ENVIROI{MEI{TAL IMPACT STUDY BEAVER VALLEY VILLAGE Report prepared for: Ilansa Financial & Corporate Management Inc. Toronto, Ontario Report prepared by: Neil Morris, Consulting Ecologist Report Reference # 07-10.1 November 2007 Environmental Impact Study - Beaver Valley Village TABLE OF CONTENTS I.O INTRODUCTION..... I 2.0 EIS WORK-SCOPE..... 2 2.1 Issues of Concern 2 2.2 EIS Format and Content................... 4 3.0 WORK-SCOPE AND METHODS.. .........6 3.1 Review of Existing information... .........6 3.2 On-Site Characterization.............. .........7 4.0 STUDY AREA CHARACTERISTICS .9 4,1 Physiography and Geology.... .9 4.2 Hydrology and Aquatic Habitat...... l0 4.3 Hydrogeology ...................... l1 4.4 Regional Ecology..... 12 4.5 S ignificant Natural Features t2 4.6 Plant Communities............... 13 4.7 Wildlife l5 4.8 Species at Risk....... l7 5.0 ASSESMENT OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS........ 20 5.1 Groundwater .............. 20 5.2 Surface Water......... 21 5.3 Plant Communities and Habitat. 22 5.4 Priority Wildlife Species 23 5.5 Summary 24 6.0 REFERENCES................ 25 Ref # 07-10.1 November 2007 Environmental Impact Study - Beaver Valley Viltage LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A - Hydrogeological Evaluation (wilson Associatesr200T) Appendix B - Karst Evaluation Report (Cowell, 2007) Appendix C - Ecological Information Environmental Impact Study - Beaver Valley Yillage LIST OF TABLES Table I - Summary of Open Gountry Birds in the Region - Table 2 - Summary of Karst Features Table 3 - Summary of Potential Impacts LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 - Draft Site Plan Figure 2 - Constraints Map lll Environmental Impact Study - Beaver Valley Viltage Acronyms and Abbreviations ANSI Area ofNatural or Scientific Interest COSEWIC Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada COSSARO Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario EIS Environmental Impact Study . ELC Ecological Land Classifieation EO Element Occurrence (NHIC Database) ESA Endangered Species Act (Provincial) GSCA Grey Sauble Conseryation Authority masl meters above sea lovel mbgs meters below ground surface MGH Municipality of Grey Highlands OMNR Minishy of Natural Resources (Ontario) MOE Ministry of Environment (Ontario) NHIC Natural Heritage Information Centre (Ontario MNR) OBBA Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas OP Official Plan PPS Provincial Policy Statement SAR Species at Risk SARA Species at Risk Act (Federal) SARO Species at Risk in Ontario (Ontario MNR) Environmental Impact Study - Beaver Valley Village 1.0 INTRODUCTION Hansa Financial is currently proposing a residential development for Part Lots I and2, Concession 6, Municipality of Grey Highlands (formerly Euphrasia Township) in the County of Grey. As curently proposed, the development is a 45 lot subdivison with open spaces and stormwater management facilities to be dedicated to the municipality. The development will be situated on29.74 ha of central uplands within the southern half of the noted property. The proposed area of development, hereafter referred to simply as the "Site", and the lot distribution are depicted in Figure 1. Under the Municipality of Grey Highlands (MGH) Comprehensive Zoning By-law (2004-50) the Site are within Schedule F-2 - Beaver Valley Ski Club Recreation Area. Recreation Area policies (Section 4.9.3 of the MGH Official Plan) indicate that new privately serviced residential development should not exceed 3 units per hectare. The current proposal is for approximately 1.5 units per hectare. Under the MGH OP and other relevant plans and policy (e.g. the Provincial Policy Statement, Grey County OP), proposed developments are potentially subject to environmental restrictions or requirements. In accordance with these requirements, an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) is to be prepared for any development that is proposed with certain characteristics and under certain conditions. The development proposed for the Site has been determined to necessitate an EIS for several specific policy-related reasons, and also to satisfy a series of concerns otherwise noted by agency staff. The specifìc triggers for the EIS are discussed in Section 2.1 . This report has been prepared to describe in full all elements of the EIS that has been conducted for the Site. The three main objectives of this EIS are: 1. To adequately identifu and characterize all environmental features and functions within and immediately adjacent to the Site, 2. To assess the potential impacts of the proposed development on those environmental features and functions, in a manner consistent with relevant policy and planning documents, and 3. To identiff mitigation measures to ensure that any potential environmental impacts do not materialize to any significant extent through the full life of the proposed development. Ref# 07-10.1 1 November 2007 Environmental Impact Study - Beaver Valley Village 2.0 EIS \üORK.SCOPE In general, the scope and content of an EIS are not expressly prescribed in any relevant policy or regulations. The scope and content are intended to be site-specific and, in general, should be developed so that the noted concerns ofapproval authorities and other concerned agencies are effectively addressed. In this current EIS, steps were taken at the outset to determine the site-specifrc issues to be addressed in the EIS. 2.1 Issues of Concern The first step taken in conducting the current EIS was the identification of the specific issues of concern and relevance to the Site. Broad issues of concem were initially identified through review of relevant policy and planning documentation, including: o The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) o The Niagara Escarpment Plan o The MGH Official Plan (OP) o The Grey County OP From these relevant planning and policy documents, the general indications or specific triggers for an EIS include the following: o Under the PPS, the presence of a significant natural area (e.g., the Beaver Valley West Slope ANSI - see Section 4.5) in close proximity to the Site requires an appropriate assessment of potential impacts on that feature. o The Niagara Escarpment plan permits specified land uses so long as the Site can support those uses without substantial negative impact on environmental features (including natural grades, water quality and quantity, natural vegetation, soil, and wildlife) and without posing ahazardto life or property due to unstable soil conditions or possible flooding. o The MGH OP states that development or site alteration may be permitted within or adjacent to identified natural heritage features (as initially identified in Schedule A of the MGH OP) provided it can be demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on those features or their functions. o The MGH OP specifies that development and site alteration within or near (i.e., within 50 metres) significant wildlife habitats requires demonstration (through an EIS) that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or ecological functions for which the area is identif,red. o Under the MGH OP, development or site alteration may be permitted within 120 m of wetlands provided that it is demonstrated through an EIS that such development will not adversely affect the wetlands or their function. Ref # 07-10.1 2 November 2007 Environmental Impact Study - Beaver Valley Village o The Grey County OP states that development and site alteration may be permitted within or adjacent to specified natural features (significant areas of fish habitat, woodlands, valleylands, wetlands, and wildlife habitat) provided that it is demonstrated by an acceptable EIS that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their function . It is important to note that both the MGH and Grey County OPs identifu significant features to be considered in the development application process and in the determination of EIS needs. The natural features maps in OP Schedules are recognized as reliable, but not necessarily inclusive of all possible features. Thus, as an initial step in EIS scoping, it is necessary to examine site characteristics to determine if there may be as of yet unscheduled features on or adjacent to areas ofproposed development. Based on the description of natural features on or adjacent to the Site, and the findings of initial site reconnaissance, the proposed development would trigger an EIS based on the explicit specifrcations ofthe MGH OP regarding wetlands, but not regarding significant wildlife habitat. The draft plan (see Figure l) indicates that development or site alteration will occur within 120 meters of small unevaluated wetlands in the northwest corner of the Site and immediately adjacent to the watercourse along the eastern perimeter. A more general trigger for an EIS for the Site might also be the general Natural Features policies of the Grey County OP or the PPS. The understanding of environmental issues or concerns for consideration in this EIS was further developed through direct consultation with planning staff from the MGH and from the Grey Sauble Conservation Authority (GSCA). Specifically, a meeting was held with the MGH and GSCA staff at the MGH Offices on the afternoon of 29 August2007. The purposes of that meeting were: o to identiff the environmental issues of concern to stakeholder agencies (MGH and GSCA), o to identifr the actual trigger(s) for an EIS, and o to generally discuss the specific efforts that might be necessary to satisff relevant policy or regulatory requirements and the noted concerns. The understanding of the environmental issues of concern associated