December 2014 Technical Support Document #4 BIOLOGY

December 2014

Technical Support Document #4 BIOLOGY

TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT #4 BIOLOGY

December 2014 i

Table of Contents

ACRONYMS, UNITS AND GLOSSARY OF TERMS ................................................................................................................ v

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 STUDY AREAS ................................................................................................................................................................ 1

3.0 METHODS ........................................................................................................................................................................ 2

3.1 Background Review ............................................................................................................................................. 2

3.2 Screening for Species at Risk (SAR) ................................................................................................................... 3

3.3 Field Surveys ....................................................................................................................................................... 4

3.3.1 Ecological Land Classification ........................................................................................................................ 5

3.3.2 Plant Communities ......................................................................................................................................... 5

3.3.3 Breeding Birds ............................................................................................................................................... 5

3.3.3.1 Secretive Marsh Bird Playback ................................................................................................................... 6

3.3.3.2 Owl and Crepuscular/Nocturnal Breeding Birds ......................................................................................... 6

3.3.4 Mammals ....................................................................................................................................................... 6

3.3.4.1 Track and Sign/Area Search Surveys ......................................................................................................... 6

3.3.4.2 Motion Activated Wildlife Camera Surveys ................................................................................................. 7

3.3.4.3 Bat Surveys ................................................................................................................................................ 7

3.3.4.3.1 Habitat Assessment ................................................................................................................................ 7

3.3.4.3.2 Acoustic Monitoring ................................................................................................................................. 7

3.3.4.3.3 Data Analysis .......................................................................................................................................... 7

3.3.5 Butterflies and Dragonflies ............................................................................................................................. 8

3.3.6 Herpetofauna ................................................................................................................................................. 8

3.3.6.1 Amphibians ................................................................................................................................................. 8

3.3.6.2 Reptiles ....................................................................................................................................................... 8

3.3.7 Fish and Fish Habitat ..................................................................................................................................... 8

3.3.7.1 Surface Water Quality ................................................................................................................................. 9

3.3.8 Benthic Invertebrates ..................................................................................................................................... 9

3.3.8.1 Field Collection of Benthic Samples ........................................................................................................... 9

3.3.8.1.1 Quality Assurance/Quality Control ......................................................................................................... 10


December 2014 ii

3.3.8.2 Sediment .................................................................................................................................................. 10

3.3.8.3 Analysis of Benthic Community Structure ................................................................................................. 10

4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................................................ 11

4.1 Ecosystem Setting ............................................................................................................................................. 11

4.1.1 Natural Features .......................................................................................................................................... 11

4.2 Ecological Land Classification ........................................................................................................................... 12

4.3 Vegetation ......................................................................................................................................................... 12

4.3.1 Significant and Sensitive Species ................................................................................................................ 12

4.4 Breeding Birds ................................................................................................................................................... 12


4.5 Dragonflies and Butterflies ................................................................................................................................. 13


4.6 Mammals ........................................................................................................................................................... 14

4.6.1 General ........................................................................................................................................................ 14

4.6.2 Bats .............................................................................................................................................................. 14

4.6.2.1 Habitat Assessment .................................................................................................................................. 14

4.6.2.2 Acoustic Surveys ...................................................................................................................................... 14


4.7 Herpetofauna ..................................................................................................................................................... 16

4.7.1 Amphibians .................................................................................................................................................. 16

4.7.2 Reptiles ........................................................................................................................................................ 16


4.8 Fish and Fish Habitat ......................................................................................................................................... 16

4.8.1 DD1 .............................................................................................................................................................. 17

4.8.2 Simpson Municipal Drain ............................................................................................................................. 17

4.8.3 DD2 .............................................................................................................................................................. 18

4.8.4 DD3 .............................................................................................................................................................. 18

4.8.5 Surface Water Quality .................................................................................................................................. 20

4.8.6 Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... 20

4.9 Benthic Invertebrates ......................................................................................................................................... 20


December 2014 iii

4.9.1 Sediments .................................................................................................................................................... 22

5.0 PROPOSED PROJECT .................................................................................................................................................. 24

6.0 IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS .................................................................. 25

6.1 Potential Environmental Effects and Mitigation .................................................................................................. 25

6.1.1 Potential Direct Effects ................................................................................................................................. 25

6.1.1.1 Vegetation Communities ........................................................................................................................... 25

6.1.1.2 Wildlife Habitat .......................................................................................................................................... 26

6.1.1.3 Migratory Bird Nests ................................................................................................................................. 27

6.1.1.4 Fish Habitat .............................................................................................................................................. 27

6.1.1.5 Wildlife Vehicle Collisions ......................................................................................................................... 28

6.1.2 Potential Indirect Effects .............................................................................................................................. 28

6.1.2.1 Habitat Fragmentation/Changes to Wildlife Movement Corridors ............................................................. 28

6.1.2.2 Air Emissions ............................................................................................................................................ 29

6.1.2.3 Dust .......................................................................................................................................................... 29

6.1.2.4 Noise ........................................................................................................................................................ 30

6.1.2.5 Increased Erosion ..................................................................................................................................... 31

6.1.2.6 Alteration of Surface Water Regime ......................................................................................................... 31

6.1.2.7 Alteration of Groundwater Quantity Regime ............................................................................................. 32

6.1.2.8 Surface Water Quality ............................................................................................................................... 32

6.1.2.9 Groundwater Quality ................................................................................................................................. 33

6.1.2.10 Pests ......................................................................................................................................................... 33

7.0 MONITORING ................................................................................................................................................................. 33

REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................................................... 35


December 2014 iv

TABLES

Table 1: Summary of Natural Environment Field Surveys .......................................................................................................... 4

Table 2: Mean (Standard Deviation) Acoustic Bat Survey Results on the Site......................................................................... 14

Table 3: Number of Nights with Little Brown Myotis and Small-Footed Myotis Recordings ..................................................... 15

Table 4: Fish Community on the Site in 2012 and 2013 ........................................................................................................... 19

Table 5: In-Situ Water Quality at Benthic Sampling Stations.................................................................................................... 20

Table 6: Benthic Indices on the Site in 2012 and 2013 ............................................................................................................ 21

Table 7: Relative Density (%) of EPT ....................................................................................................................................... 21

Table 8: Sediment Quality at Benthic Stations ......................................................................................................................... 23

Table 9: Sediment Grain Size (%) ............................................................................................................................................ 24

FIGURES

Figure 1: Site-Vicinity

Figure 2: Species at Risk and Survey Locations

Figure 3: Site Ecological Land Classification

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Vegetation Communities in the Site-Vicinity

APPENDIX B Vascular Plants in the Site-Vicinity

APPENDIX C Species at Risk (SAR) Screening

APPENDIX D Fish and Wildlife on the Site

APPENDIX E Benthic Invertebrate Community on the Site

TECHNICAL SUPPORTING DOCUMENT #4 BIOLOGY

ACRONYMS, UNITS AND GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Definition of Acronyms

Acronym Definition

CRRRC Capital Region Resource Recovery Centre

C&D Construction and Demolition

dB(Lin) Linear Decibels

DFO Fisheries and Oceans Canada

EA Environmental Assessment

EPT Ephemeroptera/Plecoptera/Trichoptera

ESA Endangered Species Act

ha Hectare

IC&I Industrial, Commercial and Institutional

LEL Lowest Effect Level

m Metre

mm Millimetre

MNR Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

MNRF Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry

NEL No Effect Level

PSQG Provincial Sediment Quality Guidelines

PWQO Provincial Water Quality Objectives

RDL Reportable Detection Limit

SAR Species at Risk

SARA Species at Risk Act

SEL Severe Effect Level

SNC South Nation Conservation Authority

TOC Total Organic Carbon

TOR Terms of Reference

TSD Technical Support Document

µg/g Microgram per Gram

December 2014 v


1.0 INTRODUCTION The Capital Region Resource Recovery Centre (CRRRC) is proposed to provide facilities and capacity for recovery

of resources and diversion of material from disposal generated by the Industrial, Commercial & Institutional (IC&I)

and Construction & Demolition (C&D) sectors primarily in Ottawa and secondarily a portion of eastern Ontario, for

management and utilization of surplus and contaminated soils, as well as landfill disposal capacity for material that is

not diverted.

The Site is located in the east part of the City of Ottawa, in the former Township of Cumberland and just southeast

of the Highway 417/Boundary Road interchange. The property is on the east side of Boundary Road, east of an

existing industrial park, north of Devine Road and west of Frontier Road. The property consists of about

175 hectares (430 acres) of land on Lots 23 to 25, Concession XI, Township of Cumberland.

This document presents the Aquatic and Terrestrial Biology Environment component (referred to as the

“Biology” component) of the Environmental Assessment (EA) of the proposed CRRRC on the Boundary Road Site.

The study has been conducted according to the requirements set out in the approved TOR (EASR Appendix A).

The general methodology for conducting the EA is presented in Section 2 of the EASR. This biology impact

assessment was carried out for the Site Development Plan as described in Section 10 of the EASR.

Golder Associates Ltd. prepared this biology component of the impact assessment.

2.0 STUDY AREAS The TOR identifies three generic study areas for the EA as follows:

Site – the lands secured by Taggart Miller Environmental Services (Taggart Miller) for the proposed

CRRRC;

Site-vicinity – the lands in the vicinity of the Site (within 500 m of the Site boundaries); and

Haul Routes – the main haul/access routes to the Site.

The Site and Site-vicinity are shown on Figure 1.

The main haul route to the Boundary Road Site is from Highway 417 along Boundary Road, which is an arterial

road within the City of Ottawa. As such, there would be no new roads external to the Site or road improvements

that would have a potential effect on the terrestrial or aquatic environment. Although the traffic along the

established haul route is expected to increase, because wildlife in the area is already habituated to the activity

along this heavily travelled arterial road and likely avoid the road to a large extent already, it is expected that any

increase in the number of wildlife/traffic collisions due to CRRRC will be negligible. Any increases in noise from

the haul routes were considered in the noise assessment of the Site itself, and is discussed further in the impact

analysis (Section 6.0). As such, haul routes were not considered in the Biology TSD.

December 2014 1


3.0 METHODS This assessment characterizes and assesses the effect of the CRRRC project in a thorough, traceable stepwise

manner. The approach used in the assessment includes the following steps:

Describe the Project: The project is described as a number of works and activities that could affect the

surrounding environment.

Identify Temporal and Spatial Boundaries: Temporal boundaries (i.e., Project phases) establish the

timeframe during which Project effects are assessed, while spatial boundaries (i.e., study areas) define the

spatial extent within which the environmental effects of the Project are considered.

Describe the Existing Environment: The existing environment is characterized using available

information and field studies.

Identify Project-environment Interactions: The assessment focused on the elements of the biological

environment that are likely to be affected by the Project. Prior to predicting and assessing effects, the

potential for all works and activities of the Project to interact with the environment are determined and likely

interactions identified.

Identify In-design Mitigation Measures: Considering the Project during its life cycle, applicable in-design

mitigation measures (including design modifications, alternatives, and/or operational modifications, for

example) are developed to avoid or minimize any environmental effects.

Predict and Assess Environmental Effects: The likely environmental effects that are anticipated to occur

due to the Project will be considered for all Project phases. Where there is likely to be a Project-environment

interaction, the effects are predicted and assessed as to whether or not they are adverse.

Determine Importance: All residual adverse effects are then assessed to determine whether the effect is

ecologically important, or not.

Propose Follow-up Programs: Finally, follow-up monitoring is proposed to confirm that mitigation

measures are effective and the effects are as predicted.

3.1 Background Review To evaluate the potential impacts of the CRRRC on the aquatic and terrestrial environment, baseline conditions

were first assessed using both a desktop review of existing data and data collected through field surveys.

The background information search and literature review were used to gather data about the local area, provide

context for the evaluation of the natural features, and facilitate gap analysis/identification and field scoping.

As part of the background review, a number of resources were used to evaluate the existing conditions on the

Site and in the Site-vicinity including:

Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) Biodiversity Explorer database maintained by the Ontario

Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) (MNR 2013a);

Land Information Ontario geospatial data (MNR 2011a);

Breeding Bird Atlas of Ontario (OBBA) (Cadman, et al. 2007);

December 2014 2


Atlas of the Mammals of Ontario (Dobbyn 1994);

Ontario Herpetofaunal Atlas (Oldham and Weller 2000);

Ontario Odonata Atlas (MNR 2005);

Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) range maps (ROM 2010);

Bat Conservation International (BCI) range maps (BCI 2013);

City of Ottawa OP (2003);

South Nation Conservation Authority (URL: http://www.nation.on.ca/en/);

Kemptville District Ministry MNRF; and

High resolution orthophotography.

To develop an understanding of the drainage patterns, ecological communities and potential natural heritage

features that may be affected by the CRRRC, MNRF Natural Resources and Values Information System

(NRVIS) data were used to create base layer mapping for the Site. A geographic query of the NHIC database

(Biodiversity Explorer) was conducted to identify element occurrences of any natural heritage features, including

wetlands, Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs), life science sites, rare vegetation communities, rare,

threatened or endangered species and other natural heritage designations within 500 m of the Site. In addition,

staff from the MNRF and South Nation Conservation Authority (SNC) were consulted as part of the background

data review. Although requested, there was no fisheries data available from the MNRF or SNC for the surface

water features on the Site or in the Site-vicinity.

3.2 Screening for Species at Risk (SAR) Species at Risk (SAR) considered for this report include those species listed in the Ontario Endangered Species Act (ESA) (Ontario 2007) and the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA) (Canada 2002), as well as species ranked

S1-S3 (NHIC) and regionally rare species. An assessment was conducted to determine which SAR had

potential habitat on the Site. A screening of all SAR that have the potential to be found in the vicinity of the Site

was conducted first as a desktop exercise, using the sources listed in Section 3.1. Species with geographic

ranges overlapping the Site, or recent occurrence records in the Site-vicinity, were screened by comparing their

habitat requirements to existing habitat conditions.

The Kemptville district MNRF also provided a list of SAR that have potential to be on the Site or in the

Site-vicinity. These species were also considered in the assessment.

The probability for the species to occur was determined through a probability of occurrence. A ranking of low

indicates no suitable habitat availability for that species on, or in the vicinity of the Site, and no specimens

identified. Moderate probability indicates more potential for the species to occur, as suitable habitat appeared to be

present on, or in the vicinity of the Site, but no occurrence of the species recorded. High probability indicates a

known species record on, or in the vicinity of the Site (including during field surveys or background data review),

and good quality habitat is present.

December 2014 3


During field surveys, suitable habitats for all SAR identified through the desktop screening were searched for,

and signs of individuals were recorded. If the potential for the species to occur on the Site or in the Site-vicinity

was moderate or high, the screening was refined based on field investigations (i.e., habitat assessment) and/or

species-specific surveys.

3.3 Field Surveys The habitats and communities on the Site were characterized through field surveys. The following sections

outline the methods used for each of the field surveys on the Site. During all surveys, area searches were

conducted and additional incidental wildlife, plant, and habitat observations were recorded. Searches were also

conducted to document the presence or absence of suitable habitat, based on habitat preferences, for those

species identified in the desktop SAR screening described above. The dates when all surveys were conducted

are included in Table 1.

Table 1: Summary of Natural Environment Field Surveys

Year Date Type of Survey

2012

Sept 20, Oct 1 Ecological Land Classification and vegetation survey

Sept 20 Mammal area search/visual encounter survey

Sept 20 Aquatic (fish and fish habitat) survey at DD1, DD2 and Simpson Drain

Oct 11 Benthic survey at DD2 and Simpson Drain

2013

Apr 21, May 22, June 20 Nocturnal amphibian survey

Apr 21 Salamander habitat assessment and egg mass survey

Apr 21, June 6, June 20, June 26, Aug 29, Sept 13, Sept 20, Sept 21, Oct 15

Herpetile area search/visual encounter survey

Apr 21 Mammal area search/visual encounter survey

Apr 21 Snake emergence survey

Apr 21, May 22, June 20 Owl and crepuscular/nocturnal breeding bird survey

Apr 21 Raptor nesting survey

Apr 21, June 6, June 26, July 13, Aug 29, Sept 13, Sept 20, Sept 21

Ecological Land Classification and vegetation survey

May 16 Aquatic (fish habitat) survey DD1, DD2, and Simpson Drain.

June 6, June 26 Breeding bird and marsh bird playback survey

June 14 Mobilization of bat detectors BAT1 and BAT2

June 14 Bat habitat survey

June 14, June 26, Aug 29, Sept 13, Sept 20, Sept 21, Oct 15

Area search/visual encounter survey for all wildlife, including butterflies and dragonflies

July 3 Mobilization of bat detector BAT3

July 13 Demobilization of bat detectors

December 2014 4


Year Date Type of Survey

Aug 26 Fish habitat mapping at DD1, DD2 and Simpson Drain

Sept 6 Fish community inventory survey at DD1, DD2 and Simpson Drain

Sept 13 Fish habitat mapping at DD3

Sept 20 Fish community survey at DD3

Oct 15 Benthic survey at DD3

Oct 18 Benthic survey at off-Site reference stations (B7 and B8 on Figure 2)

3.3.1 Ecological Land Classification

Vegetation communities on the Site were first delineated at a desktop level using high-resolution aerial imagery,

then ground-truthed in the field using the Ecological Land Classification (ELC) system for southern Ontario

(Lee et al. 1998; Lee 2008). The inventories were carried out by systematically traversing the Site to ensure a

thorough survey of species and communities. During field surveys, information on plant community structure

and composition, and soils was recorded in order to better define and refine the plant community polygons.

Based on the ELC polygons, habitats for other species, particularly SAR, that were considered to have a

moderate or high potential to be found on the Site, were searched for and suitability was assessed.

3.3.2 Plant Communities

Plant community and botanical surveys included area searches in all naturally-occurring habitats on the Site.

Incidental observations during all other field surveys were also recorded.

The searches were conducted by systematically walking through all habitats, in a meandering fashion, on the

Site, generally paralleling the principal (long) axis of a natural area, where feasible, and ensuring that the full

width of the area was examined. Lists of all plant species identified during any of the surveys were compiled.

Since the butternut (Juglans cinerea) was raised as a potential issue by MNRF, and is listed as endangered

provincially under the ESA and federally under SARA, the botanical surveys included targeted searches for

this species.

Common and scientific nomenclature of plant species in this report follows Newmaster et al. (1998).

3.3.3 Breeding Birds

Breeding bird surveys consisted of breeding bird point counts, secretive marsh bird playback surveys, and

specific surveys for owls and crepuscular/nocturnal birds.

Breeding bird point count surveys were conducted at 20 stations in 2013 for songbirds and other diurnal birds

(Figure 2). Surveys followed protocols from the Canadian Breeding Bird Survey (Downes and Collins 2003), and

the OBBA (Cadman et al. 2007). Point count stations were established in representative habitats found within

the Site-vicinity and were separated by a minimum of 250 m (Figure 2). Habitat types surveyed included cultural

December 2014 5


meadows, cultural thickets, field edges, and the edge of wetland communities. Surveys were conducted

between 30 minutes before sunrise and 10:00 am to encompass the period of maximum bird song.

Each station consisted of a circle with a 100 m radius from the centre point (where the observer stands), and

each point count was 10 minutes in duration, and was separated into survey windows of 0-3, 3-5, and

5-10 minutes. All birds seen or heard were noted on pre-printed datasheets and observations were made

regarding sex, age and notable behaviour, when possible. Birds heard or seen outside of the 100 m radius were

also noted using methods from the OBBA, including estimated distance (where possible).

In general, point counts focused on natural areas on the Site, but visual encounter surveys were also conducted

on the entire Site. Observations of avian species during all other field surveys were also recorded.

3.3.3.1 Secretive Marsh Bird Playback Secretive marsh bird playback surveys were conducted at five (5) stations in 2013 for secretive marsh birds that

are not always surveyed well with standard point counts, including rails, bitterns and grebes. Surveys followed

protocols from the Marsh Monitoring Program (Konze and McLaren 1997). Stations were established in

representative habitats that are likely to support secretive marsh birds, which was limited to thicket swamps with

pockets of marsh vegetation on the Site (Figure 2). Surveys were conducted during the same time period as

breeding bird point counts. Surveys generally followed similar protocols to breeding bird point counts, except that playback of territory calls was used for sora (Porzana Carolina), Virginia rail (Rallus limicola), least bittern

(Ixobrychus exilis), pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus podiceps), and American bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus).

3.3.3.2 Owl and Crepuscular/Nocturnal Breeding Birds Bird point count surveys for crepuscular and nocturnal birds were conducted at dusk, in the night, and pre-dawn

at seven stations in 2013 (Figure 2). Additional observations for these species were also recorded during all

other surveys during the appropriate times (i.e., during amphibian (frog/toad) count surveys). Protocols followed

for these surveys included the following:

Crepuscular birds, including eastern whip-poor-will (Caprimulgus vociferus), chimney swift (Chaetura pelagica), common nighthawk (Chordeiles minor), and other nightjars (Caprimulgidae) – National Audubon

Society (Hunt unknown date), Bird Studies Canada (2013), and SwiftWatch, Bird Studies Canada (2009); and

Nocturnal owls, including short-eared owl (Asio flammeus) – Bird Studies Canada, Ontario (2003).

3.3.4 Mammals

Mammal surveys conducted on the Site included track and sign surveys, motion activated wildlife cameras,

Binary Acoustics Technology sensors (bat detectors), and area searches in selected habitats, and incidental

observations.

3.3.4.1 Track and Sign/Area Search Surveys Track and sign surveys and area searches were conducted in spring, summer, and fall. The full range of

habitats across the site was visited, with special attention paid to edge habitats and other areas where mammals

might be active. Areas of exposed sand or mud were located and scanned for any visible tracks. Any mammals

seen and identified were noted. When encountered, tracks and other signs (e.g., scat, tree scrapes, etc.) were

noted and identified to species, if possible.

December 2014 6


3.3.4.2 Motion Activated Wildlife Camera Surveys To further document mammal activity and confirm presence of species that could not easily be identified by

tracks and signs alone, or in areas where substrate did not allow for track identification (e.g., heavily vegetated

areas), motion activated wildlife cameras were used at several sampling stations on the Site (Figure 2).

These cameras were set up for approximately two months at each station in locations that were predicted to

have higher mammal activity (e.g., game trails, habitat edges etc.), and were checked and downloaded

concurrent with other field surveys on the Site.

3.3.4.3 Bat Surveys Studying bat species and determining accurate measures of colony size or movement between roost sites is

particularly challenging (O’Shea 2003). Bats and Bat Habitats: Guidelines for Wind Power Projects (MNR 2011b)

was developed as a guideline to assess bat habitat and includes criteria for the identification and evaluation of

significance of bat maternity roost habitat and bat hibernacula. These protocols were generally followed for the

surveys at the CRRRC Site.

3.3.4.3.1 Habitat Assessment

Using the ELC mapping and data collected during a field survey, trees larger than 25 cm diameter-at-breast-

height (DBH) and any indication of cavities in these trees were mapped. Mixed-wood or deciduous forests with

deciduous trees greater than 25 cm DBH were considered candidate sites for maternity roosts (MNR 2011b).

A search for hibernacula, caves and abandoned mines or any opening with a high humidity (over 90%), stable

winter interior air temperatures above 0°C, and sufficient space for roosting (MNR 2000) was also conducted on

the Site.

3.3.4.3.2 Acoustic Monitoring

Acoustic recording of echolocating bats is an effective method to determine the presence and relative

abundance of bats at a particular location (Kunz and Parsons 2009). Three monitoring stations in potentially

suitable habitats on the Site were established by deploying a Binary Acoustics Technology AR125 detector and

a solar power panel at each station for at least 9 full nights of bat activity monitoring data during the breeding

period (Figure 2). BAT1 and BAT2 were deployed on June 14, 2013 in a forested area and near an existing

structure on the Site, respectively. BAT3 was deployed on July 3, 2013 near an existing structure on the Site.

All three detectors were collected on July 13, 2013.

3.3.4.3.3 Data Analysis

Automated analysis of full-spectrum acoustic data was completed using a multi-step process of extracting,

filtering and classifying the digital recordings. The Sonobat© 3.2.0 automated classifier software package was

used for final species classification, with manual QA/QC conducted on a subset of files by an experienced bat

biologist. Mean and standard deviation of bat passes per night were calculated for each station and each

species of bat. The total number of recordings and maximum number of recordings in one night of focal species

(i.e., little brown myotis and northern myotis) were also calculated.

December 2014 7


3.3.5 Butterflies and Dragonflies

Butterfly and dragonfly (terrestrial insect) surveys consisted of area searches in various habitats across the

entire Site as well as incidental observations made during other surveys. All dragonflies and butterflies that

could be identified were recorded. All identifications were made in the field using close-focus binoculars and

butterfly nets.

In addition to area searches for specimens, searches for the primary food plants of any insect at risk (e.g., milkweed - Asclepias spp. for monarch butterfly - Danaus plexippus) were completed, notes on their general

distributions were made, and locations of any particular concentrations were noted in the areas that were

examined.

3.3.6 Herpetofauna

Area searches or visual encounter surveys were conducted for herpetiles on the Site. Area searches consisted

of systematic meanders in the various habitats on the Site and all suitable habitats were searched (e.g., flipping

logs and other types of cover objects, piles of rocks). All reptiles and amphibians that were observed during

these, and all other field surveys, were identified and their location was noted.

3.3.6.1 Amphibians Calling amphibians (frogs and toads) were surveyed after sunset and before midnight using standard methods

(Konze and McLaren 1997) at seven stations on the Site (Figure 2) in 2013.

On April 21, 2013, an assessment for potential salamander by means of a thorough search of the Site was

conducted looking for potential habitat for salamander, to complete an egg mass survey.

3.3.6.2 Reptiles A habitat assessment was conducted to identify potential suitable habitat for turtle basking (i.e., ponds and

wetlands) and nesting (i.e., rock barrens or sandy gravelly areas).

Because there were no suitable areas to conduct basking or nesting surveys according to MNRF protocols

(MNR 2013b), area searches and visual encounter surveys for turtles were conducted in spring, summer and

fall 2013 across the entire Site during various times of day, including night (concurrent with amphibian surveys),

early and late morning, and early afternoon. In addition to searching for individuals, signs of turtle nesting, such

as egg shells, predated nests or recent burrowing were searched for and recorded.

Due to the timing of the acquisition of a property on the west central side of the Site, that happened after the window

for basking and nesting surveys, turtle visual encounter surveys were conducted in September and October 2013.

A habitat assessment was conducted to determine whether or not there was potentially suitable habitat for

turtles, and a search for signs of nesting (e.g., egg shells or predated or abandoned nests) was conducted.

3.3.7 Fish and Fish Habitat

Fish surveys were conducted between May 16 and September 20, 2013. A preliminary survey to map fish habitat

was conducted on August 26, 2013 at DD1, DD2 and Simpson Drain (refer to Figure 2 for the location of these

surface water features). A qualitative fish community survey using a backpack electrofisher was conducted on

September 6, 2013 at these same surface water features. Habitat mapping and a fish community survey was

conducted at DD3 located on the property on the west central side of the Site on September 20, 2013.

December 2014 8


The fish community surveys were conducted using a Smith-Root LR-24 portable backpack shocker and gee

traps. Fish catch was processed for fork length (millimetres) and total weight (grams) and live released at the capture site. In-situ water quality parameters were measured at each station using a YSI PRO-DO oxygen

meter, and Oakton pen testers for conductivity (ECTestr11), pH (pHTestr30). A Lamotte 2020we was used to

measure turbidity, and a Marsh-McBirney flow mate to measure flow rate.

3.3.7.1 Surface Water Quality Water samples were taken at all of the surface water features on the Site and analyzed for a suite of parameters

by the surface water environmental component. Details of this program are included in the Stormwater

Management System Design report in Appendix A of the Volume IV D&O Report.

3.3.8 Benthic Invertebrates

3.3.8.1 Field Collection of Benthic Samples Benthic invertebrate community samples were collected according to Golder’s standard technical procedures that were adapted from Ontario Benthos Biomonitoring Network Protocol Manual (Jones et al. 2007).

Physical habitat (i.e., water depth, type and texture of substrate) was standardized among stations to the extent

possible in the field. The benthic invertebrate communities on-Site were sampled at six (6) stations in

October 2012 and 2013 (Figure 2). One benthic sample was collected in DD2 (B7 on Figure 2), and two

samples at two different locations were collected in Simpson Drain (B5 and B6 on Figure 2) using a 500-µm

D-frame kick net that was agitated through the substrate within a 1-metre square plot for one minute at each

station. Three samples at three different locations in DD3 (B1-B3 on Figure 2) and two samples in the off-Site

reference stations (B8 and B9 on Figure 2) were collected using a standard Ekman grab as habitat

characteristics were not appropriate to sample using a D-frame kick net. Because DD1 was dry in 2012 and

only held several small pools of standing water in 2013, benthic samples were not collected in DD1.

Samples were washed through a 500-µm sieve bag to reduce the amount of sediment and detritus in the

sample. After sieving, all samples were transferred to 1 litre (L) sample bottles and preserved with 10% buffered

formalin. All sieves and containers were rinsed with ambient water to ensure that all organisms were

collected. Samples from DD2, DD3 and Simpson Drain were shipped to Zaranko Environmental Assessment

Services (ZEAS) for sorting, taxonomic identification and enumeration. Macroinvertebrates were identified to

the lowest practical level and taxonomy was based on the most recent publications. Taxonomic resolution was

dependent on available keys, ease of identification, the condition (i.e., damage), and maturity of the organism

(i.e., only mature larvae can be identified to species).

Basic water quality indicators including temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH and conductivity were measured in situ at all stations using a hand-held, YSI 550A dissolved oxygen meter (with thermometer), an Oakton EC

Testr 11 conductivity meter and a Oakton pH Testr 30 pH meter. Additional information recorded at the time of

sampling included general weather conditions, a description of the habitat, the substrate composition and the

presence/absence of benthic algae.

December 2014 9


3.3.8.1.1 Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Field data and notes were checked at the end of each day for completeness and accuracy. Chain-of-Custody

(COC) forms were used to track the sample shipment from the field to Golder’s Ottawa office and then to the

taxonomist.

The electronic taxonomy raw data was screened through a visual examination to identify extreme values and to

verify that the taxa were appropriate to the area. All datasets generated from the raw data and all summary

tables underwent an additional QA/QC screening to identify anomalous values. Calculations in all data sets and

summary tables were also checked for errors.

3.3.8.2 Sediment Baseline sediment samples were collected concurrently with the benthic invertebrate sampling program.

A standard 15 cm x 15 cm Ekman sampler was used to collect three sediment grabs at each of the benthic

invertebrate stations. The three grabs were combined in a plastic tray and mixed thoroughly until homogenous.

As no distinct soil layers were evident in the highly organic sediment, the entire portion of each grab was used in

the combined sample. The material was transferred to labelled plastic bags and stored on ice in a cooler.

Sediment samples from each station were shipped on ice to Maxxam Analytics Inc. in Mississauga, Ontario for

analysis of total organic carbon (TOC), grain size and the following extractable metals using aqua regia digestion:

iron, arsenic, cadmium, chromium (total), copper, manganese, nickel, zinc, and mercury. Results of the sediment

analyses were compared to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change’s (MOECC) Provincial

Sediment Quality Guidelines (PSQG; MOE 2008).

Sediment for particle size analysis was sieved through a #200 (0.075mm) sieve. The percent retained and

percent passing were calculated for each of the benthic stations.

Sediment samples were collected in conjunction with the benthic samples following Golder’s standard technical

procedures. Samples were taken within the top 10 cm using a standard Ekman grab. Samples were stored in

Ziploc bags and/or glass jars for metals, Total Organic Carbon (TOC), and grain size. All sediment samples

were transported to Maxxam Analytics Ltd. for analysis. TOC and grain size analyses were completed because

these two parameters have a direct impact on benthic community composition and are standard supporting

measures used to assess variability between sampling stations and areas. TOC and grain size can also affect

the potential bioavailability of metals, since a number of metals will form complexes with organic carbon, thereby

reducing their availability to aquatic organisms.

3.3.8.3 Analysis of Benthic Community Structure During the preparation of the dataset for analysis, Elmidae larvae and Tricoptera and Chrionomidae pupae were

removed from the dataset as immature forms were unidentifiable to the lowest taxonomic level.

Three descriptors of the benthic invertebrate community were derived from the data, including taxa

presence/absence, taxa richness, and percent dominance at each sampling station.

A presence/absence matrix was development for each sampling station. The community composition was

assessed using presence/absence of taxa and relative density. Taxa richness is the total number of taxonomic

groups. Richness provides an indication of the diversity of benthic invertebrates in an area; a higher richness

December 2014 10


value typically indicates a more healthy and balanced community. Percent dominance is the percentage of total

number of individuals in the most abundant family at each sampling station. The most commonly occurring taxa

were determined using the relative density for the entire Site. The percentages of taxa that contribute to

greater than 5% in the combined Site density qualify as common.

4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

4.1 Ecosystem Setting The Site is located within the South Nation River watershed and the Bear Brook subwatershed. The South

Nation watershed encompasses approximately 4,200 square kilometres (km2) of eastern Ontario drained by the

South Nation River. Land use in the watershed is primarily agricultural including dairy and cash crop production.

From the headwaters located north of Brockville the South Nation River flows northeast for approximately

175 km and drains into the Ottawa River near Plantagenet (SNC 2013). There are numerous peat bogs in the

South Nation River watershed including the Alfred, Mer Bleue, Winchester, Moose Creek, and other less

well-known bogs (Chapman and Putnam 1984).

The Bear Brook subwatershed drains an area of approximately 484 (km2) in the lower South Nation watershed.

Land uses include intensive and non-intensive agriculture (poultry, cattle and cropland) and natural areas

(City of Ottawa 2011). Bear Brook has a shallow channel that drains an area with flat topography

(Chapman and Putnam 1984).

The Site is also located within the Mixedwood Plains Ecozone, an area underlain by Paleozoic limestones and

dolostone bedrock. Within the larger Ecozones are nested Ecoregions, areas defined by characteristic climate

patterns. The Site is located within the Lake Simcoe Rideau Ecoregion, which extends southward from a line

connecting Lake Huron in the west to the Ottawa River in the east. This area contains extensive agricultural

lands, as well as deciduous and mixed forests (MNR 2007).

The Site is located in a region characterized by clay plains interrupted by ridges of glacial till and/or bedrock.

The clay deposit is overlain by a discontinuous layer of sandy soils. The topography of the region is flat.

4.1.1 Natural Features

The following natural features are located in the general area of the Site:

Mer Bleue (Earth Science Provincially significant ANSI) is located approximately 3.5 km to the northwest of

the Site. This 3,500 hectare conservation area contains the second largest bog in southern Ontario, providing

habitat to many species of regionally rare and significant plants, birds, and other wildlife (NCC 2013).

The Cumberland Forest, which is managed by the City of Ottawa, is spread over three blocks of properties

with a total size of 598.56 ha. The largest portion of the Cumberland Forest is located approximately

1.3 km northeast of the northern Site boundary, across Highway 417, a divided 400 series highway.

The centre portion of the forest is located east of Vars and includes part of the Limoges Wetland Complex, a

provincially significant wetland (Nancy Young, personal communication, November 28, 2013). The portion of

the Limoges Wetland Complex nearest to the Site is located approximately 6.5 km to the east of the Site

boundary. The western portion of the Cumberland Forest includes a portion of the Vars West Life Science

Area, which consists primarily of young poplar and red maple swamp and upland forest (MNR 2013a).

December 2014 11


The Life Science Area continues west of the Cumberland Forest and at its closest point is approximately

100 m to the northeast of the Site, across Highway 417.

Carlsbad Springs Southwest (Life Science Area) is located at its closest point approximately 950 m

northwest of the Site across Highway 417. Most of this natural area is owned by the National Capital

Commission. It is located just south of Mer Bleue and contains mainly red maple swamp and white cedar

forest on acidic sand plain (NHIC 2013).

Edwards (Life Science Area) is located approximately 500 metres west of the main CRRRC Site area

across Boundary Road. This forest is dominated by red maple and poplar on non-acidic sand. All of the

forest is indicated as upland in the City of Ottawa Geographic Information System (GIS) database

(MNR 2013a).

The Capital Context Greenbelt Concept identifies an Ecological Corridor extending from the Cumberland Forest

through the Vars Forest, across Highway 417 and the Site to the west of Boundary Road (NCC, 2013).

4.2 Ecological Land Classification There were 13 distinct vegetation communities identified on the Site based on the ELC system (Lee et al. 1998;

Lee 2008). These communities are shown on Figure 3 and are summarized in Appendix A.

Overall the Site is characterized by a mix of thickets, immature deciduous forests, swamps, agricultural fields

and limited residential structures, and disturbed areas.

4.3 Vegetation A total of 195 species of plants were observed during all field surveys (Appendix B). In general the Site has

moderate plant species richness. The tree species dominance in the deciduous forests on the Site varies, but

the most abundant species include red maple (Acer rubrum) and European white birch (Betula pendula).

The thicket areas and the forest understory and ground cover is very dense throughout the Site and includes thick stands of shrubs such as glossy buckthorn (Rhamnus frangula) and speckled alder (Alnus incana). Within

several of the plant communities there is a large component of alien and alien invasive species such as glossy

buckthorn and European white birch. Given the large number of glossy buckthorn seedlings observed on Site, it

appears that this species will continue to increase in dominance, especially within the swamps where it is up to

80% of the ground cover in some areas.

4.3.1 Significant and Sensitive Species

None of the plant species or plant communities identified on the Site, or in the Site-vicinity are rare or significant

in the region or Ontario (MNR 2013a; Brunton 2005). None of the SAR that have ranges that overlap with the

Site, including butternut, were observed on the Site, nor is there suitable habitat available (Appendix C).

4.4 Breeding Birds A total of 69 bird species were identified during all breeding season field investigations (Appendix D). The majority of bird species were detected during morning point counts. American robin (Turdus migratorius), a

habitat generalist (Sallabanks and James 1999), was the most abundant species observed. Additional abundant

species included forest and thicket species such as red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus), and yellow warbler

(Setophaga petechia).

December 2014 12


During crepuscular and nocturnal point counts, one additional species not observed during the morning surveys

was detected: Wilson’s snipe (Gallinago delicata).

Although no raptor nests were located during surveys, four raptors were detected: American kestrel

(Falco sparverius), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), and red-tailed hawk

(Buteo jamaicensis). Potential nesting habitat for these species does exist on Site, however no nests were

observed and potential nesting habitat is abundant on the adjacent properties and the surrounding area.

Three species identified on the Site during breeding bird surveys, including ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapilla), veery

(Catharus fuscescens), and yellow-bellied sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius), are considered woodland area

sensitive (MNR 2012).

The bird community is typical for the habitats that occur on the Site. All species are common in the region and in

southern Ontario (MNR 2013a, Cadman et al 2007). No SAR or rare species were identified during field

investigations with the exception of barn swallow. Barn swallow is not uncommon, but is listed under the

Endangered Species Act as threatened due to long term population declines. At least three active nests and

3 pairs were observed in the vicinity of the barns and outbuildings of the farm in the northeastern corner of the

Site. Adults were observed feeding over the fields on Site in the vicinity of this farm, but also on the adjacent

properties to the east where an abundance of foraging habitat exists (Figure 1).

Habitat for secretive marsh birds was limited to openings and patches of marsh vegetation within thicket swamps

on the Site. Only two individuals of one species of secretive marsh birds, sora, was observed during these surveys.


During breeding bird surveys, barn swallow was observed on the Site. A number of individuals, and three active

nests were observed in two existing structures in the northeast portion of the Site, adjacent to Frontier Road

(Figure 2).

The MNRF indicated that there is the potential for eastern whip-poor-will, Henslow’s sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii), bobolink (Dolichonys oryzivorus), eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna), and short-eared owl

(Asio flammeus) on the Site. It was determined through the field surveys that there is no suitable habitat on the

Site for any of the significant species identified in the SAR screening, or for those species identified by the

MNRF (Appendix C). In addition, there were no other observations of significant bird species during any of the

field surveys.

4.5 Dragonflies and Butterflies A total of 20 species of dragonflies and butterflies were identified during all breeding season field surveys on the

Site (Appendix D).

Species diversity and abundance fluctuated through the seasons, but generally the most abundant butterfly

species identified on the Site were cabbage white (Pieris rapae) and clouded sulphur (Colias philodice). Both of

these species’ larval stages commonly feed on common meadow and agricultural plants in the mustard family (Brassicaceae) and legume family (Fabaceae), respectively (Layberry, et al. 1998).

December 2014 13


The dragonfly community identified on the Site was dominated by common species whose preferred

habitats include small ponds and wetlands, and open upland areas, including white-faced meadow hawk (Sympetrum obtrusum) and common whitetail (Plathemis lydia) (Jones, et al. 2008).


None of the butterfly species identified on the Site are unusual for the habitats in the area, or uncommon in the

region, or in southern Ontario. No threatened, endangered, or special concern species were identified on the

Site, nor was suitable habitat found for any SAR.

4.6 Mammals 4.6.1 General

A total of 11 mammals (other than bats, which are discussed in Section 4.6.2), were observed through the

surveys on the Site, including the track and sign surveys and the motion sensor cameras (Appendix D).

The wildlife community observed on the Site is what would be expected in the region, based on the habitat

types. In general, the highest amount of mammal activity, with the exception of rodents that were distributed and

active throughout the Site, appeared to be in the edge habitats. Beaver activity was concentrated around

Simpson Drain.

4.6.2 Bats

4.6.2.1 Habitat Assessment No habitat meeting the criteria for maternity roosting was identified on the Site. In addition, through the desktop

and field habitat assessment it was determined that there were no candidate hibernacula on the Site, or in the

Site-vicinity.

4.6.2.2 Acoustic Surveys Six bat species were recorded at the three survey stations (Table 2). The most common species observed was big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), recorded most often at station BAT01. Two bat species, both listed as

endangered under the ESA, were recorded only at station BAT02. Little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus) was

recorded four times (Table 3) on June 30 and July 12, 2013. Small-footed Myotis (Myotis leibii) was recorded

once (Table 3) on June 30, 2013.

Table 2: Mean (Standard Deviation) Acoustic Bat Survey Results on the Site

Sampling Station BAT01 BAT02 BAT03

Total Number of Nights 9 19 11

Total Passes 13 (11.88) 9.32 (6.14) 34.82 (22.64)

HiF total(a) 9 (9.43) 1.84 (4.92) 1.64 (1.96)

LoF total(b) 4 (3.46) 7.47 (3.17) 33.18 (22.09)

Bat Species Detected

Hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus) 0.11 (0.33) 1.05 (2.55) 1.73 (1.62)

Silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans) 0.22 (0.67) 0.84 (1.17) 4.36 (3.53)

Big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus) 0.22 (0.44) 1.68 (1.16) 18.18 (14.49)

December 2014 14


Sampling Station BAT01 BAT02 BAT03

Red bat (Lasiurus borealis) 0.78 (1.72) 0.11 (0.32) 0.64 (1.03)

Little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus) 0 (0) 0.21 (0.71) 0 (0)

Northern long-eared myotis (Myotis septentrionalis) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Small-footed myotis (Myotis leibii) 0 (0) 0.05 (0.23) 0 (0)

Tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Big brown bat or silver-haired bat 0 (0) 0.11 (0.32) 3.45 (3.42)

Unknown Myotis 0 (0) 0.37 (1.21) 0 (0)

Notes: (a) Hi Frequency bats include little brown myotis, northern long-eared myotis, and red bat (b) Lo Frequency bats include hoary bat, big brown bat, and silver-haired bat

Table 3: Number of Nights with Little Brown Myotis and Small-Footed Myotis Recordings

Station Number of

Survey Nights

Total Number of Little Brown

Myotis Recordings

Maximum Number of Little

Brown Myotis Observations (Passes per

Survey Night)

Total Number of Small-footed Bat

Recordings

Maximum Number

of Small-footed Bat Observations

(Passes per Survey Night)

BAT01 9 0 0 0 0

BAT02 19 4 3 1 1

BAT03 11 0 0 0 0

If little brown myotis and small-footed myotis were breeding on the Site (i.e., if the Site provided maternity

roosting habitat), numerous recordings of these species over several nights would be expected. The recordings

would be representative of the bat emergence and return to maternity roosts for a large number of bats or

repeated recordings of the same bat, which was not observed on the Site for either of these species.

Because there was no maternity roosting habitat identified on the Site, and the acoustic data substantiate that

finding, it is likely that these recordings were indicative of little brown myotis and small-footed myotis “flyovers”,

or a small number of bats moving from one habitat to another in the area. This assessment was confirmed by the

MNRF (Erin Thompson-Seabert, personal communication, August 27, 2013).


Aside from the recordings of little brown myotis and small-footed myotis, there were no mammals observed on

the Site that are designated threatened or endangered. All other mammals are considered common and

widespread in southern and eastern Ontario.

None of the other SAR that have ranges that overlap with the Site were observed, nor were there suitable

habitat identified on the Site (Appendix C).

December 2014 15


4.7 Herpetofauna 4.7.1 Amphibians

A total of five (5) amphibians, including American toad (Bufo americanus), grey tree frog (Hyla versicolor), northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens), spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer), and wood frog (Rana sylvatica) were

observed during all of the field surveys. There were no survey stations that had particularly higher levels of

activity of frogs or toads than others. Because the Site is generally wet in the spring, the distribution of

amphibians was relatively homogeneous across the Site.

No suitable habitat for salamanders was identified on the Site.

4.7.2 Reptiles

Although there is habitat for snakes throughout the Site, eastern garter snake (Thamnophilis sirtalis) was the

only reptile observed on the Site.

The only habitat on the Site that has the potential to be suitable for turtles is associated with DD3 on the property

on the west central side of the Site. Overall, there was minimal suitable habitat for turtles on the Site.

No individuals were observed during any of the basking surveys, or during any of the other field surveys.


There were no significant amphibian species identified, nor was there suitable habitat found on the Site.

Based on the SAR screening, there is a low to moderate potential for snapping turtle (designated special

concern under the ESA) on the property on the west central side of the Site, adjacent to DD3. There is

potentially suitable habitat for snapping turtle on this property, but not on the remainder of the Site. Although

there were no signs of nesting observed during the surveys, and no individuals were observed, it is likely that if

snapping turtle were consistently nesting on this property, signs such as predated nests would have been

observed. Because these signs were not observed, there is a low probability that they are using the property.

Although milksnake (Lampropeltis triangulum), listed as special concern under the ESA, was not observed on the

Site, it is a cryptic species that can be difficult to find during field surveys. The habitat on the Site is suitable, and

there are records for this species in the area (MNR 2013a), so there is moderate potential for individuals to use the

Site or the Site-vicinity.

None of the other SAR that have ranges that overlap with the Site were observed, nor is there suitable habitat

for these species on the Site (Appendix C).

4.8 Fish and Fish Habitat There are four surface water features on the Site, consisting of DD1, Simpson Drain, DD2, and DD3 (Figure 2).

A description of these drainage features is provided in the following sections. In general, the physical habitat

characteristics (water depth, width) between 2012 and 2013 were very similar. Overall, 2013 was a wetter year

than 2012, so some of the surface water features had more water in them for a longer period of time.

A summary of the fish captured in each of the surface water features is included in Table 4. Further details of

the on-Site drainage are included in the Stormwater Management System Design Report in Appendix A of the

Volume IV D&O Report.

December 2014 16


4.8.1 DD1

The northern Site sub-catchment area primarily drains to two on-Site agricultural ditches. One ditch segment drains northerly from the Site while another drains easterly towards Frontier Road. Both ditch segments eventually become part of the Regimbald Drain, the first about 200 metres north of the northern property limit, while the second is on the east side of Frontier Road. During all field surveys, there was no evidence of the agricultural ditch that is indicated to drain to the north of the Site. DD1 is the feature that drains to the east of the Site and is located at the northern extent of the Site (Figure 2) and flows west to east, and then through a 600 mm culvert under Frontier Road. The reach of DD1, on the Site, is a disturbed, channelized intermittent feature.

During the 2012 survey, DD1 was dry along its entire length. During the September 6, 2013 survey, it was dry in

the agricultural field and the channel was overgrown with grasses and sparse cattail. There was an

approximately five metre section with pooled water that had an estimated wetted width of one metre and

average depth of 0.45 m at the time of the survey. There was no measurable flow in this pool. The substrate

was comprised of approximately 50% organic material, and 50% sand/silt. The electrofishing effort in the pool,

at the confluence with the roadside ditch network parallel to Frontier Road (F7 on Figure 2), was 233 seconds with a capture of three fish representing two species - brown bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus), brook stickleback

(Culaea inconstans) and central mudminnow (Umbra limi) (Table 4). The fish habitat in DD1 is marginal and

poor quality.

4.8.2 Simpson Municipal Drain

Simpson Municipal Drain (Simpson Drain) is located in the north centre portion of the Site and flows west to

east, then through a 1,200 mm culvert under Frontier Road. Downstream, the Simpson Drain continues to a

culvert under Highway 417 approximately 1 km further east of the Site. Downstream of Highway 417, the

Simpson Drain continues as Shaw’s Creek, which eventually feeds Bear Brook Creek. It appears that Simpson

Drain receives some overland flow or runoff from areas to the north. In terms of aquatic habitat characteristics

on the Site, Simpson Drain is divided into two distinct reaches: Simpson Drain A and Simpson Drain B, as

shown on Figure 2.

Simpson Drain A is a shallow, narrow channel approximately 290 m in length that flows from west to east

through a corrugated steel pipe culvert under Frontier Road. The average water depth was approximately 0.1 m

with an estimated average wetted width of 1.2 m and an average bankfull width of 3.3 m. The flow was

measured at 0.02 m/s and the substrate was comprised of approximately 50% fines and 50% coarse material.

The riparian vegetation along Simpson Drain A was comprised of approximately 60% shrubs and trees, and 40%

grasses providing an estimated 15% of overhanging vegetation. The electrofishing effort in this reach of

Simpson Drain (F10 on Figure 2) was 253 seconds in 2012, with a catch of six fish representing four species.

In 2013, the electrofishing effort was 99 seconds with a catch of 15 fish representing three species.

Pumpkinseed was captured in 2012, but was absent from the 2013 results. The most abundant species in 2013

were brook stickleback (Culaea inconstans) and central mudminnow (Umbra limi). In 2012, the distribution

between species captured was relatively even. The catch per unit effort in 2013 was higher than in 2012 (Table 4).

Simpson Drain B begins at the upstream reach of Simpson Drain A where there is a beaver dam, approximately

300 m to the west of Frontier Road (between F10 and F11 on Figure 2), with an approximate size of 4 m by

0.7 m, which regulates flow. The beaver dam impounds water, resulting in a flooded area approximately 170 m

December 2014 17


long with a generally uniform wetted width of approximately 5 m and depth of approximately 0.8 m. The average

bankfull width was approximately 6.2 m, and the flow was measured at 0.01 m/s at the time of the survey.

The substrate composition and riparian vegetation was uniform along both A and B reaches of Simpson Drain.

The electrofishing effort in this reach of Simpson Drain (F11 on Figure 2), in 2012 was 356 seconds, with a catch

of four fish representing two species (pumpkinseed – Lepomis gibbosus, and creek chub – Semotilus atromaculatus). In 2013, the electrofishing effort was 77 seconds, with no catch (Table 4).

Although the beaver dam in Simpson Drain likely obstructs some fish passage, there is generally good quality

fish habitat in this surface water feature.

4.8.3 DD2

DD2 is located in the southern portion of the Site and flows west to east, then through a 1,000 mm culvert

under Frontier Road. This feature extends west to Boundary Road but only receives runoff from the

eastern half of the road allowance as the western portion connects to the Simpson Drain at Mitch Owens Road.

The reach of DD2, on the Site, is channelized. Further downstream off-Site, DD1 becomes part of the

Wilson-Johnston Municipal Drain.

The majority of DD2 was dry during the survey conducted in September 2012 and 2013. The water in the

central reach of DD2, with a length of approximately 100 m, was stagnant and there was no measurable flow.

The wetted width ranged from approximately 0.75 to 1.0 m, average bankfull width was approximately 2.5 m,

and the water depth in this reach ranged from approximately 0.15 to 0.3 m. The substrate was comprised of

approximately 60% organic matter, and 40% fines. The riparian vegetation was dominated by speckled alder,

buckthorn, and grasses. This reach was also characterized by approximately 65% overhanging vegetation.

In 2012, the fish community was sampled approximately 500 m upstream from Frontier Road (F9 on Figure 2)

with an electrofishing effort of 210 seconds. No fish were captured during this survey. Although most of the

length of DD2 was dry during all field surveys, in 2013, at Frontier Road, a small pool of water remained, with an

approximate depth of 0.3 m and a wetted and bankfull width of approximately one and two metres, respectively,

at the confluence of the roadside ditch and DD2, but was dry in 2012 (F8 on Figure 2). Electrofishing effort in

2013 was 73 seconds in the pooled water at Frontier Road, with no catch. There is no direct fish habitat in DD2.

4.8.4 DD3

DD3 is a manmade surface water feature, approximately 800 m in length, nearly encircling the former scrapyard

property on the west central side of the Site. The feature ranges in wetted width between 2.9 and 8.5 m with very

steep banks. Depth was estimated greater than 1.5 metres, but there was no measurable flow. Overhanging

vegetation (grasses and shrubs) provided approximately 50% canopy along the shoreline of the feature.

The substrate was comprised of approximately 30% fines and 70% coarse material.

Due to the depth of this feature, backpack electrofishing was not possible. Gee traps were deployed overnight

at six stations (F1-F6 on Figure 2), for a total of 82 hours) yielding a total catch of 136 fish representing

six species, with pumpkinseed being the most abundant (Table 4).

December 2014 18


Table 4: Fish Community on the Site in 2012 and 2013

Surface Water Feature

Date Sampled

Pumpkinseed Finescale

dace Brown

bullhead Brassy minnow

Brook stickleback

Creek chub Central

Mudminnow Total Catch

2012

Simpson Drain A (F10)

Oct 2 2 0 0 0 1 2 1 6

Simpson Drain B (F11)

Oct 2 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 4

DD2 (F9) Oct 11

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2013

DD1 (F7) Sept 3 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 3

Simpson Drain A (F10)

Sept 3 0 0 0 0 7 2 6 15

Simpson Drain B (F11)

Sept 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

DD2 (F8) Sept 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

DD3 (F1-F6) Sept 20 121 2 2 1 9 0 1 136

December 2014 19


4.8.5 Surface Water Quality

Based on the overall water quality results presented in the Stormwater Management System Design Report

(Appendix A of Volume IV D&O Report), levels of iron and phosphorus were elevated in the surface water

features throughout the Site, with the exception of DD3. There also appeared to be a trend where a decrease in

the levels of phosphorus and an increase in the dissolved oxygen were noted from the upstream to the

downstream samples in Simpson Drain and DD2. The elevated phosphorus levels are likely due to inputs from

the agricultural land use in the area. The levels of iron were noted to decrease along DD2, but increased along

the Simpson Drain. None of the water quality parameters measured were elevated in DD3.

4.8.6 Summary

There were no fish captured in DD2, and it appears that there is only flowing water in this surface feature

following high water events such as storm events or spring freshet. During the remainder of the year, water is

pooled in low depressions in some reaches along its length. DD2 would not be considered direct fish habitat.

DD3 is an isolated relatively deep, incised constructed channel that may have a tenuous connection with DD2

during periods of high water, such as following a storm event or spring freshet. The direct fish habitat in DD1 is

minimal and of poor quality. The fish community sampled on the remainder of the Site (DD1, Simpson Drain and

DD3) is indicative of a common warmwater baitfish community. No aquatic Species at Risk were observed

during any of the field surveys, nor was there suitable habitat noted.

4.9 Benthic Invertebrates Stations B5 and B6 were sampled in 2012, whereas B1, B2, B3, B7, B8 (reference) and B9 (reference) were

sampled in 2013. In general, the dominant substrate at each benthic sampling station was silt, or fines.

There was little or sparse aquatic vegetation and no benthic algae was observed. The levels of dissolved

oxygen near the sediments were lower in areas of pooled water and in the isolated surface water features

(i.e., DD3 and DD2) than in the features with flowing water (Table 5). The pH levels were variable and could not

be correlated with the type of surface water feature. The conductivity in Simpson Municipal Drain was highest,

compared to the other sampling stations, at 1180 and 1190 µS/cm (Table 5).

Table 5: In-Situ Water Quality at Benthic Sampling Stations

Sampling Station

Water Body Type Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)

pH Conductivity

(µS/cm)

Water Temperature

(oC)

Air Temperature

(oC)

B1 Isolated ditch 8.65 7.48 450 13.7 12.0

B2 Isolated ditch 6.70 7.51 455 11.2 12.0

B3 Isolated ditch 7.46 7.48 450 13.7 12.0

B5 Municipal Drain 7.30 7.57 1180 7.5 14.0

B6 Impounded area in Municipal Drain 4.50 7.54 1190 11.4 14.0

B7 Isolated ditch 4.86 5.28 180 6.5 14.0

B8 Ditch 6.84 6.11 410 13.6 13.0

B9 Ditch 3.85 6.98 480 12.5 13.0

December 2014 20


Taxonomic results of the benthic samples are included in Appendix E. Richness was greatest at station B6

with 24 taxa and the average richness value observed was 21 taxa. Station B5 had the lowest richness with

19 taxa (Table 6).

Table 6: Benthic Indices on the Site in 2012 and 2013

Indices B1 B2 B3 B5 B6 B7 B8

(Ref) B9

(Ref)

Abundance (no. org) 394 231 121 5744 1522 576 310 825

Richness (no. of taxa) 22 26 18 19 24 20 25 22

Percent Dominance (%) 26.40 32.03 19.00 42.90 34.16 18.05 3.13 28.12

In all of the surface water features, the benthic community was comprised of Naididae representing 42% of the

population present. The remainder of the population was composed of Tubificidae representing 34% and the

remaining 24% of combined taxa that contributed to less than 5% of the population.

Of all the taxa at all of the stations, including at the reference stations, the most common species were the

worms (Order Oligochaeta, Family Tubificidae and Family Naididae), followed by the roundworms (P. Nemata)

and water scuds (Order Amphipoda, Family Crangonyctidae) (Appendix E).

An EPT Index measures the relative density of Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), and

Trichoptera (caddisflies) in a benthic sample. (EPT) Index is based on the premise that high-quality streams

generally have the greatest species richness. The relative density of Ephemeroptera/Plecoptera/Trichoptera

(EPT) indicates that all stations, including the reference stations, have low to no populations of Trichoptera,

Plecoptera and Ephemeroptera (Table 7). Typically, these species prefer habitat types of flowing, well oxygenated

waters over a gravel to cobble substrate. The structure of the habitats on the Site and in the Site-vicinity is

generally not suitable for these species.

Table 7: Relative Density (%) of EPT

Taxa Group B1 B2 B3 B5 B6 B7 B8

(Ref) B9

(Ref)

Ephemeroptera 19.29 6.06 14.98 3.90 1.57 0 0 0

Plecoptera 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Trichoptera 0 0 0 0 0 8.3 0 0

Numerous taxa (14) were consistently small components within the overall benthic community throughout all

sampling stations. These unique taxa included members of Order Amphipoda, Coleoptera, Empheroptera, and

Diptera (Appendix E).

In general, the abundance of worm species and the low EPT index in the surface water features in the

Site-vicinity (including the two reference stations) indicate systems with low productivity. The structure of the

benthic communities from all of the sampling stations (i.e., not particularly diverse or abundant) suggests that the

surface water features are stressed and have been impacted by historic and ongoing agricultural and other

activities and conditions.

December 2014 21


4.9.1 Sediments

The sediment quality at each of the benthic stations (Table 8) was compared with Provincial Sediment Quality

Guidelines (MOE 2008). The sediment guidelines are considered to provide a level of human health and

sensitive ecosystem protection consistent with background levels. These guidelines establish three levels of

effect: the No Effect Level (NEL), which indicates a concentration of a chemical in the sediment that does not

affect fish or sediment-dwelling organisms; at this level, there is a negligible transfer of chemicals through the

food chain and no effect on water quality is expected; Lowest Effect Level (LEL), which indicates the upper level

of contamination that has no effect on the majority of sediment-dwelling organisms. Sediments meeting the LEL

are considered clean to marginally polluted; and the Severe Effect Level (SEL), which indicates a level of

contamination that is expected to affect the health of the majority of sediment-dwelling organisms. Sediments

exceeding the SEL are considered heavily contaminated (MOE 2008).

The LEL for chromium, iron and nickel was exceeded at both reference stations (B8 and B9), likely due to inputs

from the adjacent roads. The LEL for copper was exceeded at B2 and B8. The LEL for total organic carbon was

exceeded at B2, B6, and B9. The SEL was not exceeded at any location.

December 2014 22


Table 8: Sediment Quality at Benthic Stations

Parameter RDL PSQG LEL

PSQG SEL

B1 B2 B3 B5 B6 B7 B8 (Ref) B9 (Ref)

*Arsenic (µg/g) 1 6 33 1 1 <1 1.2 1.5 1.0 2 2

*Cadmium (µg/g) 0.1 0.6 10 0.1 0.2 <0.1 0.10 0.13 <0.10 <0.1 0.2

*Chromium (µg/g) 1 26 110 22 19 11 14 25 18 44 35

*Copper (µg/g) 0.5 16 110 11 21 5.8 7.1 11 6.8 20 14

*Iron (µg/g) 50 20,000 40,000 13,000 1,300 6,900 8,000 13,000 9,000 22,000 23,000

*Manganese (µg/g) 1 460 1100 180 100 81 100 160 85 310 260

*Mercury (µg/g) 0.05 0.2 2 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050

*Nickel (µg/g) 0.5 16 75 13 10 6.3 8.5 14 9.8 25 19

*Zinc (µg/g) 5 120 820 42 61 16 36 49 30 50 64

Total Organic Carbon 500 10,000 100,000 6,900 12,000 2,300 7,800 12,000 7,800 4,800 21,000

Notes: * Acid Extractable RDL - Reportable Detection Limit PSQG - Provincial Sediment Quality Guidelines LEL - Lowest Effect Level SEL - Severe Effect Level Bold - A level exceeding PSQG LEL

December 2014 23


The sediments at the benthic stations were generally found to be coarser at B1, B2 and B3, relatively even with

respect to percent of fines and coarse materials at B5, B6, B7 and B8, and very fine at B9 (Table 9). Substrate

particle size influences benthic community composition, where a wider range of substrate sizes generally supports

a more diverse community than a limited substrate size. As such, it would be expected that the benthic

invertebrate community at B1, B2, B3 and B9 would be more limited than at the other stations.

Table 9: Sediment Grain Size (%)

B1 B2 B3 B5 B6 B7 B8

(Ref) B9

(Ref) Sieve - #200 (<0.075mm) 36 31 16 43 62 51 53 95 Sieve - #200 (>0.075mm) 64 69 84 57 38 49 47 4.9

5.0 PROPOSED PROJECT The components associated with CRRRC include the following diversion facilities:

Materials recovery facility – process and recover IC&I materials. Materials that cannot be recovered will go

to disposal. This facility is confined in a building;

Construction and demolition waste processing facility – recover waste materials from construction and

demolition projects. Materials that cannot be recovered will go to disposal. This facility will be within a

building;

Organics processing – remove organics component from portions of the IC&I waste stream. It is proposed to

pre-process the material within a building, and utilize an anaerobic digestion process within contained cells;

Hydrocarbon contaminated soil treatment – treatment using bio-treatment approach within lined and

covered treatment cells. It is expected that the majority of the treated soils will be re-used on-Site;

Surplus uncontaminated soils – management of uncontaminated soils or rock from construction projects.

Stockpiled for re-use on-Site;

Drop off facility – receive and separate recoverable materials from those requiring disposal; and

Leaf and yard waste – acceptance of source separated leaf and yard waste from landscaping and property

maintenance contractors. Either co-processed with the organics in the anaerobic digestion process or in

the open composting operation.

In addition, there will be an engineered landfill for disposal of materials that cannot be diverted.

The development of the Site will require the progressive removal of vegetative cover, except for leaving a 15 to

20 metre width of existing vegetation around the perimeter for screening. The Simpson Drain will be left in its

current alignment and condition and improved by the removal of the existing beaver dams. Existing ditches

DD1, DD2 and DD3 will be removed. The proposed stormwater management ponds will discharge at the same

three drainage points as in the pre-development condition, with design discharge controlled to closely match

pre-development flows and the ponds designed for enhanced removal of total suspended solids.

December 2014 24


6.0 IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

The following sections describe the potential effects of the CRRRC project on the terrestrial and aquatic

environment.

6.1 Potential Environmental Effects and Mitigation Potential adverse effects of the project on the aquatic and terrestrial environment were identified considering

linkages between project components or activities and natural environmental features. The assessment follows

a source-pathway-receptor approach. The CRRRC project works and activities represent the source of a

possible change or interaction between project components and the receiving environment. Interactions that

may cause a measurable change to the environment represent a pathway. Effects from the CRRRC project may

occur either directly or indirectly. Environmental design features were developed to avoid or mitigate potential

effects. Further details of the in-design mitigation measures are included in the individual TSDs.

By including these environmental design features, certain effects pathways were eliminated, or the magnitude of

the effect was reduced, thereby removing them from further assessment. Pathways that were considered minor

or negligible are not analysed further in the assessment. A number of direct and indirect pathways of effects

were identified and are described in more detail in the following sections.

6.1.1 Potential Direct Effects

6.1.1.1 Vegetation Communities The construction of the project will result the removal of all vegetation from the Site, with the exception of a

15-20 m wide vegetated screen around the perimeter of the Site.

There will be permanent loss of approximately 65.7 ha of forest vegetation on the Site. This vegetation is largely

immature with more than half dominated by non-native invasive species, including European white birch and

common buckthorn. Common buckthorn thrives in a variety of habitats and forms dense thickets that crowd and

shade out native plants. It can alter nitrogen levels in the soil, creating better conditions for its own growth and

discouraging the growth of native species. Common buckthorn also produces large numbers of seeds that

germinate quickly and prevent the natural growth of native trees and shrubs (Ontario Federation of Anglers and

Hunters 2013). A white spruce plantation comprises 15% of the forested area on the Site, and the remainder is

immature deciduous swamps.

The remainder of the Site is vegetated in primarily thicket and thicket swamp, representing low-diversity, early

successional communities. These vegetation communities have a high proportion of glossy buckthorn

(Frangula alnus). Glossy buckthorn has the same invasive characteristics as common buckthorn, as described

above, but is found in more moist conditions. Based on existing conditions, and the prevalence of glossy

buckthorn in the seeding layer observed during the field surveys, it is likely that glossy buckthorn will increase in

dominance in the non-forest vegetation communities on the Site if left undisturbed. Thickets and thicket swamps

are not uncommon in the Site-vicinity or in the City of Ottawa.

December 2014 25


All vegetation species to be removed on the Site are common to the Site-vicinity and widespread in the area.

There will be no removal outside of the Site.

The loss of the non-native dominated vegetation communities on the Site is not considered to be ecologically

important from a vegetation perspective.

6.1.1.2 Wildlife Habitat The Site provides disturbed, fragmented habitat for a number of common and widespread species.

The construction of the project will result in the removal of this habitat, including barn swallow habitat (designated

threatened under the ESA) in some old barns on the Site.

The habitat on the Site does not meet the criteria for significant wildlife habitat under the Significant Wildlife

Habitat Technical Guide (MNR 2000). There are similar available habitats in the Site-vicinity that can be used by

the species currently using the Site. It is likely that during the construction of the project, the species on the Site

will relocate nearby.

It is not anticipated that the Project will result in any direct effects on the wildlife habitat outside the Site.

Barn swallow, listed Threatened under the Ontario Endangered Species Act (ESA), was observed nesting on the

Site. In order to remove the on-Site habitat, authorization will be sought from the MNRF through a notice of

activity under O. Reg.323/13 (MNR 2013c). A mitigation and restoration record will be prepared and new barn

swallow habitat will be created within 1 kilometre of the Site, and monitored for three years. Following the

creation of the new habitat, it is expected that there will be no net residual impact on barn swallow or barn

swallow habitat as a result of CRRRC.

Little brown myotis and small-footed myotis, listed Endangered under the ESA, were detected flying over the

Site. The field surveys indicated that the bats were only flying over the Site. There is no maternity roosting

habitat on the Site. The MNRF concurred that there was no habitat on the Site that required protection.

It is expected that there will be no impact on little brown myotis, small-footed myotis, or their habitat, as a result

of CRRRC.

Although milksnake, listed Special Concern under the ESA, was not observed on the Site, there is suitable

habitat and there is low to moderate potential for this species to be found on the Site or in the Site-vicinity.

Because milksnake is listed as a species of concern, its habitat it not protected. During construction and

operation, it is likely that any milksnake in the Site-vicinity will avoid the Site and will use the available adjacent

habitats. A worker awareness program to avoid harm to individuals, if they are in the Site-vicinity, is recommended.

Three bird species were identified during breeding bird surveys on the Site that are area sensitive and require

a certain amount of mature or immature forest habitat on the landscape - ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapilla),

yellow-bellied sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius), and veery (Catharus fuscenscens). There is sufficient contiguous

forest habitat for all of these species within the Site-vicinity, particularly to the west and the south of the Site.

There is also suitable habitat to the north of the Site, north of Highway 417. The construction and operation of

the project is not expected to adversely affect local populations of any bird species.

December 2014 26


Because the wildlife habitat on the Site is considered disturbed and fragmented, and there will be no

material effects to local populations of species, the loss of wildlife habitat on the Site is not considered to be

ecologically important.

6.1.1.3 Migratory Bird Nests The Migratory Birds Convention Act (Canada 1994) prohibits the destruction of migratory bird nests

(passerine, waterfowl and raptor) during the breeding season. In Ontario, the migratory bird breeding season

extends from approximately May 1 to July 31. Where possible, nesting vegetation removal will be scheduled

outside the migratory bird breeding season. If it is not possible to complete the clearing outside this window, a

biologist will conduct nest searches no more than 24 hours prior to the construction activities to avoid

destruction of migratory bird nests. These mitigation measures will ensure minimal impact to the nest success of

migratory birds relative to baseline conditions.

6.1.1.4 Fish Habitat Simpson Drain on the Site will be improved from its existing condition (with removal of the existing beaver dam

to avoid obstruction of flow through the Drain) throughout the construction and operation of the project.

There will be no direct loss of fish habitat in this surface water feature.

Construction of the diversion facilities in the northern part of the CRRRC will require the complete removal of

DD1. During the 2012 survey, DD1 was dry along its entire length; during the 2013 survey, there was an

approximately five metre section with pooled water in which three fish were caught. The fish habitat in DD1 is

marginal and poor quality and typical of other drainage ditches in the area. Removal of this feature is not

considered to have a negative impact on fish and fish habitat as it does not support critical life functions

(i.e., reproduction) and there is similar suitable habitat in the immediate area, including downstream of the Site.

Construction of the CRRRC will require the complete removal of DD2 across the Site. DD2 originates in a

roadside ditch along Boundary Road and collects surface runoff from the south part of the Site. There was no

flow, and no fish were observed in DD2 during any of the field surveys. Furthermore, dissolved oxygen levels in

the pooled water were low enough to exclude most aquatic species, including fish, from using this habitat.

On this basis, DD2 is not considered direct fish habitat, and removal of this feature will not result in a direct loss

of fish habitat on the Site.

DD3 is a constructed feature that is isolated from all other surface water features in the Site-vicinity, although it

appears that there may be a tenuous overland connection with DD2 during periods of high flow such as following

storm events or spring freshet. DD3 is also subject to stress associated with winter low temperatures, summer

extremes and is characterized by poor quality aquatic habitat. DD3 contains a small fish community and is

considered a direct fish habitat. Because DD3 will be removed during the construction of the project, the

CRRRC project will have an adverse effect on the fish habitat in this feature.

Prior to any work associated with DD3, a fish collection permit will be obtained from the MNRF. The fish will be

salvaged and relocated to a nearby surface water feature. Any non-native species encountered during the fish

salvage will be euthanized and disposed of using appropriate methods.

December 2014 27


The loss of habitat from the isolated DD3 surface water feature is not ecologically important given its poor

quality. By removing and relocating the fish to a nearby feature with a similar fish community and habitat

structure, it is expected that there will be no adverse impacts to the fish community.

6.1.1.5 Wildlife Vehicle Collisions The construction and operation of CRRRC will result in an increase in the volume of vehicle traffic in the

Site-vicinity, with the majority of Site-related traffic along the 800 metre long section of Boundary Road

(an arterial road) between Highway 417 and the Site entrance location. The potential for vehicle collisions with

wildlife may marginally increase, however Boundary Road is already heavily travelled. Traffic speed and volume

are generally the primary factors that contribute to road-related wildlife mortality. The incremental increase in

the number of wildlife-vehicle collisions associated with the CRRRC is expected to be minor or negligible relative

to baseline conditions. The Site is isolated from other wildlife habitats by active roads, including Boundary Road,

Frontier Road, Devine Road and Highway 417.

Mitigation measures will be implemented to reduce the number of on-Site wildlife-vehicle collisions, in particular

establishing and enforcing speed limits on the Site. Material increase in wildlife mortalities on the Site from

vehicle strikes associated with the CRRRC is not anticipated.

6.1.2 Potential Indirect Effects

6.1.2.1 Habitat Fragmentation/Changes to Wildlife Movement Corridors The lands to the east are in open agricultural use (crops), and the Site is bounded by a 400 series divided

highway (Highway 417) to the north and an industrial park and Boundary Road to the west. The NCC has

hypothesized the existence of a wildlife movement corridor from the Cumberland Forest through the Vars Forest

across Highway 417 and through an area including the Site to west of Boundary Road. This corridor is

fragmented and restricted by Highway 417 to the northeast and Boundary Road to the west/northwest, which

would significantly limit wildlife movement between the Vars and Cumberland Forests and anything to the south

of that four lane divided highway. To the extent there is wildlife movement across Highway 417, the vegetation

to the south of Devine Road would provide a continued movement corridor to the area west of Boundary Road

after establishment of the CRRRC. Further, the NCC also identifies a wildlife corridor north of the Site and north

of Highway 417 from the Vars Forest, across Boundary Road to a natural area connected to the Mer Bleue.

This corridor remains available to allow wildlife movement.

The wildlife habitat in the Site-vicinity is patchy, disturbed and fragmented. Although fragmentation can

accompany habitat loss, it is a different phenomenon (McGarigal and Cushman 2002; Fahrig 2003). Habitat

fragmentation effects are generally lesser in magnitude than direct habitat loss (Andrén 1999; Fahrig 2003), and

species with very specific habitat requirements and low dispersal abilities are more likely to be affected by

habitat fragmentation, or associated changes to wildlife movement corridors.

All of the wildlife species identified on the Site are habitat generalists, habituated to the disturbed, fragmented

landscape and are mobile species. It is expected that because of the current fragmented landscape, the

construction and operation of the project will not affect the overall movement of wildlife between habitats to any

material degree.

December 2014 28


In summary, the Project is not considered likely to have any ecologically important adverse effects on habitats

or wildlife movement corridors in the Site-vicinity.

6.1.2.2 Air Emissions Wildlife in the Site-vicinity may potentially be exposed to airborne contaminants from the CRRRC. Direct

exposure includes inhalation of air emissions, or ingestion of water, soil or vegetation impacted by air emissions.

Mitigation measures to limit the amount of airborne constituents from the Site in compliance with MOECC

requirements will be implemented, such as air emission controls in buildings and processing operations,

minimizing idling in on-Site vehicles, use of equipment with industry-standard emission control systems, and

developing operating procedures that reduce air emissions (e.g., regular maintenance of equipment to meet

emission standards).

All air constituents generated by the CRRRC will meet MOECC guidelines/standards, which generally consider

both human and ecological risk (TSD #2). Air standards in Ontario are based on the best scientific information

available and are set at levels intended to safeguard the natural environment and protect sensitive populations

(MOE 2009). In addition, volatile and semi-volatile constituents generally degrade in air and will not likely deposit

onto surface water or soil and will not persist in the environment. Contaminants that are gaseous at room

temperature are also not expected to deposit onto surface water or soil. Although it is expected that metals and

ions such as chloride, sulfate, sulphides and nitrate may be deposited on surface water or soil via wet (adhered to

precipitation) and dry deposition (adhered to particulate matter), it is anticipated that the levels will be in such low

amounts that there will be no adverse effects on the off-Site natural environment, including wildlife.

6.1.2.3 Dust Accumulation of total suspended particulates (i.e., dust) can result in a local indirect change on the quality of

habitat on the Site and in the Site-vicinity. Dust deposition in surface water has the potential to alter surface

water chemistry and increase the sediment load in receiving surface water features. Dust can also affect

vegetation by smothering the leaf surface of plants, blocking the stomata, and by changing the soil pH and ionic

composition. The physical smothering of the leaf surface reduces light transmission causing reduced

photosynthesis, growth (vegetative and reproductive) and plant vigour. It may also inhibit pollen germination.

Physical blocking on the stomata has been shown to reduce stomatal resistance, causing higher uptake of toxic

metals and phytotoxic pollutant gases. Dust can also increase pH in acidic soils, alter soil nutrient availability,

and cause greater bulk density. Dust can also exacerbate secondary stresses such as drought, insects and

pathogens (Farmer 1993).

Mitigation measures will be implemented to minimize the amount of airborne dust such as enforcing on-Site

speed limits, paving almost all of the roads in the north part of the Site, and applying Site fugitive dust best

management practices, as necessary and appropriate, such as the use of a truck tire washing station and

watering or applying dust suppressant to on-Site road surfaces to minimize track in and track out of dust.

The major sources of dust on the Site will be the internal road system (mainly the unpaved roads in the south

part of the Site) and disturbed exposed soil areas during construction and during operation of the landfill, soil

treatment and composting and organics processing activities area of the CRRRC. The results of the air quality

modelling predicted that the total suspended particulate air concentrations at ground level over a 24-hour period

within the Site-vicinity, as a result of the project, will be below provincial guidelines (120 µg/m3). It is anticipated

December 2014 29


that any effects of dust on off-Site vegetation or wildlife will be at worst occasional and of low magnitude

considering the low concentrations.

In summary, it is not expected that vegetation or wildlife habitat in the Site-vicinity will be adversely affected as

a result of dust emissions from the CRRRC project.

6.1.2.4 Noise Increased noise as a result of CRRRC could cause avoidance of the Site-vicinity by wildlife, and possibly

reduced reproductive success.

Sound is comprised of energy at various frequencies, which give each sound we hear its unique character.

The frequencies are measured in Hertz (Hz), and are typically grouped into octave or 1/3 octave bands. It is

common practice to sum sound levels over the entire audible spectrum to give an overall sound level. However,

the human ear does not respond to each frequency equally. To approximate the hearing response of humans,

“A-weighted” sound levels apply an adjustment to each octave band. In general, a larger adjustment is applied

to low frequencies, as human hearing is less sensitive to low frequency sound. Although it is possible to develop

adjustments to represent how human perceive sounds of different frequencies, it is not possible to develop

comparable adjustments for the perception of non-humans to noise. Literature suggests that livestock have a

fairly similar hearing range to that of humans, with the lower end of their range of hearing starting at the same, or

slightly higher, frequencies than humans (Strain 2013). This literature also suggests that livestock can hear

sounds at frequencies that extend beyond the range of human hearing. Noise effects from the project on wildlife

were assessed using dB(Lin), which best describes the full range of frequencies at which wildlife species hear

and vocalize.

The noise model predictions were based on the assumption that the processing facilities and landfill component

are operating at maximum capacity, with the landfill activity elevated at the closest point to the Site boundary.

Based on the models, within the Site-vicinity, noise from CRRRC to the north, south and west of the Site is not

expected to exceed baseline conditions. The existing noise levels from the traffic along Boundary Road, Devine

Road, and Highway 417, which contribute to the baseline conditions, are at least 8 dB(Lin) higher than those

predicted due to the operation of CRRRC. To the east of the Site, the predicted elevated noise levels are lower

than baseline by the boundary of the agricultural fields at Highway 417, but elevated above baseline further

away from the influence of Highway 417. The lands to the east of the Site are in active agricultural (crop) use.

Although little is known about the effects of noise on individual species, no particularly sensitive wildlife species

have been identified in the Site-vicinity. Because the lands to the east are not being used by livestock, and the

existing natural wildlife habitats are limited to hedgerows and small patches of isolated woodland, with common

mobile species, wildlife habitat utilization patterns outside of the Site are not predicted to be altered as a result of

project noise.

In summary, predicted noise levels from the CRRRC are not considered to be ecologically important.

December 2014 30


6.1.2.5 Increased Erosion Increased erosion on the Site can cause a disturbance and change in aquatic communities through sediment

loading, or a decrease in available aquatic habitat.

A minimum setback of 20 metres will be maintained, during both construction and operation of the project, from

the Simpson Drain on the Site. It is proposed to use standard mitigation measures such as implementing a

sediment and erosion control plan prior to construction, where appropriate (to mitigate erosion potential and

promote site stabilization), controlling access and movement of equipment, and scheduling construction

activities to minimize areas and duration of soil exposure to the extent practical. All areas of disturbed/exposed

soil during construction, and the stormwater management structures during operation, will be stabilized and

re-vegetated as soon as possible. Through the implementation of these mitigation measures, it is anticipated

that there will not be any material increase in erosion and associated transported sediment effects on the Site or

in the Site-vicinity.

6.1.2.6 Alteration of Surface Water Regime Alteration of the surface water regime has the potential to affect streamflow in downstream sections of aquatic

systems associated with watercourses and ditches within the Site. Changes in flow downstream could affect fish

habitat by reducing the amount of habitat, increasing the deposition of fines in habitats, and decreasing the

amount of in-stream vegetation for cover.

The area of the municipal drain sub-catchments is anticipated to change as a result of CRRRC, with an increase

of approximately 17% of the Regimbald sub-catchment (DD1), an increase of approximately 11% of the Simpson

sub-catchment, and a decrease of approximately 12% of the Wilson-Johnston sub-catchment (DD2). Due to the

increase in imperviousness and the change in contributing drainage areas, the annual runoff from the Site to

each sub-catchment will also change. There will be an increase of approximately 50% and 29% in the amount

of annual runoff to the Regimbald and Simpson sub-catchments, respectively, and a decrease of approximately

20% annual runoff to the Wilson-Johnston sub-catchment.

While the annual runoff amounts are anticipated to change, the post-construction peak flows will be controlled

through the stormwater management ponds to equal or less than pre-development conditions. The stormwater

ponds will be designed such that the surface water leaving the Site will be controlled and the hydrologic regime

post-construction will meet the pre-construction conditions, through the design of the hydraulic outlet controls for

post development flow to meet peak flow conditions for the 1 in 2, 5, 25 and 100 year design storms. As set out

in the surface water assessment (Appendix A to the Volume IV D&O Report), it is anticipated that because under

existing conditions the Site is prone to flooding and the groundwater levels are close to the surface, by meeting

the pre- and post-construction peak flows in DD1 and DD2, the post-development base flow will be similar to

pre-development conditions.

A surface water monitoring program will be implemented to confirm predictions re the surface water regime

post-development, and to make adjustments to the operation of the stormwater control system, as necessary

(see Stormwater Management Design report in Appendix A to the D&O Report for details).

December 2014 31


The three on-Site surface water discharge points features meet and become Shaw’s Creek, north of Highway 417.

The runoff from the Site discharged to the Regimbald and Simpson sub-catchments will have an overall annual

increase, but will be controlled to meet the pre-construction peak flow conditions. The alteration in the flow

regime of these sub-catchments is not expected to adversely affect downstream aquatic habitat or biology.

The runoff from the Site discharged to the Wilson-Johnston sub-catchment will have an overall annual decrease,

but again, will be controlled to meet the pre-construction peak flow conditions. DD2 (the discharge point that

drains to the Wilson-Johnston Municipal Drain), from the Site to Highway 417, is an intermittent channelized

farm drain characterized by terrestrial grasses. There is no direct fish habitat in the reach of DD2 from Frontier

Road to Highway 417. Because there is no fish habitat in DD2 downstream from the Site, and all surface water

runoff from the Site will contribute to Shaw’s Creek, a small potential change in the streamflow in DD2 is not

expected to affect downstream fish habitat. Overall, it is not predicted that changes in the surface water flow

regime will be ecologically important.

6.1.2.7 Alteration of Groundwater Quantity Regime Alteration of the groundwater regime (i.e., a change in the direction of flow of groundwater, or a groundwater

drawdown zone of influence) can result in a reduction of baseflow in predominantly groundwater-fed surface

water features or wetlands, or affect shallow-rooted vegetation. The direction of groundwater flow is not

expected to change as a result of the CRRRC.

Seasonal variation in groundwater elevation is indicated to be currently on the order of 0.5 metres in the

Site-vicinity. It is predicted that the groundwater zone of influence from the CRRRC will not extend beyond the

Site boundary. As such, off-Site groundwater levels should not be affected by the CRRRC.

On-Site, there is currently limited infiltration of surface runoff into the groundwater system. What infiltration

occurs would be into the surficial silty sand layer, and generally not deeper into the subsurface because of the

underlying low permeability silty clay deposit. As such, surface water features on the Site, including Simpson

Drain, are fed primarily by surface flows.

The surface water features and the vegetation communities on-Site and in the Site-vicinity should not be

affected by any changes in the groundwater regime.

6.1.2.8 Surface Water Quality Surface water runoff from CRRRC could potentially affect vegetation and wildlife habitat. Contamination of

surface water could include nutrient loading and/or input of sediments or other contaminants from the Site.

Surface water on-Site will be managed through stormwater ponds. The stormwater ponds will incorporate

erosion and flow control measures and the stormwater ponds will be regularly monitored and maintained.

Off-Site stormwater discharge will be also be monitored. The Site will have sufficient storage capacity to store

both operating flows and design storm events.

The facility incorporates several environmental design features to prevent release of untreated Site water into

the receiving environment, including separation of leachate and potentially contaminated runoff from processing

areas from clean runoff, and design of the stormwater ponds to achieve an Enhanced Level of total suspended

solids removal.

Off-Site surface water quality should therefore not be adversely impacted as a result of the CRRRC.

December 2014 32


6.1.2.9 Groundwater Quality The engineered containment and leachate collection and management system for CRRRC has been designed

to safeguard off-Site groundwater resources. The performance of the containment systems will be monitored,

and the leachate collection system will be monitored and regularly maintained. Based on the results of the

groundwater modelling (as described in Volume III Geology, Hydrogeology and Geotechnical Report),

groundwater quality is predicted to be below the Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standards (ODWQS)

(MOE 2003) at the downgradient edge of landfill footprint (noting however that chloride naturally exceeds the

ODWQS) and there will be no adverse off-Site groundwater impacts as a result of the CRRRC.

6.1.2.10 Pests Increased use of the active landfill area by pests including nuisance birds, insects and rodents could result in

avoidance of the area by some wildlife and reduced reproductive success. Mitigation measures, such as

managing waste effectively to avoid attracting nuisance wildlife and pests, controlling the nuisance wildlife

populations as permitted and required, and conducting periodic inspections to monitor effectiveness of the pest

control, will be implemented to reduce the potential for adverse effects to the current local wildlife populations.

With the implementation of the above mentioned mitigation measures, use of the Site by nuisance wildlife and

pests is not anticipated to be of concern.

7.0 MONITORING Alteration of the surface water regime has the potential to affect streamflow in downstream sections of aquatic

systems associated with watercourses and ditches with the Site. Changes in flow downstream could affect fish

habitat by reducing the amount of habitat, increasing the deposition of fines and decreasing the amount of

in-stream vegetation for cover. Although it is expected that these changes in flow will be minimal and not

ecologically important, a surface water monitoring program should be implemented to confirm the surface water

regime post-development and to make adjustments to the operation of the stormwater control system.

Benthic invertebrate community samples will be collected every two years. To be able to compare the

monitoring results to the baseline data, the samples will be collected and analysed in the same manner, and the

descriptors of the benthic invertebrate community will include taxa presence/absence, taxa richness, and

percent dominance at each sampling station. Because benthic invertebrates live their entire aquatic lives on, or

in, the sediments, they tend to be relatively sensitive to changes in the sediments such as contaminant loadings.

This sensitivity can result in changes in community composition, abundance, and tropic structure over time.

These community changes can represent long-term trends in water quality. The need for continued monitoring

during the post-closure period would be evaluated during the development of the detailed closure plan.

Sediment samples at the same survey stations will also be collected and analysed. Benthic and sediment

monitoring is recommended at sampling stations B5, B6, B8, B9, and downstream of B5 and B7.

Monitoring for barn swallow, following the creation of the new habitat, will be conducted for a period of three years

and a mitigation and restoration record will be maintained for an additional two years, following the requirements

of O. Reg. 323/13 (MNR 2013c).

December 2014 33


As part of the closure plan, and dependent of course on the final end use for the Site, a rehabilitation plan should

be developed and implemented to re-establish vegetation communities in the project footprint. A mix of native

species should be planted in order to establish a natural, native community post-closure. The vegetation cover

will be surveyed to monitor its success. If there are deficiencies, such as weed encroachment, dead plants or

evidence of erosion, the cover should be supplemented with additional plantings of the most successful species.

December 2014 34


REFERENCES Andrén, A. 1999. Habitat Fragmentation, the Random Sample Hypothesis, and Critical Thresholds. Oikos.

84: 306-308.

Bat Conservation International (BCI). 2013. Range Maps. URL: http://batcon.org/index.php/all-about-

bats/species-profiles.html. Accessed 2013.

Bird Studies Canada (BSC). 2003. Ontario Nocturnal Owl Survey, Nocturnal Owl Surveys in Central Ontario:

A Citizen Scientists Guide. Port Rowan, Ontario.

Bird Studies Canada (BSC). 2009. Ontario SwiftWatch Resources. URL: http://www.bsc-eoc.org/research/

speciesatrisk/ chsw/index.jsp?targetpg=onchswresources&lang=EN.

Bird Studies Canada (BSC). 2013. Ontario Whip-Poor-Will Project. Whip-Poor-Will Roadside Survey Participant’s

Guide. Draft 2: 4 June 2013. URL: http://www.bsc-eoc.org/birdmon/wpwi/resources.jsp?dir=2013_WPW_

RoadsideRoutes.

Brunton, D.F. 2005. Urban Natural Areas Environmental Evaluation Study. Vascular Plants of the City of Ottawa,

with the Identification of Significant Species. Prepared for the Environmental Management Division, Planning

and Growth management Department, City of Ottawa.

Cadman, M.D., D. A. Sutherland , G. G. Beck , D. Lepage , and A. R. Couturier , editors. 2007. Ontario Breeding

Bird Atlas. Co-published by Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Field Ornithologists, Ontario

Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Nature, Toronto, xxii + 706 pp. ISBN 978-1-896059-15-0.

Canada, Government of (Canada). 1994. Migratory Birds Convention Act. S.C. 1994, c. 22.

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

Chapman, L.J. and D.F. Putnam. 1984. Physiography of Southern Ontario. 1973. Special Volume No.2 Toronto,

Ontario: Ontario Geological Survey. 270 p.

City of Ottawa. 2003. By-law 2003 – 203, The Official Plan for the City of Ottawa.

Dobbyn, J.S. 1994. Atlas of the Mammals of Ontario. Federation of Ontario Naturalists, Toronto. 120 pp.

Downes, C.M. and Collins, B.T. 2003. Canadian Breeding Bird Survey, 1967-2000. National Wildlife Research

Centre, Canadian Wildlife Service. Ottawa.

Fahrig, L. 2003. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and

Systematics. 34: 487-515.

Farmer, A. 1993. The Effects of Dust on Vegetation – a Review. Environmental Pollution. 79(1): 63-75.

Hunt, P.D.. Unknown Date. A Proposed Survey Methodology for Monitoring Nightjars (Caprimulgidae, Caprimulgus)

in Eastern North America. Draft Nightjar Monitoring Protocol. Audubon Society of New Hampshire.

Jones, C., K. M. Somers, B. Craig, and T. B. Reynoldson. 2007. Ontario Benthos Biomonitoring Network Protocol

Manual. Ontario Ministry of Environment, Queen’s Printer for Ontario, Toronto.

December 2014 35


Jones, C.D., A. Kingsley, P. Burke, and M. Holder. 2008. Field Guide to the Dragonflies and Damselflies of

Algonquin Provincial Park and the Surrounding Area. Algonquin Field Guide Series. The Friends of

Algonquin Park. Custom Printers Ltd. Renfrew, Ontario. 263 pp.

Konze, K. and M. McLaren. 1997. Wildlife Monitoring Programs and Inventory Techniques for Ontario. Ontario

Ministry of Natural Resources. Northeast Science and Technology. Technical Manual TM-009. 139 pp.

Kunz, T.H. and Parsons, S. (eds). 2009. Ecological and Behavioural Methods for the Study of Bats. The Johns

Hopkins University Press. 901p.

Kunz, T.H. and P.A. Racey, Eds. 1998. Bat Biology and Conservation. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington,

DC, USA. 365 p.

Layberry, R.A., P.W. Hall and J.D. Lafontaine. 1998. The Butterflies of Canada. University of Toronto Press.

376 pp.

Lee, H.T., W.D. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig and S. McMurray. 1998. Ecological Land

Classification for Southern Ontario: First Approximation and its Application. Ontario Ministry of Natural

Resources, South Central Region, Science Development and Transfer Branch. SCSS Field Guide FG-02.

Lee, H.T. 2008. Draft Southern Ontario Ecological Land Classification. Ministry of Natural Resources:

London, Ontario.

McGarigal, K., and S.A. Cushman. 2002. Comparative Evaluation of Experimental Approaches to the Study of

Habitat Fragmentation Effects. Ecological Applications. 12: 335-345.

National Capital Commission (NCC). 2013. URL: http://www.ncc-ccn.gc.ca/places-to-visit/greenbelt/mer-bleue.

Accessed November 2013.

Newmaster, S.G., A. Lehela, P.W.C Uhlig, S. McMurray and M.J. Oldham. 1998. Ontario Plant List. Ontario

Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Forest Research Institute, Sault Ste. Marie, ON, Forest Research

Information Paper No. 123. 550 pp. + appendices.

Oldham, M.J. and W.F. Weller. 2000. Ontario Herpetofaunal Atlas. Natural Heritage Information Centre, Ontario

Ministry of Natural Resources. http://nhic.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/nhic/herps/ohs.html (updated 15-01-2010).

O’Shea, T.J. and Bogan, M.A., eds. 2003. Monitoring Trends in Bat Populations of the United States and

Territories: Problems and Prospects: U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Discipline, Information

and Technology Report, USGS/BRD/ITR—2003-0003, 274p.

Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. 2013. Ontario’s Invading Species Awareness Program. URL:

http://www.invadingspecies.com/invaders/plants-terrestrial/common-buckthorn/. Accessed December 2013.

Ontario, Government of (Ontario). 2007. Endangered Species Act. S.O. 2007.

December 2014 36


December 2014 37

Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE). 2003. Technical Support Document for Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standards, Objectives and Guidelines, June 2003, revised June 2006: Ontario Ministry of the

Environment, 42 p.

Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE). 2008. Guidelines for Identifying, Assessing and Managing

Contaminated Sediments in Ontario: An Integrated Approach. URL: http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/ stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@ene/@resources/documents/resource/std01_079844.pdf.

Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE). 2009. Guideline for the Implementation of Air Standards in Ontario. Guidance to Support the Ministry of the Environment’s Risk Framework for Requests for Altered Air Standards and Upper Risk Thresholds under Ontario Regulation 419/05. PIBS #5166e02.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). 2000. Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide. Fish and Wildlife Branch, Wildlife Section. Peterborough, Ontario. 151 p.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). 2005. Ontario Odonata Atlas. Natural Heritage Information Centre. URL: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/nhic/odonates/ohs.html.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). 2007. Ecological Land Classification Primer: Central and Southern Ontario. URL: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@mnr/@lueps/documents/document/

264777.pdf. Accessed November 2013.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). 2011a. Land Information Ontario geospatial data.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). 2011b. Bats and Bat Habitats: Guidelines for Wind Power Projects. July 2011. Fish and Wildlife Branch. Wildlife Section. Lands and Waters Branch. Renewable Energy Section.

Peterborough, Ontario. 25p

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). 2012. SWHTG ecoregion criterion schedules

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). 2013a. Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) Geographic Information System (GIS) Data. URL: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/NHIC/2ColumnSubPage/

STDU_138222.html. Accessed November 2013.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). 2013b. Occurrence Survey Protocol for Blanding’s Turtle

(Emydoidea blandingii) in Ontario. Species at Risk Branch. Peterborough, Ontario. ii + 17 pp.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). 2013c. Ontario Regulation (O. Reg.) 323/13. Made under the

Endangered Species Act, 2007.

Ottawa, City of. 2003. Official Plan. URL: http://ottawa.ca/en/official-plan-0.

Ottawa, City of. 2011. Characterization of Ottawa’s Watersheds: An Environmental Foundation Document with Supporting Information Base. URL: http://ottawa.ca/sites/ottawa.ca/files/migrated/files/cap083402.pdf.

Accessed November 2013.

Royal Ontario Museum. 2010. Ontario’s Species at Risk website URL: http://www.rom.on.ca/ontario/

risk.php?region=4. Accessed July 2013.


December 2014 38

Sallabanks, R. and R.C. James. 1999. American Robin (Turdus migratorius). The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. URL: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/

462doi:10.2173/bna.462.

Seburn, D.C., K. Gunson and F.W. Schueler. 2014. Apparent widespread decline of the Chorus Frog

(Pseudacris maculata) in eastern Ottawa. Canadian Field-Naturalist 128 (2):151-157.

Schueler, F.W. 2014. Letter from Bishops Mills Natural History Centre.

Schueler, F.W. 2014. Trifolium fragiferum (Strawberry Clover): new to eastern Ontario. Trail & Landscape 48 (2):68-70.

South Nation Conservation (SNC). 2013. URL: http://nation.on.ca/water/reports/sub-watershed-reports. Accessed November 2013.

Strain, G.M. 2013. Frequency Hearing Ranges in Dogs and Other Species. Professor of Neuroscience, Comparative Biomedical Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine Louisiana State University. URL:

http://www.Isu.edu/deafness/ HearingRange.html.

463000

463

00

0

464000

464

00

0

465000

465

00

0

466000

466000

467000

467000 468000

468

00

0

469000

469

00

0

501

80

00

5018000

501

90

00

501

90

00

502

00

00

502

00

00

502

10

00

502

10

00

502

20

00

502

20

00

502

30

00

5024000

502

40

00

®

LEGEND

BACKGROUND IMAGERY - BING MAPS AERIAL (C) 2010 MICROSOFT CORPORATION AND ITS DATA SUPPLIERS.AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS PURCHASED FROM THE CITY OF OTTAWA.LAND INFORMATION ONTARIO (LIO) DATA PRODUCED BY GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD. UNDER LICENCE FROM ONTARIO MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES, © QUEENS PRINTER 2012.PROJECTION: TRANSVERSE MERCATOR DATUM: NAD 83 COORDINATE SYSTEM: UTM ZONE 18

REV. 0.0

Ottawa, Ontario

DESIGN

SITE-VICINITY

FIGURE 1PROJECT No. 12-1125-0045 SCALE AS SHOWN

PROJECT

TITLE

GIS

REVIEW

FN DEC. 2012

CHECK

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THECAPITAL REGION RESOURCE RECOVERY CENTRE

BR/PM DEC. 2013

REFERENCEFIGURE MEANT TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ACCOMPANYING TSD 4.

NOTE

Pa

th:

N:\

Act

ive

\Sp

atia

l_IM

\Mill

er_

Pa

vin

g_

Ltd

\CR

RR

C\G

IS\M

XD

s\1

2-1

12

5-0

04

5\R

ep

ort

ing

\Ph

ase

20

00

\Ta

sk_

014

0_

Bio

\12

112

50

04

5-2

00

0-0

14

0-1

_S

iteV

icin

ity.m

xd

500 0 500250

1:20,000SCALE METRES

HM AUG. 2014PLE AUG. 2014

PROPERTY BOUNDARY

SITE-VICINITY

466000

466000 467000

467

00

0

501

90

00

5019000

502

00

00

502

00

00

502

10

00

502

10

00

®

LEGEND

BACKGROUND IMAGERY - BING MAPS AERIAL (C) 2010 MICROSOFT CORPORATION AND ITS DATA SUPPLIERS.AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS PURCHASED FROM THE CITY OF OTTAWA.LAND INFORMATION ONTARIO (LIO) DATA PRODUCED BY GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD. UNDER LICENCE FROM ONTARIO MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES, © QUEENS PRINTER 2012.PROJECTION: TRANSVERSE MERCATOR DATUM: NAD 83 COORDINATE SYSTEM: UTM ZONE 18

REV. 0.0

Ottawa, Ontario

DESIGN

SPECIES AT RISK AND SURVEY LOCATIONS


PROJECT

TITLE

GIS

REVIEW

FN DEC. 2012

CHECK


BR/PM DEC. 2013

REFERENCEFIGURE MEANT TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ACCOMPANYING TSD 4.

NOTE

Pa

th:

N:\

Act

ive

\Sp

atia

l_IM

\Mill

er_

Pa

vin

g_

Ltd

\CR

RR

C\G

IS\M

XD

s\1

2-1

12

5-0

04

5\R

ep

ort

ing

\Ph

ase

20

00

\Ta

sk_

014

0_

Bio

\12

112

50

04

5-2

00

0-0

14

0-2

_B

ou

nda

ryR

dS

ite_

Su

rve

y_L

oca

tion

s.m

xd

230 0 230115

1:8,000SCALE METRES


aaaa SURFACE WATER FEATURE

PROPERTY BOUNDARY

SURVEY STATIONS

$1 AMPHIBIAN SURVEY

XY BAT ACOUSTIC SURVEY

%2 NOCTURNAL BIRD SURVEY

&( WILDLIFE MOTION CAMERA

&, BREEDING BIRD SURVEY

#0 MARSH BIRD SURVEY

&3 BENTHICS SURVEY

&* FISH SURVEY

SPECIES AT RISK

BARN SWALLOW

!( LITTLE BROWN MYOTIS

a a a a

a a a

a

a a a a

a

a a a

a

a

aaDD1

DRAIN MUNICIPAL SIMPSON

DD2

FOD

FOMFOD/SWT/CUT

DIST

FOD

CUT1

FOD

AGRC-ROW CROP

FOD/SWT/CUT

FOM

CUT1

DD3

DD3

INDCUM RD

MITCHO W ENSRD

DEVINE RD

BOUNDARY RD

HIGHW AY 417

ENTREPRENEUR CRES

TRADESMAN RD

FRO NTIER RD

FOD7

SWT2-2

AGRCRECENTLYFALLOW

RES

RES

AGRP CUT1SWT2a

CUP3-8

SWT2-1

SWD4-3

FOD8-1

FOD8-1

SWT2-1

MOWEDFIELD

FOD7

DIST

FOD8-1

SWT2-2FOD7

SWD3-1

SWD3-1

FOD8-1

SWT2b/CUT1

FOD8-1

SWD3-1RES

DIST

DIST

466000

466000 467000

467000

5020000

5020000

5021000

5021000

®

LEGEND

BACKGRO UND IMAGERY - BING MAPS AERIAL (C) 2010 MICRO SO FT CO RPO RATIO N AND ITS DATA SUPPLIERS.AERIAL PHO TO GRAPHS PURCHASED FRO M THE CITY O F O TTAW A.LAND INFO RMATIO N O NTARIO (LIO ) DATA PRO DUCED BY GO LDER ASSO CIATES LTD. UNDER LICENCE FRO M O NTARIO MINISTRY O F NATURAL RESO URCES, © QUEENS PRINTER 2012.PRO JECTIO N: TRANSVERSE MERCATO R DATUM: NAD 83 CO O RDINATE SYSTEM: UTM ZO NE 18

REV. 0.0

O tta wa , O nta rio

DESIGN

ECOLOGICAL LAND CLASSIFICATION


PROJECT

TITLE

GIS

REVIEW

FN DEC. 2012

CHECK


BR/PM DEC. 2013

REFERENCEFIGURE MEANT TO BE READ IN CO NJUNCTIO N W ITH THE ACCO MPANYING TSD 4.NOTE

Path: N:\Active\Spatial_IM\Miller_Paving_Ltd\CRRRC\GIS\MXDs\12-1125-0045\Reporting\Phase2000\Task_0140_Bio\1211250045-2000-0140-3_BoundaryRdSite_ELC.mxd

200 0 200100

1:7,000SCALE METRES

ECO LO GICAL LAND CLASSIFICATIO N:AGRC : RO W CRO PAGRC : HAYFIELDAGRP : HO RSE PASTURECUP3-8 : W HITE SPRUCE PLANTATIO NCUT1 : DECIDUO US THICKETDD-1-2 : DRAINAGE DITCHESDIST : DISTURBED LANDS FO R VARIO US USESFO D : DECIDUO US FO RESTFO D7 : MO IST EURO PEAN W HITE BIRCH - PO PLAR DECIDUO US FO RESTFO D8-1 : FRESH-MO IST PO PLAR - RED MAPLE - EURO PEAN W HITE BIRCH DECIDUO US FO RESTFO M : MIX ED FO RESTRES : RESIDENTIALSW D3-1 : RED MAPLE MINERAL DECIDUO US SW AMPSW D4-3 : PO PLAR-EURO PEAN W HITE BIRCH MINERAL DECIDUO US SW AMPSW T2A : ALDER-W ILLO W -GLO SSY BUCKTHO RN MINERAL THICKET SW AMP SW T2B/CUT1: GLO SSY BUCKTHO RN MINERAL THICKET SW AMP/DECIDUO US THICKET CO MPLEX SW T2-1 : SPECKLED ALDER-GLO SSY BUCKTHO RN MINERAL THICKET SW AMPSW T2-2 : W ILLO W MINERAL THICKET SW AMPSW T – MINERAL THICKET SW AMP


ECO LO GICAL LAND CLASSIFICATIO N

PRO PERTY BO UNDARY

aaaa SURFACE W ATER FEATURE


APPENDIX A Vegetation Communities in the Site-Vicinity

December 2014

APPENDIX A Ecological Land Classification (ELC)

December 2013 Project No. 12-1125-0045 1/3

Table A1: Ecological Land Classification on the CRRRC Site and in the Study Area Based on Field Work in 2012-2013

Vegetation Unit Description

AGRC: Agricultural – Recently Fallow

Fallow agricultural lands (planted in row crops (soya) in 2012) in the northern portion of the Site. Dominated by ragweed (Ambrosia

artemisiifolia), and other agricultural weedy species.

AGRP: Horse Pasture

Small moist meadow area used in recent years (but not in 2013) by

horses, at the north central portion of the Site. Dominant plant species included grasses such as smooth brome, as well as sedges (Carex spp., Scirpus spp.) and rush (Juncus sp.).

CUP 3-8: White Spruce Plantation

Band of naturalized plantation that runs east-west through the north central portion of the Site. The canopy was partially open, with a

moderate to dense understory and ground cover. The canopy was dominated by white spruce, with occasional other tree species such as trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides). The understory and ground

cover was characterized by sapling trees, shrubs such as willows (Salix spp.), and forbs such as common strawberry (Fragaria virginiana). It appeared that some of this area experiences flooding during periods of

high water (i.e., during storm events or spring freshet).

CUT1: Deciduous Thicket

Small thicket area between the horse pasture and residential areas.

Moderately disturbed due to residential use, and included an open trail area. Common plants included immature trees such as trembling aspen and black walnut (Juglans nigra), shrubs such as willows and red

raspberry (Rubus idaeus), and groundcover such as smooth brome and Canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis).

DIST: Disturbed

“Disturbed” includes three main areas: 1) A small piece of lawn and parking areas in the south eastern portion of the Site used by a local model airplane club; 2) A construction and aggregate storage area at the

north western corner of the Site; and 3) An open gravelly area at the western edge of the Site, with historic use as a junkyard. There is some naturalization of vegetation starting to occur in this third area.

FOD: Deciduous Forest Off-Site deciduous forest – variety of forest types, composition unknown.




FOD 7: Moist European White Birch

– Poplar Deciduous Forest

Two patches of immature lowland forest community: one near the

southeast corner, and a small woodlot at the northern edge of the Site. The canopy was partially open, with a moderate understory and ground cover. European white birch (Betula pendula), trembling aspen, and red

maple (Acer rubrum) were common tree species, and varied in dominance throughout. Understory and ground cover vegetation included saplings and seedlings of the various tree species, as well as

shrubs and forbs such as glossy buckthorn (Rhamnus frangula) and flat-topped aster (Doellingeria umbellata). Occasional low lying wet areas included water tolerant vegetation such as red osier dogwood

(Cornus stolonifera) and sedges (Carex and Scirpus spp).

FOD 8-1: Fresh-Moist Poplar – Red Maple – European White Birch

Deciduous Forest

Two areas of immature moist forest community in the central portion,

and in the southeast corner of the Site. A similar plant community and structure to that of FOD 7, with the exception of red maple and poplar species being more dominant in the canopy.

FOM: Mixed Forest Off-Site mixed forest - composition unknown

SWD 3-1: Red Maple Mineral Deciduous Swamp

Two areas of immature swamp community near the southwest corner of the Site. A similar plant community to FOD 7 and FOD 8-1, although it appeared to receive more flooding, had soil that is saturated longer, and

a higher proportion of water tolerant plants. The canopy was partially closed to closed with a moderate understory and groundcover. Red maple was dominant in the canopy with associates such as balsam

poplar (Populus balsamifera) and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica). Understory and ground cover included species such as speckled alder (Alnus incana), royal fern (Osmunda regalis), Canada mayflower

(Maianthemum canadense), and bladder sedge (Carex intumescens). Although no permanent areas of open water were observed during field surveys, there were old dry ditches with terrestrial vegetation and

low-lying areas throughout that appeared to hold water during periods of flooding.

SWD 4-3: Poplar – European White Birch Mineral Deciduous Swamp

Immature swamp community at the east-central edge of the Site. The canopy was partially open, with a moderate to dense understory and groundcover. Balsam poplar and European white birch appeared

dominant in the canopy with associates such as red maple and trembling aspen. Understory and ground cover included species such as glossy buckthorn, shining willow (Salix lucida), northern water-horehound

(Lycopus uniflorus), and woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus).

SWT: Mineral Thicket Swamp Off-Site mineral thicket swamp - composition unknown




SWT2B/CUT1: Mineral Thicket

Swamp/Deciduous Thicket Complex

This large area is the core of the southern half of the Site. Due to the

microtopography of this area, it was a mosaic of thicket swamp, and drier deciduous thicket areas. Within these areas were scattered trees, and small patches of marsh-like communities. Species dominance

varied throughout, but overall it included patches of shrubs such as speckled alder, glossy buckthorn, common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), slender willow (Salix petiolaris), and meadowsweet (Spiraea

alba). Understory and ground cover as diverse, and included species such as sensitive fern (Onaclea sensibilis), spinulose wood fern (Dryopteris carthusiana), dwarf raspberry (Rubus pubescens), Canada

goldenrod, Calico aster (Symphyotrichum lateriflorum), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), soft-stemmed bulrush (Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani), and cyperus-like sedge (Carex pseudocyperus).

Although no permanent areas of open water were observed during field surveys, there were old dry ditches with terrestrial vegetation and low-lying areas throughout that appeared to hold water during periods of

flooding, particularly in areas with beaver (Castor canadensis) activity.

SWT2a: Glossy Buckthorn Mineral

Thicket Swamp

Small thicket swamp at the western edge of the north-central portion of

the Site. It appeared to be dominated by glossy buckthorn and willows (Salix spp.). Ground cover included water tolerant species such as swamp dewberry (Rubus hispidus), soft-stemmed bulrush, and fringed

sedge (Carex crinita).

SWT 2-1: Speckled Alder-Glossy Buckthorn Mineral Thicket Swamp

Thicket swamp at the eastern edge of the central portion of the Site. It

appeared to be dominated by fairly mature speckled alder, with a dense understory of glossy buckthorn seedlings and saplings in many areas. Other common plants included American water-horehound (Lycopus

americanus), blue flag (Iris versicolor), sensitive fern, and fowl bluegrass (Poa palustris).

SWT 2-2: Willow Mineral Thicket Swamp

Thicket swamp in the small woodlot at the far northern portion of the Site. It appeared to be dominated by willow species (Salix spp.), with other shrubs such as glossy buckthorn common. Ground cover included

species such as northern water-horehound, black bulrush (Scirpus atrovirens), sedges (Carex spp.) and rush (Juncus sp).


APPENDIX B Vascular Plants in the Site-Vicinity

December 2014

APPENDIX B Vascular Plants


Table B1: Vascular Plants on and Around the Proposed CRRRC Site Based on Field Work in 2012-2013

Scientific Namea Common Nameb OriginbGlobal Rarity

Statusc

Ontario Rarity

Statusc SARAd ESAe Locationsf

Trees (21 taxa)

Acer negundo Manitoba maple (N) G5 S5 -- -- 1,2

Acer rubrum Red maple N G5 S5 -- -- 1,2,3

Acer saccharum Sugar maple N G5 S5 -- -- 1

Betula papyrifera White birch N G5 S5 -- -- 2

Betula pendula European white birch I GNR SNA -- -- 1,2,3

Fraxinus americana White ash N G5 S5 -- -- 1,2

Fraxinus nigra Black ash N G5 S5 -- -- 3

Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green ash N G5 S5 -- -- 2,3

Juglans nigra Black walnut (N) G5 S4 -- -- 1,2

Larix laricina Tamarack N G5 S5 -- -- 2

Malus pumila Apple I G5 SNA -- -- 1

Picea glauca White spruce N G5 S5 -- -- 2

Pinus sylvestris Scots pine I GNR SNA -- -- 1

Populus balsamifera Balsam poplar N G5 S5 -- -- 1,2,3

Populus deltoides Eastern cottonwood N G5T5 S5 -- -- 2

Populus tremuloides Trembling aspen N G5 S5 -- -- 1,2,3

Salix alba White willow I G5TNR SU -- -- 1

Salix amygdaloides Peach-leaved willow N G5 S5 -- -- 1,3

Salix lucida Shining willow N G5 S5 -- -- 3

Salix x fragilis Crack willow I GNR SNA -- -- 1,2

Ulmus americana White elm N G5? S5 -- -- 1,2,3

Small trees, shrubs and woody vines (24 taxa)

Alnus incana Speckled alder N G5 S5 -- -- 1,2,3

Cornus stolonifera Red osier dogwood N G5 S5 -- -- 1,3

Lonicera tatarica Tartarian honeysuckle I GNR SNA -- -- 1

Parthenocissus inserta Virginia creeper N G5 S5 -- -- 1,2,3

Prunus virginiana Choke cherry N G5 S5 -- -- 1

Rhamnus frangula Glossy buckthorn I GNR SNA -- -- 1,2,3

Rhamnus cathartica Common buckthorn I GNR SNA -- -- 1,2

Rhododendron groenlandicum

Labrador-tea N G5 S5 -- -- 3

Rhus radicans Poison-ivy N G5T5 S5 -- -- 1,2,3

Rhus typhina Staghorn sumac N G5 S5 -- -- 1

Ribes cynosbati Prickly gooseberry N G5 S5 -- -- 1,2,3

Ribes triste Swamp red currant N G5 S5 -- -- 3

Rubus allegheniensis Mountain blackberry N G5 S5 -- -- 1,2




Statusc

Ontario Rarity


Rubus hispidus Swamp dewberry N G5 S4S5 -- -- 3

Rubus idaeus Red raspberry N G5T5 S5 -- -- 1,2

Rubus pubescens Dwarf raspberry N G5 S5 -- -- 2,3

Salix discolor Pussy willow N G5 S5 -- -- 1,3

Salix petiolaris Slender willow N G5 S5 -- -- 3

Sambucus canadensis Common elderberry N G5 S5 -- -- 1,3

Solanum dulcamara Climbing nightshade I GNR SNA -- -- 1,2,3

Spiraea alba Meadowsweet N G5 S5 -- -- 3

Syringa vulgaris Lilac I GNR SNA -- -- 1

Viburnum lentago Nannyberry N G5 S5 -- -- 1,3

Vitis riparia Riverbank grape N G5 S5 -- -- 1,2,3

Ferns and allies (6 taxa)

Athyrium filix-femina Lady fern N G5T5 S5 -- -- 2,3

Equisetum arvense Field horsetail N G5 S5 -- -- 1,2,3

Equisetum sylvaticum Woodland horsetail N G5 S5 -- -- 2

Onoclea sensibilis Sensitive fern N G5 S5 -- -- 2,3

Osmunda claytoniana Interrupted fern N G5 S5 -- -- 1,2,3

Osmunda regalis Royal fern N G5 S5 -- -- 3

Graminoids (38 taxa)

Bromus inermis Smooth brome I GNR SNA -- -- 1

Calamagrostis canadensis

Canada blue-joint N G5 S5 -- -- 3

Carex arctata Compressed sedge N G5? S5 -- -- 2,3

Carex bebbi Bebb's sedge N G5 S5 -- -- 3

Carex crinita Fringed sedge N G5 S5 -- -- 2,3

Carex intumescens Bladder sedge N G5 S5 -- -- 3

Carex lacustris Lake sedge N G5 S5 -- -- 3

Carex pseudocyperus Cyperus-like sedge N G5 S5 -- -- 3

Carex spp. Sedges N ? ? -- -- 1,2,3

Carex stipata Awlfruit sedge N G5 S5 -- -- 3

Carex vulpinoidea Fox sedge N G5 S5 -- -- 1,3

Dactylis glomerata Orchard grass I GNR SNA -- -- 1

Dichanthelium acuminatum

Panic grass N G5T5 S4S5 -- -- 2,3

Digitaria ischaemum Smooth crab-grass I GNR SNA -- -- 1

Dryopteris carthusiana Spinulose woodfern N G5 S5 -- -- 2,3

Dryopteris intermedia Evergreen woodfern N G5 S5 -- -- 2,3

Echinochloa crusgalli Barnyard grass I GNR SNA -- -- 1




Statusc

Ontario Rarity


Eleocharis sp. Spikerush N ? ? -- -- 3

Elymus repens Quack grass I GNR SNA -- -- 1

Glyceria grandis Tall manna grass N G5 S4S5 -- -- 1,3

Glyceria striata Fowl manna grass N G5T5 S4S5 -- -- 3

Hordeum jubatum Foxtail barley I G5T5 SNA -- -- 1

Juncus effusus Soft rush N G5 S5 -- -- 3

Juncus spp. Rushes N ? ? -- -- 1,3

Juncus tenuis Path rush N G5 S5 -- -- 2,3

Leersia oryzoides Rice cut-grass N G5 S5 -- -- 3

Muhlenbergia mexicana Muhly grass N G5 S5 -- -- 1,3

Panicum capillare Witch grass N G5 S5 -- -- 1

Phalaris arundinacea Reed canary grass N G5 S5 -- -- 1,3

Phleum pratense Timothy I GNR SNA -- -- 1

Phragmites australis Common reed I GNR SNA -- -- 1,3

Poa palustris Fowl bluegrass N G5 S5 -- -- 3

Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass I G5T5? SNA -- -- 1,2

Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani

Softstem bulrush N G5 S5 -- -- 3

Scirpus atrovirens Black bulrush N G5? S5 -- -- 3

Scirpus cyperinus Wool-grass N G5 S5 -- -- 1,3

Setaria pumila Yellow foxtail I GNR SNA -- -- 1

Typha latifolia Common cattail N G5 S5 -- -- 1,3

Forbs (106 taxa)

Achillea millefolium Common yarrow I G5T5? SNA -- -- 1

Actaea pachypoda Doll's-eyes N G5 S5 -- -- 2,3

Agalinis tenuifolia Slender gerardia N G5 S4S5 -- -- 1,2,3

Alisma triviale Small-flowered water plantain

N G5 S5 -- -- 3

Amaranthus retroflexus Redroot pigweed I GNR SNA -- -- 1

Ambrosia artemisiifolia Ragweed N G5 S5 -- -- 1

Aralia nudicaulis Wild sarsaparilla N G5 S5 -- -- 2,3

Arctium minus Common burdock I GNR SNA -- -- 1,2

Asclepias syriaca Common milkweed N G5 S5 -- -- 1

Barbarea vulgaris Winter cress I GNR SNA -- -- 1

Bidens cernua Nodding beggar-ticks N G5 S5 1,3

Bidens frondosa Beggar-ticks N G5 S5 1,3

Brassica sp. Mustard I GNR SNA -- -- 1

Calla palustris Water arum N G5 S5 -- -- 3




Statusc

Ontario Rarity


Cichorium intybus Chicory I GNR SNA -- -- 1,2

Cicuta bulbifera Bulb-bearing water-hemlock

N G5 S5 -- -- 1,3

Circaea lutetiana Enchanter’s nightshade N G5 S5 -- -- 2,3

Cirsium arvense Canada thistle I GNR SNA -- -- 1

Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle I GNR SNA -- -- 1

Clematis virginiana Virgin's-bower N G5 S5 -- -- 1,2,3

Convolvulus arvensis Field bindweed I GNR SNA -- -- 1,3

Conyza canadensis Horseweed N G5 S5 -- -- 1

Daucus carota Wild carrot I GNR SNA -- -- 1

Doellingeria umbellata Flat-topped aster N G5T5 S5 -- -- 1,3

Echinocystis lobata Wild cucumber N G5 S5 -- -- 2

Elodea canadensis Common waterweed N G5 S5 -- -- 3

Epilobium ciliatum Willowherb N G5 S5 -- -- 3

Erigeron annuus Daisy fleabane N G5 S5 -- -- 1,2,3

Erigeron philadelphicus Philadelphia fleabane N G5 S5 -- -- 1

Erythronium americanum

Yellow trout-lily N G5 S5 -- -- 2

Eupatorium perfoliatum Boneset N G5 S5 -- -- 1,3

Euthamia graminifolia Grass-leaved goldenrod N G5 S5 -- -- 1

Eutrochium maculatum Joe-pye weed N G5TNR S5 -- -- 3

Fallopia cilinodis Fringed knotweed N GNR SNA -- -- 1

Fragaria virginiana Common strawberry N G5 S5 -- -- 1,2,3

Galium mollugo White bedstraw I GNR SNA -- -- 1

Galium odoratum Sweet bedstraw I GNR SNA -- -- 2

Galium palustre Marsh bedstraw N G5 S5 -- -- 2,3

Gentiana andrewsii Closed gentian N G5? S4 -- -- 1

Gentianopsis crinita Fringed gentian N G5 S5 -- -- 1

Geum aleppicum Yellow avens N G5 S5 -- -- 1,2,3

Geum canadense White avens N G5 S5 -- -- 3

Glechoma hederacea Ground-ivy I GNR SNA -- -- 1,2

Helianthus grosserratus Saw-toothed sunflower I G5 SNA -- -- 1,3

Heliopsis helianthoides Ox-eye N G5 S5 -- -- 1

Hieracium aurantiacum Orange hawkweek I GNR SNA -- -- 1

Hieracium piloselloides King devil I GNR SNA -- -- 1,2

Hypericum ellipticum Pale St. John's-wort N G5 S5 -- -- 2,3

Hypericum perforatum Common St. John’s-wort I GNR SNA -- -- 1

Impatiens capensis Spotted jewelweed N G5 S5 -- -- 2,3




Statusc

Ontario Rarity


Iris versicolor Blue-flag N G5 S5 -- -- 3

Lactuca serriola Prickly lettuce I GNR SNA -- -- 1

Lemna minor Duckweed N G5 S5 -- -- 3

Lepidium densiflorum Common pepper-grass I G5 SNA -- -- 1

Leucanthemum vulgare Ox-eye daisy I GNR SNA -- -- 1,2

Lotus corniculatus Bird’s-foot trefoil I GNR SNA -- -- 1

Lycopus americanus American water-horehound

N G5 S5 -- -- 3

Lycopus uniflorus Northern water-horehound

N G5 S5 -- -- 1,3

Lysimachia thrysiflora Tufted loosestrife N G5 S5 -- -- 3

Lythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife I G5 SNA -- -- 1,3

Maianthemum canadense

Canada mayflower N G5 S5 -- -- 2,3

Medicago sativa Alfalfa I GNR S5 -- -- 1

Melilotus alba White sweet clover I G5 SNA -- -- 1

Mentha arvensis Field mint N G5 S5 -- -- 1,3

Mimulus ringens Square-stemmed monkey-flower

N G5 S5 -- -- 3

Najas flexilis Slender naid N G5 S5 -- -- 3

Nepeta cataria Catnip I GNR SNA -- -- 1

Oenothera biennis Common evening-primrose

N G5 S5 -- -- 1

Oxalis stricta Yellow wood-sorrel N G5 S5 -- -- 1,2

Pastinaca sativa Parsnip I GNR SNA -- -- 1,2

Persicaria sp. Lady's thumb species ? ? ? -- -- 3

Physalis heterophylla Clammy ground-cherry N G5 S4 -- -- 1

Plantago major Common plantain I G5 SNA -- -- 1

Potentilla norvegica Rough cinquefoil I G5 S5 -- -- 1,2

Potomogeton sp. Pondweed N ? ? -- -- 3

Prunella vulgaris Heal-all N G5T5 S5 -- -- 1,2,3

Ranunculus abortivus Kidney-leaf buttercup N G5 S5 -- -- 2

Ranunculus acris Common buttercup I G5 SNA -- -- 1

Rudbeckia hirta Black-eyed susan N G5 S5 -- -- 1,2

Rumex acetosella Sheep sorrel N GNR SNA -- -- 1

Rumex crispus Curled dock I GNR SNA -- -- 1

Silene vulgaris Bladder campion I GNR SNA -- -- 1

Sisyrinchium montanum Blue-eyed grass N G5 S5 -- -- 1,3

Sium suave Water parsnip N G5 S5 -- -- 3




Statusc

Ontario Rarity


Solidago canadensis Canada goldenrod N G5T5 S5 -- -- 1,2

Solidago rugosa Rough goldenrod N G5 S5 -- -- 2,3

Sonchus arvensis Common sow-thistle I GNR SNA -- -- 1

Symphyotrichum lanceolatum

Panicled aster N G5T5 S5 -- -- 1,3

Symphyotrichum lateriflorum

Calico aster N G5T? S5 -- -- 1,2

Symphyotrichum novae-angliae

New England aster N G5 S5 -- -- 1

Taraxacum officinale Common dandelion I G5 SNA -- -- 1

Thalictrum dioicum Early meadow-rue N G5 S5 -- -- 1,3

Tragopogon sp. Goat's-beard I GNR SNA -- -- 1,3

Trientalis borealis Starflower N G5 S5 -- -- 2,3

Trifolium fragiferum Strawberry clover I GNR SNA -- -- 1

Trifolium pratense Red clover I GNR SNA -- -- 1,2,3

Trifolium repens White clover I GNR SNA -- -- 1,2,3

Tussilago farfara Colt's-foot I GNR SNA -- -- 1,2

Urtica dioica Stinging nettle N G5T? S5 -- -- 3

Valeriana officinalis Garden valerian I GNR SNA -- -- 1

Verbascum thapsus Common mullein I GNR SNA -- -- 1

Verbena hastata Blue vervain N G5 S5 -- -- 1,3

Vicia cracca Cow-vetch I GNR SNA -- -- 1

Viola labradorica Dog violet N G5 S4S5 -- -- 2

Viola renifolia Kidney-leaved violet N G5 S5 -- -- 3

Xanthium strumarium Cocklebur N G5 S5 -- -- 1

Notes: a Scientific names follow Morton & Venn (1990) and published volumes of the Flora of North America (1996-2006) b Common names and origin based upon Varga et al. (2000) Origin: N = Native; (N) = Native but not in study area region; I = Introduced; ? = unknown c Ranks based upon determinations made by the Natural Heritage Information Centre (2010) G = Global; S = Provincial; Ranks 1-3 are considered imperiled or rare; Ranks 4 and 5 are considered secure; SNA is not applicable for Ontario Ranking (e.g. exotic species); ? = conveys uncertainty in ranking d Canada Species at Risk Act (Schedule 1; checked August 2013)

e Ontario Endangered Species Act (O. Reg. 4/12 amending O.Reg. 230/08; checked August 2013) f Locations: 1: Thickets, Agricultural Fields, Roadside and Habitat edges; 2: Deciduous Forests and Plantation; 3: Swamps and Ditches/ Water Features


APPENDIX C Species at Risk (SAR) Screening

December 2014

APPENDIX C Species at Risk Screening


Table C1: Species at Risk Screening

Taxon Common Name Scientific NameGlobal

(GRank)aProvincial (SRank)b

SARAc ESAd Potential to Occur on the Site, based on

desktop and field surveys.

Amphibian

Western chorus frog - Great Lakes St. Lawrence/ Canadian Shield Pop'n

Pseudacris triseriata

G5TNR S3 Threatened Not Listed Low - None were detected during targeted surveys and there are no records on the Herp Atlas for the area.

Arthropod Monarch Danaus plexippus

G5 S2N, S4BSpecial Concern

Special Concern

Low-Moderate - the field edges on the site provide some suitable habitat, but none were observed during surveys.

Arthropod West Virginia white Pieris virginiensis G3G4 S3 Not Listed Special Concern

Low - No habitat and none observed during surveys. In addition no food plants (Cardamine spp.) observed during plant community surveys.

Bird Henslow's sparrow Ammodramus henslowii

G4 SHB Endangered Endangered Low - No habitat, none observed during breeding bird surveys, and no records on the breeding bird atlas.

Bird Chimney swift Chaetura pelagica

G5 S4B, S4N Threatened Threatened Low - No habitat and none observed during crepuscular surveys.

Bird Barn swallow Hirundo rustica G5 S4B Not Listed Threatened High - Breeding adults and nests were observed on Site during surveys.

Bird Bobolink Dolichonyx orizivorus

G5 S4B Not Listed Threatened Low - No habitat and none were observed during breeding bird surveys.

Bird Eastern meadowlark Sturnella magna G5 S4B Not Listed Threatened Low - No habitat and none were observed during breeding bird surveys.

Bird Short-eared owl Asio flammeus G5 S2N,S4B Special concern

Special Concern

Low - None observed during crepuscular surveys, and no records on the breeding bird atlas.

Bird Common nighthawk Chordeiles minor G5 S4B Threatened Special Concern

Low - None observed during crepuscular surveys, and no records on the breeding bird atlas.







Bird Black tern Chlidonias niger G4 S3B Not Listed Special Concern

Low - No habitat, none observed during marsh bird surveys, and no records on the breeding bird atlas.

Bird Peregrine falcon (anatum subspecies)

Falco peregrinus anatum

G4 S3B Threatened Special Concern

Low - No habitat, none observed during breeding bird surveys.

Bird Cerulean warbler Setophaga cerulea

G4 S3B Special Concern

Threatened Low - No habitat, none observed during breeding bird surveys, and no records on the breeding bird atlas.

Bird Eastern Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferus

G5 S4B Threatened Threatened Low - No habitat, none observed during nocturnal bird surveys, and no records on the breeding bird atlas.

Bird Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis G5 S4B Threatened Threatened Low - No habitat, none observed during marsh bird surveys, and no records on the breeding bird atlas.

Bird Red-headed woodpecker

Melanerpes erythrocephalus

G5 S4B Threatened Special Concern

Low - None observed during breeding bird surveys, and no records on the breeding bird atlas.

Fish Lake sturgeon – Great Lakes / upper St. Lawrence Pop'n

Acipenser fulvescens

G3G4TNR S2 Not Listed Threatened Low - No habitat

Fish American eel Anguilla rostrata G4 S1? Not Listed Endangered Low - No habitat

Mammal Eastern cougar Puma concolor couguar

G5 SU Not Listed Endangered

Low - There is suitable habitat for eastern cougar on, and within the vicinity of the site. However, occurrence of this species in Ontario is unknown, but there are very few recent confirmed records, and none for the area of the site.







Mammal Grey fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus

G5 S1 Threatened Threatened

Low - There is suitable habitat for grey fox on, and within the vicinity of the site, but current records in Ontario for this species are only known in extreme southwestern Ontario.

Mammal Little Brown Myotis Myotis lucifugus G5 S4 Not Listed Endangered

High - This species was confirmed on site during bat surveys. However it was likely only one individual, and no maternity roosts were identified, so it is unlikely it is breeding on Site.

Mammal Northern Myotis Myotis septentrionalis

G4 S3 Not Listed Endangered Low - Minimal habitat available and none identified during bat surveys.

Reptile

Blanding's turtle - Great Lakes/ St.Lawrence population

Emydoidea blandingii

G4 S3 Threatened Threatened Low - No habitat, none observed during herpetile surveys.

Reptile Snapping turtle Chelydra serpentina

G5 S3 Special Concern

Special Concern

Low-Moderate - Potential habitat appears restricted to DD3, and there are records on the herpetile atlas in the area. However, none or any signs of nesting were observed during surveys.

Reptile Spotted turtle Clemmys guttata G5 S3 Endangered Endangered Low - No habitat

Reptile Eastern ribbonsnake - Great Lakes population

Thamnophis sauritius


Special Concern

Low - Habitat is limited, and no occurrence records in the area.

Reptile Milksnake Lampropeltis triangulum


Special Concern

Low-Moderate - Mosaic of farm fields, thickets, swamps and forests provides habitat for this species, and there are records in the area for the Ontario Herp Atlas, however none were observed during herpetile surveys.







Vascular plant

American ginseng Panax quinquefolius

G3G4 S2 Endangered Endangered Low - No habitat and none identified during plant community surveys.

Vascular plant

Butternut Juglans cinerea G4 S3? Endangered Endangered

Low - There is suitable habitat for butternut on the site however, the site has been thoroughly searched for buttenut, and none were found.

Vascular plant

Eastern prairie fringed-orchid

Platanthera leucophaea

G2G3 S2 Endangered Endangered Low - No habitat and none were identified during plant community surveys.

Notes: Species statuses and regulations are current as of the date of this report. a Provincial Rarity Rank (SRank) - assigned to a species or ecological community 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. Last assessed August 2011. S1– Critically Imperiled; S2 – Imperiled; S3 – Vulnerable; S4 – Apparently Secure; S5 – Secure; SNA – Not Applicable; SNR – Unranked; S#S# - Range Rank; SU – Unrankable; SX - Presumed Extirpated; SH - Possible Extirpated – Historical

b Global ranks (GRank) are Rarity Ranks assigned to a species based on their range-wide status. GRANKS are assigned by a group of consensus of Conservation Data Centres (CDCs), scientific experts and the Nature Conservancy. These ranks are not legal designations. G1 (Extremely Rare), G2 (Very Rare), G3 (Rare to uncommon), G4 (Common), G5 (Very Common), GH (Historic, no record in last 20yrs), GU (Status uncertain),GX (Globally extinct), ? (Inexact number rank), G? (Unranked), Q (Questionable), T (rank applies to subspecies or variety). Last assessed August 2011.

c Species at Risk Act (SARA), 2002. Schedule 1 (Last amended 6 July 2012); Part 1 (Extirpated), Part 2 (Endangered), Part 3 (Threatened), Part 4 (Special Concern). d Endangered Species Act (ESA), 2007. (O. Reg. 242/08 last amended 1 July 2012 as O. Reg. 122/12, s. 1). Species at Risk in Ontario List, 2007 (O. Reg. 230/08 last

amended 24 Jan 2013 as O.Reg 25/13, s. 1); Schedule 1 (Extirpated - EXP), Schedule 2 (Endangered - END), Schedule 3 (Threatened - THR), Schedule 4 (Special Concern - SC).


APPENDIX D Fish and Wildlife on the Site

December 2014

APPENDIX D Wildlife


Table D1: Wildlife on and Around the Proposed CRRRC Site, Based Upon Field Work Completed in 2012-2013

Common Name Scientific Name Origina

Global Rarity

Statusb

Ontario Rarity

Statusb

SARAc ESA

d Remarks

Butterflies and Dragonflies (20 taxa)

Beaverpond baskettail Epitheca canis N G5 S5 -- -- N/A

Black swallowtail Papilio polyxenes N G5 S5 -- -- N/A

Cabbage white Pieris rapae I G5 SNA -- -- N/A

Canada tiger swallowtail Papilio canadensis N G5 S5 -- -- N/A

Cherry-faced meadowhawk Sympetrum internum N G5 S5 -- -- N/A

Clouded sulphur Colias philodice N G5 S5 -- -- N/A

Common ringlet Coenonympha tullia N G5 S5 -- -- N/A

Common whitetail Plathemis lydia N G5 S5 -- -- N/A

Dot-tailed whiteface Leucorrhinia intacta N G5 S5 -- -- N/A

Dun skipper Euphyes vestris N G5 S5 -- -- N/A

Eastern-tailed blue Everes comyntas N G5 S5 -- -- N/A

European skipper Thymelicus lineola I G5 SNA -- -- N/A

Marsh bluet Enallagma ebrium N G5 S5 -- -- N/A

Red admiral Vanessa atalanta N G5 S5 -- -- N/A

Slender spreadwing Lestes rectangularis N G5 S5 -- -- N/A

Spreadwing Lestes sp. N ? ? -- -- N/A

Twelve-spotted skimmer Libellula pulchella N G5 S5 -- -- N/A

Viceroy Limenitis archippus N G5 S5 -- -- N/A

White-faced meadowhawk Sympetrum obtrusum N G5 S5 -- -- N/A

Widow skimmer Libellula luctuosa N G5 S5 -- -- N/A

Herpetiles (6 taxa)

American toad Anaxyrus (Bufo) americanus N G5 S5 -- -- N/A

Eastern garter snake Thamnophilis sirtalis N G5 S5 -- -- N/A

Grey tree frog Hyla versicolor N G5 S5 -- -- N/A

Northern leopard frog Lithobates (Rana) pipiens N G5 S5 -- -- N/A

APPENDIX D Wildlife



Global Rarity

Statusb

Ontario Rarity

Statusb

SARAc ESA

d Remarks

Spring peeper Pseudacris crucifer N G5 S5 -- -- N/A

Wood frog Rana sylvatica N G5 S5 -- -- N/A

Birds (69 taxa)

Alder flycatcher Empidonax alnorum N G5 S5B -- -- Probable Breeder

American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos N G5 S5 -- -- Possible Breeder

American goldfinch Carduelis tristis N G5 S5B -- -- Probable Breeder

American kestrel Falco sparverius N G5 S4 -- -- Possible Breeder

American redstart Setophaga ruticilla N G5 S5B -- -- Confirmed Breeder

American robin Turdus migratorius N G5 S5 -- -- Confirmed Breeder

American woodcock Scolopax minor N G5 S4B -- -- Probable Breeder

Barn swallow Hirundo rustica N G5 S4B No Status Threatened Confirmed Breeder

Black-and-white warbler Mniotilta varia N G5 S5B -- -- Probable Breeder

Black-capped chickadee Poecile atricapillus N G5 S5 -- -- Probable Breeder

Blue jay Cyanocitta cristata N G5 S5 -- -- Possible Breeder

Blue-headed vireo Vireo solitarius N G5 S5B -- -- Migrant

Brown thrasher Toxostoma rufum N G5 S4B -- -- Probable Breeder

Canada goose Branta canadensis N G5 S5 -- -- Possible Breeder

Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum N G5 S5B -- -- Possible Breeder

Chestnut-sided warbler Setophaga pensylvanica N G5 S5B -- -- Probable Breeder

Chipping sparrow Spizella passerine N G5 S5B -- -- Probable Breeder

Common grackle Quiscalus quiscula N G5 S5B -- -- Confirmed Breeder

Common raven Corvus corax N G5 S5 -- -- Possible Breeder

Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas N G5 S5B -- -- Confirmed Breeder

Cooper's hawk Accipiter cooperii N G5 S4 -- -- Possible Breeder

Dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis N G5 S5 -- -- Migrant

Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens N G5 S5 -- -- Possible Breeder

Eastern kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus N G5 S4B -- -- Possible Breeder

APPENDIX D Wildlife



Global Rarity

Statusb

Ontario Rarity

Statusb

SARAc ESA

d Remarks

Eastern wood-pewee Contopus virens N G5 S4B -- -- Probable Breeder

European starling Sturnus vulgaris I G5 SNA -- -- Confirmed Breeder

Gray catbird Dumetella carolinensis N G5 S4B -- -- Probable Breeder

Great-crested flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus N G5 S4B -- -- Possible Breeder

Golden-crowned kinglet Regulus satrapa N G5 S5B -- -- Migrant

Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus N G5 S5 -- -- Confirmed Breeder

House sparrow Passer domesticus I G5 SNA -- -- Probable Breeder

House finch Carpodacus mexicanus (N) G5 SNA -- -- Probable Breeder

Killdeer Charadrius vociferus N G5 S5B, S5N -- -- Confirmed Breeder

Least flycatcher Empidonax minimus N G5 S4B -- -- Probable Breeder

Magnolia warbler Setophaga magnolia N G5 S5B -- -- Migrant

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos N G5 S5 -- -- Possible Breeder

Mourning dove Oporornis philadelphia N G5 S4B -- -- Probable Breeder

Nashville warbler Oreothlypisa ruficapilla N G5 S5B -- -- Probable Breeder

Northern flicker Colaptes auratus N G5 S4B -- -- Confirmed Breeder

Northern harrier Circus cyaneus N G5 S4B -- -- Possible Breeder

Northern waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis N G5 S5B -- -- Probable Breeder

Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapilla N G5 S4B -- -- Probable Breeder

Purple finch Carpodacus purpureus N G5 S4B -- -- Possible Breeder

Red-eyed vireo Vireo olivaceus N G5 S5B -- -- Probable Breeder

Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis N G5 S5 -- -- Possible Breeder

Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus N G5 S4 -- -- Confirmed Breeder

Ring-billed gull Larus delawarensis N G5 S5B, S4N -- -- Non-breeder

Rock pigeon Columba livia I G5 SNA Probable Breeder

Rose-breasted grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus N G5 S4B -- -- Probable Breeder

Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula N G5 S4B -- -- Migrant

Ruffed grouse Bonasa umbellus N G5 S4 -- -- Possible Breeder

APPENDIX D Wildlife



Global Rarity

Statusb

Ontario Rarity

Statusb

SARAc ESA

d Remarks

Savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis N G5 S4B -- -- Probable Breeder

Solitary sandpiper Tringa solitaria N G5 S4B -- -- Migrant

Song sparrow Melospiza melodia N G5 S5B -- -- Confirmed Breeder

Sora Porzana Carolina N G5 S4B -- -- Possible Breeder

Spotted sandpiper Actitis macularius N G5 S5 -- -- Possible Breeder

Swamp sparrow Melospiza Georgiana N G5 S5B -- -- Confirmed Breeder

Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor N G5 S4B -- -- Possible Breeder

Turkey vulture Cathartes aura N G5 S5B -- -- Possible Breeder

Veery Catharus fuscescens N G5 S4B -- -- Confirmed Breeder

Warbling vireo Vireo gilvus N G5 S5B Possible Breeder

White-breasted nuthatch Sitta carolinensis N G5 S5 -- -- Possible Breeder

White-throated sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis N G5 S5B -- -- Probable Breeder

Wild turkey Meleagris gallopava N G5 S5 -- -- Possible Breeder

Wilson's snipe Gallinago delicate N G5 S5 -- -- Probable Breeder

Wood duck Aix sponsa N G5 S5 -- -- Possible Breeder

Yellow-bellied sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius N G5 S5B -- -- Possible Breeder

Yellow warbler Setophaga petechia N G5 S5B -- -- Confirmed Breeder

Yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga coronata N G5 S5B -- -- Migrant

Mammals (17 taxa)

Beaver Castor canadensis N G5 S5 -- -- N/A

Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus S5 G5 -- -- N/A

Coyote Canis latrans N G5 S5 -- -- N/A

Deer mouse Peromyscus sp. N G5 S5 -- -- N/A

Eastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus N G5 S5 -- -- N/A

Grey squirrel Sciurus carolinensis N G5 S5 -- -- N/A

Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus N G5 S4 -- -- N/A

Little brown myotis Myotis lucifugus N G5 S4 No Status Endangered N/A

APPENDIX D Wildlife



Global Rarity

Statusb

Ontario Rarity

Statusb

SARAc ESA

d Remarks

Meadow vole Microtus pennsylvanicus N G5 S5 -- -- N/A

Raccoon Procyon lotor N G5 S5 -- -- N/A

Red bat Lasiurus borealis N G5 S4 -- -- N/A

Red fox Vulpes vulpes N G5 S5 -- -- N/A

Silver haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans N G5 S4 -- -- N/A

Small-footed myotis Myotis leibii N G3 S2S3 -- -- N/A

Snowshoe hare Lepus americanus N G5 S5 -- -- N/A

Striped skunk Memphitis memphitis N G5 S5 -- -- N/A

White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus N G5 S5 -- -- N/A

Fish (7 taxa)

Brassy minnow Hybognathus hankinsoni N G5 S5 -- -- N/A

Brook stickleback Culaea inconstans N G5 S5 -- -- N/A

Brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus N G5 S5 -- -- N/A

Central mudminnow Umbra limi N G5 S5 -- -- N/A

Creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus N G5 S5 -- -- N/A

Finescale dace Phoxinus neogaeus N G5 S5 -- -- N/A

Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus N G5 S5 -- -- N/A

Notes: a Origin: N = Native; (N) = Native, but not in the study area region; I = Introduced

b Ranks based upon determinations made by the Natural Heritage Information Centre (2012).

B = Breeding; G = Global; S = Provincial; Ranks 1-3 are considered imperiled or rare; Ranks 4 and 5 are considered secure. c Species at Risk Act (SARA), 2002. Schedule 1 (Last amended 6 July 2012); Part 1 (Extirpated), Part 2 (Endangered), Part 3 (Threatened), Part 4 (Special Concern).

d Endangered Species Act (ESA), 2007 (Last updated 1 July 2012). Species at Risk in Ontario List (O.Reg 230/08 last amended 24 Jan 2013 as O.Reg 25/13, s. 1.);

Schedule 1 (Extirpated - EXP), Schedule 2 (Endangered - END), Schedule 3 (Threatened - THR), Schedule 4 (Special Concern - SC).


APPENDIX E Benthic Invertebrate Community on the Site

December 2014

CRRRC ‐Appendix E Benthic Invertebrate Taxonomy Results ‐ 2012, 2013

B5 B6 B7 B1 B2 B3 B8 B9Nemata ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ X X X X ‐ XPlatyhelminthes Turbellaria Tricladida ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ XCnidaria Hydrozoa ‐ Hydridae Hydra ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Enchytraeidae ‐ X X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Dero digitata X X ‐ X X ‐ X ‐

Dero nivea ‐ X X ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐

Haemonais waldvogeli ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐

Slavina appendiculata ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐

Aulodrilus pigueti ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ X ‐ ‐

Ilyodrilus templetoni ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Ximmatures with hair chaetae X X X X ‐ X X XImmatures without hair chaetae X X X X X X X X

Sparganophilidae Sparganophilus ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Arachnida/Acari ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐

‐ ‐ ‐ X X ‐ ‐ X X X XCrangonyctidae Crangonyx ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Hyalellidae Hyalella ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐

Isopoda Asellidae Caecidotea ‐ X X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ XEntognatha Collembola ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Curculionidae ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐

Hydroporus ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Ilybius ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Neoporus ‐ X X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Elmidae Dubiraphia larvae ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ X ‐ ‐

Haliplidae Haliplus X X X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Helophorus ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Paracymus ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Callibaetis X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Cloeon dipterum X X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Caenidae Caenis ‐ ‐ ‐ X X X ‐ ‐

Megaloptera Corydalidae Chauliodes ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Coenagrionidae ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐

Corduliidae Epitheca ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐

Libellulidae Ladona ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐

Hesperocorixa ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐

Sigara ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐

Hydroptilidae Oxyethira ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Leptoceridae Oecetis ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ X ‐ ‐

Limnephilidae ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ XPhryganeidae

Ptilostomis ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X

‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ XBezzia ‐ ‐ X ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐

Ceratopogon ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Culicoides ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ XDasyhelea ‐ X ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Probezzia X X ‐ X X X ‐ ‐

Serromyia X X ‐ ‐ X ‐ X ‐

2012 2013 2013 Reference

Annelida Oligochaeta

‐

Naidinae

Tubificidae

Phylum Class/SubClass Order Family/SubFamily Genus Species

Arthropoda

Dytiscidae

Hydrophilidae

Ephemeroptera

OstracodaAmphipoda

Coleoptera

Baetidae

Odonata

Hemiptera Corixidae

CeratopogonidaeDiptera

Insecta

Trichoptera

CRRRC ‐Appendix E Benthic Invertebrate Taxonomy Results ‐ 2012, 2013

B5 B6 B7 B1 B2 B3 B8 B92012 2013 2013 Reference

Phylum Class/SubClass Order Family/SubFamily Genus Species

Sphaeromias ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐

Pupae X(b) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Chaoboridae Chaoborus punctipennis ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐

Chironomidae Chironomid pupae ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X(b) ‐ ‐ ‐

Chironomus ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X X X XCladotanytarsus ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐

Cryptochironomus ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ X X XDicrotendipes X ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ X ‐

Einfeldia ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐

Endochironomus ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ X ‐

Glyptotendipes ‐ ‐ ‐ X X ‐ X ‐

Micropsectra ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ XMicrotendipes ‐ ‐ ‐ X X ‐ X ‐

Paratanytarsus ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Polypedilum halterale ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ X X ‐

Polypedilum ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐

Tanytarsus ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X X ‐ ‐

Zavreliella ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐

Hydrobaenus ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Limnophyes ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ XPseudorthocladius ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Ablabesmyia ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐

Clinotanypus ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Guttipelopia ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐

Labrudinia ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Larsia X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Paramerina X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Procladius ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X X ‐

Zavrelimyia ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Culicidae Aedes ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Psychodidae Pericoma X X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Tabanidae Crysops X ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Pilaria ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Tipula X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐ Fossaria ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐ Stagnicola ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X‐ immature X X (b) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐ Aplexa ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X‐ Physella ‐ ‐ X ‐ ‐ ‐ X X‐ Gyraulus ‐ ‐ ‐ X X ‐ ‐ X‐ immature ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐

‐ Sphaeriidae Cyclocalyx X X ‐ ‐ X X ‐ X‐ Sphaerium (Amesoda) simile ‐ ‐ ‐ X ‐ X ‐ ‐

‐ Sphaerium (Musculium) securis ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ X X X X19 25 21 22 26 18 25 21

Note:(b) =Indicates organisms not included in total number of taxa calculation.

Total Number of Taxa

Mollusca Gastropoda Lymnaeidae

Physidae

Planorbidae

Bivalvia

Arthropoda

Orthocladiinae

Tanypodinae

Tipulidae

Diptera CeratopogonidaeInsecta

Chironominae

Documents

December 2014 Technical Support Document #4 BIOLOGY