Brunton Consulting Services 216 Lincoln Heights Road, Ottawa, Ontario K2B 8A8 Ž Phone: (613) 829-7307 Ž Fax: (613) 829-4688 Ž e-mail: [email protected]

Natural environment assessment (existing conditions) and PSW boundary review: Cotnam’s Island Property

February 2015 Natural environment assessment (existing conditions) and Hazley Bay Provincially Significant Wetland boundary review: Cotnam’s Island Property, Township of Laurentian Valley, Renfrew County, Ontario

Daniel F. Brunton,

Brunton Consulting Services, Ottawa, Ontario

February 2015 Cotnam’s Island Property Natural Environment Assessment

1. Introduction

A natural environment assessment and Environmental Impact Statement was undertaken for the 14.3 ha Cotnam’s Island Property that is the block of land comprising Part of Lots 57, 57B and 68 B and Lot 58, Reg. Plan No. 383 and Part of Peninsula Lot B, Concession 4 in the Geographic Township of Pembroke, now within Laurentian Valley Township, Renfrew County (Figure 1). The investigation of this landscape was undertaken as part of the planning approval process for the rural residential lot development proposed here.

Figure 1: Cotnam’s Island Property

On-site investigations were conducted by Daniel F. Brunton for specific natural environment features in and adjacent to the study area on 19 June 2013 with additional targeted Species At Risk site investigations conducted 13 June, 19 June and 15 July 2013. A reconnaissance level assessment of ecological function potentials was also undertaken over a larger area extending across natural habitats up to 1 km from the study area where potential influences extended from the property (e.g. along the river).

Brunton Consulting Services, Ottawa, Ontario Page 2 Cotnam’s Island Property Natural Environment Assessment

The purposes of the investigation were as follows:

1) to evaluate natural environment conditions and ecological significance within the subject property; 2) to identify potential impacts of residential development on the apparent and potential natural environment values within and/or in adjacent to the subject property; and 3) to identify ecologically appropriate mitigation opportunities.

Particular attention was paid to wildlife concentrations and movement and for the potential presence of Species At Risk (SAR). Potential SAR species and deer yard habitat identified by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) District Office (Joanna Goweda, District Planner, in lit, 4 June 2013 and Kirby Punt, Madawaska Area Biologist, in lit, 10 June 2013), were also reviewed. Although not protected by regulations of SAR legislation, Special Concern species were also considered in this investigation. Such species are, in any event, considered as part of the review of all potentially rare or significant flora or fauna in the natural course of a natural environment assessment.

All major habitats in the study area were examined by irregular on foot transects with topographic mapping and aerial photography in hand. Field notes were taken during these investigations and photographic documentation was obtained for some features and landscapes. Where possible (i.e. technically possible and with no negative impact), voucher specimens were secured and preserved to permanently document significant plant species occurrences. Reviews of local and regional literature and natural environment data sources were conducted during and after the on-site investigations, as noted below.

A draft report was prepared in January 2014 and circulated for review. Comments from MNR specialists were received (J. Gaweda, 30 April 2014; L.Kruschenske 12 May 2014, in lit.) and discussed in more detail by telephone (D. Brunton - L. Kruschenske, 28 May 2014). All of these issues and questions were addressed in a revised August 2014 draft.

Key amongst those was a request for the boundaries of elements of Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) identified within the property to be confirmed by a formal PSW assessment protocol evaluation. Accordingly, a wetland boundary conformance study was conducted by Natural Resource Solutions Inc. in June 2014 (see Appendix 2). The Natural Resource Solutions Inc. study confirmed the wetland habitat determinations and conclusions of the natural

Brunton Consulting Services, Ottawa, Ontario Page 3 Cotnam’s Island Property Natural Environment Assessment environment assessment. It also adjusted the boundaries of some wetland elements to more accurately reflect site conditions and identified some additional wetland habitat areas (see Appendix 2).

Additional concerns were raised by MNRF (L. Kruschenske, in lit, 19 September 2014) following their review of the additional PSW and SAR work conducted in 2014. Although the factual presentation was deemed acceptable, MNRF identified a need for a more detailed discussion of SAR (Blanding’s Turtle) mitigation, the documentation of the exact amount of wetland intrusion by the access road, and clarification of shoreline/ wetland buffer mapping. MNRF also requested that the PSW boundary line re-evaluation be presented in a digital format (that has been addressed separately). A meeting with MNRF was held 13 November 2014 to review all outstanding MNRF concerns. At that meeting, MNRF requested additional information to identify the precise nature of SAR mitigation which would best suit the subject property. Accordingly, ecologically effective measures to protect SAR individuals and SAR have been developed and are described in Section 5 Development implications and mitigation opportunities Section, below.

2. Site context

The subject property is a rocky, rolling, forested landscape along the shore of Hazley Bay, a large, sheltered embayment of the Ottawa River. Granitic bedrock outcropping is frequent, often extending to the edge of the water (Figure 2). The shoreline is natural and unmarked by the construction of structures or facilities. Wetland areas within the subject property are small, consisting of seasonally flooded swales and inlets protruding inland from the river. Figure 2: rocky, natural shoreline of subject property No evidence of disturbance from built structures is evident in upland areas although selective cutting of the tree cover has occurred. A single rough access road with a base approximately 7 m wide (including shoulders) extends along the northeastern edge of the property from Ellen Street. The road base has become substantially overgrown in the years since construction.

Brunton Consulting Services, Ottawa, Ontario Page 4 Cotnam’s Island Property Natural Environment Assessment

3. Natural features

3.1 Natural Habitats

The natural habitats of the landscape along and adjacent to the subject property are described below and delineated in Figure 3. Habitat diversity is low here, the landscape homogeneity being a reflection of the strong influence of bedrock control. Where possible, the equivalent units from the Southern Ontario Vegetation Classification system (Lee et al. 1998) are included in the habitat descriptions to assist in comparisons of these values within a regional or larger context.

Figure 3: Habitats in the Cotnam’s Island Property 1 Upland Outcrop and Scrub, 2 Upland Mixed Forest, 3 - Deciduous Swamp Forest, 4 - Thicket Swamp & Marsh ------[includes revised wetland habitat boundaries from June 2014 Natural Resource Solutions Inc. study] wetland habitats - shaded light blue red star = vernal pool

Brunton Consulting Services, Ottawa, Ontario Page 5 Cotnam’s Island Property Natural Environment Assessment

3.1.1 HABITAT 1 - Upland Outcrop and Scrub (RBO3 (Acidic Open Rock Barren), RBS3 (Acidic Shrub Rock Barren) of Lee et al. 1998)

Clearings of various sizes and shapes with ground vegetation varying from sparse herbs and shrubs to denser heath-like thickets dominate drier knolls within the coniferous forest (Figure 4). Blueberries (Vaccinium spp.) are common Figure 4: Habitat 2 - Red Maple dominated Mixed forest at in these glades, along with Bracken Fern the south end of the subject property (Pteridium aquilinum), Poverty grass (Danthonia spicata), Bearberry (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) and Staghorn Sumac (Rhus hirta) and other drought tolerate, predominately native species. The thin to absent soil is the greatest determinant of vegetation density.

This common habitat supports depauperate wildlife diversity and is widespread in the general area.

3.1.2 HABITAT 2 - Upland Mixed Forest (FOM1 (Oak-Pine Mixed Forest) and FOM2 (White Pine-Red Maple -Oak Mixed Forest) of Lee et al. 1998)

White Pine and Red Oak forest predominate in the subject property with Figure 5: Habitat 1 - scrubby glades on bedrock outcrops Red Maple, Red Pine and White Birch in dry, thin soil over granitic bedrock (Figure 5). The undergrowth is typically sparse throughout, being a combination of canopy saplings and drought-tolerant herbaceous species such as Cow-wheat (Melampyrum lineare), Pussy-toes (Antennaria howellii), Pink Corydalis (Corydalis sempervirens), Common Raspberry (Rubus strigosus) and

Brunton Consulting Services, Ottawa, Ontario Page 6 Cotnam’s Island Property Natural Environment Assessment

Orange Hawkweed (Hieracium aurantiacum).

Towards the south end of the subject property where soil depth is marginally greater and the substrate is somewhat more mesic, Red Maple forms the primary canopy species along with lesser proportions of Red Oak and White Pine (Figure 6).

The undergrowth is diverse within this habitat, with richer-substrate species such as Hepatica (Anemone rotundifolia), Mountain Figure 6: Habitat 2 - White Pine - Red Maple dominated Ricegrass (Oryzopsis asperifolia), the Upland Mixed Forest sedge Carex communis, Poison-ivy (Toxicodendron rydbergii) and Canada Honeysuckle (Lonicera canadensis) being present.

This is a young, representative example of a regionally common habitat.

3.1.3 HABITAT 3 - Deciduous Swamp Forest ( Green Ash (SWD2) and Red Maple (SWD3) Mineral Swamp of Lee et al. 1998)

Swamp forest is uncommon on this predominantly upland site. Small areas are associated with the low swales sloping into Hazley Bay at the south end of the property, with Green Ash, United Maple (Acer x freemanii) and Red Maple characterizing the canopy over dense regeneration of canopy saplings. the ground vegetation otherwise is depauperate, with extensive areas of bare ground resulting from prolonged episodes of flooding (Figure 7). A small area with large Cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon) extends across otherwise bare ground under the edge of this swamp forest cover at the rivershore.

As with the upland vegetation found in the subject property, this is representative of a regionally common habitat.

Brunton Consulting Services, Ottawa, Ontario Page 7 Cotnam’s Island Property Natural Environment Assessment

3.1.4 HABITAT 4 - Thicket Swamp & Figure 7: Habitat 3 - Red Maple and Green Ash Deciduous Swamp Forest at south end of the subject property Marsh (Organic Alder Thicket Swamp (SWT3) and Cattail Organic Marsh (MAS3) of Lee et al. 1998)

Thicket swamp habitat extends into the subject property from the east, the northernmost examples being within bedrock troughs that extend across the site and drain into northern Hazley Bay. The southern thicket swamp-dominated depression barely extends into the property (Figure 3, above; wetland figure, Appendix 2). The northern thicket swamp elements provide some flow from the wetland east of the property to Hazely Bay during high water periods. Standing water within theses wetland components does not reach Hazley Bay, however, during the majority of the year when water levels are substantially lower.

The wetland vegetation east of the subject Figure 8: Habitat 4 - Thicket Swamp and Marsh Habitat: property is predominantly cat-tail marsh marsh in PSW east of subject property (north end) and thicket swamp (Figure 8) and includes extensive open areas. True aquatics such as the invasive Frog’s-bit (Hydrocharis morsus-ranae), Water-plantain (Alisma triviale) and Water Spikerush (Eleocharis palustris) are commonly represented.

Within the subject property there is almost no open water areas, the vegetation in the wetland channels being largely a tangle of Speckled Alder (Alnus incana ssp. rugosa) thickets with coarse herbaceous flora such as Joe Pye-weed (Eupatorium maculatum), Northern Manna-grass (Glyceria borealis) and Cat-tail (Typha latifolia) being present (Figure 9). The two channels of the northern portion of wetland narrow as they slope towards the bay, the flow in both being reduced to trickles at the western end.

Brunton Consulting Services, Ottawa, Ontario Page 8 Cotnam’s Island Property Natural Environment Assessment

Several small (<0.5 ha) seasonally flooded Figure 9: Habitat 4 - Thicket Swamp and Marsh Habitat - Speckled Alder thicket in central area bedrock depressions occur across the site. One of these in the south end of the subject property still held water at the time of the field investigation but was already experiencing significant lowering of the water level.

As with the upland vegetation found in the subject property, this is representative of a regionally common habitat.

3.2 FAUNAL DIVERSITY

Observed faunal activity was considered to be typical of disturbed, younger upland habitats and isolated woodland wet areas of the larger region. That is as was expected for an area with unremarkable examples of regularly occurring habitats.

3.2.1 Breeding Birds

The diversity of avifauna is limited by the minimal variation in natural habitats present here. Fewer than 40 potential breeding species were noted and while others may well occur in or near the study area, it is clear that total diversity will always be low. The following lists the species noted during 2013 field investigations.

Wood Duck Downy Woodpecker

Mallard Northern Flicker

Hooded Merganser ** flightless Red-eyed Vireo young Blue Jay Great Blue Heron American Crow Herring Gull Black-capped Chickadee

Brunton Consulting Services, Ottawa, Ontario Page 9 Cotnam’s Island Property Natural Environment Assessment

Red-breasted Nuthatch Red-winged Blackbird

Pine Warbler American Goldfinch

Song Sparrow

White-throated Sparrow ** agitated ** - breeding evidence in study area behaviour

Northern Cardinal

The dominance of common, representative habitats and low diversity of landscape types indicates that while more targeted and detailed breeding bird surveys would undoubtedly have detected more species, the potential for significant bird species is low.

3.2.3 OTHER FAUNA

As with bird species, the dominance of common, representative habitats and low diversity of landscape types is reflected in the presence of other common vertebrate faunal. Mammal species observed incidentally during field studies, either directly or by signs (tracks, droppings, etc.), include Raccoon, White-tailed Deer, Red Squirrel, Gray Squirrel, Eastern Chipmunk and American Beaver.

Only common species of amphibians were noted here as well. Green Frog, Bullfrog, Gray Tree- frog, and Leopard Frog were seen and/ or heard near the wetland, mostly from the marsh and thicket swamp east of the subject property. Several Painted Turtles were noted in the large marshy wetland east of the subject property and a Snapping Turtle was observed along the shore of Hazley Bay at the southwest corner of the property (Natural Resources Solutions Inc., June 2014). No evidence of turtle breeding was noted but that is likely along the access road at the eastern edge of the subject property adjacent to the marshy wetlands.

3.3 FLORISTIC DIVERSITY

The natural floristic diversity here(Appendix 1, Native Vascular Flora) is representative of a largely natural landscape in this region , with just over 110 native species observed in and adjacent to the subject property. The ecological integrity of the native flora as measured by an

Brunton Consulting Services, Ottawa, Ontario Page 10 Cotnam’s Island Property Natural Environment Assessment average Coefficient of Conservatism (CC) rating of 4.95 is accordingly good. The CC rating presents an indication of the naturalness of individual native plant species (Oldham et al. 1995). In contrast, an average of southern Ontario rural/ suburban study areas also representing extensive forested areas, is slightly over 4.0 (Table 1, below).

Table 1: Floristic Coefficient of Conservatism ratings of southern Ontario sites (including residential properties and roadway corridors in rural and near-urban landscapes - pers. obs. ) Site/ property Landscape type Year No of Average taxa CC

Hwy 62 (Limerick) rural 2005 199 4.97

Gervais Property, Westmeath rural 2013 136 4.96 Cotnam’s Island Property rural 2013 112 4.95 (Pembroke)

Hwy 62 (Maynooth) rural 2009 113 4.60

Drummond Tp Property (Perth) rural 2013 1.02 4.59

Hwy 41 (Griffith) rural 2006 178 4.58

Babcock Mill Property (Odessa) rural/ suburban 2013 136 4.53

Innes Walkley Hunt Club (Ottawa) rural/ suburban 2005 203 4.44

Hwy 7 (Perth) rural suburban 2006 160 4.28

Hwy 132 (Dacre) rural 2009 153 4.25

Highway 41 - 7 intersection (Kaladar) rural residential 2007 80 4.16

Big Oak Property (Pembroke) rural 2013 70 4.07

Hwy 7 (Peterborough) rural/ suburban 2004 118 4.07

Airport Road (Peterborough) rural 2010 154 4.06

Hwy 138 (Cornwall) rural 2010 225 4.04

Jockvale Road (Ottawa) rural 2007 90 3.80

Blackbridge Road (Cambridge) rural/ suburban 2012 94 3.70

Hall Road extension (Renfrew) rural/ suburban 2013 89 3.46

Victory Hill Property (Ottawa) suburban 2012 90 3.38

Old Carp Road (Ottawa) rural/ suburban 2007 256 3.27 Average of CC ratings 4.21

Brunton Consulting Services, Ottawa, Ontario Page 11 Cotnam’s Island Property Natural Environment Assessment

3.4 ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS In addition to the review of natural features, consideration of ecological function contributions are valuable in assessing the potential of the subject property for the occurrence of Significant Wildlife Habitat. That review is described below under several broad ecological function themes.

3.4.1 Representation and Condition

Due to its size and limited biodiversity, the subject property offers only a moderate representation of intact native terrestrial habitats which are otherwise typically found in the larger Renfrew County area.

3.4.2 Wildlife Corridor and Ecological Linkages

The peninsular location of the subject property limits its contribution as a local wildlife corridor, as noted as well in regards to the use of the area by White-tailed Deer (see 4.4 Significant areas and features, below). Wildlife movement will occur along forested lakeshore like those in the subject property, however.

Figure 10: deer yard in the vicinity of the subject property (fide K. Punt, MNR) 3.4.3 Wildlife Concentration Areas

The subject area is part of a large White-tailed Deer concentration area (Figure 10). The area is utilized year round but is particularly employed for shelter in winter-time (see 4.4 Significant areas and features, below).

Brunton Consulting Services, Ottawa, Ontario Page 12 Cotnam’s Island Property Natural Environment Assessment

No other wildlife concentrations are evident in the subject property although large numbers of common amphibians, especially Gray Tree-frog, Green Frog and Bullfrog, occur in the wetland immediately east of the subject property.

3.4.4 Native Biodiversity

As noted above, native flora and fauna are representative of those species typically found in comparable disturbed, young habitats that are found commonly in the general area.

4. Ecological significance

Significant features and important natural functions are limited in the subject property.

4.1 Significant flora (including SAR)

No SAR or provincially rare (Oldham and Brinker 2009) vascular plant species were noted or are recorded from within or adjacent to the study area. In the absence of exceptional habitats or landscapes, the potential for future plant SAR occurrences to be observed is considered to be low.

No Regionally (Renfrew County) rare native flora are known from the site although two regionally uncommon species, Plantain Pussy-toes (Antennaria parlinii) and Purslane Speedwell (Veronica peregrina ssp. xalapensis) were recorded on bedrock outcrops in the north of the property.

4.2 Significant fauna

No rare faunal species were noted in or about the subject property nor does there appear to be a high potential for the habitat here to support the occurrence of such species.

Brunton Consulting Services, Ottawa, Ontario Page 13 Cotnam’s Island Property Natural Environment Assessment

4.2.1 Whip-poor-will

Whip-poor-will, recently designated as Threatened in Ontario, occurs in dry, young upland forest habitat, small portions of which are found in and about the subject property (Mills 2007). Accordingly, on-site investigations as per MNR protocols, were conducted to confirm its absence or presence. Figure 11: Whip-poor-will investigations star = listening sites; circles = 500 m radius This investigation protocol requires multiple nocturnal site visits to be conducted at least a half hour after sunset in warm, low wind conditions with bright moon-light between May and July. The pre-determined listening stations for the species can be no more than 500 m apart (Figure 11).

Table 2 summarizes the conditions and results of Whip-poor-will investigations in the subject property. No Whip-poor-will we observed or recorded.

Table 2: Whip-poor-will Survey details: Cotnam`s Island property (2013)

Date start finish temp wind sky moon WPW time time condition phase observations 13 June 11:18 PM 11:40 PM 18°C still clear waxing none crescent

19 June 10:17 PM 10:32 PM 13°C still cloudless ¾ full none

15 July 10:38 PM 10:58 PM 26°C still clear ½ full none

Other designated SAR species were identified by MNR (J. Goweda, in lit, 4 June 2013) as potentially occurring in or near the subject property. These were substantially determined by proximity (i.e. existing reports geographically not too far removed from the subject property) rather than habitat suitability. Nonetheless, these species (Eastern Musk Turtle, Blanding’s

Brunton Consulting Services, Ottawa, Ontario Page 14 Cotnam’s Island Property Natural Environment Assessment

Turtle, Butternut, River Redhorse and Flooded Jellyskin (lichen)) were actively considered during field investigations.

4.2.2 Blanding’s Turtle

Blanding’s Turtle searches involved naked-eye and binocular-aided scanning of potential roosting sites along the shore and logs, mossy mounds, etc. in shallow water areas of the wetland immediately east of the subject preperty. The marsh and thicket swamp portions of the wetland habitat (Habitat 4, Figure 3) does support potential habitat for this wide ranging species. That especially includes the swampy intrusions into the subject property from the east. Although no Blanding’s Turtles were observed, an abundance of prudence leads to development planning for the subject property (see 5. Development implications and mitigation opportunities, below) as if Blanding’s Turtle had been confirmed to occur here. For the purposes of this EIS, then, two types of Blanding’s Turtle habitat are considered to be relevent, as described in the MNRF’s General Habitat Description (MNR n.d). The wetlands in and about the subject property and 30 m into the adjoining upland are considered Category 2 (“moderate level of tolerance to alteration”). All of the remaining upland of the subject property (viz., 30 to 250 m beyond Category 2 habitat) is considered Category 3 (“highest tolerance to alteration”).

4.2.3 Special Concern SAR (SAR-SC)

One Snapping Turtle (SAR-SC) was observed along the shore of Hazley Bay in association with the marsh and thicket habitat and is expected to occur regularly in the marsh habitat east of the subject property. It may also occur in smaller numbers along the open lakeshore, although the rockiness of this shore makes it less preferred habitat and likely would permit only basking activity.

As a designated Special Concern SAR, this reptile does not receive the regulatory protection afforded Threatened and Endangered species but its population trends are tracked by MNR. Its occurrence at sites within Ecoregion 6E confers Significant Wildlife Habitat status on utilized habitats.

Brunton Consulting Services, Ottawa, Ontario Page 15 Cotnam’s Island Property Natural Environment Assessment

Other Special Concern SAR identified by MNR (J. Goweda, in lit, 4 June 2013) include Milksnake, Eastern Ribbonsnake, Olive-sided Flycatcher and Canada Warbler. There is suitable habitat for the latter two bird species in and about the wetland habitat of the study area but no individuals were noted during the visual and auditory field investigations undertaken during site investigations of the subject property.

4.3 Significant ecological functions

As noted above, ecological functions (e.g. wildlife corridor and native biodiversity representation) are representative of those of disturbed habitat along river courses across southern Ontario. They are not considered to provide more than a local scale contribution.

4.4 Significant areas

The extensive Hazley Bay/ Lisk Bay Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) Complex extends across this area, encompassing most of Hazley Bay itself (including all of the subject property’s shoreline). It also includes the two wetland areas immediately to the east as well as the projections of this habitat into the subject property.

There are no Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest or designated ecological reserve areas within the study area. The limited landscape variety and relatively low level of significant feature representation do not present notable opportunities for the future designation of such areas.

The presence of MNR-designated Core Deer Yard satisfies Significant Wildlife Habitat designation criteria. The deer yard noted here (Figure 10) is identified as having “potential to allow for travel corridors and connectivity to the inter-provincial yard where deer swim to and from Quebec” and that “most of the movement in this area is now completed at night due to these changes in the habitat causing deer to move away from the traditional area, travelling greater distances and occupying more but smaller patches of winter cover to get to adequate habitat” (K. Punt, MNR, in lit, 10 June 2013). This does appear to represent formally designated Core Deer yard, however.

Brunton Consulting Services, Ottawa, Ontario Page 16 Cotnam’s Island Property Natural Environment Assessment

4.5 Significant Wildlife Habitat

As with most large woodland or natural habitat areas in southern Ontario, features are present that confer Significant Wildlife Habitat status on some portions of the landscape within or adjacent to the subject property. These criteria are identified in the February 2012 Draft schedule for the designation of Significant Wildlife Habitat within Site District 6E.

The observation of a Special Concern SAR species (Snapping Turtle) designates the habitats it utilizes here (shorelines, marsh and thicket) as designated Significant Wildlife Habitat. This applies to all shore areas of Hazley Bay within and beyond the subject property and indeed, to most vegetated shore areas of the Ottawa River.

The occurrence of the substantial breeding population of Gray Tree-frog, Bullfrog and Green Frog along with representation of Leopard Frog and undoubtedly American Toad (although none of the latter species were noted) satisfies a criterion for Significant Wildlife Habitat designation for the marsh habitat immediately east of the subject property. Similarly, the observation of 3 or 4 animals in typical habitat indicates that more than five Painted Turtles almost certainly occur in the marsh habitat immediately east of the subject property and along marshy edges of Hazley Bay, also designating this as Site Region 6E Significant Wildlife Habitat.

5. Development implications and mitigation opportunities

The development concept for this property intends eight large rural residential lots with the intervening landscape left more or less intact (Figure 12). Other than the obvious impact of the development footprint (residences, services, access road), anticipated physical impact is limited and will permit the natural habitat of the subject property to remain relatively intact. Indeed, the natural quality of the property is seen as a development asset here. With an essentially natural functioning landscape in place, no remediation or compensation for negative impacts is required or recommended.

There also appears to be low potential for the enhancement of significant ecological features or functions here, given the development scenario described above. This includes consideration of Significant Wildlife Habitat values (primarily shorelines) which are already protected through designated set-backs and PSW designation.

Brunton Consulting Services, Ottawa, Ontario Page 17 Cotnam’s Island Property Natural Environment Assessment

Figure 12: Eight Lot Development Concept

5.1 Deer Yard considerations

MNR biologist K. Punt suggests that development “... keep/ retain conifer cover to provide [deer] these travel corridors along with reducing snow loads. Some of the impacts observed here is deer using the roads and highway for moving [which] creates human / wildlife conflict”. Maintaining such cover (a major component of the forest here) will also provide the broader benefit of sustaining soil stability and existing levels of water quality protection, supporting native floristic diversity and reducing potential ecological stress from non-native flora. As such, it is recommended that the development concept maximizes the retention of natural forest cover.

5.2 Provincially Significant Wetland considerations

The designation of the wetland east of the subject property as part of a PSW complex means that the wetland habitat intrusions from that westward into and across the subject property (Habitat 4,

Brunton Consulting Services, Ottawa, Ontario Page 18 Cotnam’s Island Property Natural Environment Assessment

Figure 3; see Appendix 2) also constitute PSW. That precludes new development within those wetland areas and presents potential constraints to development within the 120 m Adjacent Area. The test of PSW Adjacent Area development described in the 2004 Laurentian Valley Official Plan (OP) and the 2014 PPS requires that physical disturbance not negatively impact (viz., materially change) the defining characteristics of the wetland.

There are no PSW values involving special feature or significant ecological functions in the subject property. The “defining characteristic” that needs to be respected in any development plan involving portions of the Adjacent Area is largely if not entirely related to the size of the PSW, viz., its hydrological contribution. Accordingly, it will be important to maintain natural vegetation (not just open space) within the development set-back from the PSW edge. As the PSW intrusions into the subject property do not satisfy the OP’s definition of a waterbody (“lakes, rivers, creeks and streams” - Jp2g 2004), they are not subject to the automatic 30 m shoreline set-back identified in the OP. In addition, the rugged landscape in the vicinity of PSW areas here deflects the majority of Adjacent Area surface flow away from the PSW intrusions and into local depressions that are unconnected to the wetland, such as the vernal pool noted by Natural Resource Solutions Inc in June 2014 (see Appendix 2). Natural habitat protection along these ìnterior`wetland areas is recommended, however, (see below), as it will contribute to the protection of water quality and the ecological integrity of Hazley Bay and thus will enhance the defining characteristics of the PSW.

It is recommended that a 10 m buffer of intact natural habitat be maintained along wetland margins (Habitat 4) beyond those included within the 30 m Hazley Bay shoreline set back. In concert with the aforementioned maintenance of forest cover, this will eliminate the potential for significant ecological impact on the subject property’s contribution to the defining characteristics of the PSW (viz., its hydrological contribution). The proposed natural shoreline buffers will provide the additional benefit of protecting the terrestrial habitat most likely to be utilized by SAR Blanding’s Turtle. Both buffers are shown on the Concept Plan prepared by Jp2g and included as Figure 12 of this report.

5.3 SAR (Blanding’s Turtle)

Mitigation of potential impact on Category 2 and 3 Blanding’s Turtle habitat and individuals stresses avoidance of potential conflicts. In addition, protective measures are being taken during construction and accommodated in infrastructure designs (see Category 3 discussion, below).

Brunton Consulting Services, Ottawa, Ontario Page 19 Cotnam’s Island Property Natural Environment Assessment

Category 2 habitat (wetland and immediate shore) impact mitigation focuses on the maintenance of a 10 m natural vegetation wetland buffer and 30 m natural vegetation Ottawa River shoreline buffer as shown on Figure 12, the latter required in any event by the municipal Official Plan (see 5.2 Provincially Significant Wetland considerations, above). This will ensure dwellings and services are sited such that conflicts with SAR individuals are avoided.

There will be a loss of a small area of Category 2 wetland habitat (39 m²) resulting from the upgrading of the existing access road (see 5.4 Access Road considerations, below). This amount of wetland is virtually not measurable in the context of the total PSW and represents less that 1% of the ca. 18,091 m² of wetland habitat in the subject property. Its loss will be compensated for by the installation of over-sized culverts at the two places where the access road crosses Thicket Swamp and Marsh (Figure 3 - Habitat 4). This will provide Blanding’s Turtles and and any other reptiles traversing the habitat with a conspicuously open and safe sub-roadway crossway opportunity. The existing culvert provides no such opportunities due to their small size and over- grown condition.

The rarity of sightings of turtles and the absence of signs of nesting activity suggests that turtle use of the access road slopes is minimal, however. As a result, the potential benefit of confinement fencing with the over-sized culverts appears to be insignificant. Accordingly, installation of such fencing is not recommended.

Category 3 habitat (uplands 30 m from shore and beyond) mitigation focuses on exclusion fencing being in place during access road upgrading and construction activities on individual lots. Exclusion fencing will be maintained throughout the construction period to prevent turtles from entering the construction footprint. Temporary fencing, as with that illustrated in Figure 13, will be maintained in good order until construction has been completed.

Should a turtle breech the development protective fencing during construction, construction activity will cease. The animal will be captured and immediately transported to the closest Ottawa River shore for release before construction will resume. Special training for transporting

Brunton Consulting Services, Ottawa, Ontario Page 20 Cotnam’s Island Property Natural Environment Assessment any animals found on the property Figure 13: exclusion fencing at residential development site (as per paragraph 9 of Section 23.13 of Ontario Regulation 242/08 concerning Blanding’s Turtle impact mitigation) is not required; immediate transport to the lake by hand or in a box by any responsible adult will suffice.

Monitoring between spring break and freeze-up during construction will consist of regular (once weekly) inspections and repair (if needed) of the exclusion fence surrounding the development footprint. Any turtles seen within the subject property during the construction period will be documented with the Natural Heritage Information Centre.

An information sheet for lot owners (Appendix 3) will provide subtle but effective public education fore residents to encourage and enhance the protection of nesting turtles.

5.4 Access Road considerations

The existing access road along the eastern boundary of the subject property will need to be upgraded to satisfy Township requirements for emergeny response vehicle access. This will require some expansion of the existing footprint westward into the subject property. As the roadway is existing, however, wetland portions of the site within the footprint of the potential expansion are not considered by the Provincial Policy statement to be Significant. Mitigation of impact is still required, however, in regards to SAR Blanding’s Turtle.

The area of wetland habitat removed at what is the periphery of the wetland is too small (39 m² - Figure 14) to have a measurable impact on the features and functions of the very large PSW complex. Regardless of roadway alterations, however, two over-sized culverts will facilitate safe wildlife passage where the existing access road crosses Habitat 4 (see 5.3 SAR (Blanding’s Turtle), above). These sub-roadway crossings may be employed by any small to medium size

Brunton Consulting Services, Ottawa, Ontario Page 21 Cotnam’s Island Property Natural Environment Assessment amphibious and aquatic animals for movement between the PSW to the east and Hazley Bay to the west.

Figure 14: Areas of wetland encroachment along enhancement of existing access road

6. Conclusions

Based on the field work completed to date and catalogued herein by Daniel F. Brunton, in addition to on-site interior wetland boundary confirmation by Natural Resource Solutions Inc. appended hereto, it can be concluded that the proposed rural residential lot development and associated road works will not negatively impact the site ecological features and functions. Specifically, the following conclusions can be drawn:

1. The proposed development will not contravene the Endangered Species Act with regard to impact on individuals and habitat of endangered and threatened species. This will be accomplished through the following:

Avoidance of impacts to individuals a. Installation of turtle exclusion fencing along the perimeter of construction sites;

Brunton Consulting Services, Ottawa, Ontario Page 22 Cotnam’s Island Property Natural Environment Assessment

b. Cessation of construction activities where turtle nesting activity is identified or apparent; c. Cessation of construction activities upon the sighting of a turtle and removal of the turtle to the Hazley Bay shoreline or to another safe location outside of the worksite; and d. Large lot size in the proposed development, minimizing the likelihood of conflicts between humans and SAR individuals.

Avoidance of impacts to habitat a. The location of building envelopes away from habitat of endangered and threatened species with a low tolerance to development, and sensitive surface water features (accomplished via 30 metre and 10 metre natural buffer areas); b. The location of the proposed subdivision road within the footprint of an existing access road on the property; and c. The proposed installation of oversized culverts in place of the existing culverts on the access road, improving movement of waterborne species and the functional connectivity of wetland features.

2. The proposed development will not affect Provincially Significant Wetlands for the following reasons:

a. The access road is existing and requires improvement in order to comply with Township road standards for access by emergency response vehicles; b. The installation of oversized culverts in the course of road improvements will improve surface water flow and ecological connectivity between wetland features on the site; and c. The maintenance of a 30 metre natural buffer along the Hazley Bay shoreline, and a 10 metre natural buffer from all interior wetland features will ensure the mitigation of impacts that could otherwise occur as a result of development of the proposed lots.

7. References

Jp2g. 2004. Official Plan of the Township of Laurentian Valley. Township of Laurentian Valley, Laurentian Valley.

Brunton Consulting Services, Ottawa, Ontario Page 23 Cotnam’s Island Property Natural Environment Assessment

Lee, H., W. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowes, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig and S. McMurry. 1998. Ecological land classification for southern Ontario: first approximation and its application. SCSS Field Guide FG-02, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resource, North Bay.

Mills, A. 2007. Whip-poor-will, in, Cadman, M. D., D. A. Sutherland, G. G. Beck, D. Lepage and A. R. Couturier, eds. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, 2001-2005. Ontario Nature, Toronto.

MNR. n.d. [pre-2014]. General Habitat Description for the Blanding’s Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii). Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, [Peterbourgh].

Oldham, M. J., W. D. Bakowsky and D. A. Sutherland. 1995. Floristic quality assessment system for southern Ontario. Natural Heritage Information Centre, Peterborough.

Oldham, M. J. And S. R. Brinker. 2009. Rare vascular plants of Ontario (Fourth edition). Natural Heritage Information Centre, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough.

Brunton Consulting Services, Ottawa, Ontario Page 24 Cotnam’s Island Property Natural Environment Assessment Appendix 1: Native vascular flora observed in the Cotnam’s

Island Property study area (June 2013)

The scientific names of the native vascular plant species, subspecies and hybrids observed in the study area are listed below in alphabetical order within plant families arranged in natural (checklist) order. This is followed by a common English name and the southern Ontario Coefficient of Conservativism (CC) value for this taxon. For taxa not provided with a southern Ontario CC value in Oldham et al. (1995), such as hybrids involving native species (and marked with an asterisk [*]), an estimated value has been assigned here. Species with a CC rating of 7 or better (CC number bolded) typically require sites with a relatively high level of ecological integrity.

SPECIES/ TAXON COMMON NAME NOTES CC (collection voucher number) EQUISETACEAE (Horsetail Family) Equisetum arvense L. Field Horsetail 0 Equisetum sylvaticum L. Woodland Horsetail 7 OSMUNDACEAE (Flowering-fern Family) Osmunda cinnamomea L. Cinnamon Fern 7 THELYPTERIDACEAE (Marsh Fern Family) Thelypteris palustris (Salisb.) Schott Marsh Fern 5 DRYOPTERIDACEAE (Woodfern Family) Athyrium filix-femina (L.) Roth var. angustum Lady Fern 4 (Willd.) Lawson Dryopteris cristata (L.) A. Gray Crested Woodfern 7 Dryopteris intermedia (Muhl.) A. Gray Evergreen Woodfern 5 Matteuccia struthiopteris (L.) Todaro Ostrich Fern 5 Onoclea sensibilis L. Sensitive Fern 4 POLYPODIACEAE (Polypody Fern Family) Polypodium appalachianum Haufler & Appalachian Polypody Windham 8 (P. virginianum L. forma acuminatum Fern.) PINACEAE (Pine Family) Abies balsamea (L.) Mill. Balsam Fir 5 Picea glauca (Moench) Voss White Spruce 6

Brunton Consulting Services, Ottawa, Ontario Page 25 Cotnam’s Island Property Natural Environment Assessment

Pinus resinosa Ait. Red Pine 8 Pinus strobus L. White Pine 4 CUPRESSACEAE (Cypress Family) Juniperus communis L. Common Juniper 4 Thuja occidentalis L. White Cedar 4 TYPHACEAE (Cat-tail Family) Typha latifolia L. Common Cat-tail 3 ALISMATACEAE (Water-plantain Family) Alisma triviale Pursh Water-plantain 3 Sagittaria latifolia Willd. Broad-leaved Arrowhead 4 ARACEAE (Arum Family) Calla palustris L. Wild Calla 8 HYDROCHARITACEAE (Frog's-bit Family) Elodea canadensis Michx. Canada Waterweed 4 POACEAE (Grass Family) Danthonia spicata (L.) Beauv. ex R. & S. Poverty Grass 7 Dichanthelium xanthophysum (A. Gray) Yellow Panic Grass Freckmann 8 (P. xanthophysum A. Gray) Glyceria borealis (Nash) Batch. Northern Manna Grass 8 Glyceria striata (Lam.) A. Hitchc. Fowl Manna Grass 3 voucher; Dfb 18,320 Oryzopsis pungens (Torr. ex Spreng.) Hitchc. Sharp-leaved Mountain 8 Rice Grass CYPERACEAE (Sedge Family) Carex bebbii (Bailey) Fern. Bebb's Sedge 3 Carex canescens L. Hoary Sedge 7 Carex communis Bailey Common Sedge 6 Carex crinita Lam. Fringed Sedge 6 Carex echinata Murr. Prickly Sedge 7 Carex gracillima Schw. Filiform Sedge 4 Carex hystericina Willd. Porcupine Sedge 4 Carex intumescens Rudge Bladder Sedge 6 Carex lucorum Link Distant Sedge 8 Carex projecta Mack. Spreading Sedge 5 Carex stipata Willd. Crowded Sedge 3 Carex stricta Lam. Stiff Sedge 4 Carex tenera Dew. Slender Sedge 4

Brunton Consulting Services, Ottawa, Ontario Page 26 Cotnam’s Island Property Natural Environment Assessment

Eleocharis acicularis (L.) R.& S. Needle Spikerush 5 Eleocharis palustris (L.) R.& S. Marsh Spike-rush 6 (incl. E. smallii Britt.) Scirpus atrovirens Willd. Blackish Bulrush 3 LILIACEAE (Lily Family) Maianthemum canadense Desf. var. Canada Mayflower 5 canadense Maianthemum racemosum (L.) Link False Solomon's-seal 4 (Smilacina racemosa (L.) Desf.) Trillium erectum L. Red Trillium 6 AMARYLLIDACEAE (Amaryllis Family) Iris versicolor L. Blue Flag 5 SALICACEAE (Willow Family) Populus tremuloides Michx. Trembling Aspen 2 Salix bebbiana Sarg. Bebb's Willow 4 Salix petiolaris Sm. Meadow Willow 3 MYRICACEAE (Bayberry Family) Myrica gale L. Sweet Gale 6 BETULACEAE (Birch Family) Alnus incana (L.) Moench ssp. rugosa (Du Speckled Alder Roi) Clausen 6 (A. rugosa (Du Roi) Spreng.) Betula papyrifera Marsh. White Birch 2 FAGACEAE (Oak Family) Quercus macrocarpa Michx. Bur Oak 5 Quercus rubra L. Red Oak 6 ULMACEAE (Elm Family) Ulmus americana L. White Elm 3 POLYGONACEAE (Knotweed Family) Persicaria hydropiper (L.) Spach Water-pepper 4 (Polygonum hydropiper L.) Rumex britannica L. Great Water Dock 6 (R orbiculatus L.) CARYOPHYLLACEAE (Pink Family) Silene antirrhina L. Sleepy Catch-fly 3 NYMPHAEACEAE (Waterlily Family) Nuphar variegata Dur. ex Clint. Yellow Water-lily 4 (N. lutea (L.) Sm. ssp. variegata (Dur.) Beal)

Brunton Consulting Services, Ottawa, Ontario Page 27 Cotnam’s Island Property Natural Environment Assessment

Nymphaea odorata Ait. ssp. odorata White Water-lily 5 RANUNCULACEAE (Crowfoot Family) Actaea rubra (Ait.) Willd. Red Baneberry 5 Anemone americana (DC) Hara Round-lobed Hepatica 6 (Hepatica americana (DC) Ker) Anemone canadensis L. Canada Anemone 3 FUMARIACEAE (Fumitory Family) voucher; Dfb 18,318 Corydalis sempervirens (L.) Pers. Rock Harlequin 7 BRASSICACEAE (Mustard Family) voucher; Dfb 18,317 Cardamine parviflora L. var. arenicola (Britt.) Bitter-cress 7 Schulz SAXIFRAGACEAE (Saxifrage Family) Saxifraga virginiensis Michx. Early Saxifrage 6 ROSACEAE (Rose Family) Amelanchier arborea (Michx. f.) Fern. ssp. Shadbush laevis (Wieg.) McKay 5 (A. laevis Wieg.) Amelanchier sanguinea (Pursh) DC. Round-leaf Serviceberry 7 Amelanchier spicata K. Koch var. spicata Shadbush 7 Crataegus chrysocarpa Ashe Hawthorn 4 (incl. C. aboriginum Sarg) voucher; Dfb 18,317b Fragaria vesca L. Woodland Strawberry 4 Fragaria virginiana Duchesne Common Strawberry 2 Prunus virginiana L. Choke Cherry 2 Rosa blanda Ait. Smooth Rose 3 Rubus strigosus Michx. Common Raspberry 0 (R. idaeus L. var. strigosus (Michx.) Max.) Spiraea alba Du Roi var. latifolia (Ait.) Meadowsweet Dippell 5 (S. latifolia (Ait.) Borkh.) FABACEAE (Bean Family) Lathyrus palustris L. Vetchling 6 GERANIACEAE (Geranium Family) Geranium bicknellii Britt. Bicknell's Geranium 5 ANACARDIACEAE (Cashew Family) Rhus hirta (L.) Sudworth Staghorn Sumac 1 (R. typhina L.)

Brunton Consulting Services, Ottawa, Ontario Page 28 Cotnam’s Island Property Natural Environment Assessment

Toxicodendron rydbergii (Rydb.) Greene Poison-ivy (Rhus radicans L. var. rydbergii (Sm.) 0 McNeill) AQUIFOLIACEAE (Holly Family) Ilex verticillata (L.) A. Gray Winterberry Holly 5 ACERACEAE (Maple Family) Acer ×freemanii E. Murray United Maple 4* (A. rubrum L. x saccharinum L.) Acer rubrum L. Red Maple 4 Acer saccharum Marsh. Sugar Maple 4 BALSAMINACEAE (Touch-me-not Family) Impatiens capensis Meerb. Spotted Touch-me-not 4 VITACEAE (Grape Family) Parthenocissus vitacea (Knerr) Hitchc. Virginia Creeper 3 Vitis riparia Michx. River Grape 0 TILIACEAE (Linden Family) Tilia americana L. Basswood 4 HYPERICACEAE (St. John's-wort Family) Triadenum fraseri (Spach) Gl. Marsh St. John's-wort (T. virginicum (L.) Raf. ssp. fraseri (Spach) 7 Gillett) ELAEAGNACEAE (Oleaster Family) Shepherdia canadensis (L.) Nutt. Buffaloberry 7 ARALIACEAE (Ginseng Family) Aralia nudicaulis L. Wild Sarsaparilla 4 APIACEAE (Carrot Family) Cicuta bulbifera L. Bulblet Water-hemlock 4 CORNACEAE (Dogwood Family) Cornus sericea L. Red-osier Dogwood 2 (C. stolonifera Michx.) ERICACEAE (Heath Family) Arctostaphylos uva-ursi (L.) Spreng. Bearberry 8 Vaccinium angustifolium Ait. Low Blueberry 6 Vaccinium macrocarpon Ait. Large Cranberry 10 Vaccinium myrtilloides Michx. Velvetleaf Blueberry 7 Trientalis borealis Raf. Starflower 6 OLEACEAE (Olive Family)

Brunton Consulting Services, Ottawa, Ontario Page 29 Cotnam’s Island Property Natural Environment Assessment

Fraxinus nigra Marsh. Black Ash 7 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Marsh. Green Ash 3 ASCLEPIADACEAE (Milkweed Family) Asclepias incarnata L. Swamp Milkweed 6 Asclepias syriaca L. Common Milkweed 0 LAMIACEAE (Mint Family) Scutellaria galericulata L. Marsh Skullcap 6 voucher; Dfb 18,316 Veronica peregrina L. ssp. xalapensis (Kunth) Purslane Speedwell 7 Penn. LENTIBULARIACEAE (Bladderwort Family) Utricularia intermedia Hayne Flat-leaved Bladderwort 8 RUBIACEAE (Bedstraw Family) Galium trifidum L. Small Bedstraw 5 CAPRIFOLIACEAE (Honeysuckle Family) Diervilla lonicera Mill. Northern Bush- 5 honeysuckle Lonicera canadensis Bart. ex Marsh. Canada Fly-honeysuckle 6 Viburnum lentago L. Southern Wild-raisin 4 Viburnum rafinesquianum Schultes Northern Arrow-wood 7 ASTERACEAE (Aster Family) Achillea millefolium L. Yarrow 0 voucher; Dfb 18,316 Antennaria parlinii Fern. Plantain Pussy-toes 2 (A. plantaginifolia, auct.) Eurybia macrophylla (L.) Cass. Large-leaved Aster 5 (Aster macrophyllus L.) Euthamia graminifolia (L.) Nutt. Narrow-leaved Goldenrod 2 (Solidago graminifolia (L.) Salisb.) Solidago canadensis L. ssp. canadensis Canada Goldenrod 1 Solidago rugosa Mill.ssp. rugosa Rough Goldenrod 4 Symphyotrichum lanceolatum (Willd.) Nesom Panicled Aster ssp. lanceolatum 3 (Aster lanceolatus Willd.; A. simplex Willd.) Total: 112 taxa Average CC value: 4.95 CC Aggregate 554

Brunton Consulting Services, Ottawa, Ontario Page 30 Cotnam’s Island Property Natural Environment Assessment

Appendix 2: Wetland Review letter of Concurrence

Brunton Consulting Services, Ottawa, Ontario Page 31 Cotnam’s Island Property Natural Environment Assessment

Brunton Consulting Services, Ottawa, Ontario Page 32 Cotnam’s Island Property Natural Environment Assessment

Brunton Consulting Services, Ottawa, Ontario Page 33 Cotnam’s Island Property Natural Environment Assessment Appendix 3 : Blanding’s Turtle Information Sheet

Brunton Consulting Services, Ottawa, Ontario Page 34