Conservation Halton Environmental Impact Study Guidelines

November 2005

This manual has been developed as a training tool and resource to facilitate the review of Environmental Impact Studies and to provide clear and consistent direction to proponents in the preparation of such documents. The review of such studies is done so under the following Memorandum of Understanding.

Memorandum of Understanding regarding the Implementation of an Integrated Halton Area Planning System (1998) Part 4 of 9 Section 13.9 regarding the review of planning applications as they relate to the natural environment between the Region of Halton, Area Municipalities and Conservation Halton.

Memorandum of Understanding (1996) Part 2 Section c) i) regarding the review of planning applications as they relate to the natural environment and Provincial Policy as identified in Appendix A Schedule 1 of the MOU between the Regional Municipality of Hamilton -Wentworth and Conservation Halton.

Memorandum of Understanding (1997) Part 2 Section b) regarding plan review and technical clearances as they relate to the natural environment and Provincial Policy as identified in Schedule 1 of the MOU between the Corporation of the City of Mississauga and Conservation Halton.

Memorandum of Understanding (1997) Part 2 Section c) regarding plan review as they relate to the natural environment and Provincial Policy as identified in Appendix A Schedule 2 of the MOU between the County of Wellington and Conservation Halton.

Page 1 Conservation Halton

Table of Contents

A. INTRODUCTION ...... 4

B. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING...... 4

C. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY...... 4

D. PROCEDURE...... 5

E. FORMAT OF AN EIS ...... 6

F. CONTENTS OF AN EIS ...... 7

I. DESCRIBING THE PROPOSAL...... 7

II. DESCRIBING THE SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT...... 8

III. IDENTIFYING AND ASSESSING THE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL ....11

IV. AVOIDING IMPACTS AND EVALUATING ALTERNATIVE MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 12

V. MONITORING PLAN...... 16

VI. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS...... 16

G. DATA REQUESTS ...... 17

H. REFERENCES ...... 19

Environmental Impact Study Guidelines Page 2 Conservation Halton

Contributors

Kim Barrett Senior Ecologist Karen Chisholme Ecologist Sherwin Watson-Leung Ecologist – Aquatic Specialist

Environmental Impact Study Guidelines Page 3 Conservation Halton

A. INTRODUCTION Environmental Impact Study (EIS): An objective This manual has been compiled as a training guide for staff at assessment of a Conservation Halton and to provide clear and consistent guidelines for development proposal proponents. This manual will also facilitate the review of Environmental in or adjacent to a Impact Studies under the Memorandums of Understanding, between the natural area or feature of interest and if and Region of Halton, Region of Hamilton, City of Mississauga, County of to what extent the Wellington, and Conservation Halton, with regards to planning proposed development applications as they relate to the natural environment. might reasonably be expected to change the biological and B. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING physical characteristics of the The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is an agreement between the feature or area. Region of Halton, City of Burlington, Town of Oakville, Town of Milton, Town of Halton Hills, Region of Hamilton-Wentworth (City of Hamilton), County of Wellington, City of Mississauga/Region of Peel, and Conservation Halton within the Conservation Halton watershed. The MOUs outline the redistribution of planning approval authorities and Memorandum of responsibilities within the Regional Planning Area to avoid duplication, Understanding enhance accessibility, reduce processing time, provide better coordination (MOU): between the partners and maximize staff expertise. An agreement between the Planning Partners within the Halton As listed on the front cover of this manual, each municipality has its own watershed that MOU with Conservation Halton. Not all agreements are the same. For outlines the specific information on the delegation of approval authority and redistribution of responsibilities please contact the municipality or Conservation Halton. planning approval authorities and responsibilities within C. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY the Regional Planning Area. An Environmental Impact Study is an objective assessment of a development proposal in or adjacent to significant natural areas or features of interest and whether the proposed development might reasonably be expected to change the biological and physical characteristics and/or integrity of an area and to what extent. The EIS identifies anticipated adverse impacts of a proposal on the significant area or feature and recommends ways to avoid or minimize these effects and enhance the area if feasible.

An EIS is required to be conducted when a development is proposed within or adjacent to a significant natural area or feature and is reasonably expected to have adverse effects on the area or feature as a result of changes in land use. Each municipality/Region has developed criteria specific to their needs. Proponents should consult the municipality/Region in which the subject property lies to determine if an EIS is required.

Environmental Impact Study Guidelines Page 4 Conservation Halton

Changes in land use are defined as applications for official plan and zoning by-law amendments, Niagara Escarpment Plan and Parkway Belt West Plan amendments or development permits, subdivisions, severances Adjacent lands: and variances. The EIS should also meet the standards identified in the Those lands Greenbelt Act (2005), if applicable. The EIS should begin early in the contiguous to a specific natural development process when there is the greatest opportunity to design in heritage feature or harmony with the natural environment. Preconsultation with Conservation area where it is likely Halton and other review and clearance agencies is strongly recommended that development or to ensure that all requirements are incorporated into the first draft of the site alteration would study. have a negative impact on the feature or its function. The extent of The completion of an EIS does not necessarily ensure that the application the adjacent lands may will be approved. be recommended by the Province or based on municipal D. PROCEDURE approaches which If an EIS is required the following procedures should be followed. achieve the same objective. Preconsultation Prior to undertaking an EIS, proponents should meet with Conservation Halton staff and staff from other applicable agencies (Municipality, Niagara Escarpment Commission, Ministry of Natural Resources, etc). Preconsultation will identify environmental issues pertaining to the subject property and clarify what should be included in the terms of reference and the first draft of the EIS. This process will ensure a timely processing of the application. Preconsultation for proposal in the City of Mississauga will be arranged through their Development Application Review Committee.

Scoping Conservation Halton staff, in consultation with other review agencies, will consider:
the significance of natural features and function in the area of the proposal
the availability of detailed subwatershed studies and/or field work
specific boundaries, methods and protocols required
the need for three season biophysical inventory.

Refer to Appendix A for suggested scoping elements for natural areas and features and their related functions.

Submission of Terms of Reference Based on the outcomes of the preconsultation, scoping, and information found in this manual the proponent will draft a Terms of Reference for review by Conservation Halton and the reviewing agencies. Conservation Halton will provide comments to the proponent. The proponent can begin

Environmental Impact Study Guidelines Page 5 Conservation Halton

the EIS upon acceptance of the Terms of Reference by the review agencies. Proposals in the City of Mississauga should consult the standard terms of reference developed by the City. Agencies may request further information than outlined in this standard terms of reference.

Prepare Draft EIS A draft EIS will be prepared and submitted to Conservation Halton and other reviewing agencies for comment.

Final EIS The final version of the EIS (with agency comments incorporated) will be submitted with revised development plans (if required). Conservation Halton staff will consider the final EIS when preparing comments for the proposal.

E. FORMAT OF AN EIS

Significant Natural The EIS follows a standard format. Section F of this document is a guide Area or Feature: to Conservation Halton’s expectations for the content of Environmental Includes wetlands, fish Impact Studies. Studies submitted for review should follow the layout habitat, ANSIs, outlined in Section F. significant woodlands, sand barrens, tallgrass prairies, savannahs, Data collected through the EIS process must be submitted to Conservation significant Halton within 30 days of the finalization of the EIS. A hard copy of the valleylands, data (i.e. ELC field data sheets) should be included in the appendix of the significant wildlife EIS. Data should also be submitted in electronic format where possible. In habitat, habitat of rare, threatened and order to streamline data receiving we ask that the data submitted follows endangered species. the format outlined in the following chart.

Environmental Impact Study Guidelines Page 6 Conservation Halton

Type of data Hard copy Hard copy format Electronic copy Electronic Format (*refer required Required to Appendix B for format) ELC (vegetation type) ● ELC field data sheets ● NAI ELC database template* Fish Collection ● MNR Field Collection ● CH Fish database template* Record Record Georeferenced in NAD 83 Bird surveys ● ● NAI species database template* Benthic invertebrate ● OBBN field data sheet ● Excel 2000 (anticipated that surveys information will be submitted to OBBN database)* Georeferenced in NAD 83 Mammal trapping ● ● NAI species database template* Amphibian and ● ● NAI species database reptiles survey template* Dragonflies, ● ● NAI species database damselflies and template* butterflies Mapping data and ● ● Arcview GIS 3.2 shapefiles Metadata NAD83 Proponents should submit 2 copies of the EIS to expedite Conservation Halton's review. Typically review time is between 4 and 6 weeks. Submissions are reviewed in the order they are received. Exceptions will not be made to expedite one submission over others received before it.

F. CONTENTS OF AN EIS The following is a detailed list of requirements that should be included in the EIS. An executive summary outlining the key factors, resolutions and recommendations in the EIS should be included.

i. DESCRIBING THE PROPOSAL

The description of the proposal should identify and explain the development in relation to the existing natural features on the subject land and adjacent lands. This description should include:

What is proposed
The purpose of the proposal
The timing of construction/development
The existing land use and activities on-site
A general location map, labelling main roads and creeks
A site plan with dimensions, showing the location of existing and proposed lot boundaries, building(s), septic areas, driveways etc. overlaid on an airphoto.
Activities associated with the proposal which may have environmental impact (e.g. works on stream banks, tree and vegetation removal, earth moving, etc)

Environmental Impact Study Guidelines Page 7 Conservation Halton

Recent air photo map at approximately 1:2000 and 1:10000 scale identifying • Limits of the natural area(s) • Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest as defined by Ministry of Natural Resources • Vegetation communities, evaluated using Ecological Land Classification • Provincially Significant Wetlands and their classification as well as other wetlands as defined by Ministry of Natural Resources. • Water features such as headwaters, rivers, creeks, lakes, ponds, springs and seeps, and recharge and discharge areas • Limit of regulated area as defined by Conservation Halton. • Contours at 5 metre intervals or less where available • Protection zones for natural features/areas • Land use designations
A preliminary literature review should be undertaken to determine the constraints of the site. The proposal should work within these constraints, and the site plan adjusted accordingly. A bibliography of the literature reviewed should accompany the report.

ii. DESCRIBING THE SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT

Scoped Field A biophysical inventory should be conducted to describe the Inventory: surrounding environment. The inventory should be conducted for the Scoped field entire natural feature/area as well as the area that will/may be affected inventories consist of by the proposal. This inventory must include a review of secondary observational notes sources (compiling information from existing documents), a scoped made during a site walk covering a field inventory, or a detailed inventory, if warranted. The EIS should minimum of 60% of explain and justify the level of investigation undertaken. The data the subject property should be accompanied by a list/table including the date and time of the survey, weather conditions and personnel involved in the fieldwork. The rationale supporting the choice of study area and the seasons or times of the studies should be explained in the EIS. The following guidelines should be followed during these undertakings.

Feature Optimal Inventory Secondary Source Scoped Field Detailed Field Period Inventory Inventory Soil types by texture/grain size and ● drainage characteristics Overburden and bedrock geology ● Areas of high water table ● ●

Environmental Impact Study Guidelines Page 8 Conservation Halton

Areas of groundwater recharge and ● ●* discharge Inventory of existing man-made ● ● features and archaeological potential Locations and usage of wells ● ● Drainage patterns, basin ● ● ●* boundaries and watercourses Existing erosion sites ● ● Areas of shallow soil ● ● Description of ecological May to early June, Acceptable if Using ELC (include Using ELC, classified communities (ELC) July to September completed within the limits of the unit to vegetation type previous 5 years beyond subject lands), classified to community series. Identify corridors and potential linkages. Assessment of condition of May to October ● ●* vegetation communities with reference to successional state, degree of disturbance, and extent of invasive species

Environmental Impact Study Guidelines Page 9 Conservation Halton

Location of wildlife species and their habitats Birds Breeding birds: May ● Using Ontario 24 to July 10 Breeding Bird Atlas Between dawn and 5 protocols hours after dawn Migrants and over wintering birds : site specific Fish Survey Late April to June and ● Using Ontario Stream Sept. to Oct. Assessment Protocol Fish habitat In snow/ice-free ● Observations Using Ontario Stream conditions (mapping) should Assessment Protocol, include the following: if applicable. flow, channel form, riparian characteristics, anthropogenic and other disturbances, enhancement opportunities, substrate, instream habitat features and structures. Benthos Spring or fall ● Using Ontario Benthos Biomonitoring Network Protocol Mammals Species dependent ● Sightings and tracking Flora May to early June and ● Botanical inventory July to September Amphibians Early spring - summer ● Active searching (species dependent) including existing and deliberately placed boards, Marsh Monitoring Protocol. Reptiles April - June ● ●* Butterflies Mid-July ● ●* Dragonflies 3-season (minimum ● ●* and damselflies mid-June) Location of subject lands in ● ● relation to components of the Natural Heritage System Locally significant areas ● ● Ecologically functional natural ● ● linkages and potential linkages Other natural features and ● ● functions (migration routes, deer yards, snake hibernacula etc) Other development applications ● ● known to be in progress in the area that would affect the natural heritage * Description of methods should be provided in appendices

A map should be included showing the sampling locations. The presence of Species at Risk (SAR) should be filed with the Natural

Environmental Impact Study Guidelines Page 10 Conservation Halton

Heritage Information Centre in Peterborough and Conservation Halton. Locations for uncommon species or those identified as being SAR as identified by MNR and COSEWIC should be recorded in NAD83. Abundance estimates should also be provided. The location of SAR should not be included in public reports due to the sensitivity Negative Impact: of the data. For more information on Species at Risk please contact a) fish habitat - the Conservation Halton. harmful alteration, disruption or Other species and habitats that should be noted include heronries, destruction of fish habitat, except deeryards, and migration corridors. where it has been authorized under Analysis should include the inter-relationship and significance of the the Fisheries Act biophysical features with respect to adjacent lands, entire natural area, b) Other natural subwatershed, and significant and sensitive features and functions or areas and features - the loss of the the site. natural feature or the ecological This section should clearly identify all ecological constraints to functions for which development. it has been identified A table should be included with the date, time, personnel and purpose of all field work conducted.

iii. IDENTIFYING AND ASSESSING THE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL

An assessment of the impacts a development will/may have on the size, diversity, health, connectivity, functionality and resilience of natural areas must be completed as part of the EIS. The assessment should include potential effects before, during and after development as well as potential effects of processes (i.e. urbanization) that are made possible by the development. Effects may include:

Direct on-site effects (e.g. encroachment, fragmentation or elimination of habitat, tree removal, enhancement and/or restoration of existing features).
Indirect effects (e.g. sediment transport downstream, diversion of water flows, ponding, changes in volume of surface runoff)
Effects on the ecological characteristics of the entire natural area (e.g. loss of habitat, edge effect, change in habitat)
Short-term and long-term effects
Secondary effects (e.g. changes to the aesthetic qualities or educational value of the area, obstruction of greenway connections, effects on adjacent natural areas)
Cumulative impacts

Environmental Impact Study Guidelines Page 11 Conservation Halton

The following issues should be explored in relation to the proposed development:

The significance of features and functions of the natural area and how the development will affect them
The sensitivity of the features and functions of the natural area and how the development will affect them
The potential impacts to the area and the likely duration of the impacts
The apparent impacts of previous developments or land use activities on the natural area/feature and/or function (e.g. trails, dumping, excavation and fill, exotic and/or invasive species)
The methods used to determine the effects of the development.

Ecological studies should incorporate relevant information from geotechnical and stormwater studies (and visa versa) for a comprehensive understanding of the potential impacts to the site features.

Secondary sources must be consulted and referenced and/or methodologies used to determine impacts must be explained to support the assessment of impacts to natural areas. Statements such as "no impact" or "low impacts" need to be qualified with references or empirical data.

Examples of impacts and mitigation measures can be found in Appendix C.

iv. AVOIDING IMPACTS AND EVALUATING ALTERNATIVE MITIGATION MEASURES

Constraints should be identified prior to the development plans. The Mitigation: Action taken during best ecological location for crossings, trails, buildings, etc should be the planning, design, identified prior to developing a plan rather than trying to mitigate or construction and compensate environmental impacts. Where negative impacts cannot be operation of works avoided as a result of the proposed development, mitigation measures and undertakings to should be explored to reduce the effects of the development on the alleviate potential adverse effects on the natural areas. Ways of avoiding negative impacts should be listed and productive capacity of evaluated. Where possible, the proposal should be modified to avoid fish habitat. negative impacts. Similarly, various mitigation measures should be explored and evaluated. This section should also include:

An analysis of buffers and setbacks relevant to the potential impacts. Current accepted science and guidance by Federal, Provincial and Municipal governments are strongly recommended to determine the appropriate buffer width for a

Environmental Impact Study Guidelines Page 12 Conservation Halton

given area or feature. See "A Word on Buffers" pages 13 and 14 for a summary of commonly accepted buffer widths for various natural features/areas.
A description of the proposed mitigation measures that will be used to eliminate or reduce negative impacts. Mitigation techniques should be designed to improve or maintain the health, form and function of the natural area/feature.
A description of proposed compensation for impacts that cannot be avoided or mitigated and proposed restoration efforts for disturbed areas. Refer to Conservation Halton's Guidelines for Stormwater Management and Creek Realignment Planting Plans and Tree Preservation Plans (2005) for guidance regarding appropriate species, densities and planting details for compensation and rehabilitation efforts.

Environmental Impact Study Guidelines Page 13 Conservation Halton

A Word on Buffers: Under Section 2.1.4 of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) development and site alteration shall not be permitted in areas of natural heritage "unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions". Under the PPS development or site alterations can be restricted within and adjacent to these areas if the project poses a threat to natural heritage features/areas. The best available science should be used in assessing the impacts of development. The following is a summary of scientifically based recommendations from lead government agencies for buffer widths around key natural areas and features. These summaries are general. The original documents should be consulted for a full understanding on the restrictions and allowances within the designated buffer zones as well as definitions for the identified features/areas. Further recommendations can be found in the Buffer Width Summaries document (Conservation Halton, 2004) and City of Hamilton Discussion Paper #7: Buffers (2005) which include summaries of recommended widths based on studies conducted by the scientific community.Municipal by-laws with respect to buffers and tree cutting should also be considered when determining buffer widths.

Aquatic Features Watercourses : Conservation Halton Policies Procedures and Guidelines for the Administration of Ontario Regulation 150/90 - 2005 (DRAFT) Watercourse Type Minimum setback Rationale Coldwater/Coolwater 30m Coldwater/coolwater fish species spawning and migration Warmwater 15m Warmwater fish species spawning Minor watercourse with 7.5m Allowance for long-term migration of the watercourse. no fish habitat Ministry of Natural Resources – Fish Habitat Protection Guidelines for Developing Areas (1994) Habitat Type Example Recommended Buffer width (m) Type 1 – Critical habitats spawning and nursery areas, groundwater discharge areas, etc 30 Type 2 – Important habitats feeding areas and open water habitats 15 Type 3 – Marginal habitats low productive capacity, highly degraded, and do not currently contribute 15 directly to fish productivity. Ministry of Natural Resources – Provincial Policy Statement – Natural Heritage Reference Manual (1999) "Adjacent lands are those lands within which impacts must be considered and within which the compatibility of a development proposal must be addressed. …The Province recommends that adjacent lands are those lands within 30 metres of fish habitat" Environment Canada – How Much Habitat is Enough? (2004) "Stream should have a minimum 30 metre wide naturally vegetated adjacent lands areas on both sides, greater depending on site-specific conditions." Fisheries and Oceans Canada – Land Development Guidelines for the Protection of Fish Habitat (1993) "Leave strips should be permanently protected under one of the following methods: dedication as park, by return of the land to the Crown in the name of the local government, re-zoned as a protected area or reserve status, or secured with restrictive covenants." The following chart outlines the recommended minimum "leave strip" widths for various development scenarios. Adjacent land development Recommended minimum "leave strip" width* Residential/ Low Density 15m Commercial/High Density 30m * Measurements are from the high water mark unless otherwise stated. Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan Recommendation ULM-2 regarding riparian buffers proposes the following target: "ULM – 2.7 (2015) All rural watercourses within the Hamilton Harbour watershed be buffered by a 15 metre vegetative riparian buffer adjacent to warmwater fish habitat and a 30 metre vegetative buffer adjacent to coldwater fish habitat." Green Belt Act (2005) "In the case of wetlands, seepage areas and springs, fish habitat, permanent and intermittent streams, lakes, and significant woodlands, the minimum vegetation protection zone shall be a minimum of 30 metres wide measured from the outside boundary of the key natural heritage feature or key hydrological feature."

Environmental Impact Study Guidelines Page 14 Conservation Halton

Terrestrial Features Valleylands: Conservation Halton Integrated Land Use Planning Policy (2000, currently under revision) "For major valleys, require, at a minimum, a 15.2 metre setback for lot lines, buildings, structures, and septic systems from the staked geographic top-of-bank, or stable top-of-bank whichever is greater…. For minor valleys, require a minimum 7.6 metre setback from lot lines, buildings, structures, and septic systems from the staked geographic top-of-bank, or stable top-of-bank whichever is greater." Ministry of Natural Resources – Provincial Policy Statement – Natural Heritage Reference Manual (1999) "Adjacent lands are those lands within which impacts must be considered and within which the compatibility of a development proposal must be addressed…. The Province recommends that adjacent lands are those lands within 50 metres of significant Valleylands." Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (2002) Minimum Vegetation Protection Zone includes "all lands within 30 meters of stable top of bank" Woodlands: Ministry of Natural Resources – Provincial Policy Statement – Natural Heritage Reference Manual (1999) "Adjacent lands are those lands within which impacts must be considered and within which the compatibility of a development proposal must be addressed…. The Province recommends that adjacent lands are those lands within 50 metres of a significant woodland." Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (2002) Minimum Vegetation Protection Zone includes "all lands within 30 meters of the base of outermost tree trunks within the woodland" Wetlands: Conservation Halton Integrated Land Use Planning Policy (2000, currently under revision) "Setback requirement will be determined though the preparation of an EIS. A minimum setback of 15 metres from the edge of a wetlands is required as a buffer" Ministry of Natural Resources – Provincial Policy Statement – Natural Heritage Reference Manual (1999) "Adjacent lands are those lands within which impacts must be considered and within which the compatibility of a development proposal must be addressed. ….The Province recommends that adjacent lands are those lands within 120 metre of individual significant wetlands or, in the case of complexes, within 120m of individual wetlands comprising the complex" Environment Canada – How Much Habitat is Enough? (2004) "Where this is not derived from site-specific characteristics, the following are minimum guidelines: Wetland Type Recommended minimum width of Critical Function Zone and Protection Zone Bog The total catchment area Fen 100 metres or as determined by hydrogeological study, whichever is greater Marsh 100 metres Swamp 100 metres Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (2002) Minimum Vegetation Protection Zone includes "all lands within 30 meters of any part of feature" Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI): Ministry of Natural Resources – Provincial Policy Statement – Natural Heritage Reference Manual (1999) "Adjacent lands are those lands within which impacts must be considered and within which the compatibility of a development proposal must be addressed. ….The Province recommends that adjacent lands are those lands within 50 metres of an ANSI." Wildlife Habitat: Ministry of Natural Resources - Provincial Policy Statement – Natural Heritage Reference Manual (1999) "Adjacent lands are those lands within which impacts must be considered and within which the compatibility of a development proposal must be addressed…. The Province recommends an adjacent lands width of 50 metres as a guidelines for considering whether development may have an impact on significant wildlife habitat and that some assessment of potential impacts may be required." Vulnerable, Threatened, and Endangered Species: Ministry of Natural Resources - Provincial Policy Statement – Natural Heritage Reference Manual (1999) "Adjacent lands are those lands within which impacts must be considered and within which the compatibility of a development proposal must be addressed…. The Province recommends that adjacent lands are those lands within 50 metres of the significant portions of the habitat of endangered or threatened species"

Environmental Impact Study Guidelines Page 15 Conservation Halton

v. MONITORING PLAN

Monitoring plans should be designed to measure the impacts of the development on natural areas over time. It is essential to have substantial baseline data prior to the implementation of any development proposal. For large-scale projects and projects near significant areas a multi-season/year inventory may be required. For smaller projects the study may be scoped. Pre-consultation with Conservation Halton staff for the scope of work needed is strongly recommended. The baseline data will be used as a benchmark from which to measure the extent of impact of the development. Opportunities to make changes to the site conditions should be explored if the predicted levels of impact are exceeded or if negative effects occur that were not previously identified.

The Natural Heritage Reference Manual (OMNR, 1999) states that monitoring may be required where:
There is uncertainty as to the effectiveness of established mitigation measures to avoid negative impact
New and untested mitigation measures are used
There are some long-term operations associated with a development that could facilitate some future or on-going refinement to the mitigation strategy.

vi. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Recommendation should be given based on the evaluation within the EIS. Methods and preferred measures that will avoid and/or mitigate negative impacts should be outlined within the EIS. The proposal should be as specific as possible. The recommendations should outline how the proposal will maintain or enhance the ecological functions of the natural area. The following questions should be discussed and answered:

Should the proposal proceed as planned?
Should the proposal be revised to eliminate or reduce impacts?
What mitigation measures are required?
What are the conditions of development, including a monitoring plan?

Recommendations should also include long-term management plans, conservation, enhancement, and monitoring of significant environmental features and functions on the subject property or surrounding areas. Degraded areas should be first looked upon as opportunities for enhancement and/or restoration.

Environmental Impact Study Guidelines Page 16 Conservation Halton

G. DATA REQUESTS

Data is given only to proponents that have an existing application with Conservation Halton related to the request. The following chart outlines the resources that should be consulted when fulfilling data requests.

Natural Recommended distance Minimum area Resources to be checked Area/Feature way from area/feature to of Influence be included (MMAH, 2002) Fish and fish habitat 1 concession 120m Conservation Halton fisheries database and GIS, spawning records* MNR data and archives Woodlands Connecting features/area up 120m Conservation Halton GIS* to 1 km away, Connecting NAI database and GIS* corridors up to 1 km away. NHIC database Regional ESA mapping and reports Wetlands Connecting features/areas up 120m MNR wetland evaluations* to 1 km away, Connecting NAI database and GIS* corridors up to 1 km away. Conservation Halton GIS* ANSIs Connecting features/area up Life science 120m NHIC database to 1 km away, Connecting Conservation Halton GIS* corridors up to 1 km away. ANSI report Earth science 50m NAI database and GIS*

Threatened, 1.0 km from limits of 120m NHIC database vulnerable and proposed development NAI database and GIS* endangered species Valleylands Up to 50m away 120m from stable Conservation Halton limit of top of bank regulated area* Wildlife habitat Known home range plus 120m NAI database and GIS* 50m Migratory birds Known migration routes up Birds Studies Canada to 10 km away. NAI database and GIS* Breeding Birds Connecting features/areas up Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas to 1km away. Connecting NAI database and GIS* corridors up to 1km away

* Indicates resources available from Conservation Halton. Other data should be collected from its original source.

The distance away from the feature/area to be included in the data requested may be increased or decreased depending on the availability and quality of data and details of the proposal.

Environmental Impact Study Guidelines Page 17 Conservation Halton

Significant time and effort may be required to compile date to fulfill a request. The following fee schedule has been developed to satisfy this matter.

FEE SCHEDULE

The types of charges will vary based on the type of data, specific data use and the client category. All Hec2, Hec-RAS, GeoHec-RAS and other computer/data models have mandatory fees that are not normally waived. Fees for these models are specified under 'Digital Fee Schedule'.

Handling Fee: $50.00 per request Staff Time: $50.00 per half hour or part Printing Fees: See below Unless specified otherwise, copies are on 20lb bond white paper.

Reproduction of reports or hard copy mapping Letter or Legal, black and white photocopies $0.20 per page Tabloid (11x17”), black and white photocopies $0.30 per page Xerox 2510 or Diazo reprints (i.e., flood and fill lines) $10.00 per sheet Letter or Legal, colour photocopies $2.00 per page Tabloid (11x17”), colour photocopies $5.00 per page

Custom GIS Map Production (printing fees only) Letter (8.5x11”) – Xerox Laser Output $5.00 per page Tabloid (11x17”) - Xerox Laser Output $10.00 per page C size (17x22”) –HP Design Jet Plotter output $12.00 per plot

D size (22x34”) –HP Design Jet Plotter output $14.00 per plot E size (34x44”) –HP Design Jet Plotter output $16.00 per plot

Digital Fee Schedule Hec2/Hec-RAS/GeoHec-RAS Models $100.00 per tributary or area 2002 Orthophotos $50.00 per tile (1x1 km) 2002 Digital Elevation Model $50.00 per tile (1x1 km) Other data Variable Fees will be charged to recover the cost of the original data purchase.

Material Fee Schedule CD/DVD/Floppy Diskette/FTP/e-mail $0.00 (included in handling fee) HP Coated laser printer paper* 8.5 x 11” $1.00 per page 11x17” $2.00 per page Coated HP Plotter paper* $5.00 per linear foot plotted

*Limited quantities of special paper are on hand. Large print orders may require additional lead-time to order sufficient stock.

Environmental Impact Study Guidelines Page 18 Conservation Halton

The invoice for the data request fees will be delivered with the data. Payment is required within 30 days. After 30 days, interest will be applied to the invoice. Invoices can be paid via cash or cheques. Cheques can be made out to Conservation Halton with the note "ecology data request".

For requests that require mapping, the following note will be included on all maps included with the data request.

"This mapping is produced by Conservation Halton and should be used for information purposes only. The data displayed are derived from sources with different accuracies and all boundaries should therefore be considered approximate. Data on this map is used under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Regional Municipality of Halton, Grand River Conservation Authority, Teranet Enterprises Inc and other agencies. Copyright 2005."

Data collected through these studies should be submitted to Conservation Halton 30 days after the finalization of the study. Approximate completion times should be indicated in the database so that reminders can be sent out to the proponent.

It is expected that the data supplied for a given project will be destroyed upon completion of the project. Supplied data cannot be used for anything other than the project identified in the agreement.

H. REFERENCES

City of Hamilton. 2005. Discussion Paper #7: Buffers.

City of Hamilton. 2004. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) DRAFT.

City of Mississauga. 2002. Environmental Impact Studies Terms of Reference .

Conservation Halton. 2000. Integrated Land Use Planning Policy.

Conservation Halton. 2005. Draft Policies Procedures and Guidelines for the Administration of Ontario Regulation 150/90 .

Corporation of the City of Mississauga. (1997). Memorandum of Understanding .

County of Wellington. (1997). Memorandum of Understanding .

Environmental Impact Study Guidelines Page 19 Conservation Halton

Environment Canada. 2004. How Much Habitat is Enough?

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 1993. Land Development Guidelines for the Protection of Fish Habitat.

Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan: Stage 2 Update 2002.

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. 2002. Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan.

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. 2005. Green Belt Act. .

Ministry of Natural Resources. 1999. Provincial Policy Statement Natural Heritage Reference Manual.

Ministry of Natural Resources. 2000 Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide.

Ministry of Natural Resources. 2002. Significant Wildlife Habitat Decision Support System.

Ministry of Natural Resources. 2004. Oak Ridges Moraine Technical Paper (MNR T.P. 8) Preparation of Natural Heritage Evaluations for All Key Features on the Oak Ridges Moraine.

Regional Municipality of Halton. 2005. Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines (Draft).

Regional Municipality of Halton. 1998. Memorandum of Understanding Regarding the Implementation of an Integrated Halton Area Planning System.

Regional Municipality of Hamilton –Wentworth. (1996) Memorandum of Understanding.

Environmental Impact Study Guidelines Page 20 Conservation Halton

Appendix A

Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (2002) Technical Paper #8 – Preparation of Natural Heritage Evaluations for all Key Natural Heritage Features on the Oak Ridges Moraine (Appendix 2, Table A Suggested Scoping Elements for Specific KNHF's and their Related Functions.)

Environmental Impact Study Guidelines Page 21 Conservation Halton

Environmental Impact Study Guidelines Page 22 Conservation Halton

Environmental Impact Study Guidelines Page 23 Conservation Halton

Appendix B

Electronic Data Format

HamNAI ELC and Species databases HNAI ELC and Species databases CH fish database OBBN database?

Environmental Impact Study Guidelines Page 24 Conservation Halton

Halton Natural Areas Inventory Species Database Description

Environmental Impact Study Guidelines Page 25

Halton Natural Areas Inventory Species Database Example

Field Date D/M/Y Year Location Type Species Species UTME UTMN Evidence Notes Number Surveyors NAD Accuracy Source Code Code Example 08/19/04 2004 Limestone Creek F 80 F-080 601235 4801536 OB Electrofishing 5 B. Jamieson, 83 5 MNR Field 40m upstream of survey A. Dunn, S Collection Twiss Road Watson-Leung Record between Steeles and Derry, Milton

Environmental Impact Study Guidelines Page 27

Halton Natural Areas Inventory ELC Database Description

Field Description Length Data Type Example Unique Site Identifier using the format YYppSS (YY=year of survey, pp=sampling organization, SS=Sample Site site number 20 Text 05/ch/22 SiteName Site name 50 Text Fourteen Mile Creek Valley SurveyDate Date the survey was conducted Medium Date Date/Time 06/24/2005 Approximate time the survey SurveyStartTime commenced (using 24hour clock) Short Time Date/Time 9:56 Approximate time the survey was SurveyEndTime complete (using 24hour clock) Short Time Date/Time 15:32 Names of surveyors (First initial and last K.Barrett, S. Watson-Leung, Surveyor name) 80 Text B. Van Ryswyk Municipality in which the survey was conducted (Milton, Mississauga, Oakville, Burlington, Halton Hills, Municipality Puslinch, Hamilton) 50 Text Milton WatershedLocation Long Integer Number DrainageBasin 50 Text As determine using ELC field book (Lee Ecosite Designation et al, 1998) 70 Text Deciduous Forest As determine using ELC field book (Lee Ecosite Code et al, 1998) 6 Text FOD As determine using ELC field book (Lee Sugar Maple Beech Vegetation Type Designation et al, 1998) 70 Text Deciduous Forest As determine using ELC field book (Lee Vegetation Type Code et al, 1998) 7 Text FOD5-1 Mapping Unit 50 Text Mapping Code 50 Text Polygon 50 Text Polygon Variability 10 Text Ecosite Code Notes 24 Text UTM mapping zone (Default 17 for UTMZ Halton Jurisdiction) Long integer Number 17 UTME UTM easting coordinate Single Number 598168 UTMN UTM norting coordinate Single Number 4817643

System AQUATIC, TERRESTRIAL, WETLAND, Text TERRESTRIAL Landform 50 Text

OPEN WATER, SHALLOW WATER, Base SURFICIAL DEPOSIT, BEDROCK, new 50 Text BEDROCK

ORGANIC, MINERAL SOIL, PARENT MINERAL, ACIDIC BEDROCK, BASIC Substrate BEDROCK, CARBONATE BEDROCK 50 Text PARENT MINERAL

LACUSTRINE, RIVERINE, BOTTOMLAND, TERRACE, VALLEYLAND, TABLELAND, ROLL. UPLAND, CLIFF, TALUS, CREVICE/CAVE, ALVAR, ROCKLAND, Feature BEACH/BAR, SAND DUNE, BLUFF 50 Text BOTTOMLAND History NATURAL, CULTURAL 50 Text NATURAL

Physiognomy TREED, SHRUB, OPEN, NONE, NEW 50 Text TREED BARREN, BARREN-MEADOW, FOREST, RIVER/STREAM, LAKE/POND, BARREN-THICKET, BOG, FEN, MARSH, MEADOW, NEW, NONE, PLANTATION, POND, PRAIRIE, SAVHANA, SAVHANA- WOODLAND, SHALLOW MARSH, Community Class SWAMP, THICKET, WOODLAND 50 Text FOREST Canopy Cover Long Integer Number 2 Sub-Canopy Cover Long Integer Number 3 Understorey Cover 0 - none, 1 - 0 to <10%, 2 - >10% to Long Integer Number 1 Gound Level Cover <25%, 3 - >25% to <60%, 4 - >60% Long Integer Number 1 Canopy Height 1 - >25m, 2 - >10m and <=25m, 3 - >2m Long Integer Number 1 Sub-Canopy Height and <10m, 4 - >1m and <2m, 5 - >0.5m Long Integer Number 3 Understorey Height and <1m, 6 - >0.2m and <0.5m, 7 - Long Integer Number 3 Ground Height <0.2m Long Integer Number 6 Basal Area Double Number 25 Prism Factor 2 Long Integer Number 2 Size Class 0-10 50 Text A

Environmental Impact Study Guidelines Page 28 Conservation Halton

Size Class 0-10 50 Text A Size Class >10-25 50 Text N Size Class >25-50 50 Text R Size Class >50 50 Text O Standing Snags <10 50 Text D Standing Snags 10-24 50 Text O Standing Snags 25-50 50 Text R Standing Snags >50 50 Text R Debris<10 1 Text D Logs 10-30 1 Text O Logs 25-50 A-Abundent, R-Rare, O-Ocassional, N- 1 Text N Logs>50 None, D-Dominent 1 Text N PIONEER, YOUNG, MIDDLE AGE, Community Age MATURE, OLD GROWTH 50 Text middle age Soil Texture 6 Text SiL Depth to Mottles 4 Text 70 Depth to Gley 50 Text >120 Depth of Organics 4 Text None Depth to Bedrock 50 Text >120 Moisture Regime 16 Text 3 Soil Analysis Homogeneous, Variable 50 Text homeogeneous Notes 200 Text

Environmental Impact Study Guidelines Page 29

Halton Natural Areas Inventory ELC Database Example

Site SiteName SurveyDate SurveyStartTime SurveyEndTime Surveyor Municipality K.Barrett, S. Watson-Leung, B. Van 05/ch/22 Fourteen Mile Creek Valley 06/24/2005 9:56 15:32 Ryswyk Milton

DrainageBasin Ecosite Designation Ecosite Code Vegetation Type Designation Vegetation Type Code Mapping Unit Mapping Code Dry-fresh Sugar Maple Dry-Fresh Sugar Maple Beech Bronte Creek Deciduous Forest FOD5 Deciduous Forest Type FOD5-1

Ecosite Code Notes UTMZ UTME UTMN System Landform Base 17 598168 4817643 TERRESTRIAL BEDROCK

History Physiognomy Community Class Tree Cover Sapling/Shrub Cover Low Woody Cover Ground Cover NATURAL Treed Forest 4 2 3 4

Sub-Canopy Cover Understorey Cover Gound Level Cover Canopy Height Sub-Canopy Height Understorey Height Ground Height 2 3 4 2 3 6 7

Size Class 0-10 Size Class >10-25 Size Class >25-50 Size Class >50 Standing Snags <10 Standing Snags 10-24 Standing Snags 25-50 OARROR R

Logs 10-30 Logs 25-50 Logs>50 Community Age Soil Texture Depth to Mottles Depth to Gley N N N Mid-Age vfscl none none

Mottles/Gley Depth of Organics Depth to Bedrock Moisture Class Soil Analysis Notes none 10 >40 2 homogeneuous

Environmental Impact Study Guidelines Page 30

Fish Habitat Database Description – Habitat

Field Description Field Length Data Type Example Station Station identification code 50 Text SXM-26 Date Date on which the survey was completed Medium Date Date/Time 23/06/05 Colour of the water in the area sampled (Colourless, Water Colour Yellow/Brown, Blue/Green, Turbid, Other) 50 Text Colourless Cloud Cover (%) Percent of cloud cover 50 Text 10 Water temperature (Celsius) Water temperature in the area sampled (degree Celsius) 50 Text 18 Air Temperature (Celsius) Air Temperature (Degrees Celsius) 50 Text 23 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Dissolved oxygen in the area sampled 50 Text pH pH of the water in the area sampled 50 Text Conductivity Conductivity of the water in area sampled 50 Text Secchi (cm) Secchi Depth (Centimeters) 50 Text Comments Additional comments or notes of the habitat conditions 150 Text Instream fish habitat structure built in 2002 Amount of physical in-stream habitat (None, Sparse, Phys_Hab Moderate, Dense, Other) 50 Text Moderate Dominant type of physical instream habitat (Logs, Brush/Woody Debris, Boulder/Rocks, Undercut bank, Root Phys_Hab_dom Wads, Refugia/Pools, Man made structures) 50 Text Man made structures Sub-dominant type of physical instream habitat (Logs, Brush/Woody Debris, Boulder/Rocks, Undercut bank, Root Phys_Hab_sub_dom Wads, Refugia/Pools, Man made structures) 50 Text Boulders/Rocks Other type of physical instream habitat (Logs, Brush/Woody Debris, Boulder/Rocks, Undercut bank, Root Wads, Phys_Hab_other Refugia/Pools, Man made structures) 50 Text Refugia/Pools Amount of cover provided by objects of shore (None, Cover_shore Sparse, Moderate, Dense, Other) 50 Text Sparse Dominant type of cover provided by objects on shore (Deciduous Trees, Coniferous Trees, Shrubs, Herbaceous, Moss, Narrow-leaved Emergents, Broad-leaved Emergents, Cover_shore_dom Robust Emergents) 50 Text Herbaceous Sub-dominant type of cover provided by objects on shore (Deciduous Trees, Coniferous Trees, Shrubs, Herbaceous, Moss, Narrow-leaved Emergents, Broad-leaved Emergents, Cover_shore_sub_dom Robust Emergents) 50 Text Narrow-leaved Emergents Other types of cover provided by objects on shore (Deciduous Trees, Coniferous Trees, Shrubs, Herbaceous, Moss, Narrow-leaved Emergents, Broad-leaved Emergents, Cover_shore_other Robust Emergents) 50 Text Moss Amount of instream vegetative cover (None, Sparse, Cover_water Moderate, Dense, Other) 50 Text Sparse Dominant type of instream vegetative cover (Deciduous Trees, Coniferous Trees, Shrubs, Herbaceous, Moss, Narrow-leaved Emergents, Broad-leaved Emergents, Cover_water_dom Robust Emergents) 50 Text Narrow-leaved Emergents Sub-dominant type of instream vegetative cover (Deciduous Trees, Coniferous Trees, Shrubs, Herbaceous, Moss, Narrow-leaved Emergents, Broad-leaved Emergents, Cover_water_sub_dom Robust Emergents) 50 Text Broad-leaved Emergents Other type of instream vegetative cover (Deciduous Trees, Coniferous Trees, Shrubs, Herbaceous, Moss, Narrow- leaved Emergents, Broad-leaved Emergents, Robust Cover_water_other Emergents) 50 Text Robust Emergents Dominant type of bottom substrate (Rock, Bedrock, Boulder, Rubble, Cobble, Gravel, Sand, Silt, Clay, Muck, Marl, Bot_type_dom Detritus, Other) 50 Text Clay Sub-dominant of bottom substrate (Rock, Bedrock, Boulder, Rubble, Cobble, Gravel, Sand, Silt, Clay, Muck, Marl, Bot_type_sub_dom Detritus, Other) 50 Text Muck Other type of bottom substrate (Rock, Bedrock, Boulder, Rubble, Cobble, Gravel, Sand, Silt, Clay, Muck, Marl, Bot_type_other Detritus, Other) 50 Text Detritus D://Sixteen Mile Creek/2005 fish surveys/Derry Rd and 25/ US of Derry Photo File name and/or location of photo of the site habtiat 150 Text Bridge.jpg

Environmental Impact Study Guidelines Page 31

Fish Habitat Database Example – Habitat

Field Station Date Water Colour Cloud Cover (%) Water temperature (Celsius) Air Temperature (Celsius) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) pH Conductivity Secchi (cm) Comments

Instream fish habitat structure built in Example SXM-26 23/06/05 Colourless 10 18 23 2002

Environmental Impact Study Guidelines Page 32

Fish Habitat Database Description – Fish Collection

Field Description Length Data Type Example Station Station Identification code 50Text SXM-26 Date on which the survey was Date completed Medium dateDate/Time 23/06/05 Sp_Code MNR species code 50 Text Com_Name Fish species common name 50 Text Rainbow Trout Fish species scientific(Latin) Sci_Name name 50 Text Oncorhynchus mykiss Number of fish captured. May be a single fish entry or an entry of a #_Fish bulk number of fish) 50 Text 8 The total length of a single fish OR the size range of a number Tot_Lg of fish (mm) 50Text 230 The fork length of a single fish Fork Lg (mm) 50Text 28 The weight of a single fish OR the weight of a bulk number of Weight fish (g) 50Text 356

Scales_Collected Were scales collected (Yes, No) 50Text No Age Age of a single fish 50 Text The fate of the fish collected (Released, MNR, ROM, Fate Deceased, Kept, Other) 50Text Released Additional comments or notes Comments (health, etc.) of the fish caught 50 Text

Environmental Impact Study Guidelines Page 33

Fish Habitat Database Example – Fish Collection

Field Station Date Sp_Code Com_Name Sci_Name #_Fish Tot_Lg Fork Lg Weight Scales_Collected Age Fate Comments Example SXM-26 23/06/05 Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss 8 230 28 356 No Released

Environmental Impact Study Guidelines Page 34

Fish Habitat Database Example – Sampling Information

Field Description Length Data Type Example Station Station identification code 50 Text SXM-26 Date on which the survey was Date completed Medium date Date/Time 23/06/05 Stn-lg Station length (metres) 50 Text 40 Type of survey completed (Presence/Absence, Biomass, Fish Survey_type Rescue, Observation) 50Text Biomass Gear used to complete the survey (Backpack Electrofisher, Boat Electrofisher, Seine Net, Trap Net, Dip Net, D Net, Minnow Trap, Multiple Gear Gear Types) 50 Text Multiple Gear Types Amount of effort used to complete the Effort survey (e-seconds) 50 Text 1348 Names of those individuals completing the survey and/or Collectors collecting information 50 Text A. Dunn, R. Natagaal, S. Holton Organization/individual who provided Source the information 50 Text Conservation Halton Additional comments or notes with Data format respect to the survey 50 Text Additional comments or notes with Comments respect to the survey 50 Text Report where information was Report obtained or documented 200 Text MNR Field Collection Record Author Authtor of the report 150 Text A. Dunn, R. Natagaal, S. Holton Year Year of the report 50 Text 2005

Environmental Impact Study Guidelines Page 35

Fish Habitat Database Example – Sampling Information

Field Station Date Stn-lg Survey_type Gear Effort Collectors Source Data format Comments Report Example SXM-26 23/06/05 40 Biomass Multiple Gear1348 Types A. Dunn, R. Natagaal, S. Holton Conservation Halton MNR Field Collection Record

Environmental Impact Study Guidelines Page 36

Fish Habitat Database Description – Station Information Field Description Length Data Type Example Station Station identification code 50 Text SXM-23 Watershed in which the sampling took place (Appleby Creek, Shoreacres Creek, Sheldon Creek, Sixteen Mile Creek, Bronte Creek, Joshua's Creek, Fourteen Mile Creek, Hager Creek, Rambo Creek, Morrison Creek, Wedgewood Creek, Indian Creek, Falcon Creek, Rosewood Creek, Grindstone, LaSalle Creek, McCraney Creek, Tuck Creek, Stillwater Creek, Edgewater Creek, Teal Creek, Forest Glen Creek, West Aldreshot Wtrshed Creek,) 50 Text Sixteen Mile Creek

MNR watershed code for the watershed where the sampling took place (Grindstone Creek = 2HB-05, Bronte Creek = 2HB-04, Sixteen Mile Creek = Wtrshed-code2HB-03, Hamilton Harbour = N/A) 50 Text 2HB-03

sub-watershed in which the sampling took place (Bronte Creek, Strabane Creek, Bronte-Indian Creek, Mount Nemo Creek, Lowville Creek, Willoughby Creek, Mountsberg Creek, Kilbride Creek, Flamborough Creek, Limestone Creek, West Bench-16, Upper West Branch-16, Middle Branch-16, Middle East Branch-16, East Branch-16, East Branch Lisgar-16, Lower Middle Branch- Sub-wtrshed16, Main Branch-16, urban Diverted-16) 50 Text Upper West Branch -16 Dainage system of the creek in which the sampling took place. (Lake Ontario or Drainage SystemHamilton Harbour/Lake Ontario) 50 Text Lake Ontario 16MC at Derry Road west of HWY 25, top of station 40m u/s of Derry Stn_Locality Physical station location description 150 Text Road bridge Rd_cross Road crossing near station 100 Text Derry Road and HWY 25 County or Region in which station is County_red found 50 Text Halton

City_town City or Town in which the station is found 50 Text Milton Township Township in which the station is found 50 Text Trafalgar Lot Lot in which the station is found 50 Text 6

Conc Concession in which the station is found 50 Text 3 Easting coordinates. UTMs in NAD 83 Easting format 50 Text 598123 Northing coordinated. UTMs in NAD 83 Northing format 50 Text 4819326 Top of station marked on right Additional comments and notes specific bank with metal stake and flagging Comments to the location of the station 100 Text tape D://Sixteen Mile Creek/2005 fish file name and/or location of photo of the surveys/Derry Rd and 25/ US of Photos station 150 Text Derry Bridge.jpg

Environmental Impact Study Guidelines Page 37

Fish Habitat Database Example – Station Information

Field Station Wtrshed Wtrshed-codeSub-wtrshedDrainage SystemStn_Locality Rd_cross County_red City_town Township Lot Conc Easting Northing Comments Top of station marked on Upper 16MC at Derry Road right bank with Sixteen West west of HWY 25, top Derry metal stake Mile Branch - Lake of station 40m u/s of Road and and flagging Example SXM-23 Creek 2HB-03 16 Ontario Derry Road bridge HWY 25 Halton Milton Trafalgar 6 3 598123 4819326 tape

Environmental Impact Study Guidelines Page 38

Appendix C

Natural Heritage Reference Manual (1999) Attachment C.3 Examples of Potential Development Impacts and Mitigation.

Environmental Impact Study Guidelines Page 39 Conservation Halton

Environmental Impact Study Guidelines Page 40 Conservation Halton

Environmental Impact Study Guidelines Page 41 Conservation Halton

Environmental Impact Study Guidelines Page 42 Conservation Halton

Environmental Impact Study Guidelines Page 43 Conservation Halton

Environmental Impact Study Guidelines Page 44 Conservation Halton

Environmental Impact Study Guidelines Page 45 Conservation Halton

Environmental Impact Study Guidelines Page 46 Conservation Halton

Environmental Impact Study Guidelines Page 47 Conservation Halton

Environmental Impact Study Guidelines Page 48