GUIDING SOLUTIONS IN THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East Campground Prince Edward County, Ontario
Prepared For: Fourward Holdings Inc.
Prepared By: Beacon Environmental Limited
Date: Project: May 2020 217153
MARKHAM BRACEBRIDGE GUELPH PETERBOROUGH BARRIE 80 Main Street North 126 Kimberley Avenue 373 Woolwich Street 305 Reid Street 6 Cumberland Street Markham, ON L3P 1X5 Bracebridge, ON P1L 1Z9 Guelph, ON N1H 3W4 Peterborough, ON K9J 3R2 Barrie, ON L4N 2P4 T) 905.201.7622❖ F) 905.201.0639 T) 705.645.1050 T) 519.826.0419 T) 705.243.7251 T) 705.999.4935
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
Table of Contents
page 1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Study Area...... 2 1.2 Scoped EIS Purpose, Goals and Objectives ...... 2 1.3 Policy Review and Relevance to the Subject Property ...... 2 1.3.1 Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) – Provincial Policy Statement ...... 3 1.3.1.1 Natural Heritage ...... 3 1.3.1.2 Water ...... 4 1.3.1.3 Natural Hazards ...... 5 1.3.2 Fisheries and Oceans Canada - Fisheries Act ...... 6 1.3.3 Endangered Species Act (2007) ...... 6 1.3.4 Official Plan of Prince Edward County (Office Consolidation 2011) ...... 8 1.3.5 Quinte Conservation Authority Policies and Regulations ...... 9 1.3.6 Migratory Birds Convention Act ...... 10 2. Methods ...... 11 2.1 Background Review ...... 11 2.2 Regional Geology, Soils and Drainage ...... 11 2.3 Field Studies ...... 12 2.3.1 Vegetation Surveys and Ecological Community Classification ...... 12 2.3.2 Wetland Boundary Review ...... 12 2.3.3 Amphibian Surveys ...... 12 2.3.4 Breeding Bird Surveys ...... 13 2.3.5 Bat Surveys ...... 14 2.3.6 Other Wildlife Observations ...... 14 3. Existing Conditions...... 14 3.1 Physical Setting ...... 14 3.1.1 Regional Geology and Soils ...... 14 3.1.2 Drainage ...... 15 3.2 Natural Heritage Features and Functions ...... 15 3.2.1 Ecological Communities ...... 15 3.2.1.1 Forest Communities ...... 16 3.2.1.2 Cultural Communities ...... 18 3.2.1.3 Wetland Communities ...... 21 3.2.2 Vascular Plants ...... 24 3.2.3 Wildlife ...... 25 3.2.3.1 Breeding Amphibians ...... 25 3.2.3.2 Breeding Birds ...... 25 3.2.3.3 Bats ...... 26 3.2.3.4 Other Wildlife Species Observations ...... 27 3.2.4 Aquatic Resources ...... 28 3.3 Endangered, Threatened or Special Concern Species ...... 29
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
4. Analysis and Integration ...... 30 4.1 Hydrogeology ...... 30 4.2 Flooding Hazard Analysis ...... 30 4.2.1 Shorelines ...... 30 4.3 Significant Ecological Functions & Attributes ...... 31 4.3.1 Significant Habitat of Endangered Species and Threatened Species ...... 31 4.3.2 Significant Woodlands ...... 32 4.3.3 Significant Wetlands ...... 33 4.3.4 Significant Valleylands ...... 33 4.3.5 Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) ...... 34 4.3.6 Significant Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest ...... 42 4.3.7 Fish Habitat ...... 42 4.4 Constraint and Opportunity Analysis ...... 42 4.4.1 Constraints ...... 42 4.4.1.1 Natural Heritage Constraints ...... 42 4.4.1.2 Natural Hazard Constraints ...... 43 4.4.2 Opportunities ...... 43 4.5 Recommended Limit of Development ...... 44 4.6 Landscape Analysis ...... 44 5. Description of Development Proposal ...... 44 5.1 Site Servicing ...... 45 5.1.1 Water and Sanitary...... 45 5.1.2 Stormwater Management ...... 45 5.2 Grading ...... 46 6. Impact Assessment & Proposed Mitigation ...... 46 6.1 Summary of the Proposed Mitigation Measures ...... 52 7. Policy Conformity ...... 52 7.1 Conformity with the Prince Edward County Draft Official Plan (February 2018) ...... 55 8. Summary and Recommendations ...... 56 9. References ...... 58
F i g u r e s
Figure 1. Site Location ...... after page 2 Figure 2. Site Context ...... after page 2 Figure 3. Biological Sampling ...... after page 14 Figure 4. Existing Conditions ...... after page 16 Figure 5. Constraints and Opportunities ...... after page 42 Figure 6. Site Plan ...... after page 44
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
P h o t o s
Photograph 1. Fresh-Moist Willow Lowland Deciduous Forest ...... 16 Photograph 2. Fresh-Moist White Cedar Coniferous Forest ...... 17 Photograph 3. Mineral Cultural Woodland - Red Cedar ...... 18 Photograph 4. Mineral Cultural Woodland ...... 19 Photograph 5. Mineral Cultural Thicket ...... 20 Photograph 6. Old Field Meadow ...... 21 Photograph 7. Green Ash Mineral Deciduous Swamp ...... 22 Photograph 8. Common Buckthorn Mineral Thicket Swamp ...... 23 Photograph 9. Open Beach Bar ...... 24
T a b l e s
Table 1. Summary of Ecological Surveys, 2017 and 2019 ...... 12 Table 2. Breeding Bird & Incidental Wildlife Survey Information for Pebble Beach East, 2017 and 2019 ...... 13 Table 3. Results of Calling Amphibian Surveys at Pebble Beach East, 2017 ...... 25 Table 4. Acoustic Bat Monitoring Results Summary at Pebble Beach, 2017 ...... 27 Table 5. Lake Ontario Fish Species Records (MNRF 2018) ...... 28 Table 6. Endangered, Threatened or Special Concern Species Likelihood of Presence ...... 29 Table 7. Candidate Significant Wildlife Habitat for the Pebble Beach East Project ...... 36 Table 8. Impact Assessment Matrix for Pebble Beach East ...... 48 Table 9. Conformity to Applicable Policies, Legislations and Regulations related to Natural Heritage and Natural Hazards ...... 53
A p p e n d i c e s
Appendix A. MNRF Correspondence Appendix B. Plant List Appendix C. Breeding Bird Survey Results Appendix D. MECP Correspondence Appendix E. Species at Risk Screening Table for the Subject Property and Adjacent Lands
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
1. Introduction
Beacon Environmental (Beacon) was retained by Fourward Holdings Inc. to prepare an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) in support of a proposed campground in the Township of Athol, Prince Edward County, Ontario.
The proposed campground, referred to as “Pebble Beach East”, will be constructed on a 38.2-hectare parcel legally described as Part of Lots 19, 20 and 21, Concession 1 and 2, South Side of East Lake, Township of Athol, County of Prince Edward (ref. Figure 1). The proposed campground is located on the Lake Ontario shoreline immediately to the east of the existing Quinte Isle Campground and to the west of Welbanks Road. The proposed campground will be accessed through the existing campground.
An EIS was previously prepared by Beacon in February 2018 in support of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment application. Subsequent to that submission, a revised Site Plan has been prepared by RFA Planning Consultant Inc. dated July 5th, 2019. Key changes to the Site Plan include the following:
• Based on feedback received from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), the Site Plan has been revised to avoid wetland features. The new Site Plan now protects and buffers all wetlands on and adjacent to the subject property. As no wetlands will be impacted, the previously proposed wetland compensation plan is no long required and is therefore no longer proposed as part of the application; and • To accommodate the desired number campsites without encroaching into natural features or their buffers, the Site Plan boundary has been expanded westward onto part of Lot 21, Concession 1, South Side of East Lake, Athol Ward, Prince Edward County.
This EIS has been updated to address the Peer Review completed by Michalski Nielsen (April 21, 2020).
The subject property is presently designated as Rural Lands on Schedule E of the Prince Edward County (PEC) Official Plan (OP) (2011). The existing campground to the west is designated as “Shore Land” and lands to the east of Welbanks Road are designated as “Environmental Protected Areas” and “Prime Agriculture”. The Soup Harbour Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) is located to the east of the subject property. Land uses on and adjacent to the subject property have been primarily agricultural in nature.
The PEC OP (2011) contains policies that require an Environmental Evaluation or EIS to be prepared in support of proposed development and/or site alteration applications that are in close proximity to natural heritage features. The purpose of an EIS is to demonstrate that the proposed development and/or site alteration will not negatively impact upon significant natural heritage features or their ecological functions.
This EIS has relied upon background information as well as site-specific surveys or inventories to characterize the biophysical environment and identify significant or sensitive features and functions that represent constraints to development of the subject property. To avoid or minimize impacts to significant features and functions, the EIS has recommended that the proposed development generally be limited to the existing agricultural lands and outside of existing natural features or natural hazards.
Page 1
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
In accordance with Part IV, Section 8 of the Prince Edward County Official Plan, the enclosed report provides an EIS for the Pebble Beach East Campground. This report addresses the potential impacts of the proposed development on the natural environment and has been completed in consultation with the County and Quinte Conservation Authority.
It is our opinion that this EIS satisfactorily addresses the intent of this policy by demonstrating that the proposed development does not adversely impact upon the ecological function and natural heritage features within the study area.
1.1 Study Area
The study area for this EIS includes the subject property and adjacent lands within 120 metre (m) of the property; however, this EIS also examines the relationship of the site to the broader landscape and natural heritage system. Fourward Holdings owns property spanning Lots 18, 19 and 20, Concession 2, Southeasterly Side of East Lake as well as property associated with the existing Quinte Isle Campground on Lots 21 and 22, Concession 1 Southeasterly Side of East Lake (refer to Figure 2). As all these properties are contiguous, references made to subject property in this EIS are intended to refer to lands associated with Lots 19, 20 and 21 which are the subject of the proposed development.
1.2 Scoped EIS Purpose, Goals and Objectives
The objectives of this Scoped EIS are as follows:
1. Characterize natural heritage resources and ecological functions of the study area; 2. Identify significant natural heritage resources and functions; 3. Identify environmental constraints and opportunities to guide and inform design of the development plan; 4. Describe the development plan; 5. Assess potential impacts of the proposed development plan on significant natural heritage features and ecological functions; 6. Recommend mitigation measures for avoiding or minimizing potential development related impacts to significant natural heritage features and functions; and 7. Demonstrate that the proposal is compliant with relevant policy and legislation.
1.3 Policy Review and Relevance to the Subject Property
The following applicable natural heritage policies and regulations have been reviewed with respect to the subject property:
• Provincial Policy Statement (2014); • Fisheries and Oceans Canada - Fisheries Act (1985); • Endangered Species Act (2007); • Prince Edward County Official Plan (2011 Office Consolidation);
Page 2
ad Ro lly Ke
W e l b a n k s R o a d d x m . 3 5 1 7 1 2 _ n o i t a c o L e t i S _ 1 0 e r u g i F _ 5 0 - 9 0 - 9 1 0 2 \ D X M \ Lake Ontario S I E y t n u o C d r a w d E e c n i r P s k n a b l l e W
8 5 5
3 5
1 8 1 R
7 C d a o a n 1 u o k n i K 2 t R n i \ y n R g 7 o s a d 1 d oa R Site Location Figure 1 o 0 R a d y d a 2 ll o \ W e R s e K k t l o lb o c d a r a rb
e n j o k te R s s o t a Pebble Beach East EIS r n R E i o P o a
P d n S o I lm 4 2 G a UTM Zone 17 N, NAD 83 S
l d l a o A
\ R ) y n t S First Base Solutions n o im u p
c - Site Location o so Web Mapping Service 2008 a n C R e o ad ad B o ( R 0 87.5 175 350 Metres e x rv
o e 1:10,000 es b R p y m o r
r A D \ Lake Ontario x Project 217153 o b September, 2019 p o r D \ : C ad Ro lly Ke Site Context Figure 2
Pebble Beach East EIS
Legend Subject Property Other Lands Owned by Applicant d x m . W 3
5 e 1 l 7 b 1 a 2
_ n t
x k e s t n R o
C o e a t i d Soup Harbour S _ 2
0 PSW e r u g i F _ 5 0 - 9 0 - 9 1 0 2 \ D X M \ Soup Harbour S I E y t n u o C d r a w d E e c n i r Existing P s k
n Campground a b l l e W
8 5 5
3
5 First Base Solutions 1 7
1 Web Mapping Service 2008 2 \ 7 1 0 2
\ - UTM Zone 18 N, NAD 83 s t c e j o Lake Ontario r
P 0 75 150 300 Metres
S 1:8,000 I G l l A \ ) n o c a e B ( x o Project 217153 b p September, 2019 o r D \ x o b p o r D \ : C
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
• The regulations and policies of the Quinte Conservation Authority (QCA) including the Policies and Procedure Manual (2017); and • Migratory Birds Convention Act (1994).
The subject property is located within the Township of Athol, Prince Edward County. The following is a summary of the relevant policies and where they apply.
1.3.1 Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) – Provincial Policy Statement
The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) (MMAH, 2014) provides policy direction to municipalities on matters of provincial interest as they relate to land use planning and development. The PPS provides for appropriate land use planning and development while protecting Ontario’s natural heritage. Development governed by the Planning Act must be consistent with the policy statements issued under the PPS. These are outlined in Section 2.1 - Natural Heritage, Section 2.2 – Water, and Section 3.1 - Natural Hazards of the PPS, and relevant sections from each are provided in the following pages.
1.3.1.1 Natural Heritage
The PPS includes policies relating to the identification and protection of natural heritage features and functions. Natural heritage features associated with the study area must be assessed in the context of the PPS. It is also a provincial requirement that these policies are also reflected in municipal official plans.
The policies specific to natural heritage are found in Section 2.1 of the PPS and are provided in their entirety below:
2.1.1 Natural features and areas shall be protected for the long term.
2.1.2 The diversity and connectivity of natural features in an area, and the long- term ecological function and biodiversity of natural heritage systems, should be maintained, restored or, where possible, improved, recognizing linkages between and among natural heritage features and areas, surface water features and ground water features.
2.1.3 Natural heritage systems shall be identified in Ecoregions 6E & 7E, recognizing that natural heritage systems will vary in size and form in settlement areas, rural areas, and prime agricultural areas.
2.1.4. Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in: a. Significant wetlands in Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E; and b. Significant coastal wetlands.
2.1.5 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in: a. Significant wetlands in the Canadian Shield north of Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E; b. Significant woodlands in Ecoregions 6E and 7E (excluding islands in Lake Huron and the St. Marys River);
Page 3
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
c. Significant valleylands in Ecoregions 6E and 7E (excluding islands in Lake Huron and the St. Marys River); d. Significant wildlife habitat; e. Significant areas of natural and scientific interest; and f. Coastal wetlands in Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E that are not subject to policy 2.1.4(b) unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions.
2.1.6 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in fish habitat except in accordance with provincial and federal requirements.
2.1.7 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in habitat of endangered species and threatened species, except in accordance with provincial and federal requirements.
2.1.8 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on adjacent lands to the natural heritage features and areas identified in policies 2.1.4, 2.1.5 and 2.1.6 unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on their ecological functions.
2.1.9 Nothing in policy 2.1 is intended to limit the ability of agricultural uses to continue.
MNRF, MECP and the municipal planning authority share the responsibilities of identifying the various natural heritage features noted above. The MECP is responsible for the confirmation and regulation of habitat of endangered species and threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. MNRF is responsible for identification of Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSWs) and Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs). Local and regional planning authorities are responsible for the identification of Significant Woodlands, Significant Valleylands, and Significant Wildlife Habitat, with support from applicable guidance documents (i.e., Natural Heritage Reference Manual; OMNR, 2010; Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guidelines; OMNR, 2000; Significant Wildlife Habitat Criteria for Ecoregion 6E; MNRF 2015). Local and regional planning authorities in southern Ontario also typically work with their local conservation authority to identify and confirm non-PSWs that may have significance at the regional or local level. Identification and verification of fish habitat is now self-regulated although enforcement of the related policies and regulations is still managed by MNRF and regulated by DFO.
In areas where significant natural heritage features have been identified by the appropriate agency or planning authority, the boundaries of such features can typically be refined through site-specific studies undertaken as part of the planning process, with input from the responsible agency and/or planning authority.
1.3.1.2 Water
Water resources adjacent to the subject property will be a key consideration in this EIS. Section 2.2 of the PPS directs planning authorities to protect, improve or restore the quality and quantity of surface and groundwater water resources through watershed and land use planning, as per the policies below cited in their entirety.
Page 4
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
2.2.1 Planning authorities shall protect, improve or restore the quality and quantity of water by: a. Using the watershed as the ecologically meaningful scale for integrated and long-term planning, which can be a foundation for considering cumulative impacts of development; b. Minimizing potential negative impacts, including cross-jurisdictional and cross-watershed impacts; c. Identifying water resource systems consisting of ground water features, hydrologic functions, natural heritage features and areas, and surface water features including shoreline areas, which are necessary for the ecological and hydrological integrity of the watershed; d. Maintaining linkages and related functions among ground water features, hydrologic functions, natural heritage features and areas, and surface water features including shoreline areas; e. Implementing necessary restrictions on development and site alteration to: a. Protect all municipal drinking water supplies and designated vulnerable areas; and b. Protect, improve or restore vulnerable surface and ground water, sensitive surface water features and sensitive ground water features, and their hydrologic functions; f. Planning for efficient and sustainable use of water resources, through practices for water conservation and sustaining water quality; g. Ensuring consideration of environmental lake capacity, where applicable; and h. Ensuring stormwater management practices minimize stormwater volumes and contaminant loads, and maintain or increase the extent of vegetative and pervious surfaces.
2.2.2 Development and site alteration shall be restricted in or near sensitive surface water features and sensitive ground water features such that these features and their related hydrologic functions will be protected, improved or restored.
Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches may be required in order to protect, improve or restore sensitive surface water features, sensitive ground water features, and their hydrologic functions.
Compliance with these policies requires a multi-disciplinary and integrated approach to land use planning.
1.3.1.3 Natural Hazards
In addition to balanced protection of natural heritage and water resources, the PPS also includes policy direction regarding reducing the potential risk to Ontario’s residents from natural or human-made hazards. Section 3.1 of the PPS generally discourages development within identified natural hazards (i.e., areas that are at risk of flooding and / or erosion).
Natural hazards that need to be considered on the subject property include potential flooding and erosion hazards related to Lake Ontario.
Page 5
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
1.3.2 Fisheries and Oceans Canada - Fisheries Act
Fish habitat is protected under the Federal Fisheries Act (1985). In Ontario, the federal department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) manages fish habitat and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF, formerly known as OMNR or MNR) manages fisheries.
Section 35 (1) of the Federal Fisheries Act precludes “any work, undertaking or activity that results in serious harm to fish” that are part of a commercial, recreational or aboriginal fishery, or to fish that support such a fishery. S. 35(2) provides that s. 35(1) does not apply where the work, undertaking or activity has been authorized by the Minister and is carried on in accordance with conditions established by the Minister.
The Fisheries Act defines “serious harm” to fish as “the death of fish or any permanent alteration to, or destruction of, fish habitat”. The Fisheries Protection Policy Statement (2013) was prepared by Fisheries and Oceans Canada to provide guidance on compliance with the Fisheries Act.
Soup Harbour supports a warmwater fishery and is considered fish habitat. The site itself does not support any watercourses or waterbodies that would qualify as fish habitat.
1.3.3 Endangered Species Act (2007)
Ontario’s Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA) came into effect on June 30, 2008 and replaced the former 1971 Act. Under the ESA, species in Ontario are identified as extirpated, endangered, threatened, or of special concern and each species is afforded different levels of protection. Species at Risk (SAR) in Ontario are those listed as provincially endangered, threatened or special concern at the provincial level, however the act only regulates the habitat of those that are endangered or threatened. Habitat for species of special concern is addressed under the significant wildlife habitat policies under the Provincial Policy Statement discussed in Section 1.3.1 above.
The ESA provides legal protection to Endangered and Threatened species confirmed on a site, although under subsection 17(1) of the ESA, the Minster may issue a permit that authorizes a person to engage in an activity that would otherwise be prohibited by subsection 9(1) or 10(1) of the ESA provided the applicable legislative requirements of subsection 17(2) are satisfied. For context, relevant excerpts from the ESA are included below:
Subsection 9(1) of the ESA states that:
No person shall: (a) Kill, harm, harass, capture or take a living member of a species that is listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario List as an extirpated, endangered or threatened species; (b) Possess, transport, collect, buy, sell, lease, trade or offer to buy, sell, lease or trade; (i) A living or dead member of a species that is listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario List as an extirpated, endangered or threatened species; (ii) Any part of a living or dead member of a species referred to in subclause (i);
Page 6
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
(iii) Anything derived from a living or dead member of a species referred to in subclause (i); or (c) Sell, lease, trade or offer to sell, lease or trade anything that the person represents to be a thing described in subclause (b) (i), (ii) or (iii).
Subsection 10(1) (a) of the ESA states that:
No person shall damage or destroy the habitat of a species that is listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario list as an endangered or threatened species.
The Endangered Species Act Submission Standards for Activity Review and 17(2)(c) Overall Benefit Permits (OMNR, 2012a) is a document that provides guidance regarding permitting requirements under the ESA. Relevant excerpts are provided below:
There are four types of permits that may be issued for authorizing otherwise prohibited activities. These are where the activity: (i) Is necessary for the protection of human health or safety - clause 17(2)(a); (ii) Has the main purpose to assist, and would assist, in the protection or recovery of the species - clause 17(2)(b); (iii) Has the main purpose not to assist in the protection or recovery of the species, but through specific and mandatory conditions outlined in the permit will result in an overall benefit to the species within a reasonable time - clause 17(2)(c); and (iv) Will result in significant social or economic benefit to Ontario, but will not jeopardize the survival or recovery of species at risk - clause 17(2)(d).
Permits may be issued where the following legislated requirements are satisfied: The Minister is of the opinion that the main purpose of the activity authorized by the permit is not to assist in the protection or recovery of the species specified in the permit; but; (i) The permitted activity will result in an overall benefit to the species within a reasonable time through requirements imposed by conditions of the permit; (ii) Reasonable alternatives have been considered, including alternatives that would not adversely affect the species, and the best alternative has been adopted; and (iii) Reasonable steps to minimize adverse effects on individual members of the species are required by conditions of the permit.
In July 2013, Ontario Regulation 176/13 (to amend O. Reg. 242/08) came into effect to simplify the process for addressing activities that can potentially damage or destroy the habitats of certain SAR. As a result of this regulation, an Overall Benefit Permit is not needed if the Registry process as described in the regulation is followed, although habitat replacement and monitoring are still required.
The 2014 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS; discussed in Section 1.3.1) now clarifies that the confirmation of habitat of provincially endangered and threatened species is ultimately the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks’ (MECP) (previously MNRF’s) jurisdiction, and that any proposed development or site alteration within such habitat may only be permitted in accordance with provincial regulations and supporting documents.
Page 7
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
Based on the Natural Heritage Information Centre data for the 1 km grid corresponding with the subject property, there are records of at least three SAR species in the vicinity of the subject property, including:
• Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna; threatened); • Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus; threatened); and • Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentine; special concern).
1.3.4 Official Plan of Prince Edward County (Office Consolidation 2011)
The 1993 Prince Edward County Official Plan (2011 office consolidation) is currently in-force. While Prince Edward County is currently updating its official plan and released a Draft Official Plan in February 2018, the policies in the draft official plan will not come into effect until it receives approved by MMAH. For the purposes of determining policy compliance, the EIS has relied upon the current in-force plan.
The current Prince Edward County Official Plan includes a number of policies related to protection and management of its natural heritage resources, including policies that apply to the current development proposal.
Schedule A identifies ‘Environmentally Sensitive Areas’, which include Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI’s), other sensitive sites or areas, as well as Wildlife Areas such as fisheries, blue heron rookeries, osprey nesting sites and major recharge areas. The only Environmentally Sensitive Area currently identified on Schedule A in proximity to the study area is the fishery associated with Lake Ontario. Section 1.2.6 of Part III of the official plan relates to development applications that are located on or adjacent to Environmentally Sensitive Areas and reads as follows:
All applications for development on or adjacent to an Environmentally Sensitive Area shall be subject to: a) An investigation of alternatives to the development in the proposed location, to the satisfaction of the County; b) Review and consultation with the appropriate provincial agency for comment regarding the resource potential and to ensure that the impact of the development is minimized; c) The submission of an Environmental Evaluation if deemed required by County Council or any government agency; d) Consideration and appropriate utilization of development control techniques such as: holding symbol; zoning; site plan control; parkland dedication; and subdivision or other agreements to preserve and supplement existing resources; and e) Shall be considered according to the underlying and adjacent land use designations as identified on Schedule 'E' of this Plan.
Soup Harbour is identified a ‘fisheries” on Schedule A. The quality of this habitat must be protected and managed to assist in ensuring the long-range health of the fish population. Any applications for development on or adjacent to an Environmentally Sensitive Area shall be subject to the submission of an Environmental Evaluation (i.e., EIS) if deemed required by County Council or any government agency.
Page 8
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
Schedule B of the Official Plan identifies Environmental Constraints. The shore of Lake Ontario along the southern edge of the subject property is identified as ‘Lake Watersheds’. The subject property is part of the East Lake Watershed. A watershed plan has not yet been developed for this watershed.
Schedule E of the Official Plan identifies Land Use Designations. The subject property is designated as ‘Rural’ with the lands to the west designated as Shore Land. Lands to the east of the property corresponding with the Soup Harbour PSW are designated Environmental Protection. Section 8 of Part IV of the official plan contains policies pertaining to lands designated as Environmental Protection. Policy.
Included below are select policies that apply to the subject property and the development proposal.
Policy 8.1.2 states:
In addition to those areas identified on Schedule 'E', the Environmental Protection designation and policies shall apply to: c) Lands within 30 metres of the normal highwater mark and/or land below the Lake Ontario regulatory flood elevation standard, which is established by the Conservation Authority along the shoreline of the Bay of Quinte and Lake Ontario. This distance may be reduced to 15 metres in circumstances outlined in Part IV, Section 4.4.1 h) of this Plan.
While the subject property is currently mapped entirely as Rural on Schedule E, the portion of the subject property within 30 m of the lake is subject to designation as Environmental Protection.
Policy 8.3.2 states:
Before development is allowed on lands abutting an Environmental Protection area, the development shall be reviewed for the impacts that it may have on the Environmental Protection land. An Environmental Evaluation may be required by the County in consultation with the local Conservation Authority and the Ministry of Natural Resources to assist in this review. Also, refer to Section 8.4.2 c) relative to the preparation of an Environmental Impact Study (E.I.S.) for development within 40 metres of a 'Provincially Significant Wetland'.
As portions of the proposed development are within 40 m of the Soup Harbour PSW and adjacent to the lakeshore, the development application is to be supported by an EIS which demonstrated that the development will not adversely impact upon Environmental Protection Areas.
1.3.5 Quinte Conservation Authority Policies and Regulations
Quinte Conservation Authority regulates hazard lands including creeks, valleylands, shorelines, and wetlands and as such represent provincial interest for the policies that surround ‘Natural Hazards’ and Planning Act applications (Quinte Conservation 2017). Quinte Conservation reviews planning applications through a service agreement with the municipality. Under this agreement, a schedule of fees is applied for the review of Planning Act applications, at the expense of the applicant. Quinte Conservation reviews all municipal Official Plans, Secondary Plans, Zoning By-laws, Variances, Site Plans, Plans of Subdivision and all other Planning Act applications with respect to the most current
Page 9
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County technical guidelines, studies and professional opinions in order to ensure that applications are consistent with the ‘Natural Hazard’ policies of the Provincial Policy Statement. (Quinte Conservation 2017).
Quinte Conservation staff provides review services on development applications. The primary purpose of the review includes the following:
• Screen development applications to determine if and where a Provincial natural hazard interest may be affected; • Identify the need for technical reports including EIS; • Review technical reports to determine is reports have been prepared in accordance with technical guidelines for addressing natural hazards; and • Specify conditions of approval.
In addition, Quinte Conservation regulates under subsection 28(1) of the Conservation Authorities Act (Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses, O. Reg. 97/04), which allows Quinte Conservation to require permission through a permit process for development, interference with wetlands, and alterations to shorelines and watercourses. For any development proposals located within 30 m of an unevaluated wetland (or within 120 m of a PSW) Quinte Conservation will recommend that an EIS be prepared to their satisfaction. The regulation requires the issuance of a permit from the Conservation Authority to allow “interference” with a wetland (or, as was the case in the past, for infringement within the flood and fill areas associated with a watercourse).
Quinte Conservation policies require a vegetated setback of 15 m to be applied to all hazard lands where the extent of the hazard is known, including the 1:100 year Floodline but not to the wave uprush, or 30 m if the extent of the hazard is not known for all Planning Act applications (Quinte Conservation 2017). On the subject property, natural hazards are limited to the areas prone to flooding during a 100- year event along the lakeshore.
1.3.6 Migratory Birds Convention Act
The Federal Migratory Birds Convention Act – MBCA (1994) protects the nests, eggs and young of most bird species from harassment, harm or destruction. On the subject property, this legislation would apply in relation to any proposed vegetation clearing as part of the implementation of the proposed site development plan, once approved. Although there are no permitting requirements, proponents must comply with the legislation and may be fined if found to be in contravention of this act.
Environment Canada currently considers the “high risk” period for encountering nesting birds to be from mid-March to late August. Therefore, to ensure compliance with the MBCA, vegetation clearing during this period is typically discouraged, particularly in natural or naturalized areas. This is because although screening for active nests can be conducted, it is typically very difficult to detect all active nests during the breeding season. However, vegetation clearing outside this window, and even within this window, is generally permissible if there is no evidence of nesting birds in the areas to be disturbed.
Regardless of the date, any nest and the habitat to support the nesting birds is protected under the MBCA, and therefore even for proposed vegetation clearing outside of the “high risk” window, surveys
Page 10
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County should be conducted by a qualified environmental inspector to screen for active nests prior to works being undertaken.
2. Methods
2.1 Background Review
A review of available background information on natural heritage resources associated with the study area was undertaken by reviewing the following:
• Prince Edward County Official Plan (2011); • Ministry of Natural Resources’ Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) rare species database (October 2017); • Breeding Bird Atlas of Ontario (OBBA) (Cadman et al., 2007); • Herpetofaunal Atlas of Ontario (Oldham and Weller, 2000); • Atlas of the Mammals of Ontario (Dobbyn, 1994); and • Digital Ortho-rectified aerial photography (2014).
An information request was also submitted to MNRF on November 1, 2017 to obtain natural heritage data for the study area and environs. Tegan McWhirter (MNRF) responded to this request on March 26, 2018, after the submission of the February 2018 Pebble Beach East EIS. The MNRF correspondence is appended to this report as Appendix A.
Other sources of information, such as aerial photography and topographic maps were consulted prior to completing the field investigations.
2.2 Regional Geology, Soils and Drainage
Review of available literature was conducted to characterize the geology, soils and drainage of the site. This included:
• Physiography of Southern Ontario, 3rd Edition. Ontario Geological Survey, Special Vol. 2. (Chapman and Putnam 1984); • Quaternary geology of Ontario, southern sheet; Ontario Geological survey. Map 255 (Barnett et al., 1991); • Public GIS Viewer provided by PEC (PEC, n.d.); • Canadian Land Inventory (2013); • Preliminary Stormwater Management Report (Greer Galloway Consulting Engineers 2018b); and • MNRF base layer (LIO, 2014).
Page 11
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
2.3 Field Studies
A number of ecological surveys were completed on the subject property to identify and characterize its natural heritage resources and ecological functions. A summary of the various field investigations that were undertaken by Beacon is provided in Table 1.
Table 1. Summary of Ecological Surveys, 2017 and 2019
Survey Type Date (Month/Day/Year) Site Investigation May 17, 2017 Amphibian Call Survey April 13, May 25 and June 21, 2017 Bat Snag Survey April 28 and May 3, 2017 Bat Detector Launch June 16, 2017 May 31, June 16 and 23, 2017, and June 10 and Breeding Bird Survey 26, 2019 Vegetation surveys May 17 and June 13, 2017 Wetland Boundary Review with Quinte Conservation August 9, 2017
2.3.1 Vegetation Surveys and Ecological Community Classification
Floristic surveys were completed on May 17, 2017 and June 13, 2017. Surveys included searches for potential species at risk such as endangered Butternut (Juglans cinerea) that have potential to occur on the site. A list of vascular plants encountered during the field investigation was compiled; each species was assigned a local, provincial and national conservation designation as well as identified as regionally native, introduced, or invasive.
Ecological communities were classified and mapped according to the Ecological Land Classification (ELC) System for Southern Ontario (Lee et al., 1998).
2.3.2 Wetland Boundary Review
The subject property supports two small wetlands, each approximately 1.0 hectares in area. These wetlands have not been evaluated by MNRF and are also not identified on any Schedules of the Prince Edward County Official Plan. Quinte Conservation staff reviewed these wetlands in the field on August 9, 2017 and confirmed that wetland boundaries are consistent with the mapping prepared by Beacon.
2.3.3 Amphibian Surveys
Amphibian surveys were completed at the site during the evenings of April 13, 2017, May 25, 2017 and June 21, 2017. Auditory surveys were undertaken during the prime breeding period to record calling individuals. This was repeated two times during the season to include the short temporal peak for each species of interest. To the extent possible, the surveys took place according to the following night time temperatures recommended in the Marsh Monitoring Program Protocol (Bird Studies Canada, 2009) including the following:
Page 12
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
a) First Survey: minimum night-time air temperatures of at least 5°C and the first or second warm spring shower; and b) Second Survey: night-time air temperatures should be at least 10° C.
The surveys involved visiting the site after dusk to listen for calling males. All calling amphibians detected were identified to species and chorus activity was assigned a code from the following options:
0 No calls; 1 Individuals of one species can be counted, calls not simultaneous; 2 Some calls of one species simultaneous, numbers can be reliably estimated; and 3 Full chorus, calls continuous and overlapping.
Using this code method, areas that support a Code 1 for a species indicate very low population numbers in the local area, and/or low-quality breeding habitat. Code 3 for species indicates a healthy population and high-quality breeding habitat. Code 2 indicates a moderate population and/or lower quality breeding habitat.
Species, calling locations and approximate numbers of calling individuals were recorded and mapped. The survey method provides an indication of amphibian abundance during the breeding season. The locations of amphibian survey stations are shown on Figure 3.
2.3.4 Breeding Bird Surveys
Breeding bird surveys were completed at the site on the mornings of May 31, 2017, June 16, 2017, June 23, 2017, and June 10 and 26, 2019 (Table 2). The survey conducted on June 23, 2017 also focused on identification of species at risk such as provincially threatened Bobolink and Eastern Meadowlark. Transects were walked and auditory surveys were undertaken to record calling males. All birds seen and heard were recorded. Birds singing in suitable breeding habitat and showing some propensity to breed (e.g., territorial behaviour) were assumed to be breeding and were tallied by “assumed pair”.
Table 2. Breeding Bird & Incidental Wildlife Survey Information for Pebble Beach East, 2017 and 2019
Date Time Weather Conditions May 31, 2017 7:30 - 9:45 am 15-16 °C, 10-50% Cloud Cover, Wind 1-28 km/h, No precipitation June 16, 2017 6:45 - 8:45 am 17-18 °C, 100% Cloud Cover, Wind 1-5 km/h, No precipitation June 23, 2017 10:00 - 10:45 am 18 °C, 100% Cloud Cover, Wind 0-5 km/h, No precipitation June 10, 2019 6:00 – 8:30 am 17 °C, 100% Cloud Cover, Wind 1-5 km/h, No precipitation June 26, 2019 5:45 – 8:30 am 15-18 °C, 50% Cloud Cover, Wind 1-5 km/h, No precipitation
The national and provincial conservation status of each species recorded during the three breeding bird surveys was reviewed using literature published by the MNRF. An additional measure of conservation status, known as “Area-Sensitive,” was assessed for the species occurring on the site.
Page 13
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
2.3.5 Bat Surveys
Detailed bat surveys were undertaken in accordance with MNRF Guelph District ‘Bat and Bat Habitat Surveys of Treed Habitats’ guideline dated May 2016. Surveys for snag trees were conducted on April 28 and May 3, 2017. Acoustic monitoring was undertaken in select areas between June 16 and July 6, 2017 using eight SM4BAT passive monitors equipped with an SMM-U1 ultrasonic microphones, the locations of which were determined based on the data collected during the snag surveys and the criteria provided in the MNRF protocol.
Each monitor was programmed to record during triggered events each night for a period of five hours, beginning at sunset. Following the MNRF protocol, this deployment period provided at least ten nights of data recorded under suitable weather conditions (air temp ≥10°C, low winds, and minimal precipitation).
Recordings from the monitors were analyzed using KaleidoscopePro software. A combination of auto- identification and manual analysis was applied to call fields to make species determinations. All unclassified files (No ID Files) were manually reviewed for call frequency to determine if unclassified calls fell within the 40 kHz Myotis species and Tri-Coloured Bat range. If the call did not fall within the approximate 40 kHz range, it was not analyzed further as it is likely not a species at risk. Furthermore, a random selection of noise files was reviewed to ensure that the batch filters applied functioned as intended.
2.3.6 Other Wildlife Observations
Other wildlife and habitat structures encountered over the course of the 2017 and 2019 field season were recorded as incidental observations. When encountered, the species and locations of the wildlife were noted.
3. Existing Conditions
The following subsections describe the biophysical features and functions that are associated with the study area. The characterization is based on a review of available background information, field investigations and analyses as well as characterization of water resources provided by other technical consultants on the project team.
3.1 Physical Setting
3.1.1 Regional Geology and Soils
The subject property is located on the south west side of the Prince Edward Peninsula. This area is described as a plain or low plateau of limestone projecting into the eastern part of Lake Ontario. The site itself is situated in what is known as the Hillier Series (Chapman and Putnam, 1984). In this area the surface strata of the Lindsay Formation are thinly bedded and have shale partings that have disintegrated to some depth. Consequently, these soils provide better conditions for plant growth
Page 14
Biological Figure 3 Sampling W e l b a n k s R Pebble Beach East EIS o a d Legend Subject Property Area Subject to Breeding Bird Surveys and Vegetation Surveys d x Bat Detectors m !( . 3 5
1 !( Amphibian Call Survey Station 7 1 2 _ g n i l p m a S l a c i g o Station 4 !( l o i B _ 3 0 e r u g i F _ 5 0 - 9 0 - 9 1 0
2 Station 1 \ !( Station 2 D X !( M \ S I 28 E !( 26 y !( t n u o C d r !(29 a w d E Station 3 !(27 e c n i !( r P
s 25 k !( n a b l l e 23 W !(
8
5 !(22 5
3
5 First Base Solutions 1 7 1 !(24 Web Mapping Service 2008 2 \ 7 1 0 2
\ - UTM Zone 18 N, NAD 83 s t c e j o r
P 0 37.5 75 150 Metres
S 1:4,000 I G l l A \ ) n o c a e B ( x
o Project 217153 b p September, 2019 o r D \ x o b p o r D \ : C
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
(Chapman and Putnam, 1984). Barnett et al., (1991) describe the subject property as Paleozoic Bedrock, containing undifferentiated carbonate and classic sedimentary rock that is exposed at the surface or covered by a discontinuous layer of drift. The Soup Harbour PSW located adjacent to the subject property is identified by Barnett et al., (1991) as Glaciolacustrine deposits, and is made up of silt and clay with minor sand.
Based on the Public GIS Viewer provided by PEC (PEC, n.d.), the subject property contains three classes of soils (as determined by the Canadian Land Inventory (CLI), 2013): Class 1, Class 6 and Class 7. Class 1 soils are described as deep, well to imperfectly drained and hold moisture well. These soils are located in the north-east corner of the subject property. Class 6 soils cover most of the land used for agriculture on the subject property and contain soils that only support perennial forage crops for livestock. Class 7 soils have no capability for agriculture or pasture and are located on the eastern portion and wood sections of the subject property (CLI, 2013).
Greer Galloway conducted a soil investigation for the subject property and found that the site had 0- 0.20 m of loamy topsoil, and 0.20-0.80 m of loamy sand with limestone fragments and shale partings. Limestone bedrock started between 0.65-0.90 m (Greer Galloway Consulting Engineers, 2018b).
3.1.2 Drainage
The subject property slopes to the southeast and outlets to Lake Ontario by overland sheet flow (Greer Galloway Consulting Engineers, 2018b). There is one drainage feature identified on the subject property in the MNRF base layer (LIO, 2014). Field review of the site drainage conditions on April 13, 2017 did not find evidence of any watercourses or drainage feature. There was also no evidence of concentrated flows despite a recent rain event in the previous 24 hours.
3.2 Natural Heritage Features and Functions
3.2.1 Ecological Communities
Approximately three quarters of the site is in active agricultural use (Figure 4). Approximately one- quarter of the site supports naturally-occurring plant communities, including wetland and forest communities. A description of the ecological communities associated with the subject property is presented in the following sections.
Page 15
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
3.2.1.1 Forest Communities
Photograph 1. Fresh-Moist Willow Lowland Deciduous Forest (May 17, 2017)
Unit 1: Fresh- Moist Willow Lowland Deciduous Forest (FOD7-3)
This community is located at the bottom of the Welbanks Road Allowance. It is dominated by Crack Willow (Salix fragilis) with Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) and Freeman’s Maple (Acer x freemanii). The majority of trees are less than 50 centimetre (cm) in diameter, with scattered mature Crack Willow (Photograph 1). The understory is slightly sparse and dominated by Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) with Grey Dogwood (Cornus racemosa), Chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), and Riverbank Grape (Vitis riparia). Ground flora includes Garlic Mustard (Alliaria petiolata), Canada Anemone (Anemone canadensis), Lesser Burdock (Arctium minus) and Dandelion (Taraxacum officinale).
Page 16
Existing Figure 4 W Conditions e l b a n k 11 s R Pebble Beach East EIS o a d Legend 2b Subject Property ELC Communities (! Soup Harbour Provincially
d Significant Wetland (MNRF 2017)
x (! m .
3 Wetland 5 1 7 Endangered Species 1 2 _ s 2a !( Barn Swallow (Threatened) n o i t i !( d Area Sensitive Birds n o
C (! Savannah Sparrow g n i t
s ! i ( American Redstart x
E 1 _ ELC Unit ELC Code ELC Community 4 0 e r u 12 g i Wetland Communities F
_ 5 MAM/SWT Meadow Marsh/Swamp Thicket 5 0 - (! 9 SWD2-2 Green Ash Mineral Deciduous Swamp 9 0
- 3c
9 10 SWT Common Buckthorn Mineral Thicket Swamp 1
0 Forest Communities 2 !
\ (
D 1 FOD7-3 Fresh-Moist Willow Lowland Deciduous Forest X M
\ 4 FOC4-1 Fresh-Moist White Cedar Coniferous Forest
S 4d I 6 FOD Fresh Moist Deciduous Forest E (! y t 9 2a Cultural Communities n u o 2 HE Hedgerow
C 7 14 5 d 3 CUM1-1 Dry-Moist Old Field Meadow r a !
w ( 7 CUT Cultural Thicket d
E 10 4b 8 CUW Cultural Woodland e c 11 CUW1 Mineral Cultural Woodland - Red Cedar n i r
P 3b 4c 12 AG Agricultural - ploughed 3c s 6 k 4a 14 CUM/CUT Cultural Meadow/Cultural Thicket n (! a b Beach/Bar Communities l 3a l 8b
e (! 13 BBO Open Beach/Bar
W !
(
8 15 ANT Anthropogenic
5 8a 5
3 (!
5 First Base Solutions 1 !
7 (
1 Web Mapping Service 2008 2 \ 7 1 0
2 ! \ ( - UTM Zone 18 N, NAD 83 s t c e j o r
P 0 37.5 75 150 Metres
S 3d 1:4,000 I 14b G l l A \ )
n 13 o c a e B ( x
o Project 217153 b p September, 2019 o r D \ x o b p o r D \ : C
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
Unit 4: Fresh-Moist White Cedar Coniferous Forest (FOC4-1)
This community is dominated by White Cedar (Thuja occidentalis) with all trees less than 50 cm in diameter and an understory dominated by Common Buckthorn with sparse ground flora (Photograph 2). Associated species include White Birch (Betula papyrifera), Black Ash (Fraxinus nigra), Green Ash, Common Cedar (Juniperus communis), Chokecherry, and Riverbank Grape.
Photograph 2. Fresh-Moist White Cedar Coniferous Forest (May 17, 2017)
Unit 6: Fresh-Moist Deciduous Forest (FOD)
This community is dominated by Green Ash (Fraxinus americana) and Poplar (Populus tremuloides) with all trees less than 30 cm in diameter and an understory dominated by Common Buckthorn with sparse ground flora. Associated species include Common Cedar (Juniperus communis), Chokecherry, and Riverbank Grape.
Page 17
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
3.2.1.2 Cultural Communities
Unit 11: Mineral Cultural Woodland - Red Cedar (CUW1)
This community extends onto the property from the north and has an open canopy dominated by Red Cedar (Juniperus virginiana; Photograph 3). Associated species include Common Buckthorn, Smooth Brome (Bromus inermis), Orchard Grass (Dactylis glomerata), and Dandelion.
Photograph 3. Looking North at Mineral Cultural Woodland – Red Cedar (May 17, 2017)
Page 18
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
Unit 8: Cultural Woodland (CUW)
This community has an open canopy dominated by White Cedar with White Birch and Basswood (Tilia americana) and a dense understory dominated by Common Buckthorn (Photograph 4). All trees are less than 50 cm diameter, with the majority of trees less than 25 cm diameter. Ground flora is dense and includes Garlic Mustard, Lesser Burdock, Dandelion, and Motherwort (Leonurus cardiaca).
Photograph 4. Mineral Cultural Woodland (May 17, 2017)
Page 19
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
Unit 7: Cultural Thicket (CUT)
This community is dominated by Common Buckthorn with Prickly Ash (Zanthoxylum americanum), Common Juniper, and White Cedar (Photograph 5). The ground flora is dense and includes Smooth Brome, Quack Grass, Dandelion, and Cow Vetch (Vicia cracca).
Photograph 5. Mineral Cultural Thicket (May 17, 2017)
Unit 14: Cultural Meadow/Cultural Thicket (CUM/CUT)
This community is dominated by Smooth Brome with scattered Common Juniper and Common Buckthorn. Associated species are common meadow species typical of disturbed environments including Orchard Grass, Birdsfoot Trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), Dandelion, Teasel (Dipsacus sylvestris), and Rough-fruited Cinquefoil (Potentilla recta).
Page 20
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
Unit 3: Dry-Moist Old Field Meadow (CUM1-1)
This community occurs in a few locations around the subject property and is dominated Smooth Brome with Orchard Grass, Birdsfoot Trefoil, Dandelion, Teasel, and Rough-fruited Cinquefoil (Photograph 6). A few small White Cedar trees are scattered throughout the community.
Photograph 6. Old Field Meadow (May 17, 2017)
Unit 2: Hedgerow (HE)
Hedgerows occur throughout the agricultural fields on the eastern portion of the property and is dominated by Common Buckthorn with Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum), Basswood, Green Ash, Common Apple (Malus pumila), Red Cedar (Juniperus virginiana), and Hawthorn (Crateagus sp.).
3.2.1.3 Wetland Communities
Unit 5: Meadow Marsh/ Swamp Thicket (MAM/SWT)
This community occurs to the east of a thicket swamp (ELC Unit 10). It contains a mix of upland and wetland plant species, but with wetland species being slightly more predominant. There is no overstory due to the grazing/ farming history. Understory vegetation is comprised of Buckthorn, Dogwood, Ground Juniper and Swamp Currant. The groundcovers are comprised of old field species (goldenrods and teasel) with wetland sedges (C. pellita, C. aurea, and C. bebbii) and spikerushes. One of the few locations on site for Grove Sandwort (Moehringia lateriflora).
Page 21
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
Unit 9: Green Ash Mineral Deciduous Swamp (SWD2-2)
This community has a relatively open canopy of Green Ash with a dense understory of Common Buckthorn (Photograph 7). All trees are less than 50 cm in diameter with snags scattered throughout the community.
Photograph 7. Green Ash Mineral Deciduous Swamp (May 17, 2017)
Page 22
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
Unit 10: Common Buckthorn Mineral Thicket Swamp (SWT)
This community is dominated by Common Buckthorn with scattered small trees including Trembling Aspen (Populus tremuloides), Black Ash, Green Ash, White Cedar, American Elm (Ulmus americana), and Red Cedar (Photograph 8). Associated species include Prickly Ash, Common Juniper and Red- Osier Dogwood (Cornus sericea).
Photograph 8. Common Buckthorn Mineral Thicket Swamp (May 17, 2017)
Page 23
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
Unit 13: Open Beach/Bar (BBO)
This community is located along the shoreline of Lake Ontario with sparse vegetation coverage (Photograph 9). This shoreline has historically supported a beach, however high lake levels in 2017 and again in 2019 have flooded this area.
Photograph 9. Looking West across Open Beach/Bar (May 17, 2017)
3.2.2 Vascular Plants
Seventy-five (75) vascular plant species were identified on the site. The scientific and common names are listed in Appendix B, along with the origin of each species as native or non-native, any designated conservation status or apparent rarity, the “G-rank” and “S-rank”, indicating their global and provincial abundances, respectively, and the locations or communities in which each species was observed.
Fifty-one (51) species documented on the site were native; twenty (20) species were introduced and four (4) were identified only to the genus level. The majority of species identified in the local flora have abundance rankings of S5, signifying that these species have widespread and secure provincial populations (Appendix B). No plant SAR were recorded within the subject property.
The NHIC identifies records for Ram’s Head Lady Slipper (Cypripedium arietinum) on the properties adjacent to the site. This species is ranked S3, meaning that is rare to uncommon in Ontario. There have been no records in the area since 1986. The Ram’s Head Lady Slipper prefers habitats such as coniferous forests, swamps, bogs and wooded rocky slopes (Rankou 2014). This species was not recorded during the vegetation surveys conducted in 2017. The record is most likely from the Soup Harbour PSW wetland southeast of the property.
Page 24
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
3.2.3 Wildlife
Inventories of wildlife were based on direct observations, distinctive sounds (i.e., bird calls, and animal signs) observed during the field visits in April, May, June, July, and August 2017, and June of 2019. Breeding amphibian surveys were completed during the active breeding season (i.e., April/May/June), and breeding bird surveys were completed for species that are morning-active, during the active breeding season (i.e., May/June).
3.2.3.1 Breeding Amphibians
No amphibian species were recorded calling from the breeding amphibian stations during breeding amphibian surveys (see Table 3). However, Spring Peeper (Pseudacris crucifer) and Gray Treefrog (Hyla versicolor) were heard calling on the western portion of the subject property. Additionally, American Toad (Bufo americanus), Green Frog (Rana clamitans), Gray Treefrog and Spring Peeper were heard southeast of the property in the area of the Soup Harbour PSW.
Table 3. Results of Calling Amphibian Surveys at Pebble Beach East, 2017
Location April 13, 2017 May 25, 2017 June 21, 2017 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0
Leopard Frog (Lithobates pipiens) was incidentally recorded on the subject property during a field survey on August 9, 2017. Despite a lack of calling in the spring, this species was present in high abundance in the open field habitats near the flooded area of ELC unit 1. It is likely that the presence of high lake water levels in the spring of 2017 contributed to the high productivity observed.
All species recorded incidentally on the subject property and heard calling in the vicinity of the area are common and abundant in Ontario.
3.2.3.2 Breeding Birds
Forty-seven species were recorded on the subject property during the breeding bird surveys, and three (3) incidental species were heard calling from the PSW to the southeast. Thirteen species observed on the site were not considered to be breeding (Appendix C).
Of the 34 species observed breeding on the site, only one species is listed under the ESA, which was Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica). This species is listed as threatened nationally (by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada - COSEWIC) and provincially (by the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario - COSSARO). Thus, this species is protected under the Provincial Endangered Species Act (see Section 1.3.3).
Page 25
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
The Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) Biodiversity Explorer identifies historical and recent records for several species at risk on or adjacent to the subject property, including the following: Eastern Meadowlark (threatened), and Bobolink (threatened).
An NHIC record exists for Eastern Meadowlark in the vicinity of the site in 2011. This species occupies moderately tall grasslands during the breeding season, including pastures and hayfields (in that order), but are also found in alfalfa fields, weedy borders of croplands, roadsides, orchards, airports, shrubby overgrown fields, or other open areas (McCracken et al., 2013). The agricultural fields on the site are actively used for rotational cropping. Additionally, due to shallow soil depth, rocks are often scattered in the fields. Recent agricultural practices would preclude this species from using the fields. This species was not observed on or adjacent to the subject property during the breeding bird surveys for this project in 2017 but was noted as possibly breeding in the field west of the subject property in 2019.
There was also one NHIC record for Bobolink from 2002. Similar to the Eastern Meadowlark, this species historically nested in tallgrass prairie and other open meadows, although now this species is commonly found in old hayfields (i.e., 5 to 8 years old), annually cut hayfields, and lightly grazed pastures (in that order; McCracken et al., 2013). Bobolink are less flexible than Eastern Meadowlark with respect to habitat requirements and is not found in as broad a range of habitats (e.g., weedy borders of croplands, roadsides, orchards, and airports). Bobolink prefer larger fields (>10 ha) than the meadowlarks (McCracken et al., 2013). Due to the active farming on the property, there is no suitable habitat for this species. Bobolink was also not observed on or adjacent to the subject property during the 2017 or 2019 breeding bird surveys.
Bobolink and Eastern Meadowlark are discussed in more detail in Section 3.3.
There are no NHIC records for Barn Swallow, but evidence of this species was noted in an old barn structure on June 16, 2017. A total of twelve nests were observed in the old structure located in the southeast corner of the site (Figure 4). Only six of the nests appeared to be active. The species has become closely associated with humans, to the extent that in some regions it is now almost commensal. It nests in or on a great variety of artificial structures (e.g., buildings, barns, bridges). While foraging, it often feeds in open country habitat over human-modified landscapes (e.g., short turf, agricultural lands, around livestock) as well as over more natural habitats such as wetlands and open water. While it is breeding, this swallow typically prefers areas where water is nearby. It is likely that the swallow has benefitted greatly from human activities; previously it was likely confined to coasts and upland areas with caves and cliffs (Heagy et al., 2014). Breeding and foraging habitat are present on the subject property.
Additionally, two area sensitive species of birds, the Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis) and the American Redstart (Setophaga ruticilla), were recorded breeding on the subject property. Savannah Sparrow had a total of 13 territories, while American Redstart had one territory. These territories are depicted on Figure 4.
3.2.3.3 Bats
Bat snag surveys were conducted during the leaf-off period (April/May) and bat detectors were deployed in the second half of June 2017. The analysis showed that there was bat activity at all 8 detectors. One species at risk, Little Brown Myotis (Myotis lucifugus), was detected at each detector except for detector 27 (reference Figure 3 for detector locations). Unidentifiable 40 KHz calls were recorded at detectors
Page 26
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
22, 24, 25, 26 and 28. These calls were not identifiable to the species level due to the length of the recordings and the similarities in species at risk bat calls. The results are presented in Table 4 below.
Table 4. Acoustic Bat Monitoring Results Summary at Pebble Beach, 2017
)
)
)
)
)
) /
)
)
lavus
Bat
footed
-
(ref. Figure (ref. 3)
ELC
Myotis
coloured Bat
Hoary Hoary Bat
-
Myotis leibiiMyotis
Lasionycteris
noctivagans
(
(
BigBrown Bat
NorthernMyotis
Eastern Red Bat Tri
Myotis lucifugusMyotis
Silver Haired Silver
Lasiurus borealis Lasiurus
Lasiurus Lasiurus cinereus (
Eptesicusfuscus
(
( LittleBrown Myotis
(
EasternSmall
Perimyotissubf
Myotis septentrionalisMyotis
(
Unidentified40kHz Call
( Detector Detector #
22 FOC4-1 X X X X X 23 FOC4-1 X X X X 24 CUW X X X X X 25 FOC4-1 X X X X X 26 SWD2-2 X X X X X 27 FOC4-1 X X X 28 FOC4-1 X X X X X 29 SWD2-2 X X X X The assessment was for Species at Risk bats therefore an analysis to differentiate Big Brown Bat and Silver Haired Bat call files was not completed. Due to similarities in the calls of these two species they have been grouped together in one category for the purpose of this report.
To assess the potential impacts of the Pebble Beach East Campground project on Little Brown Myotis protected under the ESA (2007), Beacon had prepared and submitted an Information Gathering Form (March 20, 2018), Avoidance Alternatives Form (July 5, 2018) and original/revised application for an overall permit (September 6, 2018 and July 15, 2019) to the MECP.
Upon their review, the MECP had determined that the activities associated with the project, as proposed in October 2019, will likely not contravene section 9 (species protection) and/or section 10 (habitat protection) of the Endangered Species Act, 2007, and encourages Fourward Holdings Inc. to carry out the proposed mitigation and best management practices (discussed further in Section 6). This correspondence is dated October 7, 2019 and is provided in Appendix D.
3.2.3.4 Other Wildlife Species Observations
Other wildlife and habitat structures were not encountered over the course of the 2017 and 2019 field season, apart from the incidental observations of bird and amphibians discussed in Sections 3.2.3.2 and 3.2.3.3.
Page 27
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
3.2.4 Aquatic Resources
Although no watercourses or drainage features are located within the site, the property is situated directly on the shoreline of a portion of Lake Ontario known as Soup Harbour. The shoreline is characterized as an Open Beach/Bar community and the nearshore area is generally comprised of open water with limited to no differentiating structures or features (i.e. log tangles, aquatic vegetation, protected embayment areas), and shown in Photograph 9 in Section 3.2.1. This type of habitat is typical in the vicinity of the site and represents general fish habitat. Adjacent to the site is the Soup Harbour PSW, which is comprised predominantly of a mix of swamp and marsh habitats which could function as seasonal fish habitat or indirect habitat.
MNRF was consulted for fisheries information relevant to the Soup Harbour area (Appendix A). Table 5 provides a summary of fish species records obtained from MNRF. The fish species included in Table 5 are a mix of generally common Lake Ontario species including sport fish, centrarchids, cyprinids as well as invasive species. These species would be expected to utilize the habitat in Soup Harbour for general life processes.
Table 5. Lake Ontario Fish Species Records (MNRF 2018)
Scientific Name Common Name Amia calva Bowfin Alosa pseudoharengus Alewife Dorosoma cepedianum American Gizzard Shad Couesius plumbeus Lake Chub Hybognathus regius Eastern Silvery Minnow Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden Shiner Notropis atherinoides Emerald Shiner Notropis stramineus Sand Shiner Phoxinus neogaeus Finescale Dace Noturus flavus Stonecat Esox masquinongy Muskellunge Osmerus mordax Rainbow Smelt Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Chinook Salmon Prosopium cylindraceum Round Whitefish Salvelinus namaycush Lake Trout Labidesthes sicculus Brook Silverside Fundulus diaphanus diaphanus Banded Killifish Pomoxis nigromaculatus Black Crappie Etheostoma exile Iowa Darter Percina caprodes Logperch Sander vitreus Walleye Neogobius melanostomus Round Goby Cyprinus carpio carpio Common Carp Luxilus cornutus Common Shiner Notropis hudsonius Spottail Shiner
Page 28
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
Scientific Name Common Name Phoxinus eos Northern Redbelly Dace Pimephales notatus Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales promelas Fathead Minnow Semotilus atromaculatus Creek Chub Catostomus commersonii White Sucker Ameiurus nebulosus Brown Bullhead Esox lucius Northern Pike Umbra limi Central Mudminnow Salmo trutta Brown Trout Ambloplites rupestris Rock Bass Lepomis gibbosus Pumpkinseed Micropterus dolomieu Smallmouth Bass Micropterus salmoides Largemouth Bass Etheostoma nigrum Johnny Darter Perca flavescens Yellow Perch
3.3 Endangered, Threatened or Special Concern Species
As determined through the background review (Section 2.1) and the results of the work described in Section 3, 35 Endangered, Threatened or Special Concern Species have previously been recorded within 5 km of the subject property. Following the characterization of existing conditions within the subject property, an assessment of the presence of potentially suitable habitat for these species was completed (Appendix E). Through this assessment, it was determined that potentially or confirmed suitable habitat for t14 of these species was identified (Table 6). These 14 species’ occurrences are discussed in detail in Section 4.3.1.
Table 6. Endangered, Threatened or Special Concern Species Likelihood of Presence
ESA Species Likelihood of Presence Status Barn Swallow Threatened Present Hirundo rustica American Eel Endangered Low Anguilla rostrata Bridle Shiner Special Concern Low Notropis bifrenatus Grass Pickerel Special Concern Low Esox americanus vermiculatus Lake Sturgeon (Great Lakes-Upper St. Endangered Low Lawrence River population) Acipenser fulvescens Pugnose Shiner Threatened Low Notropis anogenus Little Brown Myotis (Bat) Endangered Present Myotis lucifugus
Page 29
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
ESA Species Likelihood of Presence Status Eastern Pondmussel Special Concern Low Ligumia nasuta Blanding’s Turtle Threatened Low Emydoidea blandingii Eastern Hog-nosed Snake Threatened Very Low Heterodon platirhinos Eastern Musk Turtle Special Concern Low Sternotherus odoratus Northern Map Turtle Special Concern Low Graptemys geographica Snapping Turtle Special Concern Moderate Chelydra serpentina Spiny Softshell Endangered Very Low Apalone spinifera
As noted in Table 6, two of the 14 species observed on the subject property during field surveys carried out in 2017 and 2019. The suitable habitat that was identified on the subject property for Little Brown Myotis is associated with the forested and wet habitats located centrally on the subject property. Barn Swallow was noted adjacent to Welbanks Road in an old barn structure.
4. Analysis and Integration
4.1 Hydrogeology
Groundwater conditions were characterized using well record data from nine wells within a radius of 1.0 km from the property. This data was collected from the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change Well Record Database. The well records show the water at depths within limestone bedrock, with depths ranging 2.89 - 20.1 m, with an average depth of 10.91 m into the bedrock. The static groundwater levels range 1.2 to 5.5 m and have an average depth of 2.74 m into the limestone bedrock. The limestone bedrock was encountered at 0.31 to 3.1 m below ground surface.
4.2 Flooding Hazard Analysis
4.2.1 Shorelines
As described in section 3.1.1 of the PPS (2014), development should occur outside areas directly adjacent to hazardous lands associated with the Great Lakes. As previously discussed in Section 1.3.5, Quinte Conservation requires a vegetated setback of 15 m, where the extent of the hazard is known, or 30 m if the extent of the hazard is not known for all Planning Act applications (Quinte Conservation 2017).
Page 30
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
4.3 Significant Ecological Functions & Attributes
The following sections describe the various analyses and evaluations undertaken to characterize the biophysical functions and significant ecological features associated with the study area, and in particular the subject property. The findings of these analyses and evaluations have been used to determine the relative significance of natural heritage features, functions and attributes in accordance with the applicable local, regional and provincial criteria, to assist with identification of the limits of the Natural Heritage System (NHS).
Key sources of guidance for determining significance of the natural features and areas include: the PPS (MMAH 2014) and supporting guidance. The following sections provide a summary of which natural heritage features and areas within the study area would be considered significant according to the policies, criteria and guidance provided in these documents. A summary of relevant environmental policies was provided in Section 1, with some additional relevant details provided below.
4.3.1 Significant Habitat of Endangered Species and Threatened Species
The study area is known to support habitat for provincially endangered and threatened species.
In regard to habitat of endangered species and threatened species, significant is defined by the PPS (2014) as:
The habitat, as approved by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, that is necessary for the maintenance, survival, and/or the recovery of naturally occurring or reintroduced populations of endangered species or threatened species, and where those areas of occurrence are occupied or habitually occupied by the species during all or any part(s) of its life cycle.
Barn Swallow
Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica) is a provincially threatened bird species that has been observed within the subject property. Additionally, Barn Swallow nests have been observed on the man-made structure on the southeastern portion of the site. The removal of the Barn Swallow habitat is allowed but must be mitigated through compensation in accordance with the Endangered Species Act (either through the MECP Registry, or through an Overall Benefit Permit 17(2)(c) permit). Should the removal of habitat for this species be necessary as part of the proposed development, the appropriate regulatory requirements will need to be satisfied.
SAR Bats
Acoustic surveys confirmed the presence of endangered Little Brown Myotis (Myotis lucifugus) on the subject property. MECP has reviewed the development plan and is of the opinion that the proposed activities will likely not contravene section 9 (species protection) and/or section 10 (habitat protection) of the Endangered Species Act, 2007. MECP correspondence is included in Appendix D.
Page 31
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
SAR Turtles
As noted in Section 3.3, there are records of Blanding’s Turtle and Spiny Softshell Turtle within 5 km of the subject property. During the field studies conducted in 2017 and 2019, no turtles were noted on the subject property, and these records likely come from PSW’s in the greater area and/or from Sandbanks Provincial Park. It is likely that if these species are utilizing the subject property, it would be along the Lake Ontario shoreline. Given the presence of this corridor, it is unlikely they would also transverse the agricultural field but it is still possible.
Eastern Hognose Snake
As noted in Section 3.3, there are records of Eastern Hognose Snake within 5 km of the subject property, however, there have been no records since 1999. If this species is present, it is likely to occur in the dry forests on the subject property, however, there is much more suitable habitat (sandy beaches) within the surrounding landscape matrix. Therefore, it is more likely that an Eastern Hognose Snake would use the subject property as corridor habitat rather than for breeding or hibernating.
Aquatic SAR
Section 3.3 discussed that there is a low probability that three SAR aquatic species could be found in the study area: American Eel, Lake Sturgeon and Pugnose Shiner. The habitat of these three species is restricted to Lake Ontario and the Soup Harbour PSW.
4.3.2 Significant Woodlands
In regard to woodlands, significance is defined by the PPS (MMAH 2014) as:
An area which is ecologically important in terms of features such as species composition, age of trees and stand history; functionally important due to its contribution to the broader landscape because of its location, size or due to the amount of forest cover in the planning area; or economically important due to site quality, species composition, or past management history. These are to be identified using criteria established by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resource.
As the County has not established criteria for determining woodland significance, the EIS has relied upon provincial guidance criteria presented in the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (NHRM) for the Natural Heritage Policies of the 2005 PPS (MNRF 2010). Through application of the criteria presented in Table 7-2 of the NHRM, it was determined that the woodlands on the subject property did not satisfy any of the criteria. This is mainly due to the small size of the wooded features on the property. For example, the size criterion alone has a threshold of 1.0 ha and this criterion recommends that in municipalities, such as Prince Edward County, where woodlands occupy 15 - 30 % of the land area, that woodlands larger than 20 ha be considered significant. The woodlands on the property are all less than 1 ha in area and also do not meet the other significance criteria in Table 7-2.
Page 32
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
4.3.3 Significant Wetlands
In regard to wetlands, significance is defined by the PPS (MMAH 2014) as:
An area identified as provincially significant by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources using evaluation procedures established by the Province, as amended from time to time.
The Soup Harbour wetland is located along the shoreline immediately to the east of Welbanks Road on other lands owned by the applicant. This wetland was evaluated by MNRF and determined to be provincially significant. Based on the Wetlands Summary Report from the Peterborough MNRF (attached as part of the screening in Appendix A), this wetland is considered significant for some of the following reasons:
• It is a coastal wetland with two wetlands types (swamp and marsh); • There is some hunting and nature enjoyment/ecosystem study; • Contains records of provincially and local significant species; • Contains the following ecological values: • Nesting of colonial waterbirds- active feeding area; • Winter cover- local significance for deer; • Waterfowl staging- local or no significance; and • Waterfowl production- little or no significance; • Diverse surrounding habitats; and • Hydrologically connected by surface water to other wetlands, or open water within 1.5 km.
There are two smaller, unevaluated wetlands associated with the western portion of the subject property. These are documented as ELC Units 5, 9 and 10 (Figure 4). These wetlands are small (Unit 9 is 1.07 ha. Unit 10 and Unit 5 are collectively 1.13 ha), and they are functionally and hydrologically isolated from the Soup Harbour PSW and Lake Ontario by the intervening agricultural lands. The structure, composition and hydrology of the small wetlands is completely different from that of the Soup Harbour PSW wetlands and does not support the same wildlife species guilds.
While these unevaluated wetlands provide detention and storage and support wetland flora and fauna, the quality and level of ecological functions is relatively low, the understory vegetation is dominated by invasive Common Buckthorn and the tree canopy in the swamp unit has been impacted by invasive Emerald Ash Borer).
It is our opinion that there is no strong ecological rationale that would warrant evaluation or complexing under the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System.
4.3.4 Significant Valleylands
In regard to valleylands, significance is defined by the PPS (MMAH 2014) as:
Ecologically important in terms of features, functions, representation or amount, and contributing to the quality and diversity of an identifiable geographic area or natural heritage system …
There are no valleylands associated with the subject property or adjacent lands.
Page 33
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
4.3.5 Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH)
In regard to wildlife habitat, significance is defined by the PPS (MMAH 2014) as:
In regard to other features and areas, ecologically important in terms of features, functions, representation or amount, and contributing to the quality and diversity of an identifiable geographic area or natural heritage system.
According to the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guidelines (MNRF, 2000), SWH is categorizes into four broad categories as follows:
1. Seasonal Concentration Areas of Animals; 2. Rare Vegetation Communities or Specialized Habitat for Wildlife; 3. Habitat for Species of Conservation Concern; and 4. Animal Movement Corridors.
Within each of these broad categories, there are multiple sub-categories of habitat attributes and functions that are considered to represent SWH.
Identification and protection of SWH is the responsibility of the municipality. Proponents can identify Candidate SWH for specific sites, however it is ultimately the responsibility of the planning authority to confirm SWH. As the in-force Prince Edward County Official Plan does not include evaluation criteria for the identification of SWH, the EIS has relied upon provincial criteria to identify candidate SWH within the study area. More specifically, the EIS has consulted the Significant Wildlife Habitat Criteria Schedules for Ecoregion 6E (MNRF, 2015). Using the biological information collected as part of this EIS, it was determined that the study area satisfies the provincial ecoregional criteria for several SWH sub-categories.
The subject property and study area have the potential to support habitat attributes and functions that are consistent with the SWH criteria for:
• Seasonal Concentration Areas of Animals: • Waterfowl stopover and staging areas (terrestrial); • Waterfowl stopover and staging areas (aquatic); • Shorebird migratory stopover area; • Bat maternity colonies; • Turtle wintering areas; and • Migratory butterfly stopover areas.
• Specialized Habitat for Wildlife: • Waterfowl nesting area; • Turtle nesting areas; and • Amphibian breeding habitat (wetland).
• Habitat of Species of Conservation Concern: • Marsh breeding bird habitat; • Open country bird breeding habitat; and • Special Concern and rare wildlife species.
Page 34
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
• Animal Movement Corridor
The rationale for identifying these areas as candidate SWH Table 7 below. However, the conditions of the study area did not meet the criteria for Animal Movement Corridor, Beacon is of the opinion that the Lake Ontario shoreline along the southern edge of the subject property provides a relatively contiguous east-west corridor for wildlife movement between the Soup Harbour PSW and the Salmon Point PSW to the west. Most of the subject property is farmed as are lands to the east and west and north of the site. While some wildlife species do migrate across agricultural lands, most terrestrial species tend to use vegetated corridors as they provide better cover and forage. The shoreline represents a natural avenue for wildlife movement at the site scale as well as the landscape scale.
As a result of reviewing the candidate SWH type listed above within Table 7, the following were candidate SWH types were determined potentially present in the study area:
• Waterfowl Stopover and Staging Areas (Aquatic) - Lake Ontario Shoreline and Soup Harbour PSW; • Bat Maternity Colonies - ELC Units 1, 6 and 9 (Figure 4) and treed areas in the study area; • Turtle Wintering Areas - Lake Ontario Shoreline and Soup Harbour PSW; • Turtle Nesting Areas - Soup Harbour PSW; • Amphibian Breeding Habitat (Wetland) - Soup Harbour PSW; • Marsh Bird Breeding Habitat - Soup Harbour PSW; and • Special Concern and Rare Wildlife Species.
Page 35
Environmental Impact S t u d y Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward C o u n t y
Table 7. Candidate Significant Wildlife Habitat for the Pebble Beach East Project
Wildlife Habitat Category and Associated Species Assessed Candidate and Ecological Land Classification (ELC) Provincial Guidance for SWH in Ecoregion 6E* Application to the Subject Property and Study Area SWH Status and Communities Location Seasonal Concentration Areas Waterfowl Stopover and Staging Areas (Terrestrial) American Black Duck CUM1 Suitable Habitat No suitable habitat identified, and none would be expected to occur on Not Applicable Wood Duck CUT1 • Fields with sheet water during Spring (mid-March to May) the subject property or in the study area. Mallard Plus evidence of annual spring Northern Pintail flooding from malt water or Suggested Criteria A small amount of field flooding noted in 2017 due to high water level of Gadwall run-off within these Ecosites. • Studies carried out and verified presence of an annual concentration of any Lake Ontario on subject property, however, no congregations of Blue-winged Teal listed species candidate SWH species were noted during field work in 2017 and 2019. Green-winged Teal American Wigeon Northern Shoveler Waterfowl Stopover and Staging Areas (Aquatic) Canada Goose MAS1 Suitable Habitat The swamp feature present on subject property is in poor condition and Candidate SWH includes Cackling Goose MAS2 • Ponds, marshes, lakes, bays, coastal inlets, and watercourses used during no congregations of candidate SWH species were noted during field work Lake Ontario shoreline Snow Goose MAS3 migration in 2017 and 2019. and Soup Harbour PSW. American Black Duck SAS1 • Sewage treatment ponds and storm water ponds do not qualify as SWH, Northern Pintail SAM1 however a reservoir managed as a large wetland or pond/lake does qualify However, the shoreline of Lake Ontario on the subject property and Northern Shoveler SAF1 • These habitats have an abundant food supply (mostly aquatic invertebrates adjacent lands could provide candidate SWH of this type. Appendix K of American Wigeon SWD1 and vegetation in shallow water) the SWHTG states: The shores of Great Lakes and other large inland Gadwall SWD2 lakes provide uncommon but valuable locations for breeding and staging Green-winged Teal SWD3 Suggested Criteria waterfowl. Additionally, this resources states that marshes and swamps Blue-winged Teal SWD4 Studies carried out and verified presence of: are more important than bogs and fens, meaning that the Soup Harbour Hooded Merganser SWD5 • Aggregations of 100 or more of listed species for 7 days, results in > 700 PSW would also qualify as candidate SWH. Common Merganser SWD6 waterfowl use days Lesser Scaup SWD7 • Areas with annual staging of ruddy ducks, canvasbacks, and redheads are Greater Scaup SWH Long-tailed duck • Wetland area and shorelines associated with sites identified within the Surf Scoter Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (SWHTG) (MNRF 2000) Appendix White-winged Scoter K are SWH Black Scoter Ring-necked duck Common Goldeneye Bufflehead Redhead Ruddy Duck Red-breasted Merganser Brant Canvasback Shorebird Migratory Stopover Area Greater Yellowlegs BBO1 Suitable Habitat Although the BBO1 habitat type occurs on the shoreline of Lake Ontario Not Applicable Lesser Yellowlegs BBO2 • Shorelines of lakes, rivers and wetlands, including beach areas, bars and on the subject property and adjacent lands, high lake levels in 2017 and Marbled Godwit BBS1 seasonally flooded, muddy and un-vegetated shoreline habitats again in 2019 have flooded this area and the historical beach is no longer Hudsonian Godwit BBS2 • Great Lakes coastal shorelines, including groynes and other forms of armour exposed on the subject property. Additionally, no congregations of Black-bellied Plover BBT1 rock lakeshores, are extremely important for migratory shorebirds in May to mid- candidate SWH species were noted during field work in 2017 and 2019. American Golden- BBT2 June and early July to October. Sewage treatment ponds and storm water Plover SDO1 ponds do not qualify as a SWH Semipalmated Plover SDS2 Page 36
Environmental Impact S t u d y Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward C o u n t y
Wildlife Habitat Category and Associated Species Assessed Candidate and Ecological Land Classification (ELC) Provincial Guidance for SWH in Ecoregion 6E* Application to the Subject Property and Study Area SWH Status and Communities Location Solitary Sandpiper SDT1 Spotted Sandpiper MAM1 Suggested Criteria Semipalmated MAM2 • Presence of 3 or more of listed species and > 1000 shorebird use days during Sandpiper MAM3 spring or fall migration period (shorebird use days are the accumulated Pectoral Sandpiper MAM4 number of shorebirds counted per day over the course of the fall or spring White-rumped MAM5 migration period) Sandpiper • Whimbrel stop briefly (<24hrs) during spring migration, any site with >100 Baird’s Sandpiper Whimbrel used for 3 years or more is significant Least Sandpiper • The area of significant shorebird habitat includes the mapped ELC shoreline Purple Sandpiper ecosites plus a 100 m radius area Stilt Sandpiper Short-billed Dowitcher Red-necked Phalarope Whimbrel Ruddy Turnstone Sanderling Dunlin Bat Maternity Colonies Big Brown Bat Maternity Colonies considered Suitable Habitat Suitable habitat could be present on and adjacent the subject property Candidate SWH includes Silver-haired Bat for SWH are found in forested • Maternity colonies can be found in tree cavities, vegetation and often in within forested features that support deciduous trees. ELC Units 1, 6 and 9 Ecosites. buildings (buildings are not considered to be SWH) (Figure 4) and treed • Maternity colonies located in mature deciduous or mixed forest stands with Acoustic surveys conducted in 2017 for the subject property determined areas in the study area All ELC Ecosites in ELC >10/ha large diameter (>25cm dbh) wildlife trees that Big Brown Bat and Silver-haired Bat were present in the study area, Community Series: • Female bats prefer wildlife tree (snags) in early stages of decay, class 1-3 or however, the specific presence or absence of at least 11 Big Brown or FOD class 1 or 2 six Silver-Haired Bats is very difficult to confirm. FOM • Silver-haired Bats prefer older mixed or deciduous forest and form maternity SWD colonies in tree cavities and small hollows. Older forest areas with at least 21 SWM snags/ha are preferred
Suggested Criteria • Maternity colonies with confirmed use by; − >10 Big Brown Bats − >5 Adult Female Silver-haired Bats The area of the habitat includes the entire woodland or the forest stand ELC ecosite or an ecoelement containing the maternity colonies Turtle Wintering Areas Midland Painted Turtle Snapping and Midland Painted Suitable Habitat Suitable habitat is not present on the subject property as there are no Candidate SWH includes Northern Map Turtle Turtles: ELC Community • For most turtles, wintering areas are in the same general area as their core areas of water that is deep enough not to freeze. No turtle noted during Lake Ontario shoreline Snapping Turtle Classes; SW, MA, OA and SA, habitat. Water has to be deep enough not to freeze and have soft mud field investigating in 2017 and 2019. and Soup Harbour PSW ELC Community Series; FEO substrates and BOO. • Over-wintering sites are permanent water bodies, large wetlands, and bogs or Candidate SWH for turtle wintering areas is potentially present along the fens with adequate Dissolved Oxygen Lake Ontario shoreline or within the Soup Harbour PSW. Northern Map Turtles: Open • Man-made ponds such as sewage lagoons or storm water ponds should not Water areas such as deeper be considered SWH rivers, or streams and lakes with current can also be used Suggested Criteria as over-wintering habitat. • Presence of 5 over-wintering Midland Painted Turtles is significant • One or more Northern Map Turtle or Snapping Turtle over-wintering within a wetland is significant • The mapped ELC ecosite area with the over wintering turtles is the SWH Page 37
Environmental Impact S t u d y Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward C o u n t y
Wildlife Habitat Category and Associated Species Assessed Candidate and Ecological Land Classification (ELC) Provincial Guidance for SWH in Ecoregion 6E* Application to the Subject Property and Study Area SWH Status and Communities Location • If the hibernation site is within a stream or river, the deep-water pool where the turtles are over wintering is the SWH Migratory Butterfly Stopover Areas Painted Lady Combination of ELC Suitable Habitat Little to no suitable habitat is present on the subject property or adjacent Not Applicable Red Admiral Community Series; need to • A butterfly stopover area will be a minimum of 10 ha in size with a combination lands. Although there are cultural meadows and deciduous forest Monarch have present one Community of field and forest habitat present, and will be located within 5 km of Lake Ontario present within 5 km of Lake Ontario, they do not meet the size Series from each land class: or Lake Erie requirement of 10 ha or greater. • The habitat is typically a combination of field and forest, and provides the Field: butterflies with a location to rest prior to their long migration south As the study area is within a matrix of an active agricultural landscape CUM • The habitat should not be disturbed, fields/meadows with an abundance of that, suitable habitat is not expected to occur. CUT preferred nectar plants and woodland edge providing shelter are requirements CUS for this habitat • Staging areas usually provide protection from the elements and are often spits Forest: of land or areas with the shortest FOC FOD Suggested Criteria COM Studies confirm: CUP • The presence of Monarch Use Days (MUD) during fall migration (Aug/Oct). MUD is based on the number of days a site is used by Monarchs, multiplied A candidate site will have a by the number of individuals using the site. history of butterflies being • Numbers of butterflies can range from 100-500/day - significant variation can observed. occur between years and multiple years of sampling should occur • MUD of >5000 or >3000 with the presence of Painted Ladies or Red Admirals is to be considered significant Specialized Habitat for Species Waterfowl Nesting Area American Black Duck All upland habitats located Suitable Habitat Minimal amounts of suitable habitat are noted on the subject property. Not Applicable Northern Pintail adjacent to these wetland • A waterfowl nesting area extends 120 m from a wetland (> 0.5 ha) or a wetland Although, of candidate SWH species, only a single Mallard pair was Northern Shoveler ELC Ecosites are Candidate (>0.5 ha) with small wetlands (<0.5ha) within 120m or a cluster of 3 or more observed using the subject property for nesting in 2017 and 2019. Gadwall SWH: small (<0.5 ha) wetlands within 120 m of each individual wetland where Blue-winged Teal waterfowl nesting is known to occur The Soup Harbour PSW could support candidate SWH for waterfowl Green-winged Teal MAS1, MAS2, MAS3 nesting, however, the upland features associated to the PSW within the Wood Duck SAS1, SAM1, SAF1 • Upland areas should be at least 120m wide so that predators such as study area contain mostly active agriculture. As stated above, although Hooded Merganser MAM1, MAM2, MAM3, racoons, skunks, and foxes have difficulty finding nests the ELC Unit 1 is a deciduous forest adjacent to the PSW, only a single Mallard MAM4, MAM5, MAM6 Mallard pair was observed using the subject property for nesting in 2017 SWT1, SWT2, SWD1, Suggested Criteria and 2019. SWD2, SWD3, SWD4 Studies confirm: • Presence of 3 or more nesting pairs for listed species excluding Mallards, or Note: Includes adjacency to presence of 10 or more nesting pairs for listed species including Mallards Provincially Significant • Any active nesting site of an American Black Duck is considered significant Wetlands • Wood Ducks and Hooded Mergansers utilize large diameter trees (>40 cm dbh) in woodlands for cavity nest sites Turtle Nesting Areas Midland Painted Turtle Exposed mineral soil (sand or Suitable Habitat Potential suitable habitat is present along the Lake Ontario Shoreline Candidate SWH includes Northern Map Turtle gravel) areas adjacent (<100 • Best nesting habitat for turtles are close to water and away from roads and and within the adjacent Soup Harbour PSW. However, no candidate Soup Harbour PSW Snapping Turtle m) to within the following sites less prone to loss of eggs by predation from skunks, raccoons or other SWH were noted during the field work conducted in 2017 and 2019,, Ecosites: animals and no turtle nests were located on the subject property. MAS1 MAS2 Page 38
Environmental Impact S t u d y Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward C o u n t y
Wildlife Habitat Category and Associated Species Assessed Candidate and Ecological Land Classification (ELC) Provincial Guidance for SWH in Ecoregion 6E* Application to the Subject Property and Study Area SWH Status and Communities Location MAS3 • For an area to function as a turtle-nesting area, it must provide sand and SAS1 gravel that turtles are able to dig in and are located in open, sunny areas SAM1 SAF1 • Nesting areas on the sides of municipal or provincial road embankments and BOO1 shoulders are not SWH FEO1 • Sand and gravel beaches adjacent to undisturbed shallow weedy areas of marshes, lakes, and rivers are most frequently used
Suggested Criteria Studies confirm: • Presence of 5 or more nesting Midland Painted Turtles • One or more Northern Map Turtle or Snapping Turtle nesting • The area or collection of sites within an area of exposed mineral soils where the turtles nest, plus a radius of 30-100m around the nesting area dependant on slope, riparian vegetation and adjacent land use is the SWH • Travel routes from wetland to nesting area are to be considered within the SWH Amphibian Breeding Habitat (Wetland) Eastern Newt Classes SW, MA, FE, BO, OA Suitable Habitat No suitable habitat is located on the subject property. Candidate SWH includes American Toad and SA. • Wetlands >500 m2 (about 25 m diameter) supporting high species diversity are Soup Harbour PSW Spotted Salamander significant Suitable habitat occurs in the Soup Harbour PSW adjacent to the Four-toed Salamander Typically, these wetland subject property as it supports breeding habitat for multiple amphibian Blue-spotted Ecosites will be isolated >120 • Some small or ephemeral habitats may not be identified on MNRF mapping species including Northern Leopard Frog, Spring Peepers, Gray Salamander m) from woodland ecosites, and could be important amphibian breeding habitats Treefrogs and American Toad. Gray Treefrog however larger wetlands • Presence of shrubs and logs increase significance of pond for some Western Chorus Frog containing predominantly amphibian species because of available structure for calling, foraging, escape Northern Leopard Frog aquatic species (e.g. Bullfrog) and concealment from predators Pickerel Frog may be adjacent to woodland. • Bullfrogs require permanent water bodies with abundant emergent vegetation Green Frog Mink Frog Suggested Criteria Bullfrog Studies confirm:
• Presence of breeding population of 1 or more of the listed newt/salamander species or 2 or more of the listed frog or toad species and with at least 20 individuals (adults, juveniles, eggs/larval masses) or 2 or more of the listed frog species with Call Level Codes of 3 • The ELC ecosite wetland area and the shoreline are the SWH Habitat for Species of Conservation Concern Marsh Bird Breeding Habitat
Page 39
Environmental Impact S t u d y Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward C o u n t y
Wildlife Habitat Category and Associated Species Assessed Candidate and Ecological Land Classification (ELC) Provincial Guidance for SWH in Ecoregion 6E* Application to the Subject Property and Study Area SWH Status and Communities Location American Bittern MAM 1 Suitable Habitat No suitable habitat is located on the subject property. Candidate SWH includes Virginia Rail MAM2 • Nesting occurs in wetlands Soup Harbour PSW Sora MAM3 The Soup Harbour PSW adjacent to the subject property would also All wetland habitat is to be considered as long as there is shallow water with Common Moorhen MAM4 • qualify as candidate SWH for marsh breeding bird habitat. One of the emergent aquatic vegetation present American Coot MAM5 criteria used to identified candidate SWH for this sub-category is the Pied-billed Grebe MAM6 • For Green Heron, habitat is at the edge of water such as sluggish streams, presence of breeding pairs of Sandhill Crane. Breeding bird surveys of Marsh Wren SAS1 ponds and marshes sheltered by shrubs and trees. Less frequently, it may be the study area that were completed on June 16, 2017 confirmed the Sedge Wren SAM1 found in upland shrubs or forest a considerable distance from water presence of a single pair of Sandhill Crane from the PSW. Another Common Loon SAF1 defining species for this category of SWH was recorded in this PSW: the Sandhill Crane FEO1 Suggested Criteria American Bittern. Green Heron BOO1 Studies confirm: Trumpeter Swan • Presence of 5 or more nesting pairs of Sedge Wren or Marsh Wren or Black Tern For Green Heron: All SW, MA breeding by any combination of 4 or more of the listed species Yellow Rail and CUM1 sites. • Note: any wetland with breeding of 1 or more Trumpeter Swans, Black Terns or Yellow Rail is SWH • Area of the ELC ecosite is the SWH Open Country Bird Breeding Habitat Upland Sandpiper CUM1 Suitable Habitat No suitable habitat has been identified on the subject property or Not Applicable Grasshopper Sparrow CUM2 • Large grassland areas (includes natural and cultural fields and meadows) >30 adjacent due to the lack of large enough contiguous meadow / Vesper Sparrow ha grassland habitats. Additionally, only one candidate SWH species was Northern Harrier noted breeding on the subject property: Savannah Sparrow. Savannah Sparrow • Grasslands not Class 1 or 2 agricultural lands, and not being actively used for Short-eared Owl farming (i.e. no row cropping or intensive hay or livestock pasturing in the last 5 years) • Grassland sites considered significant should have a history of longevity, either abandoned fields, mature hayfields and pasturelands that are at least 5 years or older • The Indicator bird species are area sensitive requiring larger grassland areas than the common grassland species
Suggested Criteria Field Studies confirm: • Presence of nesting or breeding of 2 or more of the listed species • A field with 1 or more breeding Short-eared Owls is to be considered SWH. The area of SWH is the contiguous ELC ecosite field areas Special Concern and Rare Wildlife Species • All Special Concern and Provincially Rare (S1-S3, SH) plant and animal Through the background review, Eastern Musk Turtle, Northern Map Candidate SWH includes species Turtle and Snapping Turtle have been noted within 5 km of the subject Lake Ontario, it property. During the field studies conducted in 2017 and 2019, no turtles shoreline and Soup When an element occurrence is identified within a 1 or 10 km grid for a Special • were noted on the subject property, and these records likely come from Harbour PSW. Concern or provincially rare species PSW’s in the greater area and/or from Sandbanks Provincial Park. It is • Linking candidate habitat on the site needs to be completed to ELC Ecosites likely that if these species are utilizing the subject property, it would be along the Lake Ontario shoreline. Given the presence of this corridor, it Suggested Criteria is unlikely they would also transverse the agricultural field, but it is still Studies confirm: possible. • Assessment/inventory of the site for the identified special concern or rare species needs to be completed during the time of year when the species is Additionally, two aquatic species listed as Special Concern were noted present or easily identifiable in the background review: Bridle Shiner and Grass Pickerel. These two
Page 40
Environmental Impact S t u d y Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward C o u n t y
Wildlife Habitat Category and Associated Species Assessed Candidate and Ecological Land Classification (ELC) Provincial Guidance for SWH in Ecoregion 6E* Application to the Subject Property and Study Area SWH Status and Communities Location • Habitat form and function needs to be assessed from the assessment of ELC species habitats are limited to Lake Ontario and the Soup Harbour vegetation types and an area of significant habitat that protects the rare or PSW. special concern species identified • The area of the habitat to the finest ELC scale that protects the habitat form and function is the SWH; this must be delineated through detailed field studies • The habitat needs be easily mapped and cover an important life stage component for a species (e.g. specific nesting habitat or foraging habitat)
* Adapted from the listed species and habitat criteria provided in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Criteria Schedules for Ecoregion 6E (MNRF 2015).
Page 41
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
4.3.6 Significant Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest
In regard to ANSIs, significance is defined by the PPS (MMAH 2014) as:
Areas of land and water containing natural landscapes or features that have been identified as having life science or earth science values related to protection, scientific study or education.
The subject property does not overlap directly with any Provincially Designated ANSIs. The closest ANSI in relation to the subject property is Bloomfield Beach, which is located 9.25 km to the north.
4.3.7 Fish Habitat
The subject property is situated adjacent to Lake Ontario, which supports fish and is considered fish habitat. Additionally, the Soup Harbour PSW indirectly supports fish habitat. The PPS (2014) treats all fish habitat equally. All water features (i.e. permanent or intermittent streams, seasonally flooded areas, and natural ponds) are generally considered fish habitat. The PPS applies only to waterbodies that constitute fish habitat, as defined by the Fisheries Act (1985).
4.4 Constraint and Opportunity Analysis
The purpose of the constraint and opportunity analysis is to identify natural heritage features that require protection and/or natural hazards that must be considered in the context of future development and to identify opportunities for enhancement of natural heritage system features and ecological functions where feasible.
4.4.1 Constraints
There are a number of biophysical constraints to development associated with the subject property. These constraints include significant or sensitive natural heritage features as well as natural hazards (flooding and shore erosion). The proposed development must give consideration to these constraints to ensure that significant natural heritage features are not adversely impacted, and that the development is protected from natural hazards. Biophysical constraints are illustrated on Figure 5.
4.4.1.1 Natural Heritage Constraints
Based on the background information and data gathered through field investigations, as well as the natural heritage assessment, it was determined that due to the past and ongoing agricultural uses, that the majority of the property is relatively unconstrained by natural heritage features and is suitable for development.
Lake Ontario and the Soup Harbour PSW represent high level constraints that preclude development. Furthermore, development buffers to these features based on natural hazards also represent constraints to future development.
Page 42
Constraints and Figure 5 Opportunities W e l b a n k Pebble Beach East s R o a d Legend Subject Property d x
m Tree Preservation Opportunity . 3 5 1
7 30 m from Lake Ontario per Shoreland 1 2 Policies in Part IV Section 4.0 of County OP _ s e i t i
n Wave Up Rush Limits (Shoreplan u t r Engineering, October 10/18) o p p
O Wetland to be Preserved d n a s t Provincially Significant Wetland + 30 m n i a r t s n o C _ 5 0 e r u g i F _ 5 0 - 9 0 - 9 1 0 2 \ D X M \ S I E y t n u o C d r a w d E e c n i r P s k n a b l l e W
8 5 5
3
5 First Base Solutions 1 7
1 Web Mapping Service 2008 2 \ 7 1 0 2
\ - UTM Zone 18 N, NAD 83 s t c e j o r
P 0 37.5 75 150 Metres
S 1:4,600 I G l l A \ ) n o c a e B ( x
o Project 217153 b p September, 2019 o r D \ x o b p o r D \ : C
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
The unevaluated wetland features on the subject property (ELC units 5, 9 & 10) represent a medium level constraint to future development based on the hydrological functions they provide. The woodland features (ELC units 4 a, b, c) also represent medium level constraints based on their age, composition and habitat functions.
The agricultural fields, hedgerows, meadows, thickets and lowland forest (ELC units 11, 12, 7, 8, 14, 2, 3, and 6) represent low level constraints based on their condition and influence of past and ongoing agricultural activities.
Additionally, the site supports habitat for Barn Swallow, a threatened species as well as habitat for one Little Brown Myotis, an endangered bat species. The presence of Barn Swallow habitat is not considered a high constraint to the proposed redevelopment. The old structure that is supporting Barn Swallow nests will need to be demolished to accommodate the redevelopment and the species habitat will be removed and replaced in accordance with the provisions of the Ontario Regulation 242/08.
MECP has reviewed the development proposal and determined that the proposed activities a will likely not contravene section 9 (species protection) and/or section 10 (habitat protection) of the ESA (2007) (ref. Appendix D). Beacon will continue to consult with the MECP to ensure that the proposal and related activities are undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
4.4.1.2 Natural Hazard Constraints
Natural hazards associated with the subject property include flooding and shoreline erosion hazards from the Lake Ontario. Areas prone to flooding and erosion represent development constraints and must be avoided. The proposed development will need to be situated outside the natural hazards and associated regulatory setbacks in accordance with the policies of the County and Quinte Conservation.
4.4.2 Opportunities
Development of the subject property presents a number of opportunities to enhance the broader Natural Heritage System. Opportunities that have been identified on the subject property include the following:
• Implementation of a 30 m naturalized buffer to Lake Ontario provides an opportunity to strengthen the ecological corridor along the shoreline, thereby improving connectivity for wildlife between the Soup Harbour PSW to the east and the Salmon Point PSW to the west; • Implementation of a 30 m naturalized buffer to Lake Ontario also provides an opportunity to improve stopover functions for migratory birds as well as staging habitat for waterfowl where little presently exists; • Implementation of the proposed storm water management strategy will result in improved water quality being discharged to the lake from the site. Currently, agricultural runoff flows into the lake; • Integration of portions of the cedar forest communities (ELC units 4a, b, c) within the site plan will help retain natural tree cover and wildlife habitat; • Utilization of native species in landscaping the campground as well as the buffers and setbacks will increase the overall extent of natural cover on the subject property; • Implementation of a 30 m naturalized buffer to the Soup Harbour PSW will provide an opportunity to naturalize an existing agricultural field and provide habitat;
Page 43
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
• Landscaping for the campground will convert former croplands to permanently vegetated areas, including areas that will be permitted to naturalize. This will increase the amount of habitat available to local wildlife and will also provide for better quality habitats; and • The site presents opportunities to create and introduce specialized habitats for wildlife such as snake pits, turtle nesting sites and nest boxes for birds.
4.5 Recommended Limit of Development
The recommended limits of development presented in this EIS were determined by excluding development from areas that are constrained by the presence of significant natural heritage features, natural hazards, and their associated protective buffers and regulatory setbacks. It is recommended that the greater of the following constraints be used to establish the proposed limits of development:
• 30 m buffer has been applied to the water’s edge; • 30 m buffer to the Soup Harbour PSW located adjacent to the southeastern corner of the property; • 15 m setback to the 100 year floodline; • Lake Ontario Wave Uprush Limit; and • 15 m buffer to the unevaluated wetland features.
The proposed Site Plan (Figure 6) has been developed to respect the recommended development limits. The only exception is one internal road that will pass between the two wetland units. The road will be constructed outside the wetlands but will pass through their buffers.
4.6 Landscape Analysis
Section 2.1.2 of the Provincial Policy Statement (MMAH, 2014) states:
The diversity and connectivity of natural features in an area, and the long-term ecological function and biodiversity of natural heritage systems, should be maintained, restored or, where possible, improved, recognizing linkages between and among natural heritage features and areas, surface water features and ground water features.
As discussed in Section 1, the subject property is situated within the rural area of Prince Edward County where much of the land is farmed. There are only a few large natural areas in the vicinity of the subject property, namely the Soup Harbour PSW and Lake Ontario. The Lake Ontario shoreline provides for a primary linkage corridor that facilitates east-west wildlife movements between the Soup Harbour PSW and the Salmon Point PSW. Secondary and tertiary landscape linkages are provided to the north by the mosaic of agricultural lands.
5. Description of Development Proposal
The proposed development is comprised of 337 park model seasonal camping sites, with access from the existing campground to the west owned by the proponent. An emergency access to Welbanks Road
Page 44
SEWAGE DISPOSAL AREA 37273.8m
ACCESS FOR BLOCK TO BE DEEDED FOR EMERGENCY MUNICIPAL VEHICLE TURNAROUND VEHICLES ONLY.
2.5m LANDSCAPED BERM TOTAL SITE AREA 38.2 ha. PROPOSED 400sq.m.(14 SPACE) PARKING LOT
ENTRANCE FEATURE & SIGN PROPOSED LANDSCAPED BERM
QUINTE'S ISLE CAMPARK PEBBLE BEACH SEASONAL AND TRANSIENT CAMPING AREA
MUNICIPAL PARKLAND DEDICATION
LANDS ALREADY DEEDED TO PEC = 0.26ha. CHILDRENS PLAYBROUND ADDITIONAL LANDS TO BE DEEDED TO PEC = 0.37ha.
TOTAL PARKLAND DEDICATION = 0.65ha. 2% OF DEVELOPMENT SITE (32.83ha)
PEBBLE BEACH EAST SITE STATISTICS AREA (ha) AREA (%) 337 PARK MODEL TRAILERS AND DECKS 3.0 7.8 337 SITE DRIVEWAYS 1.9 5.0 INTERNAL ROAD AND PARKING LOTS 2.6 6.8 LAWNS, WETLANDS & EX. VEGETATION & OPEN SPACE 27.0 70.7 SEWAGE DISPOSAL AREA 3.7 9.7 TOTAL 38.2ha. 100.0%
DENSITY MUNICIPAL POLICY PROPOSED MAXIMUM DENSITY OF RECREATIONAL 30 TRAILER 9 TRAILER TRAILER PARK SITES/ha. SITES/ha. MINIMUM WATER FRONTAGE PER 1.5m WF 2.7m/WF PLAN COPYRIGHT TRAILER SITE PER TRAILER PER TRAILER MAXIMUM PARKETTE DISTANCE FROM 150.0m 20.0m ANY TRAILER SITE EXISTING FEATURES MINIMUM SEPARATION DISTANCE 4.0m 4.8m BETWEEN TRAILERS Figure 6 SECTION 23.5.12(i)1. OF THE TPC-12 ZONE WILL BE AMENDED TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF TRAILER SITES FROM 194 TO 531. DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN KEYMAP LEGEND ZONING BYLAW 1816-2006: "TPC-12" ZONE - BYLAW 3152-2012 N.T.S. - 337 PARK MODEL SEASONAL CAMPING SITES REQUIREMENTS FOR TRAVEL TRAILER, TENT AND RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARK PEBBLE BEACH EAST - FOURWARD HOLDINGS Inc. MNR 100yr. FLOOD LEVEL = 75.7m WETLAND = 2.20ha. REQUIRED PROPOSED 11 (SHOREPLAN ENGINEERING, OCT. 10/18) (BEACON ENVIRONMENTAL, DEC. 2018) - MINIMUM LOT AREA 4.0ha 38.2ha 558 WELBANKS ROAD TYPICAL 12.2m(MINIMUM ) TYPICAL 13.7(MINIMUM ) TYPICAL 15.2m(MINIMUM ) - MINIMUM FRONTAGE 100.0m 227.7m WAVE UP RUSH LIMIT 15.0m SETBACK FROM WETLAND - MINIMUM FRONT YARD 15.0m 15.0m PARK MODEL TRAILER PARK MODEL TRAILER PARK MODEL TRAILER (SHOREPLAN ENGINEERING, OCT. 10/18) PART 1, PLAN 47R-8797 SITE LAYOUT = 125 UNITS SITE LAYOUT = 73 UNITS SITE LAYOUT = 139 UNITS TREE PRESERVATION AREA TO REMAIN = 0.83ha. (76%) - MINIMUM EXTERIOR SIDE YARD 6.0m NA. PART OF LOTS 18, 19 & 20, 11 15.0m SETBACK FROM 100yr FLOODLINE (BEACON ENVIRONMENTAL, DEC. 2018) - MINIMUM INTERIOR SIDE YARD 6.0m 16.0m - MINIMUM REAR YARD 7.5m 13.1m CONCESSION 2, 30.0m SETBACK FROM WATER'S EDGE VEGETATION TO BE REMOVED = 0.26ha. - MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE (ALL BUILDINGS AND 25.0% 7.8% 18 SOUTH SIDE OF EAST LAKE, (24% OF TOTAL VEGETATION STUDY AREA) STRUCTURES INCLUDING TRAVEL TRAILERS, TENTS 10 PEDESTRIAN PATH AND RECREATIONAL VEHICLES) TOWNSHIP OF ATHOL, 5.0m SETBACK FOR TREE PRESERVATION OPPORTUNITY 12 - MINIMUM LANDSCAPED OPEN SPACE 40.0% 71.0% MUNICIPALITY OF THE PROPOSED GRAVEL SURFACE INTERNAL ROAD (6.0m TYPICAL) - MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS 10.0m 10.0m COMPENSATION HABITAT FOR BATS = 0.78ha. - NO TRAVEL TRAILER, TENT OR RECREATIONAL VEHICLE 122.0m 190.0m COUNTY OF PRINCE EDWARD 24 PARK SHALL BE ESTABLISHED CLOSER THAN 122m (400ft) TO ANY EX. RESIDENTIAL ZONE OR A RESIDENTIAL 18 PROPOSED SEWAGE DISPOSAL AREA OTHER EXISTING WOODLAND /VEGETATION TO REMAIN USE ON AN ADJACENT LOT SCALE = 1:1250 METRIC REQUIREMENTS FOR A TRAILER OR RECREATIONAL VEHICLE SITE - "TPC-12" ZONE POTENTIAL TREE PLANTINGS - MINIMUM SITE AREA 279.0m 280.6m SUBJECT SITE - MINIMUM SITE FRONTAGE 12.2m 12.2m
LE - MINIMUM SETBACK FROM INTERNAL ROADS 6.0m 6.0m 'S IS NTE QUI RK COMMUNAL OPEN SPACE AREA - MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE 40.0% 31.8% METRIC NOTE: DISTANCES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE IN METRES AND CAN BE CONVERTED P PA CAM PLANNING CONSULTANT INC TO FEET BY DIVIDING BY 0.3048. - MINIMUM LANDSCAPED OPEN SPACE 40.0% 51.4% - MAXIMUM TRAVEL TRAILER OR RECREATIONAL 5.0m 5.0m NOTE: DRAWING CREATED USING DATA FROM MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES, PRINCE VEHICLE HEIGHT 211 Dundas Street East, Suite 202, EDWARD COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM DATABASE AND THE GREER - MAXIMUM NUMBER OF TRAVEL TRAILER OR 1 1 Belleville, Ontario, K8N 1E2 GALLOWAY GROUP INC. ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS. RECREATIONAL VEHICLES PER SITE 337-PB East
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County is also proposed. Each site will accommodate a trailer, deck and parking. Sites range in size from 23.0 m to 26.0 m in length. The total area of the proposed campsites is 4.9 ha. Internal roads and parking will comprise of 2.6 ha. A proposed sewage disposal area will occupy 3.7 ha. The balance of the site (27.0 ha or 71%) will be comprised of open space, maintained lawns, wetlands and areas of existing vegetation. In the project’s first Site Plan from February 2018 (RFA Planning Consultant Inc.) involved some wetland encroachment and offsetting. However, through discussion on how to avoid natural heritage features (wetlands and endangered species habitat, as discussed in Section 4.3), the Site Plan was revised to exclude this encroachment and offsetting.
A copy of the current Site Plan prepared by RFA Planning Consultant Inc. and dated October 30. 2019 is included as Figure 6.
In addition to the campsite, the proponent will deed to the County 0.26 ha of land corresponding with the Welbanks Road Allowance to provide future public access to the lake. As part of the current proposal, there is a 0.37 ha area of existing farmland located east of terminus of Welbanks Road that will be converted to public parking for lake access that will also be provided to the County.
5.1 Site Servicing
5.1.1 Water and Sanitary
Water services for the proposed developments will be provided by extending the existing water supply system from the Quinte Isle Campground water treatment plant to the Pebble Beach site. This will result in a renewed permit to take water to accommodate the increased flow. Water will be distributed using a system made up of 100 mm PVC lines that are full looping, with 12 mm to 19 mm connections for servicing. This system will be winterized during the cold months (Greer Galloway Consulting Engineers, 2018a).
Wastewater will be collected in the same way as the existing campground, which uses 100 mm service lines and 150 mm collection mains (which will not be used in the winter months). The sewage will be disposed of onsite using two raised Class 4 subsurface disposal beds located in the northeast corner of the site. For more details, refer to Pebble Beach East Servicing Design Brief (Greer Galloway Consulting Engineers, 2018a).
5.1.2 Stormwater Management
Greer Galloway Consulting Engineers (2018b and 2019) have designed a stormwater management system for the Pebble Beach East project that is comprised of a Minor System component and Major System component. The Minor System component carries flows under the road surfaces from storm events up to and including 1 in 5 year storm, while the Major System is designed for site flows under the 1 in 100 year storm, and will be incorporated into the road build limits (side ditches and roadway surfaces). All ditches and swales will direct runoff to Lake Ontario and will be designed to minimize velocities to non-erosive levels.
The proposed stormwater management system has been designed to maintain pre-development flows to the wetland features located centrally on the site so as not to affect the wetland hydrology.
Page 45
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
Quality control will be achieved by directing runoff from the campground to five sperate oil/grit separators, three of which are along the south end of the subject property, one at the access route from Welbanks Road and one centrally located on the subject property. The oil/grit separators will treat stormwater collected on impervious roads/driveway surfaces and are adequately sized to provide 80% Total Suspended Solids removal on an annual basis as recommend by the Quinte Conservation Authority. Also, runoff from pervious areas and trailer roofs, which is generally considered a clean source of runoff, will be directed to the wetland area without requiring pre-treatment.
The proposed stormwater management system is based on design criteria set out by the Quinte Conservation Authority, the MECP and the Prince Edward County standards and is consistent with the existing natural drainage for the area.
5.2 Grading
Due to the flat topography and shallow bedrock conditions present on the subject property (as discussed in Section 3.1), minimal grading is being proposed in support of the development. Grading and servicing will be similar to that of the adjacent Quinte Isle Campground. Finished grades are expected to match existing grades across much of the site and will minimize disturbance. Additionally, no deep trenches will be required as each campsite will be built on a gravel pad, and water and sanitary lines will be placed under road. The most extensive grading proposed with be for the sewage disposal area, which is not located within any natural heritage constraints.
6. Impact Assessment & Proposed Mitigation
The impact assessment presented in this section of the EIS includes the site-specific assessment for the subject property and adjacent lands. The impact assessment is based on:
• The most detailed level of information available related to biophysical resources based on primary and secondary data and analyses (as presented in Sections 4.1 - 4.4); and • The findings of the constraint analyses (presented in Section 4.5) to identify sensitive and significant natural features and ecological functions that require protection to maintain the integrity and biodiversity of the natural heritage within the study area.
One of the primary design considerations for the proposed development is protection and integration of the site’s natural features. Since impact avoidance is generally the most effective means of reducing the risk of development impacts on the natural environment, it is recommended that development limits be established outside the limits of any significant natural heritage features and their buffers. The site plan achieves this by establishing development limits outside areas that are constrained by the presence of significant natural heritage features and natural hazards as was recommended in Section 4.5.
As with the other components of this EIS, an integrated multi-disciplinary approach has been applied to assessing the potential impacts of redeveloping the subject property.
Page 46
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
The impact assessment matrix presented in Table 8 is structured to:
• Identify the specific development activity (impact source); • Describe the potential effect on environmental receptors (features and functions); • Recommend mitigation measures to address potential impacts; and • Describe the net effect on the biophysical environment.
Page 47
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
Table 8. Impact Assessment Matrix for Pebble Beach East
Residual Category Feature/Function Proposed Activity Potential Impacts Recommended Mitigation Effects Geology Bedrock Geology Grading and Servicing It is not anticipated that there will be extensive grading and servicing within the None. Neutral bedrock, therefore no impacts to bedrock resources are anticipated. Surficial Geology/ Site Preparation and The site is flat and overlain with a thin layer of discontinuous till on top of • A cut and fill balance should be maintained to the extent feasible. Neutral Physiography/ Grading limestone bedrock. The proposed grading will not significantly alter the • Restrict or limit grading within the buffer zones and/or setbacks of Topography topography of the landscape. Some minor grading will be required within the the natural heritage features. buffers and setbacks to prepare these areas for landscaping. Soils Topsoil Site Preparation and Topsoil resources can be lost during site preparation through mixing with sub • Topsoil resources will be conserved by stripping and stockpiling. Neutral Grading soils and through wind and water erosion. Due to the existing conditions of the • BMPs such as proper separation, stockpiling and erosion control soils on the site and the scale of the proposed redevelopment, it is not anticipated measures, and restoration to the site following construction will be that topsoil resources will be impacted. implemented. • Removal of quality topsoil from the site should be minimized. Air Quality Air Site Preparation and Due to the scale of the redevelopment, it is not anticipated that dust from grading • Dust control will be the responsibility of the Contractor and will be Neutral Grading and construction will result in adverse environmental impacts. managed through construction specifications – for example, construction requirements may include the application of water to cleared and unpaved construction areas. Surface Water Surface Water Grading, Servicing and No development is proposed within Lake Ontario or the wetland features on the • Implement appropriate ESC measures. Neutral Features Development subject property. There are no watercourses on the subject property. Storm • Implement BMP’s and SWM controls. water entering the wetlands will replicate pre-development flows. No impacts to surface water resources are anticipated. Water Quality Grading, Servicing and During construction, there is a risk that exposed soils and could result in release • Implement appropriate ESC measures. Neutral Development of deleterious materials (sediment, fuel, oil, lubricant, etc.) into Lake Ontario • Implement BMP’s and SWM controls. and/or the wetlands on the subject property.
Stormwater runoff can also affect water quality in the receiving waterbody if released without quality control. Water Temperature Grading, Servicing and No impacts to water temperature in receiving waterbodies is anticipated. Implement appropriate BMP’s and SWM controls. Neutral Development Site Water Balance Overall Site Grading and Grading activities may result in compaction of native soils and an increase in the Implement SWM Strategy developed by Greer Galloway. Neutral Development overall imperviousness of the development area, thereby reducing surface water infiltration and increasing runoff which can potentially impact Lake Ontario and other natural features. Natural Heritage NHS Linkages Grading, Servicing and Development on the subject property will be confined primarily to lands that are Linkage functions can be enhanced by providing for the following: Neutral-Positive System Development presently farmed and cropped. The Lake Ontario shoreline forms a primary scale • Naturalize the 30 m buffer to Lake Ontario to improve primary linkage corridor. The agricultural fields form secondary and tertiary scale linkages scale linkage functions; to the surrounding rural landscape. The proposed development will not interfere • Naturalize the 30 m buffer using native species to encourage with these linkage functions. The primary linkage along the lakeshore will be wildlife utilization; enhanced by naturalizing the 30 m wide strip along the lakeshore. Natural • Implement landscaping within the campground to provide features (woodlands and wetlands) on the balance of the lands will be retained permanent natural cover to enhance wildlife utilization of and continue to function as stepping stones and provide secondary and tertiary secondary and tertiary scale linkage functions; scale linkage functions. While the development proposal will introduce • Post signage to discourage encroachment activities. campsites, the form and scale of the development is not anticipated to interfere with the connectivity functions or introduce barriers to movement. The campsites and intervening lands will also be landscaped. This will provide permanent vegetation cover which will improve linkage functions relative to the current condition. Significant Grading, Servicing and There are no Significant Woodlands associated with the subject property. None. Neutral Woodlands Development
Page 48
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
Residual Category Feature/Function Proposed Activity Potential Impacts Recommended Mitigation Effects Wetlands Grading, Servicing and The Soup Harbour PSW will be protected from any direct development with a 30 • Implement vegetated buffers. Positive Development m buffer. • Maintain wetland water balance by implementing SWM Strategy There unevaluated wetlands on the subject property are protected from direct developed by Greer Galloway. development. A 15 m vegetated buffer will be implemented. Significant Grading, Servicing and There are no valleylands in the study area. None. Neutral Valleylands Development Hazard Lands Grading, Servicing and The Lake Ontario shoreline is considered hazard land and prone to flooding and • Apply a 15 m development setback to the 100 year floodline. Neutral Development erosion. • Apply a 30 m development setback to the water’s edge. • Do not permit structures within the wave uprush limit.
Significant Wildlife Grading, Servicing and The ELC Units 1, 6 and 9, the Lake Ontario shoreline and the Soup Harbour Implement SAR-Awareness Training for construction workers on site. If Neutral Habitat Development PSW east of the subject property have been identified as candidate significant a turtle is encountered during construction, a professional should be wildlife habitat. No impacts are anticipated as development avoids features that contacted to determine how to safely remove the individual. constitute SWH, however, it is possible that a turtle listed as Special Concern could transverse the agricultural fields within the subject property. See mitigation for Fish Habitat below for Special Concern aquatic species. Trees Grading, Servicing and A total of 0.26 ha of treed area is proposed to be removed to accommodate the • The loss of tree cover and associated wildlife habitat functions can Neutral Development proposed development. This will result in the loss of forest cover and associated be offset, and impacts mitigated by planting an equivalent sized area wildlife habitat. with native trees and shrubs. Under the proposed site plan, it is proposed that the tree plantings can be accommodated in the wetland and woodland buffers. An area of 0.78 ha has been proposed for naturalization plantings. • As with any vegetation removals, it is recommended that these occur outside of the breeding bird season to avoid contravention of the MBCA. Fish Habitat Grading, Servicing and Lake Ontario is considered fish habitat. Grading, servicing and development of Potential impacts to fish habitat in Lake Ontario can be reduced by Neutral-Positive Development this site will be limited to areas that are approximately 30 m from the lake. As implementing the following measures: such, no direct impacts to fish habitat are anticipated. • Develop and implement an Erosion and Sediment control plan Potential indirect impacts to fish habitat that may result from the proposed and spill protection plan during the detail design and ensure development are outlined below: compliance during the construction and development phase. A • Changes to drainage patterns may alter the quantity and distribution of multi barrier approach should be implemented (i.e., double row surface water inputs to fish habitat, affecting flows, erosion rates and sediment fencing with staked straw bales in between); water temperatures. • Minimize non-essential vegetation clearing and grading, and Development will introduce impervious surfaces that will increase overall integrate a phasing workplan for grading and construction; runoff volumes and decrease infiltration within the catchment areas of • Stabilize soils that will be exposed for long periods of time and features. store stockpiled soils at least 30 m outside of fish habitat; • Increased runoff and flows to Lake Ontario and the Soup Harbour PSW • During site preparation and construction ensure on-site surface can result in erosion and flooding. water is properly managed and treated through the use of BMP and mitigation measures.
Mitigation measures for flood control, water quality, temperature impacts, and erosion are noted above under Surface Water. Wildlife Birds Grading, Servicing and The proposed development will be confined primarily to existing agricultural Undertake all vegetation / tree clearing between September and early Neutral Development lands. No significant changes to the composition of the avian communities April so as not to impact breeding birds and not contravene the MBCA. associated with the woodlands and wetlands are anticipated. Amphibians Grading, Servicing and Minimal suitable amphibian breeding habitat exists on the subject. The Soup Establish buffers to significant features to reduce human disturbances Neutral Development Harbour PSW contains candidate SWH for amphibian breeding (wetland). and encroachments. Species at Risk SAR Habitat Grading, Servicing and Habitat for SAR species is present on the subject property. The proposed • Implement a Barn Swallow nesting structure within the wetland Positive (SAR) Development development will result on the removal of a structure that supports nesting Barn buffer on site.
Page 49
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
Residual Category Feature/Function Proposed Activity Potential Impacts Recommended Mitigation Effects Swallows and the removal of 0.26 ha of treed area known to support Little Brown • Construction within treed habitat should be restricted to off-breeding Myotis. SAR Turtles and Eastern Hognose Snake could be utilizing the subject periods (April-September). property as corridor habitat. • Implement SAR-Awareness Training for construction workers on site. • Refer to mitigation for Fish Habitat below for SAR aquatic species. • Implement tree plantings with the wetland buffer area. • As discussed with the MECP regarding SAR bats, Fourward Holdings Inc. has committed to the following mitigation measures: monitoring of the vegetation within the buffer areas, installing bat boxes and ensuring their structural integrity once installed.
Page 50
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Page 51
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
6.1 Summary of the Proposed Mitigation Measures
The following list summarizes the proposed mitigation measures described in Table 8. This list is intended to help guide the Site Plan implementation.
• Restrict or limit grading within the setback zones. No grading or storage should occur within the buffer zones; • Limit the removal of quality topsoil within the subject property; • Develop and implement an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and Spill Protection plan during the detail design and ensure compliance during the construction and development phase; a multi barrier approach should be implemented (i.e., double row sediment fencing with staked straw bales in between); • Implement the SWM Strategy developed by Greer Galloway; • Naturalize the following proposed buffers using native species to encourage wildlife utilization: • 30 m buffer to Lake Ontario; • 30 m buffer to Soup Harbour PSW; and • 15 m buffer from the wetlands on the subject property with the exception of the proposed road; • Post signage to discourage encroachment activities within the buffers; • Implement landscaping within the campground to provide permanent natural cover to enhance wildlife utilization of secondary and tertiary scale linkage functions; • Do no permit structures within the wave uprush limit; • Mitigate loss of tree cover through re-planting within the buffer of the wetlands of the subject property; • All vegetation removals and construction within treed habitats should occur outside of the breeding bird and bat season (September and early April) to avoid contravention of the MBCA and the ESA; • Implement a Barn Swallow nesting structure within the wetland buffer on site; • Implement SAR-Awareness Training for construction workers on site for those SAR identified as potential being present on the subject property (refer to Section 3.3), and if a turtle or snake is encountered during construction, a professional should be contacted to determine how to safely remove the individual; and • As discussed with the MECP regarding SAR bats, Fourward Holdings Inc. has committed to the following mitigation measures: monitoring of the vegetation within the buffer areas, installing bat boxes and ensuring their structural integrity once installed.
7. Policy Conformity
One of the objectives of the EIS was to demonstrate how the proposed development plan complies with applicable federal, provincial and local environmental legislation, policies and regulations. An overview of the various legislation, policies and regulations was provided in Section 1. A summary of how the proposed development conforms to the various legislation, policies and regulations is presented below in Table 9.
Page 52
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
Table 9. Conformity to Applicable Policies, Legislations and Regulations related to Natural Heritage and Natural Hazards
LEGISLATION / POLICY / DIRECTION EIS FINDINGS CONFORMITY REGULATION Federal Fisheries Act To protect fish and fish Lake Ontario and Soup YES habitat. Harbour PSW both provide fish habitat. A 30 m buffer / development setback to these features is proposed along with recommendations for water quality controls. These measures will effectively protect fish and fish habitat. Ontario Endangered The ESA provides The EIS has confirmed that the YES. The project Species Act (2007) protection to the habitat of subject property supports will need to be endangered and threatened habitat for threated Barn registered with species. Under the Act, Swallow and endangered Little MECP. there are provisions that Brown Myotis, and that there is allow for habitat to be habitat in the study area that removed under certain can support other SAR. The circumstances provided it proposed development will can be demonstrated that result in the removal of habitat an overall benefit to the for Little Brown Myotis and species can be achieved. Barn Swallow. The loss of habitat will be mitigated through creation of new habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Ont. Reg 242/08, as well as MECP direction. Provincial Policy Statement (2014) 1. Habitat for The PPS does not permit Same as above YES. Same as Threatened and development or site above. Endangered alteration in the habitat for Species threatened and endangered species, except in accordance with provincial and federal requirements.
2. Significant The PPS does not permit The Soup Harbour PSW is YES. Wetlands development or site considered a significant alteration in Significant wetland. This wetland is along Wetlands. the lakeshore immediately east of the subject property. A 30 m buffer has been recommended to protect the wetland and is considered more than
Page 53
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
LEGISLATION / POLICY / DIRECTION EIS FINDINGS CONFORMITY REGULATION adequate to protect the wetland functions and values.
3. Significant Coastal The PPS does not permit Same as above YES. Same as Wetlands development or site above alteration in Significant Coastal Wetlands.
4. Significant The PPS does not permit The EIS has determined that YES. No Woodlands development or site the wooded areas on the development or alteration in Significant subject property are too small site alteration is Woodlands unless it has to satisfy the criteria for proposed within a been demonstrated that Significant Woodlands. Significant there will be no negative Woodland. impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions. 5. Significant The PPS does not permit There are no Significant YES. No Valleylands development or site Valleylands associated with development or alteration in Significant the subject property. site alteration is Valleylands unless it has proposed in been demonstrated that Significant there will be no negative Valleylands. impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions. 6. Significant Wildlife The PPS does not permit Within the subject property, the YES. No Habitat development or site Lake Ontario Shoreline and development or alteration in Significant ELC Units 1, 6 and 9 contain site alteration is Wildlife Habitat unless it has candidate SWH. Addtionally, proposed in been demonstrated that the Soup Harbour PSW east of Significant there will be no negative the site is classified as Wildlife Habitat. impacts on the natural significant wildlife habitat, features or their ecological which will be protected from functions. development. 7. Significant Areas The PPS does not permit There are no ANSI’s in the YES. No of Natural and development or site study area. development or Scientific Interest alteration in Significant site alteration is (ANSI) ANSI’s unless it has been proposed in demonstrated that there will Significant be no negative impacts on ANSI’s. the natural features or their ecological functions.
Page 54
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
LEGISLATION / POLICY / DIRECTION EIS FINDINGS CONFORMITY REGULATION 8. Coastal Wetlands The PPS does not permit Except for the Soup Harbour YES. development or site PSW, there are no other alteration in Coastal coastal wetlands on or Wetlands unless it has been adjacent to the subject demonstrated that there will property. The two small non- be no negative impacts on evaluated wetlands on the the natural features or subject property are not their ecological functions. hydrologically connected to Lake Ontario or any of its tributaries. 9. Fish Habitat To protect fish and fish Lake Ontario and Soup YES habitat. Harbour PSW both provide fish habitat. A 30 m buffer / development setback to these features is proposed along with recommendations for water quality controls. These measures will effectively protect fish and fish habitat. County of Prince An EIS is required for all The proposed development will YES. No Edward Official Plan development within occur outside of the development or (2011) “Shorelands” and for lands “Environmental Protection site alteration is abutting an “Environmental Area” / PSW. proposed within Protection Area” and an EIS the Soup Harbour is required for any Ecologically appropriate PSW. Adequate development within 40 m of buffers have been applied to buffers have a PSW. EPA features. been applied to the EP. Potential indirect impact will be mitigated through buffering.
7.1 Conformity with the Prince Edward County Draft Official Plan (February 2018)
While the 1993 Prince Edward County Official Plan (2011 Consolidation) remains the in-force plan under which the current application is being reviewed, we understand that the County has released a draft version of its new official plan dated February 2018. Based on a review of the Draft OP (PEC 2018) environmental polices and schedules, it is our opinion that the proposed site plan also conforms to the draft policies.
Page 55
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
8. Summary and Recommendations
This EIS was prepared in accordance with the policies and regulations set out by the County and Quinte Conservation Authority. The information and materials provided are based on a review of relevant background information, field assessments analyses, and supporting studies provided by the study team. In the future, there will be a Site Plan application under the Planning Act, and Site Plan Agreement with PEC to implement the campsite project. At this time, through the Agreement and approved drawings, there will be the means to implement the mitigation techniques referenced in Section 6.
Existing conditions of the subject property and surrounding area, where appropriate, were inventoried and documented. Currently, the site consists mostly of active agriculture, but also has an old barn, a small portion of woodland, a small, low-quality wetland, a meadow with anthropogenic disturbances, and thicket, hedgerows, and shoreline. The property is bound Lake Ontario to the south, Soup Harbour PSW and agricultural fields to the east, the existing Quinte Isle campground to the west, and a mosaic of rural and agricultural lands to the north.
Natural heritage features associated with the study area include:
• Lake Ontario (fish habitat); • Lake Ontario Shoreline – Wildlife Movement Corridor; • Soup Harbour PSW (offsite); • Significant Wildlife Habitat (offsite); • Two small unevaluated wetland features; • Several small cedar woodlands; • Habitat for nesting threatened Barn Swallows; and • Habitat for endangered Little Brown Myotis.
Natural Hazards associated with the subject property include:
• 1:100 year floodline (along lakeshore); and • Wave Uprush Limit (along lakeshore).
The recommended limits of development were determined by avoiding areas that are constrained by the presence of significant natural heritage features and natural hazards and their associated protective buffers and regulatory setbacks. It is recommended that the greater of the following constrains be used to establish the proposed limits of development:
• 30 m buffer has been applied to the water’s edge; • 30 m buffer to the Soup Harbour PSW located adjacent to the southeastern corner of the property; • 15 m setback to the 100 year floodline; • Lake Ontario Wave Uprush Limit; and • 15 m buffer to the unevaluated wetland features.
The proposed development is comprised of 337 park model seasonal camping sites. The total area of the proposed campsites is 4.9 ha. Internal roads and parking will comprise of 2.6 ha. A proposed
Page 56
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County sewage disposal area will occupy 3.7 ha. The balance of the site (27.0 ha or 71%) will be comprised of open space, maintained lawns, wetlands and areas of existing vegetation. Access to the site will be from the existing campground to the west owned by the proponent. An emergency access to Welbanks Road is also proposed. In addition to the campsite, the proponent will deed to the County 0.26 ha of land corresponding with the Welbanks Road Allowance to provide future public access to the lake. Additionally, as part of this site plan, a 0.37 ha area of existing farmland located east of terminus of Welbanks Road will be converted to public parking and transferred to the County.
The proposed development has been designed to protect and integrate natural heritage features. Additionally, the proposed development includes design elements that will improve certain ecological functions and also affords greater protection from natural hazards than presently exists.
The proposed redevelopment will not adversely impact upon any significant natural heritage features and ecological functions associated with the subject property and will also afford protection from natural hazards.
In conclusion, it is our opinion that the Site Plan prepared by RFA and dated October 30th, 2019 is in conformity with applicable legislation, policies and regulations as it relates to natural heritage resources. It is recommend that the mitigation recommendations provided in Section 6.1 of this report be carried forward as conditions of draft plan approval, as applicable.
Report prepared by: Report reviewed by: Beacon Environmental Beacon Environmental
Anna Cunningham, B.Sc.(Hons.) Ken Ursic, B.Sc., M.Sc. Ecologist Principal, Senior Ecologist
Page 57
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
9. References
Barnett, P.J., Cowan, W.R. and Henry A.P. 1991. Quaternary geology of Ontario, southern sheet; Ontario Geological survey. Map 2556, scale 1:1 000 000
Bird Studies Canada. 2009. Marsh Monitoring Program Participant’s Handbook for Surveying Amphibians. 2009 Edition. Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. February 2009.
Cadman, M.D., D.A. Sutherland, G.G. Beck, D. Lepage and A.R. Couturier (eds.). 2007. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, 2001–2005. Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Field Ornithologists, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Nature, Toronto, ON. xxii + 706
Canadian Land Inventory. 2013. Land Capability Class Descriptions for Agriculture. May 31, 2013.
Chapman and Putnam. 1984. Physiography of Southern Ontario, 3rd Edition. Ontario Geological Survey, Special Vol. 2.
Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 1985. Fisheries Act. Government of Canada.
Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2013. Fisheries Protection Policy Statement.
Dobbyn, J.S. (1994). Atlas of the Mammals of Ontario. Federation of Ontario Naturalists, Don Mills, Ontario, 120 pp. ISBN 1-896059-02-3
Government of Ontario. 1994. Migratory Bird Convention Act.
Government of Ontario. 2007 Endangered Species Act.
Greer Galloway Consulting Engineers. 2018a. Pebble Beach East Servicing Design Brief. Prepared for Fourward Holdings Inc., January 9, 2018
Greer Galloway Consulting Engineers. 2018b. Preliminary Stormwater Management Report. Prepared for Fourward Holdings Inc., January 9, 2018
Page 58
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
Greer Galloway Consulting Engineers. 2019. Preliminary Stormwater Management Design Brief. Prepared for Fourward Holdings Inc., August, 2019
Heagy, A., D. Badzinski, D. Bradley, M. Falconer, J. McCracken, R.A. Reid and K. Richardson. 2014. Recovery Strategy for the Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica) in Ontario. Ontario Recovery Strategy Series. Prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Peterborough, Ontario. vii + 64 pp.
Land Information Ontario. 2014. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Make a Map: Natural Heritage Areas.
Lee, H.T., W.D. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig and S. McMurray. 1998. Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: First Approximation and Its Application. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. SCSS Field Guide FG-02. 225 pp.
McCracken, J.D., R.A. Reid, R.B. Renfrew, B. Frei, J.V. Jalava, A. Cowie, and A.R. 51 Couturier. 2013. Recovery Strategy for the Bobolink (Dolichoyx oryzivorus) and Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna) in Ontario. Ontario Recovery Strategy Series. Prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario. viii+ 88 pp.
Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC), Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Website: www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/nhic/queries/nhic.mwf. Accessed October 2017.
Oldham, M.J. and W. Weller. 1986. Atlas of Ontario Herpetofauna. Available on-line through the NHIC website, http://nhic.mnr.gov.on.ca/nhic_cfm.
Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH). 2014. Provincial Policy Statement. Toronto, Ontario.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2000. Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide. October 2000.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2010. Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Natural Heritage Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005. Second Edition. March 18, 2010.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2012. Endangered Species Act Submission Standards for Activity Review and 17 (2)(c) Overall Benefit Permits. February 2012.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2015. Significant Wildlife Habitat Criteria for Ecoregion 6E. January 2015.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry – Guelph District. 2016. Bat and Bat Habitat Surveys of Treed Habitats. Updated May 2016. 5 p.
Page 59
Environmental Impact Study Pebble Beach East, Prince Edward County
Prince Edward County. (n.d.). Public GIS Viewer. Country of Prince Edward, GIS Department.
Prince Edward County. (2011). County of Prince Edward Official Plan 1993. Office Consolidation - January 2011.
Prince Edward County. (2018). Draft Official Plan Dated February 2018 (Revised).
Prince Edward County. (2012). Natural Heritage System for Prince Edward County and Neighbouring Communities.
Quinte Conservation. 2006. Development and Interference with Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations Policies and Procedures Manual: For Planning Act Applications. (Last revised January 2017).
Rankou, H. 2014. Cypripedium arietinum. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2014: e.T43315496A43327604. Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/43315496/0
Page 60
Appendix A
MNRF Correspondence
From: McWhirter, Tegan (MNRF) To: Anna Corrigan Subject: FW: 18-HALL-PEC-INF-2664-PB2018-0350 Date: March 26, 2018 11:43:51 AM Attachments: BW_Soup Harbour.pdf Individual Wetland Summary.pdf
Good Morning Anna,
MNRF Peterborough District has received your e-mail (dated November 1st, 2017) regarding the SAR screening with respect to the project area located at 558 Welbanks Road, Town of Cherry Hill, Prince Edward County. We provide the following general information for your consideration:
General: MNRF Data and Information
We would like to inform you that MNRF’s natural heritage and natural resources data and information (including wetlands, ANSIs) for the study area can be obtained through the Land Information Ontario Warehouse (LIOW) through the Ministry’s Land Information Ontario (LIO) website. You may also view natural heritage information online (e.g. Provincially Significant Wetlands, ANSIs, Woodlands, NHIC 1 km screening squares) using Natural Heritage Make a Map. You can also obtain Species at Risk occurrence information on our Natural Heritage Information Centre. Additional information can be found on the official Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) List
We recommend that you use the above-noted sources of information during the review of your project proposal. MNRF may provide additional information and technical advice if details of the proposed location(s) and design(s) of the proposed works are circulated to our office.
Wetlands The subject property is adjacent to Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSW) referred to as the Soup Harbour. We recommend contacting your local Conservation Authority for more information on approvals that may be required. Attached include the official wetland map and the summary report for Soup Harbour.
Additionally, the subject property is also adjacent to an unevaluated wetland. We recommend contacting your local Conservation Authority for more information on approvals that may be required.
Fisheries No in-water work should occur between October 15th to and including June 30th.
* Please contact Department of Fisheries and Oceans/local Conservation Authority for any approvals that may be required and/or recommendations on any sediment/erosion control measures that may be required to be installed prior/during/after construction.
Fish Species for Lake Ontario
Source: MNR (2002) Frenchman’s Bay
· Bowfin · Common Shiner · Largemouth Bass · Spottail Shiner · Brown Bullhead · Pumpkinseed · Black Crappie · Alewife
Source: Safety Kleen Ltd. (2002)
· Yellow Perch · Rock Bass · Northern Pike · Largemouth Bass · Sunfish sp.
Source: CLOCA (2003)
Parrott’s Bay (Ernestown Township)
· Northern Pike · Yellow Perch · Central Mudminnow · Pumpkinseed · Johnny Darter · Largemouth Bass · Golden Shiner · Round Goby · Brown Bullhead · Rock Bass · Black Crappie
Source: CLOCA (2003)
Huyck’s Bay (Ameliasburgh Township)
· Pumpkinseed · Yellow Perch · Blackchin Shiner · Iowa Darter · Brown Bullhead · Golden Shiner · Central Mudminnow · Largemouth Bass · Sand Shiner · Johnny Darter · Northern Pike · Banded Killifish
Source: Queen’s University (2006)
· Central Mudminnow · Northern Redbelly Dace · Finescale Dace · Common Shiner · Bluntnose Minnow · Fathead Minnow · Creek Chub · White Sucker · Brook Silverside · Pumpkinseed · Eastern Silvery Minnow
Sources: Centre of Water and The Environment (2006)
· Emerald Shiner · Brook Silverside · Stonecat · Creek Chub · Rainbow Smelt · Northern Pike · Muskellunge · Brown Bullhead · Rock Bass · Pumpkinseed · Smallmouth Bass · Walleye · Round Goby
Source: St.Lawrence College (2007)
· Common Carp · Smallmouth Bass · Round Goby · Brown Bullhead · Logperch · Banded Killifish · Yellow Perch
Source: Golder Associates Ltd. (2010)
Kingston Inner Harbour
· Yellow Perch · Northern Pike · Lepomis sp.
Source: Golder Associates Ltd. (2010)
· Smallmouth Bass · Alewife · Round Goby · Brown Trout · Yellow Perch · Chinook Salmon · Lake Trout · Lake Chub · Rainbow Smelt · Rock Bass · Walleye · Gizzard Shad · Round Whitefish
Please refer to the following website for the Lake Ontario Annual Reports and for additional fish species information: http://www.glfc.org/lakecom/loc/mgmt_unit/.
Species listed as endangered or threatened on the Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) list are protected under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA). Section 9(1) of the ESA prohibits a person from killing, harming, harassing, capturing or taking a member of a species listed as endangered, threatened or extirpated on the SARO list. Section 10(1) of the ESA prohibits the damage or destruction of habitat of a species listed as endangered or threatened on the SARO list.
Species at Risk A review of our best available information indicates that there are observations of the following species in the immediate (1km radius) of the site: Bank Swallow (Threatened) Barn Swallow (Threatened) Bobolink (Threatened) Eastern Meadowlark (Threatened) Lake Sturgeon (Threatened) Snapping Turtle (Special Concern) Wood Thrush (Special Concern) Also, there are observations of the following species in the general area (5km radius) of the proposed activities: Grasshopper Sparrow (Special Concern) Northern Map Turtle (Special Concern) American Eel (Endangered) American Ginseng (Endangered) Bald Eagle (Special Concern) Black Tern (Special Concern) Blanding’s Turtle (Threatened) Bridle Shiner (Special Concern) Eastern Hog-Nosed Snake (Threatened) Eastern Musk Turtle (Special Concern) Eastern Whip-Poor-Will (Threatened) Eastern Wood-Pewee (Special Concern) Grass Pickerel (Special Concern) King Rail (Endangered) Least Bittern (Threatened) Little Brown Myotis (Endangered) Loggerhead Shrike (Endangered) Northern Map Turtle (Special Concern) Piping Plover (Endangered) Pugnose Shiner (Threatened) Red-Headed Woodpecker (Special Concern) Red Knot Rufa subspecies (Endangered) Spiny Softshell (Endangered)
Although no other threatened or endangered species or their habitat have been documented in the area of the proposed projects, these features may be present and this list should not be considered complete.
MNRF Peterborough District is of the opinion that a site assessment is required in this case, but it is the responsibility of a person(s) undertaking any proposed activity to ensure they are in compliance with the ESA. The focus of the site assessment can include a review of the information about known occurrences provided by MNRF above, along with other information sources such as species distributions and habitat requirements as well as field visits using MNRF approved protocols during the appropriate seasons by a qualified professional. Due to the species that are potentially present at this site, the following recommendations should help prevent adverse impacts:
Birds Workers must be vigilant and check work areas for the presence of breeding birds and nests containing eggs and/or young. If breeding birds and/or nests are encountered, works should not continue in the location of the nest until after August 1 (or as soon as it has been determined that that the young have left the nest). Please note that the breeding bird season in the subject area extends from April 15 to July 31.
Specific Barn Swallow Information: Barn Swallow nests may be present under bridges and/or culverts. Therefore, the underside of these structures should be assessed for Barn Swallow nests before proceeding. If no nests are present, a contravention of the ESA is unlikely. However, if nests are present, construction should not begin until after August 15 of any year. If nests will be impacted during the nesting season or if the structure will no longer be suitable for nesting post-construction, ESA requirements will apply to the activity. A regulatory provision is available that allows eligible activities that impact to Barn Swallow to register and follow all the rules in regulation in place of applying for a permit under the ESA. See this website for more information on regulatory requirements for Barn Swallow.
Turtles and Snakes Workers must be vigilant and check work areas for the presence of turtles. If turtles or snakes are encountered, whenever possible, work should be temporarily suspended until the animal is out of harm’s way. Workers should report any turtle observations (including photographs and coordinates) to the Peterborough District Office immediately at (705) 755-2001. Please note that the turtle nesting season in the subject area extends from May 15th to September 30th. Therefore, activities which may cause adverse impacts to a species or habitat (e.g. use of heavy equipment) should commence after September 30th.
Regulatory Provisions and Further Registration Options As of July 1, 2013, there are new regulatory provisions provided under the ESA. This regulatory provision allows eligible activities, such as work undertaken to repair, modify, demolish, replace or general maintenance of a structure or the removal of buildings and/or excavation of land, vegetation removal, etc. that is considered to be species at risk habitat to proceed without a permit, provided the proponent register with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry and then follow the specific rules in regulation under the ESA. These rules include, but are not limited to, preparing a mitigation plan and implementing steps to minimize the adverse effects of the activity on the species identified. Information on the new ESA regulatory provision that come into effect on July 1, 2013 The amended ESA regulation (O.Reg 242/08).
If an impact to a Species at Risk or its habitat cannot be avoided, a person(s) should contact MNRF to discuss options, including applying for an authorization under the ESA. In situations where an activity is not registered with or authorized by the MNRF, a person(s) must comply with the ESA by modifying proposed activities to avoid impacts to Species at Risk and habitat protected under the ESA.
It is highly recommended that landowners and on-site workers familiarize themselves with MNRF’s Species at Risk website.
During on-site activities, should any species at risk or their habitat be potentially impacted, MNRF should be contacted immediately and operations should be modified to avoid any negative impacts to species at risk or their habitat until further discussions with MNRF can occur regarding opportunities for mitigation. If any species at risk are found, the Peterborough District MNRF office should be contacted at 705-755-2001. If possible, pictures of the species at risk and coordinates for the location where it was observed should be provided to MNRF.
Natural Heritage Systems Natural Heritage Systems are identified by individual planning authorities and therefore, we recommend that you contact the local municipality to determine if they have undertaken any studies to identify a natural heritage system for their planning jurisdiction.
Floodplain The identification of floodplain areas is the responsibility of the respective planning authorities and/or the local conservation authority. As such, we recommend that you contact the local municipality and the local conservation authority for more information and potential study requirements.
Environmentally Significant Areas MNR does not identify or designate areas as Environmentally Significant Areas. We recommend that you contact the local municipality, conservation authority who may have more information on the use of such identification or designation of such areas.
General Information Regarding MNRF approvals: Public Lands Act Except for federal canals and harbours, the beds of most lakes and streams are public land in Ontario. Please note that you may require a Work Permit under the Public Lands Act if you are proposing any work in water or near shore areas below the spring high water mark. If you have any questions about the Public Lands Act, please contact Tamara Dolan, the Lands and Waters Technical Specialist at 705-755-3298.
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act Please note that you may require a Scientific Collector’s Permit from our office if you will be doing any fish or wildlife sampling, collection, salvage, or relocation within Peterborough District. For more information about Scientific Collector’s Permits, please contact Julie Formsma, Fish and Wildlife Technical Specialist at 705-755-3296.
Other Approvals It is the responsibility of the proponent to acquire all other information and necessary approvals from any other municipal, provincial or federal authority under other legislation. We recommend that you contact your local Conservation Authority, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, etc.
If you have any questions regarding the above comments, don’t hesitate to contact me. Please reference the file number in the subject line for any future correspondence.
Regards,
Tegan McWhirter Resource Management Technical Specialist Intern Peterborough District, Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Tel: (705) 755-1340 [email protected]
Peterborough District MNR Report Generated: Wetland Summary Report February 26, 2018 Wetland Name: Soup Harbour Wetland Code: KG-PEC-QC-032 Significance: PSW LIO (OGF) ID: 1251554372 Historical Record? (No longer in LIO).
OWES Edition: Third Edition Scoring System: Southern Last Field Evaluation 1986-Oct Upper Tier Municipalities: City of Prince Edward County Last Desktop Update: 2015-Aug EcoDistrict: 6e-15 Lower Tier Municipalities: n/a Wetland Size (ha): 70.76 Catchment Area (ha): 3014.1 Conservation Authority: Quinte Conservation Biological Component: 95 Social Component MNR Area Team: Kingston 81 Evaluation Notes: Hydrological Component: 48 A Provincially significant, Coastal wetland, composed of two wetland types (65% Special Features Component: 202 swamp and 35% marsh) (White, 1986). Total Score: 426 Significance: PSW Evaluation Authors: G. Clark (2014 Desktop) / R. MNRF Peterborough District (2014) / Ecosurveys Huizer (2005 Desktop) / D. White (2005) / Environmental Applications (1986) (1986)
Dominant Vegetation Forms (%) Soils (%) Vegetation Communities: White, 1986: 41 2 0 h ts be clay/loam M2: robust emergents- Typha spp.; free-floating plants- Lemna c 0 ls 24 re 9 silt/marl spp.; low shrubs- Cephalanthus spp.; S1: deciduous trees- Acer spp.; low shrubs- Cornus spp.; narrow- dh 0 gc 0 ff 0 limestone leaved emergents- Carex spp.; ground cover- Impatiens spp.; dc 0 m 0 f 0 sand tall shrubs- Cornus spp.; S2: low shrubs- Cephalanthus spp.; floating plants- Hydrocharis ds 0 ne 24 su 0 humic/mesic 100 spp.; broad-leaved emergents- Sagittaria spp.; free-floating fibric plants- Lemna spp.; narrow-leaved emergents- Calamagrostis unvegetated 0 spp.; granite M1: narrow-leaved emergents- Calamagrostis spp.; tall shrubs- Site Type (%) Salix spp.; submergents- Utricularia spp.; broad-leaved emergents- Sagittaria spp.; floating plants- Hydrocharis spp.; Isolated S3: tall shrubs- Salix spp.; low shrubs- Decodon spp.; broad- 41 leaved emergents- Sagittaria spp.; narrow-leaved emergents- Palustrine Calamagrostis spp.; free-floating plants- Lemna spp.; floating Riverine plants- Hydrocharis spp.; Riverine (at rivermouth) Lacustrine (at rivermouth) Lacustrine (enclosed bay) 59 Lacustrine (exposed to lake)
Wetland Name: Soup Harbour Significance: PSW Wetland ID: KG-PEC-QC-032 LIO ID 1251554372 Social Component Summary Recreational Activity Intensity Wild Rice Present? Source: R. Huizer et al., 2005 & D. White, 1986 Hunting Low
Comm. Fish Present? Source: R. Huizer et al., 2005 & D. White, 1986 Nature Enjoyment Low / Ecosystem Study Furbearers Fishing None Muskrat, Raccoon, Beaver (all- field obsv. & B. Stratton, referenced); Proximity to Settlement 10 to 60 km to Picton
Threats to Communities: Human disturbances absent or nearly so (White, 1986).
Biodiversity Summary: Significant Vegetation Community (White, 1986): S2: ls- Cephalanthus occidentalis; This description matches/ corresponds to that of W. Bakowsky (1996): Organic Thicket Swamp Ecosite- Buttonbush Organic Thicket Swamp Type- S Rank = S3; Breeding Habitat for Endangered Prov. Sig. Animals: or Threatened Species: White, 1986: Northern Harrier (field obsv.); Snapping Turtle (field abs)
Prov. Sig. Plants: Regionally Sig. Species: Locally Significant Species: NHIC, June 13, 2008: White, 1986: Green Arrow-arum Green Heron, and Swamp Sparrow (both- field obsv.);
Special Features Colonial Waterbird Notes: Nesting of colonial waterbirds, active feeding area
Winter Cover for Wildlife Locally Significant Details:R. Huizer et al., 2005 & D. White, 1986 Waterfowl Staging Not possible / Unknown Waterfowl Moulting Not possible / Unknown Waterfowl Breeding Migratory Stopover Fish Habitat Details:
Land Uses: Recreational Activity (White, 1986): Hunting- low, Nature Appreciation or Study- low, Fishing- none known, Canoeing/ Boating- not possible;
Landuse in Catchment Basin (White, 1986): mainly forested and/ or less than 40% agriculture;
Ecological Values: Other Values: Nesting of colonial waterbirds- active feeding area (White, 1986). Winter cover- local significance for deer (B. Stratton) (White, 1986). Waterfowl staging- local or no significance (White, 1986). Waterfowl production- little or no significance (White, 1986).
Ownership Information: 100% Private or Private & Posted (White, 1986).
Wetland Name: Soup Harbour Significance: PSW Wetland ID: KG-PEC-QC-032 LIO ID 1251554372 Offsite Information: Diversity of Surrounding Habitat (White, 1986): row crops, pasture, abandoned agricultural land, deciduous forest, coniferous forest, open lake or deep river, fence rows with cover or shelterbelts;
Hydrologically connected by surface water to other wetlands, or open water within 1.5 km (White, 1986).
Wetland Name: Soup Harbour Significance: PSW Wetland ID: KG-PEC-QC-032 LIO ID 1251554372
Appendix B
P l a n t L i s t
Appendix B
A p p e n d i x B
Plant List
Family Name Scientific Name Common Name S-RANK a G-Rank b Origin
Aceraceae Acer negundo Manitoba Maple S5 G5 N
Aceraceae Acer saccharum var. saccharum Sugar Maple S5 G5T? N
Aceraceae Acer x freemanii Freeman's Maple S5 G? N
Anacardiaceae Rhus hirta Staghorn Sumac S5 G5 N
Anacardiaceae Toxicodendron radicans ssp. negundo Poison Ivy S5 G5T N
Araliaceae Aralia nudicaulis Wild Sarsaparilla S5 G5 N
Asclepiadaceae Asclepias syriaca Common Milkweed S5 G5 N
Asteraceae Achillea millefolium var. millefolium Common Yarrow SNA G5T? I
Asteraceae Arctium minus Lesser Burdock SNA G?T? I
Asteraceae Cirsium arvense Creeping Thistle SNA G? I
Asteraceae Euthamia graminifolia Grass-leaved Goldenrod S5 G5 N
Asteraceae Hieracium sp. Hawkweed Species n/a n/a n/a
Asteraceae Solidago canadensis Canada Goldenrod S5 G5 N
Asteraceae Solidago canadensis var. gilvocanescens Shorthair Goldenrod SNA n/a N
Asteraceae Solidago juncea Early Goldenrod S5 G5 N
Asteraceae Symphyotrichum ericoides var. ericoides Heath Aster S5 G5T? N
Asteraceae Symphyotrichum lanceolatum ssp. lanceolatum Panicled Aster S5 G5T? N
Asteraceae Symphyotrichum novae-angliae New England Aster S5 G5 N
Asteraceae Symphyotrichum puniceum var. puniceum Purple-stemmed Aster S5 G5T? N
Asteraceae Taraxacum officinale Common Dandelion SNA G5 I
Betulaceae Betula papyrifera Paper Birch S5 G5 N
Brassicaceae Alliaria petiolata Garlic Mustard SNA G? I
Page B-1
Appendix B
Family Name Scientific Name Common Name S-RANK a G-Rank b Origin
Caryophyllaceae Moehringia lateriflora Grove Sandwort S5 G5 N
Cornaceae Cornus obliqua Pale Dogwood S5 n/a N
Cornaceae Cornus racemosa Gray Dogwood S5 G5 N
Cornaceae Cornus sericea ssp. sericea Red-osier Dogwood S5 G5 N
Cupressaceae Juniperus communis Ground Juniper S5 G5 N
Cupressaceae Juniperus virginiana Eastern Red Cedar S5 G5 N
Cupressaceae Thuja occidentalis Northern White Cedar S5 G5 N
Cyperaceae Carex aurea Golden-fruited Sedge S5 G5 N
Cyperaceae Carex bebbii Bebb's Sedge S5 G5 N
Cyperaceae Carex granularis Meadow Sedge S5 G5 N
Cyperaceae Carex intumescens Bladder Sedge S5 G5 N
Cyperaceae Carex pellita Woolly Sedge S5 G5 N
Cyperaceae Eleocharis sp. Spikerush Species n/a n/a n/a
Dipsacaceae Dipsacus fullonum ssp. sylvestris Common Teasel SNA G?T? I
Fabaceae Lotus corniculatus Bird's-foot Trefoil SNA G? I
Fabaceae Medicago sativa ssp. sativa Alfalfa SNA G?T? I
Fabaceae Melilotus alba White Sweet Clover SNA G5 I
Grossulariaceae Ribes cynosbati Prickly Gooseberry S5 G5 N
Grossulariaceae Ribes rubrum Northern Red Currant SNA G4G5 I
Grossulariaceae Ribes triste Swamp Red Currant S5 G5 N
Iridaceae Sisyrinchium montanum Strict Blue-eyed-grass S5 G5 N
Juglandaceae Carya ovata var. ovata Shagbark Hickory S5 G5 N
Juncaceae Juncus balticus Baltic Rush S5 G5 N
Juncaceae Juncus tenuis Slender Rush S5 G5 N
Lamiaceae Leonurus cardiaca ssp. cardiaca Common Motherwort SNA G?T? I
Oleaceae Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash S5 G5 N
Page B-2
Appendix B
Family Name Scientific Name Common Name S-RANK a G-Rank b Origin
Oleaceae Syringa vulgaris Common Lilac SNA G? I
Poaceae Bromus inermis ssp. inermis Smooth Brome SNA G4G5T? I
Poaceae Dactylis glomerata Orchard Grass SNA G? I
Poaceae Elymus repens Quack Grass SNA G? I
Poaceae Glyceria striata Fowl Manna Grass S5 G5 N
Poaceae Poa compressa Canada Bluegrass S5 G? N
Poaceae Poa pratensis ssp. pratensis Kentucky Bluegrass S5 G5T N
Primulaceae Lysimachia ciliata Fringed Loosestrife S5 G5 N
Ranunculaceae Anemone canadensis Canada Anemone S5 G5 N
Rhamnaceae Rhamnus cathartica Buckthorn SNA G? I
Rosaceae Crataegus sp. Hawthorn Species n/a n/a n/a
Rosaceae Fragaria virginiana Wild Strawberry S5 G5 N
Rosaceae Malus pumila Common Apple SNA G5 I
Rosaceae Prunus serotina Wild Black Cherry S5 G5 N
Rosaceae Prunus virginiana var. virginiana Choke Cherry S5 G5T? N
Rosaceae Rosa multiflora Rambler Rose SNA G? I
Rosaceae Rubus idaeus ssp. idaeus Red Raspberry SNA G5T5 I
Rosaceae Rubus odoratus Purple-flowering Raspberry S5 G5 N
Rosaceae Spiraea alba Narrow-leaved Meadow-sweet S5 G5 N
Rutaceae Zanthoxylum americanum Northern Prickly Ash S5 G5 N
Salicaceae Populus balsamifera ssp. balsamifera Balsam Poplar S5 G5T? N
Salicaceae Salix eriocephala Heart-leaved Willow S5 G5 N
Salicaceae Salix exigua Sandbar Willow S5 G5 N
Salicaceae Salix fragilis Crack Willow SNA G? I
Tiliaceae Tilia americana American Basswood S5 G5 N
Vitaceae Vitis riparia Riverbank Grape S5 G5 N
Page B-3
Appendix B
Family Name Scientific Name Common Name S-RANK a G-Rank b Origin
n/a n/a Crops n/a n/a n/a a - S-RANK (from Natural Heritage Information Centre) for breeding status within Ontario if: S4 (Apparently Secure), S5 (Secure), SNA (Not applicable…'because the species is not a suitable target for conservation activities'; includes non-native species) b - G- RANK (from Natural Heritage Information Centre) for breeding status globally if: G5 (Very Common), T (ranking applies to subspecies and varieties), ? (inexact ranking)
Page B-4
Appendix C
Breeding Bird Survey Results
Appendix C
A p p e n d i x C
Breeding Bird List
Status Date
National Species Provincial Area- Species at at Risk in breeding sensitive May 31, June 16, June 23, June 10 and c Risk Ontario season (OMNR) 2017 2017 2017 26, 2019 COSEWICa Listinga SRANKb Common Name Scientific Name Botaurus American Bittern S4 A x lentiginosus Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias S4 2F
Canada Goose Branta canadensis S5 2 Anas Mallard S5 1 platyrhynchos Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura S5 4R
Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus S4 A F
Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis S5 A x Charadrius Killdeer S5 2 2 3 vociferus Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia S5 1
Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis S5 R 25F
Herring Gull Larus argentatus S5 R
Caspian Tern Sterna caspia S3 R 3L
Page C-1
Appendix C
Status Date
National Species Provincial Area- Species at at Risk in breeding sensitive May 31, June 16, June 23, June 10 and c Risk Ontario season (OMNR) 2017 2017 2017 26, 2019 COSEWICa Listinga SRANKb Common Name Scientific Name Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura S5 1
Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon S4 1F Empidonax Alder Flycatcher S5 1 alnorum Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe S5 1 1 Great Crested Myiarchus crinitus S4 1 Flycatcher Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus S4 2 5 1 1
Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica THR THR S4 3 6
Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata S5 1 Corvus American Crow S5 1 1F brachyrhynchos Black-capped Poecile atricapillus S5 2 1 1 Chickadee House Wren Troglodytes aedon S5 1 1 1 1 Cistothorus Sedge Wren S4 x platensis American Robin Turdus migratorius S5 3 3 1 3 Dumetella Gray Catbird S4 1 3 1 carolinensis Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum S4 2 1
Page C-2
Appendix C
Status Date
National Species Provincial Area- Species at at Risk in breeding sensitive May 31, June 16, June 23, June 10 and c Risk Ontario season (OMNR) 2017 2017 2017 26, 2019 COSEWICa Listinga SRANKb Common Name Scientific Name Bombycilla Cedar Waxwing S5 1 1 cedrorum Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus S5 1 1 Setophaga Yellow Warbler S5 7 6 3 5 petechia Chestnut-sided Setophaga S5 2 Warbler pensylvanica Setophaga Magnolia Warbler S5 A F magnolia American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla S5 A 1 Common Geothlyphis trichas S5 1 1 1 3 Yellowthroat Wilson's Warbler Cardellina pusilla S4 F Pipilio Eastern Towhee S4 1 1 1 1 erythrophthalmus Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina S5 2 1 2 Clay-colored Spizella pallida S4 1 2 Sparrow Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla S4 2 2 1 5 Passerculus Savannah Sparrow S4 A 5 7 6 4 sandwichensis Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia S5 13 15 6 7 Red-winged Agelaius S4 3 1 1 Blackbird phoeniceus
Page C-3
Appendix C
Status Date
National Species Provincial Area- Species at at Risk in breeding sensitive May 31, June 16, June 23, June 10 and c Risk Ontario season (OMNR) 2017 2017 2017 26, 2019 COSEWICa Listinga SRANKb Common Name Scientific Name Eastern Sturnella magna THR THR S4 A 1F Meadowlark Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula S5 1 2 Brown-headed Molothrus ater S4 2 1 1 2 Cowbird Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula S4 1 1 American Spinus tristis S5 2 1 2 Goldfinch a COSEWIC = Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada a Species at Risk in Ontario List (as applies to ESA) as designated by COSSARO (Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario) END = Endangered, THR = Threatened, SC = Special Concern b SRANK (from Natural Heritage Information Centre) for breeding status if: S1 (Critically Imperiled), S2 (Imperiled), S3 (Vulnerable), S4 (Apparently Secure), S5 (Secure) SNA (Not applicable…'because the species is not a suitable target for conservation activities'; includes non-native species) c Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2000. Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (Appendix G). 151 p plus appendices.
F - Species flying over or foraging on the subject property R - Species roosting on the subject property L - Species loafing on the subject property x - Species heard calling outside of subject property
Page C-4
Appendix D
MECP Correspondence
Anna Corrigan
From: Charette, Monique (MECP)
Dear Mr. Ward,
The Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) has reviewed the information provided in the Information Gathering Form, Avoidance Alternatives Form and the original and revised applications for an overall permit submitted by Beacon Environmental on September 6th, 2018 and July 15th, 2019, to assess the potential impacts of the Pebble Beach East Campground proposal on Little Brown Myotis protected under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA).
Based on our review of the project documentation and information that has been provided, the MECP has determined that the activities associated with the project, as currently proposed, will likely not contravene section 9 (species protection) and/or section 10 (habitat protection) of the Endangered Species Act, 2007.
Should any of the project activities change, please notify MECP immediately to obtain advice on whether the changes require authorization under the ESA. Failure to carry out this project as described could potentially result in contravention of the ESA. Please be advised that it is your responsibility to be aware of and comply with all other relevant provincial or federal requirements, municipal by-laws or required approvals from other agencies.
We note that Fourward Holdings Inc. has committed to mitigation measures being implemented as part of the project to ensure that unanticipated impacts to Little Brown Myotis and its habitat do not occur. We encourage Fourward Holdings Inc. to carry out such mitigation measures and other best management practices as it deems appropriate. Further, it is recommended that Fourward Holdings Inc. continue to monitor for Little Brown Myotis activity during the course of site development to document changes, in the event that there should be any.
Our position here is based on the information that has been provided by Beacon Environmental submitted on behalf of Fourward Holdings. Should information not have been made available and considered in our review or new information comes to light that changes the conclusions, or if on-site conditions and circumstances change so as to alter the basis for conclusions, please contact the Species at Risk Branch as soon as possible to discuss next steps.
We want to thank Fourward Holdings Inc. and its team for its cooperation in ensuring the protection of species at risk, and we hope that the project is a success.
Monique Charette Management Biologist Permissions and Compliance Section, Species At Risk Branch Land and Water Division Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
1 51 Heakes Lane, Kingston ON K7M 9B1 (613) 583-3162 [email protected]
2
Appendix E
S pecies at Risk Screening Table f o r t h e Subject Property and Adjacent Lands
Appendix E
A p p e n d i x E
Species at Risk Screening Table for the Subject Property and Adjacent Lands
Potentially Suitable Habitat ESA SARA COSEWIC Species Preferred Habitat1, 2 Known Species Range1, 2 Present within the Subject Likelihood of Presence Status Status Status Property or Adjacent Lands Bald Eagle SC No Status No Status Bald Eagles nest in a variety of habitats and forest types, almost always near Bald Eagles are widely distributed throughout North America. In Ontario, they Yes Not present Haliaeetus a major lake or river where they do most of their hunting. While fish are their nest throughout the north, with the highest density in the northwest near Lake Potentially suitable habitat is present (species not located during leucocephalus main source of food, Bald Eagles can easily catch prey up to the size of of the Woods. Historically they were also relatively common in southern on and adjacent to the subject targeted field surveys in 2017 and ducks, and frequently feed on dead animals, including White-tailed Deer. Ontario, especially along the shore of Lake Erie, but this population was all but property 2019) They usually nest in large trees such as pine and poplar. During the winter, wiped out 50 years ago. After an intensive re-introduction program and Bald Eagles sometimes congregate near open water such as the St. environmental clean-up efforts, the species has rebounded and can once Lawrence River, or in places with a high deer population where carcasses again be seen in much of its former southern Ontario range. might be found. Bank Swallow THR THR THR Bank Swallows nest in burrows in natural and human-made settings where The Bank Swallow is found all across southern Ontario, with sparser Yes Not Present Riparia riparia Schedule 1 there are vertical faces in silt and sand deposits. Many nests are on banks of populations scattered across northern Ontario. The largest populations are Potentially suitable habitat is present (species not located during rivers and lakes, but they are also found in active sand and gravel pits or found along the Lake Erie and Lake Ontario shorelines, and the Saugeen within the exposed banks along the targeted field surveys in 2017 and former ones where the banks remain suitable. The birds breed in colonies River (which flows into Lake Huron). Lake Ontario shoreline. 2019) ranging from several to a few thousand pairs. Barn Swallow THR THR THR Barn Swallows often live in close association with humans, building their cup- The Barn Swallow may be found throughout southern Ontario and can range Yes Present Hirundo rustica Schedule 1 shaped mud nests almost exclusively on human-made structures such as as far north as Hudson Bay, wherever suitable locations for nests exist. Potentially suitable habitat may be (species located during targeted open barns, under bridges and in culverts. The species is attracted to open present within the anthropogenic field surveys in 2017) structures that include ledges where they can build their nests, which are habitat on the subject property. often re-used from year to year. They prefer unpainted, rough-cut wood, since the mud does not adhere as well to smooth surfaces. Black Tern SC No Status No Status Black Terns build floating nests in loose colonies in shallow marshes, In Ontario, Black Terns are found scattered throughout the province, but breed Yes Not Present Chlidonias niger especially in cattails. In winter they migrate to the coast of northern South mainly in the marshes along the edges of the Great Lakes. Potentially suitable habitat is present (species not located during America. within the Soup Harbour PSW targeted field surveys in 2017 and adjacent to the subject property. 2019, but could be utilizing portions of the PSW that were not surveyed) Bobolink THR THR THR Historically, Bobolinks lived in North American tallgrass prairie and other The Bobolink breeds across North America. In Ontario, it is widely distributed Yes Not Present Dolichonyx Schedule 1 open meadows. With the clearing of native prairies, Bobolinks moved to throughout most of the province south of the boreal forest, although it may be Potentially suitable habitat may be (species not located during oryzivorus living in hayfields. Bobolinks often build their small nests on the ground in found in the north where suitable habitat exists. present within the field habitat on the targeted field surveys in 2017 and dense grasses. Both parents usually tend to their young, sometimes with a subject property. 2019) third Bobolink helping. Eastern THR THR THR Eastern Meadowlarks breed primarily in moderately tall grasslands, such as In Ontario, the Eastern Meadowlark is primarily found south of the Canadian Yes Not Present Meadowlark Schedule 1 pastures and hayfields, but are also found in alfalfa fields, weedy borders of Shield but it also inhabits the Lake Nipissing, Timiskaming and Lake of the Potentially suitable habitat may be (species not located during Sturnella magna croplands, roadsides, orchards, airports, shrubby overgrown fields, or other Woods areas. present within the field habitat on the targeted field surveys in 2017, but open areas. Small trees, shrubs or fence posts are used as elevated song subject property. was noted as possibly breeding in perches. the field west of the subject property in 2019) Eastern Whip- THR THR THR The Eastern Whip-poor-will is usually found in areas with a mix of open and The Eastern Whip-poor-will's breeding range includes two widely separate Yes Not Present poor-will Schedule 1 forested areas, such as savannahs, open woodlands or openings in more areas. It breeds throughout much of eastern North America, reaching as far Potentially suitable habitat is present (species not located during Caprimulgus mature, deciduous, coniferous and mixed forests. It forages in these open north as southern Canada and also from the southwest United States to within the forested and open habitat evening field surveys in 2017 or vociferus areas and uses forested areas for roosting (resting and sleeping) and Honduras. In Canada, the Whip-poor-will can be found from east-central on the subject property. breeding bird surveys in 2017 and nesting. It lays its eggs directly on the forest floor, where its colouring means Saskatchewan to central Nova Scotia and in Ontario they breed as far north as 2019) it will easily remain undetected by visual predators. the shore of Lake Superior.
Page E-1
Appendix E
Potentially Suitable Habitat ESA SARA COSEWIC Species Preferred Habitat1, 2 Known Species Range1, 2 Present within the Subject Likelihood of Presence Status Status Status Property or Adjacent Lands Eastern Wood- SC SC SC The Eastern Wood-pewee lives in the mid-canopy layer of forest clearings The eastern wood-pewee is found across most of southern and central Yes Not present Pewee Schedule 1 and edges of deciduous and mixed forests. It is most abundant in Ontario, and in northern Ontario as far north as Red Lake, Lake Nipigon and Potentially suitable habitat is present (species not located during Contopus virens intermediate-age mature forest stands with little understory vegetation. Timmins. within the forested habitat on and targeted field surveys in 2017 and adjacent to the subject property. 2019) Grasshopper SC SC SC It lives in open grassland areas with well-drained, sandy soil. It will also nest The Grasshopper Sparrow can be found throughout southern Ontario, but only Yes Not present Sparrow Schedule 1 in hayfields and pasture, as well as alvars, prairies and occasionally grain occasionally on the Canadian Shield. It is most common where grasslands, Potentially suitable habitat may be (species not located during Ammodramus crops such as barley. It prefers areas that are sparsely vegetated. Its nests hay or pasture dominate the landscape. present within the field habitat on and targeted field surveys in 2017 and savannarum are well-hidden in the field and woven from grasses in a small cup-like adjacent to the subject property. 2019) shape. King Rail END END END King Rails are found in densely vegetated freshwater marshes with open King Rails reach their northern limit in southern Ontario, where they are quite Yes Not Present Rallus elegans Schedule 1 shallow water that merges with shrubby areas. They are sometimes found in rare. Recent province-wide surveys suggest there are only about 30 pairs left, Potentially suitable habitat is present (species not located during smaller isolated marshes but most seem to prefer larger, coastal wetlands. the majority of which are in the large wetlands bordering Lake St. Clair. Most within the Soup Harbour PSW targeted field surveys in 2017 and Its nest is a dinner-plate sized platform made of plant material, placed just of the remainder are found in several key coastal marshes along Lakes Erie adjacent to the subject property. 2019, but could be utilizing portions above the water in shrubs or clumps of other marsh plants. and Ontario. of the PSW that were not surveyed) Least Bittern THR THR THR In Ontario, the Least Bittern is found in a variety of wetland habitats, but In Ontario, the Least Bittern is mostly found south of the Canadian Shield, Yes Not Present Ixobrychus exilis Schedule 1 strongly prefers cattail marshes with a mix of open pools and channels. This especially in the central and eastern part of the province. Small numbers also Potentially suitable habitat is present (species not located during bird builds its nest above the marsh water in stands of dense vegetation, breed occasionally in northwest Ontario. This species has disappeared from within the Soup Harbour PSW targeted field surveys in 2017 and hidden among the cattails. The nests are almost always built near open much of its former range, especially in southwestern Ontario, where wetland adjacent to the subject property. 2019, but could be utilizing portions water, which is needed for foraging. This species eats mostly frogs, small loss has been most severe. In winter, Least Bitterns migrate to the southern of the PSW that were not fish, and aquatic insects. United States, Mexico and Central America. surveyed) Loggerhead END END END In Ontario, the Loggerhead Shrike prefers pasture or other grasslands with The Loggerhead Shrike currently breeds in central and western North No - Shrike Schedule 1 scattered low trees and shrubs. It lives in fields or alvars (areas of exposed America. Until the 1970s, the Loggerhead Shrike could be found at many Potentially suitable habitat is not Lanius bedrock) with short grass, which makes it easier to spot prey. It builds its locations throughout southern Ontario and other parts of northeastern North present on the subject property or ludovicianus nest in small trees or shrubs and hunts by waiting patiently in tree branches America, but it has declined dramatically. Although the occasional bird is still adjacent lands. until it swoops down and attacks its unsuspecting prey – usually large found within the broader former range, most remaining Loggerhead Shrikes insects, such as grasshoppers. Loggerhead Shrikes also require spiny, multi- are now found in two core grassland habitats - the Carden Plain north of branched shrubs where they can impale prey before eating it. Barbed wired Lindsay, and the Napanee Limestone Plain. Every fall these birds migrate to fencing can also be used for this. the southern United States for the winter. Piping Plover END END END Piping Plovers nest exclusively on dry sandy or gravelly beaches just above In North America, the Piping Plover primarily breeds along the Atlantic coast, Yes Not Present Charadrius Schedule 1 the reach of high water and waves. When not migrating, this bird spends the western Great Lakes and along wetlands, rivers and lakes in the northern Potentially suitable habitat is present (species not located during melodus virtually all of its time between the water’s edge and the back of the beach. It Great Plains. In Ontario, although never common, they breed along the shores within the Soup Harbour PSW targeted field surveys in 2017 and pecks the sand and searches small pools of water for food - mostly insects of the Great Lakes, and at Lake of the Woods in northwestern Ontario. adjacent to the subject property. 2019, but could be utilizing portions and small crustaceans. of the PSW that were not surveyed) Red Knot rufa END END END The Red knot is a plump, medium-sized shorebird (about 23-25 centimetres The Red knot rufa subspecies only occurs in Ontario during migration, where it No - subspecies Schedule 1 long) named for its brick-red face, throat and breast when in breeding may feed and rest on beaches. The coastal mudflats along the southwest Potentially suitable habitat is not Calidris canutus plumage. Red knot rufa subspecies breeds within the central Canadian coast of Hudson Bay and James Bay in northern Ontario are very important present on the subject property or rufa Arctic. staging sites (where birds stop to refuel) during both spring and fall migration. adjacent lands.
They prefer open beaches, mudflats, and coastal lagoons, where they feast on molluscs, crustaceans, and other invertebrates. They are also regularly seen in small numbers during the fall in southern Ontario, usually along Great Lakes beaches and mudflats. Occasionally, large flocks have been seen in spring at select eastern Ontario beaches, such as Presqu’ile Provincial Park and Amherst Island, when birds flying non-stop from Delaware Bay to James Bay are forced to land because of bad weather. Red-headed SC THR END The Red-headed Woodpecker lives in open woodland and woodland edges, The Red-headed Woodpecker is found across southern Ontario, where it is No - Woodpecker Schedule 1 and is often found in parks, golf courses and cemeteries. These areas widespread but rare. Outside Ontario, it lives in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Potentially suitable habitat is not Melanerpes typically have many dead trees, which the bird uses for nesting and perching. Manitoba and Quebec, and is relatively common in the United States. present on the subject property. erythrocephalus This woodpecker regularly winters in the United States, moving to locations
Page E-2
Appendix E
Potentially Suitable Habitat ESA SARA COSEWIC Species Preferred Habitat1, 2 Known Species Range1, 2 Present within the Subject Likelihood of Presence Status Status Status Property or Adjacent Lands where it can find sufficient acorns and beechnuts to eat. A few of these birds will stay the winter in woodlands in southern Ontario if there are adequate supplies of nuts. Wood Thrush SC THR THR The Wood Thrush lives in mature deciduous and mixed (conifer-deciduous) The wood thrush is found all across southern Ontario. It is also found, but less Yes Not present Hylocichla Schedule 1 forests. They seek moist stands of trees with well-developed undergrowth common, along the north shore of Lake Huron, as far west as the Potentially suitable habitat is present (species not located during mustelina and tall trees for singing perches. These birds prefer large forests, but will southeastern tip of Lake Superior. There is a very small population near Lake within the forested habitat on and targeted field surveys in 2017 and also use smaller stands of trees. They build their nests in living saplings, of the Woods in northwestern Ontario, and there have been scattered adjacent to the subject property. 2019) trees or shrubs, usually in sugar maple or American beech. sightings in the mixed forest of northern Ontario. American Eel END No Status THR Over the course of its life, the American Eel can be found in both salt and The American Eel starts life in the Sargasso Sea in the North Atlantic Ocean Yes Low Anguilla rostrata fresh water. In fact, some scientists consider the American Eel to have the and migrates along the east coast of North America. In Canada, it is found in Potentially suitable habitat is present There is suitable habitat and broadest diversity of habitats of any fish species in the world. fresh water and salt water areas that are accessible from the Atlantic Ocean. within the adjacent Lake Ontario. records in the local area, however This area extends from Niagara Falls in the Great Lakes up to the mid- there is no critical or limiting habitat Labrador coast. In Ontario, American Eels can be found as far inland as in the study area. Algonquin Park. Once the eels mature (10-25 years) they return to the Sargasso Sea to spawn. Bridle Shiner SC SC SC Bridle Shiners prefer clear, unpolluted streams, rivers and lakes which have The Bridle Shiner is found in eastern North America, extending from eastern Yes Low Notropis Schedule 1 an abundance of aquatic vegetation. These vegetated areas provide suitable Ontario east to Maine and south to South Carolina. In Ontario, it has been Potentially suitable habitat is present There is suitable habitat and recent bifrenatus spawning habitat and places to feed and hide from predators. Bridle Shiners identified at 17 sites in the eastern Lake Ontario drainage and the St. within the adjacent Soup Harbour records in the local area however prefer warm water habitats where the bottom is either sand, silt or organic Lawrence River. PSW. no records from the species in debris, which is necessary for the establishment of aquatic vegetation. Soup Harbour PSW. Eastern Sand END THR THR The Eastern Sand Darter prefers shallow habitats in lakes, streams, and In Ontario, the Eastern Sand Darter is still found in Lake St. Clair, Lake Erie, No - Darter Schedule 1 rivers with clean, sandy bottoms. It often buries itself completely in the sand. Big Creek and in the Grand, Sydenham and Thames rivers. The species may Potentially suitable habitat is not Ammocrypta It feeds on aquatic insects, but due to its small mouth is limited in the size of have disappeared from several other rivers in southwestern Ontario. present on the subject property or pellucida prey it can eat. adjacent lands. Grass Pickerel SC SC SC Grass Pickerel are found in wetlands, ponds, slow-moving streams and In Ontario, Grass Pickerel is found in coastal wetlands in the Great Lakes and Yes Low Esox americanus Schedule 1 shallow bays of larger lakes with warm, shallow, clear water and an tributaries of Lake St. Clair, Lake Erie, Lake Huron, the Niagara River, Lake Potentially suitable habitat is present There is suitable habitat and recent vermiculatus abundance of aquatic plants. Ontario and the St. Lawrence River, and inland in the Severn River system. within the adjacent Soup Harbour records in the local area however PSW. no records from the species in Soup Harbour PSW. Lake Sturgeon END No Status THR The Lake Sturgeon lives almost exclusively in freshwater lakes and rivers In Ontario, the Lake Sturgeon is found in the rivers of the Hudson Bay basin, Yes Low (Great Lakes- with soft bottoms of mud, sand or gravel. They are usually found at depths of the Great Lakes basin and their major connecting waterways, including the St. Potentially suitable habitat is present There is suitable habitat and Upper St. five to 20 metres. They spawn in relatively shallow, fast-flowing water Lawrence River. There are three distinct populations in Ontario: Great Lakes - within the adjacent Lake Ontario. records in the local area, however Lawrence River (usually below waterfalls, rapids, or dams) with gravel and boulders at the Upper St. Lawrence River, Northwestern Ontario, and Southern Hudson Bay - there is no critical or limiting habitat population) bottom. However, they will spawn in deeper water where habitat is available. James Bay. in the study area. Acipenser They also are known to spawn on open shoals in large rivers with strong fulvescens currents. Pugnose Shiner THR THR THR The Pugnose Shiner is found in lakes and calm areas of rivers and creeks In Canada, the Pugnose Shiner is found only at a few sites in southern Yes Low Notropis Schedule 1 having clear water and bottoms of sand, mud or organic matter. It prefers Ontario, including the Teeswater River, the old Ausable Channel, the Trent Potentially suitable habitat is present There is suitable habitat and recent anogenus water bodies with plenty of aquatic vegetation, particularly stonewort (Chara River and a few coastal wetlands in Lake St. Clair (and some tributaries), Lake within the adjacent Soup Harbour records in the local area however sp.). Aquatic plants provide hiding places, food, and breeding habitat. The Erie, lower Lake Huron, Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. The PSW. no records from the species in Pugnose Shiner eats aquatic plants, green algae, plankton and some aquatic population sizes at these sites are unknown. Soup Harbour PSW. insects. Eastern Small- END No Status No Status In the spring and summer, eastern small-footed bats will roost in a variety of The Eastern Small-footed bat has been found from south of Georgian Bay to Yes Not Present footed Myotis habitats, including in or under rocks, in rock outcrops, in buildings, under Lake Erie and east to the Pembroke area. There are also records from the Potentially suitable habitat is present (species not located during (Bat) bridges, or in caves, mines, or hollow trees. These bats often change their Bruce Peninsula, the Espanola area, and Lake Superior Provincial Park. Most within the forested habitat on and targeted field surveys in 2017) Myotis leibii roosting locations every day. At night, they hunt for insects to eat, including documented sightings are of bats in their winter hibernation sites. adjacent to the subject property. beetles, mosquitos, moths, and flies. In the winter, these bats hibernate, most often in caves and abandoned mines. They seem to choose colder and drier sites than similar bats and will return to the same spot each year.
Page E-3
Appendix E
Potentially Suitable Habitat ESA SARA COSEWIC Species Preferred Habitat1, 2 Known Species Range1, 2 Present within the Subject Likelihood of Presence Status Status Status Property or Adjacent Lands Little Brown END END END Bats are nocturnal. During the day they roost in trees and buildings. They The Little Brown Myotis is widespread in southern Ontario and found as far Yes Present Myotis Schedule 1 often select attics, abandoned buildings and barns for summer colonies north as Moose Factory and Favourable Lake. Outside Ontario, this bat is Potentially suitable habitat is present (species located within forested (Bat) where they can raise their young. Bats can squeeze through very tiny spaces found across Canada (except in Nunavut) and most of the United States. within the forested habitat on and features during targeted field Myotis lucifugus (as small as six millimetres across) and this is how they access many adjacent to the subject property. surveys in 2017) roosting areas. Little brown bats hibernate from October or November to March or April, most often in caves or abandoned mines that are humid and remain above freezing. This species can typically be associated with any community where suitable roosting (i.e. cavity trees, houses, abandoned buildings, barns, etc.) habitat is available. Northern Myotis END END END Northern Myotis bats are associated with boreal forests, choosing to roost The Northern Myotis is found throughout forested areas in southern Ontario, to Yes Not present (Bat) Schedule 1 under loose bark and in the cavities of trees. These bats hibernate from the north shore of Lake Superior and occasionally as far north as Moosonee, Potentially suitable habitat is present (species not located during Myotis October or November to March or April, most often in caves or abandoned and west to Lake Nipigon. within the forested habitat on and targeted field surveys in 2017) septentrionalis mines. adjacent to the subject property. Tricoloured Bat END END END Tricoloured Bat inhabits a variety of forested communities, and will roost Tricoloured Bat is found in southern Ontario, where its northern limit is in Yes Not Present Perimyotis Schedule 1 older forests and barns (or other structures). Foraging habitats include areas proximity to Sudbury. Due to its rarity, their distribution is scattered. Potentially suitable habitat is present (species not located during subflavus over water and streams. They hibernate in cave where they typically roost within the forested habitat on and targeted field surveys in 2017) independently rather than in groups. adjacent to the subject property. Eastern SC SC SC The Eastern Pondmussel is typically found in sheltered areas of lakes and in In North America, the Eastern Pondmussel was once one of the most common Yes Low Pondmussel Schedule 1 slow-moving areas of rivers and canals with sand or mud bottoms. All mussels in the lower Great Lakes. In Canada, there are now only two known Potentially suitable habitat is present There is suitable habitat and recent Ligumia nasuta mussels filter water to find food, such as bacteria and algae. Mussel larvae populations: one in the delta area of Lake St. Clair and the second in Lyn within the adjacent Soup Harbour records in the local area however must attach to a fish (called a “host”), where they consume nutrients from the Creek, a small tributary of the upper St. Lawrence River. PSW. no records from the species in fish body until they transform into juvenile mussels and drop off the fish host. Soup Harbour PSW. It is not known which species of fish act as hosts for the Eastern Pondmussel. American Ginseng END END END In Ontario, American Ginseng typically grows in rich, moist, but well-drained, American Ginseng ranges from Louisiana and Georgia north to New England No - Panax Schedule 1 and relatively mature, deciduous woods dominated by Sugar Maple (Acer and Minnesota. In Canada, it is found in southwestern Quebec and southern Potentially suitable habitat is not quinquefolius saccharum), White Ash (Fraxinus americana) and American Basswood (Tilia Ontario. present on the subject property or americana). adjacent lands.
It usually grows in deep, nutrient rich soil over limestone or marble bedrock. Swamp Rose- SC SC SC In Ontario, Swamp Rose-mallow is restricted to shoreline marshes, in the The Swamp Rose-mallow range in North America extends from the lower Yes Not Present mallow Schedule 1 Carolinian and Great Lakes - St. Lawrence forest regions, associated with Great Lakes region south to Florida and west to New Mexico. It may be Potentially suitable habitat is present (species not located during Hibiscus lakes Erie, Ontario or St. Clair. Swamp Rose-mallow is most commonly adventive (introduced and locally common) farther west. In Ontario, it has within the Soup Harbour PSW targeted field surveys in 2017 and moscheutos found in deep-water cattail marshes and in meadow marshes. It reaches its been found at approximately 60 to 70 sites and is believed to currently occur adjacent to the subject property. 2019, but could be utilizing portions greatest numbers in dyked wetlands, where competition from other plants is at about 50 sites. Most sites are in coastal marshes of Lake Erie and Lake St. of the PSW that were not controlled and the open habitat is maintained by periodic flooding. It is also Clair. However, in the last 15 years, plants have colonized sites on the shores surveyed) found in open wet woods, thickets, spoil banks, and drainage ditches. of Lake Ontario, expanding the distribution northwards. The species has also been introduced to Europe where it is locally common. Blanding’s Turtle THR THR END Blanding's Turtles live in shallow water, usually in large wetlands and shallow The Blanding's Turtle is found in and around the Great Lakes Basin, with Yes Low Emydoidea Schedule 1 lakes with lots of water plants. It is not unusual, though, to find them isolated populations elsewhere in the United States and Canada. In Canada, Potentially suitable habitat is present (species not located during field blandingii hundreds of metres from the nearest water body, especially while they are the Blanding's Turtle is separated into the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence within the Soup Harbour PSW surveys in 2017 and 2019, but searching for a mate or traveling to a nesting site. Blanding's Turtles population and the Nova Scotia population. Blanding's Turtles can be found adjacent to the subject property. could be utilizing portions of the hibernate in the mud at the bottom of permanent water bodies from late throughout southern, central and eastern Ontario. PSW that were not surveyed) October until the end of April. Eastern Hog- THR THR THR The Eastern Hog-nosed Snake specializes in hunting and eating toads, and The Eastern Hog-nosed Snake is only found in eastern North America, with Yes Very Low nosed Snake Schedule 1 usually only occurs where toads can be found. Eastern Hog-nosed Snakes about ten per cent of its range occurring in Canada. The Canadian population Potentially suitable habitat is present (species not located during field Heterodon prefer sandy, well-drained habitats such as beaches and dry forests where is limited to Ontario where it can be found in two areas: The Carolinian Region within the forested habitat on and surveys in 2017 and 2019, and platirhinos they can lay their eggs and hibernate. They use their up-turned snout to dig and Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Region. adjacent to the subject property. species record was made prior to burrows below the frost line in the sand where eggs are deposited. 1999) Eastern Musk SC SC SC Eastern Musk Turtles are found in ponds, lakes, marshes and rivers that are In Canada, the Eastern Musk Turtle is found mostly along the southern edge Yes Low Turtle Schedule 1 generally slow-moving have abundant emergent vegetation and muddy of the Canadian Shield in Ontario and Quebec. In Ontario, it also occurs at Potentially suitable habitat is present (species not located during field
Page E-4
Appendix E
Potentially Suitable Habitat ESA SARA COSEWIC Species Preferred Habitat1, 2 Known Species Range1, 2 Present within the Subject Likelihood of Presence Status Status Status Property or Adjacent Lands (Stinkpot) bottoms that they burrow into for winter hibernation. Nesting habitat is various locations throughout southwestern and eastern Ontario. The limited within the Soup Harbour PSW surveys in 2017 and 2019, but Sternotherus variable, but it must be close to the water and exposed to direct sunlight. data available indicate that the stinkpot has disappeared from much of its adjacent to the subject property. could be utilizing portions of the odoratus Nesting females dig shallow excavations in soil, decaying vegetation and original range in southwestern Ontario. PSW that were not surveyed) rotting wood or lay eggs in muskrat lodges, on the open ground or in rock crevices. Northern Map SC SC SC The Northern Map Turtle inhabits rivers and lakeshores where it basks on The Northern Map Turtle's range extends from the Great Lakes region west to Yes Low Turtle Schedule 1 emergent rocks and fallen trees throughout the spring and summer. In Oklahoma and Kansas, south to Louisiana and east to the Adirondack and Potentially suitable habitat is present (species not located during field Graptemys winter, the turtles hibernate on the bottom of deep, slow-moving sections of Appalachian mountain barrier. There are isolated populations in New Jersey within Lake Ontario and its gravel surveys in 2017 and 2019, and the geographica river. They require high-quality water that supports the female’s mollusc prey. and New York states. In Canada, it is found in southwestern Quebec and shoreline. recent records in the local area are Their habitat must contain suitable basking sites, such as rocks and southern Ontario. In southern Ontario, it lives primarily on the shores of not from Lake Ontario directly deadheads, with an unobstructed view from which a turtle can drop Georgian Bay, Lake St. Clair, Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, and along larger adjacent to the subject property) immediately into the water if startled. rivers including the Thames, Grand and Ottawa. Snapping Turtle SC SC SC Snapping Turtles spend most of their lives in water. They prefer shallow The Snapping Turtle’s range extends from Ecuador to Canada. In Canada this Yes Moderate Chelydra Schedule 1 waters so they can hide under the soft mud and leaf litter, with only their turtle can be found from Saskatchewan to Nova Scotia. It is primarily limited to Potentially suitable habitat is present (species not located during field serpentina noses exposed to the surface to breathe. During the nesting season, from the southern part of Ontario. The Snapping Turtle’s range is contracting. within the Soup Harbour PSW surveys in 2017 and 2019) early to mid summer, females travel overland in search of a suitable nesting adjacent to the subject property. site, usually gravelly or sandy areas along streams. Snapping Turtles often take advantage of man-made structures for nest sites, including roads (especially gravel shoulders), dams and aggregate pits. Spiny Softshell END END END Spiny softshells are highly aquatic turtles that rarely travel far from water. In Canada, the Spiny softshell is found only in Quebec and southwestern Yes Very Low Apalone spinifera Schedule 1 They are found primarily in rivers and lakes but also in creeks and even Ontario in the Lake St. Clair, Lake Erie and western Lake Ontario watersheds. Potentially suitable habitat is present (species not located during field ditches and ponds near rivers. Key habitat requirements are open sand or The majority of Spiny softshells in Ontario are found in the Thames and within Lake Ontario and its gravel surveys in 2017 and 2019) gravel nesting areas, shallow muddy or sandy areas to bury in, deep pools Sydenham rivers and at two sites in Lake Erie. The size of the home range of shoreline. for hibernation, areas for basking, and suitable habitat for crayfish and other this turtle depends on availability of habitat features such as nesting and food species. These habitat features may be distributed over an extensive hibernation sites. Some turtles travel up to 30 kilometres in a year from one area, as long as the intervening habitat doesn’t prevent the turtles from part of their home range to another. traveling between them. Bald Eagle SC No Status No Status Bald Eagles nest in a variety of habitats and forest types, almost always near Bald Eagles are widely distributed throughout North America. In Ontario, they Yes Not present Haliaeetus a major lake or river where they do most of their hunting. While fish are their nest throughout the north, with the highest density in the northwest near Lake Potentially suitable habitat is present (species not located during leucocephalus main source of food, Bald Eagles can easily catch prey up to the size of of the Woods. Historically they were also relatively common in southern on and adjacent to the subject targeted field surveys in 2017 and ducks, and frequently feed on dead animals, including White-tailed Deer. Ontario, especially along the shore of Lake Erie, but this population was all but property 2019) They usually nest in large trees such as pine and poplar. During the winter, wiped out 50 years ago. After an intensive re-introduction program and Bald Eagles sometimes congregate near open water such as the St. environmental clean-up efforts, the species has rebounded and can once Lawrence River, or in places with a high deer population where carcasses again be seen in much of its former southern Ontario range. might be found. Bank Swallow THR THR THR Bank Swallows nest in burrows in natural and human-made settings where The Bank Swallow is found all across southern Ontario, with sparser Yes Not Present Riparia riparia Schedule 1 there are vertical faces in silt and sand deposits. Many nests are on banks of populations scattered across northern Ontario. The largest populations are Potentially suitable habitat is present (species not located during rivers and lakes, but they are also found in active sand and gravel pits or found along the Lake Erie and Lake Ontario shorelines, and the Saugeen within the exposed banks along the targeted field surveys in 2017 and former ones where the banks remain suitable. The birds breed in colonies River (which flows into Lake Huron). Lake Ontario shoreline. 2019) ranging from several to a few thousand pairs. Barn Swallow THR THR THR Barn Swallows often live in close association with humans, building their cup- The Barn Swallow may be found throughout southern Ontario and can range Yes Present Hirundo rustica Schedule 1 shaped mud nests almost exclusively on human-made structures such as as far north as Hudson Bay, wherever suitable locations for nests exist. Potentially suitable habitat may be (species located during targeted open barns, under bridges and in culverts. The species is attracted to open present within the anthropogenic field surveys in 2017) structures that include ledges where they can build their nests, which are habitat on the subject property. often re-used from year to year. They prefer unpainted, rough-cut wood, since the mud does not adhere as well to smooth surfaces. Black Tern SC No Status No Status Black Terns build floating nests in loose colonies in shallow marshes, In Ontario, Black Terns are found scattered throughout the province, but breed Yes Not Present Chlidonias niger especially in cattails. In winter they migrate to the coast of northern South mainly in the marshes along the edges of the Great Lakes. Potentially suitable habitat is present (species not located during America. within the Soup Harbour PSW targeted field surveys in 2017 and adjacent to the subject property. 2019, but could be utilizing portions
Page E-5
Appendix E
Potentially Suitable Habitat ESA SARA COSEWIC Species Preferred Habitat1, 2 Known Species Range1, 2 Present within the Subject Likelihood of Presence Status Status Status Property or Adjacent Lands of the PSW that were not surveyed) Bobolink THR THR THR Historically, Bobolinks lived in North American tallgrass prairie and other The Bobolink breeds across North America. In Ontario, it is widely distributed Yes Not Present Dolichonyx Schedule 1 open meadows. With the clearing of native prairies, Bobolinks moved to throughout most of the province south of the boreal forest, although it may be Potentially suitable habitat may be (species not located during oryzivorus living in hayfields. Bobolinks often build their small nests on the ground in found in the north where suitable habitat exists. present within the field habitat on the targeted field surveys in 2017 and dense grasses. Both parents usually tend to their young, sometimes with a subject property. 2019) third Bobolink helping. Eastern THR THR THR Eastern Meadowlarks breed primarily in moderately tall grasslands, such as In Ontario, the Eastern Meadowlark is primarily found south of the Canadian Yes Not Present Meadowlark Schedule 1 pastures and hayfields, but are also found in alfalfa fields, weedy borders of Shield but it also inhabits the Lake Nipissing, Timiskaming and Lake of the Potentially suitable habitat may be (species not located during Sturnella magna croplands, roadsides, orchards, airports, shrubby overgrown fields, or other Woods areas. present within the field habitat on the targeted field surveys in 2017, but open areas. Small trees, shrubs or fence posts are used as elevated song subject property. was noted as possibly breeding in perches. the field west of the subject property in 2019) Eastern Whip- THR THR THR The Eastern Whip-poor-will is usually found in areas with a mix of open and The Eastern Whip-poor-will's breeding range includes two widely separate Yes Not Present poor-will Schedule 1 forested areas, such as savannahs, open woodlands or openings in more areas. It breeds throughout much of eastern North America, reaching as far Potentially suitable habitat is present (species not located during Caprimulgus mature, deciduous, coniferous and mixed forests. It forages in these open north as southern Canada and also from the southwest United States to within the forested and open habitat evening field surveys in 2017 or vociferus areas and uses forested areas for roosting (resting and sleeping) and Honduras. In Canada, the Whip-poor-will can be found from east-central on the subject property. breeding bird surveys in 2017 and nesting. It lays its eggs directly on the forest floor, where its colouring means Saskatchewan to central Nova Scotia and in Ontario they breed as far north as 2019) it will easily remain undetected by visual predators. the shore of Lake Superior. Eastern Wood- SC SC SC The Eastern Wood-pewee lives in the mid-canopy layer of forest clearings The eastern wood-pewee is found across most of southern and central Yes Not present Pewee Schedule 1 and edges of deciduous and mixed forests. It is most abundant in Ontario, and in northern Ontario as far north as Red Lake, Lake Nipigon and Potentially suitable habitat is present (species not located during Contopus virens intermediate-age mature forest stands with little understory vegetation. Timmins. within the forested habitat on and targeted field surveys in 2017 and adjacent to the subject property. 2019) Grasshopper SC SC SC It lives in open grassland areas with well-drained, sandy soil. It will also nest The Grasshopper Sparrow can be found throughout southern Ontario, but only Yes Not present Sparrow Schedule 1 in hayfields and pasture, as well as alvars, prairies and occasionally grain occasionally on the Canadian Shield. It is most common where grasslands, Potentially suitable habitat may be (species not located during Ammodramus crops such as barley. It prefers areas that are sparsely vegetated. Its nests hay or pasture dominate the landscape. present within the field habitat on and targeted field surveys in 2017 and savannarum are well-hidden in the field and woven from grasses in a small cup-like adjacent to the subject property. 2019) shape. Glossary EXP ESA - Extirpated - a species that no longer exists in the wild in Ontario but still occurs elsewhere. SARA - Extirpated - a wildlife species that no longer exists in the wild in Canada but exists elsewhere in the wild. END ESA - Endangered - a species facing imminent extinction or extirpation in Ontario which is a candidate for regulation under Ontario's Endangered Species Act. SARA - Endangered - a wildlife species that is facing imminent extirpation or extinction. THR ESA - Threatened - a species that is at risk of becoming endangered in Ontario if limiting factors are not reversed. SARA - Threatened - a wildlife species that is likely to become endangered if nothing is done to reverse the factors leading to its extirpation or extinction. SC ESA - Special Concern (formerly Vulnerable) - a species with characteristics that make it sensitive to human activities or natural events. SARA - Special Concern - a wildlife species that may become a threatened or an endangered species because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats. MNRF Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry ESA Endangered Species Act SARA Species at Risk Act (Federal) Schedule 1 The official list of species that are classified as extirpated, endangered, threatened, and of special concern. Schedule 2 Species listed in Schedule 2 are species that had been designated as endangered or threatened and have yet to be re-assessed by COSEWIC using revised criteria. Once these species have been re-assessed, they may be considered for inclusion in Schedule 1. Schedule 3 Species listed in Schedule 3 are species that had been designated as special concern and have yet to be re-assessed by COSEWIC using revised criteria. Once these species have been re-assessed, they may be considered for inclusion in Schedule 1. COSEWIC Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada - a committee of experts that assesses and designates which wild species are in some danger of disappearing from Canada. References 1 - Species at Risk . Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Species/index.html. © Queens Printer For Ontario, 2013. 2 - Species at Risk Status Reports. Committed on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/search/advSearchResults_e.cfm?stype=doc&docID=18.
Page E-6