re: environmental impact statement - city of cambridge€¦ · expansion on a legal parcel located...

Robert Perkins August 2 2017275 Ainslie St SCambridge, ON N1R 3L3

Dear Robert:

Re: Environmental Impact Statement - 275 Ainslie St. S., Cambridge, Ontario

Introduction

BioLogic was retained to conduct an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a proposed parking lotexpansion on a legal parcel located at 275 Ainslie St. S., in the City of Cambridge, Regional Municipalityof Waterloo, Ontario. For the purposes of this report, the legal parcel will be referred to as the subjectlands [Figure 1].

This report is an Environment Impact Statement (EIS) which reviews the Terms of Reference establishedthrough correspondence between Pete Williams (Williams & Associates Forestry Consulting Ltd.) AndKathy Padgett (City of Cambridge, Senior Planners - Environment) (pers. comm. Pete Williams,February 2017) [Appendix A]. This report reviews the proposed development in the context of naturalheritage to assess impacts and provide mitigation to protect the relevant natural heritage system featuresand functions. A summary of natural heritage concerns and studies that have been conducted to evaluatepotential direct and indirect (adjacent) impacts of site development are provided.

When applicable, this EIS is also designed to provide a support document to subsequent permitapplications which may be submitted to the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) under theirregulatory framework.

Legal Parcel

General BackgroundThe subject lands are bound by Ainslie St. S. to the west, Elliot St. to the north and Albert St. to the eastwhile Birch St. lies further south [Figure 1]. The property is surrounded by residential development in alldirections mixed with some commercial and institutional properties.

Soils throughout the subject lands consist of Dumfries Loam which is characterized by medium-texturedsoils formed on stony till deposits with good drainage. Within the Dumfries Loam soil association,dominant topography is steeply sloping which is consistent with site specific investigations (Presant &Wicklund, 1971).

Land Use DesignationsThe subject lands are designated Built Up Area by the Region (Region of Waterloo Official Plan, Map3a, 2015) and designated Low/Medium Density Residential [Figure 2] by the City (City of CambridgeOfficial Plan, Map 2, 2013).

There are no Environmental Features identified by the Region ((Region of Waterloo Official Plan, Map4, 2015 or City (City of Cambridge Official Plan, Map 9, 2013) within or adjacent to the subject lands

...page 2

[Figure 3].

The subject lands are currently zoned Residential (R4) by the City of Cambridge Zoning By-law.However, City of Cambridge Interactive Mapping identifies the west portion of the subject landsCommercial (C2) and the east portion Open Space (OS1) [Figure 4]. The latter mapping is consistentwith existing land use and assumed to be most up to date.

There are no Grand River Conservation Authority Regulated Areas within the subject lands [Figure 5].

Natural Heritage Features and Functions

Provincially Significant AreasThere are no provincially significant areas (PSW’s or ANSI’s) identified within or adjacent to the subjectlands (LIO, 2017).

Vegetation CommunitiesAn evaluation of vegetation within the subject lands [Appendix B] was conducted on April 13 2017 andupdated with visits on May 26 and June 20, 2017 by Will Huys, certified by MNRF to conduct ELC. Thecommunities are summarized below.

The west portion of the subject lands fronting Ainslie St. S. consists of an active parking lot and twomedical office buildings [Figure 6]. At the east side of the parking lot is a concrete block-type retainingwall which varies from 0.5m-2m high from north to south. Between the top of the retaining wall and edgeof the woodland on the east portion is a maintained grass strip approximately 2m wide.

Community 1 is a remnant, mature Dry-Fresh Sugar Maple Deciduous Forest Type (FOD5-1) on a valleyslope [Figure 6]. The community is a narrow strip about 30m wide that runs north to south across severalsites adjacent to the subject lands. Mature trees, mostly sugar maple >50cm dbh, and up to 20m tall,constitute the canopy. Many of these mature trees have apparent cavities at old branch sites but nowildlife was observed using these cavities during site visits.

The understory and ground layer are thick with non-native, invasive shrubs and herbaceous perennials.Buckthorn, Privet and Tartarian Honeysuckle are the most common shrubs. Garlic Mustard, Dame’sRocket, Lily-of-the-Valley and Vinca are common ground layer plants. There is a very active groundhogin the community. There are many burrow holes and worn paths. Broken glass and old tin garbage arelittered throughout the community.

Wildlife HabitatCandidate significant wildlife habitat is identified by evaluating vegetation communities using the habitatcriteria outlined in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (MNRF, 2000) and the supportingCriteria Schedules (MNRF, 2015). Based on the presence of an FOD 5-1 Dry-Fresh Sugar MapleDeciduous Forest on site there is candidate SWH for the following [Appendix C]:

• Reptile Hibernaculum - Community 1• Special Concern and Rare Wildlife Species - Community 1

- target species are Tawny Emperor (S2S3), Long-styled Canada Sanicle (S2),Northern Pin Oak (S3), Pignut Hickory (S3), Moss Phlox (S1?), Puttyroot (S2),Slim-flowered Muhly (S2), Stiff Gentian (S2), James’ Sedge (S4), Pawpaw (S3),Wild Licorice (S3), Woodland Flax (S2) and Northern Hawthorn (S3)

Candidate significant wildlife habitat must meet wildlife use thresholds (i.e., target species, populationnumbers, etc.) to be considered confirmed significant wildlife habitat. Significant Wildlife Habitat isdiscussed further in policy review, following a summary of the life science work.

...page 3

AquaticThere are no watercourses within or immediately adjacent to the subject lands. The Grand River islocated approximately 200m west of the subject lands, with two roadways and mixedresidential/commercial development between.

There are two provincial aquatic species at risk identified (Silver Shiner, Greater Redhorse) by NHICwithin the 1km squares for the subject lands [Appendix D] (NHIC, 2015). DFO SAR mapping does notidentify either of these species or critical habitat within or adjacent to the subject lands. DFO identifiedthe potential for one Special Concern species (Wavy-rayed Lampmussel) in the Grand River,approximately 200m west of the subject lands (DFO, 2015).

There are no watercourses and subsequently no fish habitat within or adjacent to the subject lands. Fishhabitat in the Grand River is approximately 200m west with roadways and development in between andno further consideration of aquatic habitat is needed.

A Stage 1: Information Request (MNRF, 2015) was submitted to MNRF seeking ESA approval and/or toupdate any aquatic SAR requiring further consideration. At the writing of this report, a response has notbeen received.

FloraThere is potential for twenty four floral species of provincial interest to be found within the 1km squaresfor the subject lands [Appendix D]. Of these, one (False Hop Sedge) is protected under the EndangeredSpecies Act.

No suitable habitat exists (no oak forest, no fens, meadow or prairies, no marshes, swamps or wet forests,no sandy, mucky or boggy shores, no dunes with conifers, no riverbanks or floodplain forests, no prairiesor oak savannahs) for Downy Yellow False Foxglove, Edible Valerian, False Hop Sedge, Smith’sBulrush, Ram’s-head Lady’s-slipper, Eastern Burning Bush, June Grass, Sharp-fruited Rush, Harbinger-of-spring, Soft-hairy False Gromwell or Scarlet Beebalm within the subject lands. (University ofMichigan Flora Online, 2005).

Suitable habitat exists for Long-styled Canada Sanicle (S2), Northern Pin Oak (S3), Pignut Hickory (S3),Moss Phlox (S1?), Puttyroot (S2), Slim-flowered Muhly (S2), Stiff Gentian (S2), James’ Sedge (S4),Pawpaw (S3), Wild Licorice (S3), Woodland Flax (S2) and Northern Hawthorn (S3) in the DeciduousForest within the subject lands.

During a tree preservation report [Appendix E] by Williams & Associates Forestry Consultants Ltd., aButternut was found on adjacent land to the south, within 25m of the subject lands. The tree was deemedhealthy and retainable and a formal Butternut Health Assessment was submitted to MNRF by thearborist. As no response was received within 30 days, the report was considered accepted by MNRF.Williams & Associates Forestry Consultants Ltd. will be completing the MNRF Butternut registryprocess for this tree.

A floral inventory was completed within 25m of the proposed parking development by Will Huys in 2017[Appendix F]. The field visits took place on:

• April 13, 2017• May 26, 2017• June 20, 2017

None of the aforementioned species of provincial interest were reported within the subject lands orwithin 25m of the southern property boundary during site specific inventories, other than the oneButternut (END) tree as noted above. No other floral SAR were reported.

...page 4

Mitigation measures to protect the Butternut and woodland trees are addressed under Impacts andMitigation.

A Stage 1: Information Request (MNRF, 2015) was submitted to MNRF seeking ESA approval and/or toupdate any floral SAR requiring further consideration. At the writing of this report, a response has notbeen received.

WildlifeThere is potential for ten faunal species of provincial interest to be found in the 1km squares for thesubject lands [Appendix D]. Of these, one (Cerulean Warbler) is protected under the Endangered SpeciesAct.

No suitable habitat exists (no expansive mature deciduous forest with open understory, no bottom land orfloodplain deciduous forests or upland mixed deciduous-conifer forests, no watercourses or waterfeatures) for Cerulean Warbler, Red-shouldered Hawk, Rusty Snaketail, Spatterdock Darner, SwampDarner, Williamson’s’ Emerald, Lilypad Clubtail, Eastern Ribbonsnake or Eastern Red Damsel withinthe subject lands and no further consideration is required.

Hackberry, the larval food source for Tawny Emperor (S2S3) was not found within the subject lands or25m of the southern property boundary.

Although no suitable habitat exists for bird SAR or species of provincial interest, a confirmation breedingbird study [Appendix G] was completed by Will Huys in 2017. The field visits took place on:

• May 26, 2017• June 20, 2017

No bird species-at-risk or species of provincial interest were reported during site specific inventories.Tawny Emperor were also not observed, nor was their larval food source.

A Stage 1: Information Request (MNRF, 2015) was submitted to MNRF seeking ESA approval and/orupdate any faunal species requiring further consideration. At the writing of this report, a response has notbeen received.

Policy Review

ProvincialBased on our review of the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement, the following provincially significantfeatures/functions will need further consideration to address Provincial policy:

• Candidate Significant Wildlife Habitat• Significant Habitat of Endangered and Threatened Species

- addressed in the Stage 1 MNRF consultation and discussed below underImpacts and Mitigation

Candidate Significant Wildlife HabitatThe following has been reviewed using the Significant Wildlife Habitat Ecoregion 7E Criterion Schedule(MNRF, 2015) and the results of this review are summarized below. Candidate Significant WildlifeHabitat [Appendix C] is triggered by the ELC’s on site combined with a review of thresholdrequirements (ie. community size, size and age of trees etc.). If the threshold criteria are met, confirmedsignificant wildlife habitat is determined through appropriate field investigations to determine speciesuse.

...page 5

Reptile Hibernaculum To be confirmed SWH for Reptile Hibernaculum, studies must confirm the presence of a snakehibernacula used by a minimum of five individuals of a snake sp. or; individuals of two or more snakespp.

A groundhog burrow was reported in Community 1 and is candidate SWH for Reptile Hibernaculum. Inlieu of snake emergence surveys, Community 1 remains candidate SWH for Reptile Hibernaculum. Candidate SWH - Community 1

Special Concern and Rare Wildlife SpeciesBased on habitat within the subject lands and species identified as potential by NHIC, the DeciduousForest (Community 1) is candidate SWH for Special Concern and Rare Wildlife Species - Long-styledCanada Sanicle (S2), Northern Pin Oak (S3), Pignut Hickory (S3), Moss Phlox (S1?), Puttyroot (S2),Slim-flowered Muhly (S2), Stiff Gentian (S2), James’ Sedge (S4), Pawpaw (S3), Wild Licorice (S3),Woodland Flax (S2) and Northern Hawthorn (S3).

Floral surveys did not report any of the aforementioned plant species or Tawny Emperor habitat(Hackberry) within the subject lands or 25m of the southern property boundary.Not SWH - Confirmed

Significant Habitat of Endangered and Threatened SpeciesDuring a previous tree inventory by Williams & Associates Forestry Consultants Ltd. and siteinvestigation by BioLogic, a Butternut was found along the south property boundary on adjacent land.The tree is on adjacent land and will be avoided, however to ensure no contravention of the ESA,Williams & Associates Forestry Consultants Ltd. will be completing the MNRF Butternut registryprocess for this tree. A Stage 1: Information Request (MNRF, 2015) has been submitted to MNRFseeking ESA approval and/or update any floral or faunal species requiring further consideration. At thewriting of this report, a response has not been received.

RegionThe Regional Policy Natural Heritage considerations are based on the Region of Waterloo Official Plan,2015, Sections 7.B, 7.C, 7.D, 7.E & 7.F.

7.B Landscape Level SystemsLandscape Level Systems are designated as shown on Map 4 and comprise: Environmentally SensitiveLandscapes, Significant Valleys, Regional Recharge Areas, Provincial Greenbelt Natural HeritageSystem

(a) Environmentally Sensitive LandscapesThere are no Environmentally Sensitive Landscapes identified on Map 4 of the Regional OfficialPlan (2015) within or adjacent to the subject lands.

(b) Significant ValleysThere are no Significant Valleys identified on Map 4 of the Regional Official Plan (2015) withinor adjacent to the subject lands. A Significant Valley associated with the Grand River isidentified to the west, across two major roadways.

(c) Regional Recharge AreasThere are no Regional Recharge Areas identified on Map 4 of the Regional Official Plan (2015)within or adjacent to the subject lands.

...page 6

(d) Provincial Greenbelt Natural Heritage SystemThere are no Provincial Greenbelt designations on Map 4 of the Regional Official Plan (2015)within or adjacent to the subject lands.

7.C Core Environmental FeaturesThe Core Environmental Features designation applies to lands that meet the criteria as: SignificantHabitat of Endangered or Threatened Species, Provincially Significant Wetlands, EnvironmentallySensitive Policy Areas, Significant Woodlands, Environmentally Significant Valley Features or Areas ofNatural and Scientific Interest (ANSI).

There are no Core Environmental Features identified on Map 4 by the Region within or adjacentto the subject lands.

7.D FisheriesThere are no watercourses and consequently no fish habitat present within or adjacent to the subjectlands.

Summary: There are no additional region-specific natural heritage policies within the Region of Waterloo Official Plan that apply to this application.

CityThe City Policy Natural Heritage considerations are based on the City of Cambridge Official Plan, 2012,Section 3.A. The City of Cambridge provides natural heritage policies for natural heritage features andfunctions already largely addressed above under regional policies. This section therefore reviews themunicipal policies not yet covered.

3.4.A Locally Significant Natural AreasLocally Significant Natural Areas (LSNA’s) (unmapped) are those natural features not meeting thecriteria for recognition as being provincially or regionally significant.

a) There are no wetlands within or adjacent to the subject lands.

b) The woodland within the subject lands is not identified as a Core Environmental Feature and thereforemeets the criteria for a Locally Significant Natural Area (LSNA).

Summary: The only additional municipal-specific natural heritage policy within the City ofCambridge Official Plan that applies to this application - adjacent to a LSNA.

Conservation AuthorityThere are no Grand River Conservation Authority Regulated Areas within the subject lands [Figure 5]. Apermit is not required from the GRCA.

Development Proposal

The proponent is seeking approval to expand the existing retaining wall 4m east, closer to the woodlandedge, and extend it closer to the south property line [Figure 7] within the subject lands located at 275Ainslie St. S., in the City of Cambridge, Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Ontario.

Based on site investigation and policy review, the only features that require consideration are the LocallySignificant Natural Area (Community 1 - woodland) and candidate SWH for Reptile Hibernaculum inCommunity 1. The proponent is also seeking clearance from MNRF with respect to the EndangeredSpecies Act (Ontario, 2007)

...page 7

Impacts and Mitigation

This section addresses the natural heritage requirements relating to the proposed development within thesubject lands [Figure 7]. The primary natural heritage management goal, during construction and in thepost-development setting is to protect, maintain and enhance the critical and core features of thesurrounding natural successional lands. Mitigation measures are used to prevent, modify or alleviateimpacts to the significant natural heritage features and functions. The PPS (2014) does not preclude theuse of mitigation measures to demonstrate no negative impacts.

Mitigation measures recommended in the following section consider information contained in the NHRM(2010) under the section Addressing Impacts of Development and Site Alteration.

Based on site investigation, policy review and evaluation of significance, the Locally Significant NaturalArea (Community 1 - woodland) and candidate SWH for Reptile Hibernaculum in Community 1 are thesignificant features located within the subject lands that could potentially be impacted by the proposeddevelopment:

Direct Impacts

Natural Heritage FeaturesA tree preservation report was completed by Williams & Associates Forestry Consultants Ltd. [AppendixE] to assess trees that may be impacted by the proposed parking area expansion. Twenty-three trees wereassessed near the limit of construction. As a result, moving the retaining wall 4m will have a moderate tono impact on existing woodland trees. Two trees (one Ash and one Black Walnut) will be removed andfive others (three Sugar Maple and two Red Maple) impacted yet retained. Save for the Butternut onadjacent land (being addressed through MNRF registration), none of these trees are species-at-risk orspecies of provincial interest. The groundhog burrow which makes Community 1 candidate SWH forReptile Hibernaculum will be avoided and not impacted.

Recommendation 1: One Ash tree affected by Emerald Ash Borer and one Black Walnutwithin the construction zone can be removed [Figure 8] with no negativeimpacts due to the absence of SAR, SWH, and other critical habitatfeatures in this area.

Recommendation 2: Three large Sugar Maple trees closer to the retaining wall [Figure 8]should have their roots carefully cut at the limit of excavation (ie. andnot broken or ripped off with equipment).

Recommendation 3: Two planted Red Maple seedlings (not shown on site plan) should betransplanted prior to construction.

Recommendation 4: Tree removal should not occur during the migratory bird breeding seasonto conform with the Migratory Bird Conventions Act (1994)

Indirect Impacts

Natural Heritage FeaturesThe woodland (Community 1) within the subject lands is candidate SWH for Reptile Hibernaculum.Mitigation measures outlined below are proposed for long term protection of the woodland and no directimpacts are anticipated (save for the two trees for removal and five trees to be impacted).

...page 8

Recommendation 1: The tree preservation report recommendations must be followed toprotect the woodland.

Construction Related Impacts

The most critical time for the protection of natural heritage features and functions is during theconstruction stage. Sediment and erosion control measures will be required [Figure 9].

Recommendation 1: Prior to construction, dual purpose tree protection/sediment and erosion control fencing should be installed along the limit of development in proximity to the woodland [Figure 9]. This fence will:

• keep wildlife off site during construction;• protect woodland trees from impacts and;• prevent erosion and sedimentation

Recommendation 2: Fencing will be installed according to the Guidelines for Erosion andSediment Control for Urban Construction Sites (OMNR, 1987) and theapplicable standards established in the Ontario Provincial StandardSpecification /Ontario Provincial Standards Drawings (OPPS/OPSD)documents.

Recommendation 3: Fencing should be inspected prior to construction to ensure it wasinstalled correctly and during construction to ensure the fencing is beingmaintained and functioning properly.

Recommendation 4: Fencing should not be removed until adequate re-vegetation and sitestabilization has occurred. Additional re-vegetation planting and/or moretime for vegetation to establish may be required, however two growingseasons are typically enough to stabilize most sites.

Recommendation 5: All disturbed areas should be re-seeded as soon as possible to maximizeerosion protection and to minimize volunteer populations of nativespecies.

...page 9

8.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The proponent has initiated the planning process for proposed parking lot expansion within the subjectlands located at 275 Ainslie St. S., in the City of Cambridge, Regional Municipality of Waterloo,Ontario.

With the proposed Site Plan [Figure 8] there is no direct loss of any significant natural heritage featuresthat warrant protection.

Below is a summary of the mitigation recommendations that should be completed to avoid impacts to thenatural heritage features and functions at various stages of the development.

Prior to Construction1. Dual purpose tree protection/sediment and erosion control measures installed:

i. At the limit of development in proximity to the woodland2. All sediment and erosion control fencing will be installed according to the Guidelines for

Erosion and Sediment Control for Urban Construction Sites (OMNR, 1987) and theapplicable standards established in the Ontario Provincial Standard Specification/OntarioProvincial Standard Drawings (OPSS/OPSD) documents.

3. Inspection of all sediment and erosion control fencing to ensure it is installed correctly.

During Construction1. Three large Sugar Maple trees closer to the retaining wall should have their roots

carefully cut at the limit of excavation (ie. and not broken or ripped off with equipment).2. Two planted Red Maple seedlings should be transplanted during construction.3. Regular site investigations should be conducted to ensure that all dual purpose tree

protection/sediment and erosion control fencing is maintained and functioning properly.4. Dual purpose fencing adjacent to the woodland will provide a construction barrier as

well.

Post Construction1. Re-seeding areas of disturbance to maximize erosion protection and minimize volunteer

populations of invasive species.2. Prior to removal of any sediment and erosion control measures a qualified ecological

consultant should confirm if adequate re-vegetation and site stabilization has occurred. Ifnot, additional re-vegetation plantings and/or more time for vegetation to establish maybe required, however two growing seasons are typically sufficient to stabilize most sites.

We have evaluated the proposed development, and any potential negative impacts to the Natural Heritagesystem have been avoided and/or mitigated with the above recommendations. Provided theserecommendations are addressed, it is our opinion, from the perspective of Natural Heritage, thedevelopment can proceed. BioLogic seeks comments from the Region of Waterloo, City of Cambridgeand the GRCA with respect to the contents of this report. Formal comments can be submitted in writingto BioLogic on behalf of the client. Should you wish to clarify any questions or require additionalinformation as part of the review of this report, do not hesitate to contact us.

BioLogic Incorporated

__________________Dave Hayman M.ScKnutson - 275 Ainslie St. - EISFinal.wpd

[dm]

...page 10

AttachmentsFigure 1: Site LocationFigure 2: Land UseFigure 3: Natural HeritageFigure 4: ZoningFigure 5: ERCA Regulation LimitFigure 6: Vegetation CommunitiesFigure 7: Draft PlanFigure 8: Draft Plan OverlayFigure 9: Impacts and Mitigation

Appendix A - ToR Correspondence (Pete Williams and Kathi Padgett)Appendix B - ELC InformationAppendix C - Preliminary SWH EvaluationAppendix D - NHIC DataAppendix E - Tree Preservation ReportAppendix F - Floral InventoryAppendix G - Bird List

Figure 1: Site Location(2016 Google Air Photo)

Scale 1:750June 2017

0

Print on 11X17, Landscape Orientation

15

Scale 1:50,000Key Plan

1,0000

SubjectLands

Ain

slie

St.

Elliot St.

Alb

ert

St.

Site Location

Figure 2: Land Use(City of Cambridge Official Plan, Map 2, 2013)

Scale 1:3000July 2017

0


60


1,0000A

insl

ie S

t.

Elliot St.

Alb

ert

St.

Site Location

SubjectLands

Figure 3: Environmental Features(City of Cambridge Official Plan, Map 9, 2013)


0


60


1,0000A

insl

ie S

t.

Elliot St.

Alb

ert

St.

Site Location

SubjectLands

Figure 4: Zoning(City of Cambridge Zoning By-Law, 2012)


0


30


1,0000A

insl

ie S

t.

Elliot St.

Alb

ert

St.

Site Location

SubjectLands

Ain

slie

St.

S.

Elliot St.

Alb

ert

St.

Birch St.

Figure 5: GRCA Regulation Limit(GRCA Regulations Mapping, )


0


30


1,0000A

insl

ie S

t.

Elliot St.

Alb

ert

St.

Site Location

SubjectLands

Figure 6: Vegetation Communities(2016 Google Air Photo)


0


15


1,0000

SubjectLands

Ain

slie

St.

Elliot St.

Alb

ert

St.

Site Location

1

CLegend

C Commercial (Existing Buildings, Parking Lot, Maintained Lawn

1 FOD5-1 Dry-Fresh Sugar Maple Deciduous Forest

dhayman

Sticky Note

add photo

Figure 7: Development Proposal


0


5.5


1,0000

Site Location

Figure 8: Development ProposalOverlay (Region of Waterloo Mapping)


0


10


1,0000

SubjectLands

Ain

slie

Alb

ert

St.

SiteLocation

1

C

Legend

C Commercial (Existing Buildings, Parking Lot,Maintained Lawn


SubjectLands

Limit of Parking Lot Expansion

1

C

Surveyed Dripline of Community 1

Ain

slie

St.

S.

Figure 9: Impacts and Mitigation(Region of Waterloo Mapping)


0


10


1,0000

SubjectLands

Ain

slie

Alb

ert

St.

SiteLocation

1

C

Legend

C Commercial (Existing Buildings, Parking Lot,Maintained Lawn


SubjectLands

Limit of Parking Lot Expansion

1

C

Surveyed Dripline of Community 1

Ain

slie

St.

S.

Dual Purpose Tree Protection/Sediment and ErosionControl Fencing

Appendix ATerms of Reference Correspondence

On Feb 2, 2017, at 2:18 PM, Peter Williams <[email protected]> wrote:

I spoke with Kathy Padgett about the EIS. She said if the woodlot was disturbed then bird, bat and plantsurveys would be required. Birds start in April. With 4, maybe 5 visits through the season.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Peter A. Williams, M.Sc., RPFWilliams & Associates, Forestry Consulting Ltd5369 Wellington Rd. 27RR 1Rockwood, Ontario N0B 2K0

Tel: 519 856 1286 Toll Free: 866 856 1286 Fax: 519 856 288

EMAIL: [email protected] WEBSITE: http://www.forestar.ca

Appendix BELC Information

Appendix CPreliminary SWH Evaluation

Table 2: Candidate Significant Wildlife Habitat - ELC Communities

Table 1.1 – Seasonal Concentration Areas

Wildlife Habitat ELC CodesTriggers

Additional Habitat Criteria CandidateSWH

Waterfowl Stopover and StagingAreas (Terrestrial)

not present - no fields present No

Waterfowl Stopover and StagingAreas (Aquatic)

not present - no ponds, lakes, bays, coastal inlets or watercoursespresent

No

Shorebird Migratory StopoverArea

not present - no shorelines of lakes, rivers, wetlands, beaches, sandbars, seasonally flooded, muddy un-vegetated shorelinespresent

No

Raptor Wintering Area C1 - FOD5-1 - no upland (CUM, CUS, CUT, CUW) component present No

Bat Hibernacula not present - none present No

Bat Maternity Colonies C1 - FOD5-1 - woodland is mature however no wildlife trees >25cm dbhpresent

No

Bat Migratory Stopover Area no triggers - not near Long Point No

Turtle Wintering Areas not present - no wetlands or watercourses on site No

Reptile Hibernaculum C1 - FOD5-1 - one active groundhog burrow reported CandidateC1

Colonially-Nesting BirdBreeding Habitat (Bank / Cliff)

not present - no steep slopes of exposed banks or cliff faces present No

Colonially-Nesting BirdBreeding Habitat (Trees/Shrubs)

not present - no nests in wetlands, lakes, island or peninsulas with liveor dead standing trees present

No

Colonially-Nesting BirdBreeding Habitat (Ground)

not present - no rocky islands or peninsulas associated with open waterpresent

No

Migratory Butterfly StopoverAreas

not present - no field (CUM, CUS, CUT) component present and notwith 5km of Lake Erie or Lake Ontario

No

Land Bird Migratory StopoverAreas

C1 - FOD5-1 - woodland is less than the required 5ha and not within 5kmof Lake Erie or Lake Ontario

No

Deer Winter CongregationAreas

C1 - FOD5-1 - woodland on site is less than the required 50ha No

Table 1.2.1 – Rare Vegetation Communities



Cliffs and Talus Slopes not present No

Sand Barren not present No

Alvar not present No

Old Growth Forest C1 - FOD5-1 - woodland is mature and >0.5ha, howeverdominant trees are not 140 years old

No

Savannah not present No

Tallgrass Prairie not present No

Other Rare Vegetation not present No

Table 1.2.2 – Specialized Habitat for Wildlife



Waterfowl Nesting Area not present - no wetlands present No

Bald Eagle and OspreyNesting, Foraging, Perching

C1 - FOD5-1 - no lakes, ponds, rivers or large wetlandspresent directly adjacent to the woodland

No

Woodland Raptor NestingHabitat

C1 - FOD5-1 - woodland is <30ha No

Turtle Nesting Areas not present - no exposed mineral soil present and no largewaterbodies present

No

Springs and Seeps not present - no forested headwaters present No

Amphibian BreedingHabitat (Woodland)

C1 - FOD5-1 - no vernal pools present in woodland No

Amphibian BreedingHabitat (Wetlands)

not present - no wetlands present No

Woodland Area-SensitiveBird Breeding Habitat

C1 - FOD5-1 - woodland is less than the required 30ha No

Table 1.3 – Habitats of Species of Conservation Concern (not END or THR species)\



Marsh Bird BreedingHabitat

not present - no wetlands present No

Open Country BirdBreeding Habitat

not present - no large grasslands >30ha present No

Shrub/Early SuccessionalBird Breeding Habitat

not present - no large fields succeeding to shrub and thickethabitats > 10ha in size

No

Terrestrial Crayfish not present - no wetland habitat present No

Special Concern and RareWildlife Species (NHIC andMNRF pre-consultation)

- suitable habitat for Tawny Emperor, Long-styled Canada Sanicle (S2), Northern Pin Oak(S3), Pignut Hickory (S3), Moss Phlox (S1?),Puttyroot (S2), Slim-flowered Muhly (S2), StiffGentian (S2), James’ Sedge (S4), Pawpaw (S3),Wild Licorice (S3), Woodland Flax (S2) andNorthern Hawthorn (S3) in the DeciduousWoodland

CandidateC1

Table 1.4.1 – Animal Movement Corridors

Wildlife Habitat ELC Codesthat TriggerConsideration*


Amphibian MovementCorridors

n/a - Candidate Amphibian Breeding Habitat(wetlands) not present

No

Appendix DNHIC Information

275 Ainslie Street S - CambridgeCommon Name Scientific Name S-rank SARO COSEWICLong-styled Canada Sanicle Sanicula canadensis var. grandis S2Northern Pin Oak Quercus ellipsoidalis S3Pignut Hickory Carya glabra S3Pignut Hickory Carya glabra S3Moss Phlox Phlox subulata S1?Downy Yellow False Foxglove Aureolaria virginica S1Edible Valerian Valeriana edulis S1False Hop Sedge Carex lupuliformis S1 END ENDSmith's Bulrush Schoenoplectiella smithii S2S3Puttyroot Aplectrum hyemale S2Slim-flowered Muhly Muhlenbergia tenuiflora S2Slim-flowered Muhly Muhlenbergia tenuiflora S2Cerulean Warbler Setophaga cerulea S3B THR ENDSilver Shiner Notropis photogenis S2S3 THR THRGolden Redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum S4 NAR NARRed-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus S4B NAR NARRed-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus S4B NAR NARRam's-head Lady's-slipper Cypripedium arietinum S3Tawny Emperor Asterocampa clyton S2S3Stiff Gentian Gentianella quinquefolia S2Eastern Burning Bush Euonymus atropurpureus S3Rusty Snaketail Ophiogomphus rupinsulensis S4Spatterdock Darner Rhionaeschna mutata S1Swamp Darner Epiaeschna heros S2S3Williamson's Emerald Somatochlora williamsoni S4Lilypad Clubtail Arigomphus furcifer S3June Grass Koeleria macrantha S4James' Sedge Carex jamesii S4Sharp-fruited Rush Juncus acuminatus S3Pawpaw Asimina triloba S3Wild Licorice Glycyrrhiza lepidota S3Woodland Flax Linum virginianum S2Harbinger-of-spring Erigenia bulbosa S2S3Soft-hairy False Gromwell Lithospermum parviflorum S2Scarlet Beebalm Monarda didyma S3Eastern Ribbonsnake Thamnophis sauritus S3 SC SCEastern Red Damsel Amphiagrion saucium S4Northern Hawthorn Crataegus pruinosa var. dissona S3

Appendix ETree Preservation Report

5369 Wellington 27, RR 1Rockwood, Ontario N0B 2K0Tel 519 856 1286 Fx 519 856 4288

Email: [email protected]: http://www.forestar.ca

DRAFT

March 21, 2017

Phillip Morrissey Professional Corporation307 Commissioners Road West, Unit 3London, ONN6J 1Y4

Re: 275 Ainslie Street South, Cambridge

Dear Mr. Morrissey,

At your request, I attended the site at 275 Ainslie St. South in Cambridge with Kevin Pangborn onMarch 21st to assess trees relative to the proposed expansion of the parking area. The proposal is tomove the existing retaining wall 4 metres east, closer to the woodland edge and extend it closer to thesouth property line (i.e., with 295 Ainslie St) and to several trees close to the property line on thatproperty. Most of the trees that may be affected by this proposal were assessed in 2014 during theprocess required to build the existing parking area. Planning and Environmental Impact Assessmentprocedures require that the potential affects of this new proposal on the trees be evaluated.

A butternut was among the several trees on 295 near the property line that were assessed in 2014 and2017. Butternut is listed as an endangered species on the Species at Risk in Ontario List, and as such,it is protected under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA) from being killed, harmed, or removed. Only general tree inventory and assessment information on the butternut were included in this report.The Butternut Health Assessment (BHA) results required under the ESA are included in a BHA reportand submitted to the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry under a separate cover.

This report includes an assessment of the trees that may be affected by the proposed parking lotexpansion. The assessment included the species, diameter, height, health, and structure of nearbytrees and a general assessment of hazard potential associated with each tree. The extent of potentialimpact of the proposed construction was made for each tree and a recommendation for its removal orretaining prior to construction. Recommended protection or mitigation practices that would enable atree to be retained through the development process were made as appropriate. These practicesincluded careful pruning of larger roots (roots >cm diameter) encountered during construction,fencing along the woodland edge and south property line and using turfstone or other permeablepaving surfaces near the south property line.

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.forestar.ca//hich/af37/dbch/af31505/loch/f37

Williams & Associates

Twenty three trees were assessed near the limit of construction that might be affected by the project orbe included in the future landscaped area. The trees were all native hardwoods that have naturallyestablished on the slope. They included 7 sugar maples, 6 black walnuts, 4 red oaks, 2 basswood, 1butternut, and 1 ash. The locations of the trees are shown on the attached site map and theinformation collected from each tree is provided in the attached Table . The general findings of thesurvey are listed below.

- Moving the retainer wall approximately 4 meters will have moderate to no impact on theexisting trees,

- the three large sugar maple closer to the retaining wall should have their larger roots carefullycut at the limit of excavation (i.e., and not broken or ripped off with equipment),

- two trees are recommended for removal; an ash that will be killed by Emerald Ash Borer andone black walnut that is within the construction zone,

- one maple has a declining crown, but could be retained because of the structurally sound base,

- the two planted red maple saplings may be transplanted during construction, and

- snow fencing be installed along the south property line to keep disturbance on the subjectproperty.

Please contact me if you have questions about this report or require additional information.

Sincerely,

Peter Williams, M.Sc.,, RPF.Consulting Forester/Arborist.

Attached: Table showing tree data and recommendation Site Map Showing Tree Locations

Williams & AssociatesMarch 21, 2017Tree Assessment 275 Ainslie Street South

Table 3. Assessment of trees in areas that may be disturbed in proposed Site Plan, and recommendations for retention

NOTESRECOMMENDATIONAssessment

Impact

HEALTHSTRUCTURE(m)

Height

(cm)

DBH

LOT

TREE LOCATION IN

SPECIESID#

Replacements could be installed along new parking lot edgeRemoveMajorGoodGood1557Parking lotWalnut, black502

Removed503

Low retaining wall could be installed 2m from base to avoid grade changeRetainMinorGoodFair823.5Other propertyButternut504

RetainMinorGoodGood1949.5Other propertyWalnut, black505

RetainNoneGoodGood821.5Other propertyWalnut, black506

RetainMinorGoodFair517Other propertyBasswood507

Branch diebackRetainMinorFairGood916Other propertyOak, red508

RetainNoneGoodGood1019Other propertyOak, red509

Dead top and scaffold branch, wildlife squirrel cavity @ 5m, Fungus fruiting body at 4mRetainMinorPoorFair1454On slopeMaple, sugar510

Moderate root severance @3-4m, Potential cavities @ 3&6m, dying branch @ 5mRetain, Root pruneModerateGoodFair1754On slopeMaple, sugar511

Low forkRetainNoneGoodFair615On slopeBasswood512

RetainNoneGoodGood814.5On slopeExotic cherry513

Retain, Root PruneModerateGoodGood2136.5On slopeMaple, sugar514

Dead scaffold @ 10m, cavity on branch @ 6mRetain, Root PruneModerateFairGood2264.5On slopeMaple, sugar515

Minor root severance at 4mRetainMinorGoodFair2550On slopeMaple, sugar516

some cankers, incl. bark in fork at 2m, 18 cm DBH stump sproutRetainMinorGoodFair2438On slopeWalnut, black517

RetainNoneGoodGood1922On slopeWalnut, black518

Emerald Ash BorerRemoveMinorGoodGood2028On slopeAsh, white519

RetainNoneGoodGood1920On slopeOak, red520

RetainMinorGoodGood2554On slopeMaple, sugar521

TransplantMajorGoodGood45On slopeMaple, red681

Minimal root severanceRetainMinorGoodGood1522Other propertyOak, red682

Forks into two stems at 1mRetainNoneGoodFair1732, 30Other propertyWalnut, black683

Appendix FPlant List

FLORAL SURVEY INFORMATION SUMMARY SHEETProject: Knutson - Ainslie St. SCollector(s): Will Huys

Date Start Finish WeatherVisit 1 13-Apr-17 12:30 PM 1:30 PM cool, overcastVisit 2 26-May-17 7:45 AM 8:00 AM overcast, breezyVisit 3 20-Jun-17 7:52 AM 8:18 AM overcast, breezy

COMMUNITYFAMILY ACRONYM C W WETNESS OWES* PHYSIOG. SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME 1 ESA ONT

ACERAC ACENEGU 0 -2 FACW- W N Tree Acer negundo BOX ELDER xACERAC ACESASA 4 3 FACU N Tree Acer saccharum SUGAR MAPLE;HARD MAPLE xCRUCIF ALLPETI * 0 FAC A Forb ALLIARIA PETIOLATA (A. OFFICINALIS) GARLIC MUSTARD xBRASSI BARVULG * 0 FAC A Forb BARBAREA VULGARIS YELLOW ROCKET xCAMPAN CAMRAPU * 5 UPL A Forb CAMPANULA RAPUNCULOIDES EUROPEAN BELLFLOWER xCYPERA CARPENS 5 5 UPL N Sedge Carex pensylvanica PENNSYLVANIA SEDGE xLILIAC CONMAJA * 5 UPL A Forb CONVALLARIA MAJALIS LILY-OF-THE-VALLEY xCORNAC CORALTE 6 5 UPL N Tree Cornus alternifolia ALTERNATE-LEAVED DOGWOOD xROSACE CRAATER 4 5 UPL N Tree Crataegus sp. HAWTHORN xGRAMIN DACGLOM * 3 FACU A Grass DACTYLIS GLOMERATA ORCHARD GRASS xLILIAC ERYAMER 5 5 UPL N Forb Erythronium americanum YELLOW TROUT LILY xOLEACE FRAAMER 4 3 FACU N Tree Fraxinus americana WHITE ASH xGERANI GERMACU 6 3 FACU N Forb Geranium maculatum WILD GERANIUM xROSACE GEUCANA 3 0 FAC W N Forb Geum canadense WHITE AVENS xCRUCIF HESMATR * 5 UPL A Forb HESPERIS MATRONALIS DAME'S ROCKET xJUGLAN JUGCINE 6 2 FACU+ N Tree Juglans cinerea BUTTERNUT x END S3?JUGLAN JUGNIGR 5 3 FACU N Tree Juglans nigra BLACK WALNUT xOLEACE LIGVULG * 1 FAC- A Shrub LIGUSTRUM VULGARE EUROPEAN PRIVET xCAPRIF LONTATA * 3 FACU A Shrub LONICERA TATARICA SMOOTH TARTARIAN HONEYSUCKLE xLILIAC MAIRACE 4 3 FACU N Forb Maianthemum racemosum ssp. Racemosum FALSE SOLOMAN'S-SEAL xVITACE PARINSE 3 3 FACU N Vine Parthenocissus inserta (P. vitacea) THICKET CREEPER xPOACEA POAPRAT 0 1 FAC- N Grass Poa pratensis KENTUCKY BLUEGRASS xROSACE PRUCERF * 5 UPL A Tree PRUNUS CERASIFERA CHERRY PLUM xROSACE PRUVIRG 2 1 FAC- N Shrub Prunus virginiana CHOKE CHERRY xFAGACE QUEALBA 6 3 FACU N Tree Quercus alba WHITE OAK xFAGACE QUERUBR 6 3 FACU N Tree Quercus rubra NORTHEN RED OAK xRHAMNA RHACATH * 3 FACU W A Tree RHAMNUS CATHARTICA COMMON BUCKTHORN xROSACE RUBOCCI 2 5 UPL N Shrub Rubus occidentalis BLACK RASPBERRY xLILIAC SCISIBI * 5 UPL A Forb SCILLA SIBIRICA SQUILL xOLEACE SYRVULG * 5 UPL A Shrub SYRINGA VULGARIS COMMON LILAC xTILIAC TILAMER 4 3 FACU N Tree Tilia americana LINDEN;BASSWOOD xAPOCYN VINMINO * 5 UPL A Shrub VINCA MINOR PERIWINKLE x

STATUS

Appendix GBird List

AVIFAUNAL SURVEY INFORMATION SUMMARY SHEETProject: Knuston - Ainslie St. Collector(s): WHVisit 1 Date: Visit 2 Date:

Start: 7:45 End: 8:00 Start: 8:00 End: 8:15Weather: overcast, cool Weather: cool ,overcast, breezy

Species Species Evidence Community NotesCode Name Code Vis 1 Vis 2

BCCH Black-capped Chickadee SM 0 2 S5 - 1 COMMON SPECIESAMRO American Robin SH 0 2 S5 1 COMMON BREEDER IN MANY HABITAT TYPESEUST European Starling VO 2 0 SNA 1 COMMON INVASIVE SPECIESMODO Mourning Dove SM 1 0 1NOCA Northern Cardinal SM,SH 1 2 1HOSP House Sparrow SM 2 2 1Evidence Codes:Breeding Bird - PossibleSH=Suitable Habitat SM=Singing MaleBreeding Bird - ProbableT=Territory A=Anxiety Behaviour D=Display N=Nest Building P=Pair V=Visiting NestBreeding Bird - ConfirmedDD=Distraction NE=Eggs AE=Nest Entry NU=Nest Used NY=Nest Young FY=Fledged Young FS=Food/Faecal SackOther Wildlife EvidenceOB=Observed DP=Distinctive Parts TK=Tracks VO=Vocalization HO=House/Den FE=Feeding Evidence CA=CarcassFy=Eggs or Young SC=Scat SI=Other Signs (specify)

PIF StatusS Rank ESA

Status

28-May-17 20-Jun-17

No.

re: environmental impact statement - city of cambridge€¦ · expansion on a legal parcel located...

Documents