GUIDING SOLUTIONS IN THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

Environmental Impact Study VineRidge Boutique Towns (Part of Lots 1 and 22, Concession SE of Carrying Place) Township of Hallowell Prince Edward County

Prepared For: FLC Group

Prepared By: Beacon Environmental Limited

Date: Project: September 2020 220103

M a r k h a m ❖ Bracebridge ❖ G u e l p h ❖ Peterborough ❖ B a r r i e www.beaconenviro.com

Environmental Impact Study VineRidge Boutique Towns Development, Prince Edward County

Table of Contents

page 1. Introduction ...... 1 2. Methodology ...... 1 2.1 Background and Policy Review ...... 1 2.2 Field Investigations ...... 2 2.2.1 Ecological Land Classification ...... 3 2.2.2 Drainage Features...... 3 2.2.3 Breeding Bird Surveys ...... 3 2.2.4 Endangered or Threatened Species Habitat Assessment ...... 3 3. Policy Review ...... 4 3.1 Provincial Policy Statement (2020) ...... 4 3.2 County of Prince Edward Official Plan (Office Consolidation, November 2006) ...... 5 3.3 Prince Edward County One Window Draft Official Plan (February 2018) ...... 5 3.4 Picton Urban Centre Secondary Plan (June 10, 2014)...... 7 3.5 Quinte Conservation ...... 8 3.6 Endangered Species Act (2007) ...... 8 4. Existing Conditions...... 9 4.1 Physiography, Topography and Local Site Context ...... 9 4.2 Aquatic Resources ...... 9 4.3 Terrestrial Resources ...... 12 4.3.1 Cultural and Anthropogenic Communities ...... 12 4.3.2 Forest Communities ...... 15 4.3.3 Floral Inventory ...... 15 4.3.4 Breeding Bird Inventory ...... 17 4.4 Endangered or Threatened Species Habitat Screening ...... 18 5. Natural Heritage Features and Constraints ...... 19 5.1.1 Wetlands ...... 19 5.1.2 Area of Natural and Scientific Interest...... 20 5.1.3 Alvars ...... 20 5.1.4 Significant Woodlands ...... 20 5.2 Species at Risk Habitat...... 22 5.3 Summary ...... 22 6. Proposed Development ...... 22 7. Impact Assessment and Mitigation ...... 23 7.1 Impact Assessment ...... 23 7.1.1 Potential Impacts at Time of Construction ...... 24 7.1.2 Potential Post-Construction Impacts ...... 24 7.2 Recommended Mitigation Measures ...... 25 7.2.1 Mitigation for Impacts at Time of Construction ...... 25

Environmental Impact Study VineRidge Boutique Towns Development, Prince Edward County

7.2.2 Mitigation for Post-construction Impacts ...... 27 8. Policy Conformity ...... 27 8.1 Provincial Policy Statement ...... 27 8.2 Upper and Lower Tier Official Plans ...... 28 8.3 Quinte Conservation ...... 28 8.4 Endangered Species Act (2007) ...... 28 9. Summary ...... 28 10. References ...... 30

F i g u r e s

Figure 1. Site Location ...... after page 2 Figure 2. Existing Conditions ...... after page 10 Figure 3. Proposed Development ...... after page 22

T a b l e s

Table 1. Summary of Field Investigations ...... 3 Table 2. S4 or High Coefficient of Conservation Species in CUW2b ...... 16 Table 3. Significant Woodland Analyses ...... 21

A p p e n d i c e s

Appendix A. Quinte Conservation Correspondence Appendix B. Potential Species at Risk Appendix C. Floral Inventory Appendix D. Breeding Bird Survey

Environmental Impact Study V i n e R i d g e Boutique Towns Development, Prince Edward County

1. Introduction

Beacon Environmental Limited (Beacon) has been retained by FLC Group to undertake an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) on Part of Lots 1 and 22, Concession SE of Carrying Place in support of future site alteration and re-development of the property. The development is called VineRidge Boutique Towns.

The subject property is an irregular shaped parcel of land encompassing an area of approximately 12.5 ha (31 ac) located east of the London Avenue and Inkerman Avenue intersection in the geographic Township of Hallowell in Picton, Prince Edward County (Figure 1), herein referred to as the subject property. The subject property is located in an area with low density residential land use and otherwise is surrounded by undeveloped lands.

The subject property currently contains approximately 38 residential dwellings and associated accessory buildings and vehicular access driveways. All existing developments are accessed off existing residential roads - Inkerman Avenue and Nery Avenue - which are private roads where situated on the property. A large portion of lands in centre of the subject property are undeveloped and consist of actively-managed, manicured grass. Treed areas are located on portions of the subject property on the south, east and north-east sides. Unevaluated wetlands have been identified on portions of treed areas on the subject property based on provincial datasets (Lands Information Ontario). An unnamed tributary within the Prince Edward County Watershed has been mapped south of the property. The Quinte Conservation - Macaulay Mountain Conservation Area is located north and east of subject property.

The subject property is located within the Prince Edward County Watershed and within the administrative jurisdiction of the Quinte Conservation. Given this geographic setting, the subject property is subject to the corresponding policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, the Prince Edward County Official Plan, the Picton Urban Centre Secondary Plan, and Quinte Conservation’s regulations and policies.

The purpose of this EIS is to document existing conditions, and to evaluate project conformance applicable natural heritage legislation and policy requirements. This EIS also identifies potential effects of the project on the natural environment and provides recommendations for mitigation measures.

2. Methodology

2.1 Background and Policy Review

Background information was gathered and reviewed at the outset of the project. This involved consideration of the following documents and information sources, as relevant to the subject property:

• Provincial Policy Statement (2020); • County of Prince Edward Official (Office Consolidation November, 2006); • Picton Urban Centre Secondary Plan (2014, Prince Edward County Official Plan Amendment No. 63);

Page 1

Environmental Impact Study V i n e R i d g e Boutique Towns Development, Prince Edward County

• Quinte Conservation’s regulations and policies; • Land Information Ontario and Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) resource information; and • The Endangered Species Act (2007).

Other sources of information such as current and historical aerial photographs, local topographic survey data, soil geology and physiography mapping were also reviewed prior to commencing field investigations. Further, Beacon’s background review also includes analysis of numerous information sources in a Geographic Information System (GIS) environment that facilitates an assessment of the likelihood that species at risk and other natural heritage features are present in an area of interest. This system allows Beacon to combine the most current information provided by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) through the Land Information Ontario (LIO) portal with GIS layers from other provincial and local datasets, including but not limited to, floral and faunal atlas data. This system enables the creation of a list of Species at Risk for which there are records or which might be expected to occur within 5 km of a location. All relevant layers can then be overlaid on the most recent high resolution ortho-imagery. The screening process helps identify areas that can then be targeted (for example, potential habitat) during the field program to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of on- site investigations.

Information sources reviewed, included but weren’t limited to:

• Provincially tracked species layer (1 km grid LIO dataset); • Ontario Reptile and Amphibian Atlas (ORAA); • Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas (OBBA); • Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) Data via the Make-A-Map application; • Species at risk range maps (Government of Ontario); • High resolution aerial photography of the property; • Natural and physical feature layers (e.g. topographic, wetland, waterbody, watercourse data), LIO and Aquatic Resource Area (ARA) datasets; and • Ontario Geological Survey (OGS) and soil physiography (Chapman and Putnam) datasets.

Beacon undertook consultation with Quinte Conservation planning staff on April 27, 2020 to discuss the subject property and associated natural heritage features. The subject of this discussion has been taken into consideration for this report. The email that followed a telephone call is provided in Appendix A.

2.2 Field Investigations

Field investigations on the subject property were undertaken by Beacon staff in spring and summer of 2020. Seasonal surveys included vegetation inventories, as well as wildlife and species at risk habitat assessments. Table 1 below lists the dates on which visits occurred.

Page 2

Subject Property Watercourse (MNRF 2019)

Site Location Figure 1

Inkerman Avenue Environmental Impact Study

Project: 220103 Last Revised: September 2020

Prepared by: BD Client: FLC Group Checked by: RC

Inset Map:

Contains information licensed under the Open Government License–Ontario Orthoimagery Baselayer: 2008 (FBS)

C:\Dropbox\Dropbox (Beacon)\All GIS Projects\2020\220103 Inkerman Ave EIS Picton\Q Project Files\2020-07-31 - Inkerman Ave EIS Picton - 220103.qgz

Environmental Impact Study V i n e R i d g e Boutique Towns Development, Prince Edward County

Table 1. Summary of Field Investigations

Surveys Undertaken Dates Aquatic Assessment April 9, 2020 Vegetation Community and Floral Survey April 9 and June 16, 2020 Breeding Bird Surveys June 6, June 16, July 1 2020 Bat Exit Surveys June 24, and July 7, 2020

2.2.1 Ecological Land Classification

Vegetation surveys and community mapping took place on April 9 with follow up surveys completed on June 16, 2020. Vegetation units within the study area were described and mapped on current colour ortho-photography of the lands using the Ecological Land Classification (ELC) system for southern Ontario (Lee et al. 1998). This is the standard method used for describing vegetation communities in southern Ontario.

2.2.2 Drainage Features

The locations and extent of any drainage features identified through the background review including provincial sources (Land Information Ontario / Ontario Hydro Network / MNRF Aquatic Resource Area), and local conservation authority (Quinte Conservation) database reviews, watershed studies, topographic data, and high resolution ortho-image interpretation were verified throughout the field investigation. Any additional features observed throughout the field investigation on April 9, 2020 and not previously identified in the background review were documented and included in the assessment.

2.2.3 Breeding Bird Surveys

Breeding birds were surveyed on June , June 16, and July 1, 2020. The visits to the Subject Property commenced between 5:00 am and 8:00 am, on days with low to moderate winds (0-3 on the Beaufort Scale), no precipitation, and temperatures within 5°C of the normal average. The entire property was walked and all birds heard and seen were recorded on an aerial photograph of the site, at the locations observed.

A number of residences and dilapidated accessory building structures were present on the Subject Property. Buildings within the Phase I development area (Figure 3) and were searched for Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica) nests on surfaces of anthropogenic structures.

2.2.4 Endangered or Threatened Species Habitat Assessment

Staff considered the potential habitat suitability for species of plants and animals which are subject to the Endangered Species Act and associated regulations, during the various site visits completed in spring and summer 2020.

Several provincially listed (endangered) bat species are present in Ontario. Wildlife are known to inhabit vacant and accessible buildings. The methodology of the MNRF Guelph District’s Bat and Bat Habitat

Page 3

Environmental Impact Study V i n e R i d g e Boutique Towns Development, Prince Edward County

Surveys of Treed Habitats Guideline, 2017 was implemented to determine the potential for suitable bat habitat to occur within the Subject Property. That document describes deciduous and mixed treed communities such as woodlands and treed swamps as potential habitat warranting further study. These community types are not present within the Subject Property; however, During the April 9 field investigations, it was determined that three buildings located in the Phase I development area, may provide suitable roosting habitat for endangered bats.

Bat exit surveys were undertaken on June 24 and July 07, 2020 under suitable conditions for bat monitoring. Surveys commenced approximately half an hour before sunset. An EMTouch plug-in device for Tablets/iPads were used to record echolocations of local bat populations. The echolocation data recorded by the monitor was analyzed using KaleidoscopePro software. This specialized software analyzes the frequency and tones of the calls using algorithms which then are able to identify the species. It should be noted that the software analyzes the quality of the recorded call in order to assign a level of confidence to the species identification.

3. Policy Review

A policy review was undertaken to identify environmental planning considerations and requirements, as applicable to the subject property.

3.1 Provincial Policy Statement (2020)

The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) was issued under Section 3 of the Planning Act, RSO 1990, c P.13 and all decisions affecting land use planning matters “shall be consistent with” the PPS. The 2020 PPS published by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH), came into effect on May 1, 2020.

Section 2.1 of the PPS provides direction to regional and local municipalities regarding planning policies specifically for the protection and management of natural heritage features and resources. The PPS defines natural heritage features and provides associated planning policies.

The Natural Heritage Reference Manual (MNR 2010) is a technical document used to help assess the natural environment to identify natural heritage or significant features and areas, as defined by the PPS. The natural heritage policies outlined in Section 2.1 of the PPS relate to the following features:

• Significant wetlands; • Significant coastal wetlands; • Significant woodlands; • Significant valleylands; • Significant wildlife habitat; • Significant Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs); • Fish habitat; and • Habitat of endangered and threatened species.

Page 4

Environmental Impact Study V i n e R i d g e Boutique Towns Development, Prince Edward County

Each of these features or defined areas are afforded varying levels of protection subject to guidelines, and in some cases, regulations. Of these features, significant wetlands and ANSIs are designated by the province. While the responsibility for woodlands lies with the planning authority. Habitat of endangered or threatened species is regulated by Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP). Fish habitat is governed by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). Ensuring the identification and regulation of the remaining features is the responsibility of the municipality or other planning authority and is often undertaken in conjunction with the local conservation authority.

Endangered and threatened species are known to occur in the area. Natural features, including woodland, wetland, and fish habitat may be associated with, or located directly adjacent, to the subject property and therefore the natural heritage provision of the PPS apply.

3.2 County of Prince Edward Official Plan (Office Consolidation, November 2006)

The County’s Official Plan (OP) provides direction on land use within the Country. The 2006 County of Prince Edward Official Plan, Office Consolidation – November 2006, is currently in effect.

A review of the County’s OP schedules has identified the following relevant designations concerning the subject property:

• Schedule A (Environmentally Sensitive Areas) identifies portions of the subject property (east end) as Major Recharge Areas. An Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) is mapped north of the subject property (ANSI boundaries are noted as approximate); • Schedule B (Environmental Constraints) does not identify any natural heritage features or environmental constraints on, or directly adjacent to, the subject property; and • Schedule E (Land Use Designation) identifies the subject property as Urban Centre.

A review of the County’s OP has identified that the subject property, in its entirety, is located within the Picton Urban Centre Secondary Plan.

There is no currently adopted planning document prepared by the County which designates or describes Significant Woodlands. Woodlands are addressed in this report, see Sections 4.5.4 for details.

3.3 Prince Edward County One Window Draft Official Plan (February 2018)

Prince Edward County has released a new draft Official Plan (OP). Beacon reviewed the most recently revised version of this plan (February 2018) in order to assess the proposed future direction for Prince Edward County regarding natural heritage planning for the purposes of determining if there were any potential implications for the subject property. It should be noted however, that the 2006 OP is the document in force.

Woodlands are defined in the new OP, as:

Page 5

Environmental Impact Study V i n e R i d g e Boutique Towns Development, Prince Edward County

Treed areas that provide environmental and economic benefits to both the private landowner and the general public, such as erosion prevention, hydrological and nutrient cycling, enhancement of air quality and the long-term storage of carbon, provision of wildlife habitat, outdoor recreational opportunities, and the sustainable harvest of a wide range of woodland products.

Woodlands include treed areas, woodlots or forested areas and vary in their level of significance at the local, regional and provincial levels. Woodlands may be delineated according to the Forestry Act definition or the Province’s Ecological Land Classification system definition for “forest.”

Woodlands on the subject property have been assessed, using the Ecological Land Classification (ELC).

The definition of Significant Woodlands proposed in the Draft OP, is generally consistent with the provincial definition, as outlined in the PPS:

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.

Under Section 8.7.3 (Woodlands), woodlands larger than 40 ha in size, are identified on Schedule ‘B’: Natural Heritage Features and Areas. Further, under this Section 8.7.3 (b), the County states:

The identification of Natural Core Areas on Schedule ‘B’: Natural Features & Areas has had specific regard to the protection of a number of the larger Woodlands within the County as part of a mosaic of protected habitats. There are many large Woodlands outside of these areas, which must be considered in the consideration of applications for development, particularly applications for larger scale residential, commercial or industrial development. In general, development shall not be permitted within woodlands identified in Schedule ‘B’: Natural Features & Areas. In addition, development shall not be permitted on adjacent lands to the identified Woodlands, unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated through an Environmental Impact Study that demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the County, in consultation with Quinte Conservation and any other agency having jurisdiction, that there will be no negative impacts on the Woodlands or on their ecological functions.

Further, under Draft Policy 8.7.3 (d):

For larger scale development, specific analysis of woodland features within the development, and demonstration that proposed development will be sensitive to the protection of such features, will be required as part of the development review process. Where feasible, such development should seek to enhance existing woodland values through management and planting.

A review of the Draft OP schedules has identified that the subject property is located within the Picton Urban Centre Secondary Plan area and is proposed to be designated as Urban Centre (Schedule ‘A- 2’: Land Use Designations).

Page 6

Environmental Impact Study V i n e R i d g e Boutique Towns Development, Prince Edward County

A review of Schedule ‘B’: Natural Features & Areas has identified ANSI – Significant (Provincial or Regional) and Wetland – Other have been mapped near the subject property. No woodlands have been mapped on the subject property or within the Secondary Plan boundaries. No other natural heritage designations have been proposed for lands within, or directly adjacent to, the subject property.

3.4 Picton Urban Centre Secondary Plan (June 10, 2014)

The Picton Urban Centre Secondary Plan provides direction on land use within the Picton Urban Centre boundaries. Official Plan Amendment No. 63 enacted the Picton Urban Centre Secondary Plan on June 10, 2014, herein referred to as the “Secondary Plan”.

The Secondary Plan land use framework is illustrated by Schedule A and it is noted under Policy 2.3.2 that “the land use boundaries on the map are considered to be approximate and minor changes may be considered by the County, provided the general intent of the Plan is maintained.” Further, it is noted that “the Map is to be used and interpreted only in conjunction with the text and other figures contained in the Plan.”

A review of the Picton Urban Centre Secondary Plan’s schedules has identified the following relevant natural heritage designations concerning the subject property:

• Schedule A (Secondary Plan Land Use Map) identifies the vast majority of the subject property, and adjacent lands to the east and west, as Town Residential Area. The remaining small portion of the subject property (at the north-eastern tip) is designated as Environmental Protection Area. Lands north and further east of the subject property are designated as Area of Natural & Scientific Interest (ANSI). Lands directly south of the subject property are designated as Heights Development Area.

Town Residential Area – Natural Heritage Policies

Section 2.4 of the Secondary Plan outlines policies relevant to the majority of the subject property.

Under Section 2.4, Policy 2.4.2.7 and 2.4.2.8 state:

Ensure that new neighbourhood development is consistent with the town design, green infrastructure, and environmental management policies of Sections 4.1, 4.6, and 4.7 of this Plan.

Woodlands – Environmental Protection Policies

Section 4 of the Secondary Plan outlines policies related to natural heritage. As relevant to the subject property and proposed development, under Section 4.7.2 (Town Forest), the Town recognizes the importance of treed areas. Under this section, “the town forest includes trees on public and private property and lands within an Environmental Protection designation.” The subject property is not located within an area designated as Environmental Protection.

Page 7

Environmental Impact Study V i n e R i d g e Boutique Towns Development, Prince Edward County

A review of the Secondary Plan does not identify any definitions or criteria for defining Significant Woodlands.

Environmental Impact Study (EIS) Policies

Under Section 4.7.3 (Environmental Impacts and Analysis), the applicant is required to pre-consult with the County prior to commencing the EIS to ensure the document will be prepared to the satisfaction of the County, Quinte Conservation, and MNRF, as appropriate.

3.5 Quinte Conservation

The subject property is located within the Prince Edward County Watershed and under the administrative jurisdiction of Quinte Conservation. The Quinte Conservation authority regulates hazard lands including watercourses, valleylands, shorelines, and wetlands under Ontario Regulation 319/09: Quinte Conservation Authority Regulation of Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses.

Beacon contacted and consulted with the planners at Quinte Conservation in April 2020 regarding the project and associated scope of work to support a future Environmental Impact Study (EIS). Quinte Conservation advised that the scope of an EIS should follow the County direction. Quinte Conservation also stated that they did not require at site visit, unless requested Beacon (Appendix A).

3.6 Endangered Species Act (2007)

The provincial Endangered Species Act, (2007) came into effect on June 30, 2008 and replaced the former 1971 Act. The Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO) is responsible for assessing the status of species throughout Ontario whereby over 200 species in Ontario are currently designated as extirpated, endangered, threatened, or of special concern.

Section 9 and 10 of the ESA generally prohibits the killing or harming of a threatened or endangered species, as well as the destruction of its habitat. Permitting, or other documentation and works as under Ontario Regulation 242/08, is required for works within habitat of a regulated species.

Seasonally appropriate field investigations for target species have been completed to determine the presence or absence of species subject to the provision of the ESA moving forward with the development application, and in the context of the phased approach to the overall development.

Page 8

Environmental Impact Study V i n e R i d g e Boutique Towns Development, Prince Edward County

4. Existing Conditions

4.1 Physiography, Topography and Local Site Context

The subject property is approximately 12.5 ha (31 ac) and was formerly part of the Canadian Forces Base in Picton (CFB Picton). The property is now privately owned whereby of the existing residences are occupied while the two former churches in the centre of the property are currently used for storage.

The subject property is located within the Limestone Plains of the Prince Edward Peninsula physiographic region (Chapman and Putnam, 2007). Much of the Prince Edward County area is dominated by paleozoic deposits consisting of Ordovician limestone that is exposed or less than 1 meter of soil. The underlying bedrock is comprised, mainly of limestone, dolostone, shale arkose and sandstone of the Ottawa Group, Simcoe Group and Shadow Lake Formation (Ontario Ministry of Northern Department and Mines, 1991; McNevin, 2006; Ontario Geological Survey, 2011).

Local topography was observed to be generally flat across the majority of the subject property (Photograph 1).

Photograph 1. View of Centre of the Subject Property and Associated Physical and Natural Features (June, 2020)

4.2 Aquatic Resources

The subject property is located within the Prince Edward Region Watershed, which provides drainage for the surrounding area generally southward towards Lake Ontario.

Page 9

Environmental Impact Study V i n e R i d g e Boutique Towns Development, Prince Edward County

The subject property is within the vicinity of the headwater area of an unnamed tributary. South of the subject property, the unnamed tributary flows through landscape that is comprised of a mix of woodlands, treed wetlands and agricultural lands prior to entering the East Lake PSW and East Lake, approximately 10 km downstream.

On the subject property is a drainage channel (D-1), which originates within the anthropogenic area of the subject property, immediately east of the Phase 1 area (Figure 2). Drainage D-1 extends south of the anthropogenic area via a culvert at Inkerman Avenue, through a cultural meadow area and enters the a Cultural Woodland community in the southern portion of the site prior to exiting the subject property and continuing for approximately 50 m where it joins a headwater seepage area of the unnamed tributary (Photographs 2 and 3). Within the Cultural Woodland community D-1 is bisected by a footpath and no evidence of a culvert was observed at the location of the crossing. The channel of D-1 is v- shaped and straight with no meanders or bends indicating that it has either been historically altered or created. D-1 has a bankfull depth of approximately 1.0 m and a bankfull width that varied from 0.9 m to 2.0 m. At the time of the April 2020 assessment there was no flow, standing water or evidence of recent flow present despite the occurrence of up to 15 mm of rainfall within the previous 12 hours. The lack of evidence of recent flows and absence of a culvert at the footpath indicates that D-1 supports flows infrequently and any flows conveyed would be unlikely to reach unnamed tributary as the footpath would prevent a flow connection, limiting the ability of the channel to support fish habitat functions in unnamed tributary. Therefore, D-1 provides infrequent localized drainage and water storage for the subject property.

Photograph 2. D-1 Within Cultural Meadow (April 2020)

Page 10

Preliminary Existing Figure 2 Conditions

Inkerman Avenue Environmental Impact Study

Legend Subject Property Ecological Communities (ELC) Watercourse (MNRF 2019) Drainage Unevaluated Wetlands (MNRF 2019); Not present, see text Eastern Meadowlark Breeding Habitat

Code Forest Communities FOM Mixed Forest Cultural Communities CUM2 Bedrock Cultural Meadow CUT2a Bedrock Cultural Thicket (Mixed) CUT2b Bedrock Cultural Thicket (Lilac) CUW2 Bedrock Cultural Woodland (Red Cedar) Other Communities ANT Anthropogenic

Project: 220103 Last Revised: September 2020

Prepared by: BD Client: FLC Group Checked by: RC

Contains information licensed under the Open Government License–Ontario Orthoimagery Baselayer: 2008 (FBS)

C:\Dropbox\Dropbox (Beacon)\All GIS Projects\2020\220103 Inkerman Ave EIS Picton\Q Project Files\2020-07-31 - Inkerman Ave EIS Picton - 220103.qgz

Environmental Impact Study V i n e R i d g e Boutique Towns Development, Prince Edward County

Photograph 3. D-1 Within Cultural Woodland Community (April, 2020)

A second drainage channel (D-2) is present on the east side of the anthropogenic area of the subject property (Figure 2). D-2 is oriented in east – west and appears to be contained to the anthropogenic portion of the site with no upstream or downstream connections. The channel is v-shaped with a bankfull depth of approximately 1.0 m and a bankfull width that varied from 1.25 m to 2.0 m (Photograph 4). Two footbridges are present across the channel. At the time of the April 2020 assessment, isolated pockets of standing water were present with depths of less than 0.05 m. Based on the form of the channel, location within the anthropogenic portion of the property and lack of upstream or downstream connection D-2 provides localized drainage and water storage for the subject property and does not function as fish habitat.

Page 11

Environmental Impact Study V i n e R i d g e Boutique Towns Development, Prince Edward County

Photograph 4. D-2 Within the Anthropogenic Area (April, 2020)

4.3 Terrestrial Resources

4.3.1 Cultural and Anthropogenic Communities

Cultural communities are defined as vegetative assemblages originating from, or maintained by, human influences and culturally based disturbances. These units typically contain a high proportion of non- native, disturbance tolerant and / or early successional species. Given the site’s history of disturbance related to past military land use, and in light of existing suburban development on the subject property including vegetation clearing / maintenance (Photograph 1), the majority of the property is established with cultural vegetation communities.

Anthropogenic (ANT) areas (as denoted on Figure 2) are those that are under human land use – in this case: roads, buildings, pedestrian walkways, driveways, lawns, gardens, etc. This terminology is not part of the ELC system, but is included to describe lands not otherwise described under this system.

The majority of the property is characterized as Anthropogenic (Photograph 1 and Photograph 5). Most of the vegetation in this unit is actively managed grass / lawn areas as well as planted and/or ornamental trees and gardens. Beacon did not review an arborist report as part of the assessment. It was noted that most of the trees observed in this unit were maple and pine, including but not limited to: Norway Maple (Acer platanoides), Freeman’s Maple (Acer x freemanii), Manitoba Maple (A. negundo), Austrian Pine (Pinus nigra), as well as some fruit trees (Prunus sp.) and crabapple (Malus sp.).

Page 12

Environmental Impact Study V i n e R i d g e Boutique Towns Development, Prince Edward County

Photograph 5. Anthropogenic (ANT) Area (June 16, 2020)

Bedrock Cultural Meadow (CUM2)

There is a gap in the row of residential developments along the south side of Inkerman Ave. In this area, culturally derived grasses and other non-native / early successional and disturbance adapted weedy species have established. Given that this area is not actively managed (mowed / manicured lawn), this area has overgrown and is characterized as a Bedrock Cultural Meadow (CUM2) This area was dominated by graminoids including Canada Bluegrass (Poa compressa), Common Timothy (Phleum pratense), Perennial Ryegrass (Lolium perenne) and Orchard Grass (Dactylis glomerata) and forbs dominated by Garden Bird's-foot Trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), Common Dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), European Swallowwort (Vincetoxicum rossicum), and Common Viper's Bugloss (Echium vulgare).

Bedrock Cultural Thicket (CUT2)

Two shrub-dominated units that have few Eastern Red Cedar trees were observed on the subject property. Cultural Thicket ‘a’ (CUT2a) contains a mixture of shrubs including: Common Lilac (Syringa vulgaris), Tatarian Honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica), and Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica). These shrubs are non-native and are considered invasive species. CUT2b is a monoculture of Common Lilac with very little diversity present within the unit.

Bedrock Cultural Woodland (Red Cedar) (CUW2)

The vast majority of the remainder of the property consists of early successional (young) Eastern Red Cedar (Juniperis virginiana) dominated communities. The variation in the communities is largely a result

Page 13

Environmental Impact Study V i n e R i d g e Boutique Towns Development, Prince Edward County of different proportions of Eastern Red Cedar present and units at the south end east ends of the subject property are characterized as Bedrock Cultural Woodland (CUW2).

Under the Ecological Land Classification (ELC) procedures for classifying ecosystems in southern Ontario ‘woodlands’ have a lower tree canopy cover than ‘forests’, whereby woodlands can vary from 35 to 60% canopy cover. The CUW2 communities are dominated by Eastern Red Cedar (Juniperus virginiana) trees with scattered associates of Common Lilac, Common Buckthorn, and Tatarian Honeysuckle. Groundcover was observed to be dominated by graminoides including Smooth Brome (Bromus inermis), Common Timothy (Phleum pratense), Flat-stemmed Spikerush (Eleocharis compressa), and Perennial Ryegrass (Lolium perenne) intermixed with fobs, including, but not limited European Swallowwort (Vincetoxicum rossicum), Tufted Vetch (Vicia cracca), Alfalfa (Medicago sativa), Meadow Hawkweed (Pilosella caespitosa), Rough Fleabane (Erigeron strigosus), Oxeye Daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare) and English Plantain (Plantago lanceolata).

The CUW communities were separated in Figure 2 to provide additional detail:

In the CUW2a unit, the tree canopy cover is about 40 to 50%, and the shrub cover was variable across the units (noted to be between 40 to 70%) and included patches of Common Prickly Ash (Zanthoxylum americanum). Some forested inclusions in this ELC unit (areas of less than 0.5 ha) were observed during the site visits. These inclusions were noted due to increases in the tree canopy cover in certain areas (noted to be 70 to 80%).

In the CUW2b unit, fewer shrubs and trees were observed in general with the exception of a large Sweetbriar Rose (Rosa rubiginosa) patch. Further, the occasional Bitternut Hickory (Carya cordiformis) was observed in this unit and groundcover was observed have a much larger graminoid (grass) presence, than CUW2a. Tree canopy cover is at the low end of the woodland scale, with some open areas noted as cultural meadow inclusions (Photograph 6). Soil depth in this unit, as likely most of the site, is low, as a soil auger hit bedrock at between 8 to 12 cm for three tests.

Several grass species were identified, and all were thought to be common species (see Appendix C). the invasive Dog-strangling Vine was also abundant. A few species that can be associated with alvars were observed. This included Flat-stemmed Spikerush (Eleocharis compressa), which was common in this community. Numerous Hairy Beardtongue (Penstemon hirsutus) individuals were noted in the CUW2b, particularly at the north end, as were a few patches of Canada Bluets (Houstonia canadensis), and one Narrow-leaved Vervain (Verbena simplex). These species are further discussed in Section 4.3.3 (Floral Inventory).

Page 14

Environmental Impact Study V i n e R i d g e Boutique Towns Development, Prince Edward County

Photograph 6. View of a Portion of the Red Cedar Cultural Woodland (CUW2b), Facing East (June 16, 2020)

4.3.2 Forest Communities

Mixed Forest (FOM)

A Mixed Forest community was observed in the north-eastern tip of the property. This community consists of a mix of both deciduous and coniferous tree species with a noted higher density of tree and tree canopy cover. It is a transition from the open Eastern Red Cedar woodland to the south and the deciduous oak forest off-site to the north and as such, it contains species from both of these communities. While limited in breadth within the limits of the subject property (Figure 2), the community observed on the subject property was dominated by Eastern Red Cedar with a diversity of deciduous trees, including but not limited to: hickory (Cary sp., including C. cordiformis), oak (Quercus spp) intermixed with the occasional Black Walnut (Juglans nigra) and White Willow (Salix alba).

4.3.3 Floral Inventory

Sixty-nine plant species were observed within the study area during the field program, plus an additional five identified to genus. The focus of this list is the CUW2b community on the east side of the property. Thirty-eight percent of the species observed are native to Ontario with the remainder being non-native, with some additionally invasive.

Over eighty percent of the species observed are currently identified as S5 or SE5provincially ranked species (NHIC, 2019), thus indicating the species is considered common with secure populations throughout the province.

Page 15

Environmental Impact Study V i n e R i d g e Boutique Towns Development, Prince Edward County

Five species are provincial ranked as S4 or S4? species, which denotes that the populations are apparently secure and are at a fairly low risk of extirpation in the jurisdiction due to an extensive range and or for which there are many populations or occurrence, but with possible cause for some concern as a results of local recent declines, threats or other factors. For ‘S4?’ species the ranking is inexact. All were observed primarily or wholly in the eastern ecological community of CUW2b, and are tabulated below with additional information. These species also have high Coefficients of Conservation; this term is explained below.

Table 2. S4 or High Coefficient of Conservation Species in CUW2b

Species Species S Coefficient of Abundance Common Scientific Comment * Rank Conservation on Site Name Name Flat-stemmed Eleocharis S4 8 Common Widespread but local in southern Spikerush compressa and central Ontario on open, calcareous shorelines and meadows and particularly alvars Hairy Penstemon S4 7 Numerous Widespread in southern Ontario in Beardtongue hirsutus open, usually sandy or rocky, dry ground, including prairies, oak savanna and borders, fields, roadsides, stream and river banks, alvars and barrens. Canada Houstonia S4? 10 A few patches A calciphile, common on rocky Bluets canadensis shores and alvars of the Bruce Peninsula and Manitoulin Island and locally further south in the Carolinian Zone and on alvars in southeastern Ontario Narrow- Verbena S4 9 One individual Uncommon and local in the leaved simplex province and restricted to dry open Vervain ground, particularly alvars, in southern Ontario, north to Manitoulin district. Sometimes in disturbed situations such as roadsides and sandy fields Fragrant Rhus S4 8 On individual Rare in the Carolinian Zone Sumad aromatica (Oldham 2017), but locally common along the southern edge of the Precambrian Shield, the Upper Ottawa Valley area (Brayshaw 1964), and on alvars in southeastern Ontario and on Manitoulin Island. Restricted by habitat (generally dry, open, sandy or rocky places) *From “All Species List” maintained and made available by the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC): 2020-01-17 version

Page 16

Environmental Impact Study V i n e R i d g e Boutique Towns Development, Prince Edward County

From Mortellaro et. al 2009:

Coefficients of conservatism values range from 0 through 10 and are applied only to the plants believed to be native to the region. The scalar values consist of whole integers between 0 and 10. A zero (0) value represents the lowest quality value and is assigned to those plants that are indicative of the most ruderal conditions such as cracks in sidewalks, parking lot edges, industrial sites, agricultural fields, etc. A ten (10) value is applied to those species that provide the highest level of confidence that the places where they are found are the most intact remnant natural systems. A five (5) value is applied to those plants that are generally noted only in remnant natural areas, but otherwise provide little confidence that the area is of high quality. Exotic plants are not given a C value, as they did not evolve as part of the native flora and their inclusion does not fit within the concept of conservatism.

No species covered under the ESA or associated regulations were observed on the subject property during the site investigations, as described in Section 2.2.

4.3.4 Breeding Bird Inventory

A total of 30 species of breeding birds were recorded on the subject property with one additional species noted foraging. The majority of breeding species are shrubland specialists or edge species tolerant of human disturbance.

The more numerous shrubland species observed were: Eastern Kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus), Gray Catbird (Dumetella carolinensis), Brown Thrasher (Toxostoma rufum), and Eastern Towhee (Pipilio erythrophthalmus),

The most abundant of disturbance-tolerant species found on the property were: Mourning Dove (Zenaida macoura), Blue Jay (Cyanocitta cristata), European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris) House Wren (Troglodytes aedon), American Robin (Turdus migratorius), Northern Cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia), and Common Grackle (Quiscalus quiscula).

A few forest species were observed as single individuals. For most of these species, it is expected that the majority of their territory was off the property. This is because they were observed at the edge of the property and most of the suitable habitat was off the property. This applies to species such as Wood Thrush (Hylocichla mustelina), Ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus), and Black-and-white Warbler (Mniotilta varia).

A few area-sensitive species were also observed. Area-sensitive species are those that either require larger areas of suitable habitat to nest in or which are more productive in larger areas of habitat. Most larger properties contain some area-sensitive species. However, when multiple pairs of multiple species occur in a type of habitat (e.g. forest or grassland etc.) then this usually indicates that there is higher quality habitat present. The three single territories of area-sensitive forest species were, as mentioned, breeding on the edges of the property. Two single area-sensitive grassland species (Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis and Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna) were observed in the centre of the property. The Savannah Sparrow is a species that requires large fields or grasslands in which to breed, but it is very common in many types of fields including active agricultural lands. The Eastern Meadowlark is discussed in the following section.

Page 17

Environmental Impact Study V i n e R i d g e Boutique Towns Development, Prince Edward County

No species ranked as S1 through S3 (Critically Imperiled through Vulnerable) by the province were encountered on the subject property.

Three provincially or nationally designated Species at Risk were observed on the property: Chimney Swift (Chaetura pelagica), Wood Thrush and Eastern Meadowlark. These are discussed in the next section (4.4).

4.4 Endangered or Threatened Species Habitat Screening

On-line information from various data sources, as described in Section 2.1, was reviewed prior to commencing field investigations to evaluate habitat conditions and the potential for endangered or threatened species to utilize lands associated with the subject property. Additionally, the April field visit informed the Species at Risk surveys.

The results of the screening assessment identified a number of provincially listed endangered and threatened species with potential to be on the property, see Appendix B for details.

Plant Species

Two endangered vascular plant species are known to occur in the area (Four-leaved Milkweed, Asclepias quadrifolia and Butternut Juglans cinerea). Neither of these species were observed during the field visits as described in Section 2.2. Several aquatic species were among the list. Aquatic habitat is not present on the subject property or near the area where developments are proposed.

Reptile Species

Potential habitat for Gray Ratsnake (Elaphe spiloides) was noted as potentially present on or directly adjacent to the subject property, based on the results of the initial Species at Risk Screening Assessment in April. Further review of existing records for this species has since identified that Gray Ratsnake is recognized as being extirpated from Prince Edward County; the western boundary of the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Population is a minimum of 45 km from the subject property (COSEWIC 2018).

Avifauna Species

A Eastern Meadowlark territory occupied the centre of the property. This Threatened grassland bird usually occupies hay fields or abandoned fields and shrublands. However, in this case atypical habitat here attracted a singing male meadowlark. The central part of the lawns in between the Nery Avenue and Inkerman Avenue was not cut consistently in 2020 leading to a slightly longer and weedier lawn. The central part of this lawn plus the addition of the small cultural meadow south of Inkerman Ave formed the territory of this species (Figure 2). Requirements for the removal of this habitat are discussed in Section 7.2.1.

Chimney Swift (Chaetura pelagica) is a provincially listed threatened species. The species was observed foraging over the property. None of the buildings, including those in Phase 1 contained

Page 18

Environmental Impact Study V i n e R i d g e Boutique Towns Development, Prince Edward County chimneys suitable for Chimney Swift nesting or roosting. Additionally, the species were not observed frequently when on the property, which would be expected if they were nesting on the property. It is likely that this species nests further to the north within the central part of the town of Picton.

The buildings in the Phase 1 area were examined for Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica) nests. This threatened bird species usually nests on or in buildings and forages over open fields and wetlands. No Barn Swallow nests were observed in April 2020 on Phase 1 area buildings. As phases progress, each set of buildings should be checked for the presence of this species.

Mammalian Species

The buildings in the Phase 1 area were examined for potential endangered bat habitat. Four species of bats are currently listed as endangered under the provincial ESA. These are Eastern Small-footed Myotis (Myotis leibii), Little Brown Myotis (Myotis lucifugus), Northern Long-eared Myotis (Myotis septentrionalis) and Tri-coloured Myotis (Perimyotis subflavus). Some of theses species use buildings. Of the seven buildings in this area, it was determined that the three vacant buildings located at the west end of the subject property (two unoccupied houses and a garage, see Figure 2, for details), could provide endangered bat habitat (maternity roosting grounds) and should be surveyed to address the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to support the development application and associated demolition and building permits.

Surveys were completed following MNRF approved standard procedures and protocols, as described in Section 2.2.4. Bat exit surveys were undertaken on June 24 and July 07, 2020 under suitable conditions for bat monitoring using appreciate acoustic monitoring to record echolocations of local bat populations. No bats were observed exiting the buildings and thus the results of the surveys did not identify regulated bat habitat associated with the subject property.

Thus, no flora or fauna listed under the ESA were observed in the Phase I development area, with the exception of the edge of the Eastern Meadowlark territory.

5. Natural Heritage Features and Constraints

The natural heritage features on the subject property are discussed in the next paragraphs in the context of the proposed development, the results of the vegetation and wildlife surveys, and based on applicable policy and regulations related to natural heritage. No storm water management, geotechnical, hydrogeological or otherwise technical reports were reviewed as part of this assessment.

In accordance with the applicable provincial and local planning documents, as outlined in Section 3, consideration for the sensitivity, quality, and function of the natural environmental features are also discussed.

5.1.1 Wetlands

Lands Information Ontario, and Schedule B of the 2018 Draft OP mapped an unevaluated wetland in parts of the property, particularly south of the residential area (see Figure 2). The MNRF will often

Page 19

Environmental Impact Study V i n e R i d g e Boutique Towns Development, Prince Edward County identify potential wetlands based on the interpretation of aerial photographs. Field investigations as outlined in Section 2.2 and the results of the assessment as outlined in Section 4, did not identify wetlands on or directly adjacent to the subject property. Quinte Conservation concurred with Beacon that no wetlands were present on the property (Appendix A).

5.1.2 Area of Natural and Scientific Interest

A Regionally Significant Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) known as the “Macaulay Mountain Escarpment Forests” is situated to the north and east of the subject property. ANSI boundaries are not precisely mapped in provincial mapping. Given the description of the Macaulay Mountain Escarpment Forests and observations on and adjacent to the subject property, the south edge of the Mixed Forest (FOM) boundary is considered the ground-truthed ANSI boundary. This approach is ecologically conservative, since the current approximated ANSI boundary is to the east of the property.

A 10 m buffer from the edge of the ANSI/Mixed Forest community is proposed to protect this feature.

5.1.3 Alvars

Alvars are rare vegetation communities that occur in localized parts of Ontario. As stated in A Guide To Alvar and Grassland Species of the Napanee Plain (The Napanee Plain Joint Initiative), alvars are characterized by:

• Flat areas of thin mineral soil over calcareous (limestone or dolostone) bedrock; • Naturally open landscapes, with little to no tree cover; • Being subject to seasonal drought and flooding in the summer and exposed to deep frost (heave) in the winter; • A distinctive set of plant species; • Plant species that have adapted to fire and drought; and • May contain many species that are rare elsewhere in the Great Lakes basin.

Alvars are protected under the PPS as a type of Significant Wildlife Habitat. The CUW2b unit on the east side of the site has some of these characteristics, but is not considered an alvar. Mitigation has been proposed for the removal of the alvar-characteristic species that were found in parts of this unit.

5.1.4 Significant Woodlands

While the identification of some natural features, such as provincially significant wetlands and ANSIs, is a provincial matter, the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (NHRM) states “In all other cases, the responsibility lies with the planning authority or, in the case of an appeal, the Ontario Municipal Board, to identify and/or approve the designation of significant natural heritage features and areas” (Ministry of Natural Resources 2010). The NHRM also says that “Planning authorities identify such woodlands or approve the work of others using criteria recommended in the manual or municipal approaches that achieve or exceed the same objective as the provincial criteria.” Thus, since Prince Edward County has not identified Significant Woodlands, Beacon uses the guidance in the manual together with its professional experience and on the ground observations to determine whether a treed area should be considered a Candidate Significant Woodland or not. Significant Woodlands are considered ‘Candidate’

Page 20

Environmental Impact Study V i n e R i d g e Boutique Towns Development, Prince Edward County in the absence of a region-wide study (as is preferable when a planning authority determines Significant Woodlands), Beacon has prepared this analysis.

The NHRM additionally states that:

Significant: means … c) in regard to woodlands, 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; …

In this case there are two ELC community types which have been considered for status as Candidate Significant Woodland: Mixed Forest (FOM) and Bedrock Cultural Woodland (Red Cedar) (CUW2a). The Cultural Woodland (Red Cedar) (CUW2b) was not considered under this category due to the low percentage of tree canopy cover as discussed in Section 4.3.

Table 1 summarizes the analyses for each of the two communities, and the resulting conclusion regarding Candidate Significant Woodland. Since Prince Edward County has a relatively high forest cover (approximately 30%, County of Prince Edward 2012) size alone has not been used to determine Candidate Significant Woodlands. However, the Draft Prince Edward County Official Plan (2018) was reviewed to take into consideration the direction of the municipality. It implies under Section 8.7.3 (Woodlands), that woodlands larger than 40 ha in size, which are identified on Schedule ‘B’: Natural Heritage Features and Areas, are likely to be considered Significant.

Table 3. Significant Woodland Analyses

ELC Community Analyses Conclusion Mixed Forest (FOM) • Tree canopy cover about 100% Candidate • Primarily native woody plant species, with a mix of Significant species Woodland • Part of and contiguous with large high-quality woodland (Macauley Mountain Escarpment Forest ANSI) • Forest wildlife habitat anticipated to be good to high • Contiguous woodland to the north contains off-site contains amphibian breeding habitat (Beacon observation April 2020) • Contiguous woodland off-site approximately 80 ha or greater in total • Trails present • Historical use unknown Bedrock Cultural • Tree canopy cover variably between about 40 to 80% Not Candidate Woodland (Red Cedar) (with > 50% shrub cover in places) Significant (CUW2a) • Primarily Red Cedar with non-native shrubs Woodland • Anticipated to be relatively low in wildlife habitat quality (e.g. low bird diversity), especially where density of conifers is high • No amphibian breeding habitat on site; none likely off-site • Contiguous woodland off-site approximately 30 ha total • Roads and ATV trails present

Page 21

Environmental Impact Study V i n e R i d g e Boutique Towns Development, Prince Edward County

• Historical use unknown, but likely to be relatively recent agricultural use as CUW2b shows clear evidence of row crops.

As such, the Mixed Forest community that forms that transition between the Red Cedar woodlands and the deciduous forest to the north has been considered a Candidate Significant Woodland. The southern boundary of this community is also therefor considered to be the south boundary of both the Candidate Significant Woodland and the ANSI.

5.2 Species at Risk Habitat

As noted previously and shown on Figure 2, there is Threatened Eastern Meadowlark habitat on the property.

5.3 Summary

The natural heritage constraints on the property consist of the:

• Woodland/ANSI in the northeast edge of the property; • Eastern Meadowlark habitat; and • Plants of conservation concern within the CUW2b community.

6. Proposed Development

The proposed re-development will involve the demolition of the existing residential dwellings. One of the existing (unused) church buildings will be re-purposed and another will be removed. The proposed subdivision will be established in phases and while this EIS generally addresses the entire development, species at risk a limited to the Phase I area due to timeline considerations and species movements. The proposed development and Phase I area are illustrated in Figure 3. The overall development named VineRidge Boutique Towns includes: 462, 3-storey stacked back-to-back residential units, 98, 3-storey townhouses, new interior roads, 582 parking spaces, two stormwater ponds, and an amenity open space.

A Functional Servicing Report has been written by John Towle Associates Limited (2020), and Conceptual Stormwater Management Report has been prepared by Greck and Associates Limited (2020).

For Phase 1, a new sanitary sewer will be built to connect to the existing municipal sanitary sewer to the west, otherwise servicing will remain as is to the east of Phase 1 for the construction of Phase 1. Two stormwater ponds are planned for the whole development, a north and south pod, with the south pond planned for the first phase. The outlet for stormwater will be the D-1 drainage feature, which leads to the Unnamed Tributary.

Page 22

Proposed Development Figure 3

Inkerman Avenue Environmental Impact Study

Legend Subject Property Ecological Communities (ELC) Watercourse (MNRF 2019) Drainage Proposed Development Phase 1 Lot Area Woodland/ANSI + 10m Eastern Meadowlark Breeding Habitat

Code Forest Communities FOM Mixed Forest Cultural Communities CUM2 Bedrock Cultural Meadow CUT2a Bedrock Cultural Thicket (Mixed) CUT2b Bedrock Cultural Thicket (Lilac) CUW2 Bedrock Cultural Woodland (Red Cedar) Other Communities ANT Anthropogenic

Project: 220103 Last Revised: September 2020

Prepared by: BD Client: FLC Group Checked by: RC

Contains information licensed under the Open Government License–Ontario Orthoimagery Baselayer: 2008 (FBS)

C:\Dropbox\Dropbox (Beacon)\All GIS Projects\2020\220103 Inkerman Ave EIS Picton\Q Project Files\2020-07-31 - Inkerman Ave EIS Picton - 220103.qgz

Environmental Impact Study V i n e R i d g e Boutique Towns Development, Prince Edward County

7. Impact Assessment and Mitigation

The following section identifies the potential impacts of the proposed site development and recommends appropriate environmental protection and or environmental mitigation measures to address impacts to natural heritage on or directly adjacent to the subject property.

7.1 Impact Assessment

One of the primary design principles adopted for this proposal was to protect the ANSI features and functions in accordance with Provincial, Quinte Conservation and Town goals objectives and policies. As 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 boundaries of any significant natural heritage features (Macauley Mountain Escarpment Forest ANSI). As discussed in the preceding section, the existing constraint is the FOM woodland dripline, and development is not proposed within this feature, thereby avoiding any direct impacts. Additionally, a 10 m buffer to this feature is proposed.

The proposed development is in large part confined to areas with existing developments and associated cultural features, although some natural vegetation is proposed for removal. The property is located in an area that is already developed and subject to existing stressors and disturbances (e.g., noise, light, traffic, pedestrian and ATV trails). Accordingly, it is anticipated that negative effects to the adjacent natural areas will be generally limited. However, there are several negative effects that could occur (a) during the construction phase and (b) following completion of construction, as discussed below.

Potential negative effects on the adjacent natural heritage features or species during construction could include:

• Removal of habitat for local urban adapted wildlife related to tree removals and ‘cultural’ thicket and woodland habitat removals; • Removal of habitat for Eastern Meadowlark; • Removal of flora of high Coefficient of Conservation value; • Sediment runoff during site grading and soil stockpiling; and • Noise and dust generation.

Potential impacts following completion of construction and upon occupancy could include:

• Additional noise and lighting effects directed towards the adjacent wooded features; • Increased risk of human encroachment into the wooded features including ANSI to the north; and • Change to surface hydrology or subsurface (hydrogeology) conditions changes.

Page 23

Environmental Impact Study V i n e R i d g e Boutique Towns Development, Prince Edward County

7.1.1 Potential Impacts at Time of Construction

Removal of Habitat

To accommodate the development, the removal of the existing cultural meadow, cultural thicket and cultural woodland habitat will be required. This habitat supports native and non-native flora and provides general habitat for bird species and other wildlife. Approximately 0.36 ha of Cultural Meadow, 0.39 ha of Cultural Thicket and 3.78 ha of Cultural Woodland will be removed in total.

Species at Risk Habitat Removal

There is a very small amount of overlap of Phase 1 with the edge of the Eastern Meadowlark habitat (Figure 3). It has been assumed that this does not require any response under the ESA, however confirmation of this is recommended through discussion with MECP.

For later phases of development, two Species at Risk tasks should be undertaken:

• Determine if potential SAR bat habitat in each Phase is present and conduct appropriate surveys if this is the case; and • Re-survey for Eastern Meadowlark presence.

Once development of the phases in the centre of the property are undertaken, Eastern Meadowlark habitat will be removed, if repeat surveys indicate that the species is still present, then compensation will be required. This compensation is described under the mitigation section (7.2). If no longer present, MECP should be consulted to determine if any compensation is still required.

Floral Species of High Coefficient of Conservation Value

Several species of plants with high Coefficient of Conservation value will be removed in later phases, that is primarily when CUW2b is removed. At this time the mitigation suggested in Section 7.2 is recommended.

Sedimentation and Soil Erosion

Construction works such as grading, grubbing and excavation have the potential to result in the movement of sediment into the adjacent natural areas.

7.1.2 Potential Post-Construction Impacts

Noise and Light Effects on Wildlife

Acute and cumulative effects for a single development associated with noise and light are very difficult to quantify. Noise in particular may be a reason why landscape-level effects are known to occur within urban matrices even as natural areas are set aside. The effects of these stressors can be significant in previously undeveloped areas, however, this system is already heavily influenced by the light and noise of the nearby developments and existing road traffic. This has resulted in a suite of species that are

Page 24

Environmental Impact Study V i n e R i d g e Boutique Towns Development, Prince Edward County already urban-tolerant. Based on this assessment we do not anticipate a measurable effect on wildlife as a result of the proposed re-development.

Risk of Increased Encroachment into the Adjacent Woodlands

Encroachment by people and pets can have negative effects on adjacent natural areas or the ANSI natural heritage feature and/or its ecological functions such as vegetation trampling, dumping, and/or increased wildlife disturbance / stress. As the re-development accommodates more people than currently, it could potentially increase the risk of encroachments into the adjacent natural area.

Changes in Surface Water Flow

Development works, including stormwater management practices have the potential to impact existing surface drainage patterns and or subsurface hydrology.

7.2 Recommended Mitigation Measures

7.2.1 Mitigation for Impacts at Time of Construction

Removal of Habitat

The federal Migratory Birds Convention Act (1994) protects the nests, eggs and young of most bird species from harassment, harm or destruction. Environment Canada considers the “risk period” for breeding birds in southern Ontario to be from the end of March to late August, and so the most cautious approach is to confine approved vegetation removal from late August to early April.

The “peak” breeding bird season is from mid-May to mid-July, and therefore it is recommended that this time be avoided. Vegetation removals could occur between early April and mid May, and between mid July and late August if a qualified avian biologist confirms that the there are no nesting birds in the vegetation.

Feature Encroachment

Under Phase 1, the increase in people in the area will not be great, but with each increasing phase the numbers of people in the area will increase and fencing along the edge of the property may be warranted, particularly as later phases become situated closer to the area of high Coefficient of Conservation plants and the MacCauley Mountain Conservation Area. At this later date fencing and/or funneling of people along specific paths should be considered.

Endangered Species Habitat

If Eastern Meadowlark habitat is still present after a re-survey in another year, or if MECP requires compensation regardless, compensation must occur under Ontario Regulation 242/08 Section 23.2

Page 25

Environmental Impact Study V i n e R i d g e Boutique Towns Development, Prince Edward County since the property is in “an area of settlement in an official plan” “approved under the Planning Act before January 1, 2013”.

In summary, this compensation consists of the replacement or enhancement of the same area of habitat lost, in another location within the same ecoregion. The new habitat may or may not already contain Eastern Meadowlark, but it must be created or enhanced, perhaps by changing pasturing, cutting woody vegetation, or restoring an agricultural field so that certain vegetative conditions are met for five years. The new site has to meet the following conditions:

• 50 to 80 per cent of the habitat must be covered with at least three different grass species and the remainder of the habitat must be covered with forbs or legumes; and • Among the grass species referred to in paragraph 1, at least one must grow greater than 50 centimetres high under normal growing conditions. O. Reg. 65/12, s. 3.

A report is prepared which describes the actions taken and location where the compensation occurs, as described in 242/08 23.2

Floral Species of High Coefficient of Conservation Value

It is highly recommended that some individuals of the four species with the high Coefficient of Conservation value listed in Table 2, be transplanted to the lands immediately to the east, with Quinte Conservation permission, since these lands are theirs. The habitat is almost identical here and like the CUW2b habitat it is somewhat degraded, thus introducing new plants would be an acceptable disturbance. Additionally, in one or two areas on the property where there are larger amounts of high- quality flora, the soils should be scraped for earth and associated seed bank and similarly placed to the east. This has the potential to move seeds of high-quality plants, either of the four species, or of other high-quality plants. Seeds have a better chance of growing in a new location than transplanted individuals.

These actions would occur in the future, shortly before development occurs in the CUW2b, at the correct time of year as determined by a botanist. Further details on these procedures would be determined closer to that date. At this same time, a suitable location on CA lands can be found. This would be a location where high CC plants are few and non-native cover is high. Consideration should be given to scraping the surface of the receiving location, to remove invasive species, and therefore to have a receiving condition that has very shallow soils, which is appropriate for these particular species.

Sedimentation and Soil Erosion

An erosion and sediment control plan (ESCP) should be prepared for the construction phase of the development prior to the start of construction works that is consistent with TRCA’s Erosion and Sediment Control Guideline for Urban Construction (December 2006) or similar documentation.

Any grading or site alteration related activities should be confined to the established limit of development. Fencing at the development limit should be regularly inspected and maintained in good working order throughout the construction period. Fencing should be removed upon completion of construction after exposed soils have been stabilized.

Page 26

Environmental Impact Study V i n e R i d g e Boutique Towns Development, Prince Edward County

Standard Best Management Practices, including the provision of sediment control measures, should also be employed during the construction process.

7.2.2 Mitigation for Post-construction Impacts

Noise and Light Effects on Wildlife

Although no measurable effects are anticipated from noise and light, lighting along the north-east end of the proposed development, in later stages, located adjacent to the ANSI should be directed away from the woodland to minimize the impact of the adjacent development on the function of this area.

Changes in Surface Water Flow

The stormwater management plan is at this time conceptual. Stormwater flow will be directed into the D-1 drainage feature. Greck and Associates notes that “South SWMF have been designed to provide water quality, extended detention and water quantity controls in accordance with Quinte Conservation, MNRF, and MOECP guidelines” (Greck 2002). Also “It is anticipated that the North and South SWMFs will outlet at the existing swale (D-1). A capacity assessment was completed to confirm that the existing swale has sufficient capacity to convey the uncontrolled 100-year flow”. It should be noted that the potential blockage from the well-worn east-west footpath that is situated along the south end of the property may require a culvert.

8. Policy Conformity

This section demonstrates how the proposed development complies with the applicable environmental policies and legislation at the provincial, regional and municipal levels. A discussion of environmental planning policies applicable to the proposed development was presented in Section 3 of this report.

8.1 Provincial Policy Statement

Within the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), natural heritage features listed include Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs). The wooded area on and adjacent to the subject property at the north end of the subject property is therefor considered significant in accordance with the PPS.

No development is being proposed within this feature and the minor potential impacts to these feature associated with the re-development of the subject property can be readily mitigated by implementing the recommendations in Section 7, including a 10 m buffer between the proposed development and the adjacent woodland as identified through ELC.

Page 27

Environmental Impact Study V i n e R i d g e Boutique Towns Development, Prince Edward County

8.2 Upper and Lower Tier Official Plans

The Picton Urban Centre Secondary Plan (June 10, 2014) identifies lands north and east of the subject property (associated with the Macaulay Mountain Escarpment Forests ANSI) as Environmental Protection.

Under Section 4.7.3 (Environmental Impacts and Analysis), the applicant is required to pre-consult with the County prior to commencing the EIS to ensure the document will be prepared to the satisfaction of the County, Quinte Conservation, and MNRF [and now MECP], as appropriate.

8.3 Quinte Conservation

It is our understanding that no permit is required from Quinte Conservation for this development and that there is no regulated area on or close to the property.

Beacon consulted with Quinte Conservation in April 2020 regarding the proposed development in light of existing conditions and potential environmental constraints including species of conservation concern as well as adjacent natural heritage features. Consultation records with Quinte CA have been provided in Appendix A, and these indicate that they do not require a site visit. Since that time, Beacon has undertaken a seasonal floral inventory. After consultation with Quinte Conservation again in August 2020, the authority stated that they did not require a visit to the site; after review of this report, they will confirm whether they have any further concerns.

8.4 Endangered Species Act (2007)

The MECP will be consulted to confirm that no further work regarding the Eastern Meadowlark habitat will be required for Phase 1, given that the edge of this habitat overlaps with Phase 1. Given the existing species range for Gray Ratsnake, no other Threatened or Endangered species will be affected by Phase 1. Recommendations are given in Section 7 regarding later steps.

9. Summary

This EIS was prepared using information collected through a review of relevant background information and scoped field investigations in 2020. The report characterizes existing natural heritage features on the property, identifies environmental constraints to development, recommends development limits, and addresses potential impacts of the proposed development on the natural heritage features and functions associated with the property, primarily associated with woodlands of various types on and adjacent to the property. Although the impacts outlined herein are limited in intensity and scope, a series of mitigation measures are also recommended to ensure that the natural heritage features and functions on the subject property and in the adjacent lands are appropriately addressed.

Although much of the proposed development is on existing development, there is some development proposed in a naturally vegetated area, which will lead to the loss of some wildlife habitat. The 10 m

Page 28

Environmental Impact Study V i n e R i d g e Boutique Towns Development, Prince Edward County proposed buffer to the woodland/ANSI is generally consistent with the conservation authority and municipal agencies in Ontario and will protect this feature. Lands in this buffer are also to be preserved. Additionally, mitigation is provided to maintain high-value Coefficient of Conservation plant species in the landscape. Otherwise, with the assumption that surface water effects to the features off-site will be negligible to none, it is our opinion that the proposed development will minimally affect natural heritage features and is compliance with natural heritage policy.

Report prepared by: Report prepared and reviewed by: Beacon Environmental Beacon Environmental

Lauren Cymbaly, M.E.S., Dipl. Eco. Restoration Rosalind Chaundy, B.Sc., M.Sc.F Ecologist Senior Ecologist

Page 29

Environmental Impact Study V i n e R i d g e Boutique Towns Development, Prince Edward County

10. References

COSEWIC. 2018. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Gray Ratsnake Pantherophis spiloides, Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Population and Carolinian Population, in Canada.

John Towle Associates Ltd. 2020. Functional Servicing Report, VineRidge Boutique Towns, Proposed Condominium Development, Town of Picton, Prince Edward County. August 2020.

Greck and Associates Ltd. 2020. VineRidge Boutique Towns. Conceptual Stormwater Management Report. Prepared for POTG Developments Inc. August 2020.

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.

Mortellaro, et.al 2009. Coefficients of Conservatism Values and the Floristic Quality Index for the Vascular Plants of South Florida. South Florida Ecological Services Field Office, Vero Beach, Florida, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

McNevin, B. 2006. Identifying Priority Sites for Habitat Restoration of the Prince Edward County Portion of the Bay of Quinte Watershed. A project for the Bay of Quinte Remedial Action Plan, funded by the Canada-Ontario Agreement, through the Ministry of Natural Resources and in partnership with Quinte Conservation. Prepared by Brad McNevin, March 2006.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. March 2010. Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Natural Heritage Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005. Second Edition. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 248 pp.

Napanee Plain Joint Initiative, undated. A Guide To Alvar and Grassland Species of the Napanee Plain

Prince Edward County, 2012 Official Plan Review, Issues Paper 5, Natural Environment 2012. County of Prince Edward Planning Department

Province of Ontario. 2007. Endangered Species Act (S.O. 2007).

Page 30

Appendix A

Quinte Conservation Correspondence

From: Kelly Graham To: Fred Heller; [email protected]; Anthony Greenberg; Rosalind Chaundy Subject: Fwd: FW: Inkerman Ave property natural heritage Date: June 4, 2020 1:32:58 PM

Hi all,

A bit of a delayed response, but good news nonetheless. Quinte Conservation accepts Beacon's conclusions with regard to the "wetland" on the south end of the property.

Kelly

------Forwarded message ------From: Paul McCoy Date: Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 1:08 PM Subject: RE: FW: Inkerman Ave property natural heritage To: Kelly Graham

Kelly

I have reviewed the Natural Heritage Due Diligence report prepared by Beacon Environmental dated May 2020 and agree with its findings. I have the following comments:

Fig. 3 shows the constraint areas. I agree that the furthest north triangular shaped site of the property which is part of the ANSI should not be included in the development area. I understand that a 10 m. setback has been proposed. As per Fig. 3 the CUW2b unit has features of an Alvar and will require further study. The next steps include a formal EIS including a floral survey, breeding survey and bat survey. The final developable area would be determined following completion of the EIS.

I trust this is satisfactory.

If you have any questions please contact me at this office.

Paul McCoy Planning and Regulations Manager Quinte Conservation [email protected] RR#2, 2061 Old Hwy #2, Belleville, ON K8N 4Z2 Phone: (613) 968-3434 or (613) 354-3312 ext 108

P Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.

IMPORTANT COVID-19 NOTICE: In light of health concerns related to the Covid-19 virus, the QC office will be closed to the public until further notice. Events and meetings will be postponed until further notice. Residents can reach the office by calling 613-968-3434 or by emailing [email protected]. Documents can be dropped off via the mail slot at the main office or sent by mail.

Disclaimer: This is intended for the addressee indicated above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act. If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately. From: Kelly Graham [[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 25, 2020 3:21 PM To: Paul McCoy Cc: Rosalind Chaundy; Anthony Greenberg Subject: Re: FW: Inkerman Ave property natural heritage

Hi Paul,

I am a planner with SvN Architects + Planners, and we are working with Rosalind on the Nery/Inkerman project. We have reviewed Beaon's report, which concludes that the area identified in the Province's natural heritage mapping as an unevaluated wetland is not, in fact, a wetland. As we prepare the rezoning submission for the lands, we would like a level of comfort that the Conservation Authority generally agrees with Beacon's findings, to permit us to place buildings within this area.

I understand from your email below that you are not interested in doing a site visit to stake the feature, however you of course reserve the right to do so pending review of the full EIS. However, a full EIS will not be completed until the fall, and we would like to submit in the summer. With this in mind, would you be comfortable with development proposed within this area? We would like to avoid a significant redesign following receipt of comment on the first submission, so anything advice you can provide would be appreciated.

Thank you

Kelly

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 4:46 PM Rosalind Chaundy wrote:

From: Paul McCoy Sent: April 27, 2020 1:59 PM To: Rosalind Chaundy ; Christine Jennings ; Sharlene Richardson ; Elizabeth Lowe Subject: RE: Inkerman Ave property natural heritage

Rosalind

As discussed please follow PEC's Terms of Reference for the EIS. Further, as you are aware the majority of the site is shallow soil over bedrock with vegetation consisting of mainly red cedar. At this point I don't think an inspection by staff is needed. However, please keep in touch. We would be happy to inspect the site if required.

Paul McCoy Planning and Regulations Manager Quinte Conservation [email protected] RR#2, 2061 Old Hwy #2, Belleville, ON K8N 4Z2 Phone: (613) 968-3434 or (613) 354-3312 ext 108

P Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.

IMPORTANT COVID-19 NOTICE: In light of health concerns related to the Covid-19 virus, the QC office will be closed to the public until further notice. Events and meetings will be postponed until further notice. Residents can reach the office by calling 613- 968-3434 or by emailing [email protected]. Documents can be dropped off via the mail slot at the main office or sent by mail.

Disclaimer: This is intended for the addressee indicated above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act. If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately.

From: Christine Jennings Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 1:00 PM To: Sharlene Richardson; Elizabeth Lowe; Paul McCoy Subject: FW: Inkerman Ave property natural heritage

From: Rosalind Chaundy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: April 24, 2020 1:58 PM To: Christine Jennings Cc: Lindsey Waterworth; Lauren Cymbaly Subject: Inkerman Ave property natural heritage

Hello Christine,

I was given your name by Fred Heller who is the owner of a property on the south side of Picton. I’ve attached a map of the property. I believe he has talked to you about the property.

He has retained us to undertake natural heritage assessment work for this property ultimately leading to an EIS report. We have visited the site once this past month, to look at the natural features.

I wondered if you can help me with a few questions. The first is I wondered if Quinte Conservation is currently conducting site visits? And at what point in the EIS process, if at all, do you anticipate wanting to visit this property with us?

Also, having been on the property, I have developed what I think is a reasonable field investigation program for the property, in order to prepare the EIS. How would you like to review this program – would you prefer an initial call with me, an email or a more formal document for the EIS Terms of Reference? And does the Town and County normally look to you for guidance on that, or should we circulate this item to the municipalities as well?

Finally, are there Quinte Conservation documents that you recommend that we refer to for our EIS? I have seen your Watershed Manual (May 2019) report.

Apologies for the large number of questions, but I wasn’t sure if I could reach you by phone.

Please contact me in the manner you’d prefer. Either my cell phone (which is currently my work number), or via email.

I look forward to chatting with you.

Rosalind

Rosalind Chaundy, M.Sc.F. / Senior Ecologist

BEACON ENVIRONMENTAL

80 Main St. North, Markham, ON L3P 1X5

T) 905.201.7622 x230 F) 905.201.0639 C) 647-927-0519 www.beaconenviro.com

To protect our staff, families, clients and the greater community all Beacon staff are working remotely. We will continue to provide timely communications via email and telephone and are committed to providing the highest level of service possible during this challenging time.

From: Paul McCoy To: Rosalind Chaundy; Christine Jennings; Sharlene Richardson; Elizabeth Lowe Subject: RE: Inkerman Ave property natural heritage Date: April 27, 2020 1:58:58 PM

Rosalind As discussed please follow PEC's Terms of Reference for the EIS. Further, as you are aware the majority of the site is shallow soil over bedrock with vegetation consisting of mainly red cedar. At this point I don't think an inspection by staff is needed. However, please keep in touch. We would be happy to inspect the site if required. Paul McCoy Planning and Regulations Manager Quinte Conservation [email protected] RR#2, 2061 Old Hwy #2, Belleville, ON K8N 4Z2 Phone: (613) 968-3434 or (613) 354-3312 ext 108

P Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.

IMPORTANT COVID-19 NOTICE: In light of health concerns related to the Covid-19 virus, the QC office will be closed to the public until further notice. Events and meetings will be postponed until further notice. Residents can reach the office by calling 613-968-3434 or by emailing [email protected]. Documents can be dropped off via the mail slot at the main office or sent by mail. Disclaimer: This is intended for the addressee indicated above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act. If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately.

From: Christine Jennings Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 1:00 PM To: Sharlene Richardson; Elizabeth Lowe; Paul McCoy Subject: FW: Inkerman Ave property natural heritage

From: Rosalind Chaundy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: April 24, 2020 1:58 PM To: Christine Jennings Cc: Lindsey Waterworth; Lauren Cymbaly Subject: Inkerman Ave property natural heritage Hello Christine, I was given your name by Fred Heller who is the owner of a property on the south side of Picton. I’ve attached a map of the property. I believe he has talked to you about the property. He has retained us to undertake natural heritage assessment work for this property ultimately leading to an EIS report. We have visited the site once this past month, to look at the natural features. I wondered if you can help me with a few questions. The first is I wondered if Quinte Conservation is currently conducting site visits? And at what point in the EIS process, if at all, do you anticipate wanting to visit this property with us? Also, having been on the property, I have developed what I think is a reasonable field investigation program for the property, in order to prepare the EIS. How would you like to review this program – would you prefer an initial call with me, an email or a more formal document for the EIS Terms of Reference? And does the Town and County normally look to you for guidance on that, or should we circulate this item to the municipalities as well? Finally, are there Quinte Conservation documents that you recommend that we refer to for our EIS? I have seen your Watershed Manual (May 2019) report. Apologies for the large number of questions, but I wasn’t sure if I could reach you by phone. Please contact me in the manner you’d prefer. Either my cell phone (which is currently my work number), or via email. I look forward to chatting with you. Rosalind Rosalind Chaundy, M.Sc.F. / Senior Ecologist BEACON ENVIRONMENTAL 80 Main St. North, Markham, ON L3P 1X5 T) 905.201.7622 x230 F) 905.201.0639 C) 647-927-0519 www.beaconenviro.com To protect our staff, families, clients and the greater community all Beacon staff are working remotely. We will continue to provide timely communications via email and telephone and are committed to providing the highest level of service possible during this challenging time.

Appendix B

Potential Species at Risk

Appendix B

A p p e n d i x B

Potential Species at Risk

SARO COSEWIC SARA SARA S Species Group Common Name Scientific Name Status Status Schedule Status Rank Bank Swallow, Riparia riparia birds Bank Swallow Riparia riparia THR THR Schedule 1 THR S4B Eastern Meadowlark, Sturnella Eastern magna birds Meadowlark Sturnella magna THR THR Schedule 1 THR S4B Dolichonyx Bobolink, Dolichonyx oryzivorus birds Bobolink oryzivorus THR THR Schedule 1 THR S4B Chimney Swift, Chaetura S4B, pelagica birds Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica THR THR Schedule 1 THR S4N Least Bittern, Ixobrychus exilis birds Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis THR THR Schedule 1 THR S4B Barn Swallow, Hirundo rustica birds Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica THR THR Schedule 1 THR S4B Loggerhead Shrike, Lanius Loggerhead No ludovicianus birds Shrike Lanius ludovicianus END END Schedule S2B Eastern Pondmussel, Ligumia Eastern nasuta bivalves Pondmussel Ligumia nasuta END SC END S1 Butternut, Juglans cinerea dicots Butternut Juglans cinerea END END END END S2? Four-leaved Milkweed, Asclepias Four-leaved quadrifolia dicots Milkweed Asclepias quadrifolia END END S1 Tri-colored Bat, Perimyotis subflavus mammals Tri-colored Bat Perimyotis subflavus END END Schedule 1 END S3? Northern Myotis, Myotis septentrionalis mammals Northern Myotis Myotis septentrionalis END END Schedule 1 END S3 Little Brown Myotis, Myotis Little Brown lucifugus mammals Myotis Myotis lucifugus END END Schedule 1 END S3 Eastern Small-footed Myotis, Eastern Small- Myotis leibii mammals footed Myotis Myotis leibii END S2S3 ray-finned American Eel, Anguilla rostrata fishes American Eel Anguilla rostrata END THR S1? Gray Ratsnake (Frontenac Axis Gray Ratsnake population), Pantherophis (Frontenac Axis Pantherophis spiloides pop. 1 reptiles population) spiloides pop. 1 THR THR THR S3

Page B-1

Appendix B

SARO COSEWIC SARA SARA S Species Group Common Name Scientific Name Status Status Schedule Status Rank Blanding's Turtle, Emydoidea Blanding's blandingii turtles Turtle Emydoidea blandingii THR END Schedule 1 THR S3

Page B-2

Appendix C

Floral Inventory List

Appendix C

A p p e n d i x C

Floral Inventory

Floral Inventory Scientific Name Common Name Family CC SRank Acer negundo Manitoba Maple Aceraceae 0 S5 Acer platanoides Norway Maple Aceraceae 0 SE5 Acer saccharum Sugar Maple Aceraceae 4 S5 (Acer rubrum X Acer Acer x freemanii Aceraceae 6 SNA saccharinum) Achillea millefolium Common Yarrow Asteraceae 0 SE5? Agrostis gigantea Redtop Poaceae 0 SE5 Agrostis stolonifera Creeping Bentgrass Poaceae 0 SE5 Ambrosia artemisiifolia Common Ragweed Asteraceae 0 S5 Bromus inermis Smooth Brome Poaceae 0 SE5 Carya cordiformis Bitternut Hickory Juglandaceae 6 S5 Carya ovata Shagbark Hickory Juglandaceae 6 S5 Convolvulus arvensis Field Bindweed Convolvulaceae 0 SE5 Dactylis glomerata Orchard Grass Poaceae 0 SE5 Daucus carota Wild Carrot Apiaceae 0 SE5 Digitaria ischaemum Smooth Crabgrass Poaceae 0 SE5 Echium vulgare Common Viper's Bugloss Boraginaceae 0 SE5 Eleocharis compressa Flat-stemmed Spikerush Cyperaceae 8 S4 Elymus repens Quackgrass Poaceae 0 SE5 Erigeron strigosus Rough Fleabane Asteraceae 4 S5 Euphorbia sp. Spurge Species Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia peplus Petty Spurge Euphorbiaceae 0 SE4 Festuca trachyphylla Hard Fescue Poaceae 0 SE4 Fragaria virginiana Wild Strawberry Rosaceae 2 S5 Galium aparine Common Bedstraw Rubiaceae 4 S5 Galium mollugo Smooth Bedstraw Rubiaceae 0 SE5 Geranium sp. Geranium Species Geraniaceae Hesperis matronalis Dame's Rocket Brassicaceae 0 SE5 Houstonia canadensis Canada Bluets Rubiaceae 10 S4? Hypericum perforatum Common St. John's-wort Clusiaceae 0 SE5 Iris pseudacorus Yellow Iris Iridaceae 0 SE4 Juglans nigra Black Walnut Juglandaceae 5 S4? Juncus dudleyi Dudley's Rush Juncaceae 1 S5 Juniperus virginiana Eastern Red Cedar Cupressaceae 4 S5

Page C-1

Appendix C

Floral Inventory Scientific Name Common Name Family CC SRank Leucanthemum vulgare Oxeye Daisy Asteraceae 0 SE5 Lolium arundinaceum Tall Ryegrass Poaceae 0 SE5 Lolium perenne Perennial Ryegrass Poaceae 0 SE4 Lonicera sp. Honeysuckle Species Caprifoliaceae Lonicera tatarica Tatarian Honeysuckle Caprifoliaceae 0 SE5 Malus pumila Common Apple Rosaceae 0 SE4 Medicago lupulina Black Medick Fabaceae 0 SE5 Medicago sativa Alfalfa Fabaceae 0 SE5 Melilotus officinalis Yellow Sweet-clover Fabaceae 0 SE5 Ostrya virginiana Eastern Hop-hornbeam Betulaceae 4 S5 Penstemon hirsutus Hairy Beardtongue Scrophulariaceae 7 S4 Phleum pratense Common Timothy Poaceae 0 SE5 Pilosella caespitosa Meadow Hawkweed Asteraceae 0 SE5 Pinus nigra Austrian Pine Pinaceae 0 SE3 Plantago lanceolata English Plantain Plantaginaceae 0 SE5 Plantago major Common Plantain Plantaginaceae 0 SE5 Poa compressa Canada Bluegrass Poaceae 0 SE5 Poa pratensis Kentucky Bluegrass Poaceae 0 S5 Potentilla recta Sulphur Cinquefoil Rosaceae 0 SE5 Prunus pensylvanica Pin Cherry Rosaceae 3 S5 Prunus virginiana Chokecherry Rosaceae 2 S5 Quercus alba White Oak Fagaceae 6 S5 Quercus species Oak species Rhamnus cathartica European Buckthorn Rhamnaceae 0 SE5 Rhus aromatica Fragrant Sumac Anacardiaceae 8 S4 Rhus typhina Staghorn Sumac Anacardiaceae 1 S5 Rosa rubiginosa Sweetbriar Rose Rosaceae 0 SE4 Salix alba White Willow Salicaceae 0 SE4 Sedum acre Mossy Stonecrop Crassulaceae 0 SE5 Silene vulgaris Bladder Campion Caryophyllaceae 0 SE5 Solidago sp. Goldenrod Species Solidago canadensis Canada Goldenrod Asteraceae 1 S5 Sonchus asper Prickly Sow-thistle Asteraceae 0 SE5 Syringa vulgaris Common Lilac Oleaceae 0 SE5 Trifolium pratense Red Clover Fabaceae 0 SE5 Trifolium repens White Clover Fabaceae 0 SE5 Ulmus americana White Elm Ulmaceae 3 S5 Verbena simplex Narrow-leaved Vervain Verbenaceae 9 S4 Vicia cracca Tufted Vetch Fabaceae 0 SE5 Vincetoxicum rossicum European Swallowwort Apocynaceae 0 SE5

Page C-2

Appendix C

Floral Inventory Scientific Name Common Name Family CC SRank Zanthoxylum americanum Common Prickly-ash Rutaceae 3 S5

National (N) and Subnational (S) Conservation Status Ranks RANK DEFINITION Presumed Extirpated - Species or ecosystem is believed to be extirpated from the jurisdiction (i.e., nation, or state/province). Not NX located despite intensive searches of historical sites and other

appropriate habitat, and virtually no likelihood that it will be SX rediscovered. [equivalent to "Regionally Extinct" in IUCN Red List terminology] Possibly Extirpated - Known from only historical records but still some hope of rediscovery. There is evidence that the species or ecosystem may no longer be present in the jurisdiction, but not enough to state NH this with certainty. Examples of such evidence include (1) that a species has not been documented in approximately 20-40 years SH despite some searching and/or some evidence of significant habitat loss or degradation; (2) that a species or ecosystem has been searched for unsuccessfully, but not thoroughly enough to presume that it is no longer present in the jurisdiction. N1 Critically Imperiled - At very high risk of extirpation in the jurisdiction due to very restricted range, very few populations or occurrences, very S1 steep declines, severe threats, or other factors.

N2 Imperiled - At high risk of extirpation in the jurisdiction due to restricted range, few populations or occurrences, steep declines, severe threats, S2 or other factors.

N3 Vulnerable— At moderate risk of extirpation in the jurisdiction due to a fairly restricted range, relatively few populations or occurrences, recent S3 and widespread declines, threats, or other factors. Apparently Secure - At a fairly low risk of extirpation in the jurisdiction N4 due to an extensive range and/or many populations or occurrences, but

with possible cause for some concern as a result of local recent S4 declines, threats, or other factors. N5 Secure - At very low or no risk of extirpation in the jurisdiction due to a very extensive range, abundant populations or occurrences, with little S5 to no concern from declines or threats.

Page C-3

Appendix D

Breeding Bird Survey

Appendix D

A p p e n d i x D

Breeding Bird List

Status Provincial Area- Number of Common Name Scientific Name National Species at Species at Risk in breeding season sensitive Pairs/Territories Risk COSEWICa Ontario Listing a SRANK b (OMNR)c Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperi S4 A 1 Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura S5 3 Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica THR THR S4 4 - foraging Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus S4 1 Great Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus S4 1 Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus S4 3 Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor S4 1 Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata S5 3 Corvus American Crow brachyrhynchos S5 1 Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus S5 3 House Wren Troglodytes aedon S5 4 Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina THR SC S4 1 American Robin Turdus migratorius S5 7 Dumetella Gray Catbird carolinensis S4 3 Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum S4 3 Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum S5 2 Black-and-white Warbler Mniotilta varia S5 A 1 European Starling Sturnus vulgaris SE 3 Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus S4 A 1 Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis S5 4 Pipilio Eastern Towhee erythrophthalmus S4 4 Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina S5 1

Page D-1

Appendix D

Status Provincial Area- Number of Common Name Scientific Name National Species at Species at Risk in breeding season sensitive Pairs/Territories Risk COSEWICa Ontario Listing a SRANK b (OMNR)c Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla S4 2 Savannah Passerculus Sparrow sandwichensis S4 A 1 Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia S5 4 Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna THR THR S4 A 1 Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula S5 3 Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater S4 1 Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula S4 2 American Goldfinch Spinus tristis S5 2 House Sparrow Passer domesticus SNA 2 Field Work Conducted On: June 6, June 16 & July 1, 2020

Number of Species: 31 (inlcuding one foraging only) Number of breeding (provincial and national) Species at Risk: 2 - Wood Thrush and Eastern Meadowlark Number of S1 to S3 Species: 0 Number of Forest Area-sensitive Species: 3 - Cooper's Hawk, Ovenbird, & Black-and-White Warbler Number of Grassland Area-sensitive Species: 2 - Savannah Sparrow & Eastern Meadowlark

KEY 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.

Page D-2