GUIDING SOLUTIONS IN THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

Muskoka Airport Scoped Assessment District Municipality of Muskoka

Prepared For: District Municipality of Muskoka

Prepared By: Beacon Environmental

Date: Project: June 2011 211123

MARKHAM BRACEBRIDGE GUELPH OTTAWA (SMS Aviation Safety Inc.) 144 Main St. North, Suite 206 126 Kimberley Avenue 337 Woolwich Street 275 Slater Street, Suite 900 Markham, Ontario L3P 5T3 Bracebridge, Ontario P1L 1Z9 Guelph, Ontario N1H 3W4 Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5H9 T) 905.201.7622  F) 905.201.0639 T) 705.645.1050  F) 705.645.6639 T) 519.826.0419  F) 519.826.9306 T) 613.238.3232  F) 613.236.3754

Muskoka Airport Scoped Wetland Assessment

Table of Contents

page 1. Introduction ...... 1 2. Study Objectives ...... 1 3. Natural Heritage Policy and Regulation ...... 2 3.1 Endangered Species Act (2007) ...... 2 3.2 Migratory Birds Convention Act (1994) ...... 3 3.3 District of Muskoka Official Plan (2010) ...... 3 3.3.1 Wetland Policy Review ...... 3 3.4 Town of Gravenhurst Official Plan (2008) ...... 4 4. Methods ...... 5 4.1 Background Information ...... 5 4.2 Field Investigations ...... 5 5. Existing Conditions ...... 6 5.1 Vegetation Communities ...... 6 5.1.1 Wetland Areas ...... 8 5.1.2 Flora ...... 9 5.1.3 Wildlife ...... 10 5.2 Significant Natural Heritage Features ...... 10 5.2.1 Species at Risk and Wildlife ...... 10 5.2.2 Old Growth Vegetation Communities ...... 11 6. Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 11 7. References ...... 14

Figures

Figure 1. Site Location ...... after page 2 Figure 2. Existing Environmental Features ...... after page 6

Appendices

A. Site Photographs B. Plant Species Recorded from the Study Area C. Wildlife Recorded from the Study Area

Muskoka Airport Scoped Wetland Assessment

1. Introduction

Beacon Environmental was retained by the District Municipality of Muskoka (DMM) in May 2011 to conduct a Scoped Wetland Assessment for lands on the west side of the Muskoka Airport. These lands are being reviewed for potential development opportunities associated with the airport. The study area is approximately 9 ha (22.5 acres) in size and is bounded by Gravenhurst Parkway to the north, Beaver Creek Drive to the west, Airport Road and mowed lawn to the east, and areas of rock barren and forest cover to the south (see Figure 1).

The proposed development is at the conceptual stage and the extent and type of development has not yet been determined. The Scoped Wetland Assessment is being completed to understand what environmental constraints and opportunities there are for development. The study is intended to help guide and/or confirm development options for the lands.

It is our understanding that as the study area and proposed lands for development are not proposed for severance or require rezoning, requirements under the Planning Act are not applicable nor is the proposal subject to the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). Other policies and regulations, for example, the Endangered Species Act (ESA), may apply and are discussed below.

2. Study Objectives

The purpose of this study is to provide a background review and description of the physical and ecological characteristics of the and adjacent lands within the study area. This includes an initial review of the wetland functions, significance and sensitivity. The study is considered a scoped assessment of the wetlands as it is based on one primary site visit and not a multi-season field investigation program.

Page 1

Muskoka Airport Scoped Wetland Assessment

3. Natural Heritage Policy and Regulation

There is no proposal for severance or required rezoning and it is our understanding that there will be no development or site alteration as defined under the PPS. As such the Planning Act and the policies of the PPS do not apply. Natural heritage policies under the District of Muskoka Official Plan (DMM 2010) and Town of Gravenhurst Official Plan (2008) are therefore not specifically applicable. However, policies and policy recommendations have been given consideration. The other policies and regulations that may apply depending on the timing and location of proposed works are discussed below.

3.1 Endangered Species Act (2007)

Ontario’s new ESA came into effect on June 30, 2008 and replaced the former legislation. Under the new ESA there are over 190 species in Ontario that are identified as extirpated, endangered, threatened, or of special concern.

The Act prohibits the killing or harming of threatened and endangered species, as well as the destruction of their habitat. There are, however, several transitional provisions that provide extended timelines before the protection of the for certain species comes into force.

The full requirements of the Act for the protection of habitat will not come into effect for up to five years for many of the endangered and threatened species listed on Schedules 2 and 3 of the Species at Risk in Ontario List (SARO List). The SARO List is itself a regulation and currently is Ontario Regulation 373/10; the list (and regulation) is updated about twice a year.

The endangered species listed under Schedule 1 of the new ESA were regulated under Ontario Regulation 328 of the old ESA and have general habitat provisions under the new Act. The species listed under Schedule 1 of the ESA are found on Schedules 2 and 3 of the SARO List (General Regulation 230-08). For those endangered or threatened species that do not have “general habitat” or regulated habitat protection under the ESA, the absence of habitat protection for these species will remain in effect until species specific Habitat Regulations are developed by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), or until June 20, 2013, after which “general habitat” provisions will come into effect.

There are two key protection provisions in the ESA:

 Section 9 describes prohibited activities (e.g., kill, harm, harass, possess, collect, buy and sell) for species listed as extirpated, endangered or threatened on the SARO List.

 Section 10 prohibits the damage of destruction of protected habitat of species listed as extirpated, endangered or threatened on the SARO List

Page 2

Highway 11

Airport Road

Gravenhurst Parkway

Beaver Creek Drive

Site Location Figure 1

Highway 118

Germania Road Muskoka Lake Muskoka Airport Scoped Wetland Assessment

Airport Road Airport First Base Solutions Highway 11

Winhara Road Web Mapping Service 2009 UTM Zone 17 N, NAD 83 -

0 85 170 340 Meters

Gravenhurst Parkway 1:9,000 Site Location Project 21112 3 Gravenhurst Jun e 2011

Muskoka Airport Scoped Wetland Assessment

3.2 Migratory Birds Convention Act (1994)

Regulations under the Migratory Birds Convention Act provide restrictions during the period of the end of April to the middle of August. The regulations include prohibiting the capture or killing of migratory birds, or the damage or destruction of their nests.

With regard to the provisions of the Migratory Birds Convention Act that have relevance to the proposed undertaking, removal of trees, shrubs and vegetation during the period of the end of April to approximately the middle of August could contravene the Act.

3.3 District of Muskoka Official Plan (2010)

The District of Muskoka Official Plan was approved in June 1991 with various amendments since that time and a recent Office Consolidation of the OP in November 2010.

Section F (Environment) of the Official Plan identifies a number of “Areas of Natural Constraint” that are to be considered in development applications. The following policies under the “Wetlands” section have been considered as guidance although they do not specifically apply to this project:

Wetlands

F.65 Wetlands are defined as combined land and water areas that are poorly drained such as , and .

F.66 Wetlands are generally identified on Schedule E, Areas of Natural Constraint.

F.67 Specific areas shall be identified or confirmed as wetlands only after a site inspection by the appropriate authority.

F.68 In reviewing development and redevelopment proposals, regard shall be had to the preservation and protection of wetland areas.

F.69 Limited development, compatible with wetland areas, may be permitted in wetland areas where the integrity of the wetland resource can be preserved and the suitability of the lot is confirmed by a site evaluation report.

3.3.1 Wetland Policy Review

A discussion paper was completed by the District of Muskoka Planning and Economic Development Department in July of 2002. The focus of this document was to provide a review of the Muskoka Heritage Areas specifically with wetland components, as well as a review of wetlands in general (including unevaluated wetlands) and associated policies within the District of Muskoka. It is noted that the Official Plan should include policy that adequately protects unevaluated wetlands.

In the discussion on wetland policy review it is recognized that “….all wetlands in Muskoka are important as they tie into the hydrogeology and ecology of the area.”, and that, “Official Plan policy

Page 3

Muskoka Airport Scoped Wetland Assessment

that is applicable to wetlands in Muskoka states that all wetlands are important and should be preserved. Limited development may be permitted provided that wetland values can be protected………. (and) that both the wetland and surrounding lands should be considered in the development review process “.

The discussion paper provides the following Policy Options and considerations for Unevaluated Wetlands:

 Development should be setback 30 m from an unevaluated wetland.  Limited development, compatible with both the wetland and surrounding area, may be permitted in the wetland or closer than 30 m to the wetland where a wetland impact assessment demonstrates that the integrity of the wetland can be maintained and the lot is suitable for development.  The wetland impact assessment may be scoped to reflect the type of development proposed. For example, a large development proposal should be required to undertake a more comprehensive study compared to a single lot consent that will not significantly impact the wetland.  Where the wetland impact assessment indicates that a larger area may be impacted by a proposed development, the evaluation should be modified to address the identified concerns.  Unevaluated wetlands will be identified using the best information available at the time and may include Ontario Base mapping, information or site inspections.

The analysis provided in this report and subsequent recommendations have been completed with consideration of the principles of the wetland policy review.

3.4 Town of Gravenhurst Official Plan (2008)

The Town of Gravenhurst Official Plan was adopted by council in October 2006 and was approved by the Province with modifications on June 30, 2008.

The following policies under the “Wetlands” section have been considered as guidance although they do not specifically apply to this project:

I1.4.1 Wetlands

It is the policy of this Plan to protect all wetlands whether Provincially significant, regionally significant, locally significant or otherwise. All wetlands shall be protected and maintained in a natural state. Wetland re-establishment at the expense of those responsible for the loss of wetland will be encouraged if loss or degradation occurs.

An Environmental Impact Statement shall be required where development is proposed within 120.0 metres of any Provincially significant wetland or within 30.0

Page 4

Muskoka Airport Scoped Wetland Assessment

metres of any other wetland, as identified on Schedule B. Development adjacent to wetlands shall only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that it will not result in a negative impact on the wetland.

No development or site alteration shall be permitted in Provincially significant wetlands. With the concurrence of MNR, wetland boundaries can change, and boundary verification or re-evaluation may be necessary from time to time.

Existing agricultural uses are permitted within wetlands except identified Provincially significant wetlands. Where agricultural uses are permitted, best management practices should be employed to protect and enhance the wetland features.

4. Methods

4.1 Background Information

In preparation of this Scoped Wetland Assessment, a review of background information pertaining to the study area and surrounding landscape was completed. Materials reviewed included:

 Natural Heritage Information Centre database (NHIC 2011);  Ministry of Natural Resources Bracebridge information request (2011);  Town of Gravenhurst Official Plan (June 2008);  Office Consolidation of the Official Plan of the Muskoka Planning Area (District of Muskoka, 2010);  Digital Ortho-rectified Aerial Photography (DMM 2008); and  Muskoka Heritage Areas Program (Reid and Bergsma 1994).

Other sources of information, such as stereo aerial photography and topographic maps, were consulted prior to commencing a field assessment.

4.2 Field Investigations

A Beacon Environmental ecologist undertook a field survey on May 27, 2011. An additional reconnaissance level survey was completed on June 7, 2011. The investigations were conducted to complete an initial assessment of the wetland features and functions, characterization of the wetland type, review the wetland boundary, and assess the immediate adjacent upland features and drainage connectivity. A review of potential Species at Risk habitat was also completed. Although two site visits were completed, the work completed was based on a scoped assessment.

Page 5

Muskoka Airport Scoped Wetland Assessment

Vegetation Communities and Flora

Vegetation community descriptions were based on both the Forest Ecosystems of Central Ontario (Chambers et al., 1997), and the Ecological Land Classification (Lee et al., 1998). Information based on these systems includes dominant species cover, community structure, as well as level of disturbance, presence of indicator species, and other notable features. Vegetation community classification was completed in order to characterize the wetlands and adjacent upland areas in the study area.

A spring botanical survey was completed by traversing the site and visiting each vegetation community type. Local plant rarity status for the District of Muskoka and Ecodistrict 5E-8; and regional status for Ecoregion 5E were based on the compilation list provided in Table 14 of the Ecological Survey of the Eastern Georgian Bay Coast (Jalava et al. 2005) and the status lists by Crins (2004). Provincial plant status was based on the Provincially Rare Flora of Ontario (Oldham and Brinker, 2009) and the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC, 2011). The botanical survey was completed as an indicator of wetland features and significance.

Species at Risk and Other Wildlife

A screening for potential SAR habitat was completed through identification of potential wetland habitat types for target species. Targeted SAR for the survey focused on the wildlife that may be associated with the wetland types found in the study area.

Landscape Connectivity

A landscape connectivity review was undertaken to understand the surface water connections to and from the wetlands within the study area.

5. Existing Conditions

5.1 Vegetation Communities

Field investigations identified seven different vegetation communities (e.g., RBT3, SAF1-3) consisting of coniferous and mixed forest, cultural shrub thicket, coniferous and mixed , and shallow aquatic wetland. These communities and their corresponding boundaries are illustrated on Figure 2 with vegetation community descriptions provided below. Representative site photographs are provided in Appendix A.

Page 6

Terrestrial System Intermittent Drainage Rock Barren (RB) RBT3: Acidic Treed Rock Barren Ecosite Existing Natural Forest (FO) AirportRoad Figure 2 FOC3: Fresh – Moist Hemlock Coniferous Forest Ecosite* Features FOM2: Dry – Fresh White Pine – Maple SWM2 – Oak Mixed Forest Ecosite Cultural (CU) Muskoka Airport Scoped CUT1: Mineral Cultural Thicket Ecosite Wetland Assessment Wetland System FOC3 Swamp (SW) W5 Legend SWC: Hemlock Organic Swamp Community Class* !( SWM2: Maple Mineral Mixed Swamp Ecosite Study Area W1 Shallow Aquatic (SA) !( CUT1 Vegetation Communities SAF1-3: Duckweed Floating-leaved Shallow Aquatic Type SWC Wetland Communities *Mature to Old Growth 20 m Buffer 5 m Buffer with Mitigation W3 !( Disturbed Area Plantings Through Disturbed Area Gravenhurst Parkway DD Page Wire Fence !( Wetland Area Subsurface Flow SAF1-3 Culvert Intermittent Drainage Turtle Nesting Area W2 FOM2 !(

Beaver Creek Drive FOM2

D

D

D

D

D

RBT3 D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D First Base Solutions

D

D Web Mapping Service 2008

D

D

D

D UTM Zone 17 N, NAD 83 -

D

W4 D D

!( D 015 30 60 Meters

D 1:1,750

D

D

D

D

D

D Project 211123 D

D June 2011

D

D

D D

Muskoka Airport Scoped Wetland Assessment

Terrestrial System

Rock Barren (RB)

RBT3: Acidic Treed Rock Barren Ecosite This small representation of treed rock barren in the southeast portion of the corner is part of a rock barren area that extends to the south. The area supports approximately 50% tree cover of mostly White Pine (Pinus stobus), with scattered shrub cover of Common Juniper (Juniperus communis). The open rock barren areas support lichen and mosses (bryophytes).

Forest (FO)

FOC3: Fresh – Moist Hemlock Coniferous Forest Ecosite This is a small forested area that is contiguous with the coniferous swamp community to the west (SWC). The forest is dominated by Eastern Hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) with some White Pine and scattered Red Maple (). Eastern Hemlock and Yellow Birch (Betula alleghaniensis) are found in the subcanopy with Hobblebush (Viburnum lantanoides), regenerating Balsam Fir (Abies balsamea), and Goldthread (Coptis trifolia) found in the understory and ground layer. The soils are fresh to moist in this forest unit due to the proximity to the adjacent swamp. Hemlock tree stumps were observed at the south end of this community in the regenerating cultural thicket (CUT1). Several stumps were assessed and based on the age of the stumps and ring count trees in this community are estimated to be between 105 and 135 years old.

FOM2: Dry – Fresh White Pine – Maple – Oak Mixed Forest Ecosite This is the largest forest community and represents the majority of the land adjacent to the wetlands found in the study area. The mixed forest is a very mature community comprised of White Pine, Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum) and Red Oak (Quercus rubra) in the canopy with similar composition in the subcanopy. Hop Hornbeam (Ostrya virginiana) Stripped Maple (Acer pensylvanicum), Canada Mayflower (Maianthemum canadense) and Wild Sarsaparilla (Aralia nudicaulis) are found in the understory and ground layers.

Cultural (CU)

CUT1: Mineral Cultural Thicket Ecosite This is a very small area that has been cleared approximately 10 to 15 years ago and is regenerating mostly with Trembling Aspen (Populus tremuloides) and White Birch (Betula papyrifera). This area is bordered by swamp to the west and mowed area to the east.

Wetland System

Swamp (SW)

SWC: Hemlock Organic Swamp Community Class This swamp is dominated by Eastern Hemlock with some Red Maple and Yellow Birch. The vegetative layers are dense with high diversity of species in the understory and ground layers.

Page 7

Muskoka Airport Scoped Wetland Assessment

Species include Hobblebush, regenerating hemlock and Balsam Fir, Interrupted Fern (Osmunda claytonia), Cinnamon Fern (Osmunda cinnamomea) and a wide range of bryophytes and herbaceous species. Organic soils, high water table, and developed pit and mound micro-topography are indicative of groundwater influence on this wetland. Subsurface drainage and sheet flow into this wetland was observed form just south of Gravenhurst Parkway (see Figure 2). The proximity of this hemlock swamp to the hemlock forest to the east suggests that trees are also over 100 years old with the larger trees over 120 years, which is indicative of old growth swamp.

SWM2: Maple Mineral Mixed Swamp Ecosite There is a small area of mixed swamp located in the north east portion of the study area. This area has been historically cleared and is regenerating with a mix of tree species including Red Maple, Tamarck (), Yellow Birch, Red Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) and Eastern Hemlock. Herbaceous cover and diversity is abundant due to the open canopy and less shade conditions. Species include Winterberry (Ilex verticillata), Mountain Holly (Nemopanthus mucronatus), Cinnamon Fern and (Clintonia borealis). Surface water drainage from SWC flows through this community to the northeast before crossing under Gravenhurst Parkway to the north through a culvert (see Figure 2).

Shallow Aquatic (SA)

SAF1-3: Duckweed Floating-leaved Shallow Aquatic Type This floating-leave aquatic community is the largest wetland within the study area. The majority of the surface water contribution to the community appears to be from the west where spring runoff and flows from rain events move through a culvert under Beaver Creek Drive. Some drainage from the study area also flows through a small wetland (#3, see Figure 2) in the central area into the east side of SAF1-3. The Duckweed Shallow Aquatic wetland has been created through the damming of surface water flow to the south from the road bed of Gravenhurst Parkway. Historic photos show that there wasn’t a shallow aquatic wetland in this area prior to the construction of the road. The result is permanent standing water which has flooded the previous swamp. Standing dead trees, stumps, and floating logs provide habitat opportunities for a range of wildlife including birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians. Plant species composition includes Lesser Duckweed (Lemna minor), Water-shield (Brasenia schreberi), Wild Calla (Calla palustris), Canada Bluejoint (Calamagrostis canadensis), sedges ( sp), and Sensitive Fern (Onoclea sensibilis).

5.1.1 Wetland Areas

Based on the field investigation five wetland areas have been identified. These are identified as Wetland Area #1 to #5 (W1 to W5) as illustrated on Figure 2. In addition to the vegetation community descriptions above, the follow summaries are provided:

Wetland Area #1 (W1):  Wetland located immediately south of Gravenhurst Parkway. Supports small area of Mixed Maple Swamp (SWM2) with associated species of Red Maple, Eastern Hemlock, and Yellow Birch.  Extended periods of standing water and habitat opportunities for wildlife including amphibians (Spring Peeper), and birds (Pileated Woodpecker).  Subsurface drainage to the south, likely through the roadbed of Gravenhurst Parkway.

Page 8

Muskoka Airport Scoped Wetland Assessment

Wetland Area #2 (W2):  Long, narrow central wetland that consists of Eastern Hemlock and White Pine surrounding wetland. Limited thermal exposure except at south end.  South end of W2 supports with potential habitat for breeding amphibians.  Drains south into the east side of W2.

Wetland Area #3 (W3):  Consists of the Duckweed Floating-leaved Shallow Aquatic Type (SAF1-3) vegetation community.  Largest wetland area that supports permanent standing water and habitat opportunities for a range of wildlife including amphibians (Green Frog, Spring Peeper, Gray Treefrog), reptiles (Painted Turtle), mammals (American Beaver), waterfowl (Common Merganser, and other birds (Belted Kingfisher).  Has the potential to provide habitat for SAR (Blanding’s Turtle) although proximity to Gravenhurst Parkway and Beaver Creek Drive make the wetland less suitable or accessible to SAR.  Receives surface water input from west of Beaver Creek Drive as well as from Wetland Area #2. Permanent standing water due to impeded flow to the south.  Subsurface drainage to the south, likely through the roadbed of Gravenhurst Parkway.

Wetland Area #4 (W4):  Small isolated wetland with shorter periods of standing water.  Dominated by Winterberry shrub and high shade cover due to surrounding trees.  Some potential for early season breeding amphibians.

Wetland Area #5 (W5):  Mid-sized wetland consisting of Hemlock Organic Swamp (SWC) and Maple Mineral Mixed Swamp (SWM2), representing a mature to old growth swamp and young regenerating swamp.  Old growth swamp (105 to 135 years) could be considered specialized habitat or significant vegetation.  Strong groundwater influence on wetland with subsurface flows from the north and surface flow outlet to the northeast.

5.1.2 Flora

Over 95 species of vascular plants were identified during the botanical inventory, which consisted of a spring survey. Nine of the recorded species (about 9%) are non-native, which is considered a low percentage of non-native species in Ontario for a site in proximity to human settlement. Non-native species were recorded as scattered occurrences in low densities along the disturbed edges of the property primarily along the Gravenhurst Parkway.

At the study area level, a low percentage of non-native species is in this case indicative of low levels of disturbance and often a high floristic quality. Vegetation communities with noteworthy floristic quality in terms of diversity consisted of the Hemlock Organic Swamp (SWC), which had a high diversity of ferns and bryophytes (mosses).

Page 9

Muskoka Airport Scoped Wetland Assessment

The single botanical survey identified one regionally uncommon species, Climbing Bittersweet (Celastrus scandens) from the White Pine – Maple – Oak Mixed Forest (FOM2). No other regionally, provincially or nationally rare species were recorded. A review of the NHIC database indicated no additional significant records of flora within or directly adjacent to the subject property. A complete list of the flora identified on the subject property is provided in Appendix B.

5.1.3 Wildlife

A total of 28 species of wildlife were recorded from the study area including three species of amphibians, 20 species of birds, one reptile, and four mammals. Although an early morning breeding bird survey was not completed, many of the bird species recorded are probable breeding birds for the study area. Such species include the Red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus), Black-throated green warbler (Dendroica virens) and Great Crested flycatcher (Myiarchus crinitus).

The amphibian species recorded from the study area likely also breed on site due to the presence of suitable habitat. These species include Spring Peeper (Pseudacris crucifer), Gray Treefrog (Hyla versicolor), both of which may breed in several of the wetland on site, and Green Frog (Rana clamitans), which breeds in Wetland Area #3 (SAF1-3).

Common species of mammals recorded include Red Squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus), and American Beaver (Castor canadensis), of which a family is resident in Wetland Area #3 (SAF1-3). Moose (Alces alces) tracks were observed on the east side of the study area. A complete list of the wildlife identified on the subject property is provided in Appendix C.

5.2 Significant Natural Heritage Features

5.2.1 Species at Risk and Wildlife Habitat

There are approximately 25 SAR that occur in the District of Muskoka, and a subset of these (ten species based on a jurisdiction query on the NHIC database, 2009) that occur in the Town of Gravenhurst municipal limits. There are two species for which there are local records within one to two kilometres of the site (although not recorded from the study area). These include the Blanding’s Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) and the Eastern Hog-nosed Snake (Heterodon platyrhinos).

Blanding’s Turtles may occur in a variety of wetland types but on the Canadian Shield they very often occur in beaver , especially where there are logs or suitable rocks for sunning. One study in Wisconsin found this species selected for ponds more than marshes, which is consistent with Beacon ecologist’s observations in other areas in Muskoka. This turtle species may move considerable distances across upland habitat in search of suitable nesting sites. There is potential habitat opportunity for Blanding’s Turtle found on the northwest area of the site (Wetland #3). Although the small size of Wetland area W3 and its proximity to Gravenhurst Parkway and Beaver Creek Drive make the wetland less suitable or accessible to Blanding’s Turtle, use as habitat cannot be ruled out at this point based on the scoped level of study.

The Ontario Herpetofaunal Atlas (2006) records for the Eastern Hog-nosed Snake are widespread in Muskoka and Parry Sound Districts. This species is not habitat specific and can be found in dry sandy

Page 10

Muskoka Airport Scoped Wetland Assessment

areas, dry woods, edges of wetlands and fields, wherever it’s favourite food (toads) can be found. In a recent radio-telemetry study conducted by MNR biologists near Mactier, it was found that Eastern Hog-nosed Snakes made long distance movements and did not show a strong affinity to any one type of habitat (Rouse 2005). The snakes were found to hibernate in a variety of sites including treed slopes in upland-wetland transition areas. The lack of habitat specificity of this species makes it difficult to determine the exact habitat requirements. Sloped forested areas associated with the larger wetland in the north east, Wetland #3 (SAF1-3), could provide potential habitat opportunities for the Hog-nosed Snake. However, no specific area could conclusively be confirmed as significant habitat for this species and Hog-nosed Snake was not observed from the study area. The rock barren habitat to the south of the study should be examined for potential SAR habitat if there is any proposed development in this area.

A review of the NHIC database did not identify records of any Species at Risk reptiles on or adjacent to the subject property. A request for background information to the MNR has been submitted.

5.2.2 Old Growth Vegetation Communities

Based on assessment of the hemlock forest community FOC3 and the hemlock swamp community SWC, which supports trees that range from 105 to 135 years in age, these communities represent mature to old growth forest and swamp.

While definitions of old growth stands may vary due to factors such as tree species, they are generally characterised by the presence of a large portion of older age class trees in the range of 120 to 140 years (OMNR 2000). Old growth stands may support attributes that include specialized habitat for wildlife, rare species, and high diversity and therefore are often recommended for identification as significant habitat or as rare vegetation communities.

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

The findings of Beacon Environmental’s Scoped Wetland Assessment are based on a background review, one primary site visit, a second reconnaissance site visit, and an analysis of data using the current scientific understanding of the ecology of the area. The applicable policy and regulation requirements have also been considered. Based on the work completed to date, we have provided an initial characterization of the wetlands found within the study area including vegetation community descriptions for these wetlands and the adjacent upland areas.

Environmental sensitivities, constraints and development opportunities of the study area have been identified. Two wetland areas have been identified that have potential or confirmed features of significance and have been provided with a recommended 20 m buffer. An area of past disturbance along the southeast side of Wetland Area #5 has been provided with a reduced buffer of 5 m. This buffer area should be planted with native trees and shrubs. It is our professional opinion that there are development opportunities within the study area, including within and/or adjacent to some of the wetlands identified in the study area. The following summary and recommendations are provided.

Page 11

Muskoka Airport Scoped Wetland Assessment

 None of the wetlands are part of a designated provincially significant wetland (PSW) or an evaluated non-provincially significant wetland (which could be considered a regionally significant wetland). No other provincial, regional, or local natural heritage designation has been identified for these wetlands. The wetlands were not identified as part of the District of Muskoka Ducks Unlimited wetlands project.

 Species at Risk records for the general surrounding area include Blanding’s Turtle and Eastern Hog-nosed Snake. There are no records for these species specifically from the study area based on our background review and field surveys.

 Five individual wetland areas were identified (W1 to W5). Wetland areas W1, W3, and W4 are not considered areas of environmental constraint. Wetland W2 provides surface water flow contributions to Wetland W3. It is recommended that surface water contribution to this part of W3 be maintained to the extent possible.

 Wetland area W3, which is a shallow aquatic wetland (SAF1), in the northwest portion of the study area immediately along Gravenhurst Parkway provides potential habitat opportunities for Blanding’s Turtle based on the attributes of this wetland. More detailed studies would be needed to confirm the habitat status of the wetland.

 Although the relative small size of Wetland area W3 and its proximity to Gravenhurst Parkway and Beaver Creek Drive make the wetland less suitable or accessible to SAR, use as habitat cannot be ruled out at this point.

 The rock barren area immediately south of the study area provides potential habitat opportunities for Eastern Hog-nosed Snake. It is recommended that additional surveys be completed for this area should any proposed development occur on the rock barrens.

 A portion of wetland area W5 (only vegetation community SWC) supports Eastern Hemlock trees that are over 120 years of age, which is an indicator of old growth forest. Based on the features of this wetland (groundwater fed, slow growing), it is possible that this conifer wetland is a small area of old growth swamp. This swamp is directly adjacent to an upland Eastern Hemlock forest (FOC3) that also supports trees over 120 years of age.

 Based on recommendations for buffers provided in Muskoka Heritage Areas – Policy Review, Wetland Policy Review (DMM July 2002) as a guide, a general buffer of 20 m is recommended for Wetland areas W3 and W5. Variable buffers for features such as a stormwater facility are possible as determined at the site-specific level. A 5 m buffer has been provided for the southeast corner of Wetland Area # 5 due to the existing disturbance in this area and the native shrub and tree plantings that are recommended for mitigation at this location.

 Prior to any tree clearing and construction the limits of development should be clearly delineated and flagged. Construction should be restricted to these areas and trees should be removed in a way that does not impact any surrounding vegetation that is to be retained (i.e., felling trees into the disturbed area) in order to minimize short-term impacts.

Page 12

Muskoka Airport Scoped Wetland Assessment

 Standard sediment and erosion control measures should be installed in areas with soil disturbance, areas that convey surface flow, steep slopes, or areas adjacent to wetlands.

 Vegetation clearing should occur outside of the breeding bird season (approximately April 15 to July 30 – August 15) to prevent nest destruction to comply with the Migratory Birds Convention Act.

 It is recommended that any removal of trees, shrubs and vegetation be completed outside the periods of the end of April and approximately the middle of August. Should clearing be required within this period a survey and screening for potential nesting birds should be completed. This would consist of a biologist screening the area to be cleared of vegetation by walking the area completing auditory and visual surveys of the area. Following this screening clearing may be able to commence within the restricted window of April to August in areas where it has been documented that there are no active nests. Clearing would have to be delayed in areas with nesting birds until the young have fledged.

 Painted turtles were observed in Wetland Area #3 as well as nesting sites and a roadkill Painted Turtle along the gravel slope at the north end of this wetland. Opportunities to provide a wildlife barrier fence along the north limit of the turtle nesting area (see Figure 2) could be considered as part of future works. There are a number of designs that could be used for this area.

 Development activities within the study area should be carried out in a manner that is in compliance with the Endangered Species Act (2007). There are two key protection provisions in the ESA:  Section 9 describes prohibited activities (e.g., kill, harm, harass, possess, collect, buy and sell) for species listed as extirpated, endangered or threatened on the SARO List.  Section 10 prohibits the damage of destruction of protected habitat of species listed as extirpated, endangered or threatened on the SARO List

Report Prepared by: Beacon Environmental

Dirk Janas, Senior Ecologist/Principal

Page 13

Muskoka Airport Scoped Wetland Assessment

7. References

Bowles R.L., B.M. Bergsma, and R. Reid. 1995. Muskoka Heritage Areas Program. Species List: Technical Appendix of Natural Heritage Evaluation of Muskoka.

Brunton, Daniel F. 1993. Life Science Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest in Site District 5E-8: A Review and Assessment of Significant Natural Areas in Site District 5E-8. Science and Technology Section, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Huntsville, Ontario.

Chambers B.A., B.J. Naylor, J. Nieppola, B. Merchant, and P. Uhlig. 1997. Field Guide to Forest Ecosystems of Central Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.

Chapman, L.J. and D.F Putnam. 1984. The Physiography of Southern Ontario - Third Edition. Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume 2.

Crins W.J. 2004a. Locally Rare Vascular Plants – Site District 5E-8 (updated August 16, 2004).

Crins W.J. 2004b. Provincially and Regionally Rare Vascular Plants – Ecoregion 5E (updated August 16, 2004).

District Municipality of Muskoka. 2002. Muskoka Heritage Areas – Policy Review: Wetland Policy Review. Prepared by the District of Muskoka Planning and Economic Development Department. July 2002. District of Muskoka Planning and Economic Development Department. 2008. Office Consolidation of the Official Plan of the Muskoka Planning Area (November 19, 2010)

Jalava, J.V., W.L. Cooper and J.L. Riley. 2005. Ecological Survey of the Eastern Georgian Bay Coast. Nature Conservancy of Canada, Toronto, and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario. 180pp. + CD- ROM.

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, Southcentral Science Section, Science Development and Transfer Branch. SCSS Field Guide FG-02.

Ministry of Municipal Housing and Affairs. 2005. Provincial Policy Statement 2005. Ministry of Municipal Housing and Affairs. Toronto. 37 pp.

Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC), Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Data search June 2011. Website: www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/nhic/queries/nhic.mwf.

Page 14

Muskoka Airport Scoped Wetland Assessment

Oldham, M.J., and S.R. Brinker. 2009. Rare Vascular Plants of Ontario. Fourth Edition. Natural Heritage Information Centre. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Peterborough, Ontario. 188 pp.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1999. Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Policy 2.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement. June, 1999.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2000. Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide. 151 pp.

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.

OMNR 2011. www.mnr.on.gov.ca

Reid, R., and Bergsma, B., 1994. Muskoka Heritage Areas Program – Natural Heritage Evaluation of Muskoka. February, 1994.

Rouse, J. 2005. Species at Risk Biologist, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Personal communication with James Kamstra of Gartner Lee, October 2005.

Town of Gravenhurst. 2008. Town of Gravenhurst Official Plan. Adopted by Council: 24 October 2006. Approved with Modifications: 30 June, 2008.

Page 15

Appendix A

Site Photographs

A ppendix A

Appendix A

Site Photographs

\ Photo 1. A small pool in Wetland Area #5

Page A-1

A ppendix A

Photo 2. Edge of disturbance area along southeast side of Wetland Area #5

Photo 3. View of Wetland Area #3 looking west from roadside

Page A-2

A ppendix A

Photo 4. View of Wetland Area #3 looking south from roadside

Page A-3

Appendix B

Plant Species Recorded from the Study Area

A ppendix B

Appendix B

Plant Species Recorded from the Study Area

Coefficient of Wetness Weediness Provincial BOTANICAL NAME SSPVAR COMMON NAME Conservatism Index Index Status PTERIDOPHYTES FERNS & ALLIES

Dennstaedtiaceae Bracken Fern Family aquilinum var. Pteridium latiusculum Eastern Bracken-fern 2 3 S5

Dryopteridaceae Wood Fern Family filix-femina var. Athyrium angustum Northern Lady Fern 4 0 S5 Onoclea sensibilis Sensitive Fern 4 -3 S5

Equisetaceae Horsetail Family Equisetum arvense Field Horsetail 0 0 S5

Osmundaceae Royal Fern Family Osmunda cinnamomea Cinnamon Fern 7 -3 S5 Osmunda claytoniana Interrupted Fern 7 -1 S5

Thelypteridaceae Fern Family Thelypteris noveboracensis New York Fern 7 -1 S4S5

GYMNOSPERMS CONIFERS Juniperus communis Common Juniper 3 S5

Pinaceae Pine Family Abies balsamea Balsam Fir 5 -3 S5 Larix laricina Tamarack 7 -3 S5 Black Spruce 8 -3 S5 Eastern White Pine 4 3 S5 Tsuga canadensis Eastern Hemlock 7 3 S5

DICOTYLEDONS DICOTS

Aceraceae Maple Family Acer pensylvanicum Striped Maple 7 2 S5 Acer rubrum Red Maple 4 0 S5 saccharum ssp. Acer saccharum Sugar Maple 4 3 S5 Acer spicatum Mountain Maple 6 3 S5

Anacardiaceae Sumac or Cashew Family Rhus typhina Staghorn Sumac 1 5 S5

Aquifoliaceae Holly Family

Page B-1

A ppendix B

Coefficient of Wetness Weediness Provincial BOTANICAL NAME SSPVAR COMMON NAME Conservatism Index Index Status Ilex verticillata Winterberry 5 -4 S5 Nemopanthus mucronatus Mountain-holly 8 -5 S5

Araliaceae Ginseng Family Aralia nudicaulis Wild Sarsaparilla 4 3 S5

Asclepiadaceae Milkweed Family Asclepias syriaca Common Milkweed 0 5 S5

Composite or Aster Asteraceae Family Chrysanthemum leucanthemum Ox-eye Daisy 5 -1 SE5 ssp. Hieracium caespitosum caespitosum Field Hawkweed 5 -2 SE5 Solidago juncea Early Goldenrod 3 5 S5 Solidago rugosa ssp. rugosa Rough Goldenrod 4 -1 S5 Taraxacum officinale Common Dandelion 3 -2 SE5

Betulaceae Birch Family Alnus incana spp. rugosa Speckled Alder 6 -5 S5 Betula alleghaniensis Yellow Birch 6 0 S5 Betula papyrifera White Birch 2 S5 Corylus americana American Hazel 5 4 S5 Ostrya virginiana Hop Hornbeam 4 4 S5

Cabombaceae Water-shield Family Brasenia schreberi Water-shield 7 -5 S5

Caprifoliaceae Honeysuckle Family Lonicera canadensis American Fly Honeysuckle 6 3 S5 Sambucus canadensis Common Elderberry 5 -2 S5 Sambucus racemosa ssp. pubens Red-berried Elderberry 5 2 S5 Viburnum cassinoides Northern Wild Raisin 7 -3 S5 Viburnum lantanoides Hobblebush 8 0 S5

Celastraceae Staff-tree Family Celastrus scandens Climbing Bittersweet 3 3 S5

Cornaceae Dogwood Family Cornus canadensis Bunchberry 7 0 S5

Ericaceae Heath Family Vaccinium angustifolium Low Sweet Blueberry 6 3 S5 Vaccinium myrtilloides Velvet-leaf Blueberry 7 -2 S5

Fabaceae Pea Family Trifolium pratense Red Clover 2 -2 SE5 Trifolium repens White Clover 2 -1 SE5

Fagaceae Beech Family Quercus rubra Red Oak 6 3 S5

Page B-2

A ppendix B

Coefficient of Wetness Weediness Provincial BOTANICAL NAME SSPVAR COMMON NAME Conservatism Index Index Status

Guttiferae St. John's-wort Family Hypericum perforatum Common St. John's-wort 5 -3 SE5

Nymphaeaceae Water-lily Family Nuphar variegata Bulhead -lily 4 -5 S5 Nymphaea odorata spp. odorata Fragrant White Water-lily SU

Oleaceae Olive Family Fraxinus nigra Black Ash 7 -4 S5

Onagraceae Evening-primrose Family Oenothera biennis Common Evening-primrose 0 3 S5

Oxalidaceae Wood Sorrel Family ssp. Oxalis acetosella montana True Wood-sorrel 8 3 S5

Polygalaceae Milkwort Family Polygala paucifolia Gay Wings 6 3 S5

Primulaceae Primrose Family Trientalis borealis ssp. borealis Star-flower 6 -1 S5

Rosaceae Rose Family Crataegus spp. hawthorn 4 5 Fragaria vesca ssp. americana Woodland Strawberry 4 4 S5 Fragaria virginiana ssp. virginiana Scarlet Strawberry 2 1 SU Potentilla simplex Old-field Cinquefoil 3 4 S5 Prunus pensylvanica Pin Cherry 3 4 S5 Rubus allegheniensis Alleghany Blackberry 2 2 S5 Rubus flagellaris Prickly Raspberry 4 4 S4 Rubus hispidus Trailing Blackberry 6 -3 S4S5 idaeus ssp. Rubus melanolasius Wild Red Raspberry 0 -2 S5 Sorbus americana American Mountain-ash 8 -1 S5 Narrow-leaved Meadow- Spiraea alba sweet 3 -4 S5 Mitchella repens Creeping Partridge-berry 6 2 S5

Salicaceae Willow Family balsamifera ssp. Populus balsamifera Balsam Poplar 4 -3 S5 Populus grandidentata Large-tooth Aspen 5 3 S5 Populus tremuloides Trembling Aspen 2 0 S5 Salix discolor Pussy Willow 3 -3 S5 Salix petiolaris Slender Willow 3 -4 S5

Scrophulariaceae Figwort Family Verbascum thapsus Common Mullein 5 -2 SE5

Verbenaceae Vervain Family

Page B-3

A ppendix B

Coefficient of Wetness Weediness Provincial BOTANICAL NAME SSPVAR COMMON NAME Conservatism Index Index Status Verbena hastata Blue Vervain 4 -4 S5

Violaceae Violet Family Viola canadensis Canada Violet 6 5 S5 Viola macloskeyi ssp. pallens Macloskey's Violet 6 -5 S5

MONOCOTYLEDONS MONOCOTS

Araceae Arum Family Calla palustris Wild Calla 8 -5 S5

Cyperaceae Sedge Family Carex disperma Soft-leaved Sedge 8 -5 S5 Carex lacustris Lake-bank Sedge 5 -5 S5 Scirpus cyperinus Wool-grass 4 -5 S5

Iridaceae Iris Family Iris versicolor Multi-coloured Blue-flag 5 -5 S5

Juncaceae Rush Family Juncus effusus ssp. solutus Soft Rush 4 -5 S5

Lemnaceae Duckweed Family Lemna minor Lesser Duckweed 2 -5 S5

Liliaceae Lily Family Clintonia borealis Bluebead-lily 7 -1 S5 americanum ssp. Erythronium americanum Yellow Dog's-tooth Violet 5 5 S5 Maianthemum canadense Wild Lily-of-the-valley 5 0 S5 ssp. Maianthemum racemosum racemosum False Solomon's Seal 4 3 S5 Medeola virginiana Indian Cucumber-root 7 5 S5 Polygonatum pubescens Hairy Solomon's Seal 5 5 S5 Trillium erectum Purple Trillium 6 1 S5 Trillium grandiflorum White Trillium 5 5 S5 Trillium undulatum Painted Trillium 8 4 S5?

Orchidaceae Orchid or Orchis Family Cypripedium acaule Moccasin Flower 7 -3 S5 Epipactis helleborine Common Helleborine 5 -2 SE5

Poaceae Grass Family Brachyelytrum erectum Bearded Short-husk 7 5 S4S5 Calamagrostis canadensis Blue-joint Grass 4 -5 S5 Oryzopsis asperifolia White-grained Mountain-rice 6 5 S5 Sporobolus neglectus Overlooked Dropseed 1 5 S4

Sparganiaceae Bur-reed Family Sparganium fluctuans Floating Bur-reed 9 -5 S4?

Page B-4

A ppendix B

Coefficient of Wetness Weediness Provincial BOTANICAL NAME SSPVAR COMMON NAME Conservatism Index Index Status Typhaceae Cattail Family Typha latifolia Broad-leaved Cattail 3 -5 S5

FLORISTIC SUMMARY & ASSESSMENT

Species Diversity

Total Species: 95 Native Species: 87 % Native Species 91.58% Exotic Species 8 % Exotic Species 8.42% Locally Uncommon Species-Durham (Varga et al., 2000) enter manually Locally Rare Species- Durham (Varga et al., 2000) enter manually Regionally Uncommon Species-GTA (Varga et al., 2000) enter manually Regionally Rare Species- GTA (Varga et al., 2000) enter manually S1-S3 Species enter manually S4 Species 2 S5 Species 80

Co-efficient of Conservatism Co-efficient of Conservatism (CC) (average) 4.94 CC 0 to 3 lowest sensitivity 19 % CC 0 to 3 21.84% CC 4 to 6 moderate sensitivity 44 % CC 4 to 6 50.57% CC 7 to 8 high sensitivity 23 % CC 7 to 8 26.44% CC 9 to 10 highest sensitivity 1 % CC 9 to 10 1.15%

Floral Quality Index (FQI) 46.10

Presence of Weedy & Invasive Species mean weediness -1.88 weediness = -1 low potential invasiveness 2 percentage of total exotic species = -1 25.00% moderate potential weediness = -2 invasiveness 5 percentage of total exotic species = -2 62.50% weediness = -3 high potential invasiveness 1 percentage of total exotic species = -3 12.50%

Presence of Wetland

Page B-5

A ppendix B

Species average wetness value 0.44 upland 17 facultative upland 31 facultative 16 facultative wetland 18 obligate wetland 15

Page B-6

Appendix C

Wildlife Recorded from the Study Area

A ppendix C

Appendix C

Wildlife Recorded from the Study Area

ONTARIO GLOBAL COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS STATUS COSSARO COSEWIC REGION AREA BUTTERFLIES

AMPHIBIANS Tetraploid Gray Treefrog Hyla versicolor S5 G5 Spring Peeper Pseudacris crucifer S5 G5 Green Frog Rana clamitans S5 G5

REPTILES Midland Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta marginata S5 G5T5

BIRDS Wood Duck Aix sponsa S5 G5 Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus S5 G5 7 Broad-winged Hawk Buteo platypterus S5 G5 100 Killdeer Charadrius vociferus S5 G5 Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon S5 G5 Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus S5 G5 Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus S4S5 G5 30-50 Great Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus S5 G5 Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus S5 G5 Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata S5 G5 American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos S5 G5 Common Raven Corvus corax S5 G5 6 Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina S5 G5 4 American Robin Turdus migratorius S5 G5 Black-throated Green Warbler Dendroica virens S5 G5 30 Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus S5 G5 20 Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia S5 G5 White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis S5 G5 20 Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus S5 G5 Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula S5 G5

MAMMALS Red Squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus S5 G5 Beaver Castor canadensis S5 G5 White-tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus S5 G5 Moose Alces alces S5 G5 6

Page C-1

A ppendix C

SUMMARY

Total Amphibians: 3 Total Reptiles: 1 Total Birds: 20 Total Breeding Birds: Total Mammals: 4

SIGNIFICANT SPECIES

Global: 0 National: 0 Provincial: 0

Explanation of Status and Acronyms

COSSARO: Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario COSEWIC: Committee on the Status of Endangered Species in Canada REGION: Rare in a Site Region S1: Extremely rare in Ontario; usually fewer than 5 occurrences S1S2: Extremely rare to very rare in Ontario S2: Very rare in Ontario; usually between 5- 20 occurrences 5-20 occurrences S2S3: Very rare to uncommon in Ontario S3: Rare to uncommon in Ontario; usually between 20-100 occurrences S3S4: Rare to common in Ontario S4: Common in Ontario: apparently secure, usually more than 100 occurrences S4S5: Common to very common in Ontario S5: Very common in Ontario, demonstrably secure SE: Exotic; not believed to be a native component of Ontario's fauna SH: Hypothetical; not positively confirmed in Ontario SHB: Hypothetical breeder; not positively confirmed breeding in Ontario SZ: Not of practical conservation concern as there are no clearly definable occurrences SZB: No clearly definable occurrences of breeding SZN: no clearly definable occurrences of a non-breeding species ?: Not yet ranked; or, following a ranking, rank inexact or uncertain G1: Extremely rare globally; usually fewer than 5 occurrences in the overall range G1G2: Extremely rare to very rare globally G2: Very rare globally; usually between 5-10 occurrences in the overall range G2G3: Very rare to uncommon globally G3: Rare to uncommon globally; usually between 20-100 occurrences G3G4: Rare to common globally G4: Common globally; usually more than 100 occurrences in the overall range G4G5: Common to very common globally G5: Very common globally; demonstrably secure T: Denotes that the rank applies to a subspecies or variety END: Endangered THR: Threatened VUL: Vulnerable

Page C-2

A ppendix C

SC: Special Concern NAR: Not At Risk NIAC: Not In Any Category of risk IND: Indeterminant; insufficient data to assign a category of risk 6: Rare in Site Region 6 7: Rare in Site Region 7 Area: Minimum habitat area for area-sensitive species (ha)

Page C-3