REPORT Natural Environment Existing Conditions Report Water and Wastewater Master Study Whitchurch-Stouffville

Submitted to: Chris Campbell GM BluePlan 3300 Highway 7, Suite 402 Toronto, Ontario L4K 4M3

Submitted by: Golder 6925 Century Avenue, Suite #100 Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 7K2 Canada

+1 905 567 4444

1780242

May 2018

May 2018 1780242

Distribution List PDF - GM BluePlan

PDF - Golder

May 2018 1780242

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

1.1 Study Area Description ...... 1

2.0 METHODS ...... 2

2.1 Background Review ...... 2

2.2 Species at Risk Screening ...... 3

3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ...... 3

3.1 Regional Context and Ecosystem Setting ...... 3

3.2 Significant Natural Features ...... 4

3.2.1 Habitat of Endangered or Threatened Species ...... 4

3.2.2 Wetlands ...... 4

3.2.3 Fish Habitat ...... 5

3.2.4 Significant Woodlands ...... 5

3.2.5 Significant Valleylands ...... 6

3.2.6 Significant Areas of Natural or Scientific Interest (ANSIs) ...... 6

3.2.7 Significant Wildlife Habitat ...... 7

3.2.8 Environmentally Significant Areas ...... 8

3.3 North Stouffville Focus Area ...... 8

4.0 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT PLANNING POLICIES ...... 9

4.1 Greenbelt Plan ...... 9

4.2 Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) ...... 11

4.3 Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville Official Plan ...... 12

4.4 Region of York Official Plan ...... 14

5.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 14

6.0 LIMITATIONS ...... 15

May 2018 1780242

TABLES Table 1: Minimum Area of Influence and Minimum Vegetation Protection Zone ...... 13

FIGURES

Figure 1: Natural Heritage Features

Figure 2: Natural Heritage Features North West

Figure 3: Natural Heritage Features North East

Figure 4: Natural Heritage South East

Figure 5: Natural Heritage Features South West

Figure 6: North Stouffville Focus Area

Figure 7: Conservation Authority Jurisdictions

APPENDICES Appendix A Species at Risk Screening May 2018 1780242

1.0 INTRODUCTION Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) was retained by GM BluePlan (BluePlan) to undertake a Natural Environment Assessment to support the Water and Wastewater (W&WW) Master Plan (the Project) for the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville (the Town), Regional Municipality of York, Ontario (the study area) (Figure 1). The goal of the Project is to determine the W&WW infrastructure requirements to support the population and employment growth forecasts for the Town. The Project will also identify preferred servicing strategies and system improvements for water distribution and wastewater conveyance.

Through the identification and description of the features and functions, potential constraints and opportunities are highlighted. This report will be used to support the high level review and evaluation of servicing strategies, alignments, environmental crossings and infrastructure siting. The initial phase of this study culminated in the preparation of this Natural Environment Existing Conditions Report. The Report identifies and describes key features and functions of the natural environment.

The purpose of this report is to identify the known significant natural features (i.e., existing conditions) in the study area that may pose a constraint to the Project. The natural features considered in this report are those listed in the Provincial Policy Statement (MMAH 2014), Greenbelt Plan (MMAH 2017a), the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) (MMAH 2017b), the Region of York Official Plan (OP) (York 2010) and the Town’s OP (Whitchurch-Stouffville 2000). These natural features include:  Significant wetlands and coastal wetlands;  Significant woodlands;  Significant valleylands;  Significant wildlife habitat (SWH);  Significant areas of natural and scientific interest (ANSI);  Significant ecological areas;  Fish habitat; and  Habitat of endangered and threatened species. 1.1 Study Area Description The study area is an urban/rural community covering approximately 220 square kilometers (km2) in the central portion of the Region of York (Figure 1). Agriculture is the dominant land use in the study area, intermixed with recreational, residential and limited commercial/industrial developments. The community of Stouffville, in the southeast corner of the study area, is the largest settlement area. Smaller communities scattered through the study area include Ballantrae, Musselman Lake, Gormley, Preston Lake, Vandorf and Wesley Corners.

1

May 2018 1780242

2.0 METHODS 2.1 Background Review The investigation of existing conditions in the study area included a background information search and literature review to gather data about the local area and provide context for the evaluation of the natural features. A number of resources were used, including:  Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) database, maintained by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) (NHIC 2018);  Land Information Ontario (LIO) geospatial data (MNRF 2018a);  Species at Risk Public Registry (ECCC 2018);  Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) List (MNRF 2018b);  Breeding Bird Atlas of Ontario (OBBA) (Cadman et al. 2007);  Atlas of the Mammals of Ontario (Dobbyn 1994);  Ontario Reptile and Amphibian Atlas (Ontario Nature 2018);  Bat Conservation International (BCI) range maps (BCI 2018);  Ontario Butterfly Atlas (Jones et al. 2018);  eBird species maps (eBird 2012);  Fish ON-Line Ontario (MNRF 2015a); and  Ballantrae-Musselman Lake/Highway 48 Corridor Study (MSH 2012);  Rouge River Watershed Plan (TRCA 2007);  Watershed Plan for Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek (TRCA 2003);  Black River Subwatershed Plan (LSRCA 2010a);  East Holland River Subwatershed Plan (LSRCA 2010b);  Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville Official Plan (2000);  Region of York Official Plan (2010);  The Living City Policies (TRCA 2014); and  Aerial imagery. To develop an understanding of the drainage patterns, ecological communities and potential natural heritage features in the study area, MNRF LIO data were used to create base layer mapping for the study area. A geographic query of the NHIC database was conducted to identify element occurrences of any natural heritage features, including wetlands, ANSIs, life science sites, rare vegetation communities, rare (i.e., species ranked S1-S3 by NHIC), threatened or endangered species and other natural heritage features within the study area.

2

May 2018 1780242

2.2 Species at Risk Screening SAR considered for this report include those species listed in the provincial Endangered Species Act (ESA) (Ontario 2007) and the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA) (Canada 2002). An assessment was conducted to determine which SAR had potential habitat in the study area. A screening of all SAR which have the potential to be found in the vicinity of the study area was conducted first as a desktop exercise using the sources listed in Section 2.1. Species with ranges overlapping the study area, or recent occurrence records in the vicinity, were screened by comparing their habitat requirements to habitat conditions in the study area.

The potential for the species to occur was determined through a probability of occurrence. A ranking of low indicates no suitable habitat availability for that species in the study area and no specimens identified. Moderate probability indicates more potential for the species to occur, as suitable habitat appeared to be present in the study area, but no occurrence of the species has been recorded. Alternatively, a moderate probability could indicate an observation of a species, but there is no suitable habitat on the site or in the study area. High potential indicates a known species record in the study area (including during the site reconnaissance or background data review) and good quality habitat is present.

3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 3.1 Regional Context and Ecosystem Setting The study area lies within the Huron-Ontario sub-region of the Great Lake-St. Lawrence Forest Region. Trees characteristic of this sub-region include primarily sugar maple (Acer saccharum) and beech (Fagus grandifolia), with associates of basswood (Tilia americana), white and green ash (Fraxinus americana; Fraxinus pennsylvanica), yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis), red maple (Acer rubrum), and white, red and bur oaks ((Quercus alba; Quercus rubra; Quercus macrocarpa). Eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), eastern white pine (Pinus strobus) and balsam fir (Abies balsamea) are scattered amongst tolerant hardwoods, and in low-lying areas eastern white cedar (Thuja occidentalis), silver maple (Acer saccharinum), white and red elm (Ulmus americana; Ulmus rubra), and black ash (Fraxinus nigra) are present. Other less abundant species include large-tooth aspen (Populus grandidentata), butternut (Juglans cinerea), bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis), hop hornbeam (Ostrya virginiana), black cherry (Prunus serotina), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) and black oak (Quercus velutina) (Rowe 1972).

Approximately 80% of the study area (north of Bloomington Road) is within the Oak Ridges Moraine physiographic region. A small portion of the southwest corner of the study area is within the Peel Plain physiographic region, and the remainder of the study area south of Bloomington Road is within the South Slope physiographic region (Chapman and Putnam 1966). The Oak Ridges Moraine is characterized by hilly topography with knob-and-basin relief, and is dominated by sandy or gravelly materials typical of a glacial moraine. The South Slope represents the lands sloping down from the Oak Ridges Moraine from the Niagara Escarpment in the west to Prince Edward County in the east. In the vicinity of the study area, this region is described as smoothed, faintly drumlinized, and scored at intervals by valleys. The Peel Plain is a level expanse of clay soils with a gradual slope toward Lake Ontario. The Peel Plain is cut by several deep valleys associated with major rivers, such as the Humber, Credit, Don and Rouge (Chapman and Putnam 1966).

The study area lies within the jurisdiction of two conservation authorities (Figure 7). The majority of the study area (i.e., north of Bloomington Road) is within the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) jurisdiction. The northwestern portion of the study area is within the East Holland River subwatershed, which drains 247 km2

3

May 2018 1780242

and is one of the most populated subwatersheds. This subwatershed has 31% cover of natural area (LSRCA 2010b). The northeastern portion of the study area is within the Black River subwatershed (LSRCA 2013), which drains 375 km2 and has a high proportion of natural cover (50%) (LSRCA 2010a).

South of Bloomington Road, the study area is within two major watersheds regulated by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA): Rouge River (approximately east of 9th Line) and Duffins Creek (approximately west of 9th Line). The Rouge River watershed drains an area of 336 km2 and is undergoing rapid urbanization (TRCA 2007). Two subwatersheds of the Rouge River overlap the study area, including the Little Rouge River east of Kennedy Road, and the Main Rouge River west of Kennedy Road (TRCA 2007). Both subwatersheds were assessed to have fair water quality and poor forest cover (TRCA 2013a), while creeks within the study area were assessed as having good biotic integrity (TRCA 2007).

The Duffins Creek watershed is described as one of the healthiest watersheds along the north shore of Lake Ontario, draining an area of 283 km2 (TRCA 2003). The study area is within the West Duffins Creek subwatershed, which was assessed to have fair water quality and fair forest cover (TRCA 2013b), while creeks within the study area were assessed as having fair to good biotic integrity (TRCA 2003). 3.2 Significant Natural Features 3.2.1 Habitat of Endangered or Threatened Species Appendix A lists the species designated endangered and threatened under the ESA with potential to occur in the study area, based on the SAR screening. Based on the screening, 18 endangered and threatened species were assessed to have potential to occur in the study area, including eight birds, four mammals, one salamander, one turtle, one fish, and three vascular plants.

As the Master Plan is being prepared as an Approach 1 under the MEA Class EA Master Plan process it is assumed that certain recommended projects may require follow up commitments and study through separate Schedule B Class EA Studies or through developer requirements to meet permitting. Threatened and endangered individuals and their habitats are protected by the regulations of the ESA. Once the route alignments and sitings are defined through any required separate Schedule B Class EA studies or developer-led study, a more refined screening should be completed

Any impacts to the habitats of threatened or endangered species must be undertaken in accordance with the ESA and the associated regulations, and may require permitting or registration. 3.2.2 Wetlands Wetlands are evaluated by the MNRF according to evaluation procedures established by the province, specifically, the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (MNRF 2014). Through this evaluation, wetlands are designated either provincially significant (PSW) or non-provincially significant (non-PSW). The following eight PSWs are located within the study area:  Black River Headwater PSW Complex: Located in the north-central portion of the study area (Figure 2);  Bogart Creek PSW Complex: Located in the west-central portion of the study area (Figure 2);  White Rose – Preston Lake PSW Complex: Located in the west-central and southwest portion of the study area (Figures 2 and 5);  Vandorf PSW Complex: Located in the center of the study area (Figure 2);

4

May 2018 1780242

 East Musselman PSW Complex: Located in the east-central portion of the study area (Figure 3);  Musselman Lake PSW: Located in the east-central portion of the study area, overlapping East Musselman PSW Complex (Figure 3);  Goodwood/Glasgow PSW Complex: Located in the northeastern portion of the study area (Figure 4); and  Bruce and Berczy Creek PSW Complex: Located in the southwest corner of the study area (Figure 5). Two wetlands in the study area, Stouffville Marsh in the southeast (Figure 4) and Black River Wetland Complex #4 in the northwest (Figure 2), are non-PSW. There are numerous other small unevaluated wetlands throughout the study area (Figure 1).

Any works within the regulated area associated with wetlands (PSW, non-PSW and unevaluated) will require a Development, Interference with Wetland and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses permit from the LSRCA and TRCA. 3.2.3 Fish Habitat Projects affecting waterbodies supporting Canada’s commercial, recreational or aboriginal (CRA) fisheries must comply with the provisions of the Fisheries Act (Canada 1985). The Act prohibits the serious harm to fish that are part of a CRA fishery, or to fish that support such a fishery. Serious harm to fish is defined as "the death of fish or any permanent alteration to, or destruction of, fish habitat".

Based on a review of background materials, the study area contains a large number of surface water features that are confirmed, or have high potential to be considered, fish habitat. The majority of watercourses in the study area are considered coldwater habitat, including Black River and its tributaries, Vivian Creek, Bogart Creek, Pefferlaw River, Holland River East Branch, Bruce Creek, and Willowgrove Creek. Berczy Creek in the southwest corner and Stouffville Creek in the southeast corner are both considered warmwater systems (MNRF 2015a).

The portions of the Rouge River watershed within the study area are actively managed for coldwater species, including brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis fontinalis) and the provincially endangered redside dace (Clinostomus elongatus) (TRCA 2007). The upper reaches of the Duffins Creek watershed, within the study area, are also known to support brook trout, slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus) and redside dace (TRCA 2003). Although redside dace is known to occur in the East Holland subwatershed, it has only been captured in Sharon Creek, outside of the study area (LSRCA 2010b). Redside dace is not known to occur in the Black River subwatershed (LSRCA 2010a).

Depending upon final design, works associated with the Project may cause serious harm to fish. As such, a Request for Review may need to be completed and submitted to Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) in order to determine if an Authorization under the Fisheries Act is required.

In addition to the Request for Review, works within the regulated area associated with watercourses will require a Development, Interference with Wetland and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses permit from the LSRCA and TRCA. 3.2.4 Significant Woodlands Significant woodlands are to be defined and designated by the local planning authority (MNR 2010). According to the PPS, significant woodlands are to be identified using criteria established by the MNRF in the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (NHRM) for Policy 2.3 of the PPS (MNR 2010).

5

May 2018 1780242

The Town’s OP (Whitchurch-Stouffville 2000) maps Major Woodland Areas and Tableland Woodlot Areas (Schedule A) outside of the ORM, which are considered significant by the Town.

Major Woodland Areas are considered part of the Town’s Greenlands System. Two Major Woodlands Areas are mapped in the northwest corner of the study area: the woodland east of the rail tracks at Aurora Road and Warden Avenue, and the woodland south of Davis Drive between Warden Avenue and Kennedy Road (Figure 2). Uses permitted in Major Woodland Areas are the same uses permitted for the underlying Land Use Designation as shown on Schedule B of the OP, which are primarily Rural, Agricultural and Public Open Space.

Tableland Woodlot Areas are also considered part of the Town’s Greenlands System. Five Tableland Woodlot Areas are mapped in the south end of the study area, south of Stouffville Road and between Bruce Creek and Highway 48 (Figure 5). Uses permitted in Major Woodland Areas are the same uses permitted for the underlying Land Use Designation as shown on Schedule B of the OP, which are Agricultural and Public Open Space.

Woodlands within the ORM are also mapped in the Town’s OP (Schedule H), and are generally represented in the study area by the “Wooded Areas” (Figure 1).

The Region’s OP (York 2010) does not map significant woodlands, but does provide criteria to use in the assessment of significance outside of the ORM. The criteria are generally based on a combination of size (ranging from 0.5 ha to 10 ha) and significant ecological functions (e.g., habitat for threatened or endangered species, or within a certain distance of another significant natural feature). Within the ORM, significant woodlands are determined based on the criteria of the ORMCP. Based on the Region’s criteria, significant woodlands are likely in the study area and will generally match with the Major Woodland Areas and Tableland Woodlot Areas mapped by the Town. These same areas are also likely to be considered significant under the provincial criteria described in the NHRM (MNR 2010).

Development in, or adjacent to, significant woodlands are subject to the policies of the ORMCP (key natural heritage feature) and the Town’s and Region’s OPs (see Section 4.0). 3.2.5 Significant Valleylands Recommended criteria for designating significant valleylands under the PPS include prominence as a distinctive landform, degree of naturalness, importance of its ecological functions, restoration potential, and historical and cultural values. Both the Town’s OP (Whitchurch-Stouffville 2000) and the Region’s OP (York 2010) note that significant valleylands should be determined using criteria established by the province, and neither has mapped significant valleylands in the OP.

Based on the provincial criteria described in the NHRM (MNR 2010), the majority of valleyalnds associated with major watercourses in the study area are likely to be considered significant, including the valleylands of Bogart Creek, Black Creek, Vivian Creek, Pefferlaw River, Holland River East Branch, Berczy Creek, Bruce Creek, Willowgrove Creek, and Stouffville Creek (Figure 1).

Development in or adjacent to significant valleylands are subject to the policies of the ORMCP (key natural heritage feature) and the Town’s and Region’s OPs (see Section 4.0). 3.2.6 Significant Areas of Natural or Scientific Interest (ANSIs) ANSIs are areas of land and water containing natural landscapes or features that have been identified as having life science or earth science values related to protection, scientific study or education. The MNRF is responsible for identifying ANSIs.

6

May 2018 1780242

There are three ANSIs within the study area:  Musselman Lake Kettle Complex Life Science ANSI: Located in the east-central portion of the study area (Figure 3);  Musselman Lake Kettle Complex Earth Science ANSI: Located in the east-central portion of the study area (Figure 3); and  Vandorf Kettles Life Science ANSI: Located in the central and west-central portion of the study area (Figure 5). 3.2.7 Significant Wildlife Habitat Significant wildlife habitat (SWH), as defined by the Natural Heritage Resource Manual (NHRM) (MNR 2010), includes:  Habitats of seasonal concentrations of animals;  Rare vegetation communities or specialized habitat for wildlife;  Habitat of species of conservation concern; and  Animal movement corridors. Guidance on determining the significance of these habitats is provided in the SWH Technical Guide (MNR 2000) and the SWH Ecoregion Criterion Schedules (MNRF 2015b). The study area has the potential to support a wide range of SWH, including:  Waterfowl stopover and staging areas;  Raptor nesting and wintering areas;  Bat maternity colonies;  Turtle wintering areas;  Reptile hibernaculum;  Colonial nesting bird breeding habitat;  Rare vegetation communities;  Waterfowl nesting areas;  Bald eagle / osprey habitat;  Seeps and springs;  Amphibian breeding habitat;  Woodland-area sensitive bird breeding habitat;  Marsh bird breeding habitat;  Open country bird breeding habitat;  Shrub / early successional bird breeding habitat;

7

May 2018 1780242

 Habitat for special concern and rare wildlife; and  Animal movement corridors; Where SWH is confirmed, these areas would be subject to the policies of the ORMCP, the Town’s OP, and the Region’s OP (see Section 4.0). 3.2.8 Environmentally Significant Areas The Town maps Significant Environmental Areas on Schedule A of the OP (Whitchurch-Stouffville 2000). There are several Significant Environmental Areas in the study area, which correspond with watercourses in the Natural Heritage System of the Greenbelt Plan Area (see Section 4.1.).

The Region also maps Environmentally Significant Areas on Map 3 of the OP (York 2010). There is one Environmentally Significant Area in the western portion of the study area, around Simeon Lake and Bruce Creek. A portion of a second Environmentally Significant Area associated with Mount Albert Creek extends into the northern boundary of the study area along the rail tracks. Both Environmentally Significant Areas are within the ORM and are considered key natural heritage features. According to the Region’s OP (York 2010), these features are subject to the same policies as Life Science ANSIs under the ORMCP.

The TRCA has also designated Environmentally Significant Areas within their jurisdiction as part of the Terrestrial Natural Heritage Approach. There is one Environmentally Significant Area within the study area, just north of the community of Stouffville (TRCA 2003). Environmentally Significant Areas are considered part of the Natural System and are generally protected from development, site alteration and infrastructure. However, infrastructure may be permitted within and adjacent to the Natural System in accordance with the policies in section 7.4, 7.5 and 8.4 to 8.13 of the TRCA’s Living City Policies (TRCA 2014). 3.3 North Stouffville Focus Area The woodland west of the train tracks, as well as the narrow strips of woodland bordering the train tracks, are mapped as unevaluated wetland (Figure 6). Schedule F of the Town’s OP (Whitchurch-Stouffville 2000) also identifies the woodland as part of the Town’s Greenland System. Schedule F-3 of the Town’s OP (Whitchurch- Stouffville 2000) outlines the minimum vegetation protection zones around features within the Greenland System, which includes a 30 m protection zone around both the woodland and wetland features in the Focus Area. However, as discussed in the Ballantrae-Musselman Lake/Highway 48 Corridor Study (MSH 2012), potential adjustments to protection zones may be possible where existing development abuts natural features. For example, where residential development abuts the woodland in the Focus Area, it may be possible to reduce the protection zone to 10 m.

Because the Focus Area is within the ORM, the woodland must also be evaluated for significance under the ORMCP criteria. The Focus Area is located in the Settlement Area of the ORMCP, and woodlands must be a minimum of 4 ha in size to be considered significant. The woodland is larger than 4 ha and is considered significant.

Mapping also indicates there are two small tributaries that flow parallel to the train tracks on both the north and south sides (Figure 6). A minimum 30 m vegetation protection zone is applied to streams in the Town’s Greenlands System (Whitchurch-Stouffville 2000). According to MNRF data (MNRF 2015a), both tributaries are considered coldwater systems.

8

May 2018 1780242

There are records of butternut (Juglans cinerea) and redside dace, both designated endangered under the ESA, within the Focus Area (NHIC 2018). The woodland and wetland may also provide habitat for other threatened and endangered bird, mammal and turtle species (Appendix A), as well as several types of SWH.

The woodland is also part of the Regional Greenland System (York 2010), and is within the Settlement Area land use designation of the ORMCP. As discussed in Section 3.2.8, there is also a TRCA-designated Environmentally Significant Area within the Focus Area (TRCA 2003), that generally corresponds to the woodland west of the train tracks (Figure 6).

4.0 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT PLANNING POLICIES 4.1 Greenbelt Plan The majority of the study area lies within the Oak Ridges Moraine Area of the Greenbelt Plan Area, with the exception of the northwest corner and the southern boundary. These areas are mapped as part of the Protected Countryside designation, and include areas defined as part of the Natural Heritage System. Protected Countryside With respect to infrastructure development within the Protected Countryside (including the Natural Heritage System), the following policies apply:

All existing, expanded or new infrastructure subject to and approved under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Environmental Assessment Act, the Planning Act, the Aggregate Resources Act or the Telecommunications Act or by the National or Ontario Energy Boards, or which receives a similar environmental approval, is permitted within the Protected Countryside, subject to the policies of this section and provided it meets one of the following two objectives:  It supports agriculture, recreation and tourism, Towns/Villages and Hamlets, resource use or the rural economic activity that exists and is permitted within the Greenbelt; or  It serves the significant growth and economic development expected in southern Ontario beyond the Greenbelt by providing for the appropriate infrastructure connections among urban centres and between these centres and Ontario’s borders.

The location and construction of infrastructure and expansions, extensions, operations and maintenance of infrastructure in the Protected Countryside are subject to the following:  Planning, design and construction practices shall minimize, wherever possible, the amount of the Greenbelt, and particularly the Natural Heritage System and Water Resource System, traversed and/or occupied by such infrastructure;  Planning, design and construction practices shall minimize, wherever possible, the negative impacts on and disturbance of the existing landscape, including, but not limited to, impacts caused by light intrusion, noise and road salt;  Where practicable, existing capacity and co-ordination with different infrastructure services shall be optimized so that the rural and existing character of the Protected Countryside and the overall hierarchy of areas where growth will be accommodated in the GGH established by the Greenbelt Plan and the Growth Plan are supported and reinforced; and

9

May 2018 1780242

 New or expanding infrastructure shall avoid key natural heritage features, key hydrologic features or key hydrologic areas unless need has been demonstrated and it has been established that there is no reasonable alternative.

Where infrastructure does cross the Natural Heritage System or intrude into or result in the loss of a key natural heritage feature, key hydrologic feature or key hydrologic areas, including related landform features, planning, design and construction practices shall minimize negative impacts on and disturbance of the features or their related functions and, where reasonable, maintain or improve connectivity. Natural Heritage System For lands within the Natural Heritage System of the Protected Countryside, new development or site alteration must demonstrate that: a) There will be no negative impacts on key natural heritage features or key hydrologic features or their functions; b) Connectivity along the system and between key natural heritage features and key hydrologic features located within 240 m of each other will be maintained or, where possible, enhanced for the movement of native plants and animals across the landscape; and c) The removal of other natural features not identified as key natural heritage features and key hydrologic features should be avoided. Such features should be incorporated into the planning and design of the proposed use wherever possible.

Where regulations or standards of other agencies or levels of government exceed the standards related to key natural heritage features or key hydrologic features in the Greenbelt Plan, such as may occur with hazardous lands under section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act (1990) or with fisheries under the federal Fisheries Act, the most restrictive provision or standard applies. Key Natural Heritage Features According to the Greenbelt Plan, Key Natural Heritage features that may pertain to the study area include:  Habitat of endangered species and threatened species;  Fish habitat;  Wetlands;  Life Science ANSIs;  Significant valleylands;  Significant woodlands; and  Significant wildlife habitat (including habitat of special concern species). Key Hydrologic Features that may pertain to these parts of the study area include:  Permanent and intermittent streams;  Lakes (and their littoral zones)  Seepage areas and springs; and

10

May 2018 1780242

 Wetlands. For lands within a Key Natural Heritage Feature or a Key Hydrologic Feature in the Protected Countryside, development or site alteration is not permitted in those features, including any associated vegetation protection zone, with exceptions for infrastructure, among other things.

In the case of wetlands, seepage areas and springs, fish habitat, permanent and intermittent streams, lakes and significant woodlands, the minimum vegetation protection zone is a minimum of 30 m measured from the outside boundary of the feature.

A proposal for new development or site alteration within 120 m of a key natural heritage feature within the Natural Heritage System or a key hydrologic feature anywhere within the Protected Countryside requires a natural heritage evaluation or a hydrological evaluation which identifies a vegetation protection zone which:  Is of sufficient width to protect the key natural heritage feature or key hydrologic feature and its functions from the impacts of the proposed change and associated activities that may occur before, during and after construction and, where possible, restore or enhance the feature and/or its function; and  Is established to achieve and be maintained as natural self-sustaining vegetation. A proposal for new development or site alteration within the Natural Heritage System is not subject to policies of the Greenbelt Plan where the only key natural heritage feature is the habitat of endangered species and threatened species. 4.2 Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) As discussed in the previous section, the majority of the study area with the exception of the northwest corner and southern boundary, is within the Oak Ridges Moraine Area of the Greenbelt Plan Area and is therefore subject to the ORMCP policies. Within the Oak Ridges Moraine Area, the study area includes several designations:  Settlement Area;  Countryside Area (including Rural Settlement);  Natural Core Area; and,  Natural Linkage Area. In the Oak Ridges Moraine Area, new infrastructure corridors or facilities shall only be allowed in the Natural Core Areas and Natural Linkage Areas if they are shown to be necessary and there is no reasonable alternative. They shall also have to meet stringent review and approval standards.

In addition to the areas identified as Core Natural Areas and Natural Linkage Areas, ORMCP Key Natural Heritage features that may pertain to the study area include:  Wetlands;  Habitat of endangered and threatened species;  Fish habitat;  Life Science ANSIs;  Significant valleylands;

11

May 2018 1780242

 Significant woodlands; and  Significant wildlife habitat (including habitat of special concern species). Further, the following key hydrologic features may pertain to the study area:  Permanent and intermittent streams;  Wetlands;  Kettle lakes; and  Seepage areas and springs. All development and site alteration with respect to land within a key natural heritage feature or key hydrologic feature or the related minimum vegetation protection zone is prohibited, with the exception of infrastructure, among other things. An application for development or site alteration with respect to land within the minimum area of influence that relates to these features, but outside the feature itself and the related minimum vegetation protection zone, shall be accompanied by a natural heritage and/or hydrological evaluation.

Other designations that require consideration during project planning in the study area include:  Wellhead Protection Areas;  Landform Conservation Areas; and  Areas of High Aquifer Vulnerability. Each of the designations discussed in this section, along with minimum vegetation protection zones and minimum areas of influence, are addressed in the Town’s OP (Whitchurch-Stouffville 2000), which has been brought into conformity with the ORMCP. 4.3 Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville Official Plan The Town’s OP (Whitchurch-Stouffville 2000; 2010) provides more detail with respect to the land use designations discussed in the ORMCP at the local planning level. For infrastructure, the OP notes that new infrastructure is prohibited in all land use designations on Schedules A and B of the OP, as well as key natural heritage features and key hydrologic features, unless the requirements of Section 41 of the ORMCP are met. For the purposes of project planning, Table 1 outlines the natural features and associated minimum vegetation protection zones, as well as the areas of influence for each:

12

May 2018 1780242

Table 1: Minimum Area of Influence and Minimum Vegetation Protection Zone

Minimum Area Feature Minimum Vegetation Protection Zone of Influence

All land within 30 metres of any part of feature, subject Wetlands 120 m to clause 23(1)(d) of ORMCP if a natural heritage evaluation is required.

Significant portions of habitat of As determined by a natural heritage evaluation carried endangered, rare and threatened 120 m out under Section 23 of ORMCP. species

All land within 30 metres of any part of feature, subject Fish habitat 120 m to clause 23(1)(d) of ORMCP if a natural heritage evaluation is required.

Areas of natural and scientific As determined by a natural heritage evaluation carried 120 m interest (life science) out under Section 23 of ORMCP.

Areas of natural and scientific As determined by an earth science heritage evaluation 50 m interest (earth science) carried out under subsection 30(12) of ORMCP.

All land within 30 metres of stable top of bank, subject Significant valleylands 120 m to clause 23(1)(d) of ORMCP if a natural heritage evaluation is required.

All land within 30 metres of the base of outermost tree Significant woodlands 120 m trunks within the woodland, subject to clause 23(1)(d) of ORMCP if a natural heritage evaluation is required.

As determined by a natural heritage evaluation carried Significant wildlife habitat 120 m out under Section 23 of ORMCP.

All land within 30 metres of any part of features, Sand barrens, savannahs and 120 m subject to clause 23(1)(d) of ORMCP if a natural tallgrass prairies heritage evaluation is required.

All land within the surface catchment area or within 30 120 m of the metres of any part of feature, whichever is greater, Kettle lakes surface subject to clause 26(4)(c) of ORMCP if a hydrological catchment area evaluation is required.

All land within 30 metres of meander belt, subject to Permanent and intermittent 120 m of clause 26(4)(c) of ORMCP and subsection 26(5) if a streams meander belt hydrological evaluation is required.

13

May 2018 1780242

Each of the features and zones discussed in Table 1 are mapped in the Town’s OP, with the exception of those that can only be determined through on-site investigations (e.g., habitat for endangered and threatened species, etc.).

Additional areas that should be considered during project planning include Floodplains, as shown on Schedule A-2, Natural Feature Conservation Areas and Underlying Natural Feature Conservation Areas (Schedule E; Appendix A), 4.4 Region of York Official Plan Within the Regional Greenlands System, new infrastructure approved through the EA process is permitted. However, infrastructure should be designed to avoid key natural heritage features and key hydrologic features where possible. Infrastructure projects must also meet the requirements of other provincial plans (i.e., the ORMCP and Greenbelt Plan).

5.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Given the number of known and potential natural heritage features in the study area, Golder recommends that future planning of new infrastructure consider alternatives that avoid the natural heritage features in the study area that have been confirmed through this assessment. This would include consideration of the features as well as any associated minimum vegetation protection zone or minimum area of influence associated with them, as set out in the:  Greenbelt Plan Natural Heritage System;  ORMCP Natural Core Areas;  ORMCP Natural Linkage Areas;  Wetlands;  Fish Habitat;  Woodlands (OP Designations: Major Woodland Areas; Tableland Woodlot Area; Woodlands; Significant Woodlands);  ANSIs;  Permanent and Intermittent Streams, Lakes and Kettle Lakes;  Environmentally Significant Areas; and  Floodplains. Once potential route alternatives are known, additional natural heritage screening to identify potential features within the refined (i.e., smaller) footprint should be identified along each proposed alternative alignment, where possible, including:  Potential habitat for endangered and threatened species;  Significant valleylands;

14

May 2018 1780242

 Potential significant wildlife habitat; and  Seepage and springs. Where the Greenbelt Plan Natural Heritage System, ORMCP Natural Core Areas, ORMCP Natural Linkage Areas, key natural heritage and key hydrologic features (and associated minimum vegetation protection zones or minimum areas of influence) cannot be avoided by the preferred alternative, additional study will be required to conform to the policies of the Greenbelt Plan (minimizing negative impacts), as well as the ORMCP, Town and Regional OPs.

6.0 LIMITATIONS The results of this existing conditions report are based on information available to Golder at the time of the review, and the status of species listed in the noted Acts and Regulations effective as of the date of this technical memo. No field investigations by a qualified biologist have been conducted, and the review may be subject to limitations associated with base mapping and other publicly available information used.

15

May 2018 1780242

REFERENCES Bat Conservation International (BCI). 2018. Species Profiles. Available: http://www.batcon.org/resources/media- education/species-profiles. Accessed: January 2018.

Cadman, M.D., D.A. Sutherland, G.G. Beck, D. Lepage and A.R. Couturier (eds.). 2007. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, 2001-2005. Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Field Ornithologists Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Nature, Toronto, ON. Xxii + 706.

Canada, Government of. Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 1985. Fisheries Act. R.S.C., 1985, c. F-14.

Canada, Government of. 2002. Species at Risk Act. S.C. 2002, c. 29.

Chapman, L. J., Putnam, D. F. 1966. The Physiography of Southern Ontario. Second Edition. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. 386 pp.

Dobbyn, J.S. 1994. Atlas of the Mammals of Ontario. Federation of Ontario Naturalists, Toronto. 120 pp. eBird (Audubon Society, Cornell Lab or Ornithology). 2012. eBird Range Map Data (Online). Available: http://ebird.org/ebird/explore. Accessed: January 2018.

Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC). 2018. Species at Risk Public Registry. URL: http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/sar/index/default_e.cfm. Accessed January 2018.

Jones, C., R. Layberry, and A. Macnaughton. 2018. Ontario Butterfly Atlas Online. Toronto Entomologists’ Association. URL: http://www.ontarioinsects.org/atlas_online.htm. Accessed January 2018.

Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA). 2010a. Black River Subwatershed Plan. Available: https://www.lsrca.on.ca/Shared%20Documents/reports/black-river-subwatershed-plan.pdf

Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA). 2010b. East Holland River Subwatershed Plan. Available: https://www.lsrca.on.ca/Shared%20Documents/reports/east-holland-subwatershed-plan.pdf

Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA). 2013. Lake Simcoe Watershed Report Card 2013. Available: https://www.lsrca.on.ca/Shared%20Documents/reports/watershed_report_card_2013.pdf

Macaulay Shiomi Howson Ltd. (MSH). 2012. Ballantrae-Musselman Lake and Environs. Secondary Plan/Highway 48 Corridor Review. Final Report. November 2012.

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH). 2014. Provincial Policy Statement. Queens Printer for Ontario. 50 pp.

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH). 2017a. Greenbelt Plan. Queen’s Printer of Ontario. 76 pp.

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH). 2017b. Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. Queen’s Printer of Ontario. 76pp.

Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC). 2018. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. Available: https://www.ontario.ca/page/get-natural-heritage-information. Accessed January 2018.

Ontario, Government of. 2007. Endangered Species Act. S.O. 2007. Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Toronto, ON.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). 2010. Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Natural Heritage Polices of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 Second Edition.

May 2018 1780242

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). 2000. Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (SWHTG). 151 pp.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). 2014. Ontario Wetland Evaluation System for Southern Ontario. Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). 2015a. Land Information Ontario, Aquatic Resources Area Layer. Fisheries Section, Species Conservation Policy Branch. Accessed January 10, 2018.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNRF). 2015b. Significant Wildlife Habitat Criteria Schedules. January 2015.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). 2018a. Land Information Ontario (LIO) mapping. Available: https://www.ontario.ca/page/land-information-ontario.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). 2018b. Species at Risk in Ontario List. Queens Printer for Ontario. URL: http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/species-risk-ontario-list. Accessed January 2018.

Ontario Nature. 2018. Ontario Reptile and Amphibian Atlas. Available: http://www.ontarionature.org/protect/species/herpetofaunal_atlas.php. Accessed: January 2018.

Rowe, J. S. 1972. Forest Regions of Canada. Fisheries and Environment Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Headquarters, Ottawa. 172 pp.

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). 2003. A Watershed Plan for Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek. August 2003.

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). 2007. Rouge River Watershed Plan. Available: http://www.trca.on.ca/dotAsset/37800.pdf

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). 2013a. Rouge River Watershed Report Card 2013. Available: https://trca.ca/wp- content/uploads/2016/04/2173_WatershedReportCards_Rouge_rev11_forWeb.pdf

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). 2013b. Duffins Creek Watershed Report Card 2013. Available: https://trca.ca/wp- content/uploads/2016/04/2173_WatershedReportCards_Duffins_rev11_forWeb.pdf

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). 2014. The Living City Policies for Planning and Development in the Watersheds of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. November 28, 2014.

Whitchurch-Stouffville, Town of. 2000. Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville Official Plan.

Whitchurch-Stouffville, Town of. 2010. Oak Ridges Moraine Documents (ORMI; ORMII; ORMIII; ORMIV; ORMV).

York, Region of. 2010. Region of York Official Plan.

May 2018 1780242

FIGURES

622000 623000 624000 625000 626000 627000 628000 629000 630000 631000 632000 633000 634000 635000 636000 637000 638000 639000 640000 641000 642000 643000 644000 645000 646000 647000

0 D 0 0 VE R 0 KEY MAP 0 E A Y 0 AV RR ASB 5 A E 5 AY F C F

8 M 8 E 8 8 N 4 4 T D O

R R T E T R V W BE N A E

L O S A T E T OR S N M N OU T R M D H R ST M CRE O A D L W LI 0 IL IL D 0 H W E D R 0 A V 0 D A RAL 0 R WAR HE 0 D 4 4

8 8 A 8 8

M V D

4 V K 4 A E BL P E G

C L E C E N 8 O I D O L R R N Y G H A Y E N I R W A C R L D W C L P R L PEFFERLAW T O NE D LO DR N 5 O S A 0 2 C AVI I RIVER 0

0 D 0

0 IV 0

3 V 3 8 8 8 8 4 4 STUDY AREA

HOLLAND M E I L T L RIVER EAST A D R N G SILOAM N R E U EIR 0 BRANCH NE OB 0

0 A 0 L H POND

0 N 0 E B E A 2 R A 2 G R 8 8 R L

8 E 8 Y 4 LLE R S 4 Y W VA D IE D L A R

S E R

D L

D

E V R R E D K L H AR A L E A ND STEL C R A P O

S H R O P N A

D A E R K 0 Y C N C 0

L T 0 O N A Y 0 A Y D T I K R 3

IS J 0 P R S 0

RES R A T EE 1 C A S 1 S B H IN W D 8 G LG 8 NI E W W 8 R R 8

L E D L D E

4 N 4 P

I R I WAY

V A B D T Y E N R

N N A T R S A S C E IVI DO N B T V ST

N I T M

A

LO E A Y A P R S R ER M S H S C T

O R D AW IVE R N M L L N

I R 7

O A 4 0 A E 0

R F

0 M N F 0

D E Y 0 0 D S S E P

R A

0 0 R T C R H 8 D A W 8

E D 1:1,000,000 R SCALE 8 V H 8 D A T S R 4 4 N R N E O G

N AC O Y E I O E V T O R KIN GS G DW T R A RD H IL S W E G F P W M KN G A L A D G H A U W R FA L N M O G L LEGEND O

Y O A ST K L O I Y E

N E L R N G SRI 0 G Y 0

S A ST P W 0 N ES 0 E EE T B ROADWAY 0 U K A 0 Q S B Y 9 S 9 9 T T

7 E E L 7 AV V L S A H 8 D O 8 R RK O T A WO 4 MILLA PA S K E D 4

R L Y

Y N S A H I W T S Y

N IMO ER TA ER N E E T K I R S E N T C IC N S DR RAILWAY

P G N

A A

G M E N

L V E L

O H C T A

N L

E G

E A O C D R

D W

R M R

O L Y

R

UE E N W E

R G N E

D E S A

V O E D U

I S A T D G LAZY LAKE I

0 0

S L RD

A G R P

E R E

C S

L L A LE 0 0 R

G E WATERCOURSE E R

A K

E S T 0 0

T N R O H A

LL D

O S L A 8 N 8 D B E C C

T E L T D 7 7 I S L R

M IR AL D 8 8

X Y D B U A T D O O G O 4 IN R 4 S K G W N I K R O ID D N B O M P LP L N C GART STALEY R E OO D A A K C E W OL IE R AN C G

S E L M E L N C WETLAND L C O L M F C RE N E R G C EK G AI EE ER

N IN I G R O

B O IR R R M F

A C E R R R

T Y LAKE

R G

C R H O E N R HRO R

L E S T

U

S

G R N D S D R V E S O E LL C N W R E C O SHADOW T D D N S

K C 2 I C X LO R LA T ES PROVINCIALLY SIGNIFICANT WETLAND (PSW) S U K 7

E 4 R E S

0 M HO C 0

T D RE LAKE 0 0

E V S Y AV RK L T R S A B U G D A 0 0

N P T A F W 7 E W R R 7 B E H D

7 D R 7 F C N VE I IG B ONEHAVEN A S E R 8 A C 8 T L T IN E H E S L K E

E M D 4 G R O N R 4 VA E VALLE Y L G WATERBODY SA D S A OOD D MUSSELMAN A ID S C E OR EW R T R S CR UR HIT R N R CI K A W IO E

W LAKE G E K R R D E E

SHAD I E D R F O C L

RAC O A

E D V D H S A SO

F ILL R L H DE N G P AN AREAS OF NATURAL AND SCIENTIFIC INTEREST (ANSI) E

D N

O C

0 R A N 0 R Y G

O

0 RD 0 S IR E N 0 0 E C ON L S

6 M C 6 R JEL HO 7 T WINDSOR LAKE D 7 4 O INN E V

8 A L S D 8 C L P ES V B E J REGIONAL GREENLANDS SYSTEM (YORK REGION) 4 A C KIDD L 4 K L S NE B E A E L L N TRE O O

K I IC

C E RA S

E T H B

R R O E A L I R L IR S E C W D Y RD T N Y A R IDE NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM (GREENBELT PLAN) S O E S C R HN UNTR SE 0 O O Y D 0 N T J 4 C

0 S 0 0 N W ILL 4 0 RD 0

A O Y H T A R 5 D 5 L A R 7 D W 7 D 8 D 8 WOODED AREA Y L M E R 4 RAI TE R IDE 4 O T NE TA FA N S ON R S F N W T R O IE A D G N

V H

C A

D V V

N R D

W E A E E

L S R L Y S I DR N

T STUDY AREA

S E O I

T D S

L T U D D

H S CK R E R 4

L ON LO RS S R C O 8 0 T IL E 0 NG H AT 0 S LI N O SL 0 P T EL DO

0 F 0 W Y R W R 4 A O 4 Z U I

7 L M 7 A R O DR

C T L A W 8 IE 8

DR V K O K R E 4 E 4 S P E RA N K O D N S X TR DR Y L E P A U VI TS T DR O I E GH DR C T L R

D I D A L

E N N R IL R G H H MA U D H ST TI E K A

A V

K E M NOTE(S) d R AR R M N x

H L D N O I m R C D 0 N R 0 . AU E B 1. ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE

0 T N E B 0 1 D WE R S 0 0

0 A R Y GLASGOW E 3 3

0 B IV ST 7 R E A 7 0 P Y D R E

- W 8 R R 8 S D R A N VAN POND 4 R 4 REFERENCE(S)

N A M J E R D E A L T H E

- L L N NOSTRAND LAKE RD S 1 O L ON 1. LAND INFORMATION ONTARIO (LIO) DATA PRODUCED BY GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD. UNDER ST N T M T 0 G R E

E S S O IN L L 0 Y M U T O

T H O 0 G L LICENCE FROM ONTARIO MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES, © QUEENS PRINTER 2014

R B

-

R

R W

E 2

T IN E A S 1

T D D

4 Y

0

Y 2. SERVICE LAYER CREDITS: NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC, ESRI, DELORME, HERE, UNEP-WCMC,

0 D 0 D S E U R

2 N T 0 EN 0 S 0 K H 0 DR 0 T

8 S K USGS, NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, INCREMENT P CORP. 2 2

D N D L I R 7 L V I 7 LF 7

I N

R R 1 O D I

A M

8 N 8 \ G E t

L 3.© COPYRIGHT, THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES OF DURHAM 4 O C 4 E

n R F A P S C

e W S

D D K S E O O D AND PEEL, COUNTY OF SIMCOE, CITY OF TORONTO

: V Y T m PL

O U W n L

R M S T

B H A o

B W 4. PROJECTION: TRANSVERSE MERCATOR, DATUM: NAD 83, r BR

N O

i R A AKE D E L V I v I E X R W AVE R ER

N R n A E B

O Y R COORDINATE SYSTEM: UTM ZONE 17, VERTICAL DATUM: CGVD28 F D A O D R Y

0 B 0

E T R K

U S

C D N

0 A 0 D A S

_ D L R l L O O V

0 E A L 0

M E E R A L C a S E S I 1 R T 1 r D T H R

I F 7 R 7 G B u B L C V N P I t L S C 8 AS D E 8 A Y L S R a D

4 O A E E 4 R B Y I B T A IN

D S E F O L L N K C T C L N O N A V I O D F N A FE OW _ S H A R R C I M T M E A E G S M R 1 D H N N RI C O U I S E L W ST R L 0 H E D R L I N W D K I N R IC N 0 A W LA P I A A A C M N N L E E O I OR

0 R M G E

V I L H D S D

\ I H D E

T L E R E O R B E B R A S C X 2 D C L U 2 B A L D E L TA 6 R T T 4 0 R L O E 0 O R O A B R

M D S 0 A 0 T W I T T P R N A

A

0 Y S 0 D K R R R

P E 0 D G S E 0 A D M K

D R L D H R R E E L AY E _ E 7 ID T O W 7

W DG A S H 0 I N K B E E 8 R R 8 N E V A E O V R C E S 4 A D

4 L V 4

S A A Z

\ L E A R E U J I L

L H W R I G T D T B O

n E O R L I E TE E C R S G B V N S E R N R M E

L a C ID UP l MC U R D R E

O L

H T E R p R A D r T S 3 ED CR S E D C O N T 2

e R I O

A E t N E M A D TO DR N R s G N IN K E R S CO H a L I M R H

A O C T S O I S 9 R L E 0 K D 0 M T B R D T E 0 R L E 0 0 800 1,600 3,200 _ Y O S R E R HE S W 0 A R 0 B N R H

M E B T 9 R L 9 E SIMEON D E E T

D 6 D 6 G L D R I , E ADE R C S 8 L D F 8 _ PAR LE D K V N

O I 4 R T 4 2 LAKE PA R L T R R D 4 S VE B W O D U 2 LY O W AY E H S O 0 IV N D E F 1:85,000 METRES A S H 8 B R R V F

7 B HAYNES LAKE ST. E S I 1 E Y E N

\ A W R S R I

J S

S D S

R M

R R GEORGE W A S

Y BERCZY CREEK S TO

S A

O E E T

0 E N S 0

R O R C O R V D C A 0 D U L 0 R C O R C I D

0 A I 0 R E LAKE D F N P D AV R H E

8 A 8 N C F E E _ C INGTO V W 6 T N 6 H E D S CLIENT 9 A T ES W RT O R I 3 8 O L E 8 R R AL E L L R 9 O L L

D NA F L L E CREEK 0 K H I R I \ 4 V I 4 K A A F N

C F D U C N

m A E I TO

L D

L D S T e E B R

t 2 E I TOWN OF WHITCHURCH-STOUFFVILLE A K C 8 s E AV D A S

y K

E L M V L E O R N S

S R D D G E R H N LM E WILCOX O T _ U LA E V I C r M R A F D R O BE VE D N N e RO SH N O t

0 A C 0 V G A L N

E LAKE H

E E L K S T 0 0 L D a H 8 AP A R L PROJECT S 0 M 0

R D I L I W R E

E 7 D S N 7

A L _ L L 6 I G E 6 O e R U

8 O 8 l D D R l D 3

R D i 4 O 4

H TOWN OF WHITCHURCH-STOUFFVILLE WATER AND WASTEWATER C I D 4 v A f BE L R T

f AI ET ET D DA

V N u D S R G R ES UN O B o S E R IN R D R MASTER STUDY t D K C WILLOWGROVE NI ND U I D M S O C B IC R C \ UC V P BO E E d LE VE CREEK t A

R C TH L OLD 19 U 0 EN DR C 0 p RD 0 A O R 0 D S u G R 0 E LO B E 0 o Y A N E E r 6 T 6 TITLE

ES K E 6 TA R 6

G L EL E R 8 S 8 N M e C ZE S E 4 C 4 r

CO K

S

D E u

D I t R R BOND Z Y S NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES c H B C O u

R T A r LAKE E R t T

R F s E H R I

a U K

D D r E f R

R n G

0 S 0 I m l CONSULTANT 0 K 0 T D O 2017-09-13 a YYYY-MM-DD m 0 A D 0

p E R L U R 5

i 5 UT G N 5

O 2 S T O c

6 C 6 i R A H T E

8 T 8 n L B O IT 7 4 4 u

T O DESIGNED ----

R L R B M

PHILIPS I I E K

D e V N

O h E C K S U E R T O IC R O R O G EE IL LAKE K \ M S R N THOMPSON IR K E PREPARED ABD H N O S R O

M ( D

R

I R IE R

S NZ N

_ LAKEE D I C E M T

l D K 0 Q V 0

ET R C R K H O A a ID MO M

0 I 0 i S UN È T R

t N E U O

0 A R 0

O C S W AJ REVIEWED GW a ES R R R E J M 4 E J D 4

I C A F

p F R E E K O

6 N O L J O 6

N N

S Y

8 R 8

E S A P

F \ R E I R D W R C M 4 A 4

e C

O E C O E R C v D R APPROVED HM

i O A R K t S E E D U LL O

c I D R M E E G IN K A G K

\ L D E : E C R R ES PROJECT NO. CONTROL REV. FIGURE N )

: h t 1780242 0001 A a 622000 623000 624000 625000 626000 627000 628000 629000 630000 631000 632000 633000 634000 635000 636000 637000 638000 639000 640000 641000 642000 643000 644000 645000 646000 647000 P 1 0 624000 625000 626000 627000 628000 629000 630000 631000 632000 633000 634000 635000 636000 637000 0 0

0 D 0

0 R 0 KEY MAP LD 3 A 3 ER 8 H 8 8 8 4 4

E E AN N L EE HOLLAND GR

0 RIVER EAST DR 0 0 ELL DR 0 0 W IS 0 BRANCH G V M 2 RIN DA 2 A 8 LVD 8 B P 8 LE 8

4 A 4 D B L RIS E KER A L B E U L VA S I IE L H STUDY AREA SL LE S H TR A R A LE Y DR R D LVD D A R B R R ELL T S D ST R GH IS RI E AV Y D W R L B T E R I W F I AR A

C A G R L K

D L E

E

D E H K S

L E DA R N E S A L G V Y R T R D E H A S OW V Y A P B IV K E D T ST IA P N R I H T C C E R C E O R P R N R S A A A T K W J S N E T J E N I Y W G Y E A L N E K

E G A R I I A N LI AVE

V M O A A D 0 H Y 0

A W R 0 B 0 0 0 1 1 8 8 8 8

4 SU 4 N N E DR Y AYN W H P PL A W O IE B M

I

N E

V H D T I H T R

R U L L L N

T E

O A T I O

D V F I

N R D V

W O

U A R

O S

E W HT G

O N Y M A T

E S R A N T N D L R D RY S A E S D R M R E E D H B T A R T C R E R P T V R E M F D A D E D O A T R R ED T N A D R H E 1:1,000,000 V Y SCALE B E E E L C A N R A IN O C D W N R N T L S W

L R R U E E

T O A

O N O E F S V N S 0 E O 0 R E D N S C 0 0 D LEGEND S Y

0 A 0 D

T B S V L 0 R 0

C D I E O N 8 L D 8 A D

8 R 8 N O E A T S R O SE

4 E 4

N U C R W O A A L

R R H H E G A C K V ROADWAY S BIR C O TA S E A O

X L T H B N S E O Y A D LE R X IG R R SR E T O H R A R AV G D D Y R N S U N R R ST NE RAILWAY EE D MA M LK U A W U Q E LE RH FA R GO A

L K

R

P E

R D RD R O OW WATERCOURSE

S R

R P M A

P C

P S K

U R

E Y

R O C NICHOLSON R

I D

W S T E

0 L 0 D WETLAND 0 0

S E

0 S 0

T T R 9 E 9 B ND

7 D 7 BLVD AI 8 E LA R 8

4 K 4 C N B PROVINCIALLY SIGNIFICANT WETLAND (PSW) O

L E ST Y R ATER BB

W BO O L N T Y RS U A E G S T ST WATERBODY IN C NG T R N A T ER O M K R L A HE S IC N T P E G R S STERS S E A E DR E M T NOR T H N T A P T AREAS OF NATURAL AND SCIENTIFIC INTEREST (ANSI) L

O M D L E

C E A Y E V

E B CIR G

A L G E

I N R P E E

L JA L

R N R N

O CI RD REGIONAL GREENLANDS SYSTEM (YORK REGION) O

0 G E 0

A D RA 0 C R 0 K LE ANT

0 A L R 0 D AL D S G B

8 IN N 8 T E VE K H L 7 A DR UL 7 I W 8 BO ND CK M 8

4 O C 4

UL R Y M NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM (GREENBELT PLAN) M W EP O S E L ER CIR M O B E IPH 4 R F P O E AK C R 8 U E E O N R L U A B D Q T X B RM RO G RD R IT L E C BO A IL T T R L C H R H A R LPOLE IE I S C K T CRE TR A N ME A L R T O C E W C L W ES US K E S R E G T N O N I I R R N R A E WOODED AREA

E D F E IN S R S R G R V GO G T DR D

S G L T A R T H O D B C C L L N A L K E IE Y NA E I F EE G I I

I RID R Y R SB B R A G

V N IV E GR

L N R

E G L A S R V C D E C RE

N M L E E EL D S W K R C I E M CO S R STUDY AREA C R N

E X LE E C E E B R N RK A A D M T P B LV A N W R

E V N O

T E F E L R M N AK D S I E E JA S E H N I R OR Y L E U A E A D RD Q V C C 0 AVE A L IR 0 C H 0 AN N S R 0 G E E H R

0 B A E 0 C HAV IS IR E M NE M V D 7 CR O CTA C N R S 7 DLE E ST R D BLV R 7 E D EENVALL D 7 S N EY H O D S 8 T N 8 HIL ATK I Y 4 R B 4 RT ES IS D B C CR O L NOTE(S) d S U E L V D CU L ES Q x S L A A O F S M F O U D N m T T R A C S R I . DR 1. ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE A E D C D K L R O 2 IR O EWO R W T E R HI 0 W I D AU W C S R O E A 0 O D ID L S R 0 S I

- N E H O D W L J REFERENCE(S) N T E E S S DG P I N H H I S A R T - DR R L H A E S VE D U A 1 CH K R A A 1. LAND INFORMATION ONTARIO (LIO) DATA PRODUCED BY GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD. UNDER O V T 0 D O IS BR E V 0 R L P NE 0 N P I LICENCE FROM ONTARIO MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES, © QUEENS PRINTER 2014 - NO 2 G AG 4 LVD 2. SERVICE LAYER CREDITS: NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC, ESRI, DELORME, HERE, UNEP-WCMC, B 2 N B A

0 A M S LY B Y

8

0 0 E USGS, NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, INCREMENT P CORP. U V 7 0 0

I C

1 R 0 E D 0 \ R t 3.© COPYRIGHT, THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES OF DURHAM 6 N 6 W K C O

n S 7 L E OM 7 e 8 A TH 8 H E V AND PEEL, COUNTY OF SIMCOE, CITY OF TORONTO 4 S 4 : m S W E E E J N n A

L M Y O o IC 4. PROJECTION: TRANSVERSE MERCATOR, DATUM: NAD 83, r M A R O i B A O v L R V 4 n

0 COORDINATE SYSTEM: UTM ZONE 17, VERTICAL DATUM: CGVD28 F

R

E 4 D

_ I l N

A E a C I r F u I t B L a L D D E M I G E R R D V

N E E A Y O

E C

M D I N T _ G R W O

S H R C M 1 L S L IS D A T E O 0 IA U L T N S W 0 E S T B E 0 W H N A \ E I DR E L E Y N A W O R D DR B T B R Y EN T N S R R A R O DE W N U E I S D 0 D 0 P R O O O R P ILL O C A 0 R H 0 T U P

0 O 0 G H _

5 D D 5 H 0

A E 7 J Y CRES 7 R

4 Y Z 8 S 8 \

S I

V T I 4 4 n T ARM S

a F l E W T AY T p STA r AIL E e TR E t W R C IE CR E s L N V L N H E R E O a D W T

Y E N A S L A B S E

M V OL A S H IS 0 445 890 1,780 E _ EAL OR H M B VD T L E G V E B A , _ G W D E N

2 I OLL D WILLIA R 4 M D H R W C N 2 NE T A R A O 0 K S E 1:45,000 METRES E H

8 R DR S K D

7 R S E C S U LO 1 A ST IL O \ L H D C S N N F R R I

J K O S

O O

T D D R

C D Y G E

0 R N T 0 I I

O A

D N L T R A L L

0 O E M S 0 F N

G O W A R

0 U S A 0 W R

M D T

V P E E H R 4 RI T 4

E O _ R 7 RJ E D 7

A R W

R CLIENT

9 E 8 8 C M B ID

W R S 9 4 4 T A F H \ Y O R V E A N O S W E D K V N C m E H A A IT E N V S Y T e E C SM IL t LO X TOWN OF WHITCHURCH-STOUFFVILLE R T R A s W IC E A y D M N R C M L DR E U S H Z KO O A L T T _ O N A I r G V J MA D O NAM E e E t Y D N A E D a R D PROJECT S A I W

D A E ILL O _ C N M L

W O e I A l F

l H D i S

TOWN OF WHITCHURCH-STOUFFVILLE WATER AND WASTEWATER F W Y C RT v A C f C T f N

T I N u R A S o R MASTER STUDY E t B M S M

\ Y

I L E 0 L 0 d R T O t R 0 A S 0

L Y 0 M A 0 U p E 3 P 3

R S u I

7 V R 7 L AND E o A 8 D L 8 r L VAN TITLE E 4 R O E 4

G R H L

R E M e

S

r E T N OC NOSTRAND T S u O A R I t T O D N S NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES c

E B H L LAKE u E T r G F R t R IF F s E L E A I a RD NORTH WEST E r P N D f R D RI E ON n D M T I S R E G m l IN AU IN CONSULTANT S E D OM 2017-09-13 a U YYYY-MM-DD O O m C R BL p 5 i 2 c i

n

u INDU T DESIGNED ---- S R

M T C

e R

h I A T 0 0 \ L RD N PREPARED 0 TH A 0 ABD M R G 0 O 0 I P N LO

2 V 2 _ K l

7 I 7 Y N a i 8 8

E t T P 4 S S 4 REVIEWED GW S a A E D p T R

A R S K S G

\ L

O P H

E

e N D U I v R APPROVED HM i t O O L

F T c T S H L S D A R \ T

: R BBO D PROJECT NO. CONTROL REV. FIGURE

N A

: h t 1780242 0001 A a 624000 625000 626000 627000 628000 629000 630000 631000 632000 633000 634000 635000 636000 637000 P 2 0 60 29000 630000 631000 632000 633000 634000 635000 636000 637000 638000 639000 640000 641000 642000 0 0 0 0 0 5 5

8 K 8 KEY MAP 8 8

E 4 4 E R N C IA C V E I

N V

T

R

E

S

T

ALD RD HER 0 0 C 0 0 O 0 0

N 4 4

8 C 8

8 8 3 4 4 STUDY AREA

PEFFERLAW RIVER R IS D DAV 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 8 8

8 8 8 4 4 RD REG

E AT G

N

U R

MILL SILOAM POND SCALE 1:1,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 M

2 2 LEGEND A IL 8 TR A 8 P L 8 IL 8

4 H 4 L N E GL E B ROADWAY U I L S H TR A

RAILWAY

W RD BO S IAN T VIV WATERCOURSE 0 0 0 0 0 RD 0 WETLAND 1 1

8 WEES 8 8 8 4 4 PROVINCIALLY SIGNIFICANT WETLAND (PSW)

WATERBODY T S RRY CHE AREAS OF NATURAL AND SCIENTIFIC INTEREST (ANSI) C

O ER N IV C

R 2 R

0 W 0 LA D 0 FER 0 REGIONAL GREENLANDS SYSTEM (YORK REGION) 0 EF 0 0 P A 0 T 8 L 8

8 A 8 4 4 NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM (GREENBELT PLAN) S CRE DS AN VE S R A N OL NE DE C IST ULK G R BR WOODED AREA FA O E S Y O

R

K

D STUDY AREA U

R

9 H AY T A W H BES M 0 BA 0 L L 0 0 I N I

0 K 0 LA E W N H E O 9 BEND O E 9 W 7 D 7 AI D

8 S 8 Y KE LA R 4 4 C N B O D L E

W 4

Y R R

8 N B N I

B A

A O S NOTE(S) d O B ER F R x

L ST L D T A m Y M . E U A E R 1. ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE

3 N S T H NG T R N T O L 0 D O E A L A U N GE 0 N V N 0 E D - TERS

AS S A RD M C REFERENCE(S) N IL LAZY G T HE RY T RA AG

H W O - P U 1 LAKE L Y 1. LAND INFORMATION ONTARIO (LIO) DATA PRODUCED BY GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD. UNDER 0 A Y R Y P R E R 0 L L LLE L D 0 E L ES GA A LICENCE FROM ONTARIO MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES, © QUEENS PRINTER 2014 - L G R P E E K Y 2 E S A A 4 D L 2. SERVICE LAYER CREDITS: NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC, ESRI, DELORME, HERE, UNEP-WCMC, R D K 2

0 E N 0 A LA E 0 R 0 NT IS 0 8 A 0 D BALL DR 0 USGS, NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, INCREMENT P CORP.

7 R 8 IDE EN C 8 1 L 7 S L 7 \ S U R t N 3.© COPYRIGHT, THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES OF DURHAM 8 OH M E 8 n J 4 C 4

ST R S e W M O AND PEEL, COUNTY OF SIMCOE, CITY OF TORONTO : m O B n O E STALEY M o R D D 4. PROJECTION: TRANSVERSE MERCATOR, DATUM: NAD 83, r R O i L K I T T R BOGA H RA R E v A T N M LAKE R R E T E S n G

C F N R COORDINATE SYSTEM: UTM ZONE 17, VERTICAL DATUM: CGVD28 R A E

E E R LANE E N E T G R L K G D D P D _ A R A l H E O D L L AN S M IE Y EN SHADOW E a D F P Y RE I r RA G Y R E G F u N L A R I t D U LAKE a C D R N E O D _ M 1

0 N F 0

SMIN D E E 0 A LV J E E B \

L E L VA

D C C B 0 RD 0 ST R H 0 S R E 0 O R A G D

C S

0 E 0 A E H R E G R I I C A 7 C N R S H 7

P R 7 7 EENVALLEY D H _

8 8 Y 0 E 4 R B 4 D DR 4 R IS Z \ L NO UO ON I L D n V C

Q S A a O l D N R R MUSSELMAN T p I DR E r A D OR WOO E e R ITE E t U H L A W A LAKE s

K H a E S

S

M H

0 445 890 1,780 E _ O R M R H M E E E D V L T C A A R G A D T D S , C S LL _ I HI

V N O 2 PI NE W 4 W

2 A O

0 R N D 1:45,000 METRES H

8 R SO R D 7 D WIN R S

D 1 Y 0 0 \ LE S

L I J 0 VA 0

0 D 0 O R 7 T 6 N 4 6

O A R S 7 OM Y 7 P H

8 H 8 E T A _ 4 SS W 4 E E H CLIENT W 9 J N LA G 9 O I H \ C RAI H

B C

m L LO D A T

e V P L N t TOWN OF WHITCHURCH-STOUFFVILLE A B O A s I I N y G S M

O E

S L S R E R T _ E r Y D O e N t L A N HOLLAND A a

N PROJECT S

W E R E _ D RIVER EAST O e E IA

l L l D i BRANCH TOWN OF WHITCHURCH-STOUFFVILLE WATER AND WASTEWATER v f T f Y DR

R N u T N 1 o MASTER STUDY E U 0 t

0 O T 0

L M S IL C 0 H H 0 \ E 0 0 d T L t R R 5 C 5 I

L N 7 7

O U p

8 R E 8 I S u

4 4 A o A

r C TITLE E G M e r S u I t NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES c H u T r t F s I

a NORTH EAST r E f AV D n W R I E N m l O D ILL R GT CONSULTANT 2017-09-13 a W IA YYYY-MM-DD R D IN m N M p M O 5 i T A BLO 2 c S i E n R u DESIGNED ---- O RD

M F R RS e D TE 0 LA 0 h S

0 M 0 T

0 A 0 \ T NCH PREPARED ABD R 4 T A 4

M R

7 E 7

I B T ERD 8 8 _ B ID l R S S 4 A F 4 a O R i N R E DO EW DR t I RIVE VAN AEV REVIEWED GW a ND R p LLA

S O \ H e RAIL v T APPROVED HM i P t O

c T HILL A \ : PROJECT NO. CONTROL REV. FIGURE N

: h t 1780242 0001 A a 629000 630000 631000 632000 633000 634000 635000 636000 637000 638000 639000 640000 641000 642000 P 3 0 0 0

0 631000 632000 633000 634000 635000 636000 637000 638000 639000 640000 641000 642000 643000 644000 0 0 0

9 EN 9 B D 7 AID 7 8 8 KEY MAP KE LA R WOOD 4 C N B E S 4 O LAK

L E

Y R D

N

B I R B A

O O

B N F S L L R T TE U Y AS R S R A M NG N T HE O L O T T D EG D L A N U N E G R N AG STE S D W

MA R S A E C LAZY TH RY T RAIL P O L U LAKE A Y Y Y R P ER LE R E L E ALL AL D R L S G L G E P E K E S A Y D L A R D K 0 AE AN 0 R L E 0 IS 0 ANT 0 R 0 RD BALL D 8 E C 8 ID LEN 7 S 7 NS UL R 8 JOH M E 8 4 C 4

ST R S W M L O O O GG B O ER E STALEY R D S IL RD A T TR R H TR AN ME LAKE E G STUDY AREA A R E LANE T DR D PL D A R A H L N S M IE Y ENA SHADOW F E P AY GR B R R O L ANE G R GA D U LAKE RT C C E RE EK F M N D E JAS I BLV E LE L A C V C 0 ST RD R 0 H R 0 D S E A 0 G R CR ED

0 A E E H 0 IR RA IG C R H 7 R C URO N S 7 7 E 7 ENVALLEY A D 8 8 Y D B R 4 R R 4 D D E IS L OR G UO D ONN ID L V Q C R A O R N MUSSELMAN E IR DR E E D WOO D HITE L W A LAKE K E S H O R E DR AVE ALE TA RD LSD VIS HIL PI NE R R D SO WIND RD SCALE 1:1,000,000

0 LLEY 0 0 VA 0 0 RD 7 0 6 ON 4 6

7 S 7 OM Y LEGEND 8 H A 8 E T 4 S W 4 JES NE H LA D IG CO V RAI L H OB B L L N A ROADWAY O N S IO P R G A E E I D R S N A L E HOLLAND Y RAILWAY L A DR RIVER EAST N E LIA E BRANCH WATERCOURSE RY DR NT U 0 ILL C O 0

0 H 0

0 RT 0 5 C 5 WETLAND 7 O 7

8 R 8 I

4 4 A C

9

T PROVINCIALLY SIGNIFICANT WETLAND (PSW)

H

L

I N

E C O N WATERBODY VE C A EW 2 LL R WI IA D RD M N S A TER SLA AREAS OF NATURAL AND SCIENTIFIC INTEREST (ANSI) 0 0 0 0 0 ANCH 0 REGIONAL GREENLANDS SYSTEM (YORK REGION) 4 BR 4 7 ST ERD 7 8 A SID 8 4 E RF 4 VE R DO VIEW DR D RI VAN AE LAN R Y OL O NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM (GREENBELT PLAN) H R K RAIL T D P TO U HILL R H WOODED AREA A L T L O M I P M L K H

C I W E H N

C N W E A

O R N Y W STUDY AREA E D T IL D A R E A

Y D 4 N N R N 8 O T 0 A R ING 0 V 0 D M 0 R O E 0 LO 0 D B 3 3 7 7 8 8 4 4 NOTE(S) d x m

. 1. ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE 4 0

0 RD 0 BB - WE REFERENCE(S) N H -

1 1. LAND INFORMATION ONTARIO (LIO) DATA PRODUCED BY GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD. UNDER

0 T

R

0 C

0 LICENCE FROM ONTARIO MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES, © QUEENS PRINTER 2014 - 2 1 4 0 0 N 0 2. SERVICE LAYER CREDITS: NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC, ESRI, DELORME, HERE, UNEP-WCMC, 2 0 A T 0 0 0 G 0 LO H 8 2 2 USGS, NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, INCREMENT P CORP. L 7 7 7 I N 1 8 8 \ t 4 E 4 3.© COPYRIGHT, THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES OF DURHAM n e AND PEEL, COUNTY OF SIMCOE, CITY OF TORONTO : m n M o 4. PROJECTION: TRANSVERSE MERCATOR, DATUM: NAD 83, r O i v R n

COORDINATE SYSTEM: UTM ZONE 17, VERTICAL DATUM: CGVD28 F

E D _ l E a I r PRESTON F u I t RES a LAKE Y C D N

E O R _ F

R M ER F 1 YB Y E A LD R

0 A

B O R

W D N

D

0 T E

S

S O E E V G

0 M

TS O E T O R L

\ V

L A D E

0 A B 0 H R B S I R T D B 0 C 0

E D R D

N O S 0 I A 0

W

O O E K A

T S

1 W S L 1

R C L A 7 N O 7 P R C

8 L 8

EM H O H E EE _ R A I 4 4 R R CR F S 0 T I MB E E A L T E O

4 C R A B Z \ E S M G E A I

L T T C R

A R

n S G I TH I S R S

F

I O a V C A N T C l T

F A F S S N T p H R R R r O D A B R J B E E O E E e T T T A F

D E t S S NI F E D A I K U D s R M N K R

A H W G LL E O E

a I I M C D S T IN L L R S NL S H E A A W M R O M T L U L S C 0 445 890 1,780 E _ O D G E N

W E I R T A I

T R H

L RET M E R O

M G A D D A K L C AN L H V C D R P W I T L M R P W H R U I G D E E R W A B O G , F C I D E D _ V I L A S W R E O R O A A S N H L R B S

2 R X

S K T G U I R T

W I W

V R A I C L 4 D

T D W

A T R T

E I

I E R 2 S R N E V M S

N A

L O E V

L S E 0 R I E E A R L C E T 1:45,000 E METRES C S H

8 S

A O W R

W S T F 3

7 T R N S

0 R 2 0 D

D N

1 N S I G 0 E R A L 0

\ E

S M A E L V T L R L

0 C 0 I

J E B D E C

R E O E E E 0 R H C R 0

B A

O T R

E T R

K Y 7 A S 7

S E T E

N A R G

8 D R 8 K B O S D A S E R D O D 4 4

P E L H E ID N D S O S LV H R E A _ R B K V D T R A T U D I A L CLIENT W 9

D S W T B R S E E E A V IN S LO Y 9 H A A N A E H T M E U H \ E L S W

B K B AVE I E T L TR O R R C C

L A D m E R A UP D IN I S J IN L L B L T R F

e

R A A F A O C

t C U TOWN OF WHITCHURCH-STOUFFVILLE

AR D A

D T G D R F

P O

s R

E I B N E N U

D R N

y C N F Y E M

G L L E C

A R F

V R E

S S

G E E V

V T R D D I R _ L r E

L L O E E R V D e S A E t E R L N R D NT a N I C A

N M PROJECT S

R

W G DR M CRES E

_ K E C W O I O e

l R E S l D i R O

TOWN OF WHITCHURCH-STOUFFVILLE WATER AND WASTEWATER

T E K v O A f H T f R S D D R N u

0 S 0 o MASTER STUDY E t

0 S T 0

A M

S N 0 0

\ D E 9 T 9 d I R U F E ND t B 6 E 6 L R C D R E O E HI V L L A 8 D R L 8

R I A U

p R 4 4 S H D S u

C A N I o S A D r TITLE O L W R E R R I G M L D E R RK N N I LL A A A M e T

L R P E E r N VE A H AV

N S u O I N 3 E I O W t H D A EHM 4 NATURAL HERITAGE c M V L H T A L R u S

C A T Y B

r G

NI t

C Y

F s W A

O A I a V D SOUTH EAST

R W r D R R W f N LLE I E S CO

n I V A B E H I F V 9T m l F O TOU N R EE CONSULTANT 2017-09-13 a YYYY-MM-DD S R m p AY 5 i E L W V S A 2 c M H i A SA 19T n N u E DESIGNED ----

R M W 0 0

e E

0 A 0

h E 0 R 0

T S 8 D 8 \ O PREPARED 6 6 ABD E M

8 R 8

I N K

4 4

_ E R l L N a A D i N t N REVIEWED GW

a E E

p D

Y S \ e

v APPROVED HM i L t A c N

A E \ : PROJECT NO. CONTROL REV. FIGURE N

: h t 1780242 0001 A a 631000 632000 633000 634000 635000 636000 637000 638000 639000 640000 641000 642000 643000 644000 P 4 0 626000 627000 628000 629000 630000 631000 632000 633000 634000 635000 636000 637000 638000 639000 KEY MAP HOLLAND RD RA DR RIVER EAST RO E A AU LI BRANCH RY DR NT U 0 ILL C O 0

0 H 0 0 0 5 5 7 7 8 8 4 4 FARM TE W Y STA A

E AV W RE D ILL D R W IA N M A T STUDY AREA S R E E K D R T C R S LO D ON HIL O D T F R NG ON S LI D T ER 0 L T 0 E T LA 0 W M S 0 E

0 R A 0 D B R 4 E 4 ORI R 7 J O 7 AR N ERD 8 M 8 SID 4 F 4 Y OR WA VE ND TH N A VA MI E ILY T S X R C E A RI C M E U L T A IV ENA M D E D E Y D A A D R D H O IA C W N N S A A WA C RT R Y B T S A

9 E T 0 0 H

0 R 0

E L 0 V 0 I I 3 LAN R N 3 7 L 7 HO D E 8 VAN 8 E 4 4 L H S SCALE 1:1,000,000 W NOSTRAND A DR Y LAKE

4 0 LEGEND 4 RD TON ING OM

BLO ROADWAY

T R

C RAILWAY

0 RD N 0 0 RT H A 0 0 G 0 NO LO 2 2 7 7 8 8

P 4 ST 4 WATERCOURSE E A

T R S

A K O

G H E

U I N D T L

O R

T H L WETLAND S D D R R DR R D W O IE SF WE TV OT PROVINCIALLY SIGNIFICANT WETLAND (PSW) S ABB PRESTON LAKE LAK EV IE AVE W WATERBODY ST LOM

0 A 0 L R SH

0 E 0 E 0 S PL 0

1 L E 1

I S 7 OR 7 E R 8 8 AREAS OF NATURAL AND SCIENTIFIC INTEREST (ANSI)

S A 4 4

T T C TE L GA I S F VI W F HN A G W

JO D L REGIONAL GREENLANDS SYSTEM (YORK REGION) R

A I A D R L L D D O P

E B W A O N V G R L R A I K IR RA A O T NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM (GREENBELT PLAN) T V S V A E D E R V W

A E S W C L A H W W L E S I I O R E W R M I N T C R L O E D Y E C L A WOODED AREA D R E A W O B

0 N 0 K F I D 4 N 0 N E R 0 F 8 LM 0 E C 0 E O D

0 R 0 B A R

7 A S E 7 V M 8 8 D K A S E E STUDY AREA R C V 4 E A 4 ID E N S C T R R A D PE D O U

ES A R H W T H L T S BE E R S A C E I RIDGE RN L Y T W E N K D L R T S IL R S N W I E R D A A M B L I D L L D V O D D N

R R GE R K ID D R I NOTE(S) E N d AR

x D E N G M C DR N W m K O

. C 1. ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE E I S

5 R D O T

0 R E Y O A 0 D R H D R 0 S -

0 S 0 R REFERENCE(S) N 0 T 0 D

0 S 0 H

- A 9 9 N 1

6 6 1. LAND INFORMATION ONTARIO (LIO) DATA PRODUCED BY GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD. UNDER D 0 8 8

0 I 4 F 4 S DR 0 LICENCE FROM ONTARIO MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES, © QUEENS PRINTER 2014 K O - SIMEON A R A R 2 W R P D 4 VE E 2. SERVICE LAYER CREDITS: NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC, ESRI, DELORME, HERE, UNEP-WCMC, M L OO AN 2 LAKE I LL A H L D A 0 N R IN

8 E USGS, NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, INCREMENT P CORP. 7 M

1 ST \ C t

HAYNES NI 3.© COPYRIGHT, THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES OF DURHAM

C n W O

e R LAKE W AND PEEL, COUNTY OF SIMCOE, CITY OF TORONTO : m I A n B O M o N R 4. PROJECTION: TRANSVERSE MERCATOR, DATUM: NAD 83, r O i

v BERCZY CREEK Y A R L W n ST. GEORGE S M COORDINATE SYSTEM: UTM ZONE 17, VERTICAL DATUM: CGVD28 F A A

E S

N D _ l LAKE E E a I

r W 0 0

R F u D I 0 0 A t ICO 0 D R 0 a AR D 8 C 8 D N O 6 6 E D _ K 8 R 8 N E M

1 L E 4 VIL 4 0 F L N UF N

0 O A T N S E 0 N E \ E E D D B

Y

O WILCOX LAKE

S R A L

P E

R H S A

_ C

N 0

L E E

4 L R D Z \

E A I n S

D W S

I a U l R L

T L

E H p r H

C E

H N e E t C A s A H a

E S

M B D

0 445 890 1,780 E _ I

0 C 0

T H M 0 0 E K T

0 0 S G S ,

7 N 7 _ U O N

6 S R 6

2 A IU N N

8 E 8

4 S D W 4 4 2 H O 0 I 1:45,000 METRES L H 8

L 7 C S S E R 1 DR \ LE R S I J IO DAR D O WILLOWGROVE T A R D P ON H M O O L _ AR CREEK I CLIENT W D 9 N ST T

9 R R

E H

\ R T D L E C m R T e O t TOWN OF WHITCHURCH-STOUFFVILLE A s D E AV U y TH M O 19 G S

O T _

r E W O

e C t N 0 R N R 0 BA a 0 W E 0

D PROJECT S 0 Y R EK 0 W

E E 6 ML 6 _ R 6 6

O O e G l 8 8 l D i 4 4

TOWN OF WHITCHURCH-STOUFFVILLE WATER AND WASTEWATER v f T f B N u E o MASTER STUDY E t M

S R

\

C E d B R Z t Y R

L

I C D R U p E S u G EK o A r TITLE E W E G B

A M e

T r R

E U S u I t B NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES R c C A E C H

u Y T

r R

R t V D F s I E R O E I a E SOUTH WEST

r W 0 0 f U K 0 0 n A E I m 0 0 l G RD V S CONSULTANT 2017-09-13 5 5 a YYYY-MM-DD E L m E R IL 6 6 p M 5 i IN 8 I 8

G 2 c L V E i 4 RD 4 n IDGE E u R T R DESIGNED ---- M ES e R (R O R R h F D O

T I \ V B PREPARED TS I ABD M H È I

I G TRY HE I R N _ UN S l O E C O a i t R N REVIEWED GW a O D p N C TO R U S ING R

\ S EN G e K E E v E APPROVED MH i ) t K c A \ : PROJECT NO. CONTROL REV. FIGURE N

: h t 1780242 0001 A a 626000 627000 628000 629000 630000 631000 632000 633000 634000 635000 636000 637000 638000 639000 P 5 0 639000 640000 641000 642000 KEY MAP

ERD SID DA HES BET STUDY AREA

RD BB WE 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 7 7 8 8 4 4

SCALE 1:1,000,000

1 LEGEND

0

T

H

L

I N ROADWAY E

RAILWAY

C

O

R

O H N O WETLAND E R D T N R

U S S Y R T D M T RM E O V FA A R H S N T Y O K SY T A S WATERBODY 9 R W IN O G K T T D F BUR A H S R U CIR ER LTE H B A R L TC AM Y W U H E C H I D C R N N F R N OF A G E E E E P G M R S REGIONAL GREENLANDS SYSTEM (YORK REGION)

E L I E N

N E

W

O

O A DR STUDY AREA T D S S OR ER N M N Y P K RR R ST R UL E D E D FA YB D O CK A O N O B RW ML DR DE E E C H AL TRE R AIN

E L

S

H P

A

Z T P E U O L N

N

L I D V I

0 M N Y 0

B 0 D 0 E ES I

0 R 0 G E C D A 1 1 B S N E E S

7 E B 7 A L L

L U 8 C R 8

R O A R P T 4 R 4 R C Y C T W N PAR K E S D E

S V R O Y H I D O OD A E O A C W W W W R R T

N S O O S D S T L BB LV

C O E ST R B A L D

R I TH E A

I I F B R L R O F L W N U FE FAI O AM R T C G S RD ST ST E ILLA A GAT M R IS T E AV E Y N D O JOH B C NZANT R VA C E R S T T

H S E B T T

S OU N R S

BA B A A O IT A M

L N K E A M LAN B M E N O A NOTE(S) L R V d I T N LL x E U S S S T E H

m C T E R A

. 1. ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE A R R E S 6 R DC L E A T 0 O S L E

0 E

AV R 0 RN S - O E TH S N CR REFERENCE(S) N AW T H ATE

H G - T IL T I A 1 CR N TR 1. LAND INFORMATION ONTARIO (LIO) DATA PRODUCED BY GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD. UNDER 0 LD D E IE G LE 0 EF A C L A 0 U L NN LICENCE FROM ONTARIO MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES, © QUEENS PRINTER 2014 R A - B E DO 2 D DR R N ES 4 O R 2. SERVICE LAYER CREDITS: NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC, ESRI, DELORME, HERE, UNEP-WCMC, P S C D T C 2 E A A V W H A TA 0 E T R M RE E 8 ST U YT OR USGS, NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, INCREMENT P CORP. K E W I R A L 7 L M DA L 1 R A I L C

\ A L R V t G W H D 3.© COPYRIGHT, THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES OF DURHAM SU L AN E n M

A I E S S P R A V T O e D

I A I

M T T D S N T OL AND PEEL, COUNTY OF SIMCOE, CITY OF TORONTO : m E R A E S H n

C M T E S o B 4. PROJECTION: TRANSVERSE MERCATOR, DATUM: NAD 83,

r R T O E G i R E E D E N v V A R A F R O L S R n W W A G I A COORDINATE SYSTEM: UTM ZONE 17, VERTICAL DATUM: CGVD28 F T IR I E E A O S T E H R E S S E E R D _ R W R C R D S l V G T P D C E O D IN G A E I F a W I R

H I S N E E r R E N T N TH E L N S A A I F I I W A E u L E L K L I O N C H I t P T Y E X A S L R I L H P I a D D L A B A N A R L A

A V E R G B N E L V O

R S G

E R B C R

_ E S I D T

E L E R M T L 1 R O A C R E U D C A 0 S R O W V M S A I Y N S L L E 0 S A E ' S B R L N P E S M 0 T T T S R E \ O S T S A T N A A E S E AI C A I A H M R V D E U T IN B P T D L T R F C S R F E E T D N K R V O S I A E S N A R D 2 G S E E B L A B Y T S R R W E E R H T O L A T V AN K S P R IC M E O O E RN C E H _ N E S T B R N 0

0 W 0 T E T S H E J D 4 0 T 0

S R Z I \ E E S U

E A I N V 0 LL D A 0

n I V L DR IN G L O S

0 B 0 G R O T U a V E H R L E L l M T 7 E K G Y 7 L N O R H A E W I T V L S U p C S S A 8 X A B A 8 E E A r O I R N E C C K V 4 T 4 P T N R L S E R e S E Y E C E E E t P O E E K L G U A E R R K C D E F s D L E H W R D S H A W A E A A a R R T C C I S R S I L N A L

R T W T N R T

L M M

IO B E R K 0 150 300 600 E C _ O O

V B C D E S

R R H W A E O S M L E N IC L E S T Y O V A U V F T A T D R S S W G E S D AY S T B D A , N M N L O

_ E I B C I S F A E J R N N R E N 2 A E P L V I A Y L V 4 E A P R H W N M LO R E D

2 L S E M M O D I E O

0 K D T E

B R U V R A 1:15,000 W G METRES A R C H 8 A S

S C SE L E I 7 O I E K W O R S E Y B R D T 1 A S E D O P

\ S N V A R I L S R B V L R A X I J Y D E A T D D E R E L S R A O

N R T G U A H S K M

N A R A I S E L B F T E P W H D L E I R E R

_ H R R E CLIENT W

9 L

B O B R Y E D A E 9 A N

L N P H \ I A L W F N T L V F N P N U D N W C m E E D A C K O I

E R T N e V B L A t L R TOWN OF WHITCHURCH-STOUFFVILLE D E L P G A B s A Y R N A E E N T O y I V D M N B N P J O N

S U C O E R

P T N L _ T R R T E N r A O G T A D E R R A e G

t E R V N R S S S A T D E R E a R A E R I R C S E PROJECT S V L M E K G O N W N E W E O A R E H I B R B D O E E L _ N G R L A C P I T Y W L A O E D e S O M L C I R L l R E W l S E R E H D i E A N C O D A E TOWN OF WHITCHURCH-STOUFFVILLE WATER AND WASTEWATER R A R C E A N L v D O N f Y S L T Y S S Y T H f E R Y E E S D A S S N u H O O O P G S C N A U LE A T o H E S M E O R O U N O A R MASTER STUDY t D M E C N C LA A N J V T W L N S N A T M S D L O L AY E R \ T I O D E E S M A B E R R I U IL d C D F AY M S F t I R R L M Y E W W E R N O ES L T L E K A A S M A

D U G R JA p S S D S N R LLA G P RE Y VE D E

R S W A A R u D B R O C A O E RK CH SA D N D E A I I E A L o P R N T A O D R N r N E E TITLE OV S L N T A E A M E O R M O H R C

G D C D O R E G L M e

G r V A I

S W F D S

A R u F

T I t

R N E NORTH STOUFFVILLE FOCUS AREA A c E A H

V R Y E u K E

T r A V

t S E F

s T W I S a

RT H r C E f AV S S W n LL HARRY ER I SA m I U N D l R B A CONSULTANT E A D 2017-09-13 a YYYY-MM-DD R Y m N L FR R

p E V A E E 5 i A L D ST

R S E 2 B c O I LV

i T A E DE N OV A L n E E INN LM V u K D DESIGNED ---- D M R WA R e E LTE ST h R S ANG T \ PREPARED ABD M I AVE _ RIC l L 0 D HAR HIL 0 a R D 0 R 0 i UNDE t 0 0 N REVIEWED GW M a 9 9 E E I p Y N

6 V A 6

R L D A M S 8 8

\ R N O R 4 IR 4 e C

O D N A

v T APPROVED HM i F R

A E M

t S LB L S E c

T D F E

U L A

I

\ R : A

W PROJECT NO. CONTROL REV. FIGURE D

N L C : h t 1780242 0001 A a 639000 640000 641000 642000 P 6 0 622000 623000 624000 625000 626000 627000 628000 629000 630000 631000 632000 633000 634000 635000 636000 637000 638000 639000 640000 641000 642000 643000 644000 645000 646000 647000 KEY MAP

PEFFERLAW RIVER STUDY AREA HOLLAND RIVER EAST SILOAM BRANCH POND

D STE

VE

SCALE 1:1,000,000

LEGEND

ROADWAY

MIL RAILWAY LAZY

G E LAKE P WATERCOURSE

B D WETLAND A STALEY LAKE R G R H SHADOW PROVINCIALLY SIGNIFICANT WETLAND (PSW) LAKE R ONEHAVE WATERBODY D MUSSELMAN EWOO F LAKE S WOODED AREA

C WINDSOR LAKE CONSERVATION AUTHORITY JURISDICTIONS I T

I LAKE SIMCOE L STUDY AREA N REGION CONSERVATION R D AUTHORITY NOTE(S) 1. ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE S REFERENCE(S) EW 1. LAND INFORMATION ONTARIO (LIO) DATA PRODUCED BY GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD. UNDER D LICENCE FROM ONTARIO MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES, © QUEENS PRINTER 2014 2. SERVICE LAYER CREDITS: CONTENT MAY NOT REFLECT NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC'S CURRENT MAP POLICY. SOURCES: NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC, ESRI, DELORME, HERE, UNEP- GLASGOW WCMC, USGS, NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, INCREMENT P CORP. RIV VAN POND 3.© COPYRIGHT, THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES OF DURHAM NOSTRAND LAKE AND PEEL, COUNTY OF SIMCOE, CITY OF TORONTO 4. PROJECTION: TRANSVERSE MERCATOR, DATUM: NAD 83,

D F

TORONTO K U A AND REGION CONSERVATION E

S AUTHORITY Y R

M TA P A E E

S 0 1,600 3,200800 SIMEON E LAKE W 1:85,000 METRES ST. HAYNES LAKE GEORGE LAKE C CLIENT O E C E TOWN OF WHITCHURCH-STOUFFVILLE

O DR PROJECT TOWN OF WHITCHURCH-STOUFFVILLE WATER AND WASTEWATER MASTER STUDY WILLOWGROVE CREEK E D TITLE L T E BOND CONSERVATION AUTHORITY JURISDICTIONS LAKE CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2018-04-05

O DESIGNED ---- PHILIPS LAKE G C PREPARED ABD THOMPSON LAKE REVIEWED GW L APPROVED HM D PROJECT NO. CONTROL REV. FIGURE R 1780242 0001 A 622000 623000 624000 625000 626000 627000 628000 629000 630000 631000 632000 633000 634000 635000 636000 637000 638000 639000 640000 641000 642000 643000 644000 645000 646000 647000 7 May 2018 1780242

APPENDIX A Species at Risk Screening

May 2018 1780242

SPECIES AT RISK SCREENING

Potential to Species At Endangered Provincial Occur in Rationale for Potential to Occur Taxon Common Name Scientific Name Risk Act COSEWIC3 Habitat Requirements5 Species Act1 (SRank)4 the Study in the Study Area (Sch 1)2 Area

Although there are no occurrence In Ontario, Jefferson salamander is found only in southern Ontario, along records of Jefferson salamander southern portions of the Niagara Escarpment and western portions of the in the study area, there has been Oak Ridges Moraine. Jefferson salamander prefers moist, well-drained records of the hybrid Jefferson x deciduous and mixed forests with a closed canopy. It overwinters blue-spotted (Jefferson genome Ambystoma underground in mammal burrows and rock fissures, and moves to vernal Low – dominates), which indicates the Amphibian Jefferson salamander END END END S2 pools and ephemeral wetlands in the early spring to breed. Breeding ponds jeffersonianum Moderate potential for Jefferson are typically located in or near to forested habitats, and contain submerged salamander. The extensive forest debris (i.e., sticks, vegetation) for egg attachment sites. Ephemeral breeding system at the north end of the pools need to have water until at least mid-summer (mid to late July) study area may provide suitable (Jefferson Salamander Recovery Team 2010). breeding and terrestrial habitat.

In Ontario, habitat of this amphibian species typically consists of marshes or Western chorus frog - wooded wetlands, particularly those with dense shrub layers and grasses, This species was recorded as part Great Lakes as this species is a poor climber. They will breed in almost any fishless pond of the ORAA and suitable shrubby Amphibian St. Lawrence / Pseudacris triseriata — THR THR S3 including roadside ditches, gravel pits and flooded swales in meadows. This High wetlands associated with upland Canadian Shield species hibernates in terrestrial habitats under rocks, dead trees or leaves, habitat appear to be present in the in loose soil or in animal burrows. During hibernation, this species is tolerant Study Area. population of flooding (Environment Canada 2015).

In Ontario, monarch is found throughout the northern and southern regions of the province. This butterfly is found wherever there are milkweed There are an abundance of open (Asclepius spp.) plants for its caterpillars and wildflowers that supply a habitats and roadsides in the Moderate- Arthropod Monarch Danaus plexippus SC SC END S2N, S4B nectar source for adults. It is often found on abandoned farmland, study area that may provide meadows, open wetlands, prairies and roadsides, but also in city gardens High suitable foraging habitat and host and parks. Important staging areas during migration occur along the north plants. shores of the Great Lakes (COSEWIC 2010).

In Ontario, rusty-patched bumble bee is found in areas from the southern Great Lakes – St. Lawrence forest region southwards into the Carolinian forest. It is a habitat generalist, but it is typically found in open habitats, such as mixed farmland, savannah, marshes, sand dunes, urban and lightly wooded areas. It is cold –tolerant and can be found at high elevations. Most The only currently known Rusty-patched Arthropod Bombus affinis END END END S1 recent sightings in Ontario have been in oak savannah habitat with well- Low population of this species is from bumble bee drained, sandy soils and moderately open canopy. It requires an abundance Pinery Provincial Park. of flowering plants for forage. This species most often builds nests underground in old rodent burrows, but also in hollow tree stumps and fallen dead wood (Colla and Taylor-Pindar 2011). The only recent sightings in Ontario are from the Pinery Provincial Park.

In Ontario, west Virginia white is found primarily in the central and southern regions of the province. This butterfly lives in moist, mature, deciduous and mixed woodlands, and the caterpillars feed only on the leaves of toothwort Deciduous forests with the larval Arthropod West Virginia white Pieris virginiensis SC — — S3 (Cardamine spp.), which are small, spring-blooming plants of the forest Moderate host plant may be present in the floor. These woodland habitats are typically maple-beech-birch dominated. study area. This species is associated with woodlands growing on calcareous bedrock or thin soils over bedrock (Burke 2013).

May 2018 1780242

Potential to Species At Endangered Provincial Occur in Rationale for Potential to Occur Taxon Common Name Scientific Name Risk Act COSEWIC3 Habitat Requirements5 Species Act1 (SRank)4 the Study in the Study Area (Sch 1)2 Area

This species is a forage and habitat generalist. Mixed woodlands are commonly used for nesting and overwintering, but it also occupies various There are an abundance of open open habitats including native grasslands, farmlands and urban areas. It is habitats and roadsides in the Yellow-banded Arthropod Bombus terricola SC — — S5 an early emerging species, making it likely an important pollinator of early Moderate study area that may provide bumble bee blooming wild flowering plants (e.g., wild blueberry) and agricultural crops suitable foraging habitat and host (e.g., apple). Nest sites are mostly abandoned rodent burrows plants. (COSEWIC 2015).

In Ontario, bank swallow breeds in a variety of natural and anthropogenic There may be suitable nesting habitats, including lake bluffs, stream and river banks, sand and gravel pits, habitat within the study area. and roadcuts. Nests are generally built in a vertical or near-vertical bank. There are many open fields and Bird Bank swallow Riparia riparia THR THR THR S4B Breeding sites are typically located near open foraging sites such as rivers, Moderate waterbodies or wetlands to lakes, grasslands, agricultural fields, wetlands and riparian woods. Forested provide foraging habitat. areas are generally avoided (Garrison 1999).

In Ontario, barn swallow breeds in areas that contain a suitable nesting There are numerous bridges, structure, open areas for foraging, and a body of water. This species nests culverts, and barns within the in human made structures including barns, buildings, sheds, bridges, and study area that would provide culverts. Preferred foraging habitat includes grassy fields, pastures, suitable nesting habitat. There are Bird Barn swallow Hirundo rustica THR THR THR S4B agricultural cropland, lake and river shorelines, cleared right-of-ways, and High also many open fields that may wetlands (COSEWIC 2011). Mud nests are fastened to vertical walls or built provide foraging habitat. In on a ledge underneath an overhang. Suitable nests from previous years are addition, there are occurrence reused (Brown and Brown 1999). records in the study area.

In Ontario, black tern breeds in freshwater marshlands where it forms small colonies. It prefers marshes or marsh complexes greater than 20 ha in area There is no suitable large, open and which are not surrounded by wooded area. Black terns are sensitive to freshwater marsh habitat in the the presence of agricultural activities. The black tern nests in wetlands with study area to provide nesting an even combination of open water and emergent vegetation, and still Bird Black tern Chlidonias niger SC — NAR S3B Low habitat. In addition, there are no waters of 0.5-1.2 m deep. Preferred nest sites have short dense vegetation occurrence records in the study or tall sparse vegetation often consisting of cattails, bulrushes and area. occasionally burreed or other marshland plants. Black terns also require posts or snags for perching (Weseloh 2007).

In Ontario, bobolink breeds in grasslands or graminoid dominated hayfields with tall vegetation (Gabhauer 2007). Bobolink prefers grassland habitat with a forb component and a moderate litter layer. They have low tolerance There are numerous open fields in for presence of woody vegetation and are sensitive to frequent mowing the study area that may provide Bird Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus THR THR THR S4B within the breeding season. They are most abundant in established, but High nesting habitat. In addition, there regularly maintained, hayfields, but also breed in lightly grazed pastures, old are numerous occurrence records or fallow fields, cultural meadows and newly planted hayfields. Their nest is in the study area. woven from grasses and forbs. It is built on the ground, in dense vegetation, usually under the cover of one or more forbs (Renfrew et al. 2015).

May 2018 1780242

Potential to Species At Endangered Provincial Occur in Rationale for Potential to Occur Taxon Common Name Scientific Name Risk Act COSEWIC3 Habitat Requirements5 Species Act1 (SRank)4 the Study in the Study Area (Sch 1)2 Area

In Ontario, breeding habitat for Canada warbler consists of moist mixed forests with a well-developed shrubby understory. This includes low-lying areas such as cedar and alder swamps, and riparian thickets (McLaren There may be suitable forest 2007). It is also found in densely vegetated regenerating forest openings. habitat in the study area. In Bird Canada warbler Cardellina canadensis SC THR THR S4B Suitable habitat often contains a developed moss layer and an uneven High addition, there are occurrence forest floor. Nests are well concealed on or near the ground in dense shrub records in the study area. or fern cover, often in stumps, fallen logs, overhanging stream banks or mossy hummocks (Reitsma et al. 2010).

In Ontario, breeding habitat of cerulean warbler consists of second-growth or mature deciduous forest with a tall canopy of uneven vertical structure and a sparse understory. This habitat occurs in both wet bottomland forests and upland areas, and often contains large hickory and oak trees. This Forested habitat in the study area Bird Cerulean warbler Setophaga cerulea THR END END S3B species may be attracted to gaps or openings in the upper canopy. The Moderate may be large enough to support cerulean warbler is associated with large forest tracks, but may occur in this bird species. woodlots as small as 10 ha (COSEWIC 2010). Nests are usually built on a horizontal limb in the mid-story or canopy of a large deciduous tree (Buehler et al. 2013).

There may be suitable chimney In Ontario, chimney swift breeding habitat is varied and includes urban, structures in the developed areas suburban, rural and wooded sites. They are most commonly associated with to provide nesting habitat. There towns and cities with large concentrations of chimneys. Preferred nesting may also be suitable large sites are dark, sheltered spots with a vertical surface to which the bird can Bird Chimney swift Chaetura pelagica THR THR THR S4B, S4N High diameter trees in the forested grip. Unused chimneys are the primary nesting and roosting structure, but areas to provide nesting habitat. other anthropogenic structures and large diameter cavity trees are also In addition, there are occurrence used (COSEWIC 2007). records in the study area.

There may be suitable fallow field In Ontario, these aerial foragers require areas with large open habitat. This or open wetland habitat in the includes farmland, open woodlands, clearcuts, burns, rock outcrops, alvars, study area to provide nesting Bird Common nighthawk Chordeiles minor SC THR THR S4B bog ferns, prairies, gravel pits and gravel rooftops in cities High habitat. In addition, there are (Sandilands 2007). occurrence records in the study area.

In Ontario, eastern meadowlark breeds in pastures, hayfields, meadows and There are numerous open fields in old fields. Eastern meadowlark prefers moderately tall grasslands with the study area that may provide Bird Eastern meadowlark Sturnella magna THR THR THR S4B abundant litter cover, high grass proportion, and a forb component High nesting habitat. In addition, there (Hull 2003). They prefer well drained sites or slopes, and sites with different are numerous occurrence records cover layers (Roseberry and Klimstra 1970). in the study area.

In Ontario, whip-poor-will breeds in semi-open forests with little ground cover. Breeding habitat is dependent on forest structure rather than species There is limited suitable habitat in Antrostomus composition, and is found on rock and sand barrens, open conifer Low – the study area and only historical Bird Eastern whip-poor-will THR THR THR S4B plantations and post-disturbance regenerating forest. Territory size ranges vociferus Moderate records of occurrence. from 3 to 11 ha (COSEWIC 2009). No nest is constructed and eggs are laid directly on the leaf litter (Mills 2007).

May 2018 1780242

Potential to Species At Endangered Provincial Occur in Rationale for Potential to Occur Taxon Common Name Scientific Name Risk Act COSEWIC3 Habitat Requirements5 Species Act1 (SRank)4 the Study in the Study Area (Sch 1)2 Area

In Ontario, eastern wood-pewee inhabits a wide variety of wooded upland and lowland habitats, including deciduous, coniferous, or mixed forests. It occurs most frequently in forests with some degree of openness. Forests in the study area may Intermediate-aged forests with a relatively sparse midstory are preferred. In provide suitable nesting habitat. In younger forests with a relatively dense midstory, it tends to inhabit the Bird Eastern wood-pewee Contopus virens SC SC SC S4B High addition, there are occurrence edges. Also occurs in anthropogenic habitats providing an open forested records in the study area. aspect such as parks and suburban neighborhoods. Nest is constructed atop a horizontal branch, 1-2 m above the ground, in a wide variety of deciduous and coniferous trees.

In Ontario, golden-winged warbler breeds in regenerating scrub habitat with There is likely to be limited dense ground cover and a patchwork of shrubs, usually surrounded by suitable successional or shrubland forest. Their preferred habitat is characteristic of a successional landscape habitat in the study area. Golden-winged Vermivora associated with natural or anthropogenic disturbance such as rights-of-way, However, there are occurrence Bird SC THR THR S4B and field edges or openings resulting from logging or burning. The nest of Moderate warbler chrysoptera records from 2015 (eBird 2012) at the golden-winged warbler is built on the ground at the base of a shrub or the northeast corner of the study leafy plant, often at the shaded edge of the forest or at the edge of a forest area. opening (Confer et al. 2011).

Ammodramus In Ontario, grasshopper sparrow is found in medium to large grasslands with low herbaceous cover and few shrubs. It also uses a wide variety of There are numerous open fields in Grasshopper sparrow savannarum Bird SC SC SC S4B agricultural fields, including cereal crops and pastures. Close-grazed Moderate the study area that may provide pratensis subspecies (pratensis pastures and limestone plains (e.g., Carden and Napanee Plains) support nesting habitat. subspecies) highest density of this bird in the province (COSEWIC 2013).

In Ontario, least bittern breeds in marshes, usually greater than 5 ha, with Although there are historical emergent vegetation, relatively stable water levels and areas of open water. records in the study area, there Preferred habitat has water less than 1 m deep (usually 10 – 50 cm). Nests does not appear to be any Bird Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis THR THR THR S4B are built in tall stands of dense emergent or woody vegetation Low suitable marshland habitat in the (Woodliffe 2007). Clarity of water is important as siltation, turbidity, or study area. excessive eutrophication hinders foraging efficiency (COSEWIC 2009).

In Ontario, Louisiana waterthrush inhabits mature forests along steeply sloped ravines adjacent to running water. It prefers clear, cold streams and Parkesia motacilla densely wooded swamps. Trees, bushes, exposed roots, cliffs, banks and There may be suitable ravine Low – Bird Louisiana waterthrush (formerly Seiurus THR SC THR S3B mossy logs are favoured nesting spots. Riparian woodlands are preferred typed forested habitat in the study Moderate motacilla) stopover sites during migration. Nests are concealed from view at the base area. of uprooted trees, among mosses, or under logs and in cavities along the stream bank (COSEWIC 2006).

In Ontario, peregrine falcon breeds in areas containing suitable nesting locations and sufficient prey resources. Such habitat includes both natural There is unlikely to be any locations containing cliff faces (heights of 50 - 200 m preferred) and also Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus suitable anthropogenic structures anthropogenic landscapes including urban centres containing tall buildings, Bird SC SC SC S3B Low or cliffs in the study area to (anatum subspecies) anatum open pit mines and quarries, and road cuts. Peregrine falcons nest on cliff provide suitable nesting habitat. ledges and crevices and building ledges. Nests consist of a simple scrape in the substrate (COSEWIC 2007).

May 2018 1780242

Potential to Species At Endangered Provincial Occur in Rationale for Potential to Occur Taxon Common Name Scientific Name Risk Act COSEWIC3 Habitat Requirements5 Species Act1 (SRank)4 the Study in the Study Area (Sch 1)2 Area

In Ontario, short-eared owl breeds in a variety of open habitats including There is limited suitable grassland grasslands, tundra, bogs, marshes, clearcuts, burns, pastures and habitat not actively farmed in the occasionally agricultural fields. The primary factor in determining breeding study area. In addition, there are Bird Short-eared owl Asio flammeus SC SC SC S2N,S4B habitat is proximity to small mammal prey resources (COSEWIC 2008). Low no occurrence records in the Nests are built on the ground at a dry site and usually adjacent to a clump of study area. tall vegetation used for cover and concealment (Gahbauer 2007).

In Ontario, wood thrush breeds in moist, deciduous hardwood or mixed stands that are often previously disturbed, with a dense deciduous Forests in the study area may undergrowth and with tall trees for singing perches. This species selects provide suitable nesting habitat. In nesting sites with the following characteristics: lower elevations with trees Bird Wood thrush Hylocichla mustelina SC THR THR S4B High addition, there are occurrence less than 16 m in height, a closed canopy cover (>70%), a high variety of records in the study area. deciduous tree species, moderate subcanopy and shrub density, shade, fairly open forest floor, moist soil, and decaying leaf litter (COSEWIC 2012).

This species is not known to roost within trees, but there is very little known about its roosting habits. The species generally roosts on the ground under There is potential for rock piles Eastern small-footed rocks, in rock crevices, talus slopes and rock piles. It occasionally inhabits within the study area to provide Mammal Myotis leibii END — — S2S3 Moderate myotis buildings. Areas near the entrances of caves or abandoned mines may be roosting habitat. No hibernacula used for hibernaculum, where the conditions are drafty with low humidity, features were identified. and may be subfreezing (Humphrey 2017).

In Ontario, this specie's range is extensive and covers much of the province. It will roost in both natural and man-made structures. Roosting colonies Forests and structures (e.g., barns require a number of large dead trees, in specific stages of decay and that or house attics) within the study Mammal Little brown myotis Myotis lucifugus END END END S4 project above the canopy in relatively open areas. May form nursery High area may provide suitable roosting colonies in the attics of buildings within 1 km of water. Caves or abandoned habitat. No hibernacula features mines may be used as hibernacula, but high humidity and stable above were identified. freezing temperatures are required (Environment Canada 2015).

In Ontario, this species' range is extensive and covers much of the province. It will usually roost in hollows, crevices, and under loose bark of mature Forests within the study area may trees. Roosts may be established in the main trunk or a large branch of provide suitable roosting habitat. Mammal Northern myotis Myotis septentrionalis END END END S3 either living or dead trees. Caves or abandoned mines may be used as High No hibernacula features were hibernacula, but high humidity and stable above freezing temperatures are identified. required (Environment Canada 2015).

In Ontario, tri-colored bat may roost in foliage, in clumps of old leaves, hanging moss or squirrel nests. They are occasionally found in buildings although there are no records of this in Canada. They typically feed over Forests within the study area may aquatic areas with an affinity to large-bodied water and will likely roost in provide suitable roosting habitat. Mammal Tri-colored bat Perimyotis subflavus END END END S3? close proximity to these. Hibernation sites are found deep within caves or High No hibernacula features were mines in areas of relatively warm temperatures. These bats have strong identified. roost fidelity to their winter hibernation sites and may choose the exact same spot in a cave or mine from year to year (Environment Canada 2015).

May 2018 1780242

Potential to Species At Endangered Provincial Occur in Rationale for Potential to Occur Taxon Common Name Scientific Name Risk Act COSEWIC3 Habitat Requirements5 Species Act1 (SRank)4 the Study in the Study Area (Sch 1)2 Area

In Ontario, redside dace, a small coolwater species common in the USA but less so in Canada, is found in tributaries of western Lake Ontario, Lake Erie, Redside dace is known to occur in Lake Huron and Lake Simcoe. They are found in pools and slow-moving the Rouge River, Duffins Creek Clinostomus areas of small headwater streams with clear to turbid water. Overhanging and East Holland River Fish Redside Dace END — END S2 grasses, shrubs, and undercut banks, are an important part of their habitat, High elongatus watersheds (TRCA 2003, 2007; as are instream boulders and large woody debris. Preferred substrates are LSRCA 2010). variable and include silt, sand, gravel and boulders. Spawning occurs in shallow riffle areas (Redside Dace Recovery Team 2010).

In Ontario, Blanding's turtle will use a range of aquatic habitats, but favor those with shallow, standing or slow-moving water, rich nutrient levels, There are waterbodies organic substrates and abundant aquatic vegetation. They will use rivers, (e.g., Musselman Lake) and Blanding's turtle - but prefer slow-moving currents and are likely only transients in this type of wetlands within the study area Reptile Great Lakes / St. Emydoidea blandingii THR THR END S3 habitat. This species is known to travel great distances over land in the High that may provide suitable aquatic Lawrence population spring in order to reach nesting sites, which can include dry conifer or mixed habitat. In addition, there are forests, partially vegetated fields, and roadsides. Suitable nesting substrates occurrence records in the study include organic soils, sands, gravel and cobble. They hibernate underwater area. and infrequently under debris close to water bodies (COSEWIC 2005).

In Ontario, eastern ribbonsnake is semi-aquatic, and is rarely found far from There is likely to be limited Eastern ribbonsnake - shallow ponds, marshes, bogs, streams or swamps bordered by dense suitable basin wetland habitat in Reptile Great Lakes Thamnophis sauritius SC SC SC S3 vegetation. They prefer sunny locations and bask in low shrub branches. Low the study area. In addition, there population Hibernation occurs in mammal burrows, rock fissures or even ant mounds are no occurrence records from (COSEWIC 2012). the study area.

The rural setting and abundance In Ontario, milksnake uses a wide range of habitats including prairies, of farm and old homestead pastures, hayfields, wetlands and various forest types, and is well-known in Lampropeltis foundations are likely to provide rural areas where it frequents older buildings. Proximity to water and cover Reptile Milksnake NAR SC SC S4 High suitable habitat. In addition, there triangulum enhances habitat suitability. Hibernation takes place in mammal burrows, are occurrence records in the hollow logs, gravel or soil banks, and old foundations (COSEWIC 2014). study area.

Ponds, watercourses and In Ontario, snapping turtle uses a wide range of waterbodies, but shows wetlands in the study area may preference for areas with shallow, slow-moving water, soft substrates and provide suitable aquatic habitat for dense aquatic vegetation. Hibernation takes place in soft substrates under Reptile Snapping turtle Chelydra serpentina SC SC SC S3 High snapping turtle. In addition, there water. Nesting sites consist of sand or gravel banks along waterways or are occurrence records in the roadways (COSEWIC 2008). study area.

In Ontario, American ginseng is found in moist, undisturbed and relatively Vascular mature deciduous woods often dominated by sugar maple. It is commonly Forests in the study area may American ginseng Panax quinquefolius END END END S2 Moderate Plant found on well-drained, south-facing slopes. American ginseng grows under provide suitable growing habitat. closed canopies in neutral, loamy soils (COSEWIC 2000).

In Ontario, butternut is found along stream banks, on wooded valley slopes, Forests in the study area may and in deciduous and mixed forests. It is commonly associated with beech, Vascular provide suitable growing habitat. maple, oak and hickory (Voss and Reznicek 2012). Butternut prefers moist, Butternut Juglans cinerea END END END S3? High In addition, there are occurrence Plant fertile, well-drained soils, but can also be found in rocky limestone soils. records in the study area. This species is shade intolerant (Farrar 1995).

May 2018 1780242

Potential to Species At Endangered Provincial Occur in Rationale for Potential to Occur Taxon Common Name Scientific Name Risk Act COSEWIC3 Habitat Requirements5 Species Act1 (SRank)4 the Study in the Study Area (Sch 1)2 Area

In Ontario, purple twayblade occurs in a wide variety of habitats such as open oak woodland and savannah, mixed deciduous forest, shrub thicket, Vascular Forests in the study area may shrub alvar, deciduous swamp, and conifer plantation. This species is Purple twayblade Liparis liliifolia THR THR THR S2 Moderate provide suitable growing habitat. Plant commonly found in dry mesic conditions, but there have been reports from wetland habitats (COSEWIC 2010).

1 Endangered Species Act (ESA), 2007 (O.Reg 242/08 last amended 14 Sept 2016 as O.Reg 308/16). Species at Risk in Ontario List, 2007 (O.Reg 230/08 last amended 2 June 2017 as O. Reg 167/17, s. 1.); Schedule 1 (Extirpated - EXP), Schedule 2 (Endangered - END), Schedule 3 (Threatened - THR), Schedule 4 (Special Concern - SC) 2 Species at Risk Act (SARA), 2002. Schedule 1 (Last amended 2 Nov 2017); Part 1 (Extirpated), Part 2 (Endangered), Part 3 (Threatened), Part 4 (Special Concern) 3 Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/ 4 Provincial Ranks (SRANK) are Rarity Ranks assigned to a species or ecological communities, by the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC). These ranks are not legal designations. SRANKS are evaluated by NHIC on a continual basis and updated lists produced annually. SX (Presumed Extirpated), SH (Possibly Extirpated - Historical), S1 (Critically Imperiled), S2 (Imperiled), S3 (Vulnerable), S4 (Apparently Secure), S5 (Secure), SNA (Not Applicable), S#S# (Range Rank), S? (Not ranked yet), SAB (Breeding Accident), SAN (Non-breeding Accident), SX (Apparently Extirpated). Last assessed August 2011. 5 References: Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2018. Status Reports. COSEWIC. Available from: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct2/index_e.cfm Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC). 2018. Species at Risk Public Registry. Available: http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/sar/index/default_e.cfm Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2018. Aquatic Species at Risk. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/index-eng.htm Government of Canada. 2012. Species at Risk Public Registry. Available from: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm 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 and Forestry (MNRF). 2018. Species at Risk in Ontario List. Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Available at: https://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/species-risk-ontario-list

May 2018

golder.com