Reference No

Terrapure is proud to have received the 2016 Industry Excellence Award for Health & Safety from Natural Resources Magazine.

Stoney Creek Regional Facility Environmental Assessment

Terrestrial and Aquatic Environment Detailed Impact Assessment Report DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION

65 Sunray Street, Whitby Ontario L1N 8Y3 Canada 11102771 | Report No 29 | June 198

Table of Contents 1.

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

Background and Purpose .................................................................................................. 1 Description of the Preferred Landfill Footprint ................................................................... 2 Facility Characteristic Report ............................................................................................. 4 Terrestrial and Aquatic Study Team .................................................................................. 4

2.

Study Area .................................................................................................................................... 4

3.

Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 6

4.

Additional Investigations .............................................................................................................. 6 4.1

4.2

4.3

5.

Terrestrial and Aquatic Environment Net Effects ....................................................................... 19 5.1 5.2 5.3

5.4 6.

Potential Effects on the Terrestrial and Aquatic Environment ......................................... 19 Construction-related Effects ............................................................................................. 19 Operation-related Effects ................................................................................ 20 Proposed Mitigation and/or Compensation Measures ..................................................... 20 Construction.................................................................................................... 20 Operation ........................................................................................................ 21 Best Management Practices........................................................................... 23 Net Effects ........................................................................................................................ 23

Climate Change Considerations ................................................................................................ 24 6.1 6.2

7.

General Conditions within the Site and Local Study Areas ............................................... 6 Surrounding Land Use ...................................................................................... 6 Topography and Hydrology .............................................................................. 7 Significant Natural Features ............................................................................. 9 Species at Risk ............................................................................................... 11 Site Study Area (The Preferred Landfill Footprint) ........................................................... 15 Terrestrial Environment and Habitat ............................................................... 15 Aquatic Environment and Habitat ................................................................... 16 Local Study Area .............................................................................................................. 17 Terrestrial Environment and Habitat ............................................................... 17 Aquatic Environment and Habitat ................................................................... 19

Potential Effects of the Undertaking on Climate Change................................................. 24 Mitigation ........................................................................................................ 24 Effect of Climate Change on the Undertaking ................................................................. 24 Adaptation....................................................................................................... 24

Environmental Monitoring .......................................................................................................... 24 7.1

Monitoring Strategy and Schedule ................................................................................... 25 Environmental Effects Monitoring ................................................................... 25 Development of an Environmental Management Plan ................................... 25

8.

Commitments ............................................................................................................................. 26

9.

Other Approvals ......................................................................................................................... 26

10.

References ................................................................................................................................. 27

DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION GHD | Draft Terrestrial and Aquatic Environment Detailed Impact Assessment Report |11102771 | i

Figure Index Figure 1.1

Preferred Landfill Footprint ................................................................................................ 3

Figure 2.1

Stoney Creek Regional Facility Site Location and Study Area ......................................... 5

Figure 4.1

Physiography ..................................................................................................................... 8

Figure 4.2

Significant Natural Features ............................................................................................ 10

Figure 4.3

Species at Risk ................................................................................................................ 13

Figure 4.4

Ecological Land Classification Site Study Area ............................................................... 14

Figure 4.5

Ecological Land Classification Local Study Area ............................................................ 18

Figure 5.1

Example of Graminoid Meadow as Part of Final Cover .................................................. 21

Figure 5.2

Example of Pollinator Habitat. Source: http://beeandbutterflyfund.org/our-solution ....... 22

Figure 5.3

Example of Naturalized Aquatic Landscape Feature (Wet Meadow).............................. 22

Table Index Table 5.1.

Potential Effects, Proposed Mitigation and Compensation Measures, and Resulting Net Effects .............................................................................................................................. 23

Appendices Appendix A

Species at Risk Screening Table

Appendix B

Incidental Wildlife Observation Table

Appendix C

Photographic Log of Potential Effected Habitats

DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION GHD | Draft Terrestrial and Aquatic Environment Detailed Impact Assessment Report |11102771 | ii

1.

Introduction This report documents the Terrestrial and Aquatic Environment impact assessment of the Preferred Landfill Footprint for the Environmental Assessment (EA) for landfill expansion at the Stoney Creek Regional Facility (SCRF). In the preceding Alternative Methods phase of the EA, a net effects analysis, as well as a comparative evaluation of the six alternative landfill expansion options was carried out in order to identify a Preferred Landfill Footprint. The Preferred Landfill Footprint was determined to be Option #5 – Reconfiguration and Height Increase. The potential environmental effects and impact management measures to address the potential adverse environmental effects, and the remaining net effects following the application of the impact management measures were identified for the Preferred Landfill Footprint.

1.1

Background and Purpose

In March of 2018, the recommended landfill expansion option (Option # 5) was presented to the public, stakeholders and the Government Review Team (GRT) for comments and feedback. Following stakeholder and agency engagement, the Recommended option was confirmed and Option # 5 became the ‘Preferred’ Landfill Footprint (also referred to as the Preferred Method). Following confirmation of the Preferred Landfill Footprint, a detailed impact assessment was carried out. The intent of the impact assessment is to allow for additional details to be developed on the Preferred Landfill Footprint from a design and operations perspective, and to then review the impact management measures and resultant net effects described in the Alternative Methods stage within the context of the more detailed design for the Preferred Landfill Footprint. Specifically, the following can be accomplished: • • • • •

Potential environmental effects can be identified with more certainty. More Site-specific impact assessment measures can be developed for application. Net environmental effects can be identified with more certainty. Appropriate monitoring requirements can be clearly defined. Specific approval/permitting requirements for the proposed undertaking can be identified.

At the completion of the impact assessment of the Preferred Landfill Footprint, the advantages and disadvantages to the environment of the Preferred Landfill Footprint were identified. Climate change mitigation and adaptation measures will also be reviewed as part of the detailed Site design established for the Preferred Landfill Footprint. In addition, during the impact assessment stage of the SCRF EA, Terrapure will complete an assessment of the cumulative effects of the proposed undertaking and other non-SCRF projects/activities that are existing, planned/approved or reasonably foreseeable within the Study Area. A Facilities Characteristics Report (FCR) for the SCRF has been prepared, so that potential environmental effects and mitigation or compensation measures identified for the Preferred Landfill Footprint during the Alternative Methods phase of the EA could be more accurately defined, along with enhancement opportunities and approval requirements. The discipline-specific work plans developed during the Terms of Reference outlined how impacts associated with the Preferred Landfill Footprint would be assessed. The results of these assessments have been documented in the following nine standalone Draft Detailed Impact Assessment Reports:    

Atmospheric including; 1) Air Quality and Odour; and, 2) Noise Geology and Hydrogeology Surface Water Terrestrial and Aquatic

   

Transportation Land Use and Economic Design and Operations Human Health

DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION GHD | Draft Terrestrial and Aquatic Environment Detailed Impact Assessment Report |11102771 | 1

1.2

Description of the Preferred Landfill Footprint

The proposed expansion of the SCRF will increase the overall size of the landfill. Vertical limits will extend higher increasing the peak height by approximately 2.5 m. Horizontal limits will extend further toward the north, back to original approved footprint of the SCRF. The area currently approved to accept industrial fill will be replaced with a base liner system to accept residual material. The proposed layout of the SCRF is presented in Figure 1.1 below. The limits of the base liner system will be expanded back to the original approved footprint of 59.1 ha. The overall Site area of 75.1 ha. will not change. The figure shows the final extent of the landfill area after the final cover has been installed (the Post-Closure phase). Minimum on-Site buffer distances of 30 m will be maintained around the perimeter of the residual material area throughout all phases. On-Site buffers currently extend to approximately 65 m in various areas along the east and south side of the Site, and up to approximately 130 m in the vicinity of the existing stormwater management facility in the northwest corner of the Site. These buffer distances will also be maintained. The proposed expansion of the SCRF will increase the approved capacity by 3,680,000 m 3, resulting in a total Site capacity of 10,000,000 1 m3 for post-diversion, solid, non-hazardous residual material. No changes are being proposed to the maximum approved fill rates of up to 750,000 tonnes of residual material in any consecutive twelve month period, or up to 8,000 tonnes per day. 0F

The SCRF will continue to accept post-diversion, solid, non-hazardous industrial residual material. The SCRF will no longer be approved to accept industrial fill material. The SCRF will continue to accept residual material from sources from within the Province of Ontario. The overall composition of the residual material is expected to remain relatively consistent as the main sources (i.e., steel making industry, soils from infrastructure development projects) will not change. Additional descriptive details on the design of the Preferred Landfill Footprint can be found in the detailed FCR.

1

The total Site capacity may increase to 10,180,000, pending the MOEEC approval of the current ECA Amendment Application noted in the Facility Characteristics Report.


Figure 1.1 Preferred Landfill Footprint


1.3

Facility Characteristic Report

The Facility Characteristic Report (FCR) presents preliminary design and operations information for the Preferred Landfill Footprint (Option #5) and provides information on all main aspects of landfill design and operations including. • • • • •

Site layout design, including existing and proposed Site characteristics; stormwater management; leachate management; landfill gas management; and, landfill development sequence and daily operations.

The FCR also provides estimates of parameters relevant to the detailed impact assessment, including estimates of leachate generation, contaminant flux through the liner system, landfill gas generation, and traffic levels associated with waste and construction materials haulage.

1.4

Terrestrial and Aquatic Study Team

The Terrestrial and Aquatic study team consisted of GHD staff. The actual individuals and their specific roles are provided as follows:

• • •

2.

Laura Lawlor, M.Sc., C.E. – Lead Ecologist Lisa Horn, B.E.S. – Ecologist Additional support field staff

Study Area The specific Site and Local Study Areas for the Preferred Landfill Footprint at the SCRF are listed below: •

Site Study Area, including all lands within the existing, approved boundaries of the SCRF, as defined by Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) No. A181008, as amended.

•

Local Study Area, including all lands within a 1.5 kilometer (km) radius of the Site Study Area boundaries.

A Local Study Area utilizing a 1.5 km radius is appropriate to assess potential changes to the natural environment as a result of the Preferred Landfill Footprint.


Figure 2.1 Stoney Creek Regional Facility Site Location and Study Area


3.

Methodology The assessment of impacts associated with the Preferred Landfill Footprint was undertaken through a series of steps that were based, in part, on a number of previously prepared reports (Natural Environment Existing Conditions Report, Alternative Methods Report Assessment of Landfill Expansion Alternatives). The net effects associated with the Six Alternative Landfill Footprint Options identified during the Alternative Methods phase of the EA were based on Conceptual Designs. These effects were reviewed within the context of the detailed design plans developed for the Preferred Landfill Footprint, as identified in the FCR, to determine the type and extent of any additional investigations required to ensure a comprehensive assessment of net effects. Additional investigations were then carried out, where necessary, in order to augment the previous work undertaken. With these additional investigations in mind, the potential impact on the Terrestrial and Aquatic environment of the Preferred Landfill Footprint was documented. With a more detailed understanding of the Terrestrial and Aquatic environment developed, the previously identified potential effects and recommended impact management measures associated with the Preferred Landfill Footprint (documented in the Alternative Methods Report March 2018) were reviewed to ensure their accuracy in the context of the preliminary design. Based on this review, the potential effects, mitigation or compensation measures, and net effects associated with the Preferred Landfill Footprint were confirmed and documented. In addition to identifying mitigation or compensation measures, potential enhancement opportunities associated with the preliminary design for the Preferred Landfill Footprint were also identified, where possible. Following this confirmatory exercise, the requirement for monitoring in relation to net effects was identified, where appropriate. Finally, any Terrestrial and Aquatic Environment approvals required as part of the implementation of the Preferred Landfill Footprint were identified.

4.

Additional Investigations No additional investigations were undertaken beyond those conducted between 2016 and 2017 to inform the determination of baseline conditions, as this was determined to be a sufficient level of detail to inform the Preferred Landfill Footprint design and impact assessment stages.

4.1

General Conditions within the Site and Local Study Areas Surrounding Land Use

The Site and Local Study Areas encompass a variety of land uses. North of the Site Study Area, there is active development and the creation of residential neighbourhoods. Actively farmed and/or fallow agricultural fields are present to the east of the Site Study Area, as well as a field to the immediate southwest of the Site Study Area. Two golf courses are present to the east and south, and patches of deciduous forest are present to the southeast and to the northwest of the Site Study Area, with another small patch of deciduous forest present to the north in the area of residential development. To the west is Heritage Green Community Trust Passive Park, a former landfill which has been capped and vegetated, and which now hosts a sports park, leash free dog park, pollinator gardens and walking trails. Additional details regarding the Land Uses can be found in the detailed Land Use Existing Conditions and Impact Assessment Report.


Topography and Hydrology The Site and Local Study Areas encompass several physiographic units, as shown on Figure 4.1. These units include till moraines, clay plains and escarpments, with beaches and sand plains at the northernmost portion of the Local Study Area. There are several significant natural landforms within the Local Study Area. The Niagara Escarpment is located in the northwest portion of the Local Study Area. Within the Local Study Area, the Niagara Escarpment is a north-facing cliff, approximately 70 m high, running roughly east west (Jackman Geoscience Inc., 2015). The Eramosa Escarpment is a buried mini escarpment which is located at the north side of the closed west landfill (Heritage Green Park). The Eramosa Escarpment is mostly buried by glacial till laid down during the last glacial period (Jackman Geoscience Inc., 2015). The Local Study Area is situated in Hamilton Conservation Authority (HCA) jurisdiction. Several natural water features are present within the Local Study Area. Davis Creek crosses a limited area of the western portion of the Local Study Area. Battlefield Creek, an intermittent watercourse, is present immediately northeast of the SCRF within the Local Study Area. On HCA regulated areas mapping, a very small portion of the northeast corner of the SCRF is shown as regulated area, due to the presence of Battlefield Creek in the vicinity. An intermittent tributary of Stoney Creek is also shown to occur southeast of the SCRF within the Local Study Area. These water features are discussed in further detail in Section 4.3.2. There are also several manmade water features (e.g., stormwater management ponds and drainage ditches) within the Site and Local Study Areas. Surface water features are discussed in greater detail in the Surface Water Existing Conditions Report (GHD, 2017). Aquatic features within the Site Study Area are discussed in further detail as they relate to aquatic habitat in Section 4.2.2.


14 0

200

400

10

11

600

M et er s

12

1

12

2

2

Legend

Sit e St udy Ar ea

Lo ca lSt udy Ar ea 14:Bea ches

12:Cla y Pla ins

1 1:Sa nd Pla ins

10:Sha le Pla ins 2:T illM o r a ines

1:Esca r p m ent s So ur ce:M NRFNRV I S,2015.Pr o duced by GHD underlicence fr o m Ont ar io M inis t r y o fNa t ur a lRes o ur cesa nd Fo r es t r y,© Queen' sPr int er2017 Cha p m a n,L. J .a nd Put na m ,D. F.2007.Phys io gr a p hy o fs o ut her n Ont ar io ;Ont ar io Geo lo gica lSur vey,M iscella neo usRelea s e— Da t a 228Co o r dina t e Syst em :NAD1983U T M Z o ne 17N

T ERRAPU REENV I RONM ENT AL 65GREENM OU NT AI NROADWEST ,HAM I L T ON,ONT ARI O ST ONEYCREEKREGI ONALFACI LI T YEA

PHYSI OGRAPHY GI SFile:Q: \GI S\PROJ ECT S\1 1 102000s \1 1 102771\La yo ut s\004\1 1 10277100( 004) GI SWA002. m xd

1 1 102771

Sep 19,2017

FI GU RE4. 1

Significant Natural Features Significant natural features within the Site and Local Study Areas are shown on Figure 4.2. No Significant Ecological Areas (SEAs) or Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSWs) are identified to occur within the Local Study Area; however, several significant natural heritage features are identified on Schedule B of the Urban Hamilton Official Plan (OP) and the Rural Hamilton OP as occurring within the Local Study Area. The majority of the area west of Centennial Parkway, including the Site Study Area, is under regulation of the Urban Hamilton OP, while the remainder of the eastern Local Study Area is under regulation of the Rural Hamilton OP. Immediately to the northwest of the Site Study Area, at the junction of Green Mountain Road West and First Road West, there is a forested area which extends into the Niagara Escarpment. This area is identified as Significant Woodland, Environmentally Significant Area and Core Area, and was observed to consist of a relatively young deciduous forest with a mixed canopy of maple, poplar and ash species with a dense understory of staghorn sumac and grape vines. Small Linkages are identified on Schedule B of the Urban Hamilton OP west and north of the Site Study Area. The Linkage immediately north of the SCRF, in the area of current residential development, was found to be an open willow and maple dominant deciduous forest, with a dense mixed understory of staghorn sumac and dogwood. Immediately south of the SCRF, in the vicinity of Penny Lane, there is a forested area with a small wetland to the south, which is identified on Schedule B as Significant Woodland and a Key Hydrologic Feature. It was observed to consist of maple, ash and poplar forest with a dense understory of dogwood, sumac and herbaceous species, such as asters and goldenrod. A wet area is also present, determined by phragmites observed in the vicinity of Penny Lane. Another Key Hydrologic Feature (Davis Creek) is located to the west of the Site Study Area near the border of the Local Study Area, and is discussed in further detail in Section 4.3.2. Within the eastern portion of the Local Study Area addressed by the Rural Hamilton OP, linkages are identified along Green Mountain Road to the east of the Site Study Area. Patches of Core Areas are shown to occur throughout the northeastern portion of the Local Study Area, with associated designations as Significant Woodlands. Several Key Hydrologic Features are also identified and are associated with various pond features in the northeastern and eastern portion of the Local Study Area. With respect to Areas of Natural or Scientific Interest (ANSIs), there are two that fall just within the Local Study Area, namely Felker’s Falls ANSI and Devils Punch Bowl ANSI, and one that borders the southern portion of the Local Study Area, namely the Eramosa Karst ANSI. The Felker’s Falls Escarpment Valley contains Felker’s Falls, a waterfall and plunge pool created by Davis Creek as it crossed the escarpment. A high concentration of butternut (Juglans cinerea) is present on the talus slopes of the escarpment. Vegetation communities in this feature within the Local Study Area consists of deciduous forest, swamp thicket, shrub bluff, treed talus, and various cultural communities, including cultural thicket, old field, and coniferous plantation (HCA, 2014). Devil’s Punch Bowl is a 23 m high waterfall where Stoney Creek has eroded a semi-circular plunge pool. Vegetation communities in this feature within the Local Study Area include treed talus, deciduous forest, deciduous woodland, and deciduous savanna (HCA, 2014).


Community Beach Ponds Wetland Complex

Que en E lizab eth W ay

Rd Rd

Gree n

Mil bur n

Arvin A ve Barto n St

Hwy

8

King St E

Gray R

d

nd St N

Owe n

Pl

Hixo n Rd

Ba ttl e fiel dC ree 2

High

k

Mille n

Rd

Hilton

1,500

Rd

Dr

N

Keno ra Av e

Lak e Av eN

1,000 Kenilw500 orth Ac c Meters es s

NS ervic e

St

0

St E

Nas h Rd

Cop e St

Barto n

E

E 2nd Rd

1st R d

W Bell

agio A

Rd

Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI)

Rural Area

Wetland - Evaluated

Upper Twenty Mile Creek Wetland Wetland - Provincially Significant Complex

Wetland - Not Evaluated

E

E

Rd 2 0

Significant Ecological Area (SEA)

Local Natural Area Environmentally Twenty Mile Significant Area

Core Area

! ! ! ! Area Specific ! ! ! ! ! ! !G !Linkages

Creek Meander C ANSI

olf C lu

d

Key Hydrologic Features

Woo dbur nR

Key Natural Heritage Feature Significant Woodlands

Site Study Area

dE

Lower Twenty Mile Creek Wetland Complex

City of Hamilton Official Plan

Local Study Area (1.5km)

Vinemount Swamp

6th R d

Rd 5 6

b Rd

Reg

Reg

Legend

Sinkhole Wetland Complex

Fletc her R d

Golf Clu

le Cre ek

oun tain R

ek

n Rd Hig hlan d

ve

Hen ders hot R d

Chu rch R Trinit y

Sinkh o

Cr e

dE

E

Mud St E

d

Eramosa Karst ANSI

2nd Rd

W

Eramosa Karst ANSI

Rym al R d

Gre en M

Upp er C ente nnia l Pky

d Pritc hard R

d Glov er R

Eramosa Karst ANSI

ey

5th R

Mud St W

3rd R

dE

Vinemount Moraine ANSI

on St

Albion Falls ANSI

Tap leyt ow

Pk y

Felkers Falls ANSI

1st R d

Re d

hill

Re dH ill Va lle y

Cre e

k

y Pk ial nn nte Ce

Leslie Dr Devils Ridge Rd Punch Bowl ANSI

Policy (Schedule B)

b Rd

Parks & General Open Space

Source: MNRF NRVIS, 2015. Produced by GHD under licence from Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, © Queen's Printer 2017Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N

TERRAPURE ENVIRONMENTAL 65 GREEN MOUNTAIN ROAD WEST, HAMILTON, ONTARIO STONEY CREEK REGIONAL FACILITY EA

SIGNIFICANT NATURAL FEATURES GIS File: Q:\GIS\PROJECTS\11102000s\11102771\Layouts\004\11102771-00(004)GIS-WA003.mxd

11102771

Dec 6, 2017

FIGURE 4.2

Species at Risk In order to determine the potential for presence of Species at Risk (SAR) within the Study Areas, secondary sources of information were reviewed, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) was consulted to request species records, incidental observations of SAR were collected at all Site visits, and breeding bird surveys were conducted in 2017 to determine the presence of SAR birds and their use of the SCRF as breeding habitat. Provincially tracked species records for the Local Study Area are shown on Figure 4.3. The majority of records are historical (pre-1996) sightings, prior to the development of the existing SCRF; the most recent occurrence is of a snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina) within the Site Study Area in 2010. No aquatic SAR have been identified on Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Fish and Mussel mapping (2017) as occurring within either the Site or Local Study Area. A SAR screening activity was conducted to determine the potential for SAR within the Local Study Area, and is provided as Appendix A. Although much of the Local Study Area is developed in nature, many areas still may provide habitat for a number of species, in particular the areas associated with the Niagara Escarpment. Through this activity, the potential for 49 provincially listed SAR was identified within the Local Study Area. Of these 49 species, 31 were determined to have a moderate to high potential of occurrence within the Local Study Area, based on the availability of potentially suitable habitat. From the list in Appendix A, SAR which were detected in the Site Study Area during the Site visits, or for which potentially suitable habitat is present within the Site Study Area, are detailed in the following paragraphs. Eastern Meadowlark The eastern meadowlark is a provincially Threatened species, and receives protection of both individuals and their habitat under the provincial Endangered Species Act (ESA). During field investigations in 2016, an eastern meadowlark was observed singing in suitable breeding habitat on the capped portion of the footprint in the MEGM ELC unit. To determine the extent which this species uses the Site, GHD completed breeding bird surveys during the 2017 field season. Multiple eastern meadowlark were observed singing on all three breeding bird survey visits in 2017, and GHD is of the opinion that this species is using the capped portion of the property for breeding. MNRF has been consulted and it has been determined that a Notice of Activity process under the ESA must be followed for the works. Barn Swallow Barn swallows (Hirundo rustica) are a provincially Threatened species. They are typically found in agricultural areas, cities, and suburbs, and along highways (Rodewald, 2016). Numerous barn swallows were observed foraging during the Site visits in multiple areas of the Site Study Area. One barn swallow was observed gathering mud from one of the on-Site ponds to be used in nest building activities. Nesting sites may exist within the Site Study Area where suitable structures exist (e.g., buildings, large culverts), whereas suitable foraging habitat is presumed to occur within the Site Study Area. No barn swallow nests were documented during the Site investigations, however targeted surveys of suitable habitat (e.g., buildings and large culverts) are recommended when it is determined that these structures will be altered through the course of the proposed works. Snapping Turtle Snapping turtle is a provincially Special Concern species which may have the potential to occur within the Site Study Area. Snapping turtles prefer shallow waters with soft substrate (MNRF, 2017a), habitat which


may be present in the multiple ponds present on Site (mapped as OAW). However, the hard substrate and limited aquatic vegetation in the ponds reduces the likely usage of most on Site ponds by snapping turtles. Butternut Butternut (Juglans cinerea) is a provincially Endangered species that MNRF has identified during consultation as having the potential to occur within the Local Study Area. In Ontario, this species occurs in deciduous forests, preferring moist, well-drained soil and is often found along streams. This species does not do well in the shade, and often grows in sunny openings and near forest edges (MNRF, 2017b). This species is known to occur in the Felker’s Falls area within the northwest corner of the Local Study Area. Based on habitat available within the SCRF, GHD anticipates that there is a low likelihood of presence within the Site Study Area, due to the lack of deciduous forest. Furthermore, the vast majority of trees located within the Site Study Area are located within existing buffer areas which will not be impacted as part of the proposed undertaking. Several small trees and shrubs are part of the cultural thicket vegetation community in the northeast corner of the Site (see Figure 4.4). No butternut were observed in this area during initial field investigations. Based on the Preferred Landfill Footprint and associated construction and operational activities, no butternut are anticipated to be impacted within the Site or Local Study Areas as part of the proposed undertaking.


3/ / /1898-06-10/Y 9-04-19/Y / / /1897-10/Y ily S3/ / /1952-07-27/N / / /N n S1/END/END/1886-07-01/Y ose Pink SX/ / / /N / /1870/Y omwell S2/ / / /N False Foxglove S2?/ / /1888-09-19/N e Foxglove S1/ / /1957-07-26/Y d S2?/ / /1956-08-08/N er S2/END/END/1991/N ht-heron S3B,S3N/ / /1936/N S1/END/END/1904/Y SX/EXP/EXP/1950/Y / /1937-07-05/Y

0

Yellow Stargrass S3/ / /1898-06-10/Y Puttyroot S2/ / /1889-04-19/Y Erect Knotweed SH/ / /1897-10/Y Large Yellow Pond-lily S3/ / /1952-07-27/N Spotted Wintergreen S1/END/END/1886-07-01/Y Square-stemmed Rose Pink SX/ / / /N White Milkweed SX/ / /1870/Y Soft-hairy False Gromwell S2/ / / /N Fern-leaved Yellow False Foxglove S2?/ / /1888-09-19/N Downy Yellow False Foxglove S1/ / /1957-07-26/Y Panicled Hawkweed S2?/ / /1956-08-08/N A Lichen S1S2/ / /1978-06-26/N A Lichen S1S2/ / /1978-06-28/N Jefferson Salamander S2/END/END/1991/N Black-crowned Night-heron S3B,S3N/ / /1936/N Northern Bobwhite S1/END/END/1904/Y Timber Rattlesnake SX/EXP/EXP/1950/Y

200

400

Yellow Stargrass S3/ / /1898-06-10/Y Puttyroot S2/ / /1889-04-19/Y Erect Knotweed SH/ / /1897-10/Y Large Yellow Pond-lily S3/ / /1952-07-27/N Spotted Wintergreen S1/END/END/1886-07-01/Y Square-stemmed Rose Pink SX/ / / /N White Milkweed SX/ / /1870/Y Soft-hairy False Gromwell S2/ / / /N Fern-leaved Yellow False Foxglove S2?/ / /1888-09-19/N Panicled Hawkweed S2?/ / /1956-08-08/N A Lichen S1S2/ / /1978-06-26/N A Lichen S1S2/ / /1978-06-28/N Jefferson Salamander S2/END/END/1991/N Black-crowned Night-heron S3B,S3N/ / /1936/N Northern Bobwhite S1/END/END/1904/Y Timber Rattlesnake SX/EXP/EXP/1950/Y

Yellow Stargrass S3/ / /1898-06-10/Y Puttyroot S2/ / /1889-04-19/Y Large Yellow Pond-lily S3/ / /1952-07-27/N Eastern Flowering Dogwood S2?/END/END/1889-05-17/N Spotted Wintergreen S1/END/END/1886-07-01/Y Square-stemmed Rose Pink SX/ / / /N White Milkweed SX/ / /1870/Y Soft-hairy False Gromwell S2/ / / /N Fern-leaved Yellow False Foxglove S2?/ / /1888-09-19/N Panicled Hawkweed S2?/ / /1956-08-08/N A Lichen S1S2/ / /1978-06-26/N A Lichen S1S2/ / /1978-06-28/N Jefferson Salamander S2/END/END/1991/N Black-crowned Night-heron S3B,S3N/ / /1936/N Timber Rattlesnake SX/EXP/EXP/1950/Y

600

Meters

17NH98_84 Gray Ratsnake (Carolinian population) S1/END/END/1938/Y olinian population) S1/END/END/1938/Y Yellow Stargrass S3/ / /1898-06-10/Y 3/ / /1898-06-10/Y Puttyroot S2/ / /1889-04-19/Y 9-04-19/Y Erect Knotweed SH/ / /1897-10/Y / / /1897-10/Y Large Yellow Pond-lily S3/ / /1952-07-27/N ily S3/ / /1952-07-27/N Spotted Wintergreen S1/END/END/1886-07-01/Y n S1/END/END/1886-07-01/Y Square-stemmed Rose Pink SX/ / / /N ose Pink SX/ / / /N White Milkweed SX/ / /1870/Y / /1870/Y Soft-hairy False Gromwell S2/ / / /N omwell S2/ / / /N Fern-leaved Yellow False Foxglove S2?/ / /1888-09-19/N False Foxglove S2?/ / /1888-09-19/N Panicled Hawkweed S2?/ / /1956-08-08/N e Foxglove S1/ / /1957-07-26/Y A Lichen S1S2/ / /1978-06-26/N d S2?/ / /1956-08-08/N A Lichen S1S2/ / /1978-06-28/N er S2/END/END/1991/N Jefferson Salamander S2/END/END/1992-05-02/N ht-heron S3B,S3N/ / /1936/N Jefferson Salamander S2/END/END/1991/N S1/END/END/1904/Y Black-crowned Night-heron S3B,S3N/ / /1936/N SX/EXP/EXP/1950/Y Northern Bobwhite S1/END/END/1904/Y Snapping Turtle S3/SC/SC/2010-05-18/N Timber Rattlesnake SX/EXP/EXP/1950/Y

17NH98_94 Gray Ratsnake (Carolinian population) S1/END/END/1938/Y Yellow Stargrass S3/ / /1898-06-10/Y Puttyroot S2/ / /1889-04-19/Y Erect Knotweed SH/ / /1897-10/Y Large Yellow Pond-lily S3/ / /1952-07-27/N Spotted Wintergreen S1/END/END/1886-07-01/Y Square-stemmed Rose Pink SX/ / / /N White Milkweed SX/ / /1870/Y Soft-hairy False Gromwell S2/ / / /N Fern-leaved Yellow False Foxglove S2?/ / /1888-09-19/N Panicled Hawkweed S2?/ / /1956-08-08/N A Lichen S1S2/ / /1978-06-26/N A Lichen S1S2/ / /1978-06-28/N Jefferson Salamander S2/END/END/1991/N Black-crowned Night-heron S3B,S3N/ / /1936/N Northern Bobwhite S1/END/END/1904/Y Snapping Turtle S3/SC/SC/2010-05-18/N Milksnake S3/SC/SC/1989-?/N Timber Rattlesnake SX/EXP/EXP/1950/Y

17PH08_04 Gray Ratsnake (Carolinian population) S1/END/END/1938/Y Yellow Stargrass S3/ / /1898-06-10/Y Puttyroot S2/ / /1889-04-19/Y Large Yellow Pond-lily S3/ / /1952-07-27/N Eastern Flowering Dogwood S2?/END/END/1889-05-17/N Spotted Wintergreen S1/END/END/1886-07-01/Y Square-stemmed Rose Pink SX/ / / /N White Milkweed SX/ / /1870/Y Soft-hairy False Gromwell S2/ / / /N Fern-leaved Yellow False Foxglove S2?/ / /1888-09-19/N Panicled Hawkweed S2?/ / /1956-08-08/N A Lichen S1S2/ / /1978-06-26/N A Lichen S1S2/ / /1978-06-28/N Jefferson Salamander S2/END/END/1991/N Black-crowned Night-heron S3B,S3N/ / /1936/N Timber Rattlesnake SX/EXP/EXP/1950/Y

17NH98_83 Gray Ratsnake (Carolinian population) S1/END/END/1938/Y olinian population) S1/END/END/1938/Y Yellow Stargrass S3/ / /1898-06-10/Y 3/ / /1898-06-10/Y Puttyroot S2/ / /1889-04-19/Y 9-04-19/Y Erect Knotweed SH/ / /1897-10/Y / / /1897-10/Y Large Yellow Pond-lily S3/ / /1952-07-27/N ily S3/ / /1952-07-27/N Spotted Wintergreen S1/END/END/1886-07-01/Y n S1/END/END/1886-07-01/Y Square-stemmed Rose Pink SX/ / / /N ose Pink SX/ / / /N White Milkweed SX/ / /1870/Y / /1870/Y Soft-hairy False Gromwell S2/ / / /N omwell S2/ / / /N Fern-leaved Yellow False Foxglove S2?/ / /1888-09-19/N False Foxglove S2?/ / /1888-09-19/N Panicled Hawkweed S2?/ / /1956-08-08/N d S2?/ / /1956-08-08/N A Lichen S1S2/ / /1978-06-26/N er S2/END/END/1991/N A Lichen S1S2/ / /1978-06-28/N ht-heron S3B,S3N/ / /1936/N Jefferson Salamander S2/END/END/1991/N S1/END/END/1904/Y Black-crowned Night-heron S3B,S3N/ / /1936/N SX/EXP/EXP/1950/Y Northern Bobwhite S1/END/END/1904/Y / /1937-07-05/Y Snapping Turtle S3/SC/SC/2010-05-18/N / /1937-07-05/Y Timber Rattlesnake SX/EXP/EXP/1950/Y

17NH98_93 Gray Ratsnake (Carolinian population) S1/END/END/1938/Y Yellow Stargrass S3/ / /1898-06-10/Y Puttyroot S2/ / /1889-04-19/Y Erect Knotweed SH/ / /1897-10/Y Large Yellow Pond-lily S3/ / /1952-07-27/N Spotted Wintergreen S1/END/END/1886-07-01/Y Square-stemmed Rose Pink SX/ / / /N White Milkweed SX/ / /1870/Y Soft-hairy False Gromwell S2/ / / /N Fern-leaved Yellow False Foxglove S2?/ / /1888-09-19/N Panicled Hawkweed S2?/ / /1956-08-08/N A Lichen S1S2/ / /1978-06-26/N A Lichen S1S2/ / /1978-06-28/N Jefferson Salamander S2/END/END/1991/N Black-crowned Night-heron S3B,S3N/ / /1936/N Northern Bobwhite S1/END/END/1904/Y Snapping Turtle S3/SC/SC/2010-05-18/N Timber Rattlesnake SX/EXP/EXP/1950/Y

17PH08_03 Gray Ratsnake (Carolinian population) S1/END/END/1938/Y Yellow Stargrass S3/ / /1898-06-10/Y Puttyroot S2/ / /1889-04-19/Y Large Yellow Pond-lily S3/ / /1952-07-27/N Spotted Wintergreen S1/END/END/1886-07-01/Y Square-stemmed Rose Pink SX/ / / /N White Milkweed SX/ / /1870/Y Soft-hairy False Gromwell S2/ / / /N Fern-leaved Yellow False Foxglove S2?/ / /1888-09-19/N Panicled Hawkweed S2?/ / /1956-08-08/N A Lichen S1S2/ / /1978-06-26/N A Lichen S1S2/ / /1978-06-28/N Jefferson Salamander S2/END/END/1991/N Black-crowned Night-heron S3B,S3N/ / /1936/N Timber Rattlesnake SX/EXP/EXP/1950/Y

17NH98_82 olinian population) S1/END/END/1938/Y Gray Ratsnake (Carolinian population) S1/END/END/1938/Y 3/ / /1898-06-10/Y Yellow Stargrass S3/ / /1898-06-10/Y 9-04-19/Y Puttyroot S2/ / /1889-04-19/Y / / /1897-10/Y Erect Knotweed SH/ / /1897-10/Y ily S3/ / /1952-07-27/N Large Yellow Pond-lily S3/ / /1952-07-27/N n S1/END/END/1886-07-01/Y Spotted Wintergreen S1/END/END/1886-07-01/Y ose Pink SX/ / / /N Square-stemmed Rose Pink SX/ / / /N / /1870/Y White Milkweed SX/ / /1870/Y omwell S2/ / / /N Soft-hairy False Gromwell S2/ / / /N False Foxglove S2?/ / /1888-09-19/NFern-leaved Yellow False Foxglove S2?/ / /1888-09-19/N d S2?/ / /1956-08-08/N Panicled Hawkweed S2?/ / /1956-08-08/N er S2/END/END/1991/N A Lichen S1S2/ / /1978-06-26/N ht-heron S3B,S3N/ / /1936/N A Lichen S1S2/ / /1978-06-28/N S1/END/END/1904/Y Jefferson Salamander S2/END/END/1991/N SX/EXP/EXP/1950/Y Black-crowned Night-heron S3B,S3N/ / /1936/N

17NH98_92 Gray Ratsnake (Carolinian population) S1/END/END/1938/Y Yellow Stargrass S3/ / /1898-06-10/Y Puttyroot S2/ / /1889-04-19/Y Erect Knotweed SH/ / /1897-10/Y Large Yellow Pond-lily S3/ / /1952-07-27/N Spotted Wintergreen S1/END/END/1886-07-01/Y Square-stemmed Rose Pink SX/ / / /N White Milkweed SX/ / /1870/Y Soft-hairy False Gromwell S2/ / / /N Fern-leaved Yellow False Foxglove S2?/ / /1888-09-19/N Panicled Hawkweed S2?/ / /1956-08-08/N A Lichen S1S2/ / /1978-06-26/N A Lichen S1S2/ / /1978-06-28/N Jefferson Salamander S2/END/END/1991/N Black-crowned Night-heron S3B,S3N/ / /1936/N Northern Bobwhite S1/END/END/1904/Y Timber Rattlesnake SX/EXP/EXP/1950/Y

17PH08_02 Gray Ratsnake (Carolinian population) S1/END/END/1938/Y Puttyroot S2/ / /1889-04-19/Y Large Yellow Pond-lily S3/ / /1952-07-27/N Spotted Wintergreen S1/END/END/1886-07-01/Y Square-stemmed Rose Pink SX/ / / /N White Milkweed SX/ / /1870/Y Soft-hairy False Gromwell S2/ / / /N Fern-leaved Yellow False Foxglove S2?/ / /1888-09-19/N Panicled Hawkweed S2?/ / /1956-08-08/N A Lichen S1S2/ / /1978-06-26/N A Lichen S1S2/ / /1978-06-28/N Jefferson Salamander S2/END/END/1991/N Black-crowned Night-heron S3B,S3N/ / /1936/N Timber Rattlesnake SX/EXP/EXP/1950/Y

17NH98_91 Gray Ratsnake (Carolinian population) S1/END/END/1938/Y Puttyroot S2/ / /1889-04-19/Y Erect Knotweed SH/ / /1897-10/Y Large Yellow Pond-lily S3/ / /1952-07-27/N Spotted Wintergreen S1/END/END/1886-07-01/Y Square-stemmed Rose Pink SX/ / / /N White Milkweed SX/ / /1870/Y Soft-hairy False Gromwell S2/ / / /N Fern-leaved Yellow False Foxglove S2?/ / /1888-09-19/N Panicled Hawkweed S2?/ / /1956-08-08/N A Lichen S1S2/ / /1978-06-26/N A Lichen S1S2/ / /1978-06-28/N Jefferson Salamander S2/END/END/1991/N Black-crowned Night-heron S3B,S3N/ / /1936/N Northern Bobwhite S1/END/END/1904/Y Timber Rattlesnake SX/EXP/EXP/1950/Y

17PH08_01 Gray Ratsnake (Carolinian population) S1/END/END/1938/Y Puttyroot S2/ / /1889-04-19/Y Large Yellow Pond-lily S3/ / /1952-07-27/N Spotted Wintergreen S1/END/END/1886-07-01/Y Square-stemmed Rose Pink SX/ / / /N White Milkweed SX/ / /1870/Y Soft-hairy False Gromwell S2/ / / /N Panicled Hawkweed S2?/ / /1956-08-08/N A Lichen S1S2/ / /1978-06-26/N A Lichen S1S2/ / /1978-06-28/N Jefferson Salamander S2/END/END/1991/N Black-crowned Night-heron S3B,S3N/ / /1936/N Timber Rattlesnake SX/EXP/EXP/1950/Y

Legend

Yellow Stargrass S3/ / /1898-06-10/Y Puttyroot S2/ / /1889-04-19/Y Large Yellow Pond-lily S3/ / /1952-07-27/ Eastern Flowering Dogwood S2?/END/E Spotted Wintergreen S1/END/END/1886 Square-stemmed Rose Pink SX/ / / /N White Milkweed SX/ / /1870/Y Soft-hairy False Gromwell S2/ / / /N Fern-leaved Yellow False Foxglove S2?/ Panicled Hawkweed S2?/ / /1956-08-08/N A Lichen S1S2/ / /1978-06-26/N A Lichen S1S2/ / /1978-06-28/N Jefferson Salamander S2/END/END/199 Black-crowned Night-heron S3B,S3N/ / /1 Timber Rattlesnake SX/EXP/EXP/1950/Y

Northern Bobwhite S1/END/END/1904/Y Timber Rattlesnake SX/EXP/EXP/1950/Y

17PH08_14 Gray Ratsnake (Carolinian population) S Yellow Stargrass S3/ / /1898-06-10/Y Puttyroot S2/ / /1889-04-19/Y Large Yellow Pond-lily S3/ / /1952-07-27/ Eastern Flowering Dogwood S2?/END/E Spotted Wintergreen S1/END/END/1886 Square-stemmed Rose Pink SX/ / / /N White Milkweed SX/ / /1870/Y Soft-hairy False Gromwell S2/ / / /N Fern-leaved Yellow False Foxglove S2?/ Panicled Hawkweed S2?/ / /1956-08-08/N A Lichen S1S2/ / /1978-06-26/N A Lichen S1S2/ / /1978-06-28/N Jefferson Salamander S2/END/END/199 Black-crowned Night-heron S3B,S3N/ / /1 Snapping Turtle S3/SC/SC/2010-05-18/N Timber Rattlesnake SX/EXP/EXP/1950/Y

17PH08_13 Gray Ratsnake (Carolinian population) S Puttyroot S2/ / /1889-04-19/Y Large Yellow Pond-lily S3/ / /1952-07-27/ Spotted Wintergreen S1/END/END/1886 Square-stemmed Rose Pink SX/ / / /N White Milkweed SX/ / /1870/Y Soft-hairy False Gromwell S2/ / / /N Fern-leaved Yellow False Foxglove S2?/ Panicled Hawkweed S2?/ / /1956-08-08/N A Lichen S1S2/ / /1978-06-26/N A Lichen S1S2/ / /1978-06-28/N Jefferson Salamander S2/END/END/199 Black-crowned Night-heron S3B,S3N/ / /1 Timber Rattlesnake SX/EXP/EXP/1950/Y

17PH08_12 Gray Ratsnake (Carolinian population) S Puttyroot S2/ / /1889-04-19/Y Large Yellow Pond-lily S3/ / /1952-07-27/ Spotted Wintergreen S1/END/END/1886 Square-stemmed Rose Pink SX/ / / /N White Milkweed SX/ / /1870/Y Soft-hairy False Gromwell S2/ / / /N Panicled Hawkweed S2?/ / /1956-08-08/N A Lichen S1S2/ / /1978-06-26/N A Lichen S1S2/ / /1978-06-28/N Jefferson Salamander S2/END/END/199 Black-crowned Night-heron S3B,S3N/ / /1 Snapping Turtle S3/SC/SC/2010-05-18/N Timber Rattlesnake SX/EXP/EXP/1950/Y

Site Study Area

Local Study Area

17NH98_81 olinian population) S1/END/END/1938/Y Gray Ratsnake (Carolinian population) S1/END/END/1938/Y NHICYellow Rare Occurences 3/ / /1898-06-10/Y Stargrass S3/ / /1898-06-10/Y 9-04-19/Y Puttyroot S2/ / /1889-04-19/Y / / /1897-10/Y Erect Knotweed SH/ / /1897-10/Y NOTES: ily S3/ / /1952-07-27/N Large provincially Yellow Pond-lily S3/ / /1952-07-27/N NHIC label indicates tracked n S1/END/END/1886-07-01/Y Spotted Wintergreen S1/END/END/1886-07-01/Y species, vegetation types and wildlife ose Pink SX/ / / /N Square-stemmed Rose concentration areas per 1km square. ThePink first SX/ / / /N / /1870/Y Milkweed line indicates the 1kmWhite square identifierSX/ and/ /1870/Y omwell S2/ / / /N Soft-hairy False Gromwell subsequent lines species Common Name, S S2/ / / /N False Foxglove S2?/ / /1888-09-19/NFern-leaved Yellow False Foxglove S2?/ / /1888-09-19/N Rank / COSWIC Status / MNRF Status / Last d S2?/ / /1956-08-08/N Panicled Hawkweed S2?/ / if/1956-08-08/N Observation Date / and Y/N flag indicated the er S2/END/END/1991/N species is extirpated.A Lichen S1S2/ / /1978-06-26/N ht-heron S3B,S3N/ / /1936/N A Lichen S1S2/ / /1978-06-28/N S1/END/END/1904/Y Jefferson Salamander S2/END/END/1991/N Some occurences are listed as "Sensitive /SC/SC/1950/N Black-crowned S3B,S3N/ / /1936/N Species" which are at higherNight-heron risk to human SX/EXP/EXP/1950/Y Northern Bobwhite S1/END/END/1904/Y exploitation or harm (occurence details Timber SX/EXP/EXP/1950/Y obtainable through localRattlesnake OMNR district offices).

17PH08_11 Gray Ratsnake (Carolinian population) S1/END/END/1938/Y Soft-hairy False Gromwell S2/ / / /N A Lichen S1S2/ / /1978-06-26/N A Lichen S1S2/ / /1978-06-28/N Jefferson Salamander S2/END/END/1991/N Black-crowned Night-heron S3B,S3N/ / /1936/N Snapping Turtle S3/SC/SC/2010-05-18/N

Source: MNRF NRVIS, 2015. Produced by CRA under licence from Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, © Queen's Printer 2017; NHIC Rare Occurences - updated 2012/02/29Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N

TERRAPURE ENVIRONMENTAL 65 GREEN MOUNTAIN ROAD WEST, HAMILTON, ONTARIO STONEY CREEK REGIONAL FACILITY EA

SPECIES AT RISK GIS File: Q:\GIS\PROJECTS\11102000s\11102771\Layouts\004\11102771-00(004)GIS-WA004.mxd

11102771-00 Dec 6, 2017

FIGURE 4.3

TAGM5

Legend

Site Study Area

Wetland or Water Unit Upland Unit

Cultural Unit

Wetland and Water Features: MAMM1-2: Cattail Graminoid Mineral Meadow Marsh OAW: Open Water Upland: TAGM5: Fencerow MEGM: Dry-Fresh Graminoid Meadow Ecosite Cultural: CUM1: Mineral Cultural Meadow Ecosite CUT: Cultural Thicket CVI-2: Disposal CGL-2: Parkland

Source: MNRF NRVIS, 2015. Produced by GHD under licence from Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, © Queen's Printer 2017 Inset Map: ESRI Data & Maps 2008 Data Distribution Application (DDA)

0

75

150

225

Meters

Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N

GIS File: Q:\GIS\PROJECTS\11102000s\11102771\Layouts\004\11102771-00(004)GIS-WA001.mxd

Aerial: Microsoft product screen shot(s) reprinted with permission from Microsoft Corporation

TERRAPURE STONEY CREEK REGIONAL FACILITY EA 65 GREEN MOUNTAIN ROAD WEST

11102771

Dec 7, 2017

ECOLOGICAL LAND CLASSIFICATION FIGURE SITE STUDY AREA

4.4

4.2

Site Study Area (The Preferred Landfill Footprint) Terrestrial Environment and Habitat

Within the Site Study Area, main types of habitat available were classified using Ecological Land Classification (ELC), and are displayed on Figure 5.4. Eight ecological land classification community classes are represented within the Site Study Area and include wetland, upland and cultural systems. Characteristics of each of the identified community types are provided in the following paragraphs. Wetland Communities MAMM1-2: Cattail Graminoid Mineral Meadow Marsh This unit consists of a small anthropogenic wetland feature south of the access road that was dry at the time of observation. This unit hosted larger amounts of graminoids and robust emergent vegetation, generally dominated by cattails (Typha sp.) with some phragmites (Phragmites australis subsp. australis) around the perimeter. OAW: Open Water Small man-made open water habitats are present throughout the northern portion of the Site Study Area. These areas include a water taking pond, groundwater pond, and various storm water ponds. The water taking pond is located immediately north of the access road, and had cattails and phragmites around its perimeter. The ground water pond hosted phragmites around its perimeter, and the other water feature immediately to the south had limited vegetation consisting primarily of cattails. The stormwater pond in the northwest corner was dry and did not have any aquatic vegetation at the time of observation. The large pond at the northeast corner of the property had very minimal aquatic vegetation, generally consisting of small pockets of phragmites. The water feature to the south of the access road on the west side of Site Study Area also had limited vegetation consisting primarily of cattails. Upland Communities TAGM5: Fencerow This unit represents the fencerow surrounding a large portion of the SCRF. This area generally hosts a mixed forb/graminoid understory, with a variety of planted deciduous and coniferous tree species. The western and northern fencerows are dominated by spruces (Picea sp.), whereas the section bordering the agricultural field at the southwest corner is mixed deciduous and coniferous. MEGM: Dry-Fresh Graminoid Meadow Ecosite The dry-fresh graminoid meadow is mainly characterized by relatively low growing grass species. The soil on this Site has been disturbed as this is a capped area of the SCRF and the vegetation present is typical of a disturbed site. There is a gravel road/pathway which runs through the meadow near the southern portion of the Site Study Area. This unit is generally dominated by fescues (Festuca sp.) in the southern portion, with reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) becoming more dominant in northwest portion.


Cultural Communities CUM1: Mineral Cultural Meadow Ecosite This unit hosts upland vegetation species common in disturbed areas, such as coltsfoot (Tussilago farfara), common teasel (Dipsacus fullonum), vetches (Vicia sp.), and clovers (Trifolium sp.), with large patches of bare ground and exposed patches of gravel and angular stone. CUT: Cultural Thicket This unit hosts a variety of smaller trees, shrubs and herbaceous species common in disturbed areas. Low growing staghorn sumac (Rhus typhina), Manitoba maple (Acer negundo), and a variety of other shrub species are present, with an herbaceous ground layer consisting of common species in disturbed areas. CGL-2: Parkland This area surrounds the main office and consists primarily of manicured lawn, with several isolated trees scattered throughout. CVI-2: Disposal This is the area of active landfilling activities, including access roads and associated on-Site amenities. 4.2.1.1

Wildlife

Breeding bird surveys, with the main purpose of documenting breeding of SAR birds, were completed in 2017, and incidental observations of wildlife were collected during the 2016 and 2017 Site visits. A list of incidental wildlife observations, including species detected during the breeding bird surveys, is provided in Appendix B. A total of 31 bird species were observed within the Site and Local Study Areas during the various Site visits. This included two provincially Threatened bird species, which are discussed in further detail in Section 4.1.4. There is also anecdotal evidence provided by Site staff of additional species using the Site Study Area, in particular white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), coyote (Canis latrans), and wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo). However, the occurrence of these species within the Site Study Area has reportedly decreased in recent years. No issues or interactions with wildlife as it relates to operations were observed, as confirmed by Site staff. Aquatic Environment and Habitat Within the Site Study Area, several man-made aquatic features are present. These include a water taking pond, stormwater and groundwater ponds in the northwest corner of the SCRF, and drainage ditches along the perimeter of the property, with substrates ranging from sediment to gravel. Aquatic vegetation is generally minimal to absent, with some ponds hosting robust emergent vegetation, such as phragmites and cattails around their perimeter. Based on observations during the Site visits, these aquatic features appear to currently provide limited nesting habitat, but some foraging opportunities to wildlife species. The northwest pond was also noted to provide nesting material (mud) for barn swallows.


4.3

Local Study Area Terrestrial Environment and Habitat

Detailed field investigations were not conducted within the Local Study Area; ecological communities were mapped based on aerial imagery interpretation and secondary source information. ELC mapping of the Local Study Area is shown on Figure 4.5. Different types of vegetation communities include cultural meadow, deciduous forest, deciduous woodland, shrub bluff, treed talus, deciduous savanna, and swamp thicket. Anthropogenic communities include agricultural communities, as well as constructed areas, recreational areas, and golf courses. According to Site staff, a number of common urban wildlife species have been observed in the Local Study Area (raccoons, skunks, squirrels, etc.).


r Rd Web ste

St

Bun ke r H ill Ha Dr nov er

n St N ubo d Acklan St

r rd D ega Hild

BLS

CV OAG

CUM

CU

Para mou nt D

FOD

Gree n

CGL-4 CV

Mou ntain R

ood

Rid ge R

CV CUM

OAG

OAG AG

CV SWT

FOD

AG

OAG

OAG

FOD

dW

CGL-1

CUM

FOD

WOD

CV

Mou ntain R

OAG

dE

CV FOD

FOD

St

Isaa cB

MEGM

Do

rock D

an

St

lm

CV

E

WOD

Mud St

Legend

E

OAG

W

Dr

High land Rd

CGL-1

High bury

Ering a

t D r

FOD

2nd Rd

Leck ie Av e

r

Gate ston eD

W

Foxtr o

te

2nd Rd

Dr

CGL-4

E

OAG

Sidn

ey Cres Hillcr oft D r

CV

FOD

r

FOD

OAG

CUM

CV Upp er C ente nnia l Pky

Rand

Dr

Ventura

W

OAG 1st R d

Mud St

1st R d

CGL-4

FOD

WOD

OAG

Gree n Dr

Stoney Cre ek

d

W

Misty w

Leslie Dr

CV

SWT

S

FOD

r

A

FOD

FOD

FOD

St on udub

TAT

TAT

B attlef ield C r ee k

Dr b Clu

unt ry

FOD

TAT

FOD

CV

y Pk ial nn nte Ce

Co

WOD

CV

FOD

Pl

TAT

A ud

e dr

Dr

ws

Quig ley Rd

Fair wa y

Dr

ve ill A nh ee Gr

An

SVD WOD

Highla

Wetland and Water Features: Cultural: CGL-1: Golf Course Site Study AreaRyma SWT: Swamp Thicket l Rd E Upland: CGL-4: Recreational Local Study Area BLS: Shrub Bluff CU: Cultural HCA Layer CUM: Cultural Meadow CV: Constructed FOD: Deciduous Forest Agricultural: Wetland Unit SVD: Deciduous Savanna AG: Agricultural Upland Unit Reg TAT: Treed Talus OAG: Open Agricultural Rd 2 0 Cultural Unit WOD: Deciduous Woodland Sink Cre hole MEGM: Dry-Fresh Graminoid Meadow Ecosite ek Agricultural Unit

nd Rd

E

Notes: 1.Hamilton Conservation Authority (HCA) mapping digitized from Natural Areas Inventory maps 2. Site Study Area Ecological Land Classification is shown on Figure 4.4

Source: Hamilton Conservation Authority (HCA) - Natural Areas Inventory, 2014; MNRF NRVIS, 2015. Produced by GHD under licence from Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, © Queen's Printer 2017 Aerial Image: Image ©2017 Google, Imagery date: 2017.

0

220

440

660

Meters

Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N

GIS File: Q:\GIS\PROJECTS\11102000s\11102771\Layouts\004\11102771-00(004)GIS-WA006.mxd

TERRAPURE STONEY CREEK REGIONAL FACILITY EA 65 GREEN MOUNTAIN ROAD WEST

11102771

Dec 7, 2017

ECOLOGICAL LAND CLASSIFICATION FIGURE 4.5 LOCAL STUDY AREA

Aquatic Environment and Habitat As previously mentioned, several aquatic features traverse the Local Study Area, including Davis Creek, Battlefield Creek, and an intermittent tributary of Stoney Creek. Davis Creek and Battlefield Creek are both identified as having a warm water thermal regime within and in the vicinity of the Local Study Area. An impassable barrier to fish passage is identified on FishWerks mapping on Battlefield Creek, north of Green Mountain Road. On Davis Creek, a moderate barrier to fish passage is located around Greenhill Avenue. Davis Creek flows over Felker’s Falls at the Niagara Escarpment and continues through a steppool sequence downstream. The fish community in the vicinity of Felker’s Falls Escarpment has been assessed as part of the Hamilton NAI, with eight species having been documented (HCA, 2014). As previously mentioned, intermittent tributaries of Stoney Creek traverse the southeastern portion of the Local Study Area. Immediately outside of the Local Study Area, Stoney Creek has eroded the escarpment below and formed the ‘punch bowl’ landform associated with the Devil’s Punch Bowl ANSI (HCA, 2014).

5.

Terrestrial and Aquatic Environment Net Effects As mentioned, the previously identified potential effects and recommended mitigation or compensation measures associated with the Preferred Landfill Footprint were reviewed to ensure their accuracy in the context of the preliminary design of the Preferred Landfill Footprint, based on the more detailed understanding of the Terrestrial and Aquatic environment developed through the additional investigations. With this in mind, the confirmed potential effects, mitigation or compensation measures, and net effects are summarized in Table 5.1 and described in further detail in the sections below.

5.1

Potential Effects on the Terrestrial and Aquatic Environment

A photographic log with examples of the types of habitats to be affected as part of the Preferred Landfill Footprint is provided as Appendix C.

5.2

Construction-related Effects

During construction, there will be the potential for effects to the terrestrial and aquatic environment as the Site is prepared for accepting additional waste, and include impacts to vegetation, wildlife habitat, aquatic habitat, and aquatic biota. As part of the Preferred Landfill Footprint, there would be a temporary loss of approximately 18.5 hectares (ha) of existing vegetation communities (e.g., meadow and thicket habitat), as well as the wildlife habitat value that these areas currently provide. Furthermore, the habitat of a Threatened bird species (eastern meadowlark) will be removed as part of the regrading activities that will occur during Phase 1 in the south and southwest portion of the Site. In total, approximately 11.5 ha of habitat for this species will be temporarily lost in the dry-fresh graminoid meadow ecosite as a result of Site preparation and regrading activities. Furthermore, a loss of on-Site aquatic habitat and disturbance to aquatic biota in open water habitats associated with the Site stormwater infrastructure is also anticipated as a result of construction due to changes in Site configuration throughout the project stages. Off-Site impacts to the terrestrial and aquatic environment during construction are not anticipated as a result of the Preferred Landfill Footprint.


Operation-related Effects Similar to during construction, daily operations (including but not limited to Site grading, relocation of Site infrastructure including buildings and ponds, building of access roads) have the potential to affect the terrestrial and aquatic environment. The potential effects from the Preferred Landfill Footprint on the terrestrial and aquatic environment during operation include impacts to vegetation, wildlife habitat, aquatic habitat, and aquatic biota. As part of the Preferred Landfill Footprint, there would likely be a temporary loss of existing vegetation communities (e.g., meadow and thicket habitat) that are anticipated to naturally re-generate in disturbed areas during the progressive Site operation, as has occurred under existing Site operation conditions activities. As these regenerating areas continue to be disturbed, there would also be a loss of associated wildlife habitat value. With regard to the habitat of eastern meadowlark, it is assumed that the majority of impact to this species will be during the construction phase, when the existing capped portion of the Site is removed to allow for further acceptance of waste. Habitat will be created for this species incidentally throughout operation as areas are capped and planted with the final vegetative cover, which will incorporate graminoid meadow habitat. There are also potential effects during operation to another threatened bird species during operation. Barn swallow (observed on Site in 2016 and 2017) may be affected by the removal and/or relocation of Site structures as part of Phases 2, 3, and closure. Barn swallow may use these anthropogenic structures for nesting, and their habitat may be destroyed during building relocation, should active or remnant nests be present. Furthermore, a loss of on-Site aquatic habitat and disturbance to aquatic biota associated in open water habitats associated with the Site stormwater infrastructure is also anticipated throughout operation, as a result of regrading activities and changes in Site configuration throughout the project stages. Off-Site or local study area impacts to the terrestrial and aquatic environment during operation are not anticipated as a result of the Preferred Landfill Footprint.

5.3

Proposed Mitigation and/or Compensation Measures Construction

In order to mitigate the impacts to eastern meadowlark during construction related to the destruction of habitat, the following mitigation measures are required: •

A Notice of Activity process will be followed, to ensure protection of the species and their habitat and compliance with the Endangered Species Act. This process will involve registering the work with MNRF, and preparing and following a Habitat Management Plan, which will also describe how new or enhanced habitat will be created and managed. Within 12 months of the date development begins, the new or enhanced habitat will be created, subject to minimum size and species composition parameters specified by the MNRF. The created habitat will be managed and monitored for at least five years, and a report detailing mitigation followed, status of new habitat, results of annual monitoring efforts will also be prepared on an annual basis.

•

Incorporate graminoid meadow habitats into the closure landscape plan (see Figure 5.1 below for an example)


Impacts to vegetation communities and their associated wildlife habitat function, as well as impacts to aquatic habitat and biota, can be minimized by implementing the best management practices detailed in Section 5.2.3 during construction and the Compensation/Restoration Plan detailed in Section 5.2.2.

Figure 5.1 Example of Graminoid Meadow as Part of Final Cover Operation In order to mitigate potential impacts during operation to migratory bird species (including barn swallow) which may nest on anthropogenic structures, the following measures are required: •

A qualified avian biologist should conduct a nest survey of on-Site facilities and infrastructure prior to relocation or removal of structures to determine use by migratory bird species for nesting. If nests of protected migratory bird species are found, the biologist will determine the appropriate mitigation to ensure protection of the nest (e.g., removal of the structure outside of the breeding bird season). Should active or remnant nests of barn swallow be found, a Notice of Activity process under the Endangered Species Act will be followed to ensure protection of the species and their habitat and compliance with the Endangered Species Act.

Impacts to vegetation communities and their associated wildlife habitat function, as well as impacts to aquatic habitat and biota, can be minimized by implementing the best management practices detailed in Section 6.2.3 during operation. A Compensation/Restoration Plan will be developed as the project progresses to identify areas where compensation may occur on Site during operation, and also provide recommendations for plantings as part of the landfill closure plan. The plan will also detail habitat enhancement opportunities, such as the creation of pollinator habitat in buffer areas, as shown on Figure 1.1 (see Figure 5.2 below for example of pollinator habitat).


Figure 5.2 Example of Pollinator Habitat. Source: http://beeandbutterflyfund.org/our-solution Furthermore, to compensate for the temporary loss of aquatic habitat, naturalized landscape features can be incorporated into the stormwater management facilities design (e.g., wet meadows, robust emergent vegetation, shallow slope). See Figure 5.3 below for an example of a naturalized aquatic landscape feature.

Figure 5.3 Example of Naturalized Aquatic Landscape Feature (Wet Meadow)


Best Management Practices The following Best Management Practices are recommended to help ensure the protection of the terrestrial and aquatic environment during construction and operation: •

Install erosion and sediment control (ESC) measures for the dual purpose of mitigating impacts to water quality and to act as wildlife exclusion fencing prior to construction, and maintain them appropriately throughout landfill construction and operation;

•

Characterize use of on-Site aquatic features by fish and wildlife prior to modification/removal. Obtain necessary approvals for/complete fish/wildlife rescue activities prior to initiation of any inwater works, as appropriate;

•

Install protective fencing, as required, to protect trees and terrestrial vegetation communities to be retained; retain vegetation and compensate for vegetation loss to the extent possible;

•

Conduct any vegetation removal activities outside of the breeding bird window (i.e., no removals between late March - late August);

•

Use non-chemical dust suppressants as necessary;

•

Any wildlife incidentally encountered during Site regrading operation activities will not be knowingly harmed and will be allowed to move away from the area on its own;

•

In the event that an animal encountered during Site regrading and operation activities does not move from the area, or is injured, the Site Supervisor will be advised and MNRF will be notified;

•

In the event that the animal is a known or suspected SAR, the Site Supervisor will contact MNRF SAR biologists for advice.

5.4

Net Effects

Net effects as they relate to the terrestrial and aquatic environment are discussed in Table 5.1 below. Table 5.1. Potential Effects, Proposed Mitigation and Compensation Measures, and Resulting Net Effects Potential Effect

Mitigation/ Compensation

Net Effect

• Temporary loss of approximately • Conduct any vegetation removal activities outside of the • The temporary loss of 18.5 ha of existing vegetation breeding bird window (i.e., no removals between late March - approximately 18.5 ha of communities (e.g. marsh, meadow, late August). vegetation and wildlife habitat and thicket habitat) and associated • Retain vegetation and compensate for vegetation loss to the will be minimized through wildlife habitat as a result of extent possible (e.g., create pollinator habitat in buffer areas) implementation of the mitigation regrading activities. measures. • Incorporate graminoid meadow habitats into the closure landscape plan • Temporary disturbance to terrestrial • Implement BMP’s including: • The temporary disturbance to species during Site works and • Use of dust suppressants terrestrial species will be landfilling operations. minimized through implementation • Installation of protective fencing (where required) of the mitigation measures. • Conduct a nest survey of on-Site facilities and infrastructure prior to relocation or removal of structures to mitigate impacts to bird species which may use anthropogenic structures for nesting. If nests are found, consult a biologist/MNRF for further direction. • Any wildlife incidentally encountered during Site operation activities will not be knowingly harmed and will be allowed to move away from the area on its own. • In the event that an animal encountered during Site operation activities does not move from the area, or is injured, the Site Supervisor and MNRF will be notified. • In the event that the animal is a known or suspected SAR, the Site Supervisor will contact MNRF SAR biologists for advice. • Include naturalized landscape features into the stormwater management facilities design (e.g. wet meadows, emergent robust vegetation, shallow slope)


Table 5.1. Potential Effects, Proposed Mitigation and Compensation Measures, and Resulting Net Effects Potential Effect

Mitigation/ Compensation

Net Effect

• Temporary loss of approximately • Consult with MNRF to determine specific requirements (e.g. • The temporary loss of SAR habitat 11.5 ha of habitat of a Threatened habitat enhancement and/or creation requirements) of the will be minimized through species (eastern meadowlark) in the Notice of Activity process related to the presence of eastern implementation of the mitigation dry-fresh graminoid meadow ecosite meadowlark to avoid contravention of the provincial measures. at the south and west portion of the Endangered Species Act. Incorporate graminoid meadow habitats into the closure landscape plan. Site. • As part of the Notice of Activity process, a Habitat Management Plan will be created and implemented prior to the initiation of any construction. This plan which will document the areas to be affected and detail where and how new habitat will be created or enhanced. • Loss of on-Site aquatic habitat and • Install ESC measures to mitigate impacts to water quality and • The temporary loss of on-Site disturbance to aquatic biota to act as wildlife exclusion fencing prior to construction, and aquatic habitat and disturbance to associated with open water habitats maintain them appropriately throughout landfill construction aquatic biota will be minimized in stormwater infrastructure due to and operation. through implementation of the regrading activities. • Characterize use of on-Site aquatic features by fish and mitigation measures. wildlife prior to modification/removal. Obtain necessary approvals for/complete fish/wildlife rescue activities prior to initiation of any in-water works, as appropriate.

6.

Climate Change Considerations 6.1

Potential Effects of the Undertaking on Climate Change

From a terrestrial and aquatic environment standpoint, the project is not anticipated to contribute to climate change. Mitigation Specific mitigation measures related to climate change are not required regarding the terrestrial and aquatic environment.

6.2

Effect of Climate Change on the Undertaking Adaptation

Plant biodiversity in the area may be affected by changing precipitation patterns, as well as increasing temperatures, the lengthening of the growing season, and the shortening of the winter senescence season. Restoration and final cover will incorporate species which are hardy and tolerant of environmental fluctuations and well-suited to the growing zone (to be selected and specified as part of the development of the Compensation/Restoration Plan).

7.

Environmental Monitoring To ensure that the proposed mitigation measures identified in Section 6.2 are implemented as envisioned, a strategy and schedule has been developed for monitoring environmental effects. With these mitigation or compensation measures and monitoring requirements in mind, commitments have also been proposed for ensuring that they are carried out as part of the construction, operation, and maintenance of the landfill.


7.1

Monitoring Strategy and Schedule

A monitoring strategy and schedule has been developed based on the Natural Environment Impact Assessment carried out for the Preferred Landfill Footprint to ensure that: 1) predicted net negative effects are not exceeded; 2) unexpected negative effects are addressed; and, 3) the predicted benefits are realized. Environmental Effects Monitoring Environmental Effects Monitoring programs during construction and operation will vary in terms of parameters monitored, duration and outcome, depending on the issue being monitored, and will direct adaptive management efforts. 7.1.1.1

Erosion and Sediment Control/Wildlife Exclusion Fencing

Dual purpose ESC and wildlife exclusion fencing will be inspected on a regular basis to ensure it is functioning properly and as intended. If regular inspections identify deficiencies (e.g., tears and holes, slumping), these deficiencies will be communicated to the appropriate person and rectified promptly to ensure continued protection/ exclusion. 7.1.1.2

Vegetation

The vegetation monitoring program may include the following components: verification of seed mix/plant species to be planted, plant survivorship monitoring, and invasive species management. Vegetation monitoring programs will be developed in greater detail during subsequent design phases, and pending consultation with MNRF with respect to vegetative habitat compensation (as further outlined in Section 7.1.1.3). 7.1.1.3

Species at Risk

Monitoring requirements related to SAR are specified as part of the applicable Notice of Activity protocol, and are described in further detail below. Species Proposed Monitoring Requirement Eastern Meadowlark

Monitor the created or enhanced new habitat for 5 years, which will entail at least 3 breeding bird surveys annually during the appropriate timing window

Barn Swallow (if If barn swallow nests are detected on Site infrastructure scheduled to be relocated during the operation stage, monitoring requirements as part of the Notice of Activity applicable) protocol will be applicable. Newly created habitat must be monitored for 3 years after it is created during the active season to see if barn swallow are using it. This will include documentation of the number, description and location of new nests, and an estimate of the number of barn swallow using the building or structure.

Associated Licenses, Permits or Authorizations Notice of Activity

Notice of Activity

Development of an Environmental Management Plan An Environmental Management Plan (EMP) or Plans will be prepared following approval of the undertaking by the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change and prior to construction. The EMP will include a description of the proposed mitigation measures, commitments, and monitoring.


8.

Commitments An MNRF Notice of Activity process will be followed to acknowledge the presence of eastern meadowlark habitat within the Site Study Area under existing conditions, protection of the species and their habitat, in compliance with the Endangered Species Act. As part of the Notice of Activity process, a Habitat Management Plan will be created prior to the initiation of any construction which will document the areas to be affected and detail where and how new habitat will be created or enhanced. No barn swallow nests were documented during the Site investigations, however targeted surveys of suitable habitat (e.g., buildings and large culverts) are recommended when it is determined that these structures will be altered through the course of the proposed works. If any barn swallow nests are detected, MNRF will be consulted and a Notice of Activity process will be followed. A Compensation/Restoration Plan will be developed as the project progresses to identify areas where compensation may occur on Site during operation, and also provide recommendations for recommended plantings as part of the landfill closure plan.

9.

Other Approvals Other approvals that will be required include the following: •

Obtain necessary approvals for fish/wildlife rescue activities (e.g., MNRF License to Collect Fish for Scientific Purposes) prior to initiation of any in-water works, as appropriate.


10.

References GHD, 2017. Draft Surface Water Existing Conditions Report. September 2017, Ref. 11102771 (5) Hamilton Conservation Authority, 2014. Natural Areas Inventory Project 3rd Edition. Jackman Geoscience Inc., June 30, 2015. Closed Hamilton (Stoney Creek) Landfill: Environmental Compliance Approval. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), 2017. Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) List. https://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/species-risk-ontario-list (Accessed: September 2017) Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), 2017a. Snapping Turtle. Retrieved from https://www.ontario.ca/page/snapping-turtle (Accessed: September 2017) Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), 2017b. Butternut. Retrieved from https://www.ontario.ca/page/butternut-species-risk (Accessed: September 2017) Rodewald, P. (Editor). 2016. The Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/BNA/. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.


Appendices

GHD | Draft Terrestrial and Aquatic Environment Impact Assessment Technical Report | 11102771

Appendix A Species-At-Risk Screening Table


APPENDIX A Species‐At‐Risk

Common Name

Scientific Name

Species At Risk Act (Sch 1)1

Jefferson salamander

Ambystoma jeffersonianum

THR

Monarch

Danaus plexippus

SC

Mottled duskywing

Erynnis martialis

—

Rusty‐patched bumble bee

Bombus affinis

END

West Virginia white

Pieris virginiensis

—

Acadian flycatcher

Bald eagle

Empidonax virescens

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

END

—

Endangered Potential to Occur within Local Study Area (Desktop) Species Act2 Habitat Requirements In Ontario, Jefferson salamander is found only in southern Ontario, along southern portions of the Niagara Escarpment and western portions of the Oak Ridges Moraine. Jefferson salamander prefers moist, well‐drained deciduous and mixed forests with a closed canopy. It overwinters underground in mammal burrows and rock fissures, and moves to vernal pools and ephemeral wetlands in the early spring to breed. Breeding ponds are typically located in or near to forested habitats, and contain submerged debris (i.e. sticks, vegetation) for egg attachment sites. Ephemeral breeding pools need to have water until at least mid‐summer (mid to late July) (Jefferson Salamander Recovery Team END 2010). High In Ontario, monarch is found throughout the northern and southern regions of the province. This butterfly is found wherever there are milkweed (Asclepius spp.) plants for its caterpillars and wildflowers that supply a nectar source for adults. It is often found on abandoned farmland, meadows, open wetlands, prairies and roadsides, but also in city gardens and parks. Important staging areas during migration occur along the north shores of the Great Lakes (COSEWIC 2010). High SC In Ontario, the mottled duskywing is found in the same habitat as its food plant Ceanothus spp.: open or partially open, dry, sandy areas, or limestone alvars. These habitats are relatively uncommon and include dry open pine and pine oak woodland, other open dry woodlands, alvars, savannah and other dry open sandy habitats. Usually seen nectaring on wildflowers, or on wet sandy roads in Moderate the company of other duskywing species (Linton 2015). END In Ontario, rusty‐patched bumble bee is found in areas from the southern Great Lakes – St. Lawrence forest region southwards into the Carolinian forest. It is a habitat generalist, but it is typically found in open habitats, such as mixed farmland, savannah, marshes, sand dunes, urban and lightly wooded areas. It is cold –tolerant and can be found at high elevations. Most recent sightings in Ontario have been in oak savannah habitat with well‐drained, sandy soils and moderately open canopy. It requires an abundance of flowering plants for forage. This species most often builds nests underground in old rodent burrows, but also in hollow tree stumps and fallen dead wood (Colla and Taylor‐ Pindar 2011). The only recent sightings in Ontario are from the Pinery Provincial Park. Moderate END In Ontario, West Virginia white is found primarily in the central and southern regions of the province. This butterfly lives in moist, mature, deciduous and mixed woodlands, and the caterpillars feed only on the leaves of toothwort (Cardamine spp), which are small, spring‐blooming plants of the forest floor. These woodland habitats are typically maple‐beech‐birch dominated. This species is associated with woodlands growing on calcaerous bedrock or thin soils over bedrock (Burke 2013). Moderate SC In Ontario, the Acadian flycatcher breeds in the understory of large, mature, closed‐canopy forests, swamps and forested ravines. This bird prefers forests greater than 40 ha in size, and exhibits edge sensitivity preferring the deep interior of the forest. Its nest is loosely woven and placed near the tip of branch in a small tree or shrub often, but not always, near water (Whitehead END and Taylor 2002). Low

SC

In Ontario, bald eagle nests are typically found near the shorelines of lakes or large rivers, often on forested islands. The large, conspicuous nests are typically found in large super‐canopy trees along water bodies (Buehler 2000). Low

Rationale for Potential to Occur within Local Study Area (Desktop)

Species is known to occur in Niagara Escarpment.

Open habitat which likely contains milkweed is present within the Local Study Area. This species was detected in Felker's Falls during NAI.

A small patch of savannah habitat is present in the northernmost portion of the Local Study Area.

A small patch of savannah habitat is present in northernmost portion of the Local Study Area. Other open areas (e.g. farmland) are also present throughout the Local Study Area.

Mature deciduous forest with maples is present in Niagara Escarpment.

Although potentially suitable habitat of forested ravines exists in Local Study Area, this species prefers the deep interior of the forest, and forest tracts greater than 40 ha are not present.

No large waterbodies or rivers are present within the Local Study Area.

Page 1 / 7


Common Name

Scientific Name


Bank swallow

Riparia riparia

THR

Barn owl

Tyto alba

END

Barn swallow

Hirundo rustica

THR

Black tern

Chlidonias niger

—

Bobolink

Dolichonyx oryzivorus

THR

Canada warbler

Cardellina canadensis

THR

Endangered Potential to Occur within Local Study Area (Desktop) Species Act2 Habitat Requirements In Ontario, the bank swallow breeds in a variety of natural and anthropogenic habitats, including lake bluffs, stream and river banks, sand and gravel pits, and roadcuts. Nests are generally built in a vertical or near‐vertical bank. Breeding sites are typically located near open foraging sites such as rivers, lakes, grasslands, agricultural fields, wetlands and riparian woods. Forested areas are THR generally avoided (Garrison 1999). High In Ontario, barn owl breeding habitat consists of open countryside, with a preference for pastures, hayfields, marshes and grassy roadsides. Suitable habitat contains suitable nesting sites and adequate mice and vole populations. Nesting occurs in a wide variety of human made structures including barns and nest boxes, as well as natural sites such as hollow trees and cavities in cliffs and riverbanks (Marti et al. 2005). In Ontario, anthropogenic nest sites such as barns may be preferred (COSEWIC 2010). Low END In Ontario, barn swallow breeds in areas that contain a suitable nesting structure, open areas for foraging, and a body of water. This species nests in human made structures including barns, buildings, sheds, bridges, and culverts. Preferred foraging habitat includes grassy fields, pastures, agricultural cropland, lake and river shorelines, cleared right‐of‐ways, and wetlands (COSEWIC 2011). Mud nests are fastened to vertical walls or built on a ledge underneath an overhang. Suitable nests from previous years are reused (Brown and Brown 1999). High THR In Ontario, black tern breeds in freshwater marshlands where it forms small colonies. It prefers marshes or marsh complexes greater than 20 ha in area and which are not surrounded by wooded area. Black terns are sensitive to the presence of agricultural activities. The black tern nests in wetlands with an even combination of open water and emergent vegetation, and still waters of 0.5‐1.2 m deep. Preferred nest sites have short dense vegetation or tall sparse vegetation often consisting of cattails, bulrushes and occasionally burreed or other marshland plants. Black terns also require posts or snags for perching SC (Weseloh 2007). Low In Ontario, bobolink breeds in grasslands or graminoid dominated hayfields with tall vegetation (Gabhauer 2007). Bobolink prefers grassland habitat with a forb component and a moderate litter layer. They have low tolerance for presence of woody vegetation and are sensitive to frequent mowing within the breeding season. They are most abundant in established, but regularly maintained, hayfields, but also breed in lightly grazed pastures, old or fallow fields, cultural meadows and newly planted hayfields. Their nest is woven from grasses and forbs. It is built on the ground, in dense vegetation, usually under THR the cover of one or more forbs (Martin and Gavin 1995). High In Ontario, breeding habitat for Canada warbler consists of moist mixed forests with a well‐developed shrubby understory. This includes low‐lying areas such as cedar and alder swamps, and riparian thickets (McLaren 2007). It is also found in densely vegetated regenerating forest openings. Suitable habitat often contains a developed moss layer and an uneven forest floor. Nests are well concealed on or near the ground in dense shrub or fern cover, often in stumps, fallen logs, overhanging stream banks or mossy hummocks (Reitsma et al. 2010). High SC


Bank Swallow was observed during the NAI at both Felker's Falls and Devil's Punch Bowl.

Although suitable habitat may be present within the Local Study Area, this is an extremely rare species and unlikely to be present.

Many potential nesting structures are available within the Local Study Area. This species was observed within the Site Study Area during field visits.

Large freshwater marshes are not present within the Local Study Area.

Open agricultural field and meadows are present throughout the Local Study Area. This species was observed during the NAI at Devil's Punch Bowl.

This species was observed during the NAI at Felker's Falls and Devil's Punchbowl.

Page 2 / 7


Common Name

Scientific Name


Endangered Species Act2 Habitat Requirements

Potential to Occur within Local Study Area (Desktop)


Moderate

Potentially suitable deciduous forest dominated by oak and hickory is present within the Niagara Escarpment.

Moderate

Suitable nesting structures are likely present within the Local Study Area.

In Ontario, breeding habitat of cerulean warbler consists of second‐growth or mature deciduous forest with a tall canopy of uneven vertical structure and a sparse understory. This habitat occurs in both wet bottomland forests and upland areas, and often contains large hickory and oak trees. This species may be attracted to gaps or openings in the upper canopy. The cerulean warbler is associated with large forest tracks, but may occur in woodlots as small as 10 ha (COSEWIC 2010). Nests are usually built on a horizontal limb in the mid‐story or canopy of a large deciduous tree (Buehler et al. 2013). Cerulean warbler

Setophaga cerulea

END

THR In Ontario, chimney swift breeding habitat is varied and includes urban, suburban, rural and wooded sites. They are most commonly associated with towns and cities with large concentrations of chimneys. Preferred nesting sites are dark, sheltered spots with a vertical surface to which the bird can grip. Unused chimneys are the primary nesting and roosting structure, but other anthropogenic structures and large diameter cavity trees are also used (COSEWIC 2007).

Chimney swift

Common nighthawk

Eastern meadowlark

Eastern wood‐pewee

Chaetura pelagica

Chordeiles minor

Sturnella magna

Contopus virens

THR

THR

THR

SC

THR

THR

These aerial foragers require areas with large open habitat. This includes farmland, open woodlands, clearcuts, burns, rock outcrops, alvars, bog ferns, prairies, gravel pits and gravel rooftops in cities (Sandilands 2007) Moderate In Ontario, the eastern meadowlark breeds in pastures, hayfields, meadows and old fields. Eastern meadowlark prefers moderately tall grasslands with abundant litter cover, high grass proportion, and a forb component (Hull 2003). They prefer well drained sites or slopes, and sites with different cover layers (Roseberry and Klimstra 1970) High

This species was detected during breeding bird surveys within the Site Study Area and observed in Heritage Green Park as well.

SC

In Ontario, the eastern wood‐pewee inhabits a wide variety of wooded upland and lowland habitats, including deciduous, coniferous, or mixed forests. It occurs most frequently in forests with some degree of openness. Intermediate‐ aged forests with a relatively sparse midstory are preferred. In younger forests having a relatively dense midstory, it tends to inhabitat the edges . Also occurs in anthropogenic habitats providing an open forested aspect such as parks and suburban neighborhoods. Nest is constructed atop a horizontal branch, 1‐2 m above the ground, in a wide variety of deciduous and coniferous trees. High

Forested habitats are present throughout the Local Study Area.

SC

Henslow's sparrow

Ammodramus henslowii

END

END

Least bittern

Ixobrychus exilis

THR

THR

In Ontario, Henslow's sparrow breeds in large grasslands with low disturbance, such as lightly grazed and ungrazed pastures, fallow hayfields, grassy swales in open farmland, and wet meadows. Preferred habitat contains tall, dense grass cover, typically over 30 cm high, with a high percentage of ground cover, and a thick mat of dead plant material. Henslow's sparrow generally avoids areas with emergent woody shrubs or trees, and fence lines. Areas of standing water or ephemerally wet patches appear to be important. This species breeds more frequently in patches of habitat greater than 30 ha and preferably greater than 100 ha (COSEWIC 2011). Low In Ontario, the least bittern breeds in marshes, usually greater than 5 ha, with emergent vegetation, relatively stable water levels and areas of open water. Preferred habitat has water less than 1 m deep (usually 10 – 50 cm). Nests are built in tall stands of dense emergent or woody vegetation (Woodliffe 2007). Clarity of water is important as siltation, turbidity, or excessive eutrophication hinders foraging efficiency (COSEWIC 2009). Low

Farmland is present within the Local Study Area, and gravel rooftops may also be present.

Undisturbed large grasslands are not present within the Local Study Area.

Suitable marsh habitat is not present within the Local Study Area.

Page 3 / 7


Common Name

Loggerhead shrike

Scientific Name

Lanius ludovicianus (migrans subsp)


END

Endangered Potential to Occur within Local Study Area (Desktop) Species Act2 Habitat Requirements In Ontario, the loggerhead shrike breeds in open country habitat characterized by short grasses with scattered shrubs or low trees. Unimproved pasture containing scattered hawthorns (Crataegus spp.) on shallow soils over limestone bedrock is the preferred habitat. Preferred nest sites include isolated hawthorns or red cedar. Males defend large territories of approximately 50 ha (Chabot 2007) END Low

Louisiana waterthrush

Parkesia motacilla (formerly Seiurus motacilla)

SC

THR

Northern bobwhite

Colinus virginianus

END

END

Peregrine falcon (anatum subspecies)

Falco peregrinus anatum

SC

SC

Prothonotary warbler

Protonotaria citrea

END

END

Red‐headed woodpecker

Melanerpes erythrocephalus

THR

SC

Short‐eared owl

Eastern whip‐poor‐will

Asio flammeus

Antrostomus vociferus

SC

THR

SC

THR

The Louisiana waterthrush inhabits mature forests along steeply sloped ravines adjacent to running water. It prefers clear, cold streams and densely wooded swamps. Trees, bushes, exposed roots, cliffs, banks and mossy logs are favoured nesting spots. Riparian woodlands are preferred stopover sites during migration. Nests are concealed from view at the base of uprooted trees, among mosses, or under logs and in cavities along the stream bank (COSEWIC 2006). Low In Ontario, the northern bobwhite breeds in early successional habitats. This species requires a combination of three habitat types: woody cover, cropland and grassland. Croplands provide foraging habitat, grassland and fields are used for nesting, and dense brush provides both winter forage and year round cover. These birds nest on the ground in a shallow depression lined with grasses and other dead vegetation (Brennan 1999). Low In Ontario, peregrine falcon breeds in areas containing suitable nesting locations and sufficient prey resources. Such habitat includes both natural locations containing cliff faces (heights of 50 ‐ 200 m preferred) and also anthropogenic landscapes including urban centres containing tall buildings, open pit mines and quarries, and road cuts. Peregrine falcons nest on cliff ledges and crevices and building ledges. Nests consist of a simple scrape in the substrate (COSEWIC 2007). Low In Ontario, the prothonotary warbler breeds in mature and semi‐mature, deciduous swamp forest with a closed canopy, and large expanses of relatively deep, open standing water. Swamps are typically dominated by silver maple, black ash, yellow birch, and black gum. These birds nest in tree cavities, favouring small, shallow holes often situated at low heights in dead or dying trees. Nests are typically situated over standing or slow‐moving water. Artificial nest boxes are also readily accepted. This species is area sensitive and is Low seldom found in forests less than 100 ha in size (COSEWIC 2007). In Ontario, the red‐headed woodpecker breeds in open, deciduous woodlands or woodland edges and are often found in parks, cemeteries, golf courses, orchards and savannahs (Woodliffe 2007). They may also breed in forest clearings or open agricultural areas provided that large trees are available for nesting. They prefer forests with little or no understory vegetation. They are often associated with beech or oak forests, beaver ponds and swamp forests where snags are numerous. Nests are excavated in the trunks of large dead trees (Smith et al. 2000). Moderate In Ontario, the short‐eared owl breeds in a variety of open habitats including grasslands, tundra, bogs, marshes, clearcuts, burns, pastures and occasionally agricultural fields. The primary factor in determining breeding habitat is proximity to small mammal prey resources (COSEWIC 2008). Nests are built on the ground at a dry site and usually adjacent to a clump of tall vegetation used for cover and concealment (Gahbauer 2007). Moderate In Ontario, the whip‐poor‐will breeds in semi‐open forests with little ground cover. Breeding habitat is dependent on forest structure rather than species composition, and is found on rock and sand barrens, open conifer plantations and post‐disturbance regenerating forest. Territory size ranges from 3 to 11 ha (COSEWIC 2009). No nest is constructed and eggs are laid directly on the leaf litter (Mills 2007). Moderate


Although potentially suitable habitat may be present within Heritage Green Park, presence is unlikely as the soil substrate is not conducive to their preferred habitat.

Mature forests along steeply sloped ravines adjacent to running water are not present within the Local Study Area.

Records for this species are historic only in this area.

Suitable cliff faces and sufficiently tall buildings are likely not present within the Local Study Area, although they may use areas incidentally as foraging habitat.

Suitable deciduous swamp forest habitat is likely not present within the Local Study Area.

Deciduous woodland edges and urban habitats including gold courses present within Local Study Areas.

There is a large expanse of open habitat present at Heritage Green Park, and agricultural fields are present throughout the Local Study Area.

Semi‐open forest with little ground cover may be present within the Local Study Area in areas surrounding the Niagara Escarpment. Treed talus along the escarpment may provide suitable habitat.

Page 4 / 7


Common Name

Scientific Name


Yellow‐breasted chat

Icteria virens virens

END

Redside dace

Clinostomus elongatus

END

Woodland vole

Microtus pinetorum

SC

Blanding's turtle ‐ Great Lakes/St.Lawrence population Emydoidea blandingii

Eastern ribbonsnake ‐ (Great Lakes population)

Thamnophis sauritius

THR

SC

Endangered Potential to Occur within Local Study Area (Desktop) Species Act2 Habitat Requirements In Ontario, yellow‐breasted chat breeds in early successional, shrub‐thicket habitats including woodland edges, regenerating old fields, railway and hydro right‐of‐ways, young coniferous reforestations, and wet thickets bordering wetlands. Tangles of grape (Vitisspp.) and raspberry (Rubusspp.) vines are features of most breeding sites. There is some evidence that the yellow‐ breasted chat is an area sensitive species. Nests are located in dense shrubbery END near to the ground (COSEWIC 2011). Moderate In Ontario, the redside dace, a small coolwater species common in the USA but less so in Canada, is found in tributaries of western Lake Ontario, Lake Erie, Lake Huron and Lake Simcoe. They are found in pools and slow‐moving areas of small headwater streams with clear to turbid water. Overhanging grasses, shrubs, and undercut banks, are an important part of their habitat, as are instream boulders and large woody debris. Preferred substrates are variable and include silt, sand, gravel and boulders. Spawning occurs in shallow riffle areas (Redside Dace Recovery Team 2010). Low END In Ontario, woodland vole is associated with mature deciduous forests with soft, often sandy soils and a deep litter and humic layer, suitable for burrowing. Common associates include oaks, hickory, black walnut, American beech and tulip tree. This speices is often found at woodland edges near roads, railway tracks and field edges. Woodland vole is restricted to the Carolinian forest zone SC (COSEWIC 2010). Moderate In Ontario, Blanding's turtle will use a range of aquatic habitats, but favor those with shallow, standing or slow‐moving water, rich nutrient levels, organic substrates and abundant aquatic vegetation. They will use rivers, but prefer slow‐moving currents and are likely only transients in this type of habitat. This species is known to travel great distances over land in the spring in order to reach nesting sites, which can include dry conifer or mixed forests, partially vegetated fields, and roadsides. Suitable nesting substrates include organic soils, sands, gravel and cobble. They hibernate underwater and infrequently THR under debris close to water bodies (COSEWIC 2005). Moderate In Ontario, eastern ribbonsnake is semi‐aquatic, and is rarely found far from shallow ponds, marshes, bogs, streams or swamps bordered by dense vegetation. They prefer sunny locations and bask in low shrub branches. Hibernation occurs in mammal burrows, rock fissures or even ant mounds SC (COSEWIC 2012). Moderate

Northern map turtle

Graptemys geographica

SC

SC

Snapping turtle

Chelydra serpentina

SC

SC

Spiny softshell

Apalone spinifera

THR

END

In Ontario, the northern map turtle prefers large waterbodies with slow‐moving currents, soft substrates, and abundant aquatic vegetation. Ideal stretches of shoreline contain suitable basking sites, such as rocks and logs. Along Lakes Erie and Ontario, this species occurs in marsh habitat and undeveloped shorelines. It is also found in small to large rivers with slow to moderate flow. Hibernation takes place in soft substrates under deep water (COSEWIC 2012). Low In Ontario, snapping turtle utilizes a wide range of waterbodies, but shows preference for areas with shallow, slow‐moving water, soft substrates and dense aquatic vegetation. Hibernation takes place in soft substrates under water. Nesting sites consist of sand or gravel banks along waterways or roadways (COSEWIC 2008). High In Ontario, spiny softshell will typically inhabit rivers with soft bottoms but occasionally lakes, impoundments, bays, marshy lagoons, as well as ditches and ponds near rivers. Soft sandy or muddy substrates with aquatic vegetation are essential habitat features. Hibernation takes place in deep pools with soft substrates. Nesting areas consist of sandy or gravelly areas, relatively free of vegetation and close to water (COSEWIC 2002). Low


Early successional, shrub‐thicket habitats are present in the Local Study Area in areas surrounding the Niagara Escarpment.

This species was not identified on DFO SAR mapping for the Local Study Area.

Suitable mature deciduous forest habitat may be present in areas surrounding the Niagara Escarpment.

Ponds are present throughout the Local Study Area; some may provide suitable habitat

Water features including ponds and streams bordered by dense vegetation are present within the Local Study Area and may provide suitable habitat.

No large waterbodies or rivers are present within the Local Study Area.

Ponds are present throughout the Local Study Area; some may provide suitable habitat.

No large rivers are present within the Local Study Area.

Page 5 / 7


Common Name

Scientific Name


Endangered Species Act2 Habitat Requirements

Stinkpot or Eastern musk turtle

Sternotherus odoratus

THR

SC

Timber rattlesnake

Crotalus horridus

EXP

EXP

American chestnut

Castanea dentata

END

END

American columbo

Frasera caroliniensis

END

END

Bashful bulrush or Few‐flowered club‐rush

Trichophorum planifolium

END

END

Broad beech fern

Phegopteris hexagonoptera

—

SC

Butternut

Juglans cinerea

END

END

Cucumber tree

Magnolia acuminata

END

END

Eastern flowering dogwood

Cornus florida

END

END

False hop sedge

Carex lupuliformis

END

END

Green dragon

Arisaema dracontium

—

SC


In Ontario, eastern musk turtle is very rarely out of water and prefers permanent bodies of water that are shallow and clear, with little or no current and soft substrates with abundant organic materials. Abundant floating and submerged vegetation is preferred. Hibernation occurs in soft substrates under water. Eggs are sometimes laid on open ground, or in shallow nests in decaying vegetation, shallow gravel or rock crevices (COSEWIC 2012). Low The most recent Ontario record occurred in the Niagara Gorge in the 1940s. Timber rattlesnake's preferred habitat is coniferous or deciduous forests with rocky slopes and ledges ( COSEWIC 2001). Low In Ontario, American chestnut occurs in mixed or deciduous forests in the Carolinian zone (Farrar 1995). It is often found in communities with dense canopy cover and often associated with oak and maple. This tree grows primarily on acidic, sand or gravel soils (Boland et al. 2012). Moderate In Ontario, American columbo is most commonly associated with open deciduous forested slopes, but it can also be found in thickets, swamps and clearings. It is often associated with oak, hickory and sassafras trees. American columbo grows on a wide variety of soils, particularly dry mesic to mesic clay and clay loam soils (COSEWIC 2006). Moderate In Ontario, bashful bulrush grows in open deciduous forests, especially dry oak woodlands, with an open understory. This plant requires warmth and good drainage, and occurs on steep slopes with neutral to slightly acidic soils (Smith and Rothfels 2010; Crins 1989). Moderate In Ontario, broad beech fern inhabits rich, undisturbed mature deciduous forest dominated by beech and maple. It typically grows in moist to wet, sandy soils of lower valley slopes and occasionally swamps (van Overbeeke et al. 2013). Moderate In Ontario, butternut is found along stream banks, on wooded valley slopes, and in deciduous and mixed forests. It is commonly associated with beech, maple, oak and hickory (Voss and Reznicek 2012). Butternut prefers moist, fertile, well‐drained soils, but can also be found in rocky limestone soils. This species is shade intolerant (Farrar 1995). High In Ontario, cucumber tree grows in deciduous woodlands in association with species such as black cherry, red maple, beech and white ash. It prefers moist to wet sites, with slightly acidic, sandy loam soils (Waldron 2003). It occurs only in the Niagara Region and Norfolk County. Moderate In Ontario, eastern flowering dogwood grows in the understory of dry to rich deciduous forests, especially on hillsides and riverbanks. It prefers sandy acidic soils but occasionally is found in loams, clays and organic soils (Waldron 2003). This species is restricted to the Carolinian zone of southern Ontario. High In Ontario, false hop sedge occurs in marshes, riverine swamps, borders of vernal pools, and wet depressions of forests. It occasionally occurs in shallow water or very wet floodplain forests. Usually grows under a moderately open canopy but can tolerate high levels of sunshine. Substrates are calcareous or neutral and include moist wet mucks, silt loams, or alluvial deposits with a sandy texture (Environment Canada 2014). Low In Ontario, green dragon occurs in somewhat‐wet to wet deciduous forests along streams. In particular, it grows in maple forest and forest dominated by red ash and white elm trees. Green dragon is restricted to shaded or partially shaded seasonally inundated floodplains (Donley et al. 2013). It is primarily restricted to southwestern Ontario. Low


Permanent bodies are water that are shallow and clear are likely not present within the Local Study Area, as most ponds within the Study Areas are likely impacted by anthropogenic activities. This species is extirpated from the province; historical records only. Suitable deciduous forest habitat may be present within the Niagara Escarpment. Oaks and maples are present throughout the Niagara Escarpment.

Suitable deciduous forest habitat may be present within the Niagara Escarpment. Oak and hickory are present throughout the Niagara Escarpment.

Suitable deciduous forest habitat may be present within the Niagara Escarpment.

Potentially suitable maple‐dominated deciduous forest habitat is present within the Niagara Escarpment.

This species was found within the Felker's Falls and Devil's Punch Bowl areas during the NAI.

Suitable deciduous forest habitat may be present within the Local Study Area.

This species was found within the Felker's Falls and Devil's Punch Bowl areas during the NAI.

The preferred wet habitats are likely not present within the Local Study Area.

Suitable maple‐dominated deciduous forest along streams is not present within the Local Study Area.

Page 6 / 7


Common Name

Scientific Name


Red mulberry

Morus rubra

END

Spotted wintergreen Chimaphila maculata Species at Risk Act (SARA), 2002. Schedule 1 (Last amended 17 Dec 2014); Part 1 (Extirpated), Part 2 (Endangered), Part 3 (Threatened), Part 4 (Special Concern) 2 Endangered Species Act (ESA), 2007 (O.Reg 242/08 last amended 14 Sept 2016 as O.Reg 308/16). Species at Risk in Ontario List, 2007 (O.Reg 230/08 last amended 15 June 2016 as O. Reg 200/16, s. 1.); Schedule 1 (Extirpated ‐ EXP), Schedule 2 (Endangered ‐ END), Schedule 3 (Threatened ‐ THR), Schedule 4 (Special Concern ‐ SC)

END

Endangered Species Act2 Habitat Requirements In Ontario, red mulberry occurs in moist, well‐drained, forested habitats including floodplains, bottomlands, the slopes and ravines along the southern portion of the Niagra escarpment and in swales on some western Lake Erie sand spits. This species is moderately shade tolerant, but grows best in forest openings (Parks Canada Agency 2011). This species is restricted to the END Carolinian zone of southwestern Ontario. In Ontario, spotted wintergreen occurs in sandy, well‐drained soils associated with dry to fresh oak‐pine or oak dominated woodlands. It requires partial shade and limited competition from other groundcover species. It is restricted to southern Ontario, and the only currently known populations are from END Norfolk County and Niagara Region (Ursic et al. 2010).



Moderate

Suitable habitat along slopes and ravines may be present within the Niagara Escarpment.

Moderate

Potentially suitable oak dominated woodland is present within the Local Study Area near the Niagara Escarpment.

1

Page 7 / 7

Appendix B Incidental Wildlife Observation Table


APPENDIX B Incidental Wildlife Observations Stoney Creek Regional Facility Environmental Assessment Terrapure Environmental Stoney Creek, ON Species Common Name Birds American crow American goldfinch American robin Barn swallow Black-capped chickadee Brown thrasher* Brown-headed cowbird Canada goose Common grackle Common yellowthroat Eastern kingbird Eastern meadowlark European starling Gull Horned lark House sparrow Killdeer Lesser yellowlegs Mallard Mourning dove Northern cardinal* Northern rough-winged swallow Red-tailed hawk Red-winged blackbird Savannah sparrow Song sparrow Spotted sandpiper Tree swallow Turkey vulture Willow flycatcher Yellow warbler

Scientific Name Corvus brachyrhynchos Spinus tristis Turdus migratorius Hirundo rustica Poecile atricapillus Toxostoma rufum Molothrus ater Branta canadensis Quiscalus quiscula Geothlypis trichas Tyrannus tyrannus Sturnella magna Sturnus vulgaris Laridae sp. Eremophila alpestris Passer domesticus Charadrius vociferus Tringa flavipes Anas platyrhynchos Zenaida macroura Cardinalis cardinalis Stelgidopteryx serripennis Buteo jamaicensis Agelaius phoeniceus Passerculus sandwichensis Melospiza melodia Actitis macularius Tachycineta bicolor Cathartes aura Empidonax traillii Setophaga petechia

Provincial Status S5B S5 S5B S4B S5 S4B S4B S5 S5B S5B S4B S4B SNA S5B SNA S5B,S5N S4B, S4N S5 S5 S5 S4B S5 S4 S4B S5B S5 S4B S5B S5B S5B

Conservation Status SARO SARA

Threatened

Threatened

Threatened

Threatened

Notes: *: indicates species was observed outside of Site Study Area but within Local Study Area Provincial Status Rank Definitions SARA: Species at Risk Act SARO:Species at Risk in Ontario S3: Rare to uncommon in Ontario; usually between 20 and 100 occurrences in the province S4: Common in Ontario; apparently secure with over 80 occurences in the province S5: Demonstrably secure; species is widespread in Ontario - : Indicates no information available Rank qualifiers (e.g. S1B,S2N) are used for some migratory or transitory species to indicate different conservation statuses at specific times of the year, such as during the breeding (B) and non-breeding (N) seasons.

GHD 11102771 (4)

Appendix C Photographic Log of Potential Effected Habitats


Photo 1

-

Example of existing graminoid meadow habitat

Photo 2

-

Example of existing cultural meadow habitat

Site Photographs: Affected Habitat Types GHD | Draft Terrestrial and Aquatic Environment Detailed Impact Assessment Report |11102771 | Page 1

Photo 3

-

Example of existing cultural thicket habitat

Photo 4

-

Example of existing aquatic habitat

Site Photographs: Affected Habitat Types GHD | Draft Terrestrial and Aquatic Environment Detailed Impact Assessment Report |11102771 | Page 2