Environmental Impact Study 1856 Notion Road, City of Pickering

Transcription

1 GUIDING SOLUTIONS IN THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Environmental Impact Study 1856 Notion Road, City of Pickering Prepared For: Metropia (Notion Road) Developments Inc. Prepared By: Beacon Environmental Limited Date: Project: January M a i n S t r e e t, M a r k h a m, O n t a r i o, C a n a d a L 3 P 1 X 5 T e l : ( ) F a x : ( )

2 T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s P a g e 1. Introduction Methodology Background Review Field Investigations Aquatic Assessment Vegetation Communities and Flora Other Wildlife Policy Review Provincial Policy Statement (2014) Regional Municipality of Durham Official Plan (2017) City of Pickering Official Plan (2017, Office Consolidation) City of Pickering Tree Protection By-law 6108/ Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Policies and Regulations Conservation Authorities Act (Ontario Regulation 166/06) TRCA Living City Policies for Planning and Development (2014) Endangered Species Act, Site History Historical Aerial Imagery Previous Environmental and Natural Heritage Study Existing Conditions Aquatic Resources Terrestrial Resources Vegetation Communities Adjacent Land to South Floral Rarity Endangered and Threatened Species Wildlife Potential and Incidental Observations Proposed Development Stormwater Management and Servicing Impact Assessment and Mitigation Assessment of Impact Recommended Mitigation Measures Policy Conformity Provincial Policy Statement Regional Municipality of Durham City of Pickering Official Plan... 22

3 8.4 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Policies and Regulations Endangered Species Act Summary References F i g u r e s Figure 1. Site Location... after page 2 Figure 2. Existing Conditions... after page 12 Figure 3. Proposed Development... after page 18 A p p e n d i c e s A. Floral List

4 1. Introduction Beacon Environmental Limited (Beacon) was retained by Metropia (Notion Road) Developments Inc. to complete an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) for a proposed development site municipally known as 1856 Notion Road (Part of Lot 17, Concession 1), located in the City of Pickering and Regional Municipality of Durham (Figure 1), herein identified as the subject property. The subject property is 3.58 ha (8.85 acres) and bounded by development and transportation corridors on all sides including residential to the north, commercial use and Highway 401 to the south and west, and a cemetery to the east. The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority s (TRCA) regulations and policies require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Study as the subject property is partially within the floodplain. The purpose of this report is to identify existing conditions on the subject property and the adjacent valleylands and to assess the interaction between the proposed development and the existing conditions consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), City of Pickering Official Plan and the TRCA s regulations and policies. This document identifies opportunities and constraints for development of the subject property, with recommendations for appropriate mitigation requirements for the adjacent retained natural features that may be affected. The study was completed through a review of background documents and field study that took place in September These field investigations included an assessment of existing conditions with respect to terrestrial and aquatic features, and investigations into the potential presence of species of conservation concern on the subject property. A previous natural heritage study was prepared by Beacon in 2008 and has been integrated into this report. This data was used in an analysis of natural heritage functions and features and confirmed against the Region of Durham and City of Pickering Official Plans, and the guidelines and policies of regulatory agencies, including but not limited to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), and the TRCA. 2. Methodology The following sections describe the details of the scope of work and explain how the project was undertaken. 2.1 Background Review Background information was gathered and reviewed at the outset of the project. This involved existing documentation for the subject lands, including yet not limited to: Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) Aurora District Office information request; Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) Policies and Guidelines; Regional Municipality of Durham Official Plan (2017); Provincial Policy Statement (2014); and City of Pickering Official Plan (2017, Office Consolidation). Page 1

5 Other sources of information, such as aerial photography and topographic & interactive maps, were consulted prior to commencing field investigations. 2.2 Field Investigations Field visits were undertaken in 2017 by Beacon Environmental staff to document existing conditions with respect to natural habitats within the subject properties. Field surveys of the subject properties to document the existing natural history associated with the site were undertaken on the following dates: Aquatic Assessment The subject property was visited on September 12, 2017 to assess the state of aquatic systems associated with the site, and the potential impact to these systems during all stages of development. An assessment of presence/absence of headwater drainage features were recorded both through written documentation and a photo log. Substrate makeup and geomorphologic processes were not categorized during the site visit. For the evaluation of headwater drainage features, TRCA has prepared a guideline entitled Evaluation, Classification and Management of Headwater Drainage Features Guidelines (TRCA/CVC 2014). This document provides a basis for the evaluation of drainage features relative to specified parameters, such as channel form, flow regime, connectivity and vegetation Vegetation Communities and Flora General vegetation communities were mapped and described according to the Ecological Land Classification (ELC) system for southern Ontario (Lee et al. 1998). A botanical inventory was concurrently compiled while communities were being delineated and assessed Other Wildlife Incidental observations of wildlife species made during field investigations were recorded for the purposes of the EIS. Page 2

6 Legend Subject Property (Approximate) Watercourse (MNRF 2017) Notion Road Beechlawn Drive Pickering Parkway Marshcourt Drive Larksmere Court Ashford Drive Highway 401 C:\Dropbox\Dropbox (Beacon)\All GIS Projects\2017\217371\MXD\217371_Figure01_SiteLocation_ mxd Site Location Brock Road Highway 401 Notion Road Church Street Kingston Road Bayly Street Westney Road Site Location Figure Notion Road Pickering Metropia UTM Zone 17 N, NAD 83 First Base Solutions Web Mapping Service Metres - 1:3,800 Project January, 2018 DRAFT

7 3. Policy Review The following section provides the provincial, regional and local policy context for this assessment. 3.1 Provincial Policy Statement (2014) Policy 2.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) (MMAH, 2014) provides direction to municipalities regarding planning policies for the protection and management of certain natural heritage features and areas. The PPS stipulates protection requirements for the following natural heritage features: significant wetlands (including coastal wetlands); significant woodlands; significant valleylands; significant wildlife habitat; significant Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs); fish habitat; and habitat of endangered and threatened species. The PPS also requires that the diversity and connectivity of natural features in an area be maintained, restored or improved where possible, and that municipalities in Ecoregions 6E and 7E specifically identify Natural Heritage Systems to help provide a framework for this long-term maintenance. The Natural Heritage Reference Manual (OMNR 2010), along with the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guideline (OMNR 2000) and related Draft Eco-regional Criteria (OMNR 2012) provide additional guidance to municipalities on interpretation and application of PPS natural heritage policies. PPS natural features and areas are under the jurisdiction of different agencies and are afforded varying levels of protection subject to guidelines, and in some cases, regulations. ANSIs and provincially significant wetlands are identified by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), while nonprovincially significant wetlands may be identified and designated by the local planning authority. All wetlands are regulated by the local conservation authority, as are most valleylands. Significant habitat of Endangered or Threatened species is also under MNRF s jurisdiction, and may be confirmed by MNRF if a species is identified on a property through site specific investigation. Fish habitat is governed by the federal Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), and the identification and designation of other features is the responsibility of the municipality or other planning authority. 3.2 Regional Municipality of Durham Official Plan (2017) The Durham Regional Official Plan (OP), Consolidation May 11, 2017, is the most current version of the Regional Official Plan. Its main environmental protection within the OP is through the Greenbelt Natural Heritage System. This is not clearly differentiated from the provincial Greenbelt Plan protected areas. Not all of Durham is in the Greenbelt Plan including these properties. However the natural Page 3

8 features listed as protected in Durham (outside of the Greenbelt Plan area), are similar to those in the Greenbelt Plan. The Region of Durham Official Plan defines Key Natural Heritage Features (KNHF) as the following: significant habitat of endangered threatened, species concern and rare species; fish habitat; wetlands; Life Science Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs); significant valleylands; significant woodlands; significant wildlife habitat; sand barrens, savannahs, and tallgrass prairies; alvars; permanent and intermittent streams; lakes and their littoral zones; kettle lakes, and their surface catchment areas; seepage areas and springs; and aquifers and recharge areas. Schedule A Map 4: Regional Structure of the Official Plan identifies that the subject properties are located within Living Areas of the Urban System. Schedule B Map B1d: Greenbelt Natural Heritage System & Key Natural Heritage and Hydrologic Features illustrates that these features are absent on the subject properties. According to Section of the Official Plan the location and extent of key natural heritage and/or hydrologic features shown on Schedule B Map B1 may be further confirmed through appropriate studies such as a watershed plan or an environmental impact study in accordance with Policy Schedule B Map B3 Oak Ridge Moraine (ORM) Land Use shows the subject properties being located within Urban Area outside of the ORM land use area. Section of the Durham Region Official Plan states that: within Urban Areas and Rural Settlements, the vegetative protection zone [to Key Natural Heritage Features] shall be determined through an environmental impact study, in accordance with Policy which states that: any proposal for development or site alteration in proximity to key natural heritage or hydrologic features shall be required to include an Environmental Impact Study as part of a complete application. Page 4

9 3.3 City of Pickering Official Plan (2017, Office Consolidation) The current Official Plan for the City of Pickering (Edition 7) is dated September 2017 and builds on the framework presented in the Region of Durham s Official Plan. The Official Plan protects natural heritage features through the Open Space System, which incorporates three types of natural areas: core areas, corridors and linkages. It is the City s Policy that City Council: shall recognize as Open Space System on Schedule I, the city s valley and stream corridors; shorelines; environmentally significant areas; areas of natural and scientific interest; wetlands; significant forested areas; major parks, recreational and conservation areas; major open space linkages, and other major blocks of land comprising natural core areas and corridors; and Natural Core Areas and Natural Linkage Areas on the Oak Ridges Moraine (Section 3.5 of the Official Plan). According to Schedule I Land Use Structure of the Pickering Official Plan it appears that the subject property falls within a Mixed Use Area, specifically a Specialty Retailing Node. According to Schedule III Resource Management does not illustrate any features on the subject property however depicts an area adjacent to the north that is a Flood Plain Special Policy Area. According to Map 4 Forests, Fields and Hedgerows, it appears that Hedgerows are located on the northern portions of the subject property. This does not correspond with natural heritage features on the property. Map 6 - Environmental Resource Areas does not illustrate any features on the subject property. Map 7 Natural System Plans does not illustrate corridors, core areas, or linkages on the subject property. City Council recognizes the importance that forests, fields and hedgerows have for linkages among natural areas, diversity of landscape and opportunities for various species to forage, nest and breed. Accordingly, the City s Official Plan encourages the protection of these areas from development, consider all tools available to assist with tree preservation, and implement such tools where appropriate, including the Region of Durham By-law regulating the cutting of trees; and require, where appropriate, the recommendations of an Environmental Report to be implemented. The land use strategy of the City involves 11 primary land use categories and further divides into subcategories. The subject lands are within a Mixed Use Area (Section 3.6) which relates to areas and corridors of development with the highest concentration of activity within the City, and offering the broadest diversity of community services and facilities. A wide variety of uses are permitted including residential, retail, commercial and recreational. Table 6 of the Official Plan outlines the subcategories and specifications that must be met, including maximum and minimum densities. Section Design with Nature, contains a number of polices intended to encourage development be integrated with Pickering s natural features and resources, while preserving and enhancing their integrity including protection of significant natural features including wetlands and woodlots. Page 5

10 According to Section 16.8, City Council shall for major development, and may for minor development, as determined through a pre-submission consultation in Section 16.2, require the submission and approval of an Environmental Report as part of the consideration of a development application according to the requirements of Section and Appendix II City of Pickering Tree Protection By-law 6108/03 The City of Pickering Tree Protection By-law prevents the destruction of healthy trees in the specified tree protection areas, in an effort to protect and preserve the environment. Schedule A to the By-law does not identify the property within the screening area boundary, and does not identify any Environmentally Significant Areas, Wetlands or Shorelines and Stream Corridors on the subject property and as such the By-law does not apply. 3.4 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Policies and Regulations Conservation Authorities Act (Ontario Regulation 166/06) The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) regulates hazard lands including creeks, valleylands, shorelines, and wetlands. With respect to wetlands, the regulated area extends to within 30 m of an unevaluated wetland and within 120 m of a Provincially Significant Wetland (or any Oak Ridges Moraine wetland). The regulation requires the issuance of a permit from the Conservation Authority to allow interference with a wetland. With respect to floodplain and valleylands, the regulation area extends 15 m from the greater level of constraint. In the case of a proposed development the presence of any regulated features may trigger the need for a permit and consequentially a supporting EIS. Once requested studies have been completed, there may be a requirement for features to be maintained and/or for protective buffers to be placed on features or hazard lands within the study area. The TRCA will generally require that all watercourses stay in their natural state with respect to development proposals, while development within the flood limit of a watercourse is generally not allowed. However, subject to conformity with the applicable Official Plan, and completion of appropriate studies and the Conservation Authority permit process, development may be permitted within the regulated area TRCA Living City Policies for Planning and Development (2014) The Living City Policies (LCP) for Planning and Development in the watersheds of the TRCA was approved by the Authority Board on November 28, The document replaced TRCA's previous policy document, the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program (1994). The LCP contains policies related to terrestrial resources, water resources, natural features and areas, natural hazards, and potential natural cover and buffers. Section 7.3 contains TRCA s policies for how to define, protect, enhance, and secure a Natural Heritage System. The policies described in Section Page 6

11 have been identified with the goal of protecting lands that have the potential to be restored in order to enhance existing natural cover and manage natural hazards. The Living City Policies do not permit new development (including lot creation) within hazard lands (i.e., within the floodplain) where no development previously existed. As per Section of the LCP, the TRCA prescribes the following buffer to natural features and hazards as it relates to the subject property: Wetlands a 30 m buffer from provincially significant wetlands and a 10 m buffer for all other wetlands and any contiguous natural features or areas; Valley or Stream Corridors a 10-metre buffer from the greater of the long term stable top of slope/bank, stable toe of slope, Regulatory flood plain, meander belt, and any contiguous natural features or areas; and Woodlands a 10-metre buffer from the dripline and any contiguous natural features or areas. The subject property falls partially within the floodplain as per the TRCA s online mapping tool, and as such, the entirety of the subject property is regulated by the agency. 3.5 Endangered Species Act, 2007 Ontario s Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA) came into effect on June 30, 2008 and replaced the former 1971 Act. The ESA protects species listed as endangered and threatened by the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO). The purposes of the ESA are: To identify species at risk based on the best available scientific information, including information obtained from community knowledge and aboriginal traditional knowledge; To protect species that are at risk and their habitats, and to promote the recovery of species that are at risk; and To promote stewardship activities to assist in the protection and recovery of species at risk. An endangered or threatened species is protected, as is its habitat. Specifically, Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the killing, harming, harassing, possession, collection, buying and selling of extirpated, endangered, and threatened species on the Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) List; and Section 10 prohibits the damage or destruction of protected habitat of species listed as extirpated, endangered or threatened on the SARO List. Authorization from MNRF is required under the ESA for any works proposed within habitat of a Threatened or Endangered species. For some Threatened or Endangered species which frequently occur in areas where development is proposed, the MNRF has developed procedures which allow for the removal of individuals or their habitat. These procedures require authorization with compensatory plantings or replacement of habitat. Page 7

12 4. Site History 4.1 Historical Aerial Imagery A review of historical aerial imagery has revealed extensive modification to the subject property over recent years, with historic agricultural land use, and naturalization of the landscape concurrent with surrounding development (Photograph 1). The development of the adjacent lands represent one major shift in the surrounding matrix. Following the construction of the adjacent commercial and residential developments, the site retained some natural features (Photograph 2), although notably in different locations than previous aerials, indicating disturbance and naturalization of the landscape. A wooded area (potential cultural woodland or thicket community) was evident at this time and has since been removed. Photograph 1. Historic Aerial (March 28, 1981) The 2005 aerial imagery (Photograph 2) shows evidence of site disturbance, and potential impact from past construction of the adjacent commercial development to the southwest. Natural features on the site do not appear in the same location as previous aerial photos, indicating more recent disturbance. Removal of woody vegetation appears to have occurred after The 2009 aerial imagery demonstrates the extensive grading and site clearing that took place as well as the construction of a stormwater management pond (Photograph 3). This pond did not exist prior to 2009, however there were wetlands associated with drainage on site prior to grading. Records indicate that the previous landowner had retained authorization from TRCA for construction of a temporary stormwater management pond (TRCA Permit No. C-08364, issued April 11, 2008). Page 8

13 Photograph 2. Google Earth Imagery from 2005 Photograph 3. Google Earth Imagery from 2009 Page 9

14 4.2 Previous Environmental and Natural Heritage Study A natural heritage field study was undertaken by Beacon in November of 2007 for a previous landowner and revealed a number of ecological communities on site including wetland, uplands and an ephemeral watercourse. The eastern portion of the subject property contained two separate areas composed of concrete and fill. Wetland Communities Wetlands were characterized based on botanical composition and were observed to be relatively small with ephemeral standing water, supporting a low diversity of flora and fauna based on the anthropogenic nature of the features ha of wetlands were present in One of the communities was a Phragmites Mineral Meadow Marsh (MAM2-a) which was represented by homogeneous dense stands of the invasive Common Reed (Phragmites australis) and is typical of disturbed sites. Two MAM2-11 marsh pockets, represented a combined area of 0.29 ha supported an ephemeral regime, with standing water being present for a short period during the spring freshet. At the time, these areas dried down through May and soils would have been dry by midsummer. Most wetland functions and attributes are absent in communities dominated by Common Reed. The second wetland community described in 2007 was a Cattail Mineral Shallow Marsh (MAS2-1) and was associated with an ephemeral swale watercourse. The marsh community was dominated by Narrow-leaved Cattail (Tyha angustifolia) with a strong subcomponent of Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) and Panicled Aster (Symphyotrichum lanceolatum) along the community s margins. Other typical marsh plant species that occurred in low numbers along the edges of the community include sedges (Carex bebbii, C. retrorsa, C. granularis, C. gracillima), rushes (Scirpus atrovirens), and Boneset (Eupatorium perfoliatum). The MAS2-1 community was 0.14 ha in area. With respect to potential amphibian breeding ponds, wetland pockets on the site were shallow and ephemeral in nature and did not support a hydro period of sufficient duration (to the end of June-mid July) that would allow for successful transformation of tadpoles to adults. Upland Communities At the time of field investigation in 2007, the bulk of the subject property was covered in upland cultural communities. Cultural communities are those that have arisen following disturbance or have anthropogenic origins. Wooded areas were present and included Cultural Woodland (CUW1) with a combination of White Ash (Fraxinus americana), Trembling Aspen (Populus tremuloides) and White Birch (Betula papyifera). The majority of the wooded areas studied at the time were White Ash Mineral Cultural Woodland Ecosites that represented a total area of 1.2 ha. Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) and American Elm (Ulmus americana) were present along with a subcanopy and shrub layer dominated by European Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica). Two small forest pockets (0.07 ha and 0.18 ha) occurred within the White Ash cultural woodlands and represented highly disturbed remnants of a once existing forest and were characterized as Dry-Fresh White Ash Deciduous Forest Ecosites (FOD4-2). Page 10

15 Environmental Site Assessment Pinchin Environmental prepared Phase 1 (2010) and Phase 2 (2011) Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the subject property, as part of a previous development application. The Phase 2 ESA revealed the presence of a historic gasoline pump and potential underground storage tank at this location with the potential to adversely impact soil or groundwater conditions. It is our understanding that the site was subject to remediation. Subsequent data was taken from five borehole locations and concluded that concentrations of target parameters satisfied the Ministry of Environmental potable groundwater condition standards at the time. 5. Existing Conditions The subject property currently exhibits an anthropogenic character and is bounded by a commercial complex to the south and west, as well as transportation corridors with Pickering Parkway to the north, Notion Road to the east, and Highway 401 further south. Residential development is situated to the north. The site has been altered a number of times historically from its original character and compared to the conditions studied by Beacon in The subject property is situated within the Lower Main Duffins Subwatershed of the Duffins Creek Watershed and the Iroquois Plain physiographic region and drumlinized clay plain physiographic landform (Chapman and Putnam, 2007). 5.1 Aquatic Resources Drainage from the site appears to contribute to an offsite watercourse located southeast of the property that is conveyed along the north side of Highway 401 prior to its confluence with Duffins Creek. This offsite watercourse is identified in the Duffins Creek Fisheries Management Plan (TRCA 2004) as a small riverine warmwater system, with subsequent mapping of the Lower Main Duffins not reflective of existing conditions onsite. There are no wetlands or watercourses identified on the subject property based on a cursory review of NHIC and LIO data. Field investigations revealed that headwater drainage features were absent on the subject property. An offsite watercourse is located approximately 15 m to the southeast, and is identified as a tributary of Duffins Creek that flows northeast along the Highway 401 right-of-way and contributes to a main branch of Duffins Creek approximately 600 m to the east. (Exp Services Inc., 2017a). Drainage from the site appears to be conveyed to the existing stormwater management pond, with no connection to the offsite watercourse to the south. Page 11

16 5.2 Terrestrial Resources Vegetation Communities Vegetation communities on the subject property have been identified and mapped in accordance with Ecological Land Classification (ELC) for Southern Ontario (Lee et al., 1998). The communities are illustrated in Figure 2, with a floral list provided in Appendix A. A site visit was conducted on September 28, 2017 by a Beacon terrestrial ecologist to document and characterize the vegetation within the study area. Vegetation communities were mapped and described according to the Ecological Land Classification (ELC) System for Southern Ontario (Lee et al., 1998). This involved delineating vegetation communities on an aerial photograph, compiling a list of plant species in each community, and ranking the dominant plant species in each vegetation strata (canopy, sub-canopy, understory, and ground layers). Species of conservation concern and evidence of disturbance were noted. Much of the study area is comprised of cultural communities, defined as those either arising from or being maintained by anthropogenic based disturbances. These communities often contain a notably higher proportion of non-native and invasive species as compared to more naturalized habitats. The following paragraphs provide a description of the identified communities, outlining the dominant plant species and a description of other plant species present, and are illustrated on Figure 2. All portions of the site were highly disturbed with evident landscape modification and steep slopes/variable terrain. Upland Communities Cultural Meadow (CUM1) The bulk of the subject property was occupied by Cultural Meadow communities comprised of a combination of cool season grasses and common meadow forbs (Photograph 4). Two meadow subunits were identified and separated based on compositional variety, likely arising from the timing of most recent disturbance (i.e. a more densely vegetated meadow feature, CUM1-A, and a younger meadow community with more evident and exposed fill identified as CUM1-B). The CUM1-A unit was situated atop an elevated pile of fill in the southwestern corner of the subject property and was dominated by meadow forbs including asters (Symphyotrochim ericoides, S. lateriflorum, S. novae-angliae), goldenrods (Solidago canadensis, S. candadensis var. scabra), Queen Anne s Lace (Daucus carota), Greater Burdock (Arctium lappa), Canada Thistle (Cirsium arvense) and Red Raspberry (Rubus idaeus). Other less prominent species in the unit included Goat s Beard (Tragapodon dubius), Common Tansy (Tanacetum vulgare), Common Reed (Phragmites australis) and Smooth Brome (Bromus inermis). The CUM1-B unit occupied a larger area and appeared to be more recently disturbed based on more patchy vegetation and exposed fill. Dominant species here included Birds Foot Trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), Panic Grass (Panicum capillare), Silverweed (Potentilla anserina) and English Plantain (Plantago lanceolata). Page 12

17 Existing Conditions Figure 2 Notion Road Beechlawn Drive Ashford Drive 1856 Notion Road Pickering Metropia Larksmere Court Pickering Parkway Marshcourt Drive Legend Subject Property (Approximate) CUT1 ELC Communities CUM1-A ANT MAS2 SAF1-3 ELC Code Description CUM1 Mineral Cultural Meadow CUT1 Mineral Cultural Thicket ANT Anthropogenic MAS2 Shallow Marsh (Phragmites) SAF1-3 Duckweed Shallow Floating Aquatic CUM1-A C:\Dropbox\Dropbox (Beacon)\All GIS Projects\2017\217371\MXD\217371_Figure02_ExistingConditions_ mxd CUM1-A CUM1-B MAS2 CUM1-A Highway 401 ANT UTM Zone 17 N, NAD 83 First Base Solutions Web Mapping Service Metres - 1:1,500 Project January, 2018

18 Photograph 4. Cultural Meadow Units (CUM1-A in Foreground and CUM1-B in Background) Cultural Thicket (CUT1) A single Cultural Thicket (CUT1) unit was noted in the northeastern portion of the site and contained a variety of young trees and shrubs (Photograph 5). Most dominant were young Cottonwood (Populus deltoides) saplings, Russian Olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia), Autumn Olive (Elaeagnus umbellata) and Manitoba Maple (Acer negundo) along with Staghorn Sumac (Rhus typhina). Page 13

19 Photograph 5. Cultural Thicket Community (CUT1) Anthropogenic (ANT) Though the entire site is essentially anthropogenic given that it was entirely graded and cleared prior to 2009 and is currently subject to human disruption from all sides, a distinct anthropogenic and unvegetated area has been identified and is dominated by fill and exhibited recent disturbance (Photograph 6). Page 14

20 Photograph 6. Anthropogenic (ANT) Portion of Subject Property Wetland Communities Shallow Marsh (MAS2) The Shallow Marsh (MAS2) at this location was dominated by an aggressive non-native Common Reed (Phragmites australis) (Photograph 7). This species is known to spread quickly and smother native wetland plants, compromising local biodiversity and greatly reducing habitat quality. This species typically proliferates in areas of poor quality subject to anthropogenic disturbance. Common Reed was by far the most abundant plant in this unit, though a small number of other species including Curly Dock (Rumex crispus), Panicled Aster (Symphyotrichum lanceolatum), and Grass-leaved Goldenrod (Euthamia graminifolia) were present. Woody vegetation in this MAS2 was predominantly Russian and Autumn Olive shrubs, both found elsewhere on the property as well. Page 15

21 Photograph 7. Shallow Marsh Dominated by Non-native and Invasive Phragmites australis Duckweed Floating Aquatic (SAF1-3) A relatively small area of open water unit persisted in the eastern portion of the subject property, where the stormwater pond was constructed, and was characterized as an SAF1-3 based on the presence of Lesser Duckweed (Lemna minor). This feature has become overgrown and reduced in size by the dense Common Reed colony that encircles this feature, discussed above Adjacent Land to South A portion of land off site and adjacent to the subject property was also assessed for the purposes of this study and is included on Figure 2. This area extends from the southeastern block of the subject property and is situated between the site and Highway 401. This parcel of land is predominantly anthropogenic and is currently covered in fill and being used as a staging area for landscaping equipment and other machinery Floral Rarity A total of 92 plant taxa were observed on the subject property with approximately more than half (59%) being non-native plant species (ranked L+ or L+?) by the TRCA (Appendix A). No floral Species at Risk were identified. All native plant species documented here are ranked provincially as S5 (Secure) and the majority are L5 as ranked by the TRCA meaning common and secure. Spreading Dogbane (Apocynum Page 16

22 androsaemifolium) is ranked S5 provincially and L4 within the TRCA jurisdiction. L4 species are able to withstand some disturbance, are generally secure in rural areas, and are of concern in urban areas Endangered and Threatened Species Beacon contacted the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) on October 2, 2017 to obtain records of Species at Risk (SAR) at this location and in the general vicinity. At the time of report preparation, a response had not been received. In our professional opinion, potential habitat for SAR is absent given the relatively small site area, amount of site disturbance, and overall highly urbanized setting that it resides within Wildlife Potential and Incidental Observations The subject property provides limited wildlife habitat and function given the existing conditions and heavily urbanized surrounding matrix. Major transportation corridors and anthropogenic activity (commercial, residential) occur on all sides with the exception of a cemetery to the east. As discussed, the landscape is heavily modified and subject to anthropogenic pressure. A high proportion of the plant composition on site are non-native arising from disturbance and the marsh is dominated by the invasive Common Reed (Phragmites australis) which is known to offer minimal benefits to wildlife and represents a marked reduction in wetland habitat quality. Water is present on site where the historic stormwater pond was constructed, however it has been almost entirely engulfed by Common Reed. This plant grows very quickly and lowers water levels as water is transpired faster than it would be by native vegetation. No records of breeding amphibians exist for this site and it is unknown how much water is present year-round to support these animals. At best, the disturbed wetland community at this location represents poor amphibian breeding habitat. During the breeding season, urban birds such as Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris) and Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia) may occur. The small site area and surrounding activity contribute to the very low likelihood that sensitive grassland species would occur here. Small mammals such as Eastern Cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus) and Gray Squirrel (Sciurius carolinensis) are likely present. The overall site conditions represent poor habitat across species groups (amphibians, birds, plants) and only urban tolerant generalist animals are likely to persist. 6. Proposed Development The proposed development plan has a total lot area of approximately 3.63 hectares (8.97 acres) includes the conversion of the subject property to residential use with the construction of a 224 townhouse units at a density of units per hectare (Figure 3). The required number of units as stipulated in the City of Pickering s Official Plan is 252 dwelling units, or 80 units per hectare, necessitating an Official Plan Amendment. Page 17

23 The proposed development includes a residential block of freehold townhouses within an internal common element road network. Blocks will also be created for a right-of-way widening allowance along Pickering Parkway at the northwest corner of the subject lands, and an open space/parkland area within the easternmost portion of the site (Weston, 2018). The dwelling units consist of three module designs including traditional townhouses, and two difference sizes of back-to-back townhouse units. Vehicular access to the proposed development is gained using an 8.5 metre wide private laneway at the intersection of Pickering Parkway and Beechlawn Drive. An additional easement is located at the south side of the main laneway connecting the subject lands with the adjacent commercial property located at 1805 Pickering Parkway. The majority of parking for the development will be accommodated within driveways and single-car garages for each of the 224 townhouse units. Visitor parking spaces are provided at several points within the site, immediately accessible from the internal laneways. As a component of the proposed development, a hectare area at the easternmost area of the subject lands will be conveyed to the City of Pickering for parkland dedication. This public park will be oriented along Pickering Parkway and Notion Road at the southwest corner of their intersection, providing easy access and connectivity to the surrounding community. Presently an area for wetland compensation is proposed on an adjacent parcel immediately southeast of the site. The intended function is to primarily provide retention and water quality improvements. Further details of the design are to be addressed through a future Site Plan Application. 6.1 Stormwater Management and Servicing The stormwater management requirements were subject to criteria pertaining to quality, quantity and erosion control as discussed in greater detail in the accompanying Functional Servicing Report (GHD 2018). The site will include a number of Low Impact Development (LID) stormwater management tools including permeably paved roadways and parking, 300 mm absorbent topsoils and open-bottom storage tanks. The site servicing strategy has confirmed that sufficient flexibility exists to use a combination of these methods to meet and exceed the water quality treatment target. Run-off generated from the 25 mm rainfall event must be retained on-site and released over a minimum duration of 24 hours in order to meet erosion control requirements. With the use of infiltration methods mentioned in Section 3 of the GHD report (Water Balance Assessment), infiltration will be feasible to dispose of approximately 20% of the 25 mm rainfall event volume. The balance of this erosion control volume, approximately 600 m 3, will be addressed by additional volume provided in the adjacent open space block. Based on the current site plan, an estimated storage volume of 1,375 m 3 of storage is required to control post-development runoff to predevelopment rates. Storage for the 2-year through 100-year events is located outside of the Regional Flood line. The proposed development will use oversized storm sewers to provide a total of 1505 m 3 of storage and released at a specific rate of m 3 /s using a 245 mm orifice. Page 18

24 Marshcourt Drive Development Plan Figure 3 Notion Road Beechlawn Drive Ashford Drive 1856 Notion Road Pickering Metropia Larksmere Court Legend Subject Property (Approximate) Proposed Development Compensation Area Pickering Parkway C:\Dropbox\Dropbox (Beacon)\All GIS Projects\2017\217371\MXD\217371_Figure03_DevelopmentPlan_ mxd Highway 401 UTM Zone 17 N, NAD 83 First Base Solutions Web Mapping Service Metres - 1:1,500 Project December, 2017

25 7. Impact Assessment and Mitigation The following sections present some of the key potential negative effects of the proposed commercial development and identify mitigation opportunities and compensation measures to be utilized to minimize the adverse effects of the project. 7.1 Assessment of Impact Background review and field investigations on the subject property identified that the subject property is currently disturbed and anthropogenic with limited ecological functionality. Residential and commercial developments occur adjacent to the property boundaries along with a major transportation corridor. Given the current site conditions, it is expected that ecosystem impacts will be minimal. Potential impacts associated with the proposed development are itemized below: Direct loss of common vegetation; Wetland feature removal; Potential hydrological effects; and soil mobilization during site grading and stockpiling of material. Vegetation Removal The proposed development entails the removal of all vegetation present on site. The landscape has undergone a number of iterative modifications and is highly disturbed. As discussed in Section of this report, vegetation communities include primarily Cultural Meadow, Cultural Thicket and Anthropogenic areas. These units were dominated by non-native and urban tolerant flora that are widespread in the region. The landscape does not provide habitat for any floral Species at Risk or species deemed to be of conservation concern as per the TRCA s sensitivity L-ranking scale, or provide the potential for fauna species of conservation concern. Wetland Removal There are two wetland communities (MAS2 and SAF1-3 units) totaling 0.37 ha that will require removal as a result of the proposed development. A Shallow Marsh (MAS2) was present and dominated by Common Reed as with the MAM2-11 unit identified in 2007 and covered 0.34 ha of the site in Low species diversity and richness were present. A Duckweed Floating Aquatic (SAF1-3) unit was present at the location of the constructed stormwater pond and totaled 0.03 ha. Common Reed from the adjacent MAS2 has proliferated and encroached into the fringes of this community. These features offer limited ecological functioning given their small size and overall urbanized location. Page 19

26 Potential Hydrological Effects As per hydrogeological study prepared for this development proposal (EXP 2017a), no surface water features are located on site. Impacts to the water quality and quantity of the off-site tributary are noted to potentially arise during the construction phase including open cut sections for sewer installation. Potential discharge for any dewatering to occur through construction must conform to the applicable standards. 7.2 Recommended Mitigation Measures The following sections detail the anticipated impacts of the proposed development and identify mitigation and compensation measures to be utilized to minimize effects of the project. Wetland Compensation Beacon recommends the creation of wetland habitat to mitigate the loss of features discussed in this report and that these features be compensated relative to the wetland habitat documented, with an emphasis on the creation of higher quality habitat. An adjacent parcel to the south has been identified as a potential area for compensation, as identified on Figure 3. Given the proximity of a major roadway, an important consideration is to minimize the attractiveness of the created feature for potential wildlife and to ultimately avoid an ecological trap and discourage amphibian and waterfowl colonization. The present site and soil conditions contain an abundant seed bank and rhizome system of Common Reed, which has potential to colonize and smother created marsh habitat. With this in mind, Beacon recommends the creation of a moist meadow with no more than 0.5 m of standing water with the purpose of improving water quality and providing a reservoir to accommodate seasonal conditions and rain events as well as infiltrating overland flow. The created feature should be relatively level to avoid the accumulation of pools or ponding during spring freshet or rain events. In doing so, the creation of amphibian breeding habitat can be prevented given the proximity of the roadway and general urban surroundings which may result in an ecological trap. This feature should be seeded with an early successional wet meadow or wet meadow marsh mix with a component of woody vegetation tolerant of periodic flooding and be allowed to naturalize. One year of monitoring is proposed to ensure vegetative establishment. At the time of report submission, the location of this compensatory wetland is preliminary. The location of the compensation feature is contingent on the acquisition of the off-site lands directly south of the subject property. Timing of Vegetation Removal The federal Migratory Bird Convention Act (1994) protects the nests, eggs and young of most bird species from harm or destruction. Environment Canada considers the general nesting period of breeding birds in southern Ontario to be between late March and the end of August. This includes times at the beginning and end of the season when only a few species might be nesting. In light of this it is recommended that during the peak period of bird nesting, no vegetation clearing or disturbance to Page 20

27 nesting bird habitat occur (between mid-may and mid-july). In the shoulder seasons of April 1 to May 15, and July 16 to August 31, vegetation clearing could occur, but only after an ecologist with appropriate avian knowledge has surveyed the area to confirm the absence of nesting. If evidence of nesting is found, then vegetation clearing (in an area around the nest) has to wait until nesting has concluded. Generally speaking, the smaller and simpler the habitat is, the easier it is to confirm that no nesting is occurring. Likelihood of nesting birds being present in the shoulder seasons also depends on the habitat type. From September 1 through to March 31, of any year, vegetation clearing can occur without nest surveys, but the law for nest protection still holds (i.e. if an active nest is known it should be protected). Sediment and Erosion Control Construction works such as grading, grubbing and excavation have the potential to result in the movement of sediment into the offsite watercourses. An erosion and sediment control ESC) plan should be developed and implemented to the satisfaction of the Town of Aurora and LSRCA prior to the start of construction works. The ESC plan should follow the standards presented in Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for Urban Construction (Credit Valley Conservation 2006). Any grading or site alteration related activities should be confined to the established limit of development. Fencing at the development limit should be regularly inspected and maintained in good working order throughout the construction period. Fencing should be removed upon completion of construction after exposed soils have been stabilized. Standard Best Management Practices, including the provision of sediment control measures, should also be employed during the construction process. 8. Policy Conformity Sections 3 of this report provides the relevant natural heritage policy framework of the Provincial Policy Statement, Region of Durham, City of Pickering and the TRCA. 8.1 Provincial Policy Statement Natural features as outlined in the Provincial Policy Statement were absent at this location. 8.2 Regional Municipality of Durham The Regional Municipality of Durham s Official Plan documents do not illustrate any key natural heritage features on the subject lands, and indicatethat if present, may be further refined through appropriate environmental study (EIS) as per Policy The subject property is within the Urban Area and lacks natural heritage features for which a buffer would be applied to. Page 21

28 8.3 City of Pickering Official Plan This Environmental Impact Study has been prepared to satisfy the required of the City for an Environmental Report as part of a development application for a major development. The subject property is outside of the Open Space System of the City, and falls within a Mixed Use Area prescribed to be a Speciality Retailing Node. Table 6 of the Official Plan outlines the subcategories and specifications that must be met including maximum and minimum densities. The proponent will require both an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment. Map 4 of the Official Plan illustrated a hedgerow feature along the northern property limit, that was determined to be absent through field investigations. 8.4 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Policies and Regulations The subject property is identified within the regulatory floodplain, and is subject to a permit review by TRCA. Through an information request, it was identified that previous authorization was provided by TRCA for the removal of onsite wetland features, with compensation unconfirmed at the time. Review of correspondence from TRCA indicate the potential for compensation through the creation of wetland habitat or potential for cash-in-lieu. The proposed development plan provides for a preliminary area of wetland compensation located immediately south of the proposed development, and adjacent to a regulated watercourse. 8.5 Endangered Species Act No species protected under the ESA were encountered through field investigation, nor is suitable habitat present. 9. Summary A background review, interpretation of historic aerial photographs and detailed field investigations were undertaken as part of this development application. Following consultation with TRCA and review of the previous application file, an analysis of features and functions was undertaken and summarized. During the development of the proposed plan, adjustments were made to address the floodplain, and ensure the integrity of the limited natural heritage system in providing compensation for the previously authorized removal of wetland habitat. A number of ecological improvements have been identified through this study process and the design of the proposed subdivision. These include situating proposed wetland compensation area adjacent to an existing offsite watercourse to increase local connectivity for terrestrial and aquatic resources. The development proposal may equate to no net loss for wildlife due to the limited function of the site, as it already exhibits significant effects of anthropogenic disturbance resulting from historic agricultural Page 22

29 land use and surrounding land use. An increase in the disturbance will result in limited impact to the remaining ecological system from a wildlife perspective, however the creation of wetland habitat will provide a function in improving water quality and storage, which will offset the impacts of the proposed development to some degree. In addition, several Low Impact Development (LID) measures are being proposed for the site that will reduce the overall impact of the development. These may include LID options such as incorporation of bio-retention swales, permeable driveway pavement (infiltration), and increased topsoil depth. It is our opinion that the development as proposed, subject to confirmation of wetland compensation, and relevant approvals and permits as may be required as part of the development of the plan of subdivision, can proceed in a manner that is consistent with the policies and regulations of the PPS, Durham Region, the City of Pickering and the Toronto Region Conservation Authority. Report prepared by: Beacon Environmental Report prepared and reviewed by: Beacon Environmental Chana Steinberg, B.Sc.(Hons) Ecologist Julianna MacDonald, B.Sc.(Hons), MES (Pl) Senior Planning Ecologist Page 23