Environmental Impact Statement & Tree Conservation Report ...

April 2016

Prepared for 561121 Ontario Inc.

Environmental Impact Statement &

Tree Conservation Report

Manotick Main Street, Ottawa, ON

McKINLEY ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS613-620-2255 | [email protected]

www.mckinleyenvironmental.com

Manotick Main Street – Environmental Impact Statement & Tree Conservation ReportApril 2016

McKINLEY ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS613-620-2255

[email protected]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 3

1.1 Scoping the Environmental Impact Statement .........................................................................3

1.2 Description of Undertaking ...........................................................................................................3

1.3 Agency Consultation .......................................................................................................................3

2.0 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................... 6

3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................ 8

3.1 Geological Conditions .....................................................................................................................8

3.2 Vegetative Communities ................................................................................................................8

3.3 Wetlands and Watercourses .........................................................................................................9

3.4 Adjacent Lands and Significant Features ................................................................................ 13

3.5 Wildlife and Significant Wildlife Habitat ................................................................................... 13

3.6 Species at Risk ............................................................................................................................... 13

3.7 Linkages .......................................................................................................................................... 16

4.0 DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION............................ 17

4.1 Terrestrial Habitat and Tree Removal ...................................................................................... 17

4.2 Wetlands and Watercourses ...................................................................................................... 17

4.2.1 Sediment and Erosion Controls.............................................................................................. 18

4.3 Adjacent Lands and Significant Features ................................................................................ 18

4.4 Wildlife and Species at Risk ........................................................................................................ 18

5.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ....................................................................................................... 20

6.0 MONITORING ....................................................................................................................... 20

7.0 CLOSURE ............................................................................................................................... 21

8.0 REFERENCES......................................................................................................................... 22



[email protected]

LIST OF FIGURESConcept Plan

Figure 1: Vegetation Mapping

Appendix A – Tree Conservation ReportAppendix B – Master Plant ListAppendix C – Bird and Wildlife Species ListsAppendix D – OMNRF Information Request ResponseAppendix E – Butternut Health Assessment (Bowfin Environmental Consulting 2015)

Manotick Main Street – Environmental Impact Statement & Tree Conservation ReportApril 2016 1


[email protected]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

McKinley Environmental Solutions (MES) was retained by 561121 Ontario Inc. to prepare anEnvironmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Tree Conservation Report (TCR) for the proposeddevelopment of the property at 5721, 5731, and 5741 Manotick Main Street, Ottawa, Ontario (theSite). The EIS and TCR are presented as an integrated submission and should be read together.

The Site is approximately 6.29 ha in size, with frontage on Manotick Main Street and Kelly MarieDrive. The shoreline of the Rideau River is immediately east of the Site. Existing developedresidential properties are located to the north and south. Manotick Main Street is located along thewestern Site boundary, beyond which is an adjacent residential subdivision that is currently underconstruction. The Site is within the Village of Manotick and is designated under the ManotickSecondary Plan as residential medium density.

The current development concept would involve development of the majority of the Site toaccommodate approximately 30 single and 56 semi-detached and townhome units, for a total ofapproximately 86 residential units. The development would also include an approximately 0.24 hapark block. The existing home in the northeast corner of the Site will be retained within a severedblock. A 30 m setback from the high water mark of the Rideau River will be maintained. This setbackwill remain vegetated to protect the water quality and habitat characteristics of the river.Stormwater quality control will be facilitated by a vortechnic unit (oil and grit separator) with cleanwater outflow to the Rideau River.

Currently, the western portion of the Site is occupied by a soybean field which accounts forapproximately 60% of the Site. Deciduous hedgerows are present around the southern andnorthern margins of the field. The eastern portion of the Site is occupied by a highly disturbedFresh-Moist Ash Deciduous Forest (the woodlot). The development plan would result in the removalof the majority of the vegetation within the development area. Treed areas within the 30 m setbackfrom the Rideau River and within the severed lot around the existing house will be retained. Thewoodlot is highly degraded and does not qualify as a Significant Woodlot under any of theassessment criteria. Given the highly degraded nature of the woodlot, removal of woody vegetationis not considered a significant environmental impact.

Other than the Rideau River, there are no designated environmental features associated with theSite. A comparatively high density of Butternut Trees (endangered) were found within the woodlot.An application for an Overall Benefit Permit under clause 17(2)(c) of the Endangered Species Act(ESA) was submitted to the OMNRF Kemptville District in January 2016. This permit applicationaddresses requirements for removal and harm to Butternut Trees, in compliance with the



[email protected]

regulations of the ESA. Compensation activities to provide an overall benefit to the species willinclude archiving of Butternut Trees. The Owners will also work with the Forest Gene ConservationAssociation (FGCA) to expand their capacity to conduct archiving, in order to support the provincialrecovery effort. This will include expansion of the FGCA’s physical archiving infrastructure(greenhouse, holding, and cold storage areas), and training of new staff. Two (2) SAR turtle speciesmay be found in the Rideau River adjacent to the Site, but these species are not anticipated to besignificantly impacted by the proposed development. No other significant Species at Risk (SAR)concerns were noted.

Pending that the mitigation and avoidance measures outlined in this report are implementedappropriately, the proposed development is not anticipated to have a significant negative effect onthe natural features and functions.



[email protected]

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Scoping the Environmental Impact Statement

This EIS was undertaken following the City of Ottawa’s Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines.Following the City guidelines, the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) includes the following:

Documentation of existing natural features on and around the Site; Identification of potential environmental impacts of the project; Recommendations for ways to avoid and reduce any negative impacts; and Proposal of ways to enhance natural features and functions.

This EIS was prepared with guidance from the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (OMNRF 2005). Themajor objective of this EIS is to demonstrate that the proposed project will not negatively affect thesignificant features and functions of the study area, and that impacts will be minimized throughmitigation measures.

1.2 Description of Undertaking

The development concept is included below. The current development concept would involvedevelopment of the majority of the Site to accommodate approximately 30 single and 56 semi-detached and townhome units, for a total of approximately 86 residential units. The developmentwould also include an approximately 0.24 ha park block. The existing home in the northeast cornerof the Site will be retained within a severed block. A 30 m setback from the high water mark of theRideau River will be maintained. This setback will remain vegetated to protect the water quality andhabitat characteristics of the river. Stormwater quality control will be facilitated by a vortechnic unit(oil and grit separator) with clean water outflow to the Rideau River. No water quantity control isrequired. A pump station will be included next to the park block. The development will receivemunicipal services.

1.3 Agency Consultation

A pre-consultation meeting was held by the City of Ottawa on April 28th, 2015. Jocelyn Chandler ofthe Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA) attended the pre-consultation meeting andprovided comments on the application. An information and records request response was receivedfrom the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (OMNRF) (Refer to Appendix D).Extensive consultation has been undertaken with Erin Seabert of the OMNRF Kemptville District, inrelation to the application for an Overall Benefit Permit for the Site (discussed in Section 4.4).

Manotick Plan Yield:

50' Bungalow Singles: 5

42' Bungalow Singles: 24 + 1

eQ Bungalow Towns/Semis: 56

Total Count: 85 + 1

Manotick Main Street, Ottawa, Ontario Environmental Impact Statement & Tree Conservation Report

April 2016

- Property Boundary - Deciduous Hedgerow- Fresh-Moist Ash Deciduous Forest

Rideau River



[email protected]

2.0 METHODOLOGY

The presence of natural heritage features was assessed by completing the following: Site surveys to describe vegetative communities; Site surveys to assess the potential for habitat of species at risk (SAR), wetlands, fish habitat,

amphibian breeding habitat, significant wildlife habitat features, and other significant habitatfeatures to be present;

Examination of aerial imagery to evaluate landscape features; Natural Heritage Information Center (NHIC) database review; Obtainment of an information and records request response from the OMNRF; Review of Official Plan designations; Review of background geotechnical report; and Review of Butternut Health Assessment report (Appendix E).

The following field surveys were conducted: Plant Inventory and ELC Classification: Refer to Appendix A for a discussion of tree

inventory methods employed in the TCR. Site visits to inventory trees and identify plantspecies within the Site were conducted by Dr. McKinley on June 11th and July 3rd, 2015 andApril 4th, 2016. Plants surveys were also conducted by Bernie Muncaster of MuncasterEnvironmental Planning (MEP) on June 11th, 2015. Weather conditions during the June 11th

and July 3rd 2015 Site visits included sunny conditions and temperatures of 16 ⁰C and 24 ⁰C(respectively). During the April 4th, 2016 Site visit temperatures were -5 ⁰C with early springweather conditions. Vegetative communities on Site were classified following the EcologicalLand Classification (ELC) methodology (OMNRF 1998; Lee 2008). This included a three (3)season plant inventory to document the occurrence of plants, create a master plant list, aswell as identify and delineate plant communities according to the ELC methodology.Observations of water conditions in the dry swale were made during the June 11th and July3rd, 2015 Site visits and again on April 16th, 2016 during early spring conditions.

Butternut Tree Survey: The Butternut Health Assessment (BHA) was completed by BowfinEnvironmental Consulting (2015). Refer to Appendix E for an explanation of the BHAmethodology.

Breeding Bird Survey: Breeding bird surveys were conducted during the June 11th and July3rd, 2015 Site visits following the OMNRF Wildlife Monitoring Programs and InventoryTechniques - Technical Manual (Konze & McLaren 1998) Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) method.This survey addresses the potential presence of several SAR birds including Barn Swallow,Bobolink, Chimney Swift, and Eastern Meadowlark. Any other wildlife species noted duringthis survey were recorded.



[email protected]

Bat Roost Assessment: In order to assess the potential presence of bat roosting habitat, asnag/cavity tree count following the methodology outlined in the Bats and Bat Habitats:Guidelines for Wind Power Projects (OMNRF 2011) was completed. The snag/cavity count isundertaken to ascertain whether the habitat is suitable for maternity roosts. This addressesseveral bat SAR including Little Brown Bat, Eastern Small Footed Myotis, and Northern LongEared Bat. In order to assess potentially suitable forest areas, a fixed area of 12.6 m radius(equating to 0.05 ha) is surveyed for the presence of snags/cavity trees equal to or greaterthan 25 cm diameter at breast height (DBH). If any snags or cavity trees are found, theformula π r2 is applied to determine the number of snags/cavities per hectare. Thesnag/cavity count was conducted on April 16th, 2016.



[email protected]

3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

3.1 Geological Conditions

The Site has a gradual slope from the west to the east (from Manotick Main Street to the RideauRiver). Elevations along Manotick Main Street are approximately 93 m ASL, sloping down toapproximately 85 m ASL at the shoreline of the river. Paterson Group (2015) note minimal erosion ofthe shoreline. The subsurface profile consists of a thin layer of brown silty clay with topsoil, followedby a silty sand layer overlying a grey glacial till (Paterson Group 2015). The Site is located in an areawhere bedrock consists of dolomite of the Oxford formation, with overburden thickness estimatedat 5 to 15 m (Paterson Group 2015). Groundwater depth was estimated at 1.1 to 2.2 m bgs. PatersonGroup (2015) note that there are no geotechnical slope-related hazard lands, and that it is expectedthat the typical minimum riparian setback of 30 m from the normal high water mark of the RideauRiver will apply.

3.2 Vegetative Communities

Figure 1 shows vegetative mapping. Additional information on vegetative communities includingphotographs and tree sizes is included in the TCR (Appendix A). Refer to Appendix B for the MasterPlant List.

Most tree species occurring at the Site are deciduous. The western approximately 60% of the Site isoccupied by a soybean field. This field was continuously cultivated with soybeans in 2015 and 2016.The eastern portion of the Site is occupied by a Fresh-Moist Ash Deciduous Forest (the woodlot). Thewoodlot is dominated by Green and White Ash, with a high representation of Black Cherry,Butternut, and Sugar Maple. Balsam Poplar, Manitoba Maple, Bur Oak, White Elm, and DomesticApple are also present. The woodlot is heavily disturbed by several factors. Evidence of selectivelogging, including felled trees and woodpiles in several locations, was noted. Fallen trees damagedby wind throw were also noted. Many of the larger Ash trees showed signs of infestation withEmerald Ash Borer, and several of the Butternuts were impacted by the Butternut Canker disease. Incombination, these factors have resulted in a highly disturbed woodlot. The age of trees within thewoodlot is highly variable, with some patches of recent regrowth within openings created by theremoval of larger trees. These areas of recent regrowth are interspersed with patches of oldermature trees. Most White Ash and Sugar Maple range in size up to approximately 40 cm dbh.However, most stems are under 25 cm dbh in size. The density of Butternut Trees is comparativelyhigh, with several large trees. Butternuts range in size up to approximately 70 cm dbh. Refer toAppendix E for a full inventory of Butternut Trees. Glossy Buckthorn is the dominant shrub in theunderstory of the woodlot, with regenerating Ash, Manitoba Maple stems, Tartarian Honeysuckle,



[email protected]

Red Elderberry, Grey Dogwood, Wild Red Raspberry, Staghorn Sumac, Black Currant, CommonBuckthorn, and Prickly Gooseberry shrubs also present (MEP 2016).

Within the woodlot, most of the ground flora reflects the disturbed condition of the Site. GarlicMustard is dominant in many areas. Canada Thistle, Tall Buttercup, Common Burdock, Goat’s Beard,Forget-me-not, Philadelphia Fleabane, Common Dandelion, Ground Ivy, Wild Grape, Thicket Creeper,White Avens, Moneywort, Common Mugwort, Wild Cucumber, Wormseed Mustard, Herb Robert,Purple Flowering Raspberry, Enchanter’s Nightshade, Field Horsetail, Sensitive Fern, Ostrich Fern,White Snakeroot, False Solomon’s Seal, and Canada Anemone are also common. Purple Loosestrife,Spotted Jewelweed, Tall Meadow Rue, and Bebb’s Willow were noted in some low lying areas (MEP2016). A small separated patch of trees is present in the south-central portion of the Site. This patchof trees is not connected to the larger woodlot, but has a similar tree species composition.

As discussed in the TCR, the woodlot does not qualify as a Significant Woodlot under any of theassessment criteria (Refer to Appendix A).

Deciduous hedgerows along the edges of the Site include mature Manitoba Maple and White Ashtrees along the south edge of the Site and portions of the frontage along Manotick Main Street, withsmaller Scot’s Pine also along the east side of Manotick Main Street. Butternut dominates thehedgerow in the northwest corner of the site, with Green Ash and Manitoba Maple alsopresent. Common Buckthorn, Common Lilac, Grey Dogwood and Tartarian Honeysuckle shrubs arecommon among the hedgerow trees, with Thicket Creeper and Wild Grape coverage common onmany lower branches (MEP 2016).

3.3 Wetlands and Watercourses

The shoreline of the Rideau River forms the eastern Site boundary. The Rideau River is a majorwatercourse and significant environmental feature, providing habitat for a variety of wildlife and fishspecies. The shoreline of the river adjacent to the Site is shown in Photographs 1 and 2 (below).Paterson Group (2015) note minimal erosion of the shoreline. The riparian corridor adjacent to theshoreline transitions immediately to upland deciduous forest. Paterson Group (2015) note that thereare no geotechnical slope-related hazard lands, and that it is expected that the typical minimumriparian setback of 30 m from the normal high water mark of the Rideau River will apply.

As shown in the Concept Plan, a 30 m vegetated setback from the shoreline will be maintained inorder to protect the water quality and habitat characteristics of the river. The vegetated setback willhelp to protect the river from disturbance and maintain the river’s riparian habitat, while alsohelping to prevent erosion and slow overland stormwater flow. The area of the setback is currently



[email protected]

heavily vegetated with deciduous forest. This will ensure that overland stormwater flow can beslowed, filtered, and absorbed by existing vegetation prior to reaching the river. As shown in theattached Concept Plan, no significant alteration to the shoreline or shoreline access/development isproposed. The existing house in the northeast corner of the Site has shoreline access and a smalldock. The house and existing dock will be maintained in a separate severed lot.

Photograph 1: Looking north along shoreline from southeast corner of Site (April 4th, 2016).



[email protected]

Photograph 2: Looking south along shoreline from northeast corner of Site (April 4th, 2016).

Isolated low lying areas exist within the Site, but these are too small and well drained to beconsidered wetland features. Low lying areas that accumulate spring melt water exist in thesoutheast corner of the woodlot, and along the northeastern edge of the field. These low lying areasare under 0.5 ha in size and do not represent significant environmental features. The Site as a wholeis well drained and dominated by terrestrial conditions. A dry swale exists in the central part of theSite, leading from the cultivated field to the Rideau River. Observations of water conditions in the dryswale were made during the June 11th and July 3rd, 2015 Site visits and again on April 16th, 2016during early spring conditions. During the June and July observation the swale was found to be drythroughout, with extensive woody and terrestrial vegetation (Photograph 3). During the April 16th

observation there was a very small amount of water flow within the swale, fed by surface pooling ofmelt water in the northeastern edge of the farm field (Photograph 4). Water flow was not significanteven during the height of the spring melt. This swale appears to no longer convey significant flows. Itis likely that the majority of flows historically conveyed in this swale have been redirected into themunicipal system by the development that has recently occurred west of Manotick Main Street(adjacent to the Site).



[email protected]

Photograph 3: Dry swale with extensive woody vegetation on June 11, 2015. Photograph taken fromMEP (2016).

Photograph 4: Dry swale with negligible flow, observed on April 16th, 2016.



[email protected]

3.4 Adjacent Lands and Significant Features

The Site is not shown as part of the City of Ottawa’s Natural Heritage System Overlay (City of Ottawa2014). As discussed in the TCR (Appendix A), the woodlot does not qualify as a Significant Woodlotunder any of the assessment criteria. Existing residential areas are found to the north and south ofthe Site, and the area to the west is a subdivision under construction. Therefore the only significantadjacent natural feature is the Rideau River, located along the eastern Site boundary. The RideauRiver is discussed in the previous section (Refer to Section 3.3).

3.5 Wildlife and Significant Wildlife Habitat

Wildlife and bird species noted during surveying are listed in Appendix C. Twenty five (25) species ofbirds have been noted at the Site. This includes several common species of migratory breedingbirds. Eastern Grey Squirrel, Red Squirrel, and White Tailed Deer were also noted at the Site. All ofthese species are common inhabitants of urban and suburban areas. No amphibian or reptilespecies were noted within the Site. None of these species are considered regionally rare, and noneare listed as species at risk (SAR) (SARO 2016). No stick nests, amphibian breeding habitat, migratorybird stopover points, heron rookeries, reptile hibernacula, caves, bedrock fissures, wetlands, or anyother features which may qualify as Significant Wildlife Habitat were noted (OMNRF 2014b). The onlySignificant Wildlife Habitat feature in the vicinity is the Rideau River. The Rideau River is discussedabove in Section 3.3.

3.6 Species at Risk

The Natural History Information Center (NHIC) records for the nine (9) grids that include andsurround the Site were reviewed. This included an area 3 km x 3 km in size and all published speciesat risk (SAR) records were noted. An information and records request response was received fromthe OMNRF identifying several SAR as potentially being present (Appendix D). The following SARwere identified by NHIC and OMNRF as potentially occurring within the vicinity:

Barn Swallow – Threatened Bobolink – Threatened Chimney Swift – Threatened Eastern Meadowlark – Threatened Blanding’s Turtle – Threatened Eastern Musk Turtle – Special Concern Snapping Turtle - Special Concern Little Brown Bat – Endangered Eastern Small Footed Myotis – Endangered



[email protected]

Northern Long Eared Bat – Endangered Butternut – Endangered Eastern Ribbonsnake – Special Concern Milksnake – Special Concern Monarch Butterfly – Special Concern

The following represents a summary of the potential presence of suitable habitat within the Site andsurveying results for these species:

Barn Swallow and Chimney Swift: Barn Swallows nest in abandoned structures includingold barns, sheds, abandoned houses with openings, old silos, large culverts, under bridges,etc. (SARO 2016). There are no suitable abandoned structures within the Site, and henceBarn Swallows are unlikely to be found nesting within the Site. Chimney Swifts nest in stonechimneys, usually found on older buildings including factories, churches, hospitals, etc.There are no suitable chimneys within the Site. No Barn Swallows or Chimney Swifts werenoted foraging within the Site during bird surveying. The existing house in the northeastcorner of the Site will be retained within a severed lot, and hence no demolition activities areproposed. Neither species is a significant concern for the proposed development.

Bobolink and Eastern Meadowlark: Bobolink and Eastern Meadowlark both breed in openhabitats dominated by grasses including old hayfields, natural grasslands, and pastures(SARO 2016). As described in Section 3.2 (above), the eastern portion of the Site is dominatedby a woodlot and the western portion is occupied by a soybean field. The soybean field wascontinuously cultivated in 2015 and 2016, and there are no significant fallow areas orgrasslands where Bobolink or Eastern Meadowlark may nest. No Bobolink or EasternMeadowlark were noted within the Site during bird surveying. Neither species is a significantconcern for the proposed development.

Blanding’s Turtle, Eastern Musk Turtle, and Snapping Turtle: Blanding’s Turtle are typicallyassociated with various types of wetland environments, but are not normally associated withriverine conditions (OMNRF 2014a; SARO 2016). Given the absence of wetlands within theSite and immediately surrounding areas, it is highly unlikely that Blanding’s Turtle would befound in the Site. Although Blanding’s Turtle can move significant distances overland, theSite is surrounded by residential development to the north and south, and a subdivision isunder construction to the west. The Rideau River is located to the east, and Blanding’s Turtledo not typically reside in riverine environments (OMNRF 2014a; SARO 2016). These barriersmake it highly unlikely that Blanding’s Turtle would occur within the Site. Eastern Musk Turtleand Snapping Turtle are both known to occur within the Rideau River. Both species maytravel several meters inland from the shoreline to nest and bask (SARO 2016). The 30 mvegetated setback from the Rideau River would protect the area that may be utilized by



[email protected]

Eastern Musk Turtle and Snapping Turtle. The temporary wildlife exclusion fencing and othermitigation measures discussed in Section 4.4 will mitigate potential impacts to turtles.

Little Brown Bat, Eastern Small Footed Myotis, Northern Long Eared Bat: No caves,bedrock fissures, mining shafts, abandoned buildings, or other features which may functionas bat hibernacula habitat were noted within the Site. The OMNRF (2011) guidelines for batsurveying are outlined in the Bats and Habitats: Guidelines for Wind Power Projects. Theseguidelines state that deciduous and mixed forest habitats have the potential to providematernity roosting habitat. In order for a forested area to be considered potentially suitableas maternity roosting habitat, snag and cavity trees ≥25 cm dbh must occur in a density ≥10trees per ha. The potential presence of maternity roosting habitat is assessed through acount of snag/cavity trees ≥25 cm dbh. In order to warrant follow-up studies, suitable treedensity must be ≥10 trees per ha. As described in Table A of the attached TCR (Appendix A),the average size of trees throughout the Site is substantially less than 25 cm dbh for allspecies except Butternut. While there are specimens of various species >25 cm dbh presentwithin the Site (particularly White Ash and Sugar Maple), the majority of trees are smallerthan this size. This results in an inherently low density of trees >25 cm dbh. Five (5) plotswere surveyed in the woodlot, which is equivalent to 0.25 ha (5 plots, each 0.05 ha in size).Within these plots only five (5) suitably sized trees were noted, but none of these had anysignificant cavities or snags. Because the density of suitable snag/cavity trees per hectare isless than the threshold of ≥10 trees per ha, the habitat can be considered unsuitable for batmaternity roosting and follow-up studies are not required.

Butternut Trees: Approximately sixty eight (68) Category 2 (retainable) and forty (40)Category 3 (archiveable) Butternut Trees were found within the Site (for additional detail,refer to the Butternut Health Assessment, Appendix E). The 30 m vegetated setback from theRideau River will result in the retention of 1 Category 2 Butternut Tree (Tree #189) and 1Category 3 Butternut Tree (Tree #208). 1 Category 3 Butternut Tree (Tree #49) is adjacent tothe existing residential house in the northeast corner of the property, which will be retainedin the severed lot. There are 2 Category 2 Butternut Trees (Trees #2 and #3) southeast of theSite which are noted as being impacted as they are within 25 m of the development. In total,3 Category 2 Butternut Trees and 2 Category 3 Butternut Trees will be retained in theseareas, but all are shown as impacted as they are within 25 m of the development boundary.In order to address impacts to the Butternut Trees, an application for an Overall BenefitPermit under clause 17(2)(c) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has been submitted to theOMNRF Kemptville District in January 2016. This permit application addresses requirementsfor removal and harm to Butternut Trees, in compliance with the regulations of the ESA.Compensation activities to provide an overall benefit to the species will include archiving ofButternut Trees. The Owners will also work with the Forest Gene Conservation Association(FGCA) to expand their capacity to conduct archiving, in order to support the provincial



[email protected]

recovery effort. This will include expansion of the FGCA’s physical archiving infrastructure(greenhouse, holding, and cold storage areas), and training of new staff.

Eastern Milksnake and Eastern Ribbonsnake: Eastern Milksnake are associated with openfields near woodlands (SARO 2016). There are no grasslands, hayfields, or meadows withinthe Site and so Eastern Milksnake are not likely to be found. Eastern Ribbonsnake areassociated primarily with wetland and bog environments, and are unlikely to occur withinthe Site due to the lack of wetlands (SARO 2016). Therefore, neither species is likely to occurwithin the Site. The temporary wildlife exclusion fencing and other mitigation measuresdiscussed in Section 4.4 will mitigate potential impacts to snakes.

Monarch Butterfly: Monarch Butterflies are associated with their Milkweed host plants,which are typically found in waste areas, meadows, grasslands, and fallow fields. Asdiscussed in Section 3.2, Milkweed plants were not found in the Site and no suitable habitatareas exists. Monarch Butterflies are hence not anticipated to be a significant concern forthe proposed development.

In summary, Butternut Trees were the only confirmed SAR found within the Site. Two (2) species ofSAR turtles may be found in the adjacent Rideau River, but are not anticipated to be significantlyimpacted by the proposed undertaking. No significant unmitigated Species at Risk (SAR) concernswere noted.

3.7 Linkages

As noted previously, the Site is bounded by developed areas on three sides. This includes existingresidential areas to the north and south, and a subdivision that is currently under construction tothe west. The Rideau River is located to the east of the Site. The Rideau River provides a wildlifemovement corridor for a wide variety of species. The woodlot does not provide connection to anysurrounding terrestrial habitats, and hence does not provide a significant linkage function.



[email protected]

4.0 DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

4.1 Terrestrial Habitat and Tree Removal

As shown in the Concept Plan, the development would result in the removal of the majority of thevegetation within the Site. The Concept Plan includes a 30 m vegetated setback from the RideauRiver, within which the majority of tree cover will be maintained. The existing house in the northeastcorner of the Site will be retained within a severed lot. The majority of tree cover around the housewithin the severed lot is likely to be retained by the existing homeowners. Tree cover in theremainder of the Site will be removed to facilitate development. For mitigation measures to protectretained trees during tree removal, refer to Section 4.0 of the TCR (Appendix A). No removal orimpacts to Butternut Trees will occur prior to obtainment of the Overall Benefit Permit. Onceobtained, the Overall Benefit Permit will authorize the removal and impact to Butternut Treesrequired for Site development.

In order to mitigate the loss of woody vegetation from Site clearing, trees and shrubs will bereplanted selectively between lots, at the back and front of lots, and in the park block. The plantinglocations and specific planting requirements will be confirmed by a detailed Landscaping Plan.Plantings should emphasize the use of native trees and shrubs, which may include those identifiedin Appendix B. Planting of Ash trees should be avoided due to the high likelihood that any plantedAsh trees will become infested with Emerald Ash Borer.

4.2 Wetlands and Watercourses

As noted previously, there are no significant surface water or wetland features within the Site. A 30m vegetated setback from the shoreline will be maintained in order to protect the water quality andhabitat characteristics of the adjacent Rideau River. The vegetated setback will help to protect theriver from disturbance and maintain the river’s riparian habitat, while also helping to preventerosion and slow overland stormwater flow. The area of the setback is currently heavily vegetatedwith deciduous forest. This will ensure that overland stormwater flow can be slowed, filtered, andabsorbed by existing vegetation prior to reaching the river. As shown in the attached Concept Plan,no significant alteration to the shoreline or shoreline access/development is proposed. The existinghouse in the northeast corner of the Site has shoreline access and a small dock. The house andexisting dock will be maintained in a separate severed lot. Stormwater quality control will befacilitated by a vortechnic unit (oil and grit separator) with clean water outflow to the Rideau River.No water quantity control is required. A pump station will be included next to the park block.



[email protected]

4.2.1 Sediment and Erosion ControlsDuring construction, existing conveyance systems can be exposed to significant sediment loadings.Although construction is only a temporary situation, a sediment and erosion control plan will berequired to ensure the existing conveyance systems are not negatively impacted by sediment anderosion.

The sediment and erosion control plan will include the following: Groundwater in trenches (if present) will be pumped into a filter mechanism, such as a trap

made up of geotextile filters and straw, prior to release to the environment; Bulkhead barriers will be installed at the nearest downstream manhole in each sewer which

connects to an existing downstream sewer (e.g. along Manotick Main Street and Kelly MarieDrive, if required). These bulkheads will trap any sediment carrying flows, thus preventingany construction-related contamination of existing sewers;

Seepage barriers will be constructed in any temporary drainage ditches; Construction vehicles will leave the site at designated locations. Exits will consist of a bed of

granular material, in order to minimize the tracking of mud off-site; Any stockpiled material will be properly managed to prevent those materials from entering

the sewer systems; and Until rear yards are sodded or until streets are asphalted and curbed, all catch basins and

manholes will be constructed with a geotextile filter fabric located between the structureframe and cover.

As noted in Section 4.4 (below), toed in silt fencing will be installed along the eastern edge ofdevelopment as temporary wildlife exclusion fencing. This silt fencing will also help to mitigatesediment and erosion impacts, as it will separate the development from the 30 m vegetated setbackfrom the Rideau River.

4.3 Adjacent Lands and Significant Features

As discussed previously, the only significant feature to protect in the vicinity of the Site is the RideauRiver. As noted above, sediment and erosion controls will protect the river at the construction stage,and a 30 m vegetated setback will protect the river in the longer term.

4.4 Wildlife and Species at Risk

Potential impacts on wildlife at the construction stage may include the following: Removal of habitat features and displacement of wildlife from existing habitat areas;



[email protected]

Potential injury or mortality of adults in terrestrial habitats due to vehicle impacts, duringexcavations, or during land clearing; and

Interruption of movement to essential foraging, breeding, or overwintering areas due to sitehoarding or sediment and erosion control fencing.

As noted previously, two (2) species of SAR turtles may be found adjacent to the Site in the RideauRiver. However, no wildlife SAR are known to occur within the Site and impacts to SAR areconsidered unlikely. The proposed temporary wildlife exclusion fencing will mitigate the risk thatwildlife would enter the work area at the construction stage (see below).

Mitigation for wildlife during tree clearing is summarized here. These recommendations includeprovisions from the City of Ottawa (2015) Protocol for Wildlife Protection During Construction:

Pre-Stressing: Prior to tree removal, the area should be pre-stressed by traversing the Sitewith a loud noise such as an excavator horn. This will encourage wildlife to leave the area;

Tree Clearing Direction: Tree clearing should proceed from Manotick Main Street towardsthe east. This will encourage wildlife to leave the work area and move in the direction of the30 m vegetated setback from the Rideau River. During tree clearing, a path of retainedhabitat connecting to the riparian habitat of the river must be maintained at all times, inorder to provide wildlife with a corridor to escape the work area;

Temporary Fencing: Silt fencing will be arranged to also function as temporary wildlifeexclusion fencing to reduce the likelihood of turtles, frogs, mammals and other wildlife fromentering the work area. Toed in silt fencing should be installed at the eastern edge ofdevelopment, separating the work area from the 30 m setback from the Rideau River. Siltfencing should be put in place prior to the turtle active season (April to end of October);

Inspections: The fencing and work area will be inspected by a designated staff memberprior to commencement of work to ensure that the arrangement will reduce the likelihoodof wildlife entering the work area. Any wildlife or significant wildlife habitat features that areencountered will be identified and marked;

Sweeps: Prior to vegetation clearing, preconstruction sweeps of vegetated areas will beundertaken to ensure wildlife are not present. Construction staff will be required to reviewthe mitigation measures included in this EIS and the TCR (Appendix A). A designated staffmember will be required to conduct daily sweeps each morning prior to commencement ofwork to ensure wildlife have not entered the work area. The designated staff member willalso periodically inspect the temporary exclusion fencing to ensure there are no gaps orholes in the fence;

Dewatering: No dewatering is anticipated to be required; SAR Encounters: If SAR are encountered in the work area, construction in the vicinity must

be stopped immediately and measures must be taken to ensure the SAR is not harmed. The



[email protected]

project biologist and the OMNRF must be contacted to discuss how to proceed prior torecommencement of work;

General Provisions: General provisions for Site management include the following:o Do not harm, feed, or unnecessarily harass wildlife;o Drive slowly and avoid hitting wildlife;o Keep Site tidy and free of garbage and food wastes. Secure all garbage in

appropriate sealed containers;o Ensure proper Site drainage so that standing water does not accumulate on Site.

This will reduce the likelihood that turtles and other wildlife may enter the Site;o Any stockpiles should be properly secured with silt fencing to prevent wildlife from

accessing areas of loose fill; and Timing Windows: Vegetation clearing and site preparation will be undertaken outside of the

core migratory bird breeding season of April 15th to August 15th each year in order to avoidimpacting the nests of migratory birds.

5.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Cumulative effects were considered in the design of the mitigation measures outlined in Section 4.0.Because the woodlot is comparatively small, degraded, and isolated from surrounding terrestrialareas, the development of the Site is not likely to contribute significantly to the cumulative loss ofnatural habitats or forest cover. Refer to the attached TCR (Appendix A) for further information. Thecumulative effect of development adjacent to the Rideau River has been addressed by the proposedmitigation measures and development controls discussed above in Section 4.2.

6.0 MONITORING

Construction stage monitoring requirements are outlined in Section 4.4 (above). Monitoring willinclude pre-construction sweeps to inspect fencing and vegetation prior to clearing, and dailysweeps by construction staff. No post-construction monitoring is required. Monitoring requirementsrelated to Butternut Trees will be determined in consultation with the OMNRF through the OverallBenefit Permitting process.



[email protected]

8.0 REFERENCES

Bowfin Environmental Consulting (2015) Part of Lot 5, Concession A, Township of North Gower,Butternut Health Assessment. BHA Report Number: 447688.

City of Ottawa (2014) Natural Heritage System Overlay (West). Official Plan Schedule L3.

City of Ottawa (2015) Protocol for Wildlife Protection During Construction.

City of Ottawa (2016) Geo-Ottawa Municipal Mapping Site. Retrieved April 5, 2016 at<http://maps.ottawa.ca/geoottawa/>

Konze, K. and McLaren, M. (1998) Wildlife Monitoring Programs and Inventory Techniques forOntario. NEST Technical Manual TM-009.

Lee, Harold (2008) Southern ELC Ecosystem Catalogue (2008 version).

Muncaster Environmental Planning (MEP) (2016) Manotick Main Street Field Notes.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (OMNRF) (1998) Ecological Land Classification forSouthern Ontario: First Approximation and its Applications.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (OMNRF) (2005) OMNRF Natural HeritageReference Manual for Natural Heritage Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005, SecondEdition.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (OMNRF) (2011) Bats and Bat Habitats:Guidelines for Wind Power Projects.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (OMNRF) (2014a) General Habitat Description forBlanding’s Turtle.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (OMNRF) (2014b) Significant Wildlife HabitatMitigation Support Tool.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (OMNRF) (2015) Natural Heritage InformationCenter <http://nhic.mnr.gov.on.ca/> (Accessed September 30, 2015).



[email protected]

Paterson Group (2015) Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation – Proposed Residential Development,5721, 5731, and 5741 Manotick Main Street, Ottawa.

Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA) (2012) Lower Rideau Subwatershed Report 2012.

Species at Risk Ontario (SARO) (2016) Species at Risk Ontario. Retrieved April 7, 2016 at<http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/species-risk-ontario-list>



[email protected]

APPENDIX ATree Conservation Report

Manotick Main Street – Environmental Impact Statement & Tree Conservation ReportAppendix A – Tree Conservation ReportApril 2016 1


[email protected]

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

This Tree Conservation Report (TCR) has been prepared to support the Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS) for the proposed development of the property at 5721, 5731, and 5741 Manotick MainStreet, Ottawa, Ontario (the Site). This TCR is presented as an appendix to the EIS study and should beread in conjunction with the EIS (attached). Refer to the EIS for the associated vegetation mapping(Figure 1) and the Concept Plan.

The Site is approximately 6.29 ha in size, with frontage on Manotick Main Street and Kelly Marie Drive.The shoreline of the Rideau River is immediately east of the Site. Existing developed residentialproperties are located to the north and south. Manotick Main Street is located along the western Siteboundary, beyond which is an adjacent residential subdivision that is currently under construction.The Site is within the Village of Manotick and is designated under the Manotick Secondary Plan asresidential medium density. Currently, the western portion of the Site is occupied by a soybean fieldwhich accounts for approximately 60% of the Site. Deciduous hedgerows are present around thesouthern and northern margins of the field. The eastern portion of the Site is occupied by a highlydisturbed Fresh-Moist Ash Deciduous Forest (the woodlot). There is an existing house and yardlocated in the northeast corner of the Site.

The current development concept would involve development of the majority of the Site toaccommodate approximately 30 single and 56 semi-detached and townhome units, for a total ofapproximately 86 residential units. The development would also include an approximately 0.24 hapark block. The existing home in the northeast corner of the Site will be retained within a severedblock. A 30 m setback from the high water mark of the Rideau River will be maintained. This setbackwill remain vegetated to protect the water quality and habitat characteristics of the river.

1.1 Definitions

The following terms are used throughout this report: Diameter at Breast Height (dbh) means the measurement of the trunk of a tree at a height of

120 cm above grade for trees 15 cm diameter or greater, and at a height of 30 cm above gradefor trees less than 15 cm diameter.

The Critical Root Zone (CRZ) is 10 centimeters from the trunk of the tree for every centimeterof trunk dbh. The CRZ is calculated as dbh x 10 cm.



[email protected]

2.0 TREE INVENTORY METHODS

Site visits to inventory trees and identify plant species within the Site were conducted by Dr. McKinleyon June 11th and July 3rd, 2015 and April 4th, 2016. Plants surveys were also conducted by BernieMuncaster of Muncaster Environmental Planning (MEP) on June 11th, 2015. Weather conditions duringthe June 11th and July 3rd 2015 Site visits included sunny conditions and temperatures of 16 ⁰C and 24⁰C (respectively). During the April 4th, 2016 Site visit temperatures were -5 ⁰C with early spring weatherconditions.

TCR plots were distributed equally throughout the treed portion of the Site to attain accuraterepresentative tree coverage. Plots were measured 5 m by 10 m to give a total survey area of 50 m2

(for each plot) and were assessed for the presence of tree specimens with 10 cm dbh or greater. Plotswere distributed evenly within the treed portion of the proposed development area to achieve thedesired density of 1 plot per hectare. A total of five (5) plots were undertaken. These plots were thenscaled up to estimate the density per hectare of each species reaching 10 cm dbh or greater. Treeswithin each plot that were 10 cm dbh or greater were measured with the use of a D-tape which is acalibrated diameter at breast height tape. Measurements for each of the qualifying trees within theplot were taken 1.2 m from the ground surface and recorded. The tree inventory results aresubdivided into different forest communities according to the ELC community type that the treesurvey plot occurred within. The vegetation mapping is shown in Figure 1 of the EIS (attached).

3.0 TREE INVENTORY

3.1 Site History

As shown in Figure 1 (Refer to the attached EIS), currently approximately 60% of the Site consists of acultivated soy bean field. The oldest available air photo of the Site is included below (from 1976). Landuse within the Site in 1976 was broadly similar to current land use. At the time, the western portion ofthe Site was cultivated and the eastern portion of the Site was occupied by a woodlot. The land usehas not substantially changed since 1976. This suggests that the majority of tree cover within the Siteis likely older than 40 years of age. Historic air photos indicate that the house in the northeast cornerof the Site was constructed between 2002 and 2005 (City of Ottawa 2016).



[email protected]

Photograph 1: Historic Air Photo from 1976. Property boundary shown in red. Note majority ofwestern part of Site was cultivated in 1976. The boundaries of the woodlot are similar in 1976 as theyare currently (Photos from City of Ottawa 2016).

3.2 Tree and Vegetation Composition

Most tree species occurring at the Site are deciduous. A list of tree species observed in sampling plotsis presented in Table A (below) and a full plant list is included in Appendix B. The westernapproximately 60% of the Site is occupied by a soybean field. The eastern portion of the Site isoccupied by a Fresh-Moist Ash Deciduous Forest (the woodlot). The woodlot is dominated by Greenand White Ash, with a high representation of Black Cherry, Butternut, and Sugar Maple. Balsam Poplar,Manitoba Maple, Bur Oak, White Elm, and Domestic Apple are also present. The woodlot is heavilydisturbed by several factors. Evidence of selective logging, including felled trees and woodpiles inseveral locations, was noted. Fallen trees damaged by wind throw were also noted. Many of the largerAsh trees showed signs of infestation with Emerald Ash Borer, and several of the Butternuts wereimpacted by the Butternut Canker disease. In combination, these factors have resulted in a highlydisturbed woodlot. The age of trees within the woodlot is highly variable, with some patches of recentregrowth within openings created by the removal of larger trees. These areas of recent regrowth are



[email protected]

interspersed with patches of older mature trees. White Ash and Sugar Maple range in size up toapproximately 40 cm dbh. However, most stems are under 25 cm dbh in size. The density of ButternutTrees is comparatively high, with several large trees. Butternuts range in size up to approximately 70cm dbh. Refer to Appendix E for a full inventory of Butternut Trees. Glossy Buckthorn is the dominantshrub in the understory of the woodlot, with regenerating Ash, Manitoba Maple stems, TartarianHoneysuckle, Red Elderberry, Grey Dogwood, Wild Red Raspberry, Staghorn Sumac, Black Currant,Common Buckthorn, and Prickly Gooseberry shrubs also present (MEP 2016).

Within the woodlot, most of the ground flora reflects the disturbed condition of the Site. GarlicMustard is dominant in many areas. Canada Thistle, Tall Buttercup, Common Burdock, Goat’s Beard,Forget-me-not, Philadelphia Fleabane, Common Dandelion, Ground Ivy, Wild Grape, Thicket Creeper,White Avens, Moneywort, Common Mugwort, Wild Cucumber, Wormseed Mustard, Herb Robert,Purple Flowering Raspberry, Enchanter’s Nightshade, Field Horsetail, Sensitive Fern, Ostrich Fern,White Snakeroot, False Solomon’s Seal, and Canada Anemone are also common. Purple Loosestrife,Spotted Jewelweed, Tall Meadow Rue, and Bebb’s Willow were noted in some low lying areas (MEP2016). A small separated patch of trees is present in the south-central portion of the Site. This patchof trees is not connected to the larger woodlot, but has a similar tree species composition.

Deciduous hedgerows along the edges of the Site include mature Manitoba Maple and White Ashtrees along the south edge of the Site and portions of the frontage along Manotick Main Street, withsmaller Scot’s Pine also along the east side of Manotick Main Street. Butternut dominates thehedgerow in the northwest corner of the site, with Green Ash and Manitoba Maple alsopresent. Common Buckthorn, Common Lilac, Grey Dogwood and Tartarian Honeysuckle shrubs arecommon among the hedgerow trees, with Thicket Creeper and Wild Grape coverage common onmany lower branches (MEP 2016).



[email protected]

Table A: Inventory of Trees Identified on Site

Fresh-Moist Ash Deciduous Forest

Common Name Scientific Name Average DBH DBH Standard Deviation % Occupancy Estimated Stems/Ha

Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 12 3 36% 520Black Cherry Prunus serotina 12 2 14% 200White Ash Fraxinus americana 23 13 14% 200Butternut Juglans cinerea 47 21 11% 160Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 18 9 8% 120Balsam Poplar Populus balsamifera 13 4 6% 80Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 10 0 6% 80Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa 11 N/A 3% 40White Elm Ulmus americana 11 N/A 3% 40

N/A Values in the DBH Standard Deviation are due to only one tree of that species being observed within the sample plot.Refer to attached BHA (Appendix E) for measurements of all Butternuts Trees



[email protected]

Photograph 2: Looking southeast from northwest of Site. Soybean field shown, Manotick Main Streeton right (June 11th, 2015).

Photograph 3: Looking south at eastern portion of fields. Small patch of trees in central part of Siteon right, woodlot on left (June 11th, 2015).



[email protected]

Photograph 4: Northwest hedgerow, looking west towards northwest corner of Site. Note flaggedButternut Trees in foreground (April 4th, 2016).

Photograph 5: Example of evidence of selective logging – woodpiles in northern part of Site (April 4th,2016).



[email protected]

Photograph 6: Typical tree size distribution within the woodlot. Note a few larger trees (Butternut) arepresent, surrounded by recent regrowth stems (April 4th, 2016).

Photograph 7: Groundcover within woodlot. Note predominance of invasive species (June 11th, 2015).



[email protected]

Photograph 8: Invasive ground flora within woodlot (Photo from MEP 2016, taken June 11th, 2015).

Photograph 9: Small patch of trees in south central part of Site. Species composition is similar to thelarger woodlot (April 4th, 2016).



[email protected]

Photograph 10: Southern hedgerow, looking west from Kelly Marie Drive (April 4th, 2016).

3.3 Significant Woodlot Assessment

The City of Ottawa Natural Heritage System Overlay does not identify the treed areas of the Site aspart of a Significant Woodlot. The following is a summary of the Significant Woodlot criteria for theFresh-Moist Ash Deciduous Forest (the woodlot) (OMNRF 2005):

Woodland Size Criteria – The Site is within the Lower Rideau River Subwatershed, Rideau River– Long Island Catchment, which has approximately 21.8% forest cover (RVCA 2012). Inplanning areas with 15-30% forest cover, woodlots 20 ha or larger would qualify under thesize criteria. The total size of the woodlot is less than 3 ha. The woodlot is hence too small toqualify under the woodland size criteria.

Interior Forest Habitat – Forested areas 100 m from an opening that is 20 m or greater in sizeare considered interior forest habitat. The forested area of the Site is surrounded by openareas on all sides (the Rideau River, the soybean fields, and surrounding residentialdevelopments). At its narrowest point, the woodlot is approximately 93 m wide, and at itswidest it is approximately 188 m wide. Because the woodlot is surrounded by openings, itwould need to be at least 200 m wide for any interior forest habitat to be present. There istherefore no interior forest habitat within the woodlot.

Proximity to Other Woodlands/Habitats – Woodlots within 30 m of another significantfeature meet this criteria. As discussed in the EIS report (attached), the only significant featurewithin 30 m of the Site is the Rideau River. Mitigation measures to protect the Rideau River



[email protected]

are discussed in Section 4.2 of the EIS report. This will include maintenance of a 30 mvegetated setback from the Rideau River. The standard setback from the high water mark ofthe river is 30 m as outlined in Section 4.7.3 of the Official Plan (OP).

Linkages – As noted previously, the Site is bounded by developed areas on three sides. Thisincludes existing residential areas to the north and south, and a subdivision that is currentlyunder construction to the west. The Rideau River is located to the east of the Site. The RideauRiver provides a wildlife movement corridor for a wide variety of species. The woodlot doesnot provide connection to any surrounding terrestrial habitats, and hence does not provide alinkage function.

Water Protection – Woodlots that are 50 m from the top of valley, sensitive groundwaterdischarge areas, sensitive recharge areas, sensitive headwater areas, or which contain fishhabitat, are considered to provide a water protection function. As noted in the EIS report, thereare no significant watercourse or wetland features within the Site. There is no indication thatthe forested area of the Site provides a significant water protection function. As noted above,the standard 30 m setback from the adjacent Rideau River will be respected to protect thewater quality of the river.

Woodlot Diversity – The plant diversity of the woodlot is very low compared to other forestareas. As shown in Appendix B, no regionally rare forest plant species were noted. Thewoodlot as a whole is highly degraded with a high proportion of invasive species.

Uncommon Characteristics – Uncommon forest types, environmental features, or plantcommunities may contribute to woodlot significance. Also, forest stands older than 100 yearswould be considered significant. The age of the oldest trees within the woodlot is estimatedto be greater than 40 years, however, overall the woodlot is highly disturbed and no standswithin the woodlot are likely to exceed 100 years in age. The woodlot is comprised of acommon forest type that is found frequently in the region. The woodlot has a high density ofButternut Trees. As discussed in Section 4.4, an application for an Overall Benefit Permit underclause 17(2)(c) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has been submitted to the OMNRFKemptville District. This permit application addresses requirements for removal and harm toButternut Trees, in compliance with the regulations of the ESA.

Economic and Social – Woodlots which contribute special economic or social functions canqualify under this criteria. No significant economic or social functions are contributed by thewoodlot. The woodlot is located on private property and is highly degraded, and does notprovide any significant economic or social benefit.

Available evidence suggests that the Fresh-Moist Ash Deciduous Forest does not qualify as aSignificant Woodlot under any of the assessment criteria.



[email protected]

4.0 VEGETATION REMOVAL AND TREE MITIGATION

As shown in the Concept Plan (Refer to the attached EIS), the development would result in the removalof the majority of the vegetation within the Site. The Concept Plan includes a 30 m vegetated setbackfrom the Rideau River, within which the majority of tree cover will be maintained. The existing housein the northeast corner of the Site will be retained within a severed lot. The majority of tree coveraround the house within the severed lot is likely to be retained by the existing homeowners. Treecover in the remainder of the Site will be removed to facilitate development.

As discussed in Section 4.4 of the EIS, the 30 m vegetated setback from the Rideau River will result inthe retention of 1 Category 2 Butternut Tree (Tree #189) and 1 Category 3 Butternut Tree (Tree #208).1 Category 3 Butternut Tree (Tree #49) is adjacent to the existing residential house in the northeastcorner of the property, which will be retained in the severed lot. There are 2 Category 2 ButternutTrees (Trees #2 and #3) southeast of the Site which are noted as being impacted as they are within 25m of the development. In total, 3 Category 2 Butternut Trees and 2 Category 3 Butternut Trees will beretained in these areas, but all are shown as impacted as they are within 25 m of the developmentboundary.

For mitigation measures related to Wildlife and Species at Risk during tree clearing, refer to theattached EIS. In order to protect trees adjacent to the development Site (e.g. trees in the severed lot,the 30 m setback from the River, and trees in the yards of adjacent residences north of the Site), thefollowing mitigation measures will be implemented where trees occur close to construction activities:

Soil compaction, vegetation damage, intrusion of construction equipment and other potentialimpacts on the core of the root system of trees adjacent to the edge of the Site will be avoidedby restricting grading and other site alteration activities to the Site. This will be achieved byproviding construction fencing or suitable boundary definition to clearly mark the boundariesbetween the edge of the Site and adjacent properties (where required) during each phase oftree clearing and construction; and

If off-site vegetation damage occurs, an arborist should review any damage to determine thebest course of action to restore the original vegetative functions.

Tree mitigation measures have been proposed to help protect and preserve trees around theproposed development. Trees to be retained adjacent to the tree clearing area should be protectedby the following tree preservation measures:



[email protected]

Mark the edge of the tree clearing area to ensure only designated trees are removed. Protectthe critical root zone (CRZ) of retained trees, where the CRZ is established as being 10 cm fromthe trunk of a tree for every centimeter of trunk dbh. The CRZ is calculated as dbh x 10 cm;

When trees to be removed overlap with the CRZ of trees to be retained, cut roots at the edgeof the CRZ and grind down stumps after tree removal. Do not pull out stumps. Ensure thereis not root pulling or disturbance of the ground within the CRZ;

If roots must be cut, roots 20 mm or larger should be cut at right angles with clean, sharphorticultural tools without tearing, crushing, or pulling;

Do not place any material or equipment within the CRZ of any tree; Do not attach any signs, notices, or posters to any tree; Do not damage the root system, trunk, or branches of any tree; and Ensure that exhaust fumes from all equipment are directed away from any tree canopy.

5.0 REPLANTING

In order to mitigate the loss of woody vegetation from Site clearing, trees and shrubs will be replantedselectively between lots, at the back and front of lots, and in the park block. The planting locations andspecific planting requirements will be confirmed by a detailed Landscaping Plan. Plantings shouldemphasize the use of native trees and shrubs, which may include those identified in Appendix B.Planting of Ash trees should be avoided due to the high likelihood that any planted Ash trees willbecome infested with Emerald Ash Borer.



[email protected]

7.0 REFERENCES

City of Ottawa (2014) Natural Heritage System Overlay (West). Official Plan Schedule L3.

City of Ottawa (2016) Geo-Ottawa Municipal Mapping Site. Retrieved April 5, 2016 at<http://maps.ottawa.ca/geoottawa/>

Muncaster Environmental Planning (MEP) (2016) Manotick Main Street Field Notes.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (OMNRF) (2005) OMNRF Natural HeritageReference Manual for Natural Heritage Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005, SecondEdition.

Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA) (2012) Lower Rideau Subwatershed Report 2012.



[email protected]

APPENDIX BMaster Plant List

Common Name Scientific Name Provincial S rank

Brunton Significance Ranking for the City of Ottawa (Brunton,

2005)Vegetation Type

Ostrich Fern Matteuccia struthiopteris S5 Common FernSensitive Fern Onoclea sensibilis S5 Common Fern

White Snakeroot Ageratina altissima S5 Common HerbaceousGarlic-mustard Alliaria petiolata SNA Common Herbaceous

Canada Anemone Anemone canadensis S5 Common HerbaceousCommon Burdock Arctium minus SNA Common Herbaceous

Mugwort Artemisia vulgaris SNA Common HerbaceousBroadleaf Enchanter's

Nightshade Circaea canadensis S5 Common HerbaceousCanada Thistle Cirsium arvense S5 Common Herbaceous

Philadelphia Fleabane Erigeron philadelphicus S5 Common HerbaceousWormseed Mustard Erysimum cheiranthoides SNA Common Herbaceous

Herb Robert Geranium robertianum SNA Common HerbaceousWhite Avens Geum canadense S5 Common Herbaceous

Spotted Touch Me Not Impatiens capensis S5 Common HerbaceousMoneywort Lysimachia nummularia SNA Uncommon Herbaceous

Purple Loosestrife Lythrum salicaria SNA Common (invasive) HerbaceousFalse Solomon's Seal Maianthemum racemosum S5 Common Herbaceous

Forget-me-not Myosotis arvensis SNA Rare HerbaceousCommon Buttercup Ranunculus acris SNA Common Herbaceous

Dandelion Taraxacum officinale SNA Common HerbaceousTall Meadow-rue Thalictrum dasycarpum S4? Common Herbaceous

Goat's-beard Tragopogon dubius SNA Common HerbaceousCommon Horsetail Equisetum arvense S5 Common HorsetailRed Osier Dogwood Cornus sericea (stolonifesa) S5 Common Shrub

Glossy Buckthorn Frangula alnus SNA Common (aggressive invasive) Shrub

Tartarian honeysuckle Lonicera tatarica SNA Common (aggressive invasive) Shrub

Common Buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica SNA Common (aggressive invasive) Shrub

Black Currant Ribes americanum S5 Common Shrub

TABLE A: VEGETATION

Prickly Gooseberry Ribes cynosbati S5 Common ShrubWild Red Raspberry Rubus idaeus S5 Common Shrub

Purple Flowering Raspberry Rubus odoratus S5 Common ShrubBebb's Willow Salix bebbiana S5 Common ShrubRed Elderberry Sambucus racemosa S5 Common Shrub

Lilac Syringa vulgaris SNA Common ShrubManitoba Maple Acer negundo S5 Common Tree

Sugar Maple Acer saccharum S5 Common TreeWhite Ash Fraxinus americana S5 Common TreeGreen Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica S5 Common TreeButternut Juglans cinerea S3 Endangered Tree

Domestic Apple Malus sylvestris n/a Common TreeScots Pine Pinus sylvestris SNA Rare (frequently

planted) TreeBalsam Poplar Populus balsamifera S5 Common TreeBlack Cherry Prunus serotina S5 Common Tree

Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa S5 Common TreeStaghorn Sumac Rhus hirta S5 Common Tree

American or White Elm Ulmus americana S5 Common TreeWild Cucumber Echinocystis lobata S5 Common Vine

Ground-ivy Glechoma hederacea SNA Common VineVirginia Creeper Parthenocissus vitacea S5 Common VineRiverbank Grape Vitis riparia S5 Common Vine

Provincial ranks (assigned by NHIC)

S5 = Very common within the province with > 1000 occurences, populations or records S4 = Common within the province with 21 - 1000 occurences, populations or records S3 = Rare within the province with 6 - 20 occurences, populations or records SNA = Ranking not available SE5 = Very common exotic with > 1000 occurences, populations or records within the province S? = Unranked, or if followed by a ranking, temporarily assigned (eg. S4?)



[email protected]

APPENDIX CBird and Wildlife Sightings

Common Name Scientific NameRed-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus

Mallard Anas fulvigulaNorthern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis

Turkey Vulture Cathartes auraAmerican Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos

Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristataGray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis

Alder Flycatcher Empidonax alnorumCommon Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas

Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensisSong Sparrow Melospiza melodia

Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensisDowny Woodpecker Picoides pubescensHairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus

Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillaCommon Grackle Quiscalus quisculaEastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebeYellow Warbler Setophaga petechia

White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensisAmerican Goldfinch Spinus tristisChipping Sparrow Spizella passerina

Field Sparrow Spizella pusillaEuropean Starling Sturnus vulgaris American Robin Turdus migratoriusEastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus

TABLE B: BIRDS

Common Name Scientific NameWhite Tailed Deer (tracks only) Odocoileus virginianus

Eastern Grey Squirrel Sciurus carolinensisRed Squirrel Sciurus vulgaris

TABLE C: OTHER WILDLIFE



[email protected]

APPENDIX DOMNRF Information Request Response

Ministry of Natural

Resources and Forestry

Kemptville District

10 Campus Drive

Postal Box 2002

Kemptville ON K0G 1J0

Tel.: 613 258-8204

Fax: 613 258-3920

Ministère des Richesses

naturelles et des Forêts

District de Kemptville

10, promenade Campus

Case postale, 2002


Tél.: 613 258-8204

Téléc.: 613 258-3920

1

Wed. Aug 5, 2015

Bernie Muncaster Muncaster Environmental Planning Inc 491 Buchanan Crescent Ottawa K1J 7V2 (613) 748-3753 [email protected] Attention: Bernie Muncaster Subject: Information Request - Developments Project Name: Proposed Residential Development in Manotick by Regional Group Site Address: 5721, 5731, & 5741 Manotick Main St. Our File No. 2015_NGO-3133 Natural Heritage Values The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) Kemptville District has carried out a preliminary review of the area in order to identify any potential natural resource and natural heritage values. The MNRF works closely with partner agencies and local municipalities in order to establish concurrent approval process and to achieve streamlined and efficient service delivery. The MNRF strongly encourages all proponents to contact partner agencies (e.g. MOECC, Conservation Authority, etc.) and appropriate municipalities early on in the planning process. This provides the proponent with early knowledge regarding agency requirements and approval timelines. Natural heritage features and values contribute to the province’s rich biodiversity and provide habitat for a variety of species. The following Natural Heritage values were identified:

Fish Nursery, Blue Gill Nursery Area

River, Rideau River (rivière Rideau) Municipal Official Plans contain additional information related to natural heritage features. Please see the local municipal Official Plan for more information such as specific policies and direction

Ministry of Natural


Kemptville District

10 Campus Drive

Postal Box 2002


Tel.: 613 258-8204

Fax: 613 258-3920





Case postale, 2002


Tél.: 613 258-8204

Téléc.: 613 258-3920

2

pertaining to activities which may impact natural heritage features. For planning advice or Official Plan interpretation, please contact the local municipality. Where natural values and natural hazards exist (e.g., floodplains), there may be additional approvals and permitting required from the local Conservation Authority. The MNRF strongly recommends contacting the local Conservation Authority for further information and approvals. Please see the MNRF Kemptville Information Guide (2012) for contact information pertaining to Conservation Authorities located within the Kemptville District area. For additional information and online mapping tools, please see the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC), where additional data and files can be downloaded in both list and digital format. In addition sensitive species information can be requested and accessed through the NHIC at [email protected]. In Addition, the following Fish species were identified: banded killifish, black crappie, blacknose shiner, bluegill, bluntnose minnow, brassy minnow, brook silverside, brook stickleback, brown bullhead, central mudminnow, common carp, common shiner, creek chub, emerald shiner, fallfish, fathead minnow, finescale dace, golden shiner, greater redhorse, green sunfish, johnny darter/tesselated darter, largemouth bass, logperch, Moxostoma sp., muskellunge, North American Catfishes, northern pike, northern redbelly dace, pumpkinseed, rock bass, smallmouth bass, spottail shiner, tadpole madtom, walleye, white sucker, yellow perch. Water Where the site is adjacent to or contains a watercourses or waterbodies, additional considerations apply. If any in-water works are to occur, there are timing restriction periods for which work in water can take place (see below). Appropriate measures should be taken to minimize and mitigate impact on water quality and fish habitat, including:

including the installation of sediment and erosion control measures;

avoiding removal alteration or covering of substrates used for fish spawning, feeding, over-wintering or nursery areas; and

debris control measures should be put in place to manage falling debris (e.g. spalling). A work permit from the MNRF may be required pending further details regarding the proposed works. No encroachment on the bed or banks of the waterbody (e.g. abutments, embankments, etc.) is permitted until MNRF approval and clearance has been issued. In order for MNRF staff to determine when a work permit is required, additional information can include:

Detailed drawings (existing and proposed)

Location mapping

Ministry of Natural


Kemptville District

10 Campus Drive

Postal Box 2002


Tel.: 613 258-8204

Fax: 613 258-3920





Case postale, 2002


Tél.: 613 258-8204

Téléc.: 613 258-3920

3

Registered Plan survey

Site photographs

Public Lands Act Forms - application forms, ownership form and landowner notification form.

The MNRF does not have any water quality or quantity data available. We recommend that the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change be contacted for such data along with the local Conservation Authority. For further information regarding fish habitat and protocols, please refer to the following interagency, document, Fish Habitat Referral Protocol for Ontario at: http://www.MNRF.gov.ca/264110.pdf Timing restriction periods in MNRF Kemptville District*:

Warmwater March 15 – June 30 March 15 – July 15 for St. Lawrence River & Ottawa River Coldwater October 1 – May 31 Mixed lakes October 1 – June 30 (Big Rideau & Charleston)

* Please note: Additional timing restrictions may apply as it relates to Endangered and Threatened Species, including works in both water and wetland areas.

FISH SPECIES TIMING WINDOW

Spring: Walleye March 15 to May 31 Northern Pike March 15 to May 31 Lake Sturgeon May 1 to June 30 Muskellunge March 15 to May 31 Largemouth/Smallmouth Bass May 1 to July 15 Rainbow Trout March 15 to June 15 Other/Unknown Spring Spawning Species March 15 to July 15

FISH SPECIES TIMING WINDOW

Fall: Lake Trout October 1 to May 31 Brook Trout October 1 to May 31 Pacific Salmon September 15 to May 31 Lake Whitefish October 15 to May 31 Lake Herring October 15 to May 31 Other/Unknown Fall Spawning Species October 1 to May 31

Additional approvals and permits may be required for the proposed works as it relates to the Fisheries Act. Please contact your local Conservation Authority and the Department of Fisheries

Ministry of Natural


Kemptville District

10 Campus Drive

Postal Box 2002


Tel.: 613 258-8204

Fax: 613 258-3920





Case postale, 2002


Tél.: 613 258-8204

Téléc.: 613 258-3920

4

and Oceans to determine requirements and next steps. Where the Fisheries Act is triggered and habitat compensation, mitigation measures or best management practices are being considered; as the MNRF is charged with the management of Provincial fish populations, the MNRF requests ongoing involvement in such discussions in order to ensure population conservation. Furthermore, local Conservation Authorities may also have additional approvals for works in and adjacent to water and wetland features. Finally, Transport Canada’s Navigable Waters Protection Division may require review and approval of the proposed project. Please contact these local agencies directly for more information. As per the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (Section 13; OMNRF 2010) the MNRF strongly recommends that an Ecological Site Assessment be carried out to more thoroughly determine the presence of natural heritage features, and Species at Risk and their habitat located on site. The MNRF can provide survey methodology for particular species at risk and their habitats. In addition, the local planning authority may have more details pertaining to the requirements of the assessment process, which will allow for the municipality to make planning decisions which are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2005). Species at Risk With the new Endangered Species Act (ESA, 2007) in effect, it is important to understand which species and habitats exist in the area and the implications of the legislation. A review of the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) and internal records and aerial photograph interpretation indicate that there is a potential for the following Threatened (THR) and/or Endangered (END) species on the site or in proximity to it:

Barn Swallow (THR)

Blanding's Turtle (THR)

Bobolink (THR)

Butternut (END)

Chimney Swift (THR)

Eastern Meadowlark (THR)

Eastern Small-footed Myotis (END)

Little Brown Bat (END)

Northern Long-eared Bat (END) All Endangered and Threatened species receive individual protection under section 9 of the ESA and receive general habitat protection under Section 10 of the ESA, 2007. Thus any potential works should consider disturbance of possible important habitat (e.g. nesting sites). Please note that as of June 30, 2013 general habitat protection applies to all Threatened and Endangered species. The habitat of these listed species is protected from damage and destruction and certain

Ministry of Natural


Kemptville District

10 Campus Drive

Postal Box 2002


Tel.: 613 258-8204

Fax: 613 258-3920





Case postale, 2002


Tél.: 613 258-8204

Téléc.: 613 258-3920

5

activities may require authorization(s) under the ESA. Please keep this date in mind when planning any species and habitat surveys Species receiving General Habitat protection:

Barn Swallow (THR)

Blanding's Turtle (THR)

Bobolink (THR)

Butternut (END)

Chimney Swift (THR)

Eastern Meadowlark (THR)

Eastern Small-footed Myotis (END)

Little Brown Bat (END)

Northern Long-eared Bat (END) If the proposed activity is known to have an impact on the species mentioned above or any other SAR, an authorization under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA) may be required. It is recommended that MNRF Kemptville be contacted prior to any activities being carried out to discuss potential survey and mitigation measures to avoid contravention of the ESA. Habitat has been identified within the project area that appears suitable for one or more species listed by SARO as Special Concern (SC). In Addition, one or more Special Concern species has been documented to occur either on the site or nearby. Species listed as Special Concern are not protected under the ESA, 2007. However, please note that some of these species may be protected under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act. Species of Special Concern for consideration:

Eastern Musk Turtle (SC)

Eastern Ribbonsnake (SC)

Milksnake (SC)

Monarch (SC)

Snapping Turtle (SC) If any of these or any other species at risk are discovered throughout the course of the work, and/or should any species at risk or their habitat be potentially impacted by on site activities, MNRF should be contacted immediately and operations be modified to avoid any negative impacts to species at risk or their habitat until further direction is provided by MNRF. Please note that information regarding species at risk is based on documented occurrences only and does not include an interpretation of potential habitat within or in proximity to the site in question. Although this data represents the MNRF’s best current available information, it is

Ministry of Natural


Kemptville District

10 Campus Drive

Postal Box 2002


Tel.: 613 258-8204

Fax: 613 258-3920





Case postale, 2002


Tél.: 613 258-8204

Téléc.: 613 258-3920

6

important to note that a lack of information for a site does not mean that additional features and values are not present. i.e.: Species at Risk (SAR) or their habitat could still be present at the location or in the immediate area. It is the responsibility of the proponent to ensure that species at risk are not killed, harmed, or harassed; or their habitat is not damaged or destroyed through the activities carried out on the site. The MNRF continues to strongly encourage ecological site assessments to determine the potential for SAR habitat and occurrences. When a SAR or potential habitat for a SAR does occur on a site, it is recommended that the proponent contact the MNRF for technical advice and to discuss what activities can occur without contravention of the Act. If an activity is proposed that will contravene the ESA (such as Section 9 or 10), the proponent must contact the MNRF to discuss the potential for a permit (Section 17). For specific questions regarding the Endangered Species Act (2007) or SAR, please contact a district Species at Risk Biologist at [email protected]. For more information regarding the ESA (2007), please see attached ESA Information Sheet. As of July 1, 2013, the approvals processes for a number of activities that have the potential to impact SAR or their habitat were changed in an effort to streamline approvals processes while continuing to protect and sustainably manage Ontario’s natural resources. For those activities that require registration with the Ministry, businesses and individuals will be able to do so through a new online system. The online system will also include information to help guide individuals and businesses through the new processes. For further information on which activities are authorized through this new online registration process and how to apply, please refer to the following website: http://www.MNRF.gov.on.ca/en/About/2ColumnSubPage/STDPROD_104342.html. General inquiries may be directed towards Kemptville District MNRF, while questions and comments involving the new online forms can be directed to the Registry Approvals Service Centre (RASC) at 1-855-613-4256 or [email protected]. Please note: The advice in this letter may become invalid if:

The Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO) re-assesses the status of the above-named species OR adds a species to the SARO List such that the section 9 and/or 10 protection provisions apply to those species.

Additional occurrences of species are discovered.

Habitat protection comes into force for one of the above-mentioned species through the creation of a habitat regulation (see general habitat protection above).

This letter is valid until: Thu. Aug 4, 2016 MNRF is streamlining and automating its approvals processes for natural resource-related activities. Some activities that may otherwise contravene the ESA may be eligible to proceed without a permit from MNRF provided that regulatory conditions are met for the ongoing protection

Ministry of Natural


Kemptville District

10 Campus Drive

Postal Box 2002


Tel.: 613 258-8204

Fax: 613 258-3920





Case postale, 2002


Tél.: 613 258-8204

Téléc.: 613 258-3920

7

of species at risk and their habitats. There are regulatory provisions for projects that have attained a specified level of approval prior to, or shortly after, the specified species or its habitat became protected under the ESA. Their requirements include registering the activity with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, taking steps to immediately minimize adverse effects on species and habitat, and developing a mitigation plan. Anyone intending to use this regulatory provision is strongly advised to review Ontario Regulation 242/08 under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 for the full legal requirements. For more information please check out the following link http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/development-and-infrastructure-projects-and-endangered-or-threatened-species The MNRF would like to advise, by way of this letter, that we continue to be circulated on information with regards to this project. If you have any questions or require clarification please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Erin Seabert Fish & Wildlife Technical Specialist [email protected] Encl.\ -ESA Infosheet -NHIC/LIO Infosheet



[email protected]

APPENDIX EButternut Health Assessment

(Bowfin Environmental Consulting 2015)

168 Montreal Road

Cornwall, ON

K6H 1B3

Tel: 613.935.6139

Fax: 613.935.6295

Page 1 of 13, BHA Report Number: 447688

Links:

Endangered Species Act, 2007: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_07e06_e.htm Ontario Regulation 242/08 (refer to section 23.7): http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_080242_e.htm Summary of changes related to Butternut: http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/butternut-trees-your-property MNR office locations: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/ContactUs/2ColumnSubPage/STEL0

2_179002.html

Shaun St.Pierre (BHA# 0281) Bowfin Environmental Consulting 168 Montreal Road Cornwall, ON K6H 1B3 Ms. Erin O’Connor Development Planner Regional Group of Companies 1737 Woodward Drive, 2nd Floor Ottawa, ON K2C 0P9 613) 230-2100 ext.6204 [email protected] January 5, 2016 RE: Part of Lot 5, Concession A, Township of North Gower

BHA Report Number: 447688

Date(s) of Butternut health assessment: August 7, 2015; August 10, 2015 and August 12, 2015

Dear Ms. O’Connor, This letter is in regard to my assessment of the Butternut trees on your property. Please read this letter carefully as it contains important information about the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA). Butternut is listed as an endangered species on the Species at Risk in Ontario List, and as such, it is protected under the ESA from being killed, harmed, or removed. If you are planning to undertake an activity that may affect Butternut, you may be eligible to follow the requirements set out in section 23.7 of Ontario Regulation 242/08 under the ESA, or you may need to seek an authorization under the ESA (e.g., a permit). Please visit e-laws at the link provided below for the legal requirements of eligible activities under section 23.7 of Ontario Regulation 242/08 and conditions that must be fulfilled. Information about Butternut is also available at: http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/butternut-trees-your-property. If you are eligible to kill, harm or take Butternut under section 23.7 of the regulation, your first step is to submit the BHA Report and the original data forms enclosed in this package to the local MNR District Manager. Note that the MNR will not accept photocopies. The BHA Report must be submitted at least 30 days prior to


registering to kill, harm, or remove a Butternut tree. During this 30 day period, no Butternut trees (of any category) may be killed, harmed, or removed, and MNR may contact you for an opportunity to examine the trees. If MNR chooses to examine the trees, a representative of the MNR will contact you using the information you supplied when you submitted the BHA Report. After the examination has been completed, MNR will notify you if the examination results change whether you are eligible for the regulation. If you are eligible to follow the rules in regulation under section 23.7, you may register your activity using the “Notice of Butternut Impact” form on the MNR Registry after the 30 day period has elapsed. If you are not eligible to follow the rules in regulation under section 23.7, please contact the local Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) office to determine whether you will need to seek a permit. A link to the directory of MNR offices is provided in the text box on the previous page. As a designated Butternut Health Assessor (BHA), I am providing the following Butternut Health Assessor’s Report for the trees located at the above noted property, for which I completed an assessment during the site visit on the above noted date. If there are other Butternut trees at the site that may be affected by the activity and they are not identified in this report, they too must be assessed by a BHA. Note that municipal by-laws and legislation other than the ESA may also be applicable to the removal or harming of trees. Please retain this letter and a copy of the BHA Report for your records, along with any other documentation you may receive from the MNR should an examination of the trees occur. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or your local MNR district office. Sincerely, Shaun St.Pierre (BHA # 281)

Enclosures:

1. Butternut Health Assessor’s Report 2. Original data forms 3. Electronic and printed copies of the Excel data spreadsheet (BHA Tree Analysis)

168 Montreal Road

Cornwall, ON

K6H 1B3

Tel: 613.935.6139

Fax: 613.935.6295


Butternut Health Assessor’s Report Shaun St.Pierre (BHA# 0281) Bowfin Environmental Consulting 168 Montreal Road Cornwall, ON K6H 1B3 Ms. Erin O’Connor Development Planner Regional Group of Companies 1737 Woodward Drive, 2nd Floor Ottawa, ON K2C 0P9 613) 230-2100 ext.6204 [email protected] Property description: Part of Lot 5, Concession A, Township of North Gower

BHA Report Number: 447688

Date(s) of Butternut health assessment: August 7, 2015; August 10, 2015 and August 12, 2015

Date BHA Report prepared: January 5, 2016

Map datum used: NAD83 WGS84 Total number of trees assessed in this BHA Report: 250 The assessed trees were numbered on site using white paint and white flagging tape. The numbers at the site correspond to the tree numbers used in this report. This BHA Report includes the following tables:

Table 1: Butternut trees proposed to be killed, and butternut trees with unknown fate

Table 2: Summary of Assessment Results Table 1: Butternut trees proposed to be killed, harmed, or taken

Tree # UTM coordinates

Cate

go

ry1

(1,

2,

or

32)

db

h3 (

cm

)

Cultiv

ate

d? (

Y/N

)

Pro

pose

d t

o b

e:

(ente

r

on

e: kill

ed,

or

unknow

n)

Reason tree is proposed to be killed, harmed or

taken:

1 The extent to which the tree is affected by Butternut Canker is presented in the Excel document titled, “BHA Tree Analysis” that accompanies this BHA Report.

2 The rules in regulation under section 23.7 of O. Reg. 242/08 are not applicable to Category 3 trees.

3 dbh: diameter at breast height, rounded to nearest cm (if tree is shorter than breast height, enter zero)



Cate

go

ry1

(1,

2,

or

32)

db

h3 (

cm

)

Cultiv

ate

d? (

Y/N

)

Pro

pose

d t

o b

e:

(ente

r

on

e: kill

ed,

or

unknow

n)


taken:

1 18 T 447688 5007273 1 15 N killed Proposed Subdivision

2 18 T 447746 5007299 2 5 N unknown Proposed Subdivision



































Cate

go

ry1

(1,

2,

or

32)

db

h3 (

cm

)

Cultiv

ate

d? (

Y/N

)

Pro

pose

d t

o b

e:

(ente

r

on

e: kill

ed,

or

unknow

n)


taken:





































Cate

go

ry1

(1,

2,

or

32)

db

h3 (

cm

)

Cultiv

ate

d? (

Y/N

)

Pro

pose

d t

o b

e:

(ente

r

on

e: kill

ed,

or

unknow

n)


taken:





































Cate

go

ry1

(1,

2,

or

32)

db

h3 (

cm

)

Cultiv

ate

d? (

Y/N

)

Pro

pose

d t

o b

e:

(ente

r

on

e: kill

ed,

or

unknow

n)


taken:





































Cate

go

ry1

(1,

2,

or

32)

db

h3 (

cm

)

Cultiv

ate

d? (

Y/N

)

Pro

pose

d t

o b

e:

(ente

r

on

e: kill

ed,

or

unknow

n)


taken:





































Cate

go

ry1

(1,

2,

or

32)

db

h3 (

cm

)

Cultiv

ate

d? (

Y/N

)

Pro

pose

d t

o b

e:

(ente

r

on

e: kill

ed,

or

unknow

n)


taken:





































Cate

go

ry1

(1,

2,

or

32)

db

h3 (

cm

)

Cultiv

ate

d? (

Y/N

)

Pro

pose

d t

o b

e:

(ente

r

on

e: kill

ed,

or

unknow

n)


taken:





































Cate

go

ry1

(1,

2,

or

32)

db

h3 (

cm

)

Cultiv

ate

d? (

Y/N

)

Pro

pose

d t

o b

e:

(ente

r

on

e: kill

ed,

or

unknow

n)


taken:













Table 2: Summary of Assessment Results

Result: Total

#: Important information for persons planning activities that may affect Butternut:

Category 1

142 A Category 1 tree is one that is affected by butternut canker to such an advanced degree that retaining the tree would not support the protection or recovery of butternut in the area in which the tree is located; and is considered “non-retainable”.

During the 30 day period that follows your submission of this BHA Report to the MNR District Manager, no Butternut trees (of Category 1, 2, or 3) may be killed, harmed, or taken, and MNR may contact you for an opportunity to examine the trees.

Category 1 trees may be killed, harmed or taken after the 30 day period that follows submission of this BHA Report to the MNR District Manager, unless the results of an MNR examination indicate that the assessment has not been conducted in accordance with the document entitled “Butternut Assessment Guidelines: Assessment of Butternut Tree Health for the Purposes of the Endangered Species Act, 2007”.

Category 2

68 A Category 2 tree is one that is not affected by Butternut Canker, or is affected by Butternut

Canker but the degree to which it is affected is not too advanced and retaining the tree could support the protection or recovery of butternut in the area in which the tree is located, and is considered “retainable”.

During the 30 day period that follows your submission of this BHA Report to the MNR District Manager, no Butternut trees (of Category 1, 2, or 3) may be killed, harmed, or taken, and MNR may contact you for an opportunity to examine the trees.

Activities that may kill, harm or take up to a maximum of ten (10) Category 2 trees may be eligible to follow the rules in section 23.7 of Ontario Regulation 242/08, in accordance with the conditions and requirements set out in the regulation.

Refer to e-Laws for the legal requirements of eligible activities under section 23.7 of Ontario Regulation 242/08 and conditions that must be fulfilled: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_080242_e.htm


Result: Total

#: Important information for persons planning activities that may affect Butternut:

Category 3

40 A Category 3 tree is one that may be useful in determining sources of resistance to Butternut

Canker, and is considered “archivable”.

Category 3 trees are not eligible to be killed, harmed or taken under section 23.7 of Ontario Regulation 242/08.

Visit the MNR website using the link below for information on how to seek an ESA authorization, or consider an alternative that will avoid killing, harming or taking any Category 3 trees: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Species/2ColumnSubPage/MNR_SAR_HOW_DO_GET_PER_EN.html

Cultivated 0

An activity that involves killing, harming, or taking a cultivated Butternut tree that was not required to be planted to fulfill a condition of an ESA permit or a condition of a regulation, may be eligible for the exemption provided by subsection 23.7 (11) of O. Reg. 242/08.

Prior to undertaking the activity, the owner or occupier of the land on which the Butternut is located (or person acting on their behalf) will need to determine whether the exemption for cultivated trees is applicable by determining whether or not the tree was cultivated as a result of the requirements for an exemption under O. Reg. 242/08 or a condition of a permit issued under the ESA. This information can be accessed by contacting the local MNR district office: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/ContactUs/2ColumnSubPage/STEL02_179002.html

The owner or occupier of the land on which the Butternut is located (or person acting on their behalf) is encouraged to append the details regarding whether the tree was planted to satisfy a requirement (e.g., the permit number or registration number) to this BHA Report for their records.

Hybrid 0

Hybrid Butternut trees are not protected under the ESA, but their removal may be subject to municipal by-laws and other legislation.

NOTE: This concludes the summary of the BHA Report. A complete BHA Report must include the original (hard copy) data forms (i.e., all completed sets of Form 1 and Form 2), an electronic copy of the Excel data analysis spreadsheet, and one printed copy of the Excel data analysis spreadsheet.

168 Montreal Road

Cornwall, ON

K6H 1B3

Tel: 613.935.6139

Fax: 613.935.6295


Date post:	02-Oct-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

Environmental Impact Statement & Tree Conservation Report ...

Documents