DETAILED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (E IS) AND … · to conduct a Detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and selected Species at Risk (SAR) surveys for the Burnstown Bridge

2150 Thurston Dr., Suite 203 Phone: 613.748.1415Ottawa, ON K1G 5T9 Fax: 613.748.1356CANADA www.dstgroup.com

1.0.0.2

DETAILED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTSTATEMENT (EIS) AND SPECIES ATRISK (SAR) SURVEYS: BURNSTOWNBRIDGE PROPERTY

Prepared for:KDSA Development Corporation

900 Morrison Drive, Suite 206Ottawa, Ontario, K2H 8K7

August 2, 2014

Final Report

DST File No.: OE-OT-017965

Burnstown Bridge Property Environmental Impact Assessment and Species at Risk SurveysDST File No. OE-OT-017965August 2014 i

Table of Contents

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

1.1 Executive Summary and Report Purpose..................................................................................... 1

1.2 Scoping the Environmental Impact Statement.............................................................................. 4

1.3 Description of the Undertaking...................................................................................................... 5

2.0 METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................................. 7

2.1 Information Gathering and Agency Consultation .......................................................................... 7

2.2 Potential Species at Risk .............................................................................................................. 7

2.3 Terrestrial Environment and Vegetation Surveys ......................................................................... 7

2.4 Aquatic Environment and Fisheries .............................................................................................. 8

2.5 Wildlife Surveys............................................................................................................................. 8

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT....................................................................12

3.1 Terrestrial Habitat and Vegetation .............................................................................................. 12

3.2 Aquatic Environment and Fisheries ............................................................................................ 15

3.2.1 Madawaska River..................................................................................................................... 15

3.2.2 Wetlands, Seasonal Creeks and Seasonally Wet Areas ......................................................... 16

3.3 Wildlife and Species at Risk........................................................................................................ 19

3.4 Plant Species at Risk .................................................................................................................. 24

3.5 Significant Natural Features........................................................................................................ 27

3.6 Linkages ......................................................................................................................................27

4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.............................................................................................................. 28

4.1 The Concept Plan and Land Uses .............................................................................................. 28

4.2 Stormwater Management............................................................................................................ 28

4.3 Site Preparation .......................................................................................................................... 28

5.0 DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ........................................................................ 29

5.1 Potential Impacts to Terrestrial Habitat, Vegetation and Trees within the Development Area ...29

5.2 Potential Impacts to Aquatic Habitats ......................................................................................... 29

5.3 Potential Impacts to Shoreline Habitat ........................................................................................ 30

5.4 Potential Wildlife and Species at Risk Impacts ........................................................................... 30

Burnstown Bridge Property Environmental Impact Assessment and Species at Risk SurveysDST File No. OE-OT-017965August 2014 ii

5.5 Potential Butternut Impacts ......................................................................................................... 31

5.6 Potential Impacts to Adjacent Natural Environment Areas and Linkages ..................................31

6.0 MITIGATION OF IMPACTS .................................................................................................................. 32

6.1 Terrestrial Habitat and Vegetation Mitigation.............................................................................. 32

6.2 Aquatic Habitat and Shoreline Habitat Mitigation Measures....................................................... 32

6.3 Sediment and Erosion Control Measures ................................................................................... 33

6.4 Wildlife and Species at Risk Mitigation ....................................................................................... 33

6.5 Butternut Mitigation and Compensation Measures .....................................................................34

6.6 Mitigation of Impacts to Adjacent Natural Environment Areas and Linkages ............................. 34

7.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS...................................................................................................................... 35

8.0 MONITORING PLAN OUTLINE............................................................................................................ 36

9.0 CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................................................................37

10.0 CLOSURE........................................................................................................................................... 37

11.0 REFERENCES....................................................................................................................................40

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Records of Correspondence

Appendix B – Butternut Health Assessment

Burnstown Bridge Property Environmental Impact Statement and Species at Risk SurveysDST File No. OE-OT-017965August 2014 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Executive Summary and Report Purpose

DST Consulting Engineers Inc. (DST) was retained by KDSA Development Corporation (KDSA),to conduct a Detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and selected Species at Risk (SAR)surveys for the Burnstown Bridge Property (Figure 1). The EIS was completed to support the duediligence and plan of subdivision application for the development of approximately 17.4 hectares(43 acres) of land in McNab/Braeside, Ontario. The subdivision plan will consist of approximately20 to 40 units on 17.4 hectares of land, and will be serviced with wells/septic systems. Theproperty is adjacent to the Madawaska River, east of Building Supply Road and southeast of theBurnstown Bridge, parallel to the south side of the river for approximately 1400 m of shoreline(Figure 1). As specified in the Township of McNab/Braeside Official Plan a 30 m setback from thehigh water mark of the Madawaska River will be maintained for any waterfront lots (Township ofMcNab/Braeside 2009). Within this setback the majority of vegetation will be retained, subject tothe restrictions on shoreline development outlined in the Official Plan of the Township ofMcNab/Braeside Official Plan, which encourages avoiding disturbance of the natural vegetationand soil mantle within the setback area, but does allow for building of boat launch facilities andboat docks (Township of McNab/Braeside 2009). The Ontario Power Generation (OPG) owns thewaterfront land up to the high water mark and hence any future placement of waterside structureswould be subject to agreement with OPG. Future dock or boat launch construction may beachieved if land is leased from OPG by future land owners. Any future shoreline developmentwould be subject to OPG’s leasing rules, which will typically dictate that only temporary seasonaldocks will be allowed. These limitations on shoreline development are intended to minimizeimpacts on the shoreline from future waterfront lot development and it is not anticipated that highimpact or permanent shoreline development will occur.

DST conducted formal agency consultation to support this EIS and reviewed the informationprovided by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR), the Natural Heritage InformationCenter (NHIC search) and the Country of Renfrew. Consultation with OMNR indicated thepotential for several species at risk (SAR) birds and/or their habitats to be present on Site includingWhip Poor Will, Cerulean Warbler, Common Nighthawk and Bald Eagle, as well as SAR plantsincluding American Ginseng and Butternut, and one SAR reptile - Northern Map Turtle. To supportthe Detailed EIS requirements, DST conducted SAR field surveys to document and assess thepotential presence of these SAR and the presence of other wildlife. All SAR surveys wereconducted according to OMNR survey protocols for these species. During these surveys ButternutTrees were identified on the property as well as nearby in adjacent properties. Most of the treeswere either dead or infected with the Butternut Canker. A follow-up Butternut Health Assessment(BHA) was completed by a Certified Butternut Health Assessor (Appendix B) and found that six(6) retainable trees (Category 2) and five (5) archiveable trees (Category 3) were present on orimmediately adjacent to the property. At the time of report preparation, the landowner intended toclear trees to allow for the construction of an access road, wells, and other site services includinghydro. These activities will be performed in late fall 2014/early spring 2015. Following this, the


lots will be sold to individual landowners and construction and final design of each lot will becarried out by those independent land owners. At the time of report preparation the number oftrees to be impacted and/or removed could not be finalized, as the site plan was still underdevelopment. Once the site plan is finalized, Butternut Tree removal will be undertaken incompliance with the rules and regulations of the ESA, with compensation requirements to bedetermined based on the number of trees that are ultimately impacted and/or removed. Asspecified by the revised rules and regulations of the ESA (revised July 2013), up to ten (10)retainable trees (Category 2) may be removed from a single site without obtaining a permit, aslong as the activity is registered and appropriate mitigation and compensation is undertaken incompliance with the rules and regulations of the ESA. Because only six (6) retainable trees arepresent on Site, they may be removed through registration of the activity without obtaining anOverall Benefit Permit. However, if any of the five (5) archiveable trees (Category 3) are impactedor removed, this may require a permit under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The specificpermitting requirements will be evaluated once the extent of anticipated tree removal is known.No other SAR species were identified on-site during the SAR field surveys.

At the time of report preparation, details regarding the stormwater management plan were stillunder development and a Nitrate Impact Assessment was also underway to assess potentialimpacts to the water quality of the Madawaska River. Recommended mitigation measures includethe retention of the 30 m shoreline setback from the south bank of the Madawaska River, retentionof the majority of vegetation within this setback, and implementation of sediment and erosioncontrols during site construction activities. Potential erosion issues posed by the steep slope ofthe Site, shallow bedrock, and bedrock outcrops will be addressed by concurrent slopeassessment and geotechnical studies, which are being prepared under separate cover.

The proposed development will also result in the isolation of the 1400 m stretch of shoreline fromforested areas to the south, and will limit wildlife shoreline access from surrounding natural areas.Depending on the final lot alignment and density, isolation of shoreline areas may be mitigatedby tree retention within the lots, which may preserve enough trees to allow animals to movethrough the development to the shoreline. In addition, a new woodland edge will be created at thesouth and east property lines with associated potential for edge effects including soil compaction,sun scalding, wind throw, root system compaction, and increased noise and light pollution.Proposed mitigation measures to address these concerns include sediment and erosion controls,protection of trees located on adjacent properties, retention of trees within the lots where feasible(subject to final site plan), timing restrictions and mitigation to protect potential migratory birds’nests and other wildlife, etc. Provided that mitigation measures are applied appropriately, it is notanticipated that the development will have a significant adverse environmental impact.

Madawaska RiverÃÆ

52

ÃÆ

508

ÃÆ

508

Mcleod Road

Burnstown

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP,swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

376000

376000

376500

376500

377000

377000

377500

377500

378000

378000

378500

378500

379000

379000

5026

000

5026

000

5026

500

5026

500

5027

000

5027

000

5027

500

5027

500

5028

000

5028

000

5028

500

5028

500

A:\GIS\OE-OT-017965 BURNSTOWN BRIDGE EIS AND SARS\MAP DOCUMENTS\20140515_FIGURE 1 - BURNSTOWN STUDY AREA.MXD

Coordinate System:

North American Datum (NAD) 1983

Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 18N

Image Courtesy of Annis, O'Sullivan, Vollebekk LTD.

² Figure 1STUDY AREA

OE-OT-017965 GIS 00258

Kenora

Ottawa

Sudbury

Toronto

Moosonee

ThunderBay

Sault Ste.Marie

ONTARIO

Red Lake

North Bay

QUEBECMANITOBASASKATCHEWAN

LABRADOR

NEW

BRUNSWICK

ANDNEWFOUNDLAND

+

0 250 500 750

Meters

Burnstown Bridge PropertyEnvironmental Impact Statement

and Species at Risk SurveysBurnstown, ON

consulting engineers

COORDINATE SYSTEM:

LAMBERT CONFORMAL CONIC (LLC) PROJECTION

NAD 27 - SPHEROID CLAKE, 1866

Intermittent Watercourse

Permanent Watercourse

Intermittent Waterbody

Permanent Waterbody

Wetland

Study Area


1.2 Scoping the Environmental Impact Statement

This EIS was prepared in accordance with the Township of McNab/Braeside EIS Guidelines withguidance from the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (OMNR 2010). The objective of this EIS isto assess potential impacts from the proposed undertaking, to identify any significant features,and to minimize impacts through mitigation measures.

As specified in Section 9.0 and 9.6 of the Township of McNab/Braeside Official Plan, the studyshould address the following criteria:

a) Examine the functions of the natural heritage features, their sensitivity and theirsignificance;

b) Identify the location and extent of sensitive or significant natural heritage features;c) Identify the potential impacts of the proposed development on the natural heritage features

and ecological functions;d) Identify any lands to be preserved in their natural state;e) Identify mitigating measures to address the negative effects of development on the natural

heritage features and their ecological functions, including;f) Make recommendations on how to implement the proposed mitigation measures;g) Include any additional information required by the Township.

To address the Township of McNab/Braeside EIS guidelines, the Detailed EIS includes thefollowing information:

Description of the Site and the Natural Environment including:o Background review of land use planning documents (e.g. subwatershed studies,

secondary plans, environmental management plans, official plan, etc.);o Natural Heritage Information Center (NHIC search) for significant features and

Species at Risk (SAR) occurrences;o All relevant information obtained through review of background documents and

consultation;o Summary of vegetative communities;o Identification and characterization of any fish habitat on the property;o List of wildlife species observed, reported or expected to occur on or adjacent to

the site;o An assessment for the site’s suitability for any significant species;o An assessment of whether or not any significant wildlife habitat is present on or

adjacent to the site;o A description of ecological functions provided by the site and identification of any

functions that have contributed to the area being identified as significant;o As assessment of the significance of the function, using quantitative information if

possible and relating this to the quality and integrity of the area;o Summary of SAR survey methods;o Integration of the results of the SAR Surveys;o The use of photographs to illustrate and accompany the EIS; and,


o A descriptive summary of each natural heritage feature known to be present on oradjacent to the site and environmental constraints.

Description of the Proposed Project including:o Information about all phases of the project (including site preparation, construction

and post-construction landscaping);o Intended use of the property once construction is complete;o Any related off-site works by the proponent;o Current and proposed Official Plan designations and/or zoning; and,o Any associated changes in permitted land use.

Assessment of Impacts:o Comparison of proposed project activities to the natural environment and

identification of all activities that will change or cause stress to the natural featuresand ecological function both on- and off-site;

o Classification of the potential environmental effects into negative impacts andpositive environmental effects and characterization using standard criteria; and,

o Evaluation of the significance of the potential impacts of development, with respectto the sensitivity and significance of the features and/or ecological functionaffected.

Mitigation and Monitoring Recommendations:o Identification of mitigation measures to minimize or alleviate impacts;o Mitigation measures to achieve positive impacts;o Description of potential cumulative impacts and mitigation to address these; and,o Monitoring requirements and recommended monitoring actions.

DST consulted with the Township of McNab/Braeside and they did not request any additionalinformation be included in the EIS.

1.3 Description of the Undertaking

The development will include approximately 17.4 hectares of waterfront land along approximately1400 m of the south bank of the Madawaska River within the Township of McNab/Braeside(County of Renfrew). The property is adjacent to the Madawaska River, east of Building SupplyRoad and southeast of the Burnstown Bridge, parallel to the south side of the river (Figure 1). TheOPG owns the waterfront land up to the high water mark. The subdivision plan may consist ofapproximately 20 to 40 units which will be serviced with wells and septic tanks.

At the current time the landowner intends to clear trees to allow for the construction of an accessroad, wells, and other site services including hydro. These activities will be performed in late fall2014/early spring 2015. The lots will be sold to individual landowners and construction and final


design of each lot will be carried out by those independent land owners. At the time of reportpreparation, the final site plan for the project was still under development.


2.0 METHODOLOGY

2.1 Information Gathering and Agency Consultation

Color aerial photography was used to assess the natural features surrounding the Site (Figure 1).The OMNR was contacted to request information regarding the occurrence of natural heritagefeatures and SAR. DST also performed an independent search on the NHIC website for theabove-mentioned information. The County of Renfrew was also contacted by DST during proposalpreparation to confirm the scope of the EIS. Note that there is no Conservation Authority withjurisdiction for the Madawaska River and in such areas customarily OMNR and the County areinstead consulted to discuss watershed issues. Records of Correspondence are provided inAppendix A.

2.2 Potential Species at Risk

Based on the information provided by OMNR and the NHIC, the following SAR were determinedto have the potential (unconfirmed) to occur on or adjacent to the property:

Northern Map Turtle (special concern) Whip-poor-will (threatened) Cerulean Warbler ( threatened) Common Nighthawk (special concern) Bald Eagle (special concern) Butternut (endangered) American Ginseng (endangered)

Survey methods to address the potential presence of each of these SAR are described in thefollowing sections.

2.3 Terrestrial Environment and Vegetation Surveys

DST conducted a walkthrough to assess the vegetative communities and terrestrial habitatspresent on Site. Surveys for the presence of SAR plants including Butternut and AmericanGinseng were completed by DST during the 2014 fieldwork. The following survey methods wereutilized to assess the potential for these SAR plants to occur on the property:

Butternut and American Ginseng Surveys were performed on May 15, May 29, and June16, 2014. Rare plant survey transects were completed using the Targeted TransectSurvey - Standardized Methodology for the Survey of Rare Plants from the SaskatchewanConservation Data Center (SCDC 2012). Vegetation transects were spaced 30 m apartand covered the entire length of the Site. All trees and groundcover plants found along thesurvey lines were identified to determine if SAR plants were present.

Following discovery of Butternut Trees on Site, a Butternut Health Assessment (BHA) wascompleted by a Certified Assessor (Appendix B).


2.4 Aquatic Environment and Fisheries

NHIC mapping and color aerial photos were consulted to determine the extent of aquatic habitatswithin the property, and neither showed significant aquatic habitats to be present. A Sitewalkthrough was conducted on May 15, 2014 to determine the extent and depth of aquatichabitats. As discussed in Section 3.2.2, because no significant aquatic habitats were identifiedwithin the property, no follow-up aquatic or fisheries studies were required. Information regardingthe aquatic habitats of the adjacent Madawaska River was provided by OMNR (Refer to Section3.2.1).

2.5 Wildlife Surveys

Surveys for the presence of wildlife SAR targeted Whip-poor-will, Cerulean Warbler, CommonNighthawk, Bald Eagle, and Northern Map Turtle. The following survey methods were utilized toassess the potential for these wildlife SAR to occur on the property:

Three (3) breeding bird point count surveys were undertaken on May 15, May 29, andJune 16, 2014 in the early morning on clear days with no precipitation and low windspeeds. The point count surveys were completed following the OMNR Wildlife MonitoringPrograms and Inventory Techniques – Technical Manual (Konze & McLaren 1998)Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) method. The surveys were separated by at least one (1) weekand were completed between the last week of May and end of July. These surveysaddressed requirements for Cerulean Warbler and Bald Eagle and also provided a generallist of bird species at the Site. Bird survey points are shown in Figure 2;

DST completed the Whip Poor Will surveys following the methodology outlined in theOMNR Draft Survey Protocol for Eastern Whip-poor-will (Caprimulgus vociferus) inOntario (August 2012). Three (3) Whip Poor Will surveys were conducted on May 20,June 10 and June 16, 2014. These surveys were conducted when the face of the moonwas greater than 50% illuminated and above the horizon. Surveys were conducted onclear nights, warmer than 10°C, and not during overcast conditions or when precipitationwas stronger than an intermittent drizzle, nor when wind speed averaged greater than 12kilometers per hour. The surveys began once the moon had risen over the horizon, orapproximately 15 minutes after sunset, and ended no later than 15 minutes before sunrise(Refer to Section 3.3 for specific survey conditions). As shown in Figure 3, five (5) pre-determined survey points were chosen on Site. Survey points were separated by aminimum of 300 m and included habitats within 250 m of the Site; at each point, two (2)observers listened to bird calls and recorded any whip-poor-will calls detected. When acall was heard, the observers triangulated the call to determine the calling distance andthe likelihood that the bird was present on the property. The triangulation was undertakenas described in the OMNR protocol. Spotlighting for Common Nighthawk was completedduring the same site visits as Whip-poor-will surveys.

Basking surveys along the entire length of the shoreline were conducted for Northern MapTurtle. These basking surveys were conducted following the guidelines outlined in the


OMNR Blanding’s Turtle Survey Protocol (OMNR 2012), though this protocol was modifiedto target Northern Map Turtle. Three (3) basking surveys were conducted on May 15, May29 and June 16, 2014. Basking surveys were conducted in the late morning or earlyafternoon on clear sunny days with temperature between 10 and 25 C.

376000

376000

376500

376500

377000

377000

377500

377500

378000

378000

378500

378500

379000

379000

5026

000

5026

000

5026

500

5026

500

5027

000

5027

000

5027

500

5027

500

5028

000

5028

000

5028

500

5028

500

A:\GIS\OE-OT-017965 BURNSTOWN BRIDGE EIS AND SARS\MAP DOCUMENTS\20140522_FIGURE 2 - BURNSTOWN BREEDING BIRD SURVEY LOCATIONS.MXD

Coordinate System:




² Figure 2BREEDING BIRD

SURVEY LOCATIONS

OE-OT-017965 GIS 00258

Kenora

Ottawa

Sudbury

Toronto

Moosonee

ThunderBay

Sault Ste.Marie

ONTARIO

Red Lake

North Bay


LABRADOR

NEW

BRUNSWICK

ANDNEWFOUNDLAND

+

0 250 500 750Meters




COORDINATE SYSTEM:



[b Breeding Bird Survey Location




Permanent Waterbody

Wetland

Study Area

376000

376000

376500

376500

377000

377000

377500

377500

378000

378000

378500

378500

379000

379000

5026

000

5026

000

5026

500

5026

500

5027

000

5027

000

5027

500

5027

500

5028

000

5028

000

5028

500

5028

500

A:\GIS\OE-OT-017965 BURNSTOWN BRIDGE EIS AND SARS\MAP DOCUMENTS\20140522_FIGURE 3 - BURNSTOWN WPW CNK SURVEY LOCATIONS.MXD

Coordinate System:




² Figure 3WHIP-POOR-WILL ANDCOMMON NIGHTHAWK

SURVEY LOCATIONS

OE-OT-017965 GIS 00258

Kenora

Ottawa

Sudbury

Toronto

Moosonee

ThunderBay

Sault Ste.Marie

ONTARIO

Red Lake

North Bay


LABRADOR

NEW

BRUNSWICK

ANDNEWFOUNDLAND

+

0 250 500 750Meters




COORDINATE SYSTEM:



+Ç Whip-Poor-Will Survey Location




Permanent Waterbody

Wetland

Study Area


3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

3.1 Terrestrial Habitat and Vegetation

NHIC mapping and information provided by OMNR were reviewed as part of this assessment.NHIC records showed that one (1) regionally rare plant was identified within and outside of theproperty: the Purple-Stemmed Cliffbrake (Pellaea atropurpurea) (not a SAR), however, DST didnot observe this plant during field surveys. No other significant natural features were noted byNHIC.

OMNR indicated that based on DRAPE imagery, the forested areas of the property appear tohave been historically heavily logged (Appendix A). DST confirmed that based on the age andsize of trees (Photographs 1 to 3 below) most of the property was likely logged within the last(approximately) fifty (50) years. At the current time, the majority of the property is forested withriparian coniferous species along the shoreline, and regrowth mixed/deciduous forest furthersouth. Based on the age of the forest and historic logging of the Site, DST does not believe theproperty constitutes a significant woodland. In addition, the surrounding area contains large tractsof forest that is of a similar age and composition.

The property in general has a diverse topography with sections of the property having steepdownward slopes towards the river. Many sections of the Site appear to feature shallow bedrockand/or bedrock outcrops, creating a diverse topography within the Site. A concurrent slopeassessment and geotechnical investigation are being prepared under separate cover and willprovide additional information on the soils, bedrock, and slope of the Site.

When contacted, the OMNR stated that plant SAR including Butternut Trees and AmericanGinseng had the potential (unconfirmed) to be present on site. Butternut and American Ginsengare discussed in Sections 3.4 (below). The OMNR also described the forested area along the topof the slope along the Madawaska River as potentially significant wildlife habitat, due to thepotential that this area is used as a travel corridor by deer between summer and winter habitatareas (Appendix A). While a portion of this habitat will be impacted by the proposed development,as previously noted a 30 m setback from the high water mark will be retained parallel to the riverwhere the majority of vegetation will be retained, and this will provide a potential east-westmovement corridor. In addition, as shown in Figure 1, an extensive area of forest exists to thesouth of the property, south to McLeod Road, which will also provide a movement corridorfollowing development. It therefore remains likely that deer will be able to traverse the property inan east-west direction following development, either by travelling through the 30 m setback alongthe Madawaska River or by going through forested areas to the south.


Photo 1: Deciduous forest in central portion of the Site. Trilliums are visible, May 15, 2014.

Photo 2: Rocky outcrop on the northwest side of the property. Conifer dominated riparian forest shown, May15, 2014.


Photo 3: Mixed regrowth forest along southern property line, May 15, 2014.


3.2 Aquatic Environment and Fisheries

3.2.1 Madawaska RiverThe property runs parallel to approximately 1400 m of the southern shore of the MadawaskaRiver. As noted previously, the Township of McNab/Braeside Official Plan dictates that a 30 msetback must be maintained from the high water mark of the river and encourages that vegetationwithin this setback should be retained. This buffer will reduce the likelihood of impacting the river.The OPG owns the shore up to the high water mark. Because the development will not go up tothe waterfront, DST did not complete a comprehensive assessment of the aquatic habitats withinthe adjacent portions of the river. OMNR noted that bass spawning habitats exist within thevicinity, but that no critical spawning areas are immediately adjacent (Appendix A). OMNR furthernoted the potential for Northern Map Turtles to be found within the adjacent portions of the riverand to use the shoreline for nesting or basking (see Section 3.3). The property features a steepslope to the shore along the western side of the property, and gradually this slope becomes lesssteep to the east. A concurrent slope assessment is being prepared under separate cover toaddress the potential erosion issues related to the steep slopes.

The 30 m setback from the river will be subject to the restrictions on shoreline developmentoutlined in the Official Plan, which encourages retention of the natural vegetation and soil mantlewithin the setback area, but does allow for building of boat launch facilities and boat docks(Township of McNab/Braeside 2009). As noted previously, it is anticipated that the majority of thevegetation within the 30 m setback will be retained. The OPG owns the waterfront land up to thehigh water mark and hence any future placement of waterside structures would be subject toagreement with OPG. Future dock or boat launch construction may be achieved if land is leasedfrom OPG by future land owners. Any future shoreline development would be subject to OPG’sleasing rules, which will typically dictate that only temporary seasonal docks will be allowed.These limitations on shoreline development are intended to minimize impacts on the shorelinefrom future waterfront lot development and it is not anticipated that high impact or permanentshoreline development will occur.


Photo 4: Steep slopes along the western side of the property, May 15, 2014.

Photo 5: View of the Madawaska River from the eastern side of the property, gradual slope is shown, May 15,2014.

3.2.2 Wetlands, Seasonal Creeks and Seasonally Wet AreasNHIC mapping shows two Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSW) approximately 0.8 km southand southeast of the property. However, due to the distance between these PSWs and the Site,it is unlikely that the current undertaking will impact these wetlands. In addition, the Site is down


gradient of the wetlands and hence the development isn’t likely to impact the wetlands. OMNRnoted that they had no records of wetland on the property (Appendix A). DST conducted awalkthrough and confirmed that no wetlands are present on the property. The first site visit wasperformed on May 15, 2014, during which some areas of standing water were noted. As shownin Photograph 6 (below), a low lying area exists within the central portion of the property that isseasonally wet during the spring melt. It should be noted that during the May 15, 2014 walkthrougha late spring melt and extensive rain likely increased water levels compared to average seasonalconditions. Neither aquatic nor wetland vegetation were noted in this area. During later visits inJune it was noted that this area had dried out and the pool is generally far from any surroundingcore wetland features where salamanders or turtles may reside during the summer. ThereforeDST concluded that the low lying area represents an ephemeral woodland pool, which would beinundated by the spring melt in some years. In addition, a small seasonal creek was noted duringthe May 15, 2014 Site visit which conveyed melt water towards the river. This feature is shown inPhotographs 7 to 9 (below). This feature appeared to be a shallow ephemeral creek that is likelyseasonally dry. The creek includes steep rocky grades with shallow water which are likelyimpassable by fish. No fish were observed in either feature and both were found to be dry duringJune site visits. The low lying wet area and the ephemeral creek were not deemed to be significantaquatic habitats due to the fact that both features appear to be ephemeral and associated withthe spring melt, no aquatic vegetation was noted in either, and no fish were found to be present.

Photo 6: Low lying seasonally wet area on the property, May 15, 2014.


Photo 3: Ephemeral Creek on Site, steep rocky grade with shallow water likely impassable to fish, May 15,2014.

Photo 8: Ephemeral Creek on Site, further upstream, May 15, 2014.


Photo 9: Ephemeral Creek on Site, dry during June 16, 2014 site visit.

3.3 Wildlife and Species at Risk

As noted previously, SAR surveys were conducted to target wildlife SAR including Northern MapTurtle, Whip-poor-will, Cerulean Warbler, Common Nighthawk, and Bald Eagle. None of thesespecies were noted during the SAR surveys.

DST performed the Whip-poor-will and Common Nighthawk surveys on May 21, June 10 andJune 16, 2014. Table 1 summarizes conditions during these surveys:

Table 1: Whip poor will and Common Nighthawk Surveys ConditionsVisit # 1 2 3Date May 21, 2014 June 10, 2014 June 16, 2014Time on-Site 1:40 am 9:45 pm 9:20 pmWeather Conditions Clear Clear ClearIllumination of Moon (%) 50 50 50Air Temperature (oC) 14 22 19Wind Speed (km/hr) 10 <20 <10Precipitation None None NoneCloud Cover (%) 5 46 20SAR observed None None NoneNon-SAR observed Barred Owl Barred Owl None

Breeding bird point count surveys targeting Bald Eagle and Cerulean Warbler were undertakenon May 15, May 29 and June 16, 2014. Neither species was encountered during these surveys.


Lastly, basking surveys targeting Northern Map Turtle were conducted along the entire 1400 mstretch of the Madawaska River shoreline adjacent to the Site. These surveys were completed onMay 15, May 29 and June 16, 2014. No Northern Map Turtles were noted during these surveys.It should be noted however that Northern Map Turtle are likely present within the river itself, butthat this species may not have been detected because they typically bask in groups at veryspecific sites. The presence of steep slopes and rocky sections on the property’s shoreline woulddiscourage Northern Map Turtle from accessing most of the shoreline of the Site, thoughaccessible sections of the shoreline do exist on the eastern side of the property. The presence ofa 30 m setback along the shoreline substantially reduces the risk of impacts to Northern MapTurtle, as this species is primarily a riverine turtle and they do not typically travel far from the bankfor either basking or nesting (Ontario Nature 2013).

Non-SAR wildlife observed included the following:

Birds: American Robin Blue Jay Pileated Woodpecker Mourning Dove Hairy Woodpecker Downy Woodpecker Black Capped Chickadee Eastern Phoebe Song Sparrow Common Loon American Crow White-Breasted Nuthatch Tree Sparrow Barred Owl Canada Geese Veery Black Throated Green Warbler Herring Gull

Mammals: Red Squirrel Eastern Grey Squirrel Eastern Chipmunk Porcupine White-tailed Deer

Reptiles and Amphibians: Grey Tree Frog


Wood Frog Painted Turtle

Photo 10: Porcupine nest. Scat visible at the foot of the tree, May 15, 2014.

Photo 11: White-breasted Nuthatch, May 15, 2014.


Photo 12: Red Squirrel, May 15, 2014.

Photo 13: Painted Turtle basking in the Madawaska River, May 29, 2014.


Photo 14: Veery on Site, June 16, 2014.

Photo 15: Common Loon in adjacent section of Madawaska River, June 16, 2014.


3.4 Plant Species at Risk

No American Ginseng were noted during the plant SAR surveys. However, numerous ButternutTrees were found on Site and nearby on adjacent properties. A follow-up Butternut HealthAssessment (BHA) was undertaken by a Certified Assessor to determine the status of these trees(Appendix B). The BHA noted that six (6) retainable (Category 2) and five (5) archiveable(Category 3) trees are present on Site or in the immediate vicinity (within 25 m). Category 2 treesare those which are infected by the canker but which remain likely to survive for a number of yearsif retained on site. Category 3 trees are those which may exhibit resistance to the canker andhence have been identified by the assessor as a tree which should be protected and possiblyarchived as part of a province wide Butternut recovery program. Non-retainable trees (Category1) are considered too heavily damaged or diseased to survive and may be removed withoutcompensation or permitting. Most trees were infected with the Butternut Canker disease andappeared to be in poor condition, and hence twenty three (23) trees were assessed as non-retainable. The location of observed Butternuts are shown in Figure 4.

Butternut was declared a nationally endangered species by the Committee on the Statusof Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) in November of 2003 and is also listed asendangered under the Ontario Endangered Species Act (ESA). Butternut is primarily at risk dueto the effects of a disease known as the Butternut Canker. Butternut Canker is a fungal diseaseresponsible for the loss of approximately one third of the eastern Ontario Butternut population. Itis possible for a tree to live many years with the Canker, although most only live a few years afterinfection (OMNR 2014). In Canada, Butternut can be found in Quebec, New Brunswick, and areasin Ontario (southwestern to south of the Canadian Shield) (OMNR 2014). This species grows wellin moist, well-drained soils, preferring to grow in small clearings within a forest, or at the forestedge (OMNR 2014).

Potential impacts on Butternut are discussed in Section 5.5. Regulatory requirements andpotential mitigation/compensation measures for removal are discussed in more detail in Section6.5.


Photo 16: Fallen Butternut Tree (dead), May 29, 2014.

Photo 17: Living Butternut Tree, infection with Butternut Canker evident, May 29, 2014.

376000

376000

376500

376500

377000

377000

377500

377500

378000

378000

378500

378500

379000

379000

5026

000

5026

000

5026

500

5026

500

5027

000

5027

000

5027

500

5027

500

5028

000

5028

000

5028

500

5028

500

A:\GIS\OE-OT-017965 BURNSTOWN BRIDGE EIS AND SARS\MAP DOCUMENTS\20140617_FIGURE 4 - BURNSTOWN BUTTERNUT LOCATIONS.MXD

Coordinate System:




² Figure 4BUTTERNUT TREE

LOCATIONS

OE-OT-017965 GIS 00258

Kenora

Ottawa

Sudbury

Toronto

Moosonee

ThunderBay

Sault Ste.Marie

ONTARIO

Red Lake

North Bay


LABRADOR

NEW

BRUNSWICK

ANDNEWFOUNDLAND

+

0 250 500 750Meters




COORDINATE SYSTEM:



Category 2 Butternut Location

Category 3 Butternut Location




Permanent Waterbody

Wetland

Category 3 Butternut 25m Buffer

Study Area


3.5 Significant Natural Features

As discussed previously, the most significant natural feature in the vicinity of the Site is theMadawaska River. Two Provincially Significant Wetlands are present approximately 0.8 km fromthe Site. Lastly, OMNR advised that the forested areas adjacent to the river may represent asignificant movement corridor for deer (see following section).

3.6 Linkages

As previously noted, two significant wetlands were noted approximately 0.8 km south andsoutheast of the property, respectively. However, it is unlikely that the proposed developmentfunctions as a movement corridor between these wetlands. As such, it is not suspected that thelinkages between the significant wetlands will be impacted by the proposed development.

The OMNR also described the forested area along the top of the slope along the MadawaskaRiver as potentially significant wildlife habitat, due to the potential that this area is used as a travelcorridor by deer between summer and winter habitat areas (Appendix A). While a portion of thishabitat will be impacted by the proposed development, as previously noted a 30 m setback fromthe high water mark will be retained parallel to the river, and because the majority of the vegetationwill be retained in this area, this will provide a potential east-west movement corridor. In addition,as shown in Figure 1, an extensive area of forest exists to the south of the property, south toMcLeod Road, which will also provide a movement corridor following development. It thereforeremains likely that deer will be able to traverse the property in an east-west direction followingdevelopment, either by travelling through the 30 m setback along the Madawaska River or bygoing through forested areas to the south.


4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

4.1 The Concept Plan and Land Uses

The development will include approximately 17.4 hectares of waterfront land along approximately1400 m of the south bank of the Madawaska River within the Township of McNab/Braeside(County of Renfrew). The property is adjacent to the Madawaska River, east of Building SupplyRoad and southeast of the Burnstown Bridge, parallel to the south side of the river (Figure 1). TheOPG owns the waterfront land up to the high water mark. The subdivision plan consists ofapproximately 20 to 40 units which will be serviced with wells and septic tanks.

4.2 Stormwater Management

At the time of report preparation, details regarding the stormwater management plan were stillunder development and a Nitrate Impact Assessment was also underway to assess potentialimpacts to the water quality of the Madawaska River.

4.3 Site Preparation

At the current time the landowner intends to clear trees to allow for the construction of an accessroad, wells, and other site services including hydro. These activities will be performed in late fall2014/early spring 2015. The lots will be sold to individual landowners and construction and finaldesign of each lot will be carried out by those independent land owners. Bedrock blasting willlikely be needed to allow for installation of services, due to the presence of shallow bedrock inmany areas of the Site.


5.0 DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

5.1 Potential Impacts to Terrestrial Habitat, Vegetation and Trees within theDevelopment Area

In addition to the direct loss of woody vegetation, tree clearing will result in the reduction inassociated wildlife habitat and will create new woodland edges. Nesting birds and wildlife may beimpacted directly by tree clearing activities, and impacts should be mitigated as described inSection 6.1.

Impacts to the terrestrial environment which may results from future activities on site include thefollowing:

Isolation of 1400 m of the shoreline of the Madawaska River from the forested areas tothe south;

Edge effects on the 30 m shoreline setback and on the new woodland edge along thesouthern and eastern property lines. Edge effects may include soil compaction, sunscalding, increased wind throw damage, root system compaction, and increased noiseand light pollution;

Increased access to the shoreline, the 30 m shoreline setback, and the new woodlandedges by residents and their pets leading to degradation due to unauthorized collectionactivities, recreational activities, littering, etc.;

Run-off causing sediment and erosion related damage; Direct damage due to construction activities such as damage to woody vegetation and

tree cover in retained areas, noise, dust, and spills; and If blasting is required, impacts from bedrock blasting including damage to root structure of

trees, disturbance to soils within the setbacks around the property, and loss of soiladhesion. If blasting is undertaken close to the river, this may impact fish species.However, it is not anticipated that blasting will occur within the 30 m setback.

Mitigation measures to address each of these potential impacts are discussed in Section 6.1.

5.2 Potential Impacts to Aquatic Habitats

No significant aquatic environments were identified on the property. However, both during andafter construction, site preparation could lead to natural areas being exposed to erosion and theMadawaska River being exposed to sediment loadings. Stormwater inflow may have the followingimpacts on the Madawaska River:

Potential changes to the flow regime resulting from stormwater inflow; Potentially increased sediment inflow during and after construction; Potentially increased sedimentation and inflow of fine organic particles both during and

after construction; Potentially increased inflow of contaminants both during and after construction; Potentially impaired water quality;


Potential changes to water temperature; Potential reduction in substrate quality; and Potential changes to aquatic vegetative community due to changes in water quality, water

levels, or physical and chemical conditions.

All of these impacts will be minimized through the retention of the 30 m setback from the highwater mark and retention of the majority of vegetation within this setback. This vegetative bufferwill help to absorb, filter, and slow overland stormwater flow and will improve the quality ofstormwater flowing into the river. Sediment and erosion control measures will also be utilizedduring construction in order to further mitigate impacts to aquatic habitats, adjacent areas, andsewer systems. As discussed in Section 6.3, well-established sediment and erosion controltechniques will be utilized to significantly reduce the potential impacts of sediment and erosion.

Potential nitrate impacts on the Madawaska River will be assessed as part of a concurrent studybeing prepared under separate cover. Additional mitigation measures, if necessary, will beidentified through the Nitrate Impact Assessment.

5.3 Potential Impacts to Shoreline Habitat

As noted previously, the 30 m setback from the high water mark will restrict shoreline developmentin order to protect shoreline habitats. The Official Plan of the Township encourages retention ofthe natural vegetation and soil mantle within the setback area, but does allow for building of boatlaunch facilities and boat docks (Township of McNab/Braeside 2009). As noted previously, themajority of vegetation will be retained within the setback. The Ontario Power Generation (OPG)owns the waterfront land up to the high water mark and hence any future placement of watersidestructures would be subject to agreement with OPG. Future dock or boat launch construction maybe achieved if land is leased from OPG by future land owners. Any future shoreline developmentwould be subject to OPG’s leasing rules, which will typically dictate that only temporary seasonaldocks will be allowed. These limitations on shoreline development are intended to minimizeimpacts on the shoreline from future waterfront lot development. Temporary seasonal docks arenot anticipated to have a significant impact on the shoreline habitat and the majority of vegetationand shoreline habitat will be preserved within the 30 m setback.

5.4 Potential Wildlife and Species at Risk Impacts

As noted previously, no wildlife SAR were noted on Site. Removal of the trees on Site may impactnon-SAR wildlife which utilize these trees, including the relatively common bird and mammalspecies listed in Section 3.3. In addition to the direct loss of woody vegetation, tree clearing willresult in the reduction in associated wildlife habitat. To avoid impacts to nesting birds, tree removalwill be undertaken to avoid the core migratory bird breeding season of April 15th to July 31st. Whileno wildlife SAR were found during the SAR surveys, nonetheless the potential exists that wildlifeor SAR from adjacent areas may enter the development Site and could be injured or killed duringthe construction stage. Mitigation measures to address this possibility are outlined in Section 6.4.


5.5 Potential Butternut Impacts

Butternut Trees which will be impacted by this undertaking are those which will be removed (killed)from developed areas of the property, and those which will be impacted (harmed) by thedevelopment. The regulations of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) state that activities that occurwithin 25 m of the root zone of a Butternut can be considered to have harmed the tree. As such,a 25 m buffer will be required around any trees in order for them to be considered unaffected bythe project. The total number of Butternut Trees to be removed or impacted will depend on thefinal Site Plan for each lot. At the current time the property owner intends to conduct tree clearingfor the road, wells, hydro, and services installations and tree removal from these areas will beundertaken by the land owner. Following this, the lots will be sold and independent land ownerswill create site plans for the lots and construct houses. Compensation for removal and/or impactsto Butternut Trees will depend on the details of the final site plan and the total number of treesimpacted and/or removed. At the time of report preparation, the total number of trees to beimpacted and/or removed could not be determined as the site plan was still being developed.Regulatory requirements and potential mitigation/compensation measures for removal arediscussed in more detail in Section 6.5.

5.6 Potential Impacts to Adjacent Natural Environment Areas and Linkages

The two provincially significant wetlands located in the region are located approximately 0.8 kmsouth and southeast of the property. Due to the distance of these wetlands from the Site, it isunlikely that they will be directly impacted by the development.

The property is bordered by Building Supply Road to the west, the Madawaska River and OPGland to the north, and undeveloped forested areas to the south and east. Adjacent forest areas tothe south and east may be impacted by the edge effects described above in Section 5.1. As notedpreviously, the OMNR described the forested area along the top of the slope along theMadawaska River as potentially significant wildlife habitat, due to the potential that this area isused as a travel corridor by deer between summer and winter habitat areas. While a portion ofthis habitat will be impacted by the proposed development, as previously noted a 30 m setbackfrom the high water mark will be retained parallel to the river. Within the setback the majority ofvegetation will be retained, and this will provide a potential movement corridor. In addition, asshown in Figure 1, an extensive area of forest exists to the south of the property, south to McLeodRoad, which will also provide a movement corridor. It therefore remains likely that deer will beable to traverse the property in an east-west direction following development, either by travellingthrough the 30 m setback along the Madawaska River or by going through forested areas to thesouth.


6.0 MITIGATION OF IMPACTS

6.1 Terrestrial Habitat and Vegetation Mitigation

Mitigation measures to reduce impacts to wildlife and to control sediment and erosion duringvegetation clearing are discussed below. In order to protect the new woodland edges that will becreated along the southern and eastern property lines, the following mitigation measures arerecommended:

Soil compaction, vegetation damage, intrusion of construction equipment and otherpotential impacts on the core of the root system of trees adjacent to the edge of theproperty can be avoided by restricting grading and other site alteration activities to theSite. Where necessary to mark the property line, this could be achieved by providingconstruction fencing (snow fencing and/or silt fencing) to clearly mark the boundariesbetween the edge of the property and adjacent properties (where required) both duringtree clearing and construction;

If clearing occurs close to adjacent properties and where considered necessary,woodchips could be placed on the development side of the construction fencing to helpprevent the compaction of soil surrounding fine feeding roots and further discourage entryinto adjacent areas;

If vegetation damage occurs to trees on adjacent properties, an arborist should review anydamage to determine the best course of action to restore the original vegetative functions;

Blasting may be required to meet specific servicing and building requirements due to theshallow bedrock present at the Site. In areas adjacent to the tree line where blasting isrequired, consideration should be given to pre-shearing the rock to create a crack betweenthe trees' critical root zone perimeter (approximately 10 times the diameter at breast height(dbh) of the trees) and the blasting work. This should be undertaken in areas whereprotection or retention of trees is considered desirable by the owner. In such areas theground around the trees adjacent to blast areas could be moistened to increase soiladhesion and assist in retaining root-soil contacts during blasting; and

If blasting occurs close to the river, this activity should not be undertaken during criticalfish spawning periods. However, blasting within 30 m of the river is not anticipated to benecessary due to the 30 m setback.

6.2 Aquatic Habitat and Shoreline Habitat Mitigation Measures

As noted previously, the primary mitigation measure to protect aquatic habitat will be thepreservation of the majority of vegetation within the 30 m setback from the high water mark of theriver. This setback will serve as a vegetative buffer around the Madawaska River and will help toabsorb, filter, and slow overland stormwater flow, thereby improving the quality of stormwaterflowing into the river. In addition, this setback will maintain shoreside habitats and will provide amovement corridor for wildlife.


As noted previously, limitations set by the Official Plan (Township of McNab/Braeside 2009) andOPG’s typical leasing practices will limit shoreline development. These limitations on shorelinedevelopment are intended to minimize impacts on the shoreline from future waterfront lotdevelopment. Temporary seasonal docks are not anticipated to have a significant impact on theshoreline habitat and the majority of shoreline habitat will be preserved by the 30 m setback.

6.3 Sediment and Erosion Control Measures

During construction, site preparation could lead to erosion and sedimentation to existing streamsand conveyance systems. Although construction is only a temporary situation, a sediment anderosion control plan will be prepared to identify mitigation measures to reduce unnecessaryconstruction sediment loadings. These measures will include:

Groundwater in trenches will be pumped into a sediment bag (e.g. enviro bag) prior torelease to the environment;

Seepage barriers will be constructed in any temporary drainage ditches; Construction vehicles will leave the site at designated locations. Exits will consist of a bed

of granular material, in order to minimize the tracking of mud off-site; and Any stockpiled material will be properly managed to prevent these materials from entering

aquatic environments. The stockpiles as well as equipment fuelling and maintenanceareas will be located a minimum of 30 meters from the river, ditches and other conveyanceroutes.

Location and details of proposed sediment and erosion control features will be developed prior toconstruction. A spills action plan will also be developed to prevent impacts from spills during theconstruction phase.

6.4 Wildlife and Species at Risk Mitigation

The following mitigation measures will be undertaken to mitigate impacts to wildlife and potentialimpacts to SAR:

To avoid impacts to nesting birds, tree removal will be undertaken to avoid the core migratorybird breeding season of April 15th to July 31st;

If bird nesting sites are discovered on-site, a qualified biologist will be retained to advise onhow to avoid impacts to the nest;

During lot clearing and housing construction, silt fencing will be arranged to also function astemporary wildlife fencing to reduce the likelihood of turtles, frogs, mammals, and other wildlifefrom entering the work area;

The fencing and work area will be inspected prior to commencement of work to ensure thatthe arrangement will reduce the likelihood of wildlife entering the work area;

During house construction, silt fencing will be put in place prior to the commencement of workon-site. The silt fencing should be in place prior to critical nesting seasons;


Prior to vegetation clearing, preconstruction sweeps of vegetated areas will be undertaken toensure wildlife are not present; and

Should a SAR be discovered on-site during construction, measures will be taken to preventharm to the animal and OMNR will be contacted immediately to discuss how to proceed.

6.5 Butternut Mitigation and Compensation Measures

The Butternut Health Assessment (BHA) (Appendix B) noted that six (6) retainable (Category 2)trees and five (5) archiveable (Category 3) trees are present on Site and nearby on adjacentproperties. As outlined by the revised rules and regulations of the ESA (updated July 2013), apermit for removal of Butternut trees is required in cases where greater than ten (10) Category 2trees are impacted by an undertaking. Because less than ten (10) Category 2 trees are presentin total, Category 2 trees for this Site can be removed or impacted through the registration processwithout obtaining a permit under the ESA. However, removal or impact to Category 3 treesrequires authorization through obtainment of an Overall Benefit Permit. The total number of treesimpacted/removed, mitigation, and compensation measures will be outlined through theregistration and/or permitting process. Whether the activity is achieved through registration of theproject (e.g. if no Category 3 trees are affected) or through obtainment of an Overall Benefit Permit(e.g. if Category 3 trees are impacted), will be determined based on the final site plan and theanticipated number of trees impacted. At the time of report preparation the final site plan was notcomplete, and hence the total number of Butternuts to be impacted and/or removed was notknown. Once either registration is complete or a permit is obtained (depending on which isneeded), compensation may be undertaken in the form of scion/seed collection, compensationplanting, or tending/monitoring of planted compensation trees. Wherever possible, retainedButternut Trees will be protected by a 25 m buffer around the tree. Due to the presence ofarchiveable (Category 3) trees on Site, it may be possible to achieve compensation through scioncollection/archiving of these trees. The Butternut Health Assessor has noted that the provincialrecovery program for Butternut would be especially interested in archiving Tree #3.

6.6 Mitigation of Impacts to Adjacent Natural Environment Areas and Linkages

As noted previously, the OMNR described the forested area along the top of the slope along theMadawaska River as potentially significant wildlife habitat, due to the potential that this area isused as a travel corridor by deer between summer and winter habitat areas. While a portion ofthis habitat will be impacted by the proposed development, as previously noted a 30 m setbackfrom the high water mark will be retained parallel to the river. The majority of the vegetation withinthis area will be preserved and this will provide a potential movement corridor. In addition, asshown in Figure 1, an extensive area of forest exists to the south of the property, south to McLeodRoad, which will also provide a movement corridor. It therefore remains likely that deer will beable to traverse the property in an east-west direction following development, either by travellingthrough the 30 m setback along the Madawaska River or by going through forested areas to thesouth.


7.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The following represent potential cumulative effects associated with the development of theBurnstown Bridge Property:

Cumulative effect of loss of forest habitat (e.g. cumulative loss of wildlife habitat) in theregion;

Cumulative effect of stormwater inflow to the Madawaska River; Cumulative effect of increased human population in the area; and, Cumulative effect of development on wildlife.

Development on this property will contribute to the overall loss of habitats in the region. Potentialcumulative effects associated with stormwater inflow from the Burnstown Bridge Property andsurrounding properties include potential cumulative impacts of reduced water quality, increasedsediment inflow, inflow of contaminants, and associated changes to the aquatic vegetativecommunity. These impacts will be assessed in greater detail by the Nitrate Impact Assessmentand Geotechnical Investigations which were being prepared under separate cover at the time ofreport writing. Mitigation measures have been identified to address each of these cumulativeimpacts.


8.0 MONITORING PLAN OUTLINE

The contractor or developer will be responsible for implementing and monitoring the mitigationmeasures outlined previously. Regular inspection and maintenance of the erosion controlmeasures and other mitigation measures by agents of the proponent during construction willinclude:

The contractor will inspect and maintain the filters and sediment and erosion controlmeasures used for trench dewatering, the geotextile fabric on catch basins and manholes,the bulkhead barriers and the seepage barriers. The maintenance will include sedimentremoval and disposal, and material replacement as required;

Construction vehicles and chemicals, fuels and other potentially hazardous materialsremain in designated controlled areas;

Inspections should be undertaken during periods of in-water work, vegetation clearing,etc. as noted above; and,

All construction and sediment fencing outlined in the sediment and erosion control planwill be regularly inspected to ensure the proper function of the fencing. Any accumulatedsediment will be removed and the sediment fencing will be keyed in properly to ensure nosurface flow and associated potential sediment contamination under the fencing. Anybreaks in the construction fencing will be fixed immediately to ensure no direct damage tothe vegetation in surrounding properties. The contractor will be held responsible for alldamage to vegetation outside of the work areas.

After construction, it will be ensured that all sediment and construction fencing is removed andsodding, seeding and tree planting is conducted correctly and as soon as weather permits. Thesuccess of all vegetative plantings will be assessed through visual inspections as detailed in thelandscaping warranty. Any plantings that are dead or dying will be replaced.

As noted in Section 6.5, compensation measures for impact/removal of Butternut Trees will likelyrequire ongoing monitoring. Monitoring requirements for these compensation measures will beoutlined during either the registration process or by the overall net benefit permit (depending onwhich authorization is ultimately needed). The details of post-construction monitoring for Butternutwill be outlined during the authorization process for tree removal.


9.0 CONCLUSIONS

DST Consulting Engineers Inc. (DST) was retained by KDSA Development Corporation (KDSA),to conduct a Detailed EIS and selected SAR surveys for the Burnstown Bridge Property (Figure1). The EIS was completed to support the due diligence and plan of subdivision application forthe development of approximately 17.4 hectares (43 acres) of land in McNab/Braeside, Ontario.The subdivision plan will consists of approximately 20 to 40 units on 17.4 hectares of land, andwill be serviced with wells/septic systems. The property is adjacent to the Madawaska River, eastof Building Supply Road and southeast of the Burnstown Bridge, parallel to the south side of theriver for approximately 1400 m of shoreline (Figure 1). As specified in the Township ofMcNab/Braeside Official Plan a 30 m setback from the high water mark of the Madawaska Riverwill be maintained for any waterfront lots (Township of McNab/Braeside 2009). This setback willbe subject to the restrictions on shoreline development outlined in the Official Plan, whichencourages the retention of the natural vegetation and soil mantle within the setback area, butdoes allow for building of boat launch facilities and boat docks (Township of McNab/Braeside2009). It is anticipated that the majority of the vegetation will be retained within this setback area.The OPG owns the waterfront land up to the high water mark and hence any future placement ofwaterside structures would be subject to agreement with OPG. Future dock or boat launchconstruction may be achieved if land is leased from OPG by future land owners. Any futureshoreline development would be subject to OPG’s leasing rules, which will typically dictate thatonly temporary seasonal docks will be allowed. These limitations on shoreline development areintended to minimize impacts on the shoreline from future waterfront lot development and it is notanticipated that high impact or permanent shoreline development will occur.

DST conducted formal agency consultation to support this EIS and reviewed the informationprovided by the OMNR, the NHIC and the County of Renfrew. Consultation with OMNR indicatedthe potential for several SAR birds and/or their habitats to be present on Site including Whip PoorWill, Cerulean Warbler, Common Nighthawk and Bald Eagle, as well as SAR plants includingAmerican Ginseng and Butternut, and one SAR reptile - Northern Map Turtle. To support theDetailed EIS requirements, DST conducted SAR field surveys to document and assess thepotential presence of these SAR and the presence of other wildlife. All SAR surveys wereconducted according to OMNR survey protocols for these species. During these surveys ButternutTrees were identified on the property and nearby on adjacent properties. Most of the trees wereeither dead or infected with the Butternut Canker. A follow-up Butternut Health Assessment (BHA)was completed by a Certified Butternut Health Assessor (Appendix B) and found that six (6)retainable trees (Category 2) and five (5) archiveable trees (Category 3) were present on theproperty or nearby on adjacent properties. At the time of report preparation, the landownerintended to clear trees to allow for the construction of an access road, wells, and other siteservices including hydro. These activities will be performed in late fall 2014/early spring 2015.Following this, the lots will be sold to individual landowners and construction and final design ofeach lot will be carried out by those independent land owners. At the time of report preparationthe number of trees to be impacted and/or removed could not be finalized, as the site plan wasstill under development. Once the site plan is finalized, Butternut Tree removal will be undertaken


in compliance with the rules and regulations of the ESA, with compensation requirements to bedetermined based on the number of trees that are ultimately impacted and/or removed. Asspecified by the revised rules and regulations of the ESA (revised July 2013), up to ten (10)retainable trees (Category 2) may be removed from a single site without obtaining a permit, aslong as the activity is registered and appropriate mitigation and compensation is undertaken incompliance with the rules and regulations of the ESA. Because there are less than ten (10)retainable (Category 2) trees in total, removal or impact to Category 2 trees can be undertakenfollowing registration of the activity without obtaining a permit under the ESA. However, an OverallNet Benefit permit will be required if any of the archiveable (Category 3) trees are to be removedor impacted. The final registration and/or permitting requirements, as well as any compensationmeasures, will be determined once the final site plan is ready and prior to tree removal. No otherSAR species were identified on-site during the SAR field surveys.

At the time of report preparation, details regarding the stormwater management plan were stillunder development and a Nitrate Impact Assessment was also underway to assess potentialimpacts to the water quality of the Madawaska River. Recommended mitigation measures includethe retention of the majority of vegetation within the 30 m shoreline setback from the south bankof the Madawaska River and implementation of sediment and erosion controls during siteconstruction activities. Potential erosion issues posed by the steep slope of the Site, shallowbedrock, and bedrock outcrops will be addressed by concurrent slope assessment andgeotechnical studies, which are being prepared under separate cover.

The proposed development will also result in the isolation of the 1400 m stretch of shoreline fromforested areas to the south, and will limit wildlife shoreline access from surrounding natural areas.Depending on the final lot alignment and density, isolation of shoreline areas may be mitigatedby tree retention within the lots. In addition, a new woodland edge will be created at the south andeast property lines with associated potential for edge effects including soil compaction, sunscalding, wind throw, root system compaction, and increased noise and light pollution. Proposedmitigation measures to address these concerns include sediment and erosion controls, protectionof trees located on adjacent properties, retention of trees within the lots where feasible (subjectto final site plan), timing restrictions and mitigation to protect potential migratory birds’ nests andother wildlife, etc. Provided that mitigation measures are applied appropriately, it is not anticipatedthat the development will have a significant adverse environmental impact.


10.0 CLOSURE

We trust that the above meets your present requirements; should you have any questions orconcerns regarding this report, please feel free to contact the undersigned at your convenience.

Sincerely,

For DST CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC.

Andrew McKinley, PhD, MA.Sc., BA (Hons.), EP Terry Honsberger, M.Sc., B.Sc.(Hons.)Senior Biologist Senior Biologist / Junior Associate


11.0 REFERENCES

Township of McNab/Braeside (2009) Township of McNab/Braeside Official Plan.

Konze, K. and McLaren, M. (1998) Wildlife Monitoring Programs and Inventory Techniques forOntario. NEST Technical Manual TM-009.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (2010) Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Policy 2.3of the Provincial Policy Statement.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (2012) Draft Survey Protocol for Eastern Whip-poor-will(Caprimulgus vociferus) in Ontario.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) (2012) Blanding’s Turtle Survey Protocol.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (2014) Natural Heritage Information Center website:http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Species/2ColumnSubPage/MNR_SAR_BUTTERNUT_EN.html (Accessed May 12, 2014)

Ontario Nature (2013) Northern Map Turtle. <http://www.ontarionature.org/protect/species/reptiles_and_amphibians/northern_map_turtle.php> (Accessed June 17, 2013).

Saskatchewan Conservation Data Center (SCDC) (2012) Standardized Methodology forSurveys of Rare Plants.

Burnstown Bridge Property Environmental Impact Assessment and Species at Risk SurveysDST File No. OE-OT-017965August 2014

APPENDIX A

Records of Correspondence

Ministry of Ministère des Natural Resources Richesses naturelles 31 Riverside Drive Pembroke, ON Telephone: (613) 732-3661 K8A 8R6 Facsimile: (613) 732-2972 November 18, 2013 Ms. Susan Anglin Email Correspondence Only Subject: MNR File No. 355 MCN IR Information Request 0000 Building Supply Road, Lot 17, Concession II

McNab Township, S. Anglin Inquiry Ms. Anglin, We have received your natural heritage values information request for the above noted location. Please note that our comments in response to this request for information are not meant to be exhaustive. MNR assumes no responsibility for errors and omissions, nor do we assume responsibility for any conclusion drawn or actions taken by individuals using this information. We offer the following information and comments: Significant Wetlands There do not appear to be wetlands on the subject property nor in the adjacent lands which would meet criteria for significance, however, any wetland areas confirmed through site assessment should receive protection and appropriate setbacks in keeping with the local official plan. Significant Woodlands This property has not modeled for significant woodlands?? (double check) Based on DRAPE imagery interpretation, area appears heavily logged. Significant Valleylands The identification of significant valleylands is typically in the municipality’s official plan. We have no additional information to provide at this time with respect to valleylands. Significant Wildlife Habitat There is high potential that the forested area along and parallel to the top of slope along the Madawaska River is significant wildlife habitat. The bank and conifer dominated forest along the top of slope is most likely used as a travel corridor for deer, providing linkages between summer and winter cover, and would be important to maintain. Interpretation of DRAPE imagery suggests this corridor links stratum l and II deer wintering habitats in the vicinity of the subject lands. Fish Habitat There are bass spawning areas in the vicinity, but no confirmed critical spawning areas immediately adjacent to the subject lands. The photography indicates several impressions on the property, which suggest small creeks may be present and may provide some seasonal habitat (spawning or nursery) for fish. Maintaining conifer cover and a well vegetated riparian setback and buffer from top of slope will act to reduce short and long term erosion which could affect water quality and fish habitat.

1

Threatened & Endangered Species, Habitats There are no known species at risk (SAR) occurrences on this subject property, however, Northern Map Turtle (Special Concern) has been observed in the river nearby. The shoreline of the river appears to provide habitat for Northern Map Turtle and may provide habitat for other turtles including SAR. Based on image interpretation and historical occurrences in the area, there is high probability of two endangered plant species to occur in the forested portions of the subject property. There is also the potential for the following SAR birds to occur within the subject property including, Whip-poor-will (Threatened), Cerulean Warbler (Threatened), Common Nighthawk (Special Concern) and Bald Eagle (Special Concern). Threatened and Endangered species are protected under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA). Activities (e.g. vegetation clearing, construction etc) that damage or destroy the habitat and/or kill, harm or harass Endangered or Threatened species may require an authorization under the ESA. It is the responsibility of the proponent to identify endangered and threatened species and their habitat within the study area prior to undertaking work, and to ensure that the work/activity will not result in negative impacts. Please be aware that the Species at Risk List on Ontario is updated on a regular basis, often with new species being added or the status of currently listed species being changed. It is critical to ensure that the most up to date list and information is being used, particularly if development is not to occur in the immediate future. Details about the Endangered Species Act, 2007 and species at risk may be viewed online at: www.ontario.ca/speciesatrisk or you may contact the Species at Risk Biologist at [email protected] or 613-732-5568. A list of species at risk known to occur in Renfrew County is enclosed. Information gaps pertaining to natural heritage features exist on private land. It is the responsibility of the proponent and approval authority to ensure that requirements of various legislation are addressed. Properly scoped site assessment would be recommended to confirm occurrences and habitat and inform planning. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (613) 732-5522. Yours truly,

Joanna Gaweda Pembroke District /jg Encl.

2

http://www.ontario.ca/speciesatrisk

mailto:[email protected]

Burnstown Bridge Property Environmental Impact Assessment and Species at Risk SurveysDST File No. OE-OT-017965August 2014

APPENDIX B

Butternut Health Assessment

Web-links:

Endangered Species Act, 2007http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_07e06_e.htm

Ontario Regulation 242/08 (refer to section 23.7)http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_080242_e.htm

Summary of changes related to Butternuthttp://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/butternut-trees-your-property

MNR office locationshttp://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/ContactUs/2ColumnSubPage/STEL02_179002.html

Rose Fleguel, BHA #002405 Latourell Rd.Mountain, ONK0E 1S0613 858 3678

Andrew McKinley203-2150 Thurston Dr.Ottawa, ONK1G 5T9613 748 1415 x252

June 18, 2014

RE: Burnstown Bridge Property

Dear Andrew,

This letter is in regard to my assessment of the Butternut trees on the above noted property.Please read this letter carefully as it contains important information about the EndangeredSpecies Act, 2007 (ESA).

Butternut is listed as an endangered species on the Species at Risk in Ontario List, and as such,it is protected under the ESA from being killed, harmed, or removed. If you are planning toundertake an activity that may affect Butternut, you may be eligible to follow the requirements setout in section 23.7 of Ontario Regulation 242/08 under the ESA, or you may need to seek anauthorization under the ESA (e.g., a permit).

Please visit e-laws at the link provided below for the full legal requirements about activities eligibleunder section 23.7 of Ontario Regulation 242/08 and conditions that must be fulfilled.Information about Butternut is also available at http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/butternut-trees-your-property. If you are not eligible to follow this regulation, pleasecontact the local Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) to determine whether you will need to seeka permit. A link to the directory of MNR offices isalso provided below.

If you are eligible to follow the rules in regulation,your first step is to submit this BHA Report andthe original data forms which are enclosed in thispackage (photocopies won’t scan properly) to thelocal MNR District Manager. The BHA Reportmust be submitted at least 30 days prior toregistering to kill, harm, or remove a Butternuttree. During this 30 day period, no Butternuttrees (of any category) may be killed, harmed, orremoved. During this time period, MNR maycontact you for an opportunity to examine thetrees that were assessed.

If MNR elects to audit the health assessment, arepresentative of the MNR will contact you using

Page 2 of 6

the information you supplied when you submitted the BHA Report. Following any audit, MNR willadvise if there are any problems with the BHA that impact your eligibility for the regulation.

If you are eligible to follow section 23.7 of Ontario Regulation 242/08 and MNR does not contactyou regarding an audit during the 30 day period, you may register your activity using the “Noticeof Butternut Impact” form on the MNR Registry (link provided) and then proceed with your activity.

The designated Butternut Health Assessor has provided the following assessment of theButternut trees located and assessed at the above noted property during the site visit on June 16and 18, 2014. Please be advised that Butternut trees other than those identified in this BHAReport must also be assessed by a BHA if a proposed activity may cause them to be killed,harmed or removed.

Please retain this letter and the following BHA Report for your records along with any otherdocumentation you may receive from the MNR should an audit of the assessment occur.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or the Management Biologist(formerly the Species at Risk biologist) Jane Devlin at [email protected] in the KemptvilleMNR district office.

Sincerely,

Rose Fleguel

Enclosures:

1. BHA Report2. Copied data forms3. Electronic copy of the Excel data analysis spreadsheet

Explanation of Butternut Categories

Category 1: Butternut assessed as Category 1 (also referred to as “non-retainable”) are affected by butternutcanker to such an advanced degree that retaining the tree would not support the protection or recovery of butternuttrees in the area in which the tree is located.

Category 2: Butternut assessed as Category 2 (also referred to as “retainable”) are not affected by butternut cankerof the degree to which it is affected by butternut is not too advanced and retaining the tree could support theprotection and recovery of butternut trees in the area the tree is located.

Category 3: Butternut assessed as Category 3 (also referred to as “archivable” or “putatively resistant”) are treesthat may be useful in determining resistance to butternut canker. Please note, that these trees are not eligibleunder section 23.7 of Ontario Regulation 242/08.

Hybrids: Trees assessed as hybrid Butternut trees are not protected under the ESA.

Note: Municipal by-laws and other legislation may be applicable.

Page 3 of 6

Butternut Health Assessment Report

Rose Fleguel, BHA #002405 Latourell Rd.Mountain, ONK0E 1S0

Andrew McKinley203-2150 Thurston Dr.Ottawa, ONK1G 5T9

Property description: Burnstown Bridge Property (map attached)

Date of assessment: June 16 and 18, 2014

Total number of trees assessed: 34

The assessed trees were numbered on site using white paint or white flagging on the smallerButternut. The numbers on the trees at the site correspond to the tree numbers used in thisreport.Note: Trees #7, 8, 11, 14, 15, 17 and 19 (indicated in red below) are in the 25 metre bufferzone along the SE property boundary. These trees are included in the assessmentbecause they may be harmed by the proposed development. They were not numbered inthe field.

The following tree(s) have been assessed as Category 1:

Category Tree Number UTM Coordinates

1 1 E0376800 N5026840

1 2 E0376787 N5026853

1 5 E0376814 N5026854

1 6 E0376836 N5026887

1 9 E0377037 N5027042

1 10 E0377038 N5027042

1 11 E0377042 N5027038

1 12 E0377048 N5027055

1 14 E0377131 N5027116

1 16 E0377136 N5027117

Page 4 of 6

1 18 E0377233 N5027223

1 19 E0377325 N5027259

1 20 E0377358 N5027298

1 21 E0377566 N5027634

1 22 E0377534 N5027645

1 23 E0377873 N5027034

1 24 E0376872 N5027002

1 26 E0376862 N5027016

1 28 E0377100 N5027205

1 29 E0377214 N5027204

1 30 E0376787 N5026867

1 31 E0376988 N5027000

1 34 E0376891 N5027168

Total number of Category 1 trees: 23

Category 1 trees do not meet the retention criteria in the Butternut Assessment Guidelines basedon crown vigour and the degree of cankers on the root flare and/or stem. These trees can bekilled, harmed or removed after the 30 day period that follows submission of this BHA Report tothe MNR District Manager without any additional requirements under the ESA. but their removalmay be subject to municipal by-laws and other legislation.

Please note: The Ontario Recovery Team encourages that all Butternut trees be conserved,whether they meet the retention criteria or not. Removal of cankered trees is not an objective ofthe Recovery Strategy for Butternut.



2 7 E0376888 N5026890

2 8 E0376977 N5026983

2 13 E0377104 N5027102

2 27 E0376833 N5026995

2 32 E0377409 N5027359

Page 5 of 6

2 33 E0377572 N5027616


Category 2 trees satisfy the retention criteria in the Butternut Assessment Guidelines. Activitiesthat may affect up to ten (10) Category 2 trees may be eligible under section 23.7 of OntarioRegulation 242/08 in accordance with the conditions set out in the Regulation.



3 3 E376775 N5026847

3 4 E0376810 N5026855

3 15 E0377138 N5027105

3 17 E0377229 N5027193

3 25 E0376892 N5027002


Category 3 trees are not eligible to be killed, harmed or removed under section 23.7 OntarioRegulation 242/08. MNR should be contacted for an application for an authorization issued underthe ESA.

The following tree(s) have been assessed as hybrid trees:

Tree Number UTM Coordinates

Hybrid

Total number of hybrid trees: 0

Hybrid Butternut trees are not protected under the ESA, but their removal may be subject tomunicipal by-laws and other legislation.

The following tree(s) have been assessed as cultivated Butternut trees:

Tree Number UTM Coordinates Was the tree plantedto satisfy

requirements of anESA permit or

exemption under O.

Page 6 of 6

Reg. 242/08? (Y/N)

Cultivated

Total number of cultivated Butternut that were planted to satisfy a requirement:

Total number of cultivated Butternut that were not planted to satisfy a requirement:

Cultivated Butternut trees are not protected under the ESA unless they were planted to satisfy therequirement of a permit issued under section 17 of the ESA or an exemption under OntarioRegulation 242/08. However, their removal may be subject to municipal by-laws and otherlegislation.

_____________________________________________________________________________

NOTE: This concludes the summary of the BHA Report. A complete BHA Report must includethe data forms (Form 1 and Form 2), an electronic copy of the Excel data analysis spreadsheet,plus one printed copy of the BHA Report.

'3' cases

S<2m

S>2m

O<2m

O>2m

RFS

RFO

y orn

Circ(cm)

BC(cm)

RC(cm) BC% RC% BRC%

1 10 49 153.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 1 1 1 12 20 45 141.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 1 1 1 13 95 26 0 0 0 0 0 2 y 81.64 0.0 10.0 0.0 12.2 6.1 2 2 2 2 34 90 38 3 0 0 1 3 4 y 119.3 12.5 27.5 10.5 23.0 16.8 1 2 2 2 35 0 28 87.92 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 1 1 1 16 0 54 169.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 1 1 1 17 80 83 2 0 0 0 21 5 n 260.6 5.0 77.5 1.9 29.7 15.8 1 2 2 2 28 80 54 4 5 0 0 10 4 n 169.6 22.5 45.0 13.3 26.5 19.9 1 2 2 2 29 0 23 72.22 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 1 1 1 1

10 0 28 87.92 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 1 1 1 111 40 35 109.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 1 1 1 112 0 17 53.38 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 1 1 1 113 90 34 1 0 2 0 6 5 n 106.8 12.5 40.0 11.7 37.5 24.6 1 1 2 2 214 0 29 91.06 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 1 1 1 115 95 25 0 0 0 0 2 0 y 78.5 0.0 5.0 0.0 6.4 3.2 2 2 2 2 316 0 32 100.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 1 1 1 117 70 46 0 0 0 0 11 3 y 144.4 0.0 42.5 0.0 29.4 14.7 2 1 1 2 318 0 35 109.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 1 1 1 119 20 38 119.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 1 1 1 120 0 31 97.34 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 1 1 1 121 70 70 2 0 0 0 0 0 y 219.8 5.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 1.1 1 1 1 1 122 0 30 94.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 1 1 1 123 40 48 150.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 1 1 1 124 40 65 204.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 1 1 1 125 90 67 1 0 0 0 4 1 y 210.4 2.5 15.0 1.2 7.1 4.2 1 2 2 2 326 30 47 147.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 1 1 1 127 100 1 0 0 0 0 y 3.14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 2 2 2 228 0 65 204.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 1 1 1 129 80 33 1 0 4 2 0 3 103.6 32.5 15.0 31.4 14.5 22.9 1 1 1 1 130 60 30 3 0 4 2 0 0 94.2 37.5 0.0 39.8 0.0 19.9 1 1 1 1 131 40 47 147.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 1 1 1 1

2013 ESA 2007 Butternut retainable tree analysisusing data collected by a designated BHA (ESA 2007)

Contact the OMNR Provincial SAR Branch for a more detailed explanation of its derivation (June 2009/Dec 2013).

LC%>70&

BRC%<2

0

LC%>70&

BC%<20 Fi

nal '

2' T

ree

Cal

l

AssessmentDate(s) 16 and 18 June, 2014 Total # trees 34

DST Consulting Engineers Inc.Burnstown Bridge Property

bolecanker% ofcirc.

RFcanker% ofcirc.

totalbole &root

canker%of

2xCirc

Circ.(cm) =

Pi xdbh FINAL

TREECALL

a '2',dbh>20cm<40m from

a "1"

'2' casessooty (S)(will be

assigned2.5 cm per

canker)

open (O)(will be

assigned 5cm percanker)

< 40

m fr

om c

anke

red

tree

totalbole

cankerwidth

(sooty x2.5 +

open x 5)

total RFcankerwidth

(sooty x2.5 +

open x 5)

Categories:1=non retainable (NR),

2=retainable (R),3= Archivable (A)

LC%>/=50

andBC%= 0

input field data automatic calculations from field data

# rootflare (RF)cankers

BHA # 2

# bole cankers

Tree #

Landowner nameProperty Location

Live

Cro

wn

%

treedbh orregenbasaldiam(rndup to

1)(cm)

32 90 43 0 0 1 0 1 1 n 135 5.0 7.5 3.7 5.6 4.6 1 2 2 2 233 90 61 1 0 0 0 0 0 n 191.5 2.5 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.7 1 2 2 2 234 5 21 65.94 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 1 1 1 135 0 0.0 0.0 ##### ##### ##### #### ### ### ## #DIV/0!36 0 0.0 0.0 ##### ##### ##### #### ### ### ## #DIV/0!37 0 0.0 0.0 ##### ##### ##### #### ### ### ## #DIV/0!38 0 0.0 0.0 ##### ##### ##### #### ### ### ## #DIV/0!39 0 0.0 0.0 ##### ##### ##### #### ### ### ## #DIV/0!40 0 0.0 0.0 ##### ##### ##### #### ### ### ## #DIV/0!41 0 0.0 0.0 ##### ##### ##### #### ### ### ## #DIV/0!42 0 0.0 0.0 ##### ##### ##### #### ### ### ## #DIV/0!43 0 0.0 0.0 ##### ##### ##### #### ### ### ## #DIV/0!44 0 0.0 0.0 ##### ##### ##### #### ### ### ## #DIV/0!45 0 0.0 0.0 ##### ##### ##### #### ### ### ## #DIV/0!46 0 0.0 0.0 ##### ##### ##### #### ### ### ## #DIV/0!47 0 0.0 0.0 ##### ##### ##### #### ### ### ## #DIV/0!48 0 0.0 0.0 ##### ##### ##### #### ### ### ## #DIV/0!49 0 0.0 0.0 ##### ##### ##### #### ### ### ## #DIV/0!50 0 0.0 0.0 ##### ##### ##### #### ### ### ## #DIV/0!51 0 0.0 0.0 ##### ##### ##### #### ### ### ## #DIV/0!52 0 0.0 0.0 ##### ##### ##### #### ### ### ## #DIV/0!53 0 0.0 0.0 ##### ##### ##### #### ### ### ## #DIV/0!54 0 0.0 0.0 ##### ##### ##### #### ### ### ## #DIV/0!55 0 0.0 0.0 ##### ##### ##### #### ### ### ## #DIV/0!56 0 0.0 0.0 ##### ##### ##### #### ### ### ## #DIV/0!57 0 0.0 0.0 ##### ##### ##### #### ### ### ## #DIV/0!58 0 0.0 0.0 ##### ##### ##### #### ### ### ## #DIV/0!59 0 0.0 0.0 ##### ##### ##### #### ### ### ## #DIV/0!60 0 0.0 0.0 ##### ##### ##### #### ### ### ## #DIV/0!61 0 0.0 0.0 ##### ##### ##### #### ### ### ## #DIV/0!62 0 0.0 0.0 ##### ##### ##### #### ### ### ## #DIV/0!63 0 0.0 0.0 ##### ##### ##### #### ### ### ## #DIV/0!64 0 0.0 0.0 ##### ##### ##### #### ### ### ## #DIV/0!65 0 0.0 0.0 ##### ##### ##### #### ### ### ## #DIV/0!66 0 0.0 0.0 ##### ##### ##### #### ### ### ## #DIV/0!67 0 0.0 0.0 ##### ##### ##### #### ### ### ## #DIV/0!68 0 0.0 0.0 ##### ##### ##### #### ### ### ## #DIV/0!69 0 0.0 0.0 ##### ##### ##### #### ### ### ## #DIV/0!70 0 0.0 0.0 ##### ##### ##### #### ### ### ## #DIV/0!71 0 0.0 0.0 ##### ##### ##### #### ### ### ## #DIV/0!72 0 0.0 0.0 ##### ##### ##### #### ### ### ## #DIV/0!73 0 0.0 0.0 ##### ##### ##### #### ### ### ## #DIV/0!74 0 0.0 0.0 ##### ##### ##### #### ### ### ## #DIV/0!75 0 0.0 0.0 ##### ##### ##### #### ### ### ## #DIV/0!76 0 0.0 0.0 ##### ##### ##### #### ### ### ## #DIV/0!77 0 0.0 0.0 ##### ##### ##### #### ### ### ## #DIV/0!78 0 0.0 0.0 ##### ##### ##### #### ### ### ## #DIV/0!79 0 0.0 0.0 ##### ##### ##### #### ### ### ## #DIV/0!80 0 0.0 0.0 ##### ##### ##### #### ### ### ## #DIV/0!

Documents

DETAILED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (E IS) AND … · to conduct a Detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and selected Species at Risk (SAR) surveys for the Burnstown Bridge