proportion of edge to interior is high.

The forest patch of which the subject site is a part, meets size and proximity criteria for

consideration as a Natural Area and Corridor according to the Region of Peel Official Plan.

However, the dominance of non-native and invasive species in the community meets the test

for exclusion as a significant woodland. Therefore, the forest on the subject site is not

significant as defined in Provincial Policy. Nevertheless, all remaining forest cover in a

watershed, especially in urban areas is important, so mitigation for loss is warranted.

Table 2. Woodland Significance Criteria Applied to the Forest Patch

Significance Criteria Forest Patch Evaluation

To be considered a 'Core Woodland’, must exceed at

least one of the following thresholds:

The forest patch size is

0.86 ha, does not contain

any native trees greater



13

C14

-022

7

Significance Criteria Forest Patch Evaluation

16 ha in a rural area; or 4 ha in an urban area

4 ha and containing at least 0.5 ha of native

trees older than 100 years

4 ha and supporting any G1, G2, G3, S1, S2, or

S3 species, or any Endangered, Threatened, or

Special Concern species, or composed of any of

the following communities: FOC1-2, FOM2-1,

FOM2-2, FOM6-1, FOD1-1, FOD1-2, FOD1-4,

FOD2-2, FOD2-3, FOD6-2

than 100 years old, does

not support any rare

species of the ranks

indicated, and is not one of

the community types

indicated.

Therefore, the patch would

not be considered a Core

Woodland.

To be considered a 'Natural Area and Corridor', must

exceed at least one of the following thresholds:

4 ha up to 16 ha in a rural area; 2 ha up to 4

ha in an urban area

0.5 ha up to 4 ha and containing at least 0.5 ha

of native trees older than 100 years

0.5 ha and supporting a significant linkage

function

0.5 ha and within 100 m of another significant

feature

0.5 ha and within 30 m of a watercourse or

wetland

0.5 ha up to 4 ha and supporting any G1, G2,

G3, S1, S2, or S3 species, or any Endangered,

Threatened, or Special Concern species, or

composed of any of the following communities:

FOC1-2, FOM2-1, FOM2-2, FOM6-1, FOD1-1,

FOD1-2, FOD1-4, FOD2-2, FOD2-3, FOD6-2

The forest patch is greater

than 0.5 ha, and is within 30

m of a watercourse.

Therefore, the patch could

be considered a Natural

Area and Corridor.

Wildlife Habitat

The Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide in support of the Provincial Policy Statement

provides guidance on the identification and evaluation of significant wildlife habitats in

Ontario. These guidelines were reviewed and applied to the NHS at the subject site to


14

C14

-022

7

determine presence of significant wildlife habitat. The results of this evaluation are provided

in Table 3.

Table 3. Assessment of Wildlife Habitat Significance at the Subject Site

Significant Wildlife

Habitat Feature Evaluation of Presence at Subject Site

Habitat for seasonal concentrations of animals

Winter deer yards The forest at the subject site is not a large block composed of

primarily coniferous trees; therefore it would not be

considered a winter deer yard.

Moose late winter

habitat

The subject site is not within normal range of moose;

therefore it would not be considered moose late winter

habitat.

Colonial bird nesting

sites

None of the birds identified in the surveys are considered

colonial nesters, and no evidence of bird nesting colonies was

found; therefore the site would not be considered colonial bird

nesting habitat.

Waterfowl stopover

and staging areas

There are no wetlands or large bodies of water at the subject

site; therefore the site would not be considered a waterfowl

stopover or staging area.

Waterfowl nesting

habitat

The upland habitat at the subject site is predominantly on a

steep forested slope; therefore the site would not be

considered suitable nesting habitat for waterfowl.

Shorebird migratory

stopover areas

There are no shorelines or mudflat habitats at the subject site;

therefore it would not be considered shorebird migratory

stopover habitat.

Landbird migratory

stopover areas

The subject site is not within 2 km of a large waterbody on a

migratory route; therefore it would not be considered a

landbird migratory stopover area.



15

C14

-022

7



Raptor winter feeding

and roosting area

The forest at the subject site does not provide mature mixed

cover adjacent to large hunting fields; therefore it would not

be considered a raptor winter feeding and roosting area.

Wild Turkey winter

range

The forest at the subject site does not provide dense conifer

cover in proximity to foraging fields; therefore it would not be

considered Wild Turkey winter range.

Turkey Vulture summer

roosting areas

The subject site does not provide rocky cliff ledges near

water; therefore it would not be considered Turkey Vulture

summer roosting habitat.

Reptile hibernacula There are no natural landforms or anthropogenic features that

would provide cavities below the frost line for hibernation;

therefore the subject site does not provide reptile

hibernaculum habitat.

Bat hibernacula There are no deep caves or similar structures on the subject

site that would provide climate conditions suitable for bat

overwintering; therefore, the site would not be considered to

provide bat hibernacula habitat.

Bullfrog concentration

areas

There are no permanent waterbodies on the subject site;

therefore the site would not provide habitat for bullfrog

concentration areas.

Migratory butterfly

stopover areas

There are no meadows on the subject site with an abundance

of nectar plants; therefore the site would not be considered

migratory butterfly stopover habitat.


16

C14

-022

7



Rare vegetation communities

Areas that contain a

provincially rare

vegetation community

The woodland on the subject site is classified as FOD4-11

(Dry-Fresh Black Locust Deciduous Forest), and the

remainder of the forest patch could possibly be FOD4-5 (Dry-

Fresh Manitoba Maple Deciduous Forest) or FOD4-6 (Dry-

Fresh Norway Maple Deciduous Forest). The most recent

version of the Ontario Plant Community List maintained by

NHIC was reviewed, and none of these community

classifications are considered provincially rare.

Areas that contain a

vegetation community

that is rare within the

planning area

The 2016 list of TRCA vegetation community rankings was

also reviewed, and none of the possible community

classifications were considered locally rare.

Specialized habitats

Areas that support

wildlife species that

have highly specific

habitat requirements

The average coefficient of conservatism for the plant

community at the subject site is 1.4 for both ELC units and 2.4

for the FOD alone, and there were no conservative species in

either unit; therefore no plants on the subject site have highly

specific habitat requirements.

The wildlife documented in the breeding bird survey and

incidental observations are all considered to be generalist

species; therefore no wildlife using the subject site have

highly specific habitat requirements.

Areas with

exceptionally high

species diversity or

community diversity

Species richness for both plants and wildlife at the subject site

was low; therefore the site would not be considered an area

with exceptional species or community diversity.



17

C14

-022

7



Areas that provide

habitat that greatly

enhances a species'

survival

There are no habitats on the subject site that are so

specialized as to be critical to the survival to any one species.

Habitat for area-

sensitive species

The forest on the subject site is not large enough to provide

interior habitat conditions (>100 m from an edge); therefore it

would not be considered habitat for area-sensitive species.

Forests providing a

high diversity of

habitats

The forest on the subject site has limited vertical structure, the

dominant tree cover is not diverse, and there are no habitat

complexes or inclusions such as meadows or wetlands;

therefore the forest on site does not provide a high diversity of

habitats.

Old-growth or mature

forest stands

The forest on the subject lands is not comprised of specimens

greater than 100 years old; therefore it would not be

considered an old-growth or mature forest stand.

Foraging areas with

abundant mast

The trees within the forest at the subject site are not mast-

producing species; therefore the site would not be considered

a foraging area with abundant mast.

Amphibian woodland

breeding ponds

There are no permanent or seasonal water features or

ponding areas on the subject site due to the steep slope in the

vicinity of the forest; therefore the site does not provide

amphibian woodland breeding ponds.

Turtle nesting habitat There are no soft sand or gravel substrates close to water

within the subject site; therefore the site does not provide

turtle nesting habitat.


18

C14

-022

7



Specialized raptor

nesting habitat

During the breeding bird surveys and other site investigations,

no vocalizing adult raptors or active nests were observed;

therefore, the site is not likely providing specialized raptor

nesting habitat.

Moose calving areas The subject site is not within normal range of moose;

therefore it would not be considered a moose calving area.

Moose aquatic feeding

areas

The subject site is not within normal range of moose;

therefore it would not be considered a moose aquatic feeding

area.

Mineral licks There was no upwelling of groundwater or seepage areas

observed at the subject site; therefore the site would not

provide mineral licks.

Mink, otter, marten,

and fisher denning

sites

The subject site is not part of a large unbroken tract of

coniferous or mixed forest; therefore, it is unlikely that denning

sites are present for members of the weasel family.

Cliffs There are no cliffs at the subject site; therefore the site does

not provide habitat associated with this feature type.

Seeps and springs There was no upwelling of groundwater or seepage/spring

areas observed at the subject site; therefore the site would

not provide this type of habitat.

Habitat for species of

conservation concern

There were no globally, nationally, or provincially rare species

of plants or wildlife observed at the subject site. 3 species

ranked L4 by the TRCA were making use of the habitat at the

site (White-breasted Nuthatch, Red Maple, and Eastern White

Cedar). TRCA considers L4 species as potentially significant

in urban environments.



19

C14

-022

7



Animal movement

corridors

The forest on the subject site is not identified as a corridor in

TRCA’s Humber River Watershed Plan, or the TRCA’s NHS.

Field observations confirm that the vegetation on site is part of

fragmented cover at the fringe of an urban core. Therefore,

the site is not part of an animal movement corridor.

Of the significant wildlife habitat features evaluated, only one was found to exist at the subject

site: habitat for species of conservation concern. In this case, the species of conservation

concern are considered widespread and secure across Ontario. This single habitat feature

does not warrant designation of the forest as Significant Wildlife Habitat, but impacts to the

habitat of L4 species in urban environments must be considered. Table 4 provides a summary

of habitat requirements for the urban species of conservation concern.

Table 4. Habitat Requirements for Species of Conservation Concern at the Subject Site

Species Habitat Requirements

White-breasted

Nuthatch

Deciduous forest or woodland edges with large trees where

nesting cavities can be found. Mature and dead trees are

important for insect food production and food caching. Tolerant

of urbanized environments.

Red Maple Tolerant of a variety of soil conditions and moisture levels. Will

tolerate some shade. Tolerant of urban environments.

Eastern White

Cedar

Tolerates a variety of soil conditions, but is susceptible to

damage from road salt. Prefers moist soils, but will also grow on

dry sites. Tolerant of some shade.

6. Assessment of Natural Heritage System Function

Based on the NHS features and significance identified at the subject site, the primary

functions of the NHS are to:

+ Provide forest cover in the urban matrix.

+ Contribute to habitat continuity with adjacent features (Humber River valley).


20

C14

-022

7

+ Provide localized wildlife habitat in the form of breeding and foraging sites for generalist

species of wildlife. These species generally use urban tree cover in various forms, and

are not sensitive to forest type or size.

+ Provide habitat for urban species of conservation concern. This includes White-breasted

Nuthatch, Red Maple, and White Cedar.

The NHS at the subject site is not a significant contributor to local biodiversity due to the

relatively low species richness and high proportion of non-native and invasive species. The

forest patch at the subject site is of low quality (FQI of 9.6), and would not be highly sensitive

to development-related impacts.

7. Policy and Legislation Review

Based on the location of the property and the assessment of natural heritage significance, a

screening of relevant natural environment legislation and policies was applied. The following

sections outline those that apply to the subject site.

7.1 Migratory Birds Convention Act

The Migratory Birds Convention Act regulates the protection and conservation of migratory

birds as populations and individuals, and also protects their nests. The Act applies to any

areas that provide potential for nesting habitat of migratory birds. Section 6 of the Migratory

Bird Regulations made under the Act states that:

No person shall disturb, destroy or take a nest, egg, nest shelter, eider duck shelter

or duck box of a migratory bird except under authority of a permit.

The subject site is habitat for migratory birds, therefore the provisions of this Act apply.

Mitigation measures are required to prevent disturbing migratory birds and their nests.

7.2 Planning Act

The Planning Act establishes the framework through which local and regional municipalities

prepare Official Plans, and the province establishes policies governing matters of provincial

interest. These planning documents provide direction on planning policies, including policies

for the management of natural heritage.

For this project, the Town of Caledon Official Plan and the Region of Peel Official Plan policies

apply, as well as the Provincial Policy Statement.

7.2.1 Provincial Policy Statement

The Provincial Policy Statement (2014) provides the policy foundation for protection of natural



21

C14

-022

7

features and areas in Ontario. The Policy states that natural heritage systems should be

identified, and the biodiversity and ecological function of those systems should be

maintained.

No significant features protected by Provincial Policy were identified at the subject site, but

the valley of the Humber River is within 50 m of the subject site, and it is considered a

significant feature. Section 2.1.8 of the Policy states that:

Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on lands adjacent to significant

natural heritage features and areas unless the ecological function of the adjacent

lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative

impacts on the natural features or on their ecological functions.

Any potential impacts to the ecological function of the Humber River valley will require

mitigation.

7.2.2 Region of Peel Official Plan

The Region of Peel Official Plan (December 2016 Consolidation) outlines criteria for

determining significance of natural features. The forest patch of which the subject site is a

part, meets size and proximity criteria for consideration as a Natural Area and Corridor.

Therefore, as part of the Greenlands System, some of the Section 2.3 policies apply:

2.3.2.25 Direct the area municipalities to require environmental impact studies

for development and site alteration within and on adjacent lands to the

Greenlands System and to include policies in their official plans for the

protection of the Greenlands System in accordance with the policies

of this Plan and provincial policy. When developing official plan

policies, the area municipalities may go beyond the minimum

standards, or may be more restrictive than the Regional Official Plan

or provincial policy, unless doing so would conflict with any policy of

the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) 2005 or applicable provincial

plan.

This requirement for environmental impact studies may be reduced if

detailed development criteria have been applied to a site through a

subwatershed study, a comprehensive environmental impact study, or

if an appropriate scoping exercise has been completed by the area

municipality in consultation with the relevant agencies.


22

C14

-022

7

7.2.3 Town of Caledon Official Plan

The Town of Caledon Official Plan (November 2016 Consolidation) does not identify any

Environmental Policy Areas on the subject site. Nevertheless, their general 'Ecosystem

Management and Planning' policies are intended to apply to the whole of the Town of

Caledon. These policies are in place to protect and maintain ecosystem features that are

identified as being vital to the integrity of natural and cultural communities.

Based on the definitions provided in the Town of Caledon Official Plan for components of the

Ecosystem Framework, all woodlands and wildlife habitat are considered as 'Supportive

Natural Systems'. The woodland adjacent to the subject site would be considered 'Other

Woodland' and 'Other Wildlife Habitat', thus meeting the definition for Supportive Natural

System. Accordingly, the following policies apply:

3.2.5.3.2 New development will not be permitted in Other Woodlands unless it

can be demonstrated that such development will not result in the

degradation of ecosystem integrity, to the satisfaction of the Town and

Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, or other delegated

approval authority.

3.2.5.11.2 New development may be permitted in Other Wildlife Habitat subject

to the requirements of the Niagara Escarpment Commission and other

relevant agencies.

The subject site is also within an area where relevant Environmental Policy Area (EPA)

policies apply. Specifically:

5.7.3.1.10 Notwithstanding the inclusion of all valley and stream corridors in EPA,

as outlined on Table 3.1, certain portions of the Humber River Valley

Corridor, within the existing settlement area of Bolton, have not been

designated EPA. These lands are subject to policies 5.7.3.1.11 to

5.7.3.1.14.

5.7.3.1.11 Existing development, and new development/redevelopment within

the Bolton Special Policy Area shall be subject to the provisions of

Sections 3.2, 5.10.4.5.11 and other relevant policies of this Plan.

5.7.3.1.12 External to the Bolton Special Policy Area, certain other portions of the

Humber River Valley Corridor, within the settlement area of Bolton

have not been designated EPA. This generally includes those existing,

highly urbanized lands which are located between the floodplain and



23

C14

-022

7

the valley wall. Existing development, and new development/

redevelopment within these lands shall be encouraged, or, where the

process and circumstances permit, required, to adhere to the Town's

ecosystem principle, goal, objectives, policies and performance

measures to the greatest extent possible, and shall also be subject to

the applicable provisions of the Toronto Region and Conservation

Authority (TRCA) Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program,

or subsequent policy documents.

5.7.3.1.13 Further to Section 5.7.3.1.12, proponents of new development and

redevelopment within these lands may be required to complete

appropriate environmental studies investigations, up to, and including,

an EIS and MP, pursuant to Section 5.7.3.7, prior to approval of the

development proposal. The need for such studies shall be determined

jointly by the Town, the TRCA and other relevant agencies.

5.7.3.1.14 Further to Sections 5.7.3.1.12 and 5.7.3.1.13, certain

restrictions/conditions may be placed on new development and

redevelopment within these lands, in order to satisfy the Town's

ecosystem principle, goal, objectives, policies and performance

measures, as well as those of the TRCA and other relevant agencies,

to the greatest extent possible. Such restrictions and requirements

shall be implemented as a condition of development approval of the

Town.

The subject site is within the Bolton Special Policy Area. Section 5.10.4.5.13 deals with the

regulatory floodplain and flood hazards. Development within this area is addressed through

other studies supporting the development application. Nevertheless, the following is relevant

to this EIS:

5.10.4.5.13.16 New development and redevelopment within the Bolton SPA

shall be encouraged, or required, to adhere to the Town's

ecosystem goals, objectives, policies and performance

measures to the greatest extent possible.

5.10.4.5.13.17 The proponents of new development and redevelopment within

the Bolton SPA may be required to complete appropriate

studies, up to, and including, an Environmental Impact Study

and Management Plan, pursuant to Section 5.7.3.7, prior to


24

C14

-022

7

approval of the development proposal. The need for such

studies shall be determined jointly by the Town, the TRCA and

other relevant agencies.

5.10.4.5.13.21 Lands which are excluded from development pursuant to

Sections 5.10.4.5.13.19 and 5.10.4.5.13.20 above, shall be

deemed to be designated EPA and shall be zoned accordingly.

7.3 Conservation Authorities Act

The Conservation Authorities Act allows for the establishment of Conservation Authorities

with the purpose of developing and implementing watershed-based programs for the

conservation, restoration, development, and management of natural resources other than oil,

gas, coal, and minerals. Conservation Authorities have the power to develop watershed

management plans, work with private landowners for conservation projects, implement flood

control measures, own and operate Conservation Areas, and create regulations pertaining to

water bodies and flooding.

The study area is within the jurisdiction of the TRCA; therefore, this Act applies to the project.

Section 21 of the Act states that:

Conservation Authorities have the power to study and investigate the watersheds of

their jurisdictions and to determine programs whereby the natural resources of the

watershed may be conserved, restored, developed and managed.

In addition, the subject site is within an area regulated by TRCA under O.Reg. 166/06:

Regulation of Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and

Watercourses. Sections 2 and 3 of the Regulation state that:

No person shall undertake development in an area regulated by the TRCA, unless

the TRCA is of the opinion that the control of flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches,

pollution or the conservation of land will not be affected by the development, and

permission is thus granted.

8. Evaluation of Ecological Impacts

The proposed development at 50 Ann Street is a 5-storey, multi-unit residential condominium

with underground parking. The key components of the construction process as is relates to

site impact are:

+ Demolition of the structure on site (completed)



25

C14

-022

7

+ Site excavation for remediation of contaminated soils (completed) – some shrubs and

small trees were removed between the drip line and the tree protection fencing to facilitate

the remediation activities

+ Excavation and shoring for installation of foundation and underground structures (some

works already completed)

+ Construction of the 5-storey building

+ Landscaping of the outdoor amenity areas

The initial development concept shown in the previous version of the EIS has been modified

to reduce encroachment into the NHS. Specifically, the hardscaped outdoor amenity area

that was previously extending into the NHS has now been pulled back in line with the building.

The revised development concept is shown on Figure 11.

Based on the revised development concept and the site activities completed to date, the

following ecological impacts can be expected.

Direct Loss of NHS Features or Habitat

The Constructed Greenland (CGL) on the subject site has been completely removed. The

CGL was not part of the NHS, and did not contribute to the value of the NHS in any meaningful

way. Loss of this artificially created greenspace is not considered significant. The CGL did

not provide habitat for significant plant species, and there was no important wildlife habitat

associated with the CGL. No compensation for this loss is recommended.

None of the FOD on the subject site will be directly removed; however the development as

proposed will encroach into the drip line as shown on Figure 11. The total area of

encroachment is 30 m2. During site remediation activities, this encroachment area plus

additional area was disturbed, totalling 72 m2. Thus, compensation plantings for the 72 m2

area will be required, and should be incorporated into the overall landscaping plans.

Individual street trees / hedges at the perimeter of the site were examined as part of the

arborist report. Nevertheless, they are considered in this EIS as local nesting habitat for

migratory birds and other wildlife. Therefore removal should be timed to avoid the nesting

period of migratory birds. Tree protection fencing should also be used to delineate areas

where trees are not to be disturbed.

Compensation for the loss of individual trees can be achieved through landscaping of the

outdoor amenity areas with native trees.

Reta

ining W

allTEM

PERANCE ST

ANN

ST

STER

NE

ST

PROJECT No:

DRAFTER:

APPROVER

DESIGNER

APPROVER

CLIENT FILE No:

DATE: SHEET No:

DRAWING No:

SHEET TITLE:

PROJECT NAME:

DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT FOR SUBJECT SITE

50 ANN STREETENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY

1:500

C14-0227

S. ELLIOTT

J. HASLETT

---

---

---

FIG. 11

2/21/2018 of1 1

N

CLIENT SCALE

2 0 2 4 6 8 101

meters

LEGEND

DRIPLINE (STAKED BY TRCA)

10M OFFSET FROM DRIPLINE

5 STOREY RESIDENTIALCONDOMINIUM BUILDING

PLANTER

PATIO

AREA OF VEGETATIONDISTURBANCE DURING SITEWORKS

SUBJECT SITE

TREE SPECIES (ACTUALCANOPY SIZE SHOWN)

BLACK LOCUST

BLACK WALNUT

GREEN ASH

MANITOBA MAPLE

NORWAY MAPLE

SUGAR MAPLE

WHITE ASH



27

C14

-022

7

Land within the 10 m offset from the drip line will not be available for restoration as a buffer,

but this is not anticipated to result in a negative impact to the feature form or function. The

portion of the FOD adjacent to the subject site is on a steep slope that is highly impacted

from the activities associated with the residences at the top of the slope. Soil compaction,

extensive garbage and debris, noise and light pollution, introduction of invasive species from

gardens, and predation from domestic pets are significant contributors to the poor condition

of this part of the feature.

After review of the first submission of the development application package, TRCA conceded

that for this particular application, a typical 10 m buffer would comprise more than half of the

developable portion of the parcel. Thus, it was suggested that the standard buffer could be

reconsidered. Nevertheless, TRCA is concerned about protection of the sloped woodland

feature. To address this, the development concept was revised to minimize encroachment

into the drip line, and keep the building away from the toe of slope. With this revised concept

and compensation for vegetation removals that occurred during remediation activities, there

are no long-term ecological effects expected for the wooded slope without the 10 m buffer.

Effects on the Remaining NHS

There will be no reduction in forest patch size and therefore no negative effect for the

remaining NHS. The size of the patch is already too small to provide interior conditions for

sensitive species, and the ratio of edge to interior will not change. The adjacent development

will not fragment the patch or break any connectivity between patches.

No buffers from the NHS are recommended for this site, since addition of a buffer would not

materially improve the condition of the forest patch due to the ongoing causes of disturbance

at the top of slope. Moreover, the subject site has been previously developed, and is within

an urban area where infill development has been identified by the Town as an appropriate

land use. Protection of the feature in situ is an appropriate course of action.

Impacts to the Subject Site

The majority of the subject site is not part of the NHS, and has been previously developed.

The few street trees and hedges at the periphery of the site provide incidental habitats for

urban wildlife, and will be replaced with landscape trees in the outdoor amenity areas of the

development. Therefore, no impact to the ecological environment of the developed portion of

the site is expected.

Effects on Adjacent Features

The nearest significant natural heritage feature adjacent to the subject site is the Humber

River and valley. The subject site is situated on a plateau beyond the valley top of bank,


28

C14

-022

7

therefore the risk for transported effects such as sedimentation are considered low.

Nevertheless, sediment and erosion controls should be established prior to site disturbance

to minimize movement of surficial soils.

The portion of the NHS bordering the Humber River valley will not be affected by the proposed

development; therefore no effects on riparian zone function are expected.

Effects on Landscape Connectivity

The development will be occurring on a previously developed site, at the edge of a small

forest patch, within an urban matrix. Development of the site will not be fragmenting the NHS,

nor isolating habitats in key corridor areas. The most significant corridor in the vicinity would

be associated with the Humber River valley, which will be unaffected by the development.

Loss of individual trees that may provide localized habitat islands can be restored through

landscaping of outdoor amenity areas with native tree species.

Effects from Change in Water Balance

Geotechnical and water balance assessments were completed by GeoPro Consulting

Limited (‘GeoPro’) as separate studies for the development application. In these studies, they

found that the post-development infiltration rate will decrease by 67%, which will reduce local

groundwater recharge.

GeoPro also found that passive permanent dewatering will be required during construction

and post-construction. The zone of influence of construction-related dewatering is reported

to extend 21 m from the excavation. The zone of influence from the permanent dewatering is

reported to extend 11 m from the sub-drainage system of the building.

The Humber River is beyond the zones of influence from the proposed dewatering, therefore

no impact to this feature is anticipated.

With regard to effect on the adjacent forest, eco-hydrology research has shown that

vegetation sensitivity to changes in groundwater and precipitation on a slope is directly

related to the steepness of the slope. Sensitivity is more pronounced on a gentle slope, and

decreases markedly on steeper slopes. Thus, vegetation on a steep slope such as the one

at the edge of the development site (~40% gradient), is generally not considered to be

influenced by groundwater conditions. Moreover, the average coefficient of wetness for the

plant community on the slope is 1.3, meaning that the community is mid-way between a

Facultative and Facultative Upland community. These communities are associated with dry

to fresh soil conditions, and as such, are not expected to be materially affected by fluctuations

in the groundwater table.



29

C14

-022

7

A more significant factor for hillside hydrology and slope stability on steep inclines is

vegetation cover. Removal of vegetation cover on steep slopes is known to negatively affect

local hydrology patterns and slope stability. The proposed development will not result in any

removal of vegetation from the slope.

Effects from Long-Term Site Use

The most likely long-term impact from the development relates to future site use. Residential

developments are known to introduce negative influences on adjacent natural features, such

as waste disposal, light and noise pollution, soil compaction, predation from pets, and

destruction of understory layers in forests. The NHS on the subject property already shows

significant signs of impact from the residential uses at the top of the valley slope (extensive

garbage and debris, invasive species, soil compaction). The impacts from the properties at

the top of slope are not expected to diminish, however, the proposed development is not

expected to greatly exacerbate this issue either.

The multi-residential development will provide formal outdoor amenity areas, landscaped with

vegetation and shade structures, which greatly reduces the likelihood of residents expanding

outdoor uses into the natural area. Moreover, the steep slope of the remaining NHS is a

natural deterrent to encroachment.

To minimize effects from long-term site use, it is recommended that lighting design be

considerate of the natural areas remaining. This can be achieved through focused lighting

zones that minimize spill-over into natural areas.

Noise is not expected to be a concern at this location due to the urban setting and previous

uses of the site. All of the wildlife recorded at the site are urban tolerant species.

9. Recommended Mitigation Measures

Based on the impact assessment, the following mitigation measures are recommended.

Table 5 cross-references the predicted impacts with the mitigation measures proposed.

Timing Restrictions

1. Remove trees between September 15 and April 15 to avoid nesting periods for migratory

birds. If tree removals cannot occur in that time period, a qualified biologist should

examine the trees for the presence of active nests prior to removal. If active nests are

found, tree removal cannot occur until the nest is no longer in use.


30

C14

-022

7

Design Techniques

2. Use of shoring techniques for excavation in the vicinity of trees that are to be preserved.

Work should be done under the supervision of a certified arborist.

3. Incorporation of lighting design that minimize spill-over into natural areas.

Site Controls

4. Install tree protection fencing around trees that are to be protected from removal, prior

to any excavations.

5. Establish sediment and erosion controls at the perimeter of the site prior to any ground

disturbance to minimize movement of surficial soils.

Restoration/Compensation

6. Incorporation of caliper-sized native trees in the landscaping plans for the outdoor

amenity areas, to replace the canopy cover lost during construction.

7. Provide 72 m2 of native vegetation within and adjacent to the NHS to compensate for

removal of vegetation during remediation activities, and minor encroachment into the

drip line of the NHS. TRCA is to approve the landscaping in the area of the NHS.

Table 5. Summary of Mitigation Measures for Predicted Impacts

Impact Effect Mitigation /

Compensation

Direct loss of NHS

features or habitat

Removal of habitat associated with

individual tree specimens at the periphery

of the site.

#1, 2, 4, 6, 7

Impacts to the subject

site Removal of street trees and hedges #6, 7

Effects on adjacent

areas

Low risk for sediment transport to the

Humber River valley #5

Effects on landscape

connectivity

Reduction in local tree canopy islands on

the site #6

Effects from long-term

site use Light spill-over #3



31

C14

-022

7

10. Review of Policy Conformance

To demonstrate that the project will comply with the policies and legislation outlined in this

EIS, a cross-reference of applicable conformance measures is provided. Table 6 provides a

summary of the applicable policies and legislation, along with the mitigation / compensation

measures from Section 8 of the EIS that result in policy conformance.

Table 6. Cross-Reference of Policy Requirements and Mitigation/Compensation

Legislation / Policy

Document

Relevant Policy Requirements Conformance

Measures

Migratory Birds

Convention Act

No person shall disturb or destroy migratory

birds or their nests.

#1

Provincial Policy

Statement (Planning

Act)

Development and site alteration shall not be

permitted on lands adjacent to significant

natural heritage features, unless there will be

no negative impacts on the natural features

or their ecological functions.

#5

Region of Peel Official

Plan (Planning Act)

Environmental impact studies are required for

development and site alteration within and on

adjacent lands to the Greenlands System.

#1 through 6

Town of Caledon

Official Plan (Planning

Act)

New development will not be permitted in

Other Woodlands unless such development

will not result in the degradation of

ecosystem integrity.

#1, 2, 4, and 6

Town of Caledon


Act)

New development must satisfy the Town’s

ecosystem principles, goals and objectives,

as well as those of TRCA.

#1 through 6

Town of Caledon


Act)

New development may be permitted in Other

Wildlife Habitat subject to the requirements

relevant agencies.

#1 and 6

Conservation

Authorities Act

TRCA has the power to comment on the

conservation, restoration, development and

management of their watersheds.

All


32

C14

-022

7

Legislation / Policy

Document

Relevant Policy Requirements Conformance

Measures

TRCA Regulation

(Conservation

Authorities Act)

No development is permitted in an area

regulated by the TRCA, unless the TRCA is

of the opinion that the control of flooding,

erosion, dynamic beaches, pollution or the

conservation of land will not be affected by

the development.

All

APPENDIX 1

Vegetation Inventory Results

Page 1 of 2

CGL FOD4-11

American elm Ulmus americana N L5 S5 G5 - - 3 -2 xBlack locust Robinia pseudoacacia E - - G5 - - 0 4 xBlack walnut Juglans nigra N L5 S4 G5 - - 5 3 x xGreen ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica N L5 S4 G5 - - 3 -3 xManitoba maple Acer negundo E - S5 G5 - - 0 -2 xNorway maple Acer platanoides E - - - - - 0 5 x xRed maple Acer rubrum N L4 S5 G5 - - 4 0 xSugar maple Acer saccharum N L5 S5 G5 - - 4 3 xWhite ash Fraxinus americana N L5 S4 G5 - - 4 3 xWhite cedar Thuja occidentalis N L4 S5 G5 - - 4 -3 x x

Alternate leaved dogwood Cornus alternifolia N L5 S5 G5 - - 6 5 xChoke cherry Prunus virginiana N L5 S5 G5 - - 2 1 xBlack currant Ribes americanum N L5 S5 G5 - - 4 -3 x

Grass Poa sp. E - - - - - - - xBrome Bromus sp. E - - - - - - - xTimothy Phleum pratense E - - - - - 0 3 x

Bitter dock Rumex obtusifolius E - - - - - 0 -3 xCelandine Chelidonium majus E - - - - - 0 5 x xStinking mayweed Anthemis cotula E - - - - - 0 3 xCommon dandelion Taraxacum officinale E - - - - - 0 3 xCow vetch Vicia cracca E - - - - - 0 5 xCurled dock Rumex crispus E - - - - - 0 -1 xGarlic mustard Alliaria petiolata E - - - - - 0 0 x xHerb Robert Geranium robertianum N - S5 G5 - - 0 5 xLily-of-the-valley Convallaria majalis E - - - - - 0 5 xNightshade Solanum sp. E - - - - - - - xOx-eye daisy Leucanthemum vulgare E - - - - - 0 5 xPurple deadnettle Lamium purpureum E - - - - - 0 5 xRed clover Trifolium pratense E - - - - - 0 2 xTall buttercup Ranunculus acris E - - - - - 0 -2 xWhite clover Trifolium repens E - - - - - 0 2 x

50 Ann StreetVegetation Inventory Results

LOCATION

Trees

Common Name Scientific Name Origin L-rank S-rank ESA SARAG-rank CC WI

Small trees, shrubs and vines

Graminoids

Forbs

Page 2 of 2

CGL FOD4-11

50 Ann StreetVegetation Inventory Results

LOCATIONCommon Name Scientific Name Origin L-rank S-rank ESA SARAG-rank CC WI

Wild carrot Daucus carota E - - - - - 0 5 x

N = Native

E = Exotic (non-native)

S-rank = Provincial status as reported by the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC). S1 (Critically Imperiled), S2 (Imperiled), S3 (Vulnerable), S4 (Apparently Secure), S5 (Secure)

L-rank = Local status as assigned by TRCA (2016 update). L1 to L3 (species of Regional Concern); L4 (generally secure in rural matrix, may be of conservation concern in urban matrix); L5 (generally secure)

G-rank = Global status as reported by the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC). G1 (Critically Imperiled), G2 (Imperiled), G3 (Vulnerable), G4 (Apparently Secure), G5 (Secure)

WI = Wetness Index (from Oldham, M.J., W.D. Bakowsky, and D.A. Sutherland. 1995. Floristic quality assessment system for southern Ontario. Natural Heritage Information Centre, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario.)

CC = Coefficient of Conservatism (from Oldham, M.J., W.D. Bakowsky, and D.A. Sutherland. 1995. Floristic quality assessment system for southern Ontario. Natural Heritage Information Centre, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario.)

ESA = Endangered Species Act Designation

SARA = Species at Risk Act Designation

APPENDIX 2

Breeding Bird Inventory Results

House Sparrow Passer domesticus E - - G5 - - Unlikely - fly overEuropean Starling Sturnus vulgaris E - - G5 - - Unlikely - fly overBlue Jay Cyanocitta cristata N L5 S5 G5 - - Possible - suitable habitatAmerican Robin Turdus migratorius N L5 S5 G5 - - Confirmed - fledglingChipping Sparrow Spizella passerina N L5 S5 G5 - - Possible - suitable habitatNorthern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis N L5 S5 G5 - - Possible - suitable habitatAmerican Goldfinch Carduelis tristis N L5 S5 G5 - - Possible - suitable habitatWhite-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis N L4 S5 G5 - - Possible - callingChimney Swift Chaetura pelagica N L4 S4 G5 THR THR Unlikely - fly overSong Sparrow Melospiza melodia N L5 S5 G5 - - Possible - suitable habitatAmerican Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos N L5 S5 G5 - - Unlikely - fly over

N = Native

E = Exotic (non-native)

G-rank = Global status as reported by the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC). G1 (Critically Imperiled), G2 (Imperiled), G3 (Vulnerable), G4 (Apparently Secure), G5 (Secure)

S-rank = Provincial status as reported by the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC). S1 (Critically Imperiled), S2 (Imperiled), S3 (Vulnerable), S4 (Apparently Secure), S5 (Secure)

L-rank = Local status as assigned by TRCA (2016 update). L1 to L3 (species of Regional Concern); L4 (generally secure in rural matrix, may be of conservation concern in urban matrix); L5 (generally secure)

50 Ann StreetBreeding Bird Inventory Results

ESA = Endangered Species Act Designation

SARA = Species at Risk Act Designation

G-rank ESA SARA Breeding StatusCommon Name Scientific Name Origin L-rank S-rank

Date post:	20-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

Brookfield Residential (Ontario) Bolton Limited · 4-7 50 Ann Street Scoped Environmental Impact...

Documents