Appendix D.2 - October 2013

Transcription

Strasburg Road Extension
From North of Stauffer Drive to New Dundee Road
Environmental Study Report
October 2013
APPENDIX D.2
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT





Fish and Fish Habitat
Vegetation Communities
Wildlife
Hydrogeology
Contamination Overview Study
331650-4E-Rev 1
October 2013
Fish and Fish Habitat
331650-4E-Rev 1
Strasburg Road Extension Part A
AQUATIC RESOURCES REPORT
Prepared on behalf of the City of Kitchener
Aquatic Resources
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................1
1.1
Study Area and Watercourse Crossings............................................................ 1
2.0
BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND FIELD INVESTIGATION APPROACH ... 1
2.1
Background Information Sources ...................................................................... 1
2.1.1
Physiographic Conditions ........................................................................... 3
2.1.2
Groundwater ..............................................................................................4
2.1.3
Fish Community, Management and Designated Species at Risk................ 4
2.2
Field Investigation Approach ............................................................................. 5
3.0
RESULTS OF FIELD INVESTIGATIONS ............................................................ 6
3.1
Biophysical Characteristics of Blair Creek ......................................................... 6
3.1.1
Main Branch of Blair Creek ........................................................................ 6
3.2
Fish Community ................................................................................................7
3.3
Spawning Surveys ............................................................................................9
3.4
Water Quality and Thermal Stability ................................................................ 11
3.5
Summary of Fish Habitat Sensitivity and Constraints ...................................... 13
4.0
AQUATIC EFFECTS ASSESSMENT ................................................................ 14
4.1
Potential Aquatic Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................ 14
4.2
Scale of Negative Effects and Net Residual Effects ........................................ 16
4.3
Monitoring ....................................................................................................... 16
ANNEX A - PHOTOGRAPHS ....................................................................................... 18
List of Figures
Figure 1: Site Map ...........................................................................................................2
Figure 2: Fish Sampling Sites........................................................................................ 10
List of Tables
Table 1: Fish Species – Blair Creek ................................................................................8
Table 2: Blair Creek – Spawning Survey Results ......................................................... 11
Table 3: Water Quality – Blair Creek ............................................................................. 11
Table 4: Thermal Classification of Blair Creek ............................................................... 12
i
Aquatic Resources
1.0
INTRODUCTION
The City of Kitchener is proposing the extension of Strasburg Road from Rush Meadow
Street to Robert Ferrie Drive (Strasburg Road Extension). The extension of Strasburg
Road is planned to accommodate future development in the Brigadoon Community and
Doon South Community, as indicated in the Kitchener Growth Management Plan and the
respective community plans.
This project is the subject of a Schedule C Class Environmental Assessment under the
Municipal Engineers Association Class Environmental Assessment (from 500 m north of
Stauffer Drive to New Dundee Road).
1.1
Study Area and Watercourse Crossings
The study area for the Strasburg Road Extension project is located in the Blair Creek
watershed, which a tributary of the Grand River. With a drainage area of 6,800 km2, the
Grand River is the largest watershed in southern Ontario Region and is home to nearly
925,000 people 1. The Grand River is a designated Canadian Heritage River due to its
heritage and recreational values and its contribution to the development of the region.
The main tributaries of the Grand River are the Conestogo River, Nith River, Eramosa
River and Speed River.
There are a number of natural features located within the study area, including Blair
Creek, a significant woodland and valleyland areas, and a Provincially Significant
Wetland (PSW).
A site map showing the proposed Strasburg Road Extension and watercourse crossings
in the study area are presented in Figure 1.
2.0
BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND FIELD INVESTIGATION APPROACH
The description of existing fish and fish habitat conditions in the study area involved the
review of secondary source information and collection of data during field investigations
conducted in 2010 by SNC-Lavalin Inc. (SLI).
2.1
Background Information Sources
Background information relevant to the study area was collected and reviewed prior to
the initiation and development of the fieldwork program for the project. The MNR and
GRCA were formally contacted in May 2010 and requested to provide background
information on the subject watercourses.
1
http://www.sourcewater.ca/index/document.cfm?Sec=7&Sub1=0&sub2=0
1
Aquatic Resources
Figure 1: Site Map
2
Aquatic Resources
The background data sources that were reviewed as part of the Strasburg Road
Extension project include the following:
•
Aerial photography (2009);
•
Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) to provide information on rare,
threatened and endangered species and natural areas reports in Ontario;
•
Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Distribution of Fish Species
at Risk mapping;
•
Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) to obtain fish collection records, spawning
survey records and applicable fisheries management plans;
•
Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) fish inventory information, including
the Grand River Fisheries Management Plan (1998);
•
Blair Creek Habitat Assessment and Fishery Inventory (GRCA, 1991);
•
Blair Creek Spawning Survey (GRCA, 1991);
•
Upper Blair Creek Functional Drainage Study (Stantec, 2009)
•
Regional Municipality of Waterloo records and mapping for natural features;
•
City of Kitchener Planning Board records and mapping for natural features; and,
•
City of Kitchener-Wide Stormwater Management Plan Annual Audit Report (Year
2009, Monitoring Report.
The above information sources were reviewed to provide an understanding of the site
and natural features in the context of the surrounding area. The following provides an
overview of select information gathered from the background information sources.
2.1.1
Physiographic Conditions
Physiography plays an important role in the hydrologic and hydrogeologic systems within
the Grand River Watershed. The Waterloo Hills physiographic region is located within
the centre of the watershed, mostly within the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and
covers the study area for the project. This area is characterized by sand hills, gravel
terraces, and many swampy valleys. The soils of the hilly areas are rich and well
drained. Water from precipitation infiltrates in the sand hills and discharges as
groundwater to the headwater wetlands and source areas of the streams creating fens,
bogs, kettle lakes, swamps, marshes, and baseflow in streams.
The area from below Belwood Lake downstream to Brantford is considered the Middle
Grand River watershed. The physiography of the middle Grand River watershed is
complex, with kame and till moraines and extensive out-wash areas of gravels and
sands, intermixed with various tills. The hydrology of this zone is also complex. The
main river channels have numerous areas of active groundwater discharge, generating
thermal refuges for various fish species. 2
2
Chapman and Putnam, 1984.
3
Aquatic Resources
2.1.2
Groundwater
Geotechnical investigations within the study area by others (Stantec, 2009) and the SLI
hydrogeology/geotechnical assessments for the project found that the groundwater in
the area occurs in two overburden deposits of sand and gravel, which are separated by
the Catfish Creek till; a low permeability confining layer. The shallow and deep
overburden aquifers provide water for residential and municipal wells, in addition to
contributing flow to Blair Creek, Roseville Swamp, and the Grand River.
Previous investigations of Blair Creek have concluded that while Blair Creek originates in
the ice-contact sands and gravels of the Waterloo Moraine it is primarily an intermittent
stream fed by surface water runoff until just west of Groh/Dodge Drive. It was also noted
that there is occasional groundwater discharge to Blair Creek between Reidel Drive and
Groh Drive, and even west of Reidel Drive. 3
As a result of the physiography of the area (sand/silt and sandy loams) the headwaters
of Blair Creek produce measurable runoff but they also promote significant infiltration
and recharge features within the watershed. 4 This is demonstrated through the
headwaters area from Reidel Drive to Dodge Drive where the system is generally
considered to be permanent but does not necessarily always support flow through the
summer months. 5
2.1.3
Fish Community, Management and Designated Species at Risk
Blair Creek is a productive and healthy coldwater stream that supports brook trout and
other coldwater species throughout its length. 6 The presence of groundwater, a
reasonable baseflow and gravel substrates provide ideal habitat for brook trout.
The entire length of Blair Creek is considered to be a natural channel with little
anthropogenic disturbance noted. There are a couple of known barriers to the upstream
passage of fish including the v-notch weir at the Reidel Road culvert and a residential
driveway culvert that is perched presenting a seasonal barrier to fish passage. 7
Existing fish habitat information for Blair Creek suggests that the watercourse supports a
diverse assemblage of cold, cool and warmwater fish species and that there is suitable
habitat to support highly sensitive coldwater species such as brook trout. The review of
the Grand River Watershed Management Plan identified that Blair Creek is managed as
a coldwater system by MNR and GRCA, with suitable thermal and habitat conditions that
support a self-sustaining population of brook trout.
Designated Aquatic Species at Risk
The designation of aquatic species of national significance is given by the Committee on
the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), which may then qualify for
legal protection and recovery under the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA).
3
4
5
6
7
Stantec, 2009.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Grand River Conservation Authority. 1991.
Stantec, 2009.
4
Aquatic Resources
Endangered, Threatened or Extirpated species on Schedule 1 of the SARA are afforded
protection under the Act. The designation of species of provincial significance is based
on recommendations made by the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in
Ontario (COSSARO). Species classified as "at risk" (i.e., Extirpated, Endangered,
Threatened or Special Concern) by COSSARO are placed on the Species at Risk List in
Ontario (SARO List) and are afforded protection under the Ontario Endangered Species
Act, with the exception of species of “special concern”.
From the review of background information, there are no designated aquatic species at
risk present in Blair Creek within the study area.
2.2
Field Investigation Approach
To confirm background conditions and the sensitivity of fish and fish habitat reported by
others, a detailed field investigation was conducted on May 26, August 11 and October
6, 2010 by SLI to fully characterize and assess habitat features and functions present at
the watercourse crossings within the study area.
The fish habitat assessment for Strasburg Road Extension was conducted utilizing the
general methods and procedures outlined in the MNR Ontario Stream Assessment
Protocol (2005). The general and detailed zones of assessment included the right-ofway (ROW) plus 50 m upstream and 200 m downstream of the ROW. Information
recorded included:
•
Aquatic habitat mapping;
•
Watercourse size, flow (permanent/intermittent) and thermal regime
(coldwater/warmwater);
•
Summer thermal stability assessment of the watercourses using the
protocol/procedures as outlined in “A Simple Method to Evaluate the Thermal
Stability of Southern Ontario Streams” (Stoneman and Jones, 1996);
•
General water chemistry (dissolved oxygen, pH, conductivity);
•
Physical channel dimensions and habitat features
o
width, depth (including bankfull and wetted widths and depths),
o
substrate
o
bank stability/erosion
o
in-stream cover type and composition (undercut banks, woody debris
etc),
o
channel morphology,
o
riparian vegetation
o
groundwater seepage/upwelling.
•
Physical barriers to movement of fish;
•
Identification of potential critical or specialized habitat areas or features (i.e.,
potential spawning areas, over-wintering and nursery habitat); and
5
Aquatic Resources
•
Observations of habitat alterations/land use (i.e., channel modification, potential
pollutant sources).
A survey/sampling of fish species present in the subject watercourses was not
conducted by SLI, given the availability of current fish community information provided
by GRCA and MNR. However, all visual observations of fish were recorded during the
field investigations. Spawning surveys were not conducted by SLI during the fall of 2010
as spawning surveys had previously been conducted during the fall of 2008 by others
and these surveys were deemed sufficient especially since there is no brook trout
spawning habitat within the study area.
Representative photographs of the watercourse crossings are provided in Appendix A.
3.0
RESULTS OF FIELD INVESTIGATIONS
This section provides a description of Blair Creek and tributaries upstream and
downstream of Reidel Drive as result of the aquatic habitat assessment conducted
during the spring, summer and fall seasons of 2010.
3.1
Biophysical Characteristics of Blair Creek
3.1.1
Main Branch of Blair Creek
Blair Creek is a tributary of the Grand River located on the outskirts of the cities of
Kitchener and Cambridge and the town of Blair. Blair Creek is a coldwater stream that is
10 km in length with a catchment area of 1,800 ha. 8 Land use surrounding Blair Creek is
mainly agricultural in the upper parts of the watercourse and residential in the
downstream reaches. Adequate wooded buffers are present throughout much of the
length of the watercourse, except for the headwaters, where agricultural lands
predominate and cover consists of grassed banks. 9
Downstream of Reidel Drive
Blair Creek was assessed for fish habitat from east of Reidel Drive to the upper part of
its watershed within the EA study area identified for consideration of route alternatives
for the Strasburg Road Extension. This reach of Blair Creek is located near the
headwaters of the system, which originates in the wetland and agricultural areas west of
Reidel Drive.
Downstream of Reidel Drive, the stream flows are permanent through lowland/wetland
areas and are conveyed in a defined channel. There is a V-notch weir located at the
outlet of the culvert conveying Blair Creek at Reidel Drive that is a barrier to the
upstream passage of fish. The stream was flowing, albeit slowly, through the culvert
during SLI field investigations in May, August and October, 2010. It is possible that the
majority of the stream flow through the culvert is from upstream groundwater discharge
8
9
Ibid.
6
Aquatic Resources
associated with wetland/lowland area immediately west of Reidel Drive, which has been
reported by others 10 to be occasional in nature depending on seasonal groundwater
level variations. This reach provides permanent fish habitat.
The average wetted width of the watercourse downstream of Reidel Drive is 0.6 – 0.7 m
with depths of 0.06 - 0.08 m. Observations of the stream morphology was restricted by
the thick overhead vegetation cover and in-stream watercress but is dominated mainly
by flats due to the low gradient. There were also a few pools noted and a small riffle
reach. The substrate is composed predominantly of muck and detritus which is
consistent with observations by GRCA during the habitat assessment in 1991. 11
Upstream of Reidel Drive
Upstream of Reidel Drive assumed diffuse groundwater contribution in combination
with the lack of a defined channel obscure the stream flow to the extent that flow is not
discernable through the wetland. Standing water was observed in the wetland during
the SLI field investigations in May 2010, however flow was not evident. This reach does
not provide permanent fish habitat but could provide seasonal fish habitat except for the
V-notch weir located at the Reidel Drive culvert that is currently considered to be a
barrier to the upstream passage of fish. Further upstream in the study area, Blair Creek
is characterized as a shallow intermittent swale feature through forest and agricultural
lands. 12 While the stream channel is defined through this area there was no flow
present in the upper reaches of Blair Creek during the SLI May and August 2010 field
investigations. A smaller ephemeral tributary of Blair Creek joins the main branch
approximately 200 m upstream from Reidel Drive. There is no permanent fish habitat
through these upstream reaches as they contribute only seasonal flows to the
downstream reaches.
There is an un-named pond located approximately 50 m north of the terminus of Reidel
Drive on the north side of Stauffer Drive. Origins of the pond are unknown but it appears
it may have been a small kettle lake that was dug larger some years ago. There is no
inlet or outlet stream which is a distinguishing characteristic of kettle lakes/ponds. Active
agricultural fields are located on the east side of the pond and the remaining edges are a
combination of manicured lawn with some small shrubs and scattered trees. Extensive
fish community investigations were not conducted however some minnow traps were set
and a single brown bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus) was sampled in the spring of 2010.
The pond is considered to support a fish community and typical of kettle lakes, the fish
have likely been stocked either purposely or accidentally.
3.2
Fish Community
Fish community sampling and inventory was not conducted by SLI in 2010 as it was
determined there was sufficient background information from within the study area
available from the Ministry of Natural Resources and GRCA.
10
11
12
Stantec, 2009
Grand River Conservation Authority. 1991. Blair Creek Habitat Assessment and Fishery Inventory.
Stantec. 2009. Upper Blair Creek (Kitchener) Functional Drainage Study.
7
Aquatic Resources
The fish community sampling stations (conducted by others) were located between
Reidel Drive and Dodge Drive and are detailed on Figure 2 and summarized in Table 1.
In general, the fish community sampling was conducted in the headwaters area in the
vicinity of Dodge Drive as reaches upstream of this location have characteristic thick
growth of overhead vegetation which make sampling very difficult and the heavy growth
of watercress and lower baseflow contributions contribute to poor visibility and low water
levels that restrict the effectiveness of the sampling effort and also restrict the visual
observations. 13
While the majority of the fish sampling stations were located outside of the study corridor
there were was one exploratory electrofishing survey conducted by GRCA in 1991 at
Reidel Drive. 14 The GRCA survey of Blair Creek at Reidel Drive found only fathead
minnows.
During the SLI investigations of May and August 2010, no fish were observed at Blair
Creek for the reaches in the study area that had either ponding water or minimal flow
The fish communities of Blair Creek are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1: Fish Species – Blair Creek
Year
May 2008
August 2007
September 1998
13
14
Common Name
Scientific Name
brook trout
white sucker
blacknose dace
creek chub
mottled sculpin
central mudminnow
fathead minnow
brook stickleback
Iowa darter
brook trout
central mudminnow
white sucker
golden redhorse
blacknose dace
longnose dace
creek chub
brook stickleback
greenside darter
mottled sculpin
Salvelinus fontinalis
Catostomus commersoni
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Cottus bairdi
Umbra limi
Pimephales promelas
Culaea inconstans
Etheostoma exile
Umbra limi
Moxostoma erythrurum
Rhinichthys cataractae
Culaea inconstans
Cottus bairdi
brook trout
mottled sculpin
blacknose dace
Cottus bairdi
GRCA, November 1991
8
Aquatic Resources
Year
November 1991
Exploratory
Electrofishing at
Reidel Drive
1991
3.3
Common Name
Scientific Name
longnose dace
rainbow darter
white sucker
creek chub
brook trout
brown trout
central mudminnow
blacknose dace
longnose dace
creek chub
white sucker
brook stickleback
fathead minnow
Johnny darter
rainbow darter
smallmouth bass
mottled sculpin
fathead minnow
Etheostoma caeruleum
Salmo trutta
Umbra limi
Culaea inconstans
Pimephales promelas
Estheostoma nigrum
Etheostoma caeruleum
Micropterus dolomieu
Cottus bairdi
Pimephales promelas
Spawning Surveys
Spawning surveys are conducted to assess the relative health and status of the brook
trout population, utilization of certain reaches, as well as confirming the location
groundwater upwellings. Spawning surveys are completed by walking along the banks
of the watercourse looking for evidence of active spawning, either through observation of
adult fish building their nests (redds) or observation of completed redds. Table 2
summarizes past spawning survey results.
Spawning surveys were not conducted by SLI during the fall of 2010 as spawning
surveys had been previously conducted during the fall of 2008 by others and these
surveys were deemed sufficient. As well, the sand and muck substrate and sections
with poor channel form likely limits fish movement within and immediately downstream of
the study area and therefore does not meet the basic requirements for brook trout
spawning. 15
The spawning surveys conducted by GRCA in 1991 took place from Dodge Drive
downstream to the outlet at the Grand River, which is a considerable distance
downstream of the study area for the Strasburg Road Extension. No spawning surveys
were conducted upstream of Dodge Drive due to extensive overhead cover and poor
substrate conditions. Spawning surveys conducted by others in 2008 noted 3 confirmed
redds at Dodge Drive and no confirmed spawning upstream of Dodge Drive which is
consistent with past spawning surveys conducted by GRCA.
15
Stantec, 2009.
9
10
Figure 2: Fish Sampling Sites
Aquatic Resources
Aquatic Resources
Table 2: Blair Creek – Spawning Survey Results
Year
Spawning Activity
October – November
1991*
204 brook trout redds
2 brown trout redds
Fall 2008**
3 brook trout redds
*spawning survey conducted by GRCA
**spawning survey conducted by Ecoplans (for Stantec)
3.4
Water Quality and Thermal Stability
Water Quality
Blair Creek in the study area is reported to be a coldwater stream, and therefore
maintenance of water quality and low water temperatures is essential to the health of the
watershed and supporting known coldwater species in the system.
Background information suggests that Blair Creek is considered to have fair to good
water quality. However, water quality in the watershed is being impacted by:
•
Agricultural land use and management practices (drainage, nutrients, fertilizer
and pesticides application)
•
Urbanization (stormwater runoff from commercial/residential land uses and
roadways)
•
Loss of riparian vegetation
•
Point source discharges
•
Stream features – on-line ponds
Water quality parameters were measured in Blair Creek within the study area during the
aquatic habitat assessment (refer to Figure 2) and is summarized in Table 3.
Table 3: Water Quality – Blair Creek
Parameter
Unit
Blair Creek at Reidel Drive
Electrical Conductivity
Us/cm
168
Dissolved Oxygen
mg/L
9.31
pH
NA
7.74
Temperature
C
o
15.3
Field Data Recorded – May 26, 2010
11
Aquatic Resources
Thermal Stability
Water temperature and its stability are important characteristic to the distribution of fish
in a system and are critical to some species, such as brook trout for spawning and
rearing. For Blair Creek it is assumed that groundwater influences are moderating
warming trends in the watercourses and that stream temperatures are likely variable
depending on local influences (e.g., on-line pond, stormwater pond outfalls, extent of
riparian vegetation, etc) in the reach.
Stream temperatures were assessed during the summer of 2010 for Blair Creek to
obtain a reliable estimate of the ability of the watercourse to buffer the effects of high air
temperatures. The watercourse sites were classified into coldwater, coolwater or
warmwater based on the methodology developed by Stoneman and Jones. 16 This
methodology is based on a one day measurement of air and water temperatures in July
or August when the maximum air temperatures exceed 24.5oC. Water temperature
sampling was conducted by SLI on August 11, 2010 at Blair Creek in the study area and
the recorded air temperature was 29oC (Environment Canada Waterloo International
Airport Station).
In general, watercourses are considered coldwater, or thermally stable, if they remain
cold even on very hot days. Coldwater sites contain thermal habitat considered ideal for
such species as brook and brown trout (14oC), as these species cannot withstand large
temperature fluctuations and/or high temperatures (> 23oC) over an extended period of
time. Typically for coldwater sites the maximum summer water temperatures do not
exceed 18oC. Coolwater sites contain thermal habitat considered ideal for such species
as rainbow trout, mottled sculpin, darters and typically maximum summer water
temperatures do not normally exceed 23oC. Conversely warmwater sites, or thermally
unstable, quickly reach a water temperature in the summer which often exceeds 23oC.
Warmwater systems typically support species tolerant of wide fluctuations and high
temperature and as result have very limited ability to support coldwater species, such as
brook trout.
Based on the SLI assessment, the water temperatures and thermal classification for the
watercourses in the study area is outlined on Table 4.
Table 4: Thermal Classification of Blair Creek
Temperature (oC)
Thermal Classification
Blair Creek at Reidel Drive
20.0
Coldwater
Blair Creek at New Dundee
Road*
20.4
Coldwater
Blair Creek at Dodge
Drive**
20.0
Coldwater
Watercourse/Station
* in-stream temperatures taken by Stantec (2009)
**in-stream temperatures taken by GRCA (1991)
16
Stoneman and Jones, North American Journal of Fisheries Management 1996 - A Simple Method to
Classify Stream Thermal Stability with Single Observations of Daily Maximum Water and Air Temperatures
12
Aquatic Resources
The thermal classification of the Blair Creek in the study area is, for the most part,
consistent with that identified by GRCA and others. The entire length of Blair Creek is
considered to be a coldwater system based on the review of background information.
Future developments within this watershed will likely cause significant stress for this
system as urbanization can result in significant changes to hydrology and groundwater
recharge/discharge functions. The groundwater function is of vital importance to this
system as the self-sustaining populations of brook trout absolutely require groundwater
upwellings for successful reproduction.
Additionally, further downstream of Reidel Drive it’s clear that Blair Creek has cold water
temperatures based on the fish community present. In general, the overall classification
and management of Blair Creek as a coldwater system appears to be appropriate given
that it doesn’t appear to exhibit significant variation in water temperatures based on the
extent of groundwater discharge and existing extensive riparian zone providing excellent
overhead cover and shade.
3.5
Summary of Fish Habitat Sensitivity and Constraints
As part of the aquatic habitat assessment for the Strasburg Road Extension, a
determination of fish and fish habitat sensitivity for the watercourses in the study area
was completed. This categorization of sensitivity encompassed both fish species and
fish habitat, and their inter-relationships and dependencies. While an understanding of
the component species and habitat requirements is important to assessing sensitivity,
the interactions at the fish community and overall aquatic ecosystem level must be
integrated in the analysis. The attributes used for assessing the sensitivity of fish and
fish habitat included:
•
Species Sensitivity
•
Species’ Dependence on Habitat
•
Rarity
•
Habitat Resiliency
The above attributes and process for determining fish habitat sensitivity are consistent
with the approach documented in the Guide to the Risk Management Framework for
DFO Habitat Management Staff Practitioners (Version 1.0, DFO).
From the SLI aquatic habitat assessment and above approach for determining
sensitivity, Blair Creek is considered to support fish/fish habitat of high sensitivity. Key
factors in this determination include presence of highly sensitive coldwater
species/community (e.g., brook trout), their dependency and reliance on the
groundwater discharge function present to maintain coldwater temperatures, and the low
habitat resiliency or ability to tolerate or recover from changes in environmental
conditions, such as flow and thermal regimes.
13
Aquatic Resources
4.0
AQUATIC EFFECTS ASSESSMENT
4.1
Potential Aquatic Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Work in and around water features containing fish and fish habitat have the potential to
result in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction (HADD) of fish habitat as
defined in the Fisheries Act. HADD includes any changes that prevent the physical,
biological or chemical attributes of fish habitat from providing food, reproduction, cover
and movement corridors, or any change in fish habitat that reduces its capacity to
support one or more of life processes of fish (DFO, 1998). The proposed Strasburg
Road Extension Alignment E4 Modified may have the potential to adversely affect the
aquatic environment and surface water quality. The proposed works for the proposed
road extension will involve in-water work within the watercourse for the construction of
the culvert conveying Blair Creek that will directly affect fish habitat, and may also
include works near the watercourse such as earth excavation/grading, excess material
storage, equipment maintenance activities and wastewater management that have the
potential to indirectly impact fish habitat by altering/removing their physical habitat (i.e.,
channel bed, substrates, riparian vegetation, in-stream cover, etc.). Potential impacts
include impairment of water quality, and direct fish kills or destruction of habitat due to
spills (e.g., chemical or sediment) resulting in short term population decline.
There is no in-water work proposed for the artificial pond that is located just north of
Stauffer Drive and Reidel Drive at 500 Stauffer Drive. However, indirect impacts to fish
and fish habitat are possible due to land-based construction activities (e.g. grading. fill
placement) near the pond (e.g., release of silt as a result of poor sediment controls, or
fuel spill).
Other potential effects to fish and fish habitat that are applicable to the proposed works
include:
Alteration/loss to riparian vegetation (potential loss of allochthonous inputs (food
supply/sources) – leaf matter, terrestrial insects);
Discharge of sediment to a watercourse from earth/spoil stockpiles, grading and
excavation activities associated with road extension and associated culvert
works resulting in the impairment of water quality and/or physical damage to
habitat;
Release of fuel, oil, grease contaminants from mobile equipment resulting in
unacceptable contaminant concentrations in receiving watercourse;
Displacement/stranding/mortality of fish during construction from use of mobile
equipment (pumps, backhoe, etc;); and
Change to sensitive life stages/process (i.e., spawning) if in-water works are not
timed appropriately.
Recommended environmental design and construction mitigation measures to avoid
and/or minimize potential impacts to the aquatic environment and surface water for
consideration in future phases of the project include:
Design and install native woody riparian vegetation and groundcover to preconstruction conditions or better.
14
Aquatic Resources
•
Design and implement erosion and sediment controls to prevent erosion of
exposed soils and migration of sediment to the watercourse.
•
Implement timing restrictions during construction for in-water work to protect
sensitive life stages of fish, as identified by MNR (coldwater – in-stream window
July 1 to September 15).
•
Isolate in-water work area (“in the dry”) during construction through temporary
flow passage system (e.g., by-pass pumping, cofferdam diversion channel) to
maintain flow around the work zone at all times.
•
Store, handle and dispose of all excess materials in a manner that prevents their
entry to the watercourse.
•
Operate, maintain and store (e.g., fuel, lubricates) all equipment and materials in
a manner that prevents the entry of any deleterious substances to the
watercourse.
•
Design and implement erosion and sediment controls measures such as straw
bale flow checks, silt fence, and temporary rock flow checks to prevent erosion of
exposed soils and migration of sediment to watercourses.
o
Stabilize and
construction.
re-vegetate
exposed
soils
immediately
following
o
Conduct work in a continuous fashion to minimize the duration of potential
impacts and maintain the area of disturbance to a minimum.
•
Design drainage and stormwater management systems to mimic overland
drainage patterns and control runoff quality/quantity contribution to watercourse
features.
•
Store, handle and dispose of all excess materials by storing, handling and
disposing of all materials generated during site preparation, construction and
operations to prevent their entry into watercourses.
•
•
o
Place temporary stockpiles of material a minimum of 30 metres away
from the watercourse and ensure material is stabilized to prevent
sediment laden runoff from entry into watercourses.
o
Prepare a spill/emergency response plan for construction and operations.
Manage dewatering and concrete effluent, where applicable, from excavations
and structural works to prevent release of contaminated water to receiving
watercourses.
o
Direct dewatering effluent to temporary settling basins, filter bags and
energy discharge diffusers, as required.
o
Capture and transport concrete effluent off-site for disposal.
Operate, maintain and store (e.g., fuel, lubricates) all equipment and materials
(e.g., fuel, lubricants) in a manner that prevents the entry of any deleterious
substances to watercourses.
15
Aquatic Resources
•
Equipment re-fuelling will take place no closer than 30 m from any watercourse
to prevent water contamination due to accidental fuel spills.
•
Prohibit/limit construction access to watercourse/watercourse banks.
•
A vegetative buffer should be maintained around this pond for the protection of
the riparian zone and the aquatic habitat within the pond.
4.2
Scale of Negative Effects and Net Residual Effects
Remaining residual effects after the application of mitigation measures were assessed in
terms of the resulting Scale of Negative Effect (extent, duration, and intensity) in the
context of the fish habitat being affected (i.e., the sensitivity of fish and fish habitat). The
Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) Risk Management Framework, which
incorporates the above two factors (i.e., Scale of Negative Effect and Sensitivity of
Fish/Fish Habitat), was used to characterize the level of risk (high, medium or low) that
any residual effects after the application of mitigation pose to fish/fish habitat, and thus
the likelihood of a Harmful Alteration, Disruption or Destruction (HADD) or No HADD
occurring as a result of the proposed works. Results from this assessment were then
used to help determine whether the works will result in the HADD of fish habitat, as
defined under the Fisheries Act.
The Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA), the local conservation authority has a
Level 3 agreement in place with the DFO. In accordance with the agreement and DFO’s
Risk Management Framework, GRCA will complete an aquatic effects assessment to
determine potential impacts of the proposed work on fish and fish habitat during the
Detail Design phase for the project. This process includes an assessment to determine
the level of risk (high, medium or low) that any residual effects after the application of
mitigation pose to fish/fish habitat, and thus the likelihood of a HADD or No HADD
occurring as a result of the work.
From the preliminary assessment completed as part of this study it is expected the
proposed work associated with the proposed road extension will be characterized as
“Low Risk” by GRCA and, as such, will not result in a HADD of fish/fish habitat, providing
the appropriate mitigation measures are applied. In conclusion from the assessment no
significant residual effects to surface water resources are anticipated from the project
with implementation of the identified mitigation.
4.3
Monitoring
An environmental monitoring plan to assess the mitigation measures for protection of
aquatic and surface water resources will be prepared if needed in future phases of the
project.
Monitoring during construction is anticipated to focus on:
•
Routine inspections of temporary erosion and sediment control measures to
ensure they are operating effectively to prevent any release of sediment- laden
runoff to watercourses.
16
Aquatic Resources
•
Monitoring of treatment systems for any dewatering and/or concrete effluent to
avoid any release of contaminated water to receiving watercourses.
•
Compliance monitoring of best management practices related to refuelling and
excess materials storage and handling
17
Aquatic Resources
ANNEX A - PHOTOGRAPHS
Photo 1: V-Notch weir at Reidel Drive culvert outlet. Represents a barrier to upstream
movement of fish.
Photo 2: Upper Blair Creek (ephemeral reach)
18
www.snclavalin.com
SNC-Lavalin Inc.
195 The West Mall.
Toronto, Ontario
M9C 5K1 Canada
Tel.: (416) 252-5311
Fax: (416) 231-5356
October 2013
331650-4E-Rev 1
Strasburg Road Extension Part A
TERRESTRIAL VEGETATION COMMUNITIES
REPORT
Prepared on behalf of the City of Kitchener
Terrestrial Report
Table of Contents
1.0
1.1
2.0
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
Study Overview ................................................................................................. 1
APPROACH ......................................................................................................... 1
2.1
Background Information Sources ...................................................................... 1
2.2
Field Studies ..................................................................................................... 2
2.3
Regional Environment ....................................................................................... 4
2.4
Known Sensitive Areas ..................................................................................... 4
2.5
Vegetation Communities ................................................................................... 7
2.6
Flora/Species at Risk ...................................................................................... 14
2.7
Significant Woodlots........................................................................................ 15
2.8
Effect of Proposed Routes on Vegetation Communities .................................. 16
2.9
Mitigation ........................................................................................................ 19
REFERENCES.............................................................................................................. 21
List of Figures
Figure 1: Study Area ....................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2: Sensitive Areas ................................................................................................ 5
Figure 3: ELC DESIGNATIONS - Full Area ..................................................................... 8
Figure 4: ELC DESIGNATIONS - Blair Creek Area ......................................................... 9
List of Tables
Table 2.1: NHIC Occurrence Data ................................................................................. 15
Table 2.2: Project Area Vegetation Type Removals by Area ......................................... 17
i
Terrestrial Report
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Study Overview
The City of Kitchener is proposing the extension of Strasburg Road from Rush Meadow
Street to Robert Ferrie Drive (Strasburg Road Extension). The extension of Strasburg
Road is planned to accommodate future development in the Brigadoon Community and
Doon South Community, as indicated in the Kitchener Growth Management Plan and the
respective community plans.
This project is the subject of a Schedule C Class Environmental Assessment under the
Municipal Engineers Association Class Environmental Assessment (from 500 m north of
Stauffer Drive to New Dundee Road).
The study area, due to the existence of Blair Creek is highly environmentally sensitive
and is proximal to a number of significant environmental features. The area is within a
landscape with recently documented Species-at-Risk, and designated natural areas
including Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSW), and locally significant woodlots.
This report addresses the characterization of the natural environment features within the
study area. Descriptions of these natural features, based on secondary source
information and field investigations, are provided below.
2.0
APPROACH
The description of the existing natural environmental conditions involved collection and
review of background source information and primary collection of data during field
investigations by SNC-Lavalin. The compilation of the background inventory was based
on a review of all relevant background information as well as consultation with relevant
agency and municipal staff. The variety of background sources reviewed is outlined in
Section 2.1.
The background information was reviewed to identify preliminary natural environment
issues and potential sensitivities. Review of this material also assisted in refining the
scope of the required field work. The background and field data were then analyzed to
identify potential constraints, sensitivities and related management and mitigation
implications in relation to the proposed route alignment.
The field approach is summarized briefly below, and specific aspects noted in the
various sub-sections where relevant.
2.1
Background Information Sources
Background information was collected and reviewed prior to the initiation of field work.
As well, agencies were contacted for relevant natural environment information in the
study area. Primary sources of information were contacted for relevant natural
environment information in the study area. Primary sources of information are listed
below, with a full list of references provided at the end of this report:

Huron Community Plan

Brigadoon Community Plan
1
Terrestrial Report
2.2

South Strasburg Trunk Sanitary Sewer Schedule B Class Environmental
Assessment

Doon South Phase 2 Environmental Study Report

Background Information Regarding the Extension of Strasburg Road

Region of Waterloo Official Plan

City of Kitchener Official Plan

City of Kitchener Ortho Imagery (2009)/GIS Data

Ministry of Natural Resources communications

Grand River Conservation Authority communications/website

Natural Heritage Information Centre website database (NHIC, 2009)

Region of Waterloo Significant Species List: Native Vascular Plants 1999
Field Studies
Terrestrial field investigations were designed to confirm/update the literature
review/investigations conducted during the initial phase of the study, delineate habitat
and vegetation assemblages, determine the presence and/or potential of rare,
endangered or threatened species within the site boundaries and confirm the delineation
of known sensitive areas in close proximity to Part A.
The field program consisted of detailed site investigations of vegetation units delineated
from the 2009 Ortho-imagery provided by the city. These investigations were conducted
during the spring (May 19th and 27th) of 2010 for spring emergents, and the summer
(Aug 4th and 17th), of 2010 when vegetation is in leaf to confirm and refine habitat
delineations and develop a vegetative composition profile for each habitat units identified
within the study area. The Ecological Land Classification (ELC) system, for Southern
Ontario, was also applied to develop the ELC designations developed for the study area.
A full ELC assessment was applied to units directly affected by the alignment
alternatives.
A number of visits were also conducted in the fall of 2010 to capture late season
vascular plants. The late season flowering plants survey was completed on October 1st.
The Study Area was defined as all vegetated areas which may be affected by the
proposed alignment alternatives. For those communities east of Reidel Drive the study
area was limited to approximately 100 m from the existing road (See Figure 1).
Opportunistic sitings or sign of birds, amphibian, and mammal presence during field
activities were also recorded, as well as any evidence of nesting within potentially
affected areas.
2
SI
X
T
TO
NE
STR
EE
ST
RE
E
EN
SEV
DR
FOUR
FIVE
HILL
CHAPEL
ET
STRE
EET
STR
ET
STRE
EET
STR
D DR
WOO
RTH
HEA
DR
NINE
ES
D CR
WOO
RTH
HEA
T
GE S
BRID
RTH
HEA
LE
NEWCAST
ET
STRE
VE
EA
TON
S
N
EVE
TWO
DR
ALE
YND
CAR
C2
R
ER D
UFF
STA
Bl
ai
rC
re
ek
E4
W1
R
EL D
REID
E3
E2
RD
DEE
DUN
NEW
±
Legend
Study Area
Preferred Options
C2
E2
E3
E4
W1
Path: H:\Arcview\Miscellaneous\331650StrasburgRoad\MXD\EA_Report\Fig_1_TerrStudyArea_11x17_Aug2011.mxd
0
50
100
200
Strasburg South Section (Part A)
Class EA
Study Area
M
300
File Number: 331650 Sub Code: 0000
Date: August, 2010
Figure Number:
1
Rev.
0
Terrestrial Report
2.3
Regional Environment
The subject study area is found within the Manitoulin – Lake Simcoe Ecoregion which is
part of the Mixedwood Plains Ecozone. The Manitoulin – Lake Simcoe ecoregion
extends eastward from Manitoulin Island to Kingston at the east end of Lake Ontario in
southern Ontario. The dominant land cover is cropped land with significant areas of
mixed forest. The most extensive land use in this ecoregion is agriculture, which
occupies 56% of the land area. Mixed, dairy, and cash crop are the dominant farming
systems, and major crops include grains, corn, soybeans, hay, and fruit. Other
significant land uses include urban development, recreation, and tourism. The major
communities include Kingston, Belleville, Peterborough, Oshawa, Kitchener–Waterloo,
Barrie, Owen Sound, Stratford, and Brantford. The population of the ecoregion is
approximately 2 150 000.
Climate
The climate is marked by warm summers and mild winters. The mean annual
temperature is approximately 6oC. The mean summer temperature is 16.5°C and the
mean winter temperature is –4.5oC. Mean annual precipitation ranges 750–1000 mm.
The higher precipitation levels occur in areas bordering Lake Huron. Precipitation is
evenly distributed throughout the year.
Landforms and Soils
The ecoregion falls within the West St. Lawrence Lowland, is underlain by carbonaterich, Palaeozoic bedrock, and is dominated by a wide variety of deep glacial deposits.
Level to undulating bedrock outcropping occurs in a few limited areas. The northeasterly
facing Niagara Escarpment, extending northwesterly from Niagara River to the
Manitoulin Islands, divides the region into two parts. The area to the west slopes
gradually southwestward through an area of rolling topography of low relief. East of the
escarpment, the land rises gently from Lake Ontario to Georgian Bay. Loamy Melanic
Brunisolic and Gray Brown Luvisolic soils are dominant. Significant inclusions are clayey
Gleysolic soils.
Vegetation
Presently, less than 10% of the Mixedwood Plains Ecozone area remains forested.
Where forest cover exists, it varies from the mixed coniferous–deciduous stands of white
and red pine, eastern hemlock, oak, maple, and birch in the northern portions to the rich
diversity of the deciduous Carolinian forest in the southwest near Detroit–Windsor area.
In the Manitoulin – Lake Simcoe Ecoregion, climax vegetation is characterized by sugar
maple, beech, eastern hemlock, red oak, and basswood. Pioneer species include white
pine, paper birch, and trembling aspen. Moist sites are characterized by yellow birch,
white elm, and red maple with slippery elm, black ash, and white cedar occurring in
depressions and near streams. Drier sites contain red oak, and white and red pine.
2.4
Known Sensitive Areas
A number of Regionally designated environmentally sensitive areas are found both
within and proximal to the study area (refer to Figure 3.7). These are the Stauffer
Woods Environmentally Sensitive Policy Area (ESPA 33), Doon South Woods (ESPA
34), and Roseville Swamp (ESPA 39), and the Strasburg Floodplain Forest (ESPA 30).
A brief description of each and their relative location in relation to the project site is found
below.
4
HILL
CHAPEL
SI
X
STAFFORD LANE
D DR
N
EVE
ET S
DR
ET
STRE
E
STR
T
O
THWO
HEAR
ST
RE
E
FOUR
DR
ALE
YND
CAR
C2
Removed Wetland
(filled in)
ESPA33
STAUFFER WOODS
DR
FFER
STAU
Damaged Wetland
Numerous Large
Trees
Large
Butternut (SAR)
Bl
ai
Hydrologic Connection
Between Wetland Areas
(periodically wet)
rC
re
ek
E4
W1
R
EL D
REID
E3
E2
RD
DEE
DUN
NEW
±
Legend
Alignment Options
Preferred Options
MNR Wetland Designations
C2
Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW)
E2
Un-Evaluated Wetland
E3
E4
W1
Path: C:\331650StrasburgRoad\MXD\EA_Report\Edits_for_Mike_1_May_12\SensitiveAreasConstraints_11x17_May2012.mxd
0
50
100
200
M
300
Strasburg South Section (Part A)
Class EA
Potential Alignments and Habitat Constraints
Date: August, 2010
Figure Number:
2
File Number: 331650 Sub Code: 0000
Rev.
0
Terrestrial Report
Stauffer Woods (ESPA)
Stauffer Woods is located at the south east corner of the intersection of Reidel Drive and
Stauffer Drive. It is approximately 26.2 hectares in size and is predominantly a Sugar
Maple-Beech forest on hilly ground surrounding swamp depressions. Numerous springs
from the surrounding slopes account for the wet conditions present. A hydro corridor
severs this E.S.P.A. It is a locally significant life science area is designated as an
ecologically significant Open Space Area by the City of Kitchener.
Doon South Woods (ESPA)
This area is a low-lying mixed forest with higher ridges forested in Sugar Maple-Beech
located approximately 1.0 km to the east of the study area. A nationally significant
population of triploid salamanders breeds in the woodland pools of the area. It is
considered a local life science site and is designated as an ecologically significant Open
Space Area by the City of Kitchener.
Strasburg Creek Wetland Complex (PSW)
Strasburg Creek Wetland complex is located approximately 200 m from the
northwestern border of the study area. It is a Provincially significant wetland, composed
of two wetland types (77% swamp and 23% marsh) (Coulson et al., 1986), which
occupies the Strasburg Creek valley system forming a complex of marshes, deciduous,
mixed, coniferous, and thicket swamps. This area one of the more significant wetland
forest complexes in the Region as it contains many diverse habitats along with
interesting plant and animal species. It provides nesting for colonial waterbirds as well
as active feeding areas (Coulson et al., 1986). It also provides winter cover for wildlife
and is of local significance for deer (MNR, Cambridge), (Coulson et al., 1986);
Roseville Swamp – Cedar Creek Complex (PSW and ESPA)
The upper reaches of the Roseville Swamp - Cedar Creek complex PSW runs directly
through the study area, crossing Reidel Drive approximately 200 m south of the
intersection with Stauffer Drive and continuing to the east. The majority of this feature is
located east of the study area (west of Highway 401, south of the Homer Watson
Boulevard interchange in the City of Kitchener/Township of North Dumfries) and covers
an area of 338.7 hectares. This is one of the best wetland forest complexes and
breeding bird areas in the Region, as it contains many interesting plant and animal
species and is one of the largest swamp forest complexes in the Region. Many of the
significant species listed for this area are concentrated around Rainbow Lake, in a small
marl meadow close by, or are within the hydro corridor, which severs this feature.
The swamp forest, mainly Silver Maple-Yellow Birch-Black Ash, is impressive for its
large trees, especially White Pine, and its lush growth of ferns and mosses. This swamp
is an excellent breeding area for deer and is important for migrating and breeding bird
species, including warblers. Numerous springs serve as headwaters for Cedar Creek.
The area is an International Biological Program site. It is mapped by the Ministry of
Natural Resources as a significant biological area for wildlife and a regionally significant
life science area. The feature includes the Grand River Conservation Authority
Regulated Area. Specific portions of the Roseville Swamp – Cedar Creek Wetland
Complex and PSW potentially affected by the proposed extension of Strasburg Road are
described in the Vegetation Communities section.
6
Terrestrial Report
Strasburg Floodplain Forest (ESPA)
Occupies the Strasburg Creek floodplain and is located approximately 500 northeast of
the northern portion of the study area. The main area of interest is the calcareous
meadow alongside Strasburg Creek. This unusual habitat occurs primarily at the west
end of the Environmentally Sensitive Policy Area. The area is open with some shrub and
tree invasion becoming established at the expense of the more significant earlier
successional species.
Adjacent to the east is an extensive swamp forest which contains a notable hemlock
stand. Mixed Sugar Maple-Beech forest occupies the slopes away from the floodplain.
The floodplain is a complex and diverse mixture of trees and shrubs interspersed with
rank herbaceous growth mainly of grasses and asters. The area is designated as an
ecologically significant Open Space Area by the City of Kitchener's Official Plan.
2.5
Vegetation communities within the general area are characteristic of areas in southern
Ontario that have been heavily influenced by historical clearing for agriculture and
residential development. That said, a significant portion of the study area traverses or
encroaches on relatively untouched natural areas associated with portions of Blair Creek
and its tributaries. The most important of these is the wetland associated with the
headwaters of Blair Creek, which form part of a Provincially Significant Wetland, but the
associated woodlots surrounding the wetland are also of high quality and have
significant ecological, aesthetic and recreational value.
Twenty (20) vegetation units not including hedgerows are delineated on Figure 3. A
detailed map of the Blair Creek system is found on Figure 4.
7
EV
EN
ST
O
NE
HILL
CHAPEL
2 Black Cherry - 96 & 103 cm Dbh
D DR
ES
D CR
ST
HROW
WOO
RTH
HEA
WOO
RTH
HEA
GE
BRID
RTH
HEA
AV
E
Sugar Maple 136 cm Dbh
HROW
DR
White Ash - 73 cm Dbh
CUM 1-1
20 CUM 1-1
MAM 3-6
SWD 2-2
FOD 5-7
19
DR
ALE
YND
CAR
C2
HROW
E2,E3 & E4
HROW
Removed Wetland
(filled in)
HROW
OAO
HROW CUM 1-1
HROW
11
Damaged Wetland
MAM 3-6
1
MAM 3-6
CUM 1-1 MAM 3-6
CUM 1-1
FOD 5-2
Sugar Maple - 100 cm Dbh
15
American Beech - 60 cm Dbh
CUT 1-7
4
CUM 1-1
10
SWM 6-1
2
FOD 6-5
CUT 1-7
MAM 3-6
SAM 1-4
16
GRM
HROW
MAM 3-6
SWT 2-2
FOD 3-1
GRM
17
DR
FFER
STAU
MAS 3-1
Red Oak - 117 cm Dbh
FOD 8-1
MAS 3-1
HROW
FOD 8-1
5
SWT 3-2
3
MAS 3-1
SWT 3-2
14
Butternut - 50cm Dbh
HROW
13
MAS 3-1
FOD 8-1
6
CUP 3-1
Bl
air
HROW
7
MAS 3-1 CUP 3-1
9
W1
SWT 3-2
MAS 3-1
Logged Pine
Plantation
CUT-1-5
12
E3
MAS 3-1
eek
18
CUP 3-1
E4
Cr
HROW
Black Walnut - 65 cm Dbh
CUW 1
GRM
CUM 1-1
Black Cherry - 102 cm Dbh
8
CUP 3-2
HROW
HROW
Manitoba Maple - 78 cm Dbh
E2
HROW
Manitoba Maple - 102 cm Dbh
Basswood - 81 cm Dbh
HROW
HROW
DE
REI
R
LD
HROW
Legend
Preferred Options
C2
E2
E3
E4
W1
RobertFerrie & BlairCreek Collectors
_
^
È
È
ELC Designations
oÈlÈoÈlÈo
oÈlÈ
oÈlÈ
o
\
\
Significant Tree
FOD 5-7 (Dry Fresh Sugar Maple Black Cherry Deciduous)
CUW 1 (Black Locust Black Walnut Cultural Woodlot)
FOD 6-5 (Fresh Moist Sugar Maple-Hardwood Forest)
CUP 3-1 (Red Pine Coniferous Plantation)
È ÉO È ÉO SWT 3-2 (Willow Organic Swamp Thicket)
È ÈÉ\\
È É\SWT 2-2 (Willow Mineral Swamp Thicket)
\
ÉO ÉÈ ÈÉ
ÉÈ
O ÉMAS 3-1 (Cattail Organic Shallow Marsh)
É
É
\
\
È ÈÉ
È ÈÉ
\
\
É ÉÉÈ
É ÉÉMAM 3-6 (Broad-leaved Sedge Organic Meadow Marsh)
ÉÈ
¤
¤
É
É
SAM 1-4 (Pondweed Mixed Shallow Aquatic)
\
\
È ÈÉ
È ÈÉ
É È É É FOD 3-1 (Dry Fresh Poplar Deciduous Forest)
È
¤
È ÈÉ ¤
È È FOD 8-1 (Fresh Moist Poplar Deciduous Forest)
¤ É ¤ É
'
'
'
'
SWD 2-2 (Green Ash Mineral Deciduous Swamp)
FOD 5-2 (Dry Fresh Sugar Maple-Beech Forest)
'
'
Path: C:\331650StrasburgRoad\MXD\EA_Report\Edits_for_Mike_1_May_12\Strasburg_A_ELC_FullArea_FinalAlignmentsMay2012.mxd
CUP 3-2 (White Pine Coniferous Plantation)
CUT 1-7 (Hawthorn Buckthorn Cultural Thicket)
CUT-1-5 (Red Raspberry Cultural Thicket)
HROW (Hedgerow)
CUM 1-1 (Dry-Moist Old Field Meadow)
OAO (Open Water)
GRM (Groomed Yard)
HROW
±
'\ÈOO '\È
'\ '\
SWM 6-1 (Yellow Birch Conifer Mixed Swamp)
HROW
RD
DEE
DUN
NEW
0
35
70
140
210
HROW
HROW
Strasburg Road Extension EA
Natural Environment
Ecological Land Classification (ELC)
Full Area
M
280
Scale: 1:5000
Date: June, 2011
Figure Number:
File Number:
3
331650
Sub Code: ENVR
Rev.
0
CUM 1-1
CUM 1-1
OAO
GRM
17
GRM
CUM 1-1 MAM 3-6
MAM 3-6
11
1
FOD 3-1
MAM 3-6
16
MAM 3-6
SWT 2-2
MAM 3-6
HROW
CUT 1-7
CUT 1-7
10
DR
3
4
SWT 3-2
15
MAS 3-1
FOD 6-5
FOD 8-1
CUM 1-1
_^
^
_^
_
Red Oak - 117 cm Dbh
MAS 3-1
HROW
SWM 6-1
C2
2
_
^ ^
_
_
^
SAM 1-4
FOD 5-2
ER
UFF
STA
SAM 1-4
CUM 1-1
MAM 3-6
E 2,3,4
HROW
HROW
13
5
MAS 3-1
FOD 8-1
Butternut - 50cm Dbh
SWT 3-2
_
^
14
HROW
MAS 3-1
FOD 8-1
CUP 3-1
E3
6
SWT 3-2
Bl
air
HROW
MAS 3-1
1
W
9
CUP 3-1
7
R
EL D
REID
MAS 3-1
CUT-1-5
Cr
ee
k
18
E4
CUP 3-1
E2
MAS 3-1
12
0
25
50
100
150
Legend
200
M
_
^
E4
W1
Path: C:\331650StrasburgRoad\MXD\EA_Report\Strasburg_A_ELC_BlairCreek_Rev_ELC_FinalAligmentsAug2011.mxd
FOD 6-5 (Fresh Moist Sugar Maple-Hardwood Forest)
ÈÉ ÈÉ
È É
ÈÉ
È \È \SWT 3-2 (Willow Organic Swamp Thicket)
È ÉO È ÉO
È È\\
È \SWT 2-2 (Willow Mineral Swamp Thicket)
\
ÉO È ÈÉÉ
È
É ÈÉ
É ÈO
\
\
ÉÉ É ÉÉ É ÉMAS 3-1 (Cattail Organic Shallow Marsh)
É ÈÉ É ÈÉ É
É
É
'
'
'
'
'
'
CUW 1
_
^
Black Walnut - 65 cm Dbh
GRM
HROW
È
È
È
È \È \È
Preferred Options
ELC Designations
È É È É È MAM 3-6 (Broad-leaved Sedge Organic Meadow Marsh)
Significant Tree
È
È
\
\
È
È
È
ÈÉ È
ÈÉ È
É
É
¤
¤
¤
oÈlÈoÈlÈoSWM 6-1 (Yellow Birch Conifer Mixed Swamp) È
C2
\
\
È
È
È SAM 1-4 (Pondweed Mixed Shallow Aquatic)
É
É
ÈÉ È
ÈÉ È
lÈo lÈo
É
É
È
¤
¤
¤
o
È
È
È
È
È FOD 3-1 (Dry Fresh Poplar Deciduous Forest)
E2
FOD 5-2 (Dry Fresh Sugar Maple-Beech Forest) È
È ¤
¤ É ¤ É
E3
HROW
FOD 8-1 (Fresh Moist Poplar Deciduous Forest)
È
È
\ÈO \ÈO \ SWD 2-2 (Green Ash Mineral Deciduous Swamp)
\ O \ O \ FOD 5-7 (Dry Fresh Sugar Maple Black Cherry Deciduous)
'
'
'
'
'
'
CUP 3-1 (Red Pine Coniferous Plantation)
CUM 1-1
CUP 3-2 (White Pine Coniferous Plantation)
Strasburg Road Extension EA
Natural Environment
Ecological Land Classification (ELC)
Blair Creek System
CUT 1-7 (Hawthorn Buckthorn Cultural Thicket)
CUT-1-5 (Red Raspberry Cultural Thicket)
HROW (Hedgerow)
CUM 1-1 (Dry-Moist Old Field Meadow)
OAO (Open Water)
Date:
May, 2011
Figure Number:
File Number:
4
331650
Sub Code: 0000
Rev.
0
Terrestrial Report
Deciduous Forest
FOD 3-1 – Dry Fresh Poplar Deciduous Forest (Unit 1)
This community is found along the northern edge of the study area along a path
separating it from the main forest lot to the south. Agricultural fields are located to the
north. The canopy is dominated overwhelmingly by big-toothed aspen (25-60% cover).
The subcanopy is moderately developed consisting of hop hornbeam, green ash,
American elm, black walnut, sugar maple and the occasional red oak. The shrub layer is
poorly developed with staghorn sumac, red raspberry, grey dogwood, and common
buckthorn. The herb layer is fairly sparse consisting primarily of goldenrod species and
meadow horsetail, but also including white trillium, evening nightshade, violet species,
bloodroot, and asters. Soils are a deep, well drained loam.
FOD 5-2 – Dry Fresh Sugar Maple – Beech Deciduous Forest (Unit 2)
This forest community forms the major component of the woodlot in the west end of the
study area. This large woodlot varies topographically with valleys and rolling hills
throughout. Sugar maple dominates the canopy with abundant American beech,
occasional black cherry, white ash, white pine and red oak (>60% cover). In the eastern
portion of this unit near the wetland red maple was an occasional component of the
canopy community. The distribution of canopy species was not even, some areas
contained more black cherry or white ash than American beech, but sugar maple
provides the dominant cover throughout. The subcanopy and shrub layer are sparse
primarily composed of sugar maple with some American beech and white ash. The herb
layer is variable, tending to be abundant in lower lying areas, while more upland areas
have sparser ground cover. Species composition consists of enchanter’s nightshade,
jack in the pulpit, Solomon’s seal, herb Robert, false Solomon’s seal, may-apple, white
trillium, lady fern, spinulose wood fern, violet species, sedge species, and white
baneberry. Soils are deep, well drained loamy sand.
FOD 6-5 – Fresh Moist Sugar Maple – Hardwood Deciduous Forest (Unit 3)
This vegetation unit is found to the south east of the intersection of Reidel Drive and
Stauffer Drive, and constitutes the western end of the Stauffer Woods ESPA. It lies on
two gentle slopes and is divided by a swamp area (Unit 15) in the low lying part of the
valley. The canopy is well developed and is dominated by sugar maple (>60% cover).
American Beech and white ash are abundant in the canopy with the occasional large red
oak, and rarely bitternut hickory. In the northern portion of this woodlot American beech
is more prevalent and there are a number of large trees both of beech and maple. The
subcanopy is a mix of abundant sugar maple and white ash, with occasional American
elm and blue beech, and rare bitternut hickory and white pine. The shrub layer is
sparse, except near the edge, and is composed of common buckthorn and hawthorn.
The herb layer is also sparse with only occasional Mayapple, jack in the pulpit, evening
nightshade, false Solomon’s seal, goldenrod, and rare panicled aster. Soils are deep,
imperfectly drained silt clay.
FOD 5-7 – Dry Fresh Sugar Maple Black Cherry Deciduous Forest (Unit 19)
This small forest unit is located to the northeast in association with wetland Unit 20,
approximately 500m north of the Stauffer Drive/Reidel Drive intersection. The canopy is
well developed and is dominated by sugar maple (>60% cover). Black cherry, red oak,
and white ash are abundant in the canopy with occasional American beech, and some
trembling aspen to the south. The subcanopy is a mix of abundant sugar maple and
10
Terrestrial Report
white ash with occasional American elm and hop hornbeam. The shrub layer is sparse,
except near the edge, and is composed of common buckthorn and blue beech. The
herb layer is somewhat thin, with enchanter’s nightshade, herb Robert, Celandine,
Canada mayflower, bloodroot, and trillium present. Soils are deep, well drained loamy
sand.
FOM 8-1 – Dry Fresh Poplar Deciduous Forest (Units 4,5)
This community can be found along the valley slopes of the thicket swamp which
comprises the Blair Creek PSW west of Reidel Road as well as along the south side of
Stauffer Drive at the west end of the road. The canopy is not well developed and
consists of abundant big-toothed aspen, trembling aspen, with occasional patches of
both white spruce and white pine (10-25% cover). Yellow birch and black cherry are
also present, and crack willow can also be found as you approach the wetland. West of
Reidel Drive on the north side of the wetland there is a butternut specimen, which is
protected under the Ontario Endangered Species Act. The sub canopy contains mostly
smaller aspens and yellow birch and some black cherry. The shrub layer is variable,
generally more pronounced downslope toward the wetland and is dominated by
hawthorn. Other shrubs include spicebush, swamp red current, nannyberry, and grey
dogwood. The herb layer consists of abundant field horsetail with a mix of other
occasional constituents including Canada mayflower, barren ground strawberry, large
leaved aster, white trillium, and rarely Indian cucumber root. A cattail marsh inclusion
(MAS 3-1) is located along a tributary arm of the wetland complex. Soils are deep,
moderately well drained silty sand.
Cultural Woodlots
CUP 3-1 - Red Pine Coniferous Plantation (Units 6,7)
This community occurs in two places, one to the south end of the large woodlot at the
west of the study area, and another to the east of Reidel Drive immediately south of the
Blair Creek Wetland Complex. Both are red pine plantations but differ significantly. To
the east of Reidel Road the community is a well developed pine plantation with a canopy
dominated by red pine with abundant white pine, occasional white spruce and a few
scattered American elm (>60% cover). The subcanopy and shrub layer are very sparse,
and consists mostly of shrub sized common buckthorn and rarely red elderberry.
Ground cover is also sparse consisting of Solomon’s seal, enchanter’s nightshade,
Virginia creeper, and goldenrod species near the road edge.
The western unit is a remnant of a larger plantation, now cut, which extended to the
south. The canopy is composed of almost exclusively mid aged red pine, though many
of these trees are now dead standing snags. This has resulted in a substantial
subcanopy and shrub regeneration layer consisting of abundant sugar maple and white
ash, occasional hop hornbeam and staghorn sumac shrubs. Ground cover is fair and is
composed of black raspberry, herb Robert, Solomon’s seal, barren strawberry, red
elderberry, and violet species. Soils are deep, well to moderately well drained loamy
sands.
CUP 3-2 – White Pine Coniferous Plantation (Unit 8)
This unit is a cultural plantation located on the east side of Reidel Drive toward the south
end of the study area. This is a well developed white pine dominated plantation with a
significant presence of white spruce in the canopy (>60% cover). The subcanopy layer
is negligible and the shrub layer is sparse consisting of common buckthorn, red-berried
11
Terrestrial Report
elderberry, and Virginia creeper. The herb layer is similarly sparse with small patches of
enchanter’s nightshade and violet species. Soils are deep, well drained loamy sand.
CUT 1-5 – Red Raspberry Cultural Thicket (Unit 9)
This unit is found at the south end of the woodlot at the west of the study area. It
consists of an old red pine plantation, most likely a continuation of unit 6, that has been
cut within the last ten years. Significant numbers of cut logs and deadfall remain, but
significant regeneration has taken place. Regeneration consists of numerous small
sugar maple, basswood, white ash, beech and black cherry. The shrub layer is
dominated by red raspberry, buckthorn, and riverbank grape.
CUT 1-7 – Hawthorn Buckthorn Cultural Thicket (Unit 10)
This vegetation unit occupies a portion between two designated segments of the Blair
Creek PSW, and has likely seen some agricultural disturbance in the past. It spans the
drainage between the eastern and western portions of the PSW in this area, and a very
thin linear portion of unit 16 with wetland characteristics follows a number of dry
channels observed during field recognizance. A remnant access from Stauffer Drive to
the fields south of the woodlot can still be seen. The canopy is dominated
overwhelmingly by hawthorn, with occasional black ash, buckthorn, and red maple
(>60% cover). There are several large trees including red oak found along the south
border with the agricultural fields. Sub canopy and shrub layers are characterized by
abundant hawthorn and buckthorn with occasional blue beech, and red osier dogwood.
Herbaceous vegetation consists of abundant jewelweed, rough avens, trout lilly, ostrich
fern, as well as occasional Canada mayflower, jack in the pulpit, white trillium, garlic
mustard, and false Solomon’s seal. Soils are deep, poorly drained sand.
CUM 1-1 – Dry-Moist Cultural Meadow (Unit 11)
This vegetation type, found at just south of an old silo location just west of the Stauffer
Drive dead end is dominated by grasses, along with sun tolerant broad-leaf vegetation
typical of old fields and disturbed areas. Herbaceous vegetation in the open areas
consists of old field type vegetation, such as introduced forage grasses (e.g., awnless
brome, timothy, perennial ryegrass, orchard grass, creeping red fescue and Kentucky
blue grass). Broad-leaved groundcover included: common milkweed, Queen Anne’s
lace, common mullien, common burdock, White-top fleabane, Queen Anne’s lace, rough
cinquefoil, garlic mustard, white sweet clover, white clover, climbing nightshade,
common St. John’s wort, common ragweed, yarrow, bull thistle, teasel, spotted
knapweed, as well as heath aster, New England aster, arrow leaved aster, tall
goldenrod, and grass-leaved goldenrod.
CUW-1 Cultural Woodlot (Unit 12)
This unit consists of a stand of trees near an old farm house on the east side of Reidel
Drive, and is likely the result of plantings and natural regeneration surrounding an
historic farm pond. The tree community is composed of black walnut and black locust
with rare Manitoba maple. At the centre of the unit is a small cattail shallow marsh (MAS
3-1) inclusion.
HROW Hedgerows
There are numerous hedgerows found throughout the study area. Those located within
the agricultural fields are mature with numerous large trees such as a black cherry
(98cm dbh), white ash (73cm dbh), sugar maple (102 cm dbh), and basswood (144cm
12
Terrestrial Report
dbh). Dominant tree species include sugar maple, white ash, basswood, black walnut
and black cherry with some bitternut hickory, red oak, green ash, Manitoba maple,
trembling aspen, and apple present. Shrub species are numerous with species such as
common buckthorn, hawthorn, riverbank grape, Virginia creeper, red raspberry, staghorn
sumac, and nannyberry. Red osier dogwood, and willow were observed in the wetter
pockets. Hebaceous vegetation was found to be similar to that described in the Cultural
meadow areas.
Wetlands
SWD 6-1 Yellow Birch Organic Mixed Swamp (Unit 13)
This unit is a treed swamp located in the eastern portion of the large deciduous forest
(Unit 2) in the west end of the study area. The majority of this unit is within the Blair
Creek PSW boundaries as delineated by the MNR. The canopy is predominantly
composed of scattered mature red maple, white pine, tamarack and black ash which
occur occasionally across the wetland (10-25% cover). The subcanopy layer is well
developed and is dominated by yellow birch with occasional red maple and black ash.
The shrub layer is vigorous with abundant spicebush prevalent, as well as occasional
common buckthorn and rarer velvetleaf blueberry. The herb layer is diverse and
abundant with marsh cinquefoil, ostrich fern, and jewelweed, but also contains poison
ivy, false nettle, swampdock, spotted water hemlock, goldthread, Canada mayflower,
spotted joe-pye weed, northern bugleweed, barren strawberry, common reed grass,
clintonia and goldenrod species.
SWT 3-2 – Willow Organic Thicket Swamp (Unit 14 and 15)
The majority of the Blair Creek PSW both east and west of Reidel Drive is composed of
this vegetation type. It can also be found in the wetland located within Stauffer Woods
east of Reidel Drive. The canopy is poorly developed consisting of mainly scattered red
maple, poplar, tamarack, and black ash (<10% cover). The subcanopy consists of
pockets of hawthorn near the bottom of valley slopes. The shrub component is well
developed consisting of abundant willow, spicebush, nannyberry, and swamp red current
as well as red osier dogwood, gray dogwood, Virginia creeper. Herbaceous vegetation
consists of abundant rough avens, trout lilly, ostrich fern, sedges, and jewelweed.
Patches of marsh marigold are also commonly found in more open areas. In the
Stauffer Woods section the herb layer in this area is well developed with abundant
Solomon’s seal, jewelweed, along with sensitive fern, Virginia creeper, Mayapple, white
trillium and woodland strawberry. The shrub layer also contains abundant poison ivy. In
both swamp units Cattail Organic Shallow Marsh (see MAS 3-1) inclusions can be found.
Soils are deep, very poorly drained organics over sand.
SWT 2-2 – Willow Mineral Thicket Swamp (Unit 16)
This vegetation unit is found extending east from the yellow birch mixed swamp following
ephemeral Blair Creek channels (dry at the time of investigation). This V_Type becomes
very thin through the eastern portion of Unit 10 to connect to the larger portion of the
wetland to the east. It is also dry for significant portions of the year. Currently this thin
central area is not considered PSW by the MNR. The canopy consists of occasional
green ash, yellow birch and red maple, concentrated toward the west end (<10% cover).
The shrub layer is vigourous and dominated by willow, with abundant buckthorn,
hawthorn, red osier dogwood and occasional blue beech. The herb layer consists of
abundant meadow horsetail, ostrich fern, jewelweed as well as occasional sedges. Soils
are deep, poorly drained sand under a shallow layer of organics.
13
Terrestrial Report
MAM 3-6 – Broad leaved Sedge Organic Meadow Marsh (Unit’s 17, 20 and part of Unit
15)
One of these units is found associated with a small Pondweed Mixed Shallow Aquatic
feature north of the road closure at the west end of Stauffer Drive. The other is located to
the northeast in association with forest Unit 19 approximately 500m north of the Stauffer
Drive/Reidel Drive intersection. Vegetation in Unit 17 is a naturalized farm pond
dominated by broad leaved sedges with some goldenrod and aster species at the edges
of the depression. A row of trees and shrubs grows adjacent to the road running along
the perimeter of Unit 17 and contains big tooth aspen, Scots pine and weeping willow as
well as staghorn sumac, red osier dogwood, and buckthorn. There is a hydrologic
connection to unit 16 to the south through a culvert under the old farm road. This dries
up during the summer. Based on consultation with MNR it is understood that Unit 17 is
being added to the PSW complex. Unit 20 is dominated by sedges with abundant
nodding beggar-ticks, with some ladies thumb and water smartweed present. Soils are
deep, very poorly drained organics.
MAS 3-1 – Cattail Organic Shallow Marsh (Unit 18 and parts of units 12, and 14)
Cattail dominated shallow marshes occur both as inclusions in the larger swamp units or
woodlot units within the study area as well as a discrete vegetation unit located south of
the Red Pine Cultural Plantation on the east side of Reidel Drive. At this location it is an
open herbaceous community dominated by cattails. Along the edges where land rises to
north, south and west, other vegetation including sedges, water hemlock, goldenrod and
shrubs such as willow, buckthorn can be found. One small pocket, located within Unit 5
is hydrologically connected to the PSW to the north. Currently this area is not
considered PSW by the MNR.
2.6
Flora/Species at Risk
A total of 251 species were recorded during the spring, summer and fall field programs.
Of these 84 (33%) are non-native species most of which are typical of cultural meadow
environments. The mean Conservation co-efficient is 2.31 indicating that overall, the
vegetation in the area has experienced some degradation over time due
anthropomorphic pressures from historic agriculture. A calculation of the Forest Quality
Index for the area indicates an FQI of 29.9 indicating that the area retains a good level of
floristic diversity and richness. It should be noted that the species list, though relatively
comprehensive, is not a complete list of the plants of the area. Nomenclature is
primarily in accordance with Newmaster (1998), and secondarily with NHIC (2003). A
list of vascular plants observed during the field program is presented in Appendix 1.
One endangered species was found within the study area. A single butternut (Juglans
cinerea) was found on the south facing slope of the Blair Creek valley, just west of
Riedel Drive in Unit 4. The butternut is considered Endangered under COSEWIC
(Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada), SARA (Species At Risk
Act), and SARO (Species At Risk in Ontario). It is also has an SRank of S3? under the
NHIC (Natural Heritage Information Centre) listing. Its location is depicted on Figure 2.
One species, black walnut (Juglans nigra), is listed as regionally significant. It is
expected that further research may remove black walnut from the list, as most black
walnut populations in the region are thought to be non-indigenous.
No other rare or endangered species were found within the project area. The majority of
the species observed (244 or 95%) are listed as ‘secure, common and widespread’ in
14
Terrestrial Report
Ontario (S5, SE5). The remainder (6 or 2%) are listed as ‘apparently secure, uncommon
but not rare’ in Ontario (S4, SE4), and Butternut is listed as S3?.
A search of the NHIC element occurrence data for the area listed 7 historic species
reports within the 1 km blocks covering the proposed project. The most recent report
was for Pignut Hickory (Carya glabra –S3) in 1987, and Braun's Holly Fern (Polystichum
braunii – S3) received November 2nd, 1979. The S1 species records of Moss Phlox, and
Hairy Valerain are historic, and the Ram's-head Lady's-slipper (Cypripedium arietinum)
is considered Extirpated. Based on a review of potential habitat types for plant Species
at Risk flagged by the NHIC search, areas matching these types were checked for these
species as part of the ELC community and seasonal species surveys. Table 2.1 below
lists the species occurrences found, none of which were observed during the field
surveys.
Table 2.1: NHIC Occurrence Data
Scientific Name
Polystichum braunii
Koeleria macrantha
Cypripedium arietinum
Monarda didyma
Valeriana edulis var. ciliata
Carex albicans var. albicans
Phlox subulata
Carex albicans var. albicans
Carya glabra
Erigenia bulbosa
Alliums stellatum
Common Name
S_RANK
Blocks covering Site
Braun's Holly Fern
S3
June Grass
S4
Ram's-head Lady's-slipper
S3
Scarlet Beebalm
S3
Hairy Valerian
S1
White-tinged Sedge
S3
Moss Phlox
S1?
White-tinged Sedge
S3
Pignut Hickory
S3
Harbinger-of-spring
S3?
Prairie Onion
S4
Last Observation
Extirpated
1979-11-02
1901-06-30
1900?
1892-07
1901-07-10
1968-06-06
1974-06-10
1968-06-06
1987
1910-04-01
1971-06-26
Further communications with the MNR indicated that butternut (Juglans cinerea),
American Chestnut (Castanea dentate) are known species at risk in the waterloo region.
False Hop Sedge (Carex lupuliformis) is also listed, but only in historical records. Of
these, only butternut was observed within the study area.
A complete species list of vascular plants observed and noted within the study area can
be found in Appendix A.
2.7
Significant Woodlots
The Stauffer Woods ESPA located at the south east corner of the Reidel Drive and
Stauffer Drive intersection has been designated a Regionally Significant Woodland
(RSW) in the Draft Regional Official Plan (Region of Waterloo, 2009). The Draft
Regional Official Plan is Regional Council’s interpretation of the Provincial Policy
Statement in this matter. The woodlot located west of the end of Stauffer Drive has not
been designated as an ESPA, but is listed as a Core Environmental Feature. It is
evaluated here according to the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (Ministry of
Natural Resources, 2010), which gives further guidance on the implementation of the
Provincial Policy Statement. The manual states that woodlands four hectares in size or
larger with economic functional value in landscapes with 5% to 15% forest cover, are
15
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
Terrestrial Report
suggested for consideration as significant woodlands. In this case the woodland cover in
Waterloo Region is approximately 13-14% at this time.
According to the criteria found in section 7.3.1 of the Natural Heritage Reference Manual
Woodlands should be considered significant:

Where woodland cover in the region is about 5–15% of the land cover,
woodlands 4 ha in size or larger should be considered significant.

Woodlands should be considered significant if they have any interior habitat
where woodlands cover less than about 15% of the land cover.

Woodlands should be considered significant if a portion of the woodland is
located within a specified distance (e.g., 30 m) of a significant natural feature or
fish habitat likely receiving ecological benefit from the woodland and the entire
woodland meets the minimum area threshold (e.g., 0.5–20 ha, depending on
circumstance).

Woodlands should be considered significant if they have a high native diversity
through a combination of composition and terrain (e.g., a woodland extending
from hilltop to valley bottom or to opposite slopes) and meet minimum area
thresholds (e.g., 2–20 ha, depending on circumstance).

Contain vascular plant species for which the NHIC’s Southern Ontario Coefficient
of Conservatism is 8, 9 or 10 and meet minimum area thresholds (e.g., 2–20 ha,
depending on circumstance).
Using these Criteria the woodlot at the west end of Stauffer Drive meets the definition of
significant woodlot.
The woodlot includes units 1, 2, 6, and 13from the vegetation survey. It is approximately
14 ha in size, and the portion within the study area has approximately 0.9 ha of interior
habitat. It contains a portion of the PSW associated with Blair Creek and preserves and
enhances the biological diversity of that significant natural feature. It has a significant
diversity of habitat types with somewhat distinct and complementary ecological functions
within its boundaries. The topography within the woodlot is undulating with hills and
valleys which vary in their understorey and herbaceous growth, and it includes several
small wetland inclusions as well as the larger wetland consisting of Unit 13. No
endangered species were found within the woodlot; however, it does contain a number
of plants with a coefficient of conservation of 8 such as red pine (Pinus resinosa), water
arum (Calla palustris) and meadow horsetail (Equisetum pratense).
2.8
Effect of Proposed Routes on Vegetation Communities
The short list of route alternatives for the extension of Strasburg Road from 500 m north
of Stauffer Drive to New Dundee Road, will have impacts to both natural and culturally
impacted vegetation communities (forest, wetland, cultural communities) with varying
degrees of edge removals and intrusions. This section presents, for comparison, the
removals for each of the following short listed route alternatives: W1, C2, E2, E3, E4, as
well as E4M, selected by the Project Team as the Technically Preferred Alignment
(TPA). Calculations are based on 30 percent design grading limits for each alternative.
The following table outlines removals based on ELC category, as well as PSW removals,
developed for each route alternative during this study.
16
Terrestrial Report
Table 2.2: Project Area Vegetation Type Removals by Area
Vegetation Removals Type (ha)
Cultural
Forest
Hedgerow
Wetland (ELC)
PSW
Total
W1
0.00
0.08
0.68
0.00
0.00
0.76
C2
1.64
0.25
0.33
0.73
0.13
2.95
E2
1.01
0.18
0.38
0.62
0.60
2.21
E3
0.64
0.25
0.57
0.24
0.20
1.71
E4
0.68
0.25
0.20
0.35
0.25
1.51
E4M
0.64
0.25
0.20
0.24
0.20
1.34
It should be noted that the removals values associated with the ELC wetland
designations and the MNR PSW are not additive. They are derived from two separate
datasets of the same area, and as result there is significant overlap or
extension/reduction of areas in a number of locations depending on what was observed
during the field program. Given the hydrologic connectivity observed in the field
between the officially designated PSW, and the wetland units delineated as part of the
ELC work program, all wetland removals were considered significant in terms of impacts.
Removals for each route have been categorized into cultural vegetation communities
(meadows, thickets, plantations, woodlots), forest vegetation communities, wetland
communities (includes PSW and other wetlands), and hedgerows. Each has been
ranked among alternatives with 1 representing the lowest amount of removals for a
given category, and higher numbers representing larger amounts of removals. As it was
not included in the original assessment, and is a composite of other alignments, ranks
given for the TPA are given as equivalent to its sub-components (E3 and E4
alternatives).
W1: The construction of the western route alternative will result in 0.76 ha of vegetation
removals, consisting of 0.08 ha of Sugar Maple Beech forest (1), and 0.68 ha of
hedgerow (5). This is the smallest amount of total vegetation removal are of any of the
short listed alternatives, and contains no removal of wetland communities. These are
edge removals along the large mature woodlot at the west of the study area. This
woodlot qualifies as a Significant Woodlot when evaluated against MNR’s Natural
Heritage Reference Manual, but given that the forest removals represent less than 1% of
the overall woodlot, and are limited to the edge they are of minor significance. There is
no fragmentation of the woodlot, and the loss of interior forest habitat is minimized.
Impacts to adjacent vegetated areas and their function is minimal, and there are no
removals of PSW. Hedgerow removals are of the highest among the route alternatives
and include the removal of one significant tree.
C2: The construction of the central route alternative will result in 2.95 ha of vegetation
removals consisting of 1.64 ha of cultural vegetation units (5), 0.25 ha of forest (3), 0.73
ha of wetland vegetation (1), and 0.33 ha of hedgerow (2). The cultural vegetation
removals are considered to be of limited significance due to the prevalence of non-native
species. The wetland community removals are highest for this route. Some removals
will occur within the designated PSW (0.13 ha -1) boundary as well as the field
delineated ELC wetland communities such as organic meadow marsh, and open water
aquatic features. While these are not part of the official PSW, they likely contribute to
function of the overall system through hydrologic linkage and as such, are considered
significant for the purposes of this assessment (N.B. – following review of this draft MNR
has confirmed that they will be updating the PSW to include the wetland identified as
17
Terrestrial Report
Unit 17. This does not affect our evaluation as the wetland was considered significant
regardless of designation). Hedgerow removals are of minor significance from a
vegetation standpoint due to the presence of some significant trees.
E2: The construction of the first eastern route alternative will result in 2.21 ha of
vegetation removals consisting of 1.01 ha of cultural vegetation (4), 0.18 ha of forest
community (2), 0.62 ha of wetland communities (4), and 0.38 ha of hedgerow (3). The
cultural vegetation removals are of limited significance due to the previously disturbed
nature of these communities. The forest removals are considered to be of moderate
significance. Though the forest communities affected are of lower quality, with few
mature specimens, they are associated with the slopes of valley containing the PSW and
provide a good buffer between the wetland and agricultural activities to the north and
south. Removals of the wetland communities are significant. This alternative has the
highest amount of designated PSW removals (0.60 ha - 4) owing to crossing the PSW at
the widest area. It also impacts ELC wetland communities along Reidel Road to the
south, which, while not part of the PSW, likely contribute to function of the overall system
through hydrologic linkage, and as such, are considered significant for the purposes tof
this assessment. Hedgerow removals are of minor significance from a vegetation
standpoint due to the presence of some significant trees. This route alternative also has
the potential to impact a butternut located west of Reidel Drive which is protected by
Federal and Provincial legislation.
E3: The construction of the second eastern route alternative will result in 1.71 ha of
nature of the communities. The forest removals are considered to be of moderate
south. Removals of the wetland communities are significant and include 0.20 ha of
designated PSW removals (2). Impacts to other wetland communities are also significant
since they include areas of the same unit, identified during field recognizance, which
extend the wetland south from the designated PSW boundary. There also may be some
encroachment on a small cattail marsh located south of the PSW, which, while not part
of the PSW, likely contributes to function of the overall system through hydrologic
linkage. Hedgerow removals are of minor significance from a vegetation standpoint due
to the presence of some significant trees.
E4: The construction of the second eastern route alternative will result in 1.51 ha of
nature of the communities. The forest removals are considered to be of moderate
south. Removals of the wetland communities are significant with 0.25 ha of designated
PSW removals (3). Impacts to other wetland communities are also significant since they
include areas of the same unit, identified during field recognizance, which extend the
18
Terrestrial Report
wetland south from the designated PSW boundary. Hedgerow removals are of minor
significance from a vegetation standpoint due to the presence of some significant trees.
E4M (TPA): The construction of the Technically Preferred Alignment will result in 1.34
ha of vegetation removals consisting of 0.64 ha of cultural vegetation (1), 0.25 ha of
forest community (3), 0.24 ha of wetland communities (2), and 0.20 ha of hedgerow (1).
This alternative is a combination of the shortlisted alignment, and adopted the crossing
of the wetland corridor from the E3 alternative, and follows the E4 alignment south of the
wetland corridor to the intersection with New Dundee Road. The cultural vegetation
removals are of limited significance due to the previously disturbed nature of the
communities. The forest removals are considered to be of moderate significance.
Though the forest communities affected are of lower quality, with few mature specimens,
they are associated with the slopes of valley containing the PSW and provide a good
buffer between the wetland and agricultural activities to the north and south. Removals
of the wetland communities are significant and include 0.20 ha of designated PSW
removals (2). Impacts to other wetland communities are also significant since they
include areas of the same unit, identified during field recognizance, which extend the
wetland south from the designated PSW boundary. There also may be some
encroachment on a small cattail marsh located south of the PSW, which, while not part
of the PSW, likely contributes to function of the overall system through hydrologic
linkage. Hedgerow removals are of minor significance from a vegetation standpoint due
to the presence of some significant trees.
Future Collector Roads: Removals associated with the future Robert Ferrie Drive and
Blair Creek Drive extensions to Strasburg Road vary depending on the route alternative,
but are limited entirely to hedgerow and cultural meadow. Extending these collector
roads to the W1 alternative would result in an additional 0.11 ha of hedgerow removal
and 0.05 ha of cultural meadow removal. For the C2 alternative an additional 0.02 ha of
hedgerow removals would result, while an additional 0.03 ha of hedgerow would be
removed by extending the collector roads to the E3 and E4 alternatives. Additional
cultural community removals are limited to an additional 0.05 ha of cultural meadow
associated with extending the collector roads to the W1 alignment alternative.
2.9
Mitigation
In order to minimize the potential for negative impacts to vegetation communities along
the new Strasburg Road the following general mitigation measures are recommended:

Install temporary erosion and sediment control measures prior to construction,
and maintain throughout construction

Routinely inspect sediment and erosion control structures, including after storms,
and repair as required. The structures will be cleaned out when accumulated
sediment reaches half the design height.

Re-stabilize and re-vegetate exposed surfaces as soon as possible, using native
vegetation seed mixes and plantings (as per design drawings).

Clearly delineate ROW vegetation clearing limits on both construction drawings
and in the field and field confirm with the contractor prior to clearing and grading.
Equipment, materials and other construction activities will not be permitted in
these zones.
19
Terrestrial Report

Vegetation that does not require removal for purposes of the construction will be
protected through the installation and maintenance of temporary vegetation
protection measures (e.g. temporary fencing).

Trees to be removed will be felled into the ROW (and away from watercourses)
to avoid disturbance to off-ROW vegetation as well as aquatic areas.

Tree grubbing will be restricted to the required activity zone. Where possible, tree
stumps will be cut flush to the ground and grubbing will be avoided to minimize
soil disturbance, particularly in erosion prone areas.

Cut and grubbed material will be disposed of through chipping. Where possible,
cut material may be piled and re-used for wildlife habitat or in edge treatments.
This material will help retain soil moisture and prevent weed spread.

Undertake tree management activities as required for both driver safety and
health of the balance of the vegetation unit.

The edges of cleared areas will be specifically reviewed and damaged trees will
be checked and treated, or removed. Hazard and windthrow susceptible trees
will be identified and removed.

Unnecessary traffic, dumping and storage of materials over tree roots will be
avoided. As outlined for aquatic resources above, the contractor will develop an
appropriate product handling; spills prevention and management plan prior to
construction that will be in place on site, along with required equipment and
materials throughout construction. All spills will be immediately controlled and
reported to the authorities having jurisdiction and the owner’s representative.
Vehicle maintenance and fueling will be carried out at the maintenance areas in
the works yards or at commercial garages whenever possible. Refueling should
not be permitted within 30 m of any forest, wetland or watercourse, or the top of
bank areas.
20
Terrestrial Report
REFERENCES
Argus, G.W. and K.M. Pryor. 1990. Rare Vascular Plants in Canada, Our Natural
Heritage. Canadian Museum of Nature Ottawa.
Brigadoon Community Plan, January, 2004
Cadman, M.D., P.F.J. Eagles, and F.M. Helleiner. 1987. Atlas of the breeding birds of
Ontario. Federation of Ontario Naturalists and the Long Point Bird Observatory,
University of Waterloo Press.
City of Kitchener, Official Plan Consolidation, November 2005.
City of Kitchener, December 2001, Draft ESPA’s 30, 33,34, 37, and 39.
COSEWIC, 2011. Canadian Species at Risk, Committee on the Status of Endangered
Wildlife in Canada web site (http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct2/sct2_4_e.cfm)
Ecological Stratification Working Group. 1996. A National Ecological Framework for
Canada. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Research Branch, Centre for Land
and Biological Resources Research and Environment Canada, State of
Environment Directorate, Ottawa/Hull.
Ecoplans Ltd., April 2006, .Doon South Lands City of Kitchener, Environmental
Implementation Report, Prepared for Monarch Construction Ltd.
Ecoplans Ltd., November 2008, .Doon South Phase 2, Official Plan Amendment Area,
City of Kitchener Collector Road Municipal Class Envirionmental Assessment,
Environmental Study Report.
Ecoplans Ltd., September 2003, Hallman – Groh Property Kitchener, Environmental
Impact Study.
Ecoplans Ltd., October 2006, Hallman – Groh, Stage 2 Lands Blair Creek Watershed
City of Kitchener Environmental Implementation Report. Prepared for Hallman
Construction Ltd.
Ecoplans Ltd., December 2004, Hallman – Gubler Subdivision, Lands West Of Tilt Drive,
City of Kitchener. Environmental Implementation Report. Prepared for Hallman
Construction Ltd. and Barbara Gubler.
Ecoplans Ltd., November 2006, Stauffer Drive Residential Development. South Of
Stauffer Drive, West Of Groh Drive, City Of Kitchener, Stage 1. Environmental
Implementation Report. Prepared for Activa Group.
21
Terrestrial Report
Ecoplans Ltd., June 2008, Environmental Implementation Report, Stauffer Woods
Subdivision. South Stauffer Drive, Between Reidel Drive, New Dundee Rd., Groh
Dr. and Dodge Drive, City of Kitchener, Phase 2-4. Prepared for Activa Group.
Farrar J.C., 1999. Trees in Canada. Fitzhenry and Whiteside Ltd. And the Canadian
Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada.
GRCA, August 2005, Environmental Impact Study Guidelines and Submission
Standards for Wetlands.
Huron Community Plan, City of Kitchener Department of Development and Technical
Services, PD 94/7, November, 1994.
Looman J. Best K.F. 1979. Budds Flora of the Canadian Prairie Provinces. Agriculture
Canada
MHBC, Background Information Regarding the Extension of Strasburg Road, April 2010.
Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), 2005, Natural Heritage Reference Manual for
Natural Heritage Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, Second Edition.
Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), (NHIC) Natural Heritage Information Centre, 2011.
Natural Heritage Resources of Ontario: Databases. Information on rare,
threatened and endangered species and spaces in Ontario. Web Site
(http://nhic.mnr.gov.on.ca/species.cfm)
Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), 2011 Ontario Species at Risk (SARO), Web Site
(http://www.rom.on.ca/ontario/risk.php).
Ministry Of Environment (MOE), 2011, Species at Risk Public (SAR) Registry web site
(http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/default_e.cfm).
Newmaster, S.G., A. Lehela, M.J. Oldham, P.W.C. Uhlig and S. McMuray. 1998. Ontario
Plant List. Ontario Forest Research Institute, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario
Oldham M.J, 1999. Natural Heritage Resources of Ontario Rare Vascular Plants, Third
Edition. Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC), Ministry of Natural
Resources (OMNR).
Region of Waterloo, June, 2009, Council Adopted Regional Official Plan.
Regional Municipality of Waterloo, June 1999, Planning and Culture Committee Report.
Revisions to Waterloo Region’s Significant Species List: Native Vascular Plant
Component.
22
Terrestrial Report
Riley, J.L. 1989. Distribution and status of the vascular plants of Central Region, Ontario
Ministry of Natural Resources, Parks and Recreational Areas Section, Central
Region, Richmond Hill.
Semple J.C., Heard S.B., Xiang C., 1996, The Asters of Ontario, University of Waterloo
Biology Series.
Semple J.C., Ringus G.S., Zhang J.J, 1999, The Goldenrods of Ontario, University of
Waterloo Biology Series.
Soper J.H., Heimburger 1982. Shrubs of Ontario, Royal Ontario Museum.
Stantec Consulting Ltd., South Strasburg Creek Sanitary Trunk Sewer Environmental
Assessment – Prepared for the City of Kitchener, February, 2008.
23
Terrestrial Report
APPENDIX 1
Species List
Terrestrial Vegetation Communities Report Appendix 1
Strasburg Road EA Species List
Family
Genus
Species
Scientific Name
Common Names
Page 1 of 7
Coefficient
Conservation
Coefficient
Wetness
GlobalRank
SRank
Introduced
ACERACEAE
Acer
Acer
Acer
negundo
rubrum
saccharum
Acer negundo
Acer rubrum
Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum
Manitoba Maple
Red Maple
Sugar Maple
0
4
4
-2
0
3
G5
G5
G5
S5
S5
S5
Sagittaria
latifolia
Sagittaria latifolia
Common Arrowhead
4
-5
G5
S5
Amaranthus
powellii
Amaranthus powellii
Green Pigweed
0
5
G5
SE5
Rhus
Rhus
radicans
typhina
Rhus radicans ssp. negundo
Rhus typhina
Climbing Poison-ivy
Staghorn Sumac
5
1
-1
5
G5
G5
S5
S5
Cicuta
Cicuta
Daucus
Zizia
Arisaema
Calla
bulbifera
maculata
carota
aurea
triphyllum
palustris
Cicuta bulbifera
Cicuta maculata
Daucus carota
Zizia aurea
Arisaema triphyllum ssp. triphyllum
Calla palustris
Bulb-bearing Water-hemlock
Spotted Water-hemlock
Wild Carrot
Golden Alexanders
Jack-in-the-pulpit
Water Arum
5
6
0
7
5
8
-5
-5
5
-1
-2
-5
G5
G5
G?
G5
G5
G5
S5
S5
SE5
S5
S5
S5
Aralia
nudicaulis
Aralia nudicaulis
Wild Sarsaparilla
4
3
G5
S5
Asclepias
Cynanchum
syriaca
nigrum
Asclepias syriaca
Cynanchum nigrum
Common Milkweed
Black Swallow-wort
0
0
5
5
G5
G?
S5
SE?
Achillea
Ambrosia
Antennaria
Arctium
Aster
Aster
Aster
Aster
Aster
Aster
Aster
Aster
Bellis
Bidens
Bidens
Carduus
Cichorium
Cirsium
Cirsium
Conyza
Crepis
Erigeron
Erigeron
Eupatorium
Euthamia
Lactuca
millefolium
artemisiifolia
neglecta
minus
ericoides
laevis
lanceolatus
lateriflorus
macrophyllus
novae-angliae
pilosus
puniceus
perennis
cernua
frondosa
nutans
intybus
arvense
vulgare
canadensis
tectorum
annuus
strigosus
maculatum
graminifolia
canadensis
Achillea millefolium ssp. millefolium
Ambrosia artemisiifolia
Antennaria neglecta
Arctium minus ssp. minus
Aster ericoides var. ericoides
Aster laevis var. laevis
Aster lanceolatus ssp. lanceolatus
Aster lateriflorus var. hirsuticaulis
Aster macrophyllus
Aster novae-angliae
Aster pilosus var. pilosus
Aster puniceus var. puniceus
Bellis perennis
Bidens cernua
Bidens frondosa
Carduus nutans ssp. leiophyllus
Cichorium intybus
Cirsium arvense
Cirsium vulgare
Conyza canadensis
Crepis tectorum
Erigeron annuus
Erigeron strigosus
Eupatorium maculatum ssp. maculatum
Euthamia graminifolia
Lactuca canadensis
Common Yarrow
Common Ragweed
Field Pussytoes
Common Burdock
Heath Aster
Smooth Aster
Panicled Aster
Calico Aster
Large-leaved Aster
New England Aster
Hairy Aster
Purple-stem Aster
English Daisy
Nodding Beggar-ticks
Devil's Beggar-ticks
Nodding Thistle
Chicory
Canada Thistle
Bull Thistle
Horseweed
Narrow-leaved Hawk's Beard
Daisy Fleabane
Lesser Daisy Fleabane
Spotted Joe-pye-weed
Grass-leaved Goldenrod
Tall Lettuce
0
0
3
0
4
7
3
3
5
2
4
6
0
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
3
3
3
5
5
4
5
-3
-2
5
-3
2
-5
5
-5
-3
5
5
3
4
1
5
1
1
-5
-2
2
G5
G5
G5
G?
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G?
G5
G5
G?
G?
G?
G5
G5
G?
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
SE
S5
S5
SE5
S5
S5
S5
S4?
S5
S5
S5
S5
SE5
S5
S5
SE5
SE5
SE5
SE5
S5
SE5
S5
S5
S5
S5
S5
ALISMATACEAE
AMARANTHACEAE
I
ANACARDIACEAE
APIACEAE
I
ARALIACEAE
ASCLEPIADACEAE
I
ASTERACEAE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Family
ASTERACEAE Con't
Genus
Species
Scientific Name
Common Names
Page 2 of 7
Coefficient
Conservation
Coefficient
Wetness
GlobalRank
SRank
Introduced
Lactuca
Prenanthes
Senecio
Solidago
Solidago
Solidago
Solidago
Sonchus
Sonchus
Tanacetum
Taraxacum
Tragopogon
Tragopogon
Tussilago
serriola
altissima
aureus
altissima
caesia
flexicaulis
rugosa
arvensis
asper
vulgare
officinale
dubius
pratensis
farfara
Lactuca serriola
Prenanthes altissima
Senecio aureus
Solidago altissima var. altissima
Solidago caesia
Solidago flexicaulis
Solidago rugosa ssp. rugosa
Sonchus arvensis ssp. arvensis
Sonchus asper ssp. asper
Tanacetum vulgare
Taraxacum officinale
Tragopogon dubius
Tragopogon pratensis ssp. pratensis
Tussilago farfara
Prickly Lettuce
Tall White Lettuce
Golden Ragwort
Tall Goldenrod
Blue-stem Goldenrod
Zig-zag Goldenrod
Rough Goldenrod
Field Sow-thistle
Spiny-leaved Sow-thistle
Tansy
Common Dandelion
Doubtful Goat's-beard
Meadow Goat's-beard
Coltsfoot
0
5
7
1
5
6
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
-3
3
3
3
-1
1
0
5
3
5
5
3
G?
G5?
G5
G?
G5
G5
G5
G?
G?
G?
G5
G?
G?
G?
SE5
S5
S5
S5
S5
S5
S5
SE5
SE5
SE5
SE5
SE5
SE5
SE5
I
Impatiens
capensis
Impatiens capensis
Spotted Touch-me-not
4
-3
G5
S5
Caulophyllum
thalictroides
Caulophyllum thalictroides
Blue Cohosh
6
5
G5
S5
Betula
Carpinus
Ostrya
alleghaniensis
caroliniana
virginiana
Betula alleghaniensis
Carpinus caroliniana
Ostrya virginiana
Yellow Birch
Blue Beech
Hop Hornbeam
6
6
4
0
0
4
G5
G5
G5
S5
S5
S5
Echium
vulgare
Echium vulgare
Viper's Bugloss
0
5
G?
SE5
I
Alliaria
Capsella
Erysimum
Hesperis
Lepidium
Lepidium
Sinapis
Sisymbrium
Thlaspi
petiolata
bursa-pastoris
cheiranthoides
matronalis
campestre
densiflorum
arvensis
altissimum
arvense
Alliaria petiolata
Capsella bursa-pastoris
Erysimum
cheiranthoides ssp.
cheiranthoides
Hesperis matronalis
Lepidium campestre
Lepidium densiflorum
Sinapis arvensis
Sisymbrium altissimum
Thlaspi arvense
Garlic Mustard
Shepherd's Purse
Wormseed Mustard
Dame's Rocket
Field Cress
Common Pepper-grass
Wild Mustard
Tall Tumble-mustard
Field Penny-cress
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
5
5
0
5
3
5
G?
G?
G5
G4G5
G?
G5
G?
G?
G?
SE5
SE5
SE5
SE5
SE5
SE5
SE5
SE5
SE5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Sambucus
Sambucus
Viburnum
Viburnum
canadensis
racemosa
lentago
opulus
Sambucus canadensis
Sambucus racemosa ssp. pubens
Viburnum lentago
Viburnum opulus
Common Elderberry
Red-berried Elderberry
Nannyberry
European Highbush Cranberry
5
5
4
0
-2
2
-1
0
G5
G5
G5
G5
S5
S5
S5
SE4
I
Cerastium
Dianthus
Silene
Stellaria
fontanum
armeria
latifolia
media
Cerastium fontanum
Dianthus armeria
Silene latifolia
Stellaria media
Common Mouse-ear Chickweed
Deptford Pink
Bladder Campion
Common Chickweed
0
0
0
0
3
5
5
3
G?
G?
G?
G?
SE5
SE5
SE5
SE5
I
I
I
I
Chenopodium
album
Chenopodium album var. album
Lamb's Quarters
0
1
G5
SE5
I
Hypericum
perforatum
Hypericum perforatum
Common St. John's-wort
0
5
G?
SE5
I
Convolvulus
arvensis
Convolvulus arvensis
Field Bindweed
0
5
G?
SE5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
BALSAMINACEAE
BERBERIDACEAE
BETULACEAE
BORAGINACEAE
BRASSICACEAE
CAPRIFOLIACEAE
CARYOPHYLLACEAE
CHENOPODIACEAE
CLUSIACEAE
CONVOLVULACEAE
Family
Genus
Species
Scientific Name
Common Names
Page 3 of 7
Coefficient
Conservation
Coefficient
Wetness
GlobalRank
SRank
Introduced
CORNACEAE
Cornus
Cornus
Cornus
amomum
foemina
stolonifera
Cornus amomum ssp. obliqua
Cornus foemina ssp. racemosa
Cornus stolonifera
Silky Dogwood
Grey Dogwood
Red-osier Dogwood
5
2
2
-4
-2
-3
G5
G5
G5
S5
S5
S5
Echinocystis
lobata
Echinocystis lobata
Wild Cucumber
3
-2
G5
S5
Carex
Carex
Carex
Carex
Carex
Carex
Carex
Carex
Carex
Carex
Carex
Carex
Carex
Scirpus
albursina
arctata
bebbii
bromoides
deweyana
gracillima
hirta
intumescens
lacustris
pedunculata
pensylvanica
stipata
vulpinoidea
atrovirens
Carex albursina
Carex arctata
Carex bebbii
Carex bromoides
Carex deweyana
Carex gracillima
Carex hirta
Carex intumescens
Carex lacustris
Carex pedunculata
Carex pensylvanica
Carex stipata
Carex vulpinoidea
Scirpus atrovirens
Blunt-scaled Wood Sedge
Drooping Wood Sedge
Bebb's Sedge
Bromelike Sedge
Dewey's Sedge
Graceful Sedge
Hammer Sedge
Bladder Sedge
Lakebank Sedge
Long-stalked Sedge
Pennsylvania Sedge
Awl-fruited Sedge
Fox Sedge
Black Bulrush
7
5
3
7
6
4
0
6
5
5
5
3
3
3
5
5
-5
-4
4
3
4
-4
-5
5
5
-5
-5
-5
G5
G5?
G5
G5
G5
G5
G?
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5?
S5
S5
S5
S5
S5
S5
SE2
S5
S5
S5
S5
S5
S5
S5
Pteridium
aquilinum
Pteridium aquilinum var. latiusculum
Eastern Bracken Fern
2
3
G5
S5
Dipsacus
fullonum
Dipsacus fullonum ssp. sylvestris
Common Teasel
0
5
G?
SE5
Athyrium
Dryopteris
Matteuccia
Onoclea
filix-femina
carthusiana
struthiopteris
sensibilis
Athyrium filix-femina var. angustum
Dryopteris carthusiana
Matteuccia
struthiopteris var.
pensylvanica
Onoclea sensibilis
Northern Lady Fern
Spinulose Wood Fern
Ostrich Fern
Sensitive Fern
4
5
5
4
0
-2
-3
-3
G5
G5
G5
G5
S5
S5
S5
S5
Equisetum
Equisetum
Equisetum
arvense
pratense
sylvaticum
Equisetum arvense
Equisetum pratense
Equisetum sylvaticum
Field Horsetail
Meadow Horsetail
Woodland Horsetail
0
8
7
0
-3
-3
G5
G5
G5
S5
S5
S5
Amphicarpaea
Lotus
Medicago
Medicago
Melilotus
Melilotus
Robinia
Trifolium
Trifolium
Trifolium
Vicia
bracteata
corniculatus
lupulina
sativa
alba
officinalis
pseudo-acacia
hybridum
pratense
repens
cracca
Amphicarpaea bracteata
Lotus corniculatus
Medicago lupulina
Medicago sativa ssp. sativa
Melilotus alba
Melilotus officinalis
Robinia pseudo-acacia
Trifolium hybridum ssp. elegans
Trifolium pratense
Trifolium repens
Vicia cracca
Hog Peanut
Bird's-foot Trefoil
Black Medick
Alfalfa
White Sweet-clover
Yellow Sweet-clover
Black Locust
Alsike Clover
Red Clover
White Clover
Cow Vetch
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
5
3
3
4
1
2
2
5
G5
G?
G?
G?
G5
G?
G5
G?
G?
G?
G?
S5
SE5
SE5
SE5
SE5
SE5
SE5
SE5
SE5
SE5
Fagus
Quercus
grandifolia
rubra
Fagus grandifolia
Quercus rubra
American Beech
Red Oak
6
6
3
3
G5
G5
S5
S5
CUCURBITACEAE
CYPERACEAE
I
DENNSTAEDTIACEAE
DIPSACACEAE
I
DRYOPTERIDACEAE
EQUISETACEAE
FABACEAE
FAGACEAE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Family
Genus
Species
Scientific Name
Common Names
Page 4 of 7
Coefficient
Conservation
Coefficient
Wetness
GlobalRank
SRank
Introduced
I
GERANIACEAE
Geranium
Geranium
maculatum
robertianum
Geranium maculatum
Geranium robertianum
Spotted Crane's-bill
Herb Robert
6
0
3
5
G5
G5
S5
SE5
Ribes
Ribes
Ribes
Ribes
americanum
cynosbati
rubrum
triste
Ribes americanum
Ribes cynosbati
Ribes rubrum
Ribes triste
Wild Black Currant
Prickly Gooseberry
Garden Red Currant
Swamp Red Currant
4
4
0
6
-3
5
5
-5
G5
G5
G4G5
G5
S5
S5
SE5
S5
Myriophyllum
sp
Myriophyllum sp
Water-milfoil Species
Hamamelis
virginiana
Hamamelis virginiana
Witch-hazel
6
3
G5
S5
Iris
versicolor
Iris versicolor
Northern Blue-flag
5
-5
G5
S5
Carya
Juglans
Juglans
cordiformis
cinerea
nigra
Carya cordiformis
Juglans cinerea
Juglans nigra
Bitternut Hickory
Butternut
Black Walnut
6
6
5
0
2
3
G5
G4
G5
S5
S3?
S4
Juncus
Juncus
Juncus
Juncus
Juncus
articulatus
bufonius
dudleyi
effusus
tenuis
Juncus articulatus
Juncus bufonius
Juncus dudleyi
Juncus effusus ssp. solutus
Juncus tenuis
Jointed Rush
Toad Rush
Dudley's Rush
Soft Rush
Path Rush
5
1
1
4
0
-5
-4
0
-5
0
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
S5
S5
S5
S5
S5
Glechoma
Leonurus
Mentha
Prunella
hederacea
cardiaca
arvensis
vulgaris
Glechoma hederacea
Leonurus cardiaca ssp. cardiaca
Mentha arvensis ssp. borealis
Prunella vulgaris ssp. lanceolata
Ground Ivy
Motherwort
Wild Mint
Heal-all
0
0
3
5
3
5
-3
5
G?
G?
G5
G5
SE5
SE5
S5
S5
Lindera
benzoin
Lindera benzoin
Spicebush
6
-2
G5
S5
Lemna
minor
Lemna minor
Lesser Duckweed
2
-5
G5
S5
Clintonia
Erythronium
Maianthemum
Maianthemum
Medeola
Trillium
Trillium
borealis
americanum
canadense
racemosum
virginiana
erectum
grandiflorum
Clintonia borealis
Erythronium
americanum ssp.
americanum
canadense ssp.
Maianthemum racemosum
racemosum
Medeola virginiana
Trillium erectum
Trillium grandiflorum
Bluebead Lily
Yellow Trout Lily
Canada Mayflower
False Solomon's Seal
Indian Cucumber-root
Red Trillium
White Trillium
7
5
5
4
7
6
5
-1
5
0
3
5
1
5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
S5
S5
S5
S5
S5
S5
S5
Lythrum
salicaria
Lythrum salicaria
Purple Loosestrife
0
-5
G5
SE5
I
Abutilon
theophrasti
Abutilon theophrasti
Velvetleaf
0
4
G?
SE5
I
Fraxinus
Fraxinus
Fraxinus
Syringa
americana
nigra
pennsylvanica
vulgaris
Fraxinus americana
Fraxinus nigra
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Syringa vulgaris
White Ash
Black Ash
Red Ash
Common Lilac
4
7
3
0
3
-4
-3
5
G5
G5
G5
G?
S5
S5
S5
SE5
I
GROSSULARIACEAE
I
HALORAGACEAE
HAMAMELIDACEAE
IRIDACEAE
JUGLANDACEAE
JUNCACEAE
LAMIACEAE
I
I
LAURACEAE
LEMNACEAE
LILIACEAE
LYTHRACEAE
MALVACEAE
OLEACEAE
Family
Genus
Species
Scientific Name
Common Names
Page 5 of 7
Coefficient
Conservation
Coefficient
Wetness
GlobalRank
SRank
Introduced
ONAGRACEAE
Circaea
Epilobium
Oenothera
lutetiana
coloratum
biennis
Circaea lutetiana ssp. canadensis
Epilobium coloratum
Oenothera biennis
Canada Enchanter's Nightshade
Purple-leaved Willow-herb
Common Evening-primrose
3
3
0
3
-5
3
G5
G5
G5
S5
S5
S5
Osmunda
regalis
Osmunda regalis var. spectabilis
Royal Fern
7
-5
G5
S5
Chelidonium
Sanguinaria
majus
canadensis
Chelidonium majus
Sanguinaria canadensis
Celandine
Bloodroot
0
5
5
4
G?
G5
SE5
S5
Larix
Picea
Pinus
Pinus
Pinus
laricina
glauca
resinosa
strobus
sylvestris
Larix laricina
Picea glauca
Pinus resinosa
Pinus strobus
Pinus sylvestris
Tamarack
White Spruce
Red Pine
Eastern White Pine
Scots Pine
7
6
8
4
0
-3
3
3
3
5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G?
S5
S5
S5
S5
SE5
I
Plantago
Plantago
lanceolata
major
Plantago lanceolata
Plantago major
English Plantain
Common Plantain
0
-1
G5
G5
SE5
SE5
I
I
Bromus
Dactylis
Digitaria
Echinochloa
Phalaris
Phleum
Phragmites
Poa
Setaria
Setaria
inermis
glomerata
sanguinalis
crusgalli
arundinacea
pratense
australis
pratensis
faberi
viridis
Bromus inermis ssp. inermis
Dactylis glomerata
Digitaria sanguinalis
Echinochloa crusgalli
Phalaris arundinacea
Phleum pratense
Phragmites australis
Poa pratensis ssp. pratensis
Setaria faberi
Setaria viridis
Smooth Brome
Orchard Grass
Large Crabgrass
Barnyard Grass
Reed Canary Grass
Timothy
Common Reed
Kentucky Blue Grass
Giant Foxtail
Green Foxtail
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
3
3
-3
-4
3
-4
1
2
5
G4G5
G?
G5
G?
G5
G?
G5
G?
G?
G?
SE5
SE5
SE5
SE5
S5
SE5
S5
S5
SE4
SE5
I
I
I
I
Polygonum
Polygonum
Polygonum
Polygonum
Rumex
Rumex
amphibium
convolvulus
persicaria
scandens
crispus
verticillatus
Polygonum amphibium
Polygonum convolvulus
Polygonum persicaria
Polygonum scandens
Rumex crispus
Rumex verticillatus
Water Smartweed
Black Bindweed
Lady's Thumb
Climbing False Buckwheat
Curly Dock
Swamp Dock
5
0
0
3
0
7
-5
1
-3
0
-1
-5
G5
G?
G?
G5
G?
G5
S5
SE5
SE5
S4S5
SE5
S4
Potamogeton
natans
Potamogeton natans
Floating-leaf Pondweed
5
-5
G5
S5
Trientalis
borealis
Trientalis borealis ssp. borealis
Starflower
6
-1
G5
S5
Actaea
Actaea
Anemone
Anemone
Anemone
Caltha
Ranunculus
Ranunculus
Ranunculus
Ranunculus
pachypoda
rubra
acutiloba
quinquefolia
virginiana
palustris
abortivus
acris
sceleratus
hispidus
Actaea pachypoda
Actaea rubra
Anemone acutiloba
Anemone quinquefolia
Anemone virginiana var. virginiana
Caltha palustris
Ranunculus abortivus
Ranunculus acris
Ranunculus sceleratus var. sceleratus
Ranunculus hispidus var. caricetorum
White Baneberry
Red Baneberry
Sharp-lobed Hepatica
Wood Anemone
Thimbleweed
Marsh Marigold
Kidney-leaf Buttercup
Tall Buttercup
Cursed Buttercup
Swamp Buttercup
6
5
6
7
4
5
2
0
2
5
5
5
5
0
5
-5
-2
-2
-5
-5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5T5
S5
S5
S5
S5
S5
S5
S5
SE5
S5
S5
OSMUNDACEAE
PAPAVERACEAE
I
PINACEAE
PLANTAGINACEAE
POACEAE
I
I
I
POLYGONACEAE
I
I
I
POTAMOGETONACEAE
PRIMULACEAE
RANUNCULACEAE
I
Family
RANUNCULACEAE Con't
Genus
Species
Scientific Name
Common Names
Page 6 of 7
Coefficient
Conservation
Coefficient
Wetness
GlobalRank
SRank
Ranunculus
Thalictrum
Thalictrum
pensylvanicus
dioicum
pubescens
Ranunculus pensylvanicus
Thalictrum dioicum
Thalictrum pubescens
Bristly Buttercup
Early Meadow-rue
Tall Meadow-rue
3
5
5
-5
2
-2
G5
G5
G5
S5
S5
S5
Introduced
Rhamnus
cathartica
Rhamnus cathartica
Common Buckthorn
0
3
G?
SE5
Crataegus
Fragaria
Fragaria
Geum
Geum
Geum
Geum
Malus
Potentilla
Potentilla
Prunus
Prunus
Rosa
Rosa
Rubus
Rubus
Waldsteinia
sp
vesca
virginiana
aleppicum
canadense
rivale
urbanum
pumila
norvegica
recta
serotina
virginiana
acicularis
multiflora
allegheniensis
idaeus
fragarioides
Crataegus sp
Fragaria vesca ssp. americana
Fragaria virginiana ssp. virginiana
Geum aleppicum
Geum canadense
Geum rivale
Geum urbanum
Malus pumila
Potentilla norvegica ssp. monspeliensis
Potentilla recta
Prunus serotina
Prunus virginiana ssp. virginiana
Rosa acicularis ssp. sayi
Rosa multiflora
Rubus allegheniensis
Rubus idaeus ssp. melanolasius
Waldsteinia fragarioides
Hawthorn Species
Woodland Strawberry
Common Strawberry
Yellow Avens
White Avens
Water Avens
Wood Avens
Common Apple
Rough Cinquefoil
Rough-fruited Cinquefoil
Black Cherry
Choke Cherry
Prickly Wild Rose
Multiflora Rose
Common Blackberry
Wild Red Raspberry
Barren Strawberry
4
2
2
3
7
0
0
0
0
3
2
7
0
2
0
5
4
1
-1
0
-5
5
5
0
5
3
1
3
3
2
-2
5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G?
G5
G5
G5
G?
G5
G5
G5
S5
S5
S5
S5
S5
SE2
SE5
S5
SE5
S5
S5
S5
SE4
S5
S5
S5
Galium
Galium
Galium
asprellum
mollugo
triflorum
Galium asprellum
Galium mollugo
Galium triflorum
Rough Bedstraw
Smooth Bedstraw
Fragrant Bedstraw
6
0
4
-5
5
2
G5
G?
G5
S5
SE5
S5
Zanthoxylum
americanum
Zanthoxylum americanum
Prickly-ash
3
5
G5
S5
Populus
Populus
Populus
Salix
Salix
Salix
Salix
Salix
Salix
Salix
balsamifera
grandidentata
tremuloides
bebbiana
eriocephala
fragilis
nigra
petiolaris
sp
X rubens
Populus balsamifera ssp. balsamifera
Populus grandidentata
Populus tremuloides
Salix bebbiana
Salix eriocephala
Salix fragilis
Salix nigra
Salix petiolaris
Salix sp
Salix X rubens
Balsam Poplar
Largetooth Aspen
Trembling Aspen
Bebb's Willow
Woolly-headed Willow
Crack Willow
Black Willow
Slender Willow
Willow Species
Hybrid White Willow
4
5
2
4
4
0
6
3
-3
3
0
-4
-3
-1
-5
-4
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G?
G5
G5
S5
S5
S5
S5
S5
SE5
S4?
S5
0
-4
G?
SE4
I
Mimulus
Verbascum
Veronica
ringens
thapsus
officinalis
Mimulus ringens
Verbascum thapsus
Veronica officinalis
Square-stemmed Monkey-flower
Common Mullein
Common Speedwell
6
0
0
-5
5
5
G5
G?
G5
S5
SE5
SE5
I
I
Solanum
Solanum
dulcamara
ptychanthum
Solanum dulcamara
Solanum ptychanthum
Bittersweet Nightshade
Eastern Black Nightshade
0
3
0
5
G?
G5
SE5
I
Thelypteris
palustris
Thelypteris palustris var. pubescens
Marsh Fern
5
-4
G5
S5
RHAMNACEAE
I
ROSACEAE
I
I
I
I
RUBIACEAE
I
RUTACEAE
SALICACEAE
I
SCROPHULARIACEAE
SOLANACEAE
THELYPTERIDACEAE
Family
Genus
Species
Scientific Name
Common Names
Page 7 of 7
Coefficient
Conservation
Coefficient
Wetness
GlobalRank
SRank
Introduced
TILIACEAE
Tilia
americana
Tilia americana
Basswood
4
3
G5
S5
Typha
latifolia
Typha latifolia
Broad-leaved Cattail
3
-5
G5
S5
Ulmus
americana
Ulmus americana
White Elm
3
-2
G5?
S5
Urtica
dioica
Urtica dioica ssp. dioica
European Stinging Nettle
0
-1
G5T?
SE2
I
Viola
Viola
Viola
Viola
arvensis
cucullata
pubescens
sororia
Viola arvensis
Viola cucullata
Viola pubescens
Viola sororia
Field Pansy
Marsh Blue Violet
Yellow Violet
Common Blue Violet
0
5
5
4
5
-5
4
1
G?
G4G5
G5
G5
SE4
S5
S5
S5
I
Parthenocissus
Vitis
quinquefolia
riparia
Parthenocissus quinquefolia
Vitis riparia
Virginia Creeper
Riverbank Grape
6
0
1
-2
G5
G5
S4?
S5
TYPHACEAE
ULMACEAE
URTICACEAE
VIOLACEAE
VITACEAE
www.snclavalin.com
SNC-Lavalin Inc.
195 The West Mall.
Toronto, Ontario
M9C 5K1 Canada
Tel.: (416) 252-5311
Fax: (416) 231-5356
Wildlife
331650-4E-Rev 1
October 2013
STRASBURG ROAD EXTENSION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
EXISTING CONDITIONS
REPORT - WILDLIFE
prepared for
SNC LAVALIN
on behalf of
CITY OF KITCHENER
by
SEPTEMBER 2013
LGL PROJECT TA4907
STRASBURG ROAD EXTENSION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
EXISTING CONDITIONS
REPORT - WILDLIFE
prepared by:
J. Arnel Fausto, M.Sc.
VICE PRESIDENT
Allison Featherstone, B.Sc.
PLANNING ECOLOGIST
Lynette Renzetti
PLANNING ECOLOGIST
LGL Limited
environmental research associates
3365 Harvester Road, Suite 108
Burlington, Ontario L7N 3N2
Tel: 905-333-1667 Fax: 905-333-2660
Email: [email protected]
URL: www.lgl.com
SEPTEMBER 2013
LGL PROJECT TA4907
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 2.0 STUDY AREA .................................................................................................................................................... 1 METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 AGENCY CONSULTATION ..................................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION REVIEW ................................................................................................................... 3 2.3 WILDLIFE INVESTIGATIONS .................................................................................................................................. 4 2.3.1 Amphibians – Frog Calling ....................................................................................................................... 7 2.3.2 Amphibians – Ambystomid Salamanders ................................................................................................ 8 2.3.3 Reptiles .................................................................................................................................................... 8 2.3.4 Blanding’s Turtle ...................................................................................................................................... 9 2.3.5 Mammals ................................................................................................................................................. 9 2.3.6 Birds ......................................................................................................................................................... 9 2.3.7 Other Wildlife ......................................................................................................................................... 10 3.0 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................... 10 3.1 AMPHIBIANS – FROG CALLING ........................................................................................................................... 10 3.1.1 Species at Risk ........................................................................................................................................ 11 3.2 AMPHIBIANS – AMBYSTOMID SALAMANDERS ....................................................................................................... 11 3.3 REPTILES ....................................................................................................................................................... 13 3.3.1 Species at Risk ........................................................................................................................................ 13 3.4 MAMMALS .................................................................................................................................................... 15 3.4.1 Species at Risk ........................................................................................................................................ 15 3.5 BIRDS ........................................................................................................................................................... 16 3.5.1 Species at Risk ........................................................................................................................................ 16 3.6 OTHER .......................................................................................................................................................... 16 3.6.1 Species at Risk ........................................................................................................................................ 17 3.7 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 SPECIES AT RISK SCREENING SUMMARY (MNR LIST) .............................................................................................. 17 EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT ................................................................................. 20 SEASONAL CONCENTRATION AREAS .................................................................................................................... 21 SPECIALIZED HABITAT FOR WILDLIFE ................................................................................................................... 26 HABITAT OF SPECIES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN ................................................................................................ 29 ANIMAL MOVEMENT CORRIDORS ....................................................................................................................... 31 5.0 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................ 32 6.0 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................... 34 LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A MNR CORRESPONDENCE APPENDIX B RUNNING WILDLIFE LIST APPENDIX C POND DESCRIPTION SUMMARY TABLE APPENDIX D ELC USED IN EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT
Strasburg Road Extension EA Project Area
Existing Conditions Report -Wildlife
September 2013
Project No. TA4907
1.0 INTRODUCTION
LGL Limited has been retained as a sub-consultant to SCN Lavalin Inc. in support of the Strasburg Road
extension in the City of Kitchener. LGL’s role is to assess wildlife habitat and communities as part of the
Environmental Assessment process. The following provides a summary of findings of work conducted in
support of the Strasburg Road Extension Part A which is the Schedule C Municipal Class Environmental
Assessment (EA) project area.
The project is unique in that part of the road alignment has been determined through historic planning
efforts in the northern half of the project area; through the Transportation Planning and Engineering
Study – Huron Industrial Developed and related public consultation from January 1981. The City of
Kitchener initiated the Class Environmental Assessment for the south portion of the project area in 2010;
the portion extending from 500m north of the Stauffer Drive/Reidel Drive intersection south to New
Dundee Road.
1.1
STUDY AREA
The study area is located in a section of Kitchener undergoing transformation from a rural to urban
landscape, planned for residential and commercial development. Existing designated natural areas in the
project area include:

Strasburg Creek Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) (Part A project area);

Roseville Swamp-Cedar Creek PSW (formerly Blair Creek PSW) (Part B project area);

ESPA 33 Stauffer Woods;

Features identified as Core Environmental Features according to the Council Adopted Region of
Waterloo Regional Official Plan (2009); and,

Regulated habitat of Species at Risk under the Endangered Species Act, 2007; namely Jefferson
salamander (Ambystoma jeffersonianum).
LGL Limited environmental research associates
Page 1
St
ras
bu
rg
R
oa
d
LEGEND
Breeding Bird Point Count Location (LGL)
Str
13, 14
H
o
ur
n
R
as
bu
rg
Cr
Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas Monitoring
Stations
Cover Board Sampling Location
ee
k
Frog Monitoring Location (LGL)
d
oa
ESPA30
2
1 10
Environmental Sensitive Policy Area
Property ID Number
Turtle Overwintering Area and Habitat for
Species of SC (Snapping Turtle)
Environmental Assessment Area
9
11
Property Boundary
Watercourse
hC
Special Concern
re
Not Classified
ek
e
5
Sout
ESPA34
fer
Stauf
6
)
"
Orthophotography source: GRCA
Copyright © Grand River Conservation Authority
Notes:
Only regulated habitat within the EA Study Area is shown
on the map.
This map is for illustrative purposes only and is not intended to
define legal boundaries. For an accurate reference and the most
recent version of the regulation, please view Ontario Regulation
242/08 on e-laws at www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/index.html.
Habitat boundaries were interpreted from Ontario Regulation
242/08 pursuant to the Endangered Species Act.
Habitat boundary lines were digitized by airphoto interpretation,
and were not derived from field surveys.
This mapping is reviewed and maintained on an ongoing basis,
and is subject to change at any time.
This map should not be relied on as a precise indicator of routes
or locations, nor as a guide to navigation. The Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources (OMNR) shall not be liable in any way for the
use of, or reliance upon, this map or any information on this map.
""
)
)
Jefferson Salamander (93408)
3
)
"
"
)
)
"
4
)
"
Jefferson X Blue-spotted Salamander,
Jefferson genome dominates (35371)
10
5
ESPA33
Driv
)
"
Groh
)
"
Other Ponds Identified
Drive
6
4
)
"
Potential Breeding Ponds (MNR)
Doon
Pla
7
3
2
e
1
Jefferson Salamander Regulated Habitat
Lines (January 24, 2012, MNR)
Breeding Ponds (MNR)
h D riv
)
"
12
ins
R
oa
d
)8
"
)
)
""
)
)"
"
)
"
ou
t
Threatened
e
)"
"
)"
)"
"
)
)"
)
Do
on
S
Drive
2
e
ndal
15 (no longer exists)
riv
Tilt D
Cary
)
""
)
)
"
)
"
)
"
)
"
)
"
Rare Species (Biodiversity Explorer, 2010-02-18)
""
)
)
""
)
)
)
"
9
)
""
)
Blai
r Cr
eek
e Driv
Dodg
e
Strasburg Road
Extension
12
8
Egg Mass Observed
(April 29, 2010)
400
oad
Project
oad
100 200
ESPA39
R
eron
±
)
"
ee R
Dund
)
"
Cam
)
"
0
Cerulean Warbler (4495)
ive
el Dr
Road
New
Existing Conditions &
) Investigation
"
Site
)
"
11
Reid
llman
er Ha
Fisch
7
600
Meters
800
Ram's-head Lady's-slipper (22255)
Date
Scale
TA4907
April, 2012
1:15,000
Figure
Prepared By:
Verified By:
1
KC
JAF
September 2013
Project No. TA4907
2.0 METHODOLOGY
AGENCY CONSULTATION
2.1
The project team was mobilized shortly after the project was awarded in April 2010. The following
methodology was developed through agency consultation, mostly limited to telephone and letter
correspondence with the Guelph District Ministry of Natural Resources, and a meeting with Grand River
Conservation Authority (May 7, 2010). The email correspondence between G. Buck, Species at Risk
Biologist, Guelph MNR and LGL Staff is provided in Appendix A as background consultation for
assessing species at risk habitat in the project area. Additional consultation with MNR on
February 23, 2011 focussed on the balance of field work planned for 2011. Further consultation was
completed with MNR on January 18, 2012, including an updated regulation limit for Jefferson salamander
in the project area in response to LGL’s 2011 field survey results.
Species at risk screenings were conducted based on input to the project team (Letter from April Nix,
June 24, 2010), as outlined in Section 2.16. As a result of new additions made to the regulated species list
under the Endangered Species Act subsequent to receipt of the MNR letter, two additional SAR were
considered within the project area.
2.2
BACKGROUND INFORMATION REVIEW
Available background information was reviewed, including:

South Strasburg Gravity Trunk Sewer Schedule “B” Class Environmental Assessment –Final
Report (Stantec, 2008);

Doon Phase 2 Official Plan Amendment. City of Kitchener Collector Road Municipal Class
Environmental Assessment Study Report (Ecoplans et al., 2008);

Background information in support of the Doon Phase 2 Official Plan Amendment (some of this
information cannot be released to the project team and so the information is summarized and
condensed into the above referenced report);

Huron Road Improvements Class EA, City of Kitchener (only partial files available);

Ministry of Natural Resources Biodiversity Database (accessed April 2010);

Doon Creek Subdivision Environmental Impact Report (Ecoplans, Sept. 2004), North of Stauffer
Dr., West of Tilt Dr.;

Doon South Lands Environmental Impact Report (Ecoplans, April 2006);

Hallman – Groh Property Environmental Impact Study (Ecoplans, Sept 2003);

Hallman – Groh Property Stage 2 Lands Blair Creek Watershed Environmental Impact Report
(Ecoplans, Dec. 2004);
Page 3
September 2013
Project No. TA4907

Hallman/Gubler Subdivision Lands West of Tilt Drive Environmental Impact Report (Ecoplans,
April 2006);

Stauffer Drive Residential Development South of Stauffer Dr., West of Groh Dr. Stage 1
Environmental Impact Report (Ecoplans, Nov. 2006); and,

Stauffer Woods Subdivision South of Stauffer Dr. between Reidel Dr, New Dundee Rd., Groh
Dr., and Dodge Dr. Phases 2-4 Environmental Impact Report (Ecoplans, June 2008).
Information from the available background records is summarized in the wildlife list included in
Appendix B.
2.3
WILDLIFE INVESTIGATIONS
Details regarding the dates, personnel and effort involved in field investigations are outlined in Table 1
and further described in the subsections below.
Table 1: Summary of Wildlife Field Investigations 2010-2011
2010
Dates
April 6
April 16
April 21,
22, 23, 24,
25, 29
Observers Focus of Field Efforts
AF
Frog monitoring/
reconnaissance at
roadside (awaiting
permission to enter).
AF
Frog monitoring
roadside (awaiting
permission to enter).
AF, DS,
amphibian habitat
LR
assessment, early
reptile surveys for
hibernacula, egg mass
surveys
May 21
AF
May 27
AF
Frog monitoring at
roadside (awaiting
permission to enter)
Frog monitoring.
June 2
DM, LW
Breeding birds
Protocol Followed
Reconnaissance to determine frog
monitoring locations, documentation of
frog calls heard at roadside.
Aural surveys following the protocol
established for the Marsh Monitoring
Program (MMP). Air temperature = 8°C
Visual survey for presence/absence of
salamander egg masses in area ponds.
Search of project area for potential snake
hibernacula, deployment of cover boards
on April 24th (locations included in
Figure 1)
1st visit for breeding bird surveys
conducted according to Bird Studies
Canada (BSC) protocol. Point count
stations are displayed in Figure 1. Area
searches completed where all species seen
or heard were documented.
Page 4
Dates
2010 June 3
2011
AF
General wildlife
surveys (cover boards,
cover searches)
June 7
DM, LW
Breeding birds
June 11
AF
General wildlife
surveys (cover boards,
cover searches)
June 17
DM, LW
Breeding birds
June 23
DM, LW
Breeding birds
June 28
MK, LR
Frog monitoring
July 22
DM, LW
July 26
DM, LW
July 29
DM, LW
Targeted surveys for
turtles.
turtles.
turtles.
August 26
AF, MK
General wildlife (cover
boards, cover searches)
April 6/7,
10/11,
15/16,
16/17
AF, VK,
LR
Salamander surveys
(setting and checking
traps)
September 2013
Project No. TA4907
Protocol Followed
Cover boards deployed April 24, 2010
were inspected.
General wildlife documented in area
searches, including amphibians in
woodland searches under available cover.
1st visit for breeding bird surveys
conducted according to Ontario Breeding
Bird Atlas Protocol. Point count stations
are displayed in Figure 1. Area searches
completed where all species seen or heard
were documented.
were inspected.
2nd visit for breeding bird surveys
were documented.
2nd visit for breeding bird surveys
were documented.
Program (MMP). Air temperature =17°C
(3rd survey visit)
Field crew used binoculars to assist in
locating basking turtles in pond areas
when weather was warm and sunny
during morning hours and daytime
periods. Daytime temperatures ranged
from 18 to 28°C.
were inspected.
were inspected.
Traps were set in area ponds overnight to
document salamander species utilizing
ponds for breeding. Details are outlined
in Table 2.
Page 5
Dates
2011 June 2
LR
Monitoring of ponds,
general wildlife
June 8
AF
Chimney swift survey
(daytime)
June 14, 15
AF
June 27
AF
Whip-poor-will/
Nighthawk/Chimney
swift Survey (dusk,
early evening)
Whip-poor-will/
Nighthawk/Chimney
swift Survey (dusk,
early evening)
September 2013
Project No. TA4907
Protocol Followed
Water levels in ponds were checked and
documented through photographs.
Incidental wildlife observations were
documented.
Project area was surveyed for potential
habitat for Chimney swift – no good
candidate chimneys were found.
Surveys for nightjars were conducted on
calm, clear nights with a full moon and
greatest potential for calling activity,
commencing 30 minutes after sunset, at
stations located along the forest edges.
June 14 visit began at 9pm, ended at
10:30pm; June 15 visit began at 9:30pm
and ended at 11:30pm.
Whip-poor-will surveys were conducted
according to Bird Studies Canada
protocol utilized in the Ontario Whippoor-will Project (August 2010).
Nighthawk surveys were conducted using
protocols established by Bird Studies
Canada for the other nightjar species
surveyed.
September
16
AF
October 6,
16
AF
Chimney swift
swarming survey
(dusk)
Chimney swift
swarming survey
(dusk)
Chimney Swift surveys were conducted
using the monitoring protocol set out by
Bird Studies Canada (March 2009). June
8, 2011 survey for potential habitat.
Daytime breeding surveys conducted on
June 2, 7, 17 and 23, 2010 and on
June 14/15 and June 27, 2011.
Late season survey occurred with 2 visits
into Sept and Oct 2011 at dusk to detect
potential swarming activity.
AF – Allison Featherstone, LGL Limited
LR – Lynette Renzetti, LGL Limited
DS – Dave Smith, LGL Limited
MK – Melissa Kiddie, LGL Limited
DM – Dave Martin, subconsultant to LGL
LW – Linda Wlardarski, subconsultant to LGL
Page 6
September 2013
Project No. TA4907
2.3.1 Amphibians – Frog Calling
A breeding amphibian survey was completed using the Marsh Monitoring Program (MMP) protocol
established through the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) and Bird Studies Canada. The protocol uses
aural surveys to detect the presence/absence of calling amphibians (frogs and toads). During April, May
and early June many frogs become active, calling to establish breeding territories and mates. Under the
MMP protocol, sampling is to occur at least 15 days apart, three times between April and July 5th, when
minimum temperatures are 5 0C, 10 0C and 17 0C. Each survey event is to begin one half hour after
sunset and end before midnight. A three (3) minute survey is conducted at each monitoring station with a
30 second delay to account for any disturbance (i.e., approaching the site).
The following call level codes were assigned to all frog and toad species during the surveys, as per MMP
protocol:

Level 1-indicated individuals whose calls did not overlap such that calling individuals could be
counted;

Level 2-indicated calls of individuals with some overlap such that individuals could be estimated;
and,

Level 3-indicated when there was a continuous overlap of calls such that individuals could not be
counted.
An initial desk-top analysis of aerial photography identified natural features within the study area suitable
for supporting viable amphibian populations, including meadow marsh, thickets, old field, woodlots and
agricultural fields. LGL Limited completed frog call surveys on April 6, 2010; May 27, 2010 and
June 28, 2010. The first two surveys in 2010 were conducted along roadsides incorporating a broader
area, while the third survey focussed more on the features that had been identified as a result of the desktop analysis. Additional site investigations in early 2011 also contributed to confirming early spring
calling species, including dates of April 6, 10, 15 and 16, and June 14 and 15, 2011.
These surveys
were supplemented by general observations of amphibian presence made during the wildlife field
investigations in the project area.
Page 7
September 2013
Project No. TA4907
2.3.2 Amphibians – Ambystomid Salamanders
The area south of Stauffer Drive and east of Reidel Drive has been well studied for 7 years by other
consulting firms in support of the Doon South community. During those studies, Jefferson salamander
(Ambystoma jeffersonianum) was confirmed in the woodlots of Stauffer Woods and the woodlots south of
Stauffer Drive and east of Reidel Drive, such that regulated habitat now exists for the salamander,
including confirmed breeding ponds and also potential dispersal ponds. Due to the proximity of project
commencement (April 21, 2010) to the timing of salamander breeding activity, LGL was unable to secure
the permit required to use trapping methods for confirmation of breeding ponds within the study area in
the spring of 2010. Instead, field investigations were limited to the identification of potential breeding
ponds, visual searches for egg masses, and characterization of the habitat and ponds in the project area.
In 2011, a permit under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997 and under the Endangered Species
Act, 2008 was obtained to allow trapping of potential breeding ponds in the project area. In order to
obtain the necessary approvals and permits, an animal care protocol was prepared and approved by the
MNR Animal Care Committee.
Ponds were selected for sampling in consultation with MNR. During consultation (Feb. 23, 2011) new
information provided to the project team indicated that a pond previously identified as regulated had since
been removed from regulations (Pond 7). An additional pond was identified as no longer in existence
(Pond 12). Ponds that were permitted for sampling (Ponds 1 through 6) were trapped using proprietary
trapping methodology between April 6 and April 16, 2011, targeting ideal weather conditions for
detection of breeding Ambystomid salamanders.
Additional trapping following similar protocols is planned for potential breeding ponds within the study
area in 2012.
2.3.3 Reptiles
Reptiles were documented through habitat searches in appropriate weather conditions including;

wandering transects through representative habitat and visual searches with binoculars of
potential basking sites of ponds;

snakes were further documented by placing 48 cover boards (1m by 0.6m in size) in various
locations (Figure 1) around the project area; and,

through habitat searches in available habitat beneath debris or other cover materials.
Page 8
September 2013
Project No. TA4907
Background information from the Ministry of Natural Resources indicated that reptile species at risk may
occur within the project area, including Blanding’s Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii). Effort was made to
review potential habitat for this species with targeted searches during appropriate weather conditions.
2.3.4 Blanding’s Turtle
At a meeting with MNR on January 18, 2012, the project team was informed that protocols for Blanding’s
turtle were in development but not yet ready for release. Concurrently, habitat regulations under the ESA
for this species are being written; a draft habitat regulation is anticipated for release on the Environmental
Registry in February 2012. Also communicated was that non-handling methodology be employed to
detect presence/absence of turtles, with basking surveys to be undertaken using binoculars within the
following timeframes:

March 15 to June 15; and,

September 15 to October 15.
These time frames are identified as the highest likelihood of detecting basking Blanding’s turtles. While
the full protocol could not be provided to the project team, a review of field efforts against these general
timing windows indicate that pond assessments and other field surveys were done in the time frame
recommended for detecting this species. The draft protocol further requested a specific binocular
strength and also temperature measures of air and water. As this was information was not available at the
time of field investigations, these particular parameters were not adhered to.
2.3.5 Mammals
Mammals were documented according to incidental sightings including sight, smell, scat, trails, tracks,
dens, road kill or other evidence of presence within the project area.
2.3.6 Birds
Breeding birds were surveyed according to the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas Protocol, where 5 minute
point counts were completed in representative habitat areas. In addition, all species observed were
documented through area searches including potential breeding activity in the project area limits. Field
dates of breeding bird surveys are outlined in Table 1 above.
Page 9
September 2013
Project No. TA4907
In addition, chimney swift, whip-poor-will, and common nighthawk surveys following the Bird Studies of
Canada protocols (or appropriate modifications of the protocols) were initiated on June 8, 2011 to
determine the presence/absence of each of these species in the project area. A chimney swift habitat
assessment (chimney assessment) was completed on June 8, 2011, while common nighthawk and whippoor-will surveys were targeted for the week of June 15th, 2011 to coincide with appropriate
meteorological conditions to best detect these species.
2.3.7 Other Wildlife
Additional wildlife, including odonates and butterflies, were documented as incidental encounters during
other field visits.
3.0 RESULTS
The following subsections provide a brief description of wildlife habitat and communities documented as
a result of background review and field efforts to determine species presence/absence and habitat features.
A detailed list of wildlife documented in the area is included in Appendix B.
3.1
AMPHIBIANS – FROG CALLING
The calling amphibian species documented within the study area are considered common and widespread
throughout Ontario (Appendix B). None of the species were identified as species of Special Concern,
Threatened, Vulnerable or Endangered by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) and the Committee
on the Status of Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). Areas of abundant frog breeding were noted and these
are further discussed in section 3.0.
The portion of the Strasburg Road Extension study area associated with the Class Environmental
Assessment incorporates the area west of Caryndale Drive, east and west of Reidel Drive and north of
New Dundee Road. This area is comprised of agricultural fields, woodlands, and tributaries of Blair
Creek. On April 6, 2010 roadside surveys identified spring peeper, wood frog and Northern leopard frog
within this portion of the study area. General observations made during other wildlife surveys indicated
that Eastern red-backed salamander, spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum), American toad, green
frog, Northern leopard frog and wood frog (Rana sylvatica) are also found within this portion of the study
area. Although background data (Ecoplans et al., 2008) included records for chorus frog (Pseudacris
triseriata) within the Blair Creek corridor, this species was not detected during LGL field investigations.
Page 10
September 2013
Project No. TA4907
3.1.1 Species at Risk
No amphibian species at risk were documented by LGL Limited during the 2010/2011 field
investigations. Egg masses of ambystomid salamander were documented in two areas east of the project
area limits within existing regulated habitat in April 2010, as shown on Figure 1, and discussed further in
Section 2.11.
3.2
AMPHIBIANS – AMBYSTOMID SALAMANDERS
The Jefferson salamander, a type of ambystomid salamander, is considered endangered at a federal and
provincial level. Provincially, it is regulated by the Endangered Species Act, 2007. Studies conducted to
date by other project teams have documented Jefferson salamanders and regulated habitat in the southern
project area limits and draft habitat regulation mapping indicated that regulated habitat occurs within the
project area. Background data from secondary sources, as well as information from the Ministry of
Natural Resources, were reviewed prior to field work conducted by LGL Limited, to determine the limit
and extent of confirmed and potential salamander breeding habitat in the project area. In the absence of a
permit to conduct trapping, LGL conducted 2010 field investigations to identify potential ponds and
complete egg mass surveys (visually from the banks of ponds) in order to determine potential
presence/absence of ambystomid salamanders in otherwise undocumented portions of the study area.
Investigation of these areas continued in the spring of 2011 when trapping surveys were conducted
(according to Permit #1062226 MNR Wildlife Scientific Collector’s Authorization and with a permit
under the Endangered Species Act). Figure 1 displays the locations of ponds within the study area
targeted by LGL for field investigations in 2010/2011 as discussed below and summarized in
Appendix C.
Salamander habitat and breeding ponds have been well documented in the vicinity of the project area by
Ecoplans et al, and presented previously within supporting documents for the Stauffer Woods
Subdivision Environmental Implementation Report (2008). While current work included some effort to
identify and review ponds in the confirmed regulated habitat, searches for potential dispersal ponds, or
previously undocumented ponds, were focused outside of the regulated limits and on ponds identified as
‘potential’ habitat for dispersal or breeding. During field investigations conducted in the spring of 2010,
no egg masses were noted in areas outside of existing regulated habitat. Two egg masses were observed
in ponds associated with the Blair Creek corridor and within the existing regulated habitat for Jefferson
salamander on April 29, 2010.
Page 11
September 2013
Project No. TA4907
It is current standard to confirm presence/absence of breeding salamanders through trapping, therefore,
necessary permits were obtained from MNR to set traps at 6 ponds within the study area in the spring
of 2011- Ponds 1 through 6. Standard trapping methodology was used for this effort, the details of which
are typically not provided due to the high potential for poaching and interference (J. Bogart, pers. comm.,
2007). Traps were set late in the evening and checked first thing in the morning, according to the permit
conditions. Data recorded for salamanders found within the traps included specimen number, date,
observer, pond number, trap number, length (snout to vent, and snout to tip), photo number and general
comments regarding health or behaviour. Any incidental species found within the trap were also
identified and documented in field notes, as summarized in Table 2.
Ambystomid salamanders (spotted salamander- a common and secure species) were documented in
Pond 1 pond during the breeding period. Numbers ranged from 1 to 5 individuals, and all within the same
general area of the pond.
No Jefferson salamanders or polyploids were captured during the 2011 trapping effort. Additional
trapping surveys in potential breeding ponds within the study area will be conducted in 2012.
Table 2: Results for trapping efforts at six ponds located within the project area targeted as
potential breeding habitat for salamanders
Date
(trap set/
trap
checked)
April 6/7
April 10/11
April 15/16
April 16/17
Weather
Pond 1
Pond 2
Pond 3
Pond 4
Pond 5
Pond 6
Evening
temperature near
4°C. Rain earlier in
day, fog.
Very warm evening
temperature
(approaching 30°C
with humidex).
Evening
temperature near
3C, cool and windy.
Very cold evening.
1 YSSA
Empty
Empty
Empty
Float
chewed
Empty
Float
chewed
Not trapped
5 YSSA
Empty
2
leopard
frogs
Empty
Empty
Empty
3 traps
Not
trapped
Not
trapped
Not
trapped
Not
trapped
Evening
temperature near
8C. Calm winds.
3 YSSA
Empty
Empty
Empty
Empty
3 traps set: 1
catfish, 1
beetle
Snapping
turtle
observed
(injured and
dying)
Empty
Nothing
caught
YSSA- Spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum)
Pond locations shown on Figure 1.
Page 12
3.3
September 2013
Project No. TA4907
REPTILES
Reptiles documented within the project area by LGL Limited in 2010 included common and secure garter
snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), Dekay’s brown snake (Storeria dekayi), and painted turtle (Chrysemys picta
marginata) (Appendix B).
A landowner at New Dundee Road just east of Reidel Drive reports Milksnake in his log cabin home with
stone foundation (reportedly built in the late 1800’s) and in the adjacent buildings as recently as 2009.
An occurrence was documented by LGL in 2009, just north of the EA study area. Milksnake is a species
of special concern provincially and federally. Suitable habitat is present within the EA project area.
The landowner of the Farm B&B at 500 Stauffer Drive reports having observed snapping turtle, a species
of special concern to COSEWIC, within the pond on her property. This was confirmed by LGL in
April 2011.
No suitable habitat for Blanding’s turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) or individuals of the species, a
provincially and federally threatened species, was previously documented by other consulting firms in the
project area (including in areas where multi-year studies have occurred) or during the 2010-2011 surveys
conducted by LGL Limited. Ponds are present, but are small, shallow and with limited submergent
vegetation. The closest known occurrence for Blanding’s turtle is within the Huron Natural Area ponds.
No ponds of similar size occur within the project area limits. The turtle species confirmed in the EA
project area are painted turtle and snapping turtle.
Based on information provided to the project team on January 18, 2012, an updated protocol for
presence/absence surveys of Blanding’s turtle is anticipated for release in the near future by the MNR.
Although this protocol has not yet been publically released, MNR did share information regarding the
general timing windows and methodologies with the project team at that time. LGL has reviewed the
field visits completed in the project area in 2010/2011and compared the timing and general conditions of
the surveys to those considered by MNR to be appropriate for determination of Blanding’s turtle
presence/absence. Field visits were conducted by biologists as part of standard protocols and specific
tasks, such as salamander trapping. Field staff documented incidental sightings and were aware of the
potential for Blanding’s in the project area during the field investigations. As a result, numerous field
investigations were completed that would be considered seasonally appropriate for presence/absence
surveys; however, surveyors did not record water temperature readings as suggested in MNR’s draft
protocol. Also, because some of the field effort was focused on surveys of salamanders, not all visits were
conducted during weather conditions considered to be most appropriate by MNR protocol for basking
Page 13
September 2013
Project No. TA4907
activity. Notwithstanding, 2 turtle species were documented during these visits, and as many as 7 visits
were completed in and around ponds during the appropriate timing windows. Of note, both painted and
snapping turtle were confirmed during weather conditions when salamander trapping was conducted
(which is not considered ideal for detection of Blanding’s turtle according to the MNR protocol). Table 3
summarizes LGL’s field effort for the project area along with the associated relevance of each effort to
MNR’s unpublished, draft protocol for presence/absence surveys of Blanding’s turtle, as described in
personal communication on January 23, 2012. Much of the effort included surveys for amphibians in and
around ponds that turtles might utilize. Shaded cells indicate where appropriate timing windows were
targeted.
Table 3: Summary of field efforts with respect to Blanding’s turtle
Date
2010
Focus of field efforts
April 6
Frog monitoring/reconnaissance
April 16
Frog monitoring
April 21, 22, 23, 24, 25,
29
May 21
Frog monitoring, amphibian surveys,
early reptile surveys for hibernacula,
turtle basking, egg mass surveys
Frog monitoring
May 27
Frog monitoring
June 2
Breeding birds
June 3
General wildlife surveys including cover
boards and target cover searches.
Breeding birds
June 7
June 11
June 17
General wildlife surveys (cover boards,
cover searches)
Breeding birds
June 23
Breeding birds
June 28
Frog monitoring
July 22
July 26
July 29
Targeted basking surveys for turtles
August 26
General wildlife (cover boards, cover
searches)
Relevance to Blanding’s turtle
presence/absence survey protocol
During appropriate timing window.
Showers, Daytime high of 11°C
Evening surveys, not ideal for
targeting turtles.
targeting turtles.
targeting turtles.
targeting turtles.
Clear, morning temperatures of 1524°C.
Clear, daytime high of 20°C.
Incidentally documented painted
turtle, though survey not focused
on ponds.
Incidentally documented painted
turtle, though survey not focused
on ponds. Clear, morning
temperatures of 13-20°C.
targeting turtles.
Outside of appropriate timing
window included in draft
Blanding’s turtle presence/absence
protocol, as communicated by
MNR.
Outside of appropriate timing
window.
Page 14
2011
3.4
September 2013
Project No. TA4907
Date
Focus of field efforts
April 6/7,
10/11,
15/16,
16/17
Salamander surveys (setting and
checking traps)
June 2
Monitoring of ponds, general wildlife
June 8
Chimney swift survey
June 14, 15
Whip-poor-will/ Nighthawk Survey
June-August 2011
Additional chimney swift, whip-poorwhil and common nighthawk survey
presence/absence effort.
Relevance to Blanding’s turtle
presence/absence survey protocol
Within appropriate timing window
but targeting wet weather events,
however 4 basking painted turtles
and snapping turtle early
emergence were confirmed in a
single visit..
During appropriate timing window,
focus on B&B Pond.
targeting turtles.
Not focused on ponds.
MAMMALS
A total of 16 mammal species were documented in the project area during 2010 surveys and those
previously completed by other project teams; 5 of which were confirmed by LGL Limited in 2010/2011
field efforts (Appendix B). All of these mammals are common and secure in Ontario, and include species
that are tolerant of human presence and disturbance, commonly found in urban and urbanizing
landscapes. Not included on the list is black bear (Ursus americanus), which was reported towards New
Dundee as an incidental observation during 2010. This species is not expected to regularly inhabit the
urban fringes of the City, but may occur as a rare visitor, as reported in 2010. It was not confirmed
within the project area during 2010 or 2011.
No areas of sensitive mammal habitat, such a deer overwintering yards were documented in the project
area; however, deer overwintering habitat is reported in areas downstream of Dodge Drive
(Ecoplans et al. 2008).
No mammal species at risk or potential habitat were documented in the project area.
Page 15
3.5
September 2013
Project No. TA4907
BIRDS
A total of 92 bird species were documented in the project area during 2010 breeding bird surveys and as
incidental records during other wildlife surveys. All but 1 species confirmed breeding in the project area
are considered secure and common in Ontario. Twenty six (26) are considered Regionally Significant in
Waterloo Region. Area sensitive species include whip-poor-will (Caprimulgus vociferous), brown
creeper (Certhia americana), pine warbler (Dendroica pinus), black-throated green warbler (D. virens),
pileated woodpecker (Drycopus pileatus), hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus), ovenbird (Seiurus
aurocapilla), American redstart (Setophaga ruticilla) and white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis).
Area sensitive bird species habitats typically coincide with interior habitat 100m in from forest edges.
Not all of the area sensitive species documented were confirmed as breeders for the project area;
specifically whip-poor-whil was deemed to be a migrant given the very early timing of its occurrence.
Whip-poorwhil, was documented on April 29, 2010 and given the time of year of the observation was
presumed to be a migrant. Subsequent targeted surveys for whip-poor-will did not detect breeding
activity.
The recently uplisted barn swallow (threatened) was confirmed at the B&B property including the house
and barn structures. It forages in much of the open area within the project area.
Background information obtained from the MNR Natural Heritage Information Centre Database (before
transitioning to the new biodiversity database) reported Cerulean Warbler south and east of the project
area near Roseville Swamp PSW. However, suitable habitat is very limited to non-existent with the
project area limits, as no super canopy white oak type habitat feature is present. This species was not
documented in the project area during 2010 field investigations or through a review of background
documentation.
3.6
OTHER
A total of 27 invertebrate species are documented for the project area, of which all but one are considered
common and secure in Ontario.
Page 16
September 2013
Project No. TA4907
A single species at risk was identified for invertebrates documented in the project area, namely the
Monarch (Danaus plexippus), a species of Special Concern federally and provincially.
3.7
SPECIES AT RISK SCREENING SUMMARY (MNR LIST)
Based on communication to the project team from the MNR (Appendix A), a short list of wildlife species
at risk were assessed as potentially occurring in the project area. This list has been shortened below to
address only the wildlife species. All species were considered in review of background documentation in
the project area. Additional field studies, where warranted, were completed as part of the determination
of potential presence/absence of each species, as summarized below in Table 4. Two species have been
subsequently added, reflecting new listing as Threatened under the ESA (barn swallow and Eastern
meadowlark).
Table 4: Region of Waterloo Known Species-at-Risk (as provided by MNR June 24, 2010)
Species
Endangered Species
Acadian Flycatcher
Habitat Description
A songbird that requires
large tracts of mature, shady,
maple-beech forest
(www.rom.on.ca)
American Badger
Remnant tallgrass prairie
species, sand barrens,
farmland (www.rom.on.ca).
Henslow's Sparrow
(Historical - no recent
records)
Old field, pastures and wet
meadows (www.rom.on.ca).
Jefferson Salamander
Confirmed habitat in the
project area, and existing
habitat regulated under the
ESA occurs in the project
area.
Known areas of breeding
habitat are near Lindsay,
Kingston and Ottawa.
Prefer short grasses; utilize
thorny trees for
feeding/impaling food.
Loggerhead Shrike
records)
How addressed during
project work
Results
Breeding bird surveys to
detect potential
presence/absence (dates and
protocols used included in
Table 1).
Prairie habitat not present in
project area. During
general wildlife surveys in
the project area field crew
documented the presence of
any potential den sites.
Large patches of suitable
habitat not presence in
project area. Breeding bird
surveys to detect potential
presence/absence.
Visual searches for egg
masses in spring 2010,
trapping in spring under
ESA permits.
Not detected
Habitat not present in study
area Breeding bird surveys
to detect potential
Table 1).
Not detected
Not detected
Not detected.
Not detected by
LGL Limited.
Page 17
Species
Northern Bobwhite
records)
Threatened Species
Blanding's Turtle
Bobolink
Habitat Description
Results
Breeding bird surveys and
area searches to detect
potential presence/absence
(dates and protocols used
included in Table 1).
Not detected
Lakes, streams, and
wetlands, shallow wetland
areas with abundant
vegetation
(www.rom.on.ca).
Hay fields and tall grasses.
Ponds were searched during
optimal weather conditions
to detect presence absence of
basking turtles.
Not detected.
Habitat not present in project
area. Meadow patches were
included in area searches for
breeding birds. Agricultural
fields within the project area
are planted with corn. No
bobolink documented during
breeding bird survey or in
background studies.
Surveys for potential
suitable chimneys,
presence/absence of swifts.
detect potential
presence/absence(dates and
Table 1).
Wetland habitat in the
project area is not of the size
expected to support this
species. Breeding bird
presence/absence.
Aquatic habitat of this type
is not present in the project
area.
Not detected.
Targeted whip poor whil
surveys in June 2011 during
appropriate conditions.
Targeted breeding bird
surveys.
Not detected.
Tree cavity nester in natural
habitat. Typically nests in
chimneys or other manmade structures.
Least Bittern
Large, quiet marshes
(www.rom.on.ca)
Queen Snake
Aquatic snake that lives in
clear, small rivers with good
rock cover and abundant
prey (crayfish)
(www.rom.on.ca)
Mix of open and forested
areas.
Barn Swallow (uplisted in
December 2011)**
project work
Edge and grassland habitat,
including non-intensively
farmed habitat
(www.rom.on.ca)
Chimney Swift
Whip-poor-will
September 2013
Project No. TA4907
Barn swallows are aerial
insectivores that utilize manmade structures for nesting.
Recently identified as
Threatened by COSSARO.
Not detected.
Not detected.
Not likely to be
found in project area
due to lack of
suitable habitat.
Confirmed.
Observed nesting on
the B&B property
house and barn
structure, and
foraging in open
areas in the project
area.
Page 18
Species
Eastern Meadowlark
(uplisted in December
2011)**
Special Concern Species
Bald Eagle
Black Tern
Cerulean Warbler
Habitat Description
project work
Results
A medium sized
songbird/grassland bird was
recently identified as
Threatened by COSSARO.
Targeted breeding bird
surveys (dates and protocols
used included in Table 1).
Meadow patches were
included in area searches for
breeding birds.
Not detected.
Large water bodies or
riverine systems. They
build large, obvious stick
nests.
Cattail marshes, often of
large size.
Large, undisturbed tracks of
mature, semi-open
deciduous forest.
Likely to visit the project
area given the close
proximity of the Grand
River.
Not suitable habitat in the
project area.
Some habitat present in
project area, but better
habitat and reported
presence of species in large
habitat units outside of
project area. Breeding bird
Table 1).
Habitat present in project
area and species confirmed
close to project area.
Landowner reports records
of this species in their log
cabin home (>100year old
home) on New Dundee
Road.
detect potential
presence/absence including
surveys during evening
hours to detect foraging
individuals (dates and
Table 1)..
Area searches in wetland
habitat.
Not detected.
detect potential
Table 1).
Not detected.
Milksnake
A habitat generalist, often
found near farm buildings.
Common Nighthawk
Open and semi-open areas
such as farmland,
woodlands, clearcuts, burns,
rock outcrops, bogs, fens,
prairies, gravel pits and
urban rooftops
(www.rom.on.ca)
Eastern Ribbonsnake
Usually close to water,
marshes; hunts frogs and
small fish.
Mature and deciduous
forest, and in ravines
(www.rom.on.ca).
Hooded Warbler
September 2013
Project No. TA4907
Not detected.
Not detected.
Not detected,
possibly present.
Not detected.
Not detected.
Page 19
Species
Habitat Description
Louisiana Waterthrush
Steep, forested ravines with
fast-flowing streams
(www.rom.on.ca)
Monarch
Found where there are
milkweed plants and
wildflowers
(www.rom.on.ca)
Large lakes and rivers, often
bask together
(www.rom.on.ca).
Northern Map Turtle
Snapping Turtle
Large freshwater turtle, in a
variety of aquatic habitat.
Yellow-breasted Chat
records)
Thickets and scrub habitat.
September 2013
Project No. TA4907
project work
detect potential
Table 1).
Present in project area.
No suitable habitat present.
All ponds and wetland
habitats were part of area
searches for detection of
turtles.
Detected in pond at B&B
property.
Results
Not detected.
Present in project
area.
Not detected.
Confirmed in project
area in agricultural
dug pond.
Not detected.
detect potential
Table 1).
**Not on list provided by MNR in June of 2010, but added to screening list due to status change in late 2011.
4.0 EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT
As defined in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide, wildlife habitat is considered significant
where it is:
“ecologically important in terms of features, functions, representation or amount, and
contributing to the quality and diversity of an identifiable geographic area or Natural Heritage
System.” (OMNR 2000).
An evaluation of significance has been completed for natural features identified as wildlife habitat within
the project location through background review and site investigation, to determine if the wildlife habitat
is significant in accordance with the criteria from the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide
(SWHTG) and the draft addendum schedules.
Page 20
September 2013
Project No. TA4907
As part of the screening for the presence of significant habitat, criteria from the SWHTG draft addendum
schedules for Ecoregion 6E were used to determine if any of the wildlife habitat types present within the
project study area met the criteria to be considered as significant. The categories for significant wildlife
habitat (SWH) are typically considered to be:

Season Concentration Areas;

Rare vegetation communities;

Specialized habitat;

Habitat of species of conservation concern; and,

Animal movement corridors.
LGL Limited has not conducted an analysis of rare vegetation communities as it is outside the scope of
our work. SNC Lavalin Inc. provided shapefiles of the vegetation communities to LGL that were used as
part of the SWH evaluation. A table and map of this Ecological Land Classification (ELC) data used in
the evaluation is provided in Appendix D.
4.1
SEASONAL CONCENTRATION AREAS
Seasonal concentration areas are areas where wildlife species may gather in large numbers, often on an
annual and/or seasonal basis. An evaluation summary is included in Table 5. The only Candidate SWH
that has been identified is amphibian breeding habitat for both woodland and wetland. It is likely that
pond and wetland features in the project area may be used in some or most years by several of the listed
criteria species. Of note, a single pond was confirmed as used during breeding season by spotted
salamander (Ambystoma maculatum). Small numbers of individuals (up to 5) were captured in the
wetland referred to as Pond 1 on Figure 1
Page 21
September 2013
Project No. TA4907
Table 5 Evaluation Summary for Seasonal Concentration Areas
Wildlife
Habitat
ELC
Ecosite
Codes
Waterfowl
Stopover
Areas
(terrestrial)
CUM1
Waterfowl
Stopover
Areas
(aquatic)
MAM1
MAM2
MAM3
CUT1
MAM4
MAM5
MAM6
MAS1
MAS2
MAS3
SAS1
SAF1
SAM1
Colonial
Nesting
SWD1
SWD3
BLO1
BLS1
BLT1
CLO1
CLS1
CLT1
CUM1
CUS1
CUT1
ELC present in
Study Area
(Unit # from
Appendix D)
30
33
47
28
34
38
None
None
29
31
32
37
40
41
46
None
None
None
None
None
5
8
18
24
25
26
48
None
None
0
39
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
30
33
47
None
28
34
38
1
Criteria
Evidence of annual
spring flooding from
melt water or run-off
within these ecosites.
100 or more of any
one listed species and
2-3 birds/ha for 7-20
days. If sedge wren,
marsh wren, sandhill
crane, yellow rail,
black tern present refer
to criteria1
Annual use of habitat
is documented from
information sources or
field studies. 100 or
more of any one listed
species and 2-3
birds/ha for 7-20 days.
Eroding banks, sandy
hills, pits, steep slopes,
rock faces or piles
within these ecosites.
Any exposed soil
banks, undisturbed or
naturally eroding for
10 years or more, not
including man-made
structures or recently
(<2 years) disturbed
soil areas, such as
berms, embankments,
or soil or aggregate
stockpiles.
Habitat Characteristics
related to Criteria
None of the indicator bird
species for significant
wildlife have been found in
the study area, nor are birds
present in numbers that
would suggest these
meadow/thicket areas are
used for stopover purposes.
Candidate
Significant
Wildlife
Habitat (yes/no)
No
The marsh/swamp habitats
within the study area were
generally small. Birds were
not documented in the
numbers to indicate these
areas are used for stopover
purposes, nor were any
documented in meetings with
the District MNR or in
background reports
reviewed.
No
Although cliff swallow and
barn swallow were
documented in the 2010
breeding bird survey
conducted in the area by
LGL, no natural habitat in
the form of large cliffs, or
steep eroding banks to
support colonial nesting sites
exists in the project area.
These species were observed
in small numbers, and are
likely using man-made
structures, such as barns, to
nest in the area.
No
Page 22
Wildlife
Habitat
Shorebird
Migratory
Stopover Area
Songbird
Migratory
Stopover Area
Raptor
Wintering
ELC
Ecosite
Codes
BBO1
BBO2
BBS1
BBS2
BBT1
BBT2
SDO1
SDS2
SDT1
MAM1
MAM2
MAM3
MAM4
MAM5
COM
FOC
FOD
SWC
SWM
SWD
CUM
CUS1
CUT
CUW
FOC
FOD
FOM
ELC present in
Study Area
(Unit # from
Appendix D)
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
29
31
32
37
40
41
46
None
None
None
None
1
7
20
23
42
43
45
50
None
6
49
30
33
47
None
28
34
38
2
None
1
7
20
23
42
43
45
50
None
September 2013
Project No. TA4907
Candidate
Significant
Wildlife
Habitat (yes/no)
No
Criteria
related to Criteria
Presence of 3 or more
of listed species and >
1000 Shorebird Use
Days during spring or
fall migration period,
or any site with >100
Whimbrel used for 3
years or more would
be considered
significant.
Wetlands in the study are not
of adequate size for use as a
stopover area. Shorebirds
were not documented in the
study area in numbers that
would suggest the study area
includes a migratory route,
nor were any such routes
identified in consultation
with the District MNR.
Woodlots need to be
>10 ha in size and
within 5 km of Lake
Ontario.
The project area is not
located within 5 km of Lake
Ontario.
No
Raptor Wintering sites
need to be > 20ha with
a combination of
forest and upland.
None of the adjacent forest
and upland areas are > 20 ha.
In consultation with the
Guelph MNR biologist no
raptor wintering habitat was
identified, nor was there any
indication of such habitat or
associated species
documented in any of the
background studies
reviewed.
No
1
Page 23
Wildlife
Habitat
ELC
Ecosite
Codes
Bat
Hibernacula
CCR1
CCR2
CCA1
CCA2
Butterfly
Migratory
CUM
CUP
CUS
CUT
FOC
FOD
Snake
Hibernacula
FOM
Existence of
rock piles or
slopes, stone
fences, and
crumbling
foundations
would
identify
Candidate
SWH.
ELC present in
Study Area
(Unit # from
Appendix D)
None
None
None
None
30
33
47
3
27
44
51
None
28
34
38
None
1
7
20
23
42
43
45
50
None
Small rock piles
are present
along fence lines
in the study
area, as are a
few crumbling
foundations.
September 2013
Project No. TA4907
Criteria1
related to Criteria
Candidate
Significant
Wildlife
Habitat (yes/no)
No
Maternal colonies can
be found in tree
cavities, vegetation
and often buildings.
Any colony with
wintering Eastern
Small-footed Myotis,
or any site with two
more species
hibernating together, is
to be considered
significant.
A butterfly stopover
area will be a
minimum of 10 ha in
size with a
combination of field
and forest habitat
present, and will be
located within 5 km of
Lake Ontario.
Bat monitoring studies were
not completed. No evidence
of bat concentrations or
known areas of bat
concentration reported for
the project area. Ontario's
Renewable Energy Atlas
documents Guelph as known
bat hibernacula in closest
proximity to the study area.
The project area is not
located within 5 km of Lake
Ontario.
No
Observation of
congregations (5+) of
snakes on sunny warm
days in the spring or
fall.
Cover boards were placed in
areas of potential habitat.
Individual snakes were
observed in the study area on
occasion (brown snake and
eastern gartersnake);
however, no congregations
of snakes or hibernacula
were identified in field visits
to the area. No hibernacula
were identified by
landowners, MNR District
staff, or in any of the
background reports reviewed
for the study area.
No
Page 24
Wildlife
Habitat
Colonial
Nesting Bird
Breeding
Habitat
(tree/shrub)
Colonial
Nesting Bird
Breeding
Habitat
(ground)
ELC
Ecosite
Codes
SWM2
SWM3
SWM5
SWM6
SWD1
SWD2
SWD3
SWD4
SWD5
SWD6
SWD7
FET1
Any (rocky)
island or
peninsula
(natural or
artificial)
within a lake
or large
river.
Deer
Wintering
Areas
as identified
by MNR
Amphibian
Breeding
Habitat
(woodland)
FOC
FOD
FOM
SWC
SWM
SWD
ELC present in
Study Area
(Unit # from
Appendix D)
None
None
None
6
None
49
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
1
7
20
23
42
43
45
50
None
None
6
49
September 2013
Project No. TA4907
Criteria1
related to Criteria
Candidate
Significant
Wildlife
Habitat (yes/no)
No
Presence of 5 or more
active nests of any of
the listed species.
Ponds and wetlands were
visited on several occasions
in the spring for monitoring
of amphibians. No heron or
egret nesting sites were
observed during those site
visits.
Nesting colonies are
on islands or
peninsulas associated
with open water.
Open water within the study
area is not of adequate size
to support colonies of
nesting birds.
No
No deer wintering areas were
identified in the project area
in consultation with the
MNR District Biologist
Monitoring of amphibians by
LGL Limited in spring of
2010/11 identified spring
peeper, green frog, northern
leopard frog, wood frog,
gray tree frog, American
toad, Eastern red-backed
salamander, and spotted
salamander within the study
area.
No
Presence of a wetland,
lake, or pond within or
adjacent (within
120m) to a woodland
(no minimum size),
presence of breeding
population of 1 or
more of the listed
species with at least 20
individuals (adults,
juveniles, eggs/larval
masses).
Yes - these
coincide with
pond and
wetland habitat
identified in the
project area.
The only pond
sampled with
confirmed
ambystomid
salamanders in
appropriate
habitat during
breeding season
is Pond 1 on
Figure 1.
Page 25
September 2013
Project No. TA4907
ELC present in
Candidate
Study Area
Significant
Criteria1
(Unit # from
related to Criteria
Wildlife
Appendix D)
Habitat (yes/no)
Amphibian
MAM1
None
Presence of breeding
Monitoring of amphibians by
Yes, wetland
Breeding
population of 2 or
LGL Limited in spring of
pockets are used
MAM2
None
Habitat
more of the listed
2010/11 identified spring
by several
MAM3
29
(wetland)
species with at least 20 peeper, green frog, Northern
species at
31
breeding individuals
leopard frog, wood frog,
various times of
32
(adults, juveniles,
Eastern red-backed
the year.
37
eggs/larval
masses)
or;
salamander,
and
spotted
40
any wetland with
salamander within the study
41
confirmed
breeding
by
area.
46
American
Bull
Frogs.
MAM4
None
MAM5
None
MAM6
None
SAS1
None
SAF1
None
SAM1
0
39
SWT1
None
1. Criteria are summarized from Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) (January 2009 Working Draft) Significant Wildlife
Habitat Ecoregion Criteria Schedules Addendum to Significant Wildlife Habitat technical Guide. Please refer to the full
schedule for full text of criteria.
Wildlife
Habitat
4.2
ELC
Ecosite
Codes
SPECIALIZED HABITAT FOR WILDLIFE
The MNR (2000) identifies specialized habitat for wildlife as:

Areas that support species with highly specific habitat requirements;

Areas with high species diversity or community diversity; and,

Areas that provide habitat that are significant to species’ survival.
An evaluation summary of specialized habitat for wildlife is provided in Table 6. The only candidate
SWH that was identified is the bed and breakfast pond, where early 2011 surveys confirmed the presence
of snapping turtle. The pond is deep, supports fish, and would provide suitable overwintering habitat for
snapping turtle and potentially other turtle species.
Page 26
September 2013
Project No. TA4907
Table 6: Summary of Evaluation of Specialized Habitat for Wildlife
Specialized
Wildlife
Habitat
Waterfowl
Nesting
Habitat
Osprey
Nesting,
Foraging and
Perching
Habitat
ELC Ecosite
Codes
Upland habitat
adjacent to
MAS, SAS,
SAM, SAF,
MAM, SWT,
SWD
ELC present in
Study Area
(Unit # from
Appendix D)
Numerous
Forest
communities
directly
adjacent to
large water
bodies.
Criteria
1
A waterfowl
nesting area
extends 120 m
from a wetland (>
0.5 ha) or a cluster
of 3 or more small
(<0.5 ha) wetlands
within 150 m of
each other where
waterfowl nesting
is known to occur.
Presence of 3 or
more nesting pairs
for listed species
(except Mallard),
or 10 or more
nesting pairs for
listed species
including Mallard.
Presence of 1 or
more active Osprey
nests. Survey all
forested land
adjacent to a lake,
pond, wetland 10
ha or greater in
size, and all
islands. Nests
located on manmade objects are
not to be included
as SWH.
Habitat
Characteristics
related to Criteria
Potential habitat within
the project area consists
of small ponds. No
sites of waterfowl
nesting were observed
in the vicinity of these
ponds during
monitoring of wetlands.
Of the listed waterfowl
species, only Mallard
was observed during
breeding bird studies
conducted by LGL in
2010 in the property
east of Reidel Drive,
between Stauffer Drive
and New Dundee Road.
One incidence of wood
duck was documented
in 2005-2007
background studies
conducted by other
consulting firms in the
same area. Breeding
evidence for wood duck
was determined as
‘possible’ within that
study (Ecoplans Ltd,
June 2008).
No wetlands in study
area > 10 ha.
Candidate
Significant
Wildlife Habitat
(yes/no)
No
No
Page 27
Specialized
Wildlife
Habitat
Woodland
Raptor
Nesting
Habitat
ELC Ecosite Codes
FOM
FOC
FOD
SWC
SWM
SWD
CUP3
Turtle
Nesting
and Overwintering
Areas
BOO1
FEO1
MAM1
MAM2
MAM3
MAM4
MAM5
MAM6
SAS1
SAF1
SAM1
ELC present in
Study Area
(Unit # from
Appendix D)
None
None
1
7
20
23
42
43
45
50
None
6
49
3
27
44
51
None
None
None
None
29
31
32
37
40
41
46
None
None
None
None
None
0
39
September 2013
Project No. TA4907
Criteria1
All natural or
conifer plantation
forest stands >10
ha in size.
Presence of 1 or
more active nests
from species list.
Sand and gravel
beaches adjacent
to undisturbed
shallow weedy
areas of marshes,
lakes, and rivers
that provide sand
and/or gravel that
turtles are able to
dig in. Overwintering sites
are permanent
water bodies,
large wetlands,
and bogs or fens
with adequate
dissolved oxygen.
Presence of
turtles breeding
or over-wintering
of 1 or more of
the listed species
and with 5 or
more individuals
identified as
breeding or overwintering
Habitat
Characteristics
related to Criteria
Unit #42 is the only
ELC ecosite > 10 ha
(Appendix D). This
predominately maple
beech forest was
surveyed during the
spring of 2010 and
2011. Of the listed
species none were
observed during
breeding bird surveys
conducted in the area
by LGL Ltd. in 2010.
Cooper's Hawk was
documented in
background reports in
edge areas bordering
the Blair Creek valley
(ESPA33) east of the
project area. No
woodland raptor
nesting habitat was
identified within the
project area by MNR
District staff.
Painted turtle and
snapping turtle were
documented in the
project area by LGL
Limited. No turtle
nesting sites were
documented.
Potential
overwintering sites
include the large, dug
agricultural pond at
the B&B property.
Candidate
Significant
Wildlife Habitat
(yes/no)
No
Yes, Candidate
SWH at the
B&B Pond.
Page 28
Specialized
Wildlife
Habitat
Seeps and
Springs
1.
4.3
ELC Ecosite
Codes
ELC present in
Study Area
(Unit # from
Appendix D)
Seeps/Springs are
areas where
ground water
comes to the
surface.
September 2013
Project No. TA4907
Criteria1
Presence of a site
with >2
seeps/springs
confirmed by
studies should be
considered SWH.
The seeps/springs
will be present
even during dry
summers.
Habitat
Characteristics
related to Criteria
No areas of seeps or
springs were noted,
although diffuse
groundwater input
occurs throughout the
wetlands and
watercourses in the
headwater area of
Blair Creek.
Candidate
Significant
Wildlife Habitat
(yes/no)
No
Criteria are summarized from Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) (January 2009 Working Draft) Significant Wildlife
HABITAT OF SPECIES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN
Species listed as Special Concern (SC) provincially, species that are considered rare/declining or are a
specially considered species are used to identify SWH for species of conservation concern. This excludes
habitat of species that are designated as Threatened or Endangered, as their habitat is considered under
separate policies. Three species have been identified in the project area that is designated as SC- snapping
turtle, milksnake and monarch. An evaluation summary of the habitat for species of SC is provided in
Table 7.
Snapping turtle has been confirmed in the bed and breakfast pond and the pond is identified as Candidate
SWH.
Milksnake has not been confirmed in the project area, although has potential to occur and is reported by a
local resident in the basement and main floor of their century home. Milksnake is a habitat generalist
species that is often found near buildings or residences including barns, sheds, debris piles, old
foundations and basements of homes. Other natural and semi-natural features in the project area may
serve as forage, movement, and breeding habitat. A specific habitat is difficult to delineate for this
species, and no specific habitat has been identified for Candidate SWH.
The Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus) can be found in Ontario wherever there are milkweed plants
for its caterpillars and wildflowers for a nectar source. Monarchs are often found on abandoned farmland
and roadsides, but also in city gardens and parks. Although Monarch Butterflies are a Special Concern
Species, there is no formal protection for this species in Ontario. Among the key management strategies
identified to protect the Monarch Butterfly in Ontario is the need to protect milkweed patches through
removal from the Noxious Weed Act. Monarch were observed in the project area; however, no monarch
caterpillar were observed. No areas of concentrated milkweed patches were noted. No areas have been
delineated as Candidate SWH for Monarch.
Page 29
September 2013
Project No. TA4907
Table 7: Summary of Evaluation of Habitat of Species of Conservation Concern
Wildlife
Special
Concern
and S1S3
Species
ELC
Ecosite
Codes
consider all
element
occurrences
from NHIC
Species of
Special
Concern
Milksnake
Criteria1
related to Criteria
When an
element
occurrence is
identified for a
Special
Concern or
rare species,
mapping of
the habitat on
the site needs
to be
completed to
ELC
Vegetation
Type
Milksnake is reported by
a landowner at New
Dundee Road, however
has not been confirmed in
the EA study area by LGL
Limited. The habitat in
the study area reasonable
and likely to support
Milksnake. However, as
a habitat generalist,
specific habitat areas are
difficult to prescribe.
High potential exists
around old farm
buildings, but all areas of
intervening habitat may
be expected to be utilized.
Snapping turtle has been
confirmed in the dug
agricultural pond at the
B&B property. It is
likely that this pond also
provides suitable
overwintering conditions
for this species.
Monarch butterfly is
observed frequently
throughout southern
Ontario. Larvae utilize
milkweed. Milkweed is
present in many areas of
the project limits - along
road edges, edge of farm
fields, woodlot edges,
within cultural meadows
and as part of the ground
cover in hedgerows. No
areas of monarch
concentration or areas of
concentrated milkweed
are identified in the
project limits.
Snapping Turtle
Monarch
1.
Candidate
Significant Wildlife
Habitat (yes/no)
No - not confirmed.
Potential for SWH.
Yes - Candidate SWH
No - not confirmed.
Potential for SWH.
Page 30
4.4
September 2013
Project No. TA4907
ANIMAL MOVEMENT CORRIDORS
Animal movement corridors can occur at various scales, from deer moving between summer and winter
grounds across a landscape, to amphibians moving between breeding habitat and feeding areas within a
single vegetation unit. No large scale animal movement corridors for species such as deer have been
identified through a review of background documentation, consultation with MNR and field work
conducted to date. The area does not contain large valleys or ridges that would also serve to concentrate
animal movement. And as a result, movement corridors are considered to be local and resident animal
movement, and in particular amphibian movement from upland habitat to breeding habitat are considered
to be significant in the project area. An evaluation summary of animal movement corridors is provided in
Table 8.
It is anticipated that amphibians will move from the mosaic of contiguous natural and semi-natural
communities to the various breeding habitat patches. It is likely that some individuals cross agricultural
fields, roadways and laneways between habitat patches. A polygon has not been assigned to these
movement corridors. Should proposed road alternatives cross natural or semi-natural features, there is
potential for impacting movement and/or dispersal corridors, including those of the Jefferson salamander.
Suitable mitigation measures will need to address any potential for impacting movement corridors.
Table 8: Summary of Evaluation of Animal Movement Corridors
Habitat
ELC Ecosite
Codes
ELC present
in Study Area
(Unit # from
Appendix D)
Criteria1
Habitat Identified
within Study Area
related to Criteria
Amphibian
Movement
Corridors
Not ELC specific,
movement
corridors between
breeding habitat
and summer
habitat.
n/a
Movement corridors must
be determined when
Amphibian breeding
habitat is confirmed as
SWH.
Breeding Habitat in the
form of woodlands and
wetlands is identified
in Table 5 as Candidate
Significant Wildlife
Habitat.
Deer
Movement
Corridors
Movement corridor
between summer
and winter range,
typically follow
riparian areas,
woodlots and/or
physical
geography.
n/a
A deer yard identified by
an OMNR office as SWH
will have corridors that the
deer use during fall
migration and spring
dispersion.
No deer wintering
areas or associated
movement corridors
were identified in
consultation with the
MNR District Biologist
Candidate
Significant
Wildlife
Habitat
(yes/no)
Yes- it is
anticipated
that much of
this habitat
is included
in the
Jefferson
salamander
regulation
limits.
No
Page 31
Habitat
Bat Migration
Corridors
ELC Ecosite
Codes
September 2013
Project No. TA4907
ELC present
in Study Area
(Unit # from
Appendix D)
n/a
Candidate
Significant
Wildlife
Habitat
(yes/no)
Specific bat monitoring
studies not completed.
No evidence of bat
concentrations or
known areas of bat
concentration reported
for the project area.
No
Features such as
valleys, forested ridges,
or coastlines that may
funnel or concentrate
animal movement are
not present in the
project area.
1.
No specific ELC
types, sites directly
on shores of large
lakes or areas of
high elevation are
possible corridors.
Criteria1
Habitat Identified
within Study Area
related to Criteria
A corridor is considered
significant if > 100
individuals of a listed
species or > 200
individuals of all species
combined are identified
during a spring or fall
migration period.
5.0 SUMMARY
The information provided herein summarizes the results to date of background review and field
investigations of wildlife habitat and communities within the EA portion of the project area. Wildlife
documented to date in the project area comprises a mix of highly tolerant urban species, with a few area
sensitive bird species and notably the Jefferson salamander and the associated regulated habitat.
The evaluation of SWH provides information on components of the natural heritage system within the
study area that must be assessed against transportation alternatives that are developed as part of the EA
process. For the purposes of the EA, the inventory and the habitat will be used to evaluate the features in
terms of their importance using criteria for assessing SWH developed by the MNR. Of these, the
following meet the criteria for significance:

Woodland breeding amphibian habitat;

Wetland breeding amphibian habitat;

The movement corridors associated with the above; and,

Turtle overwintering habitat.
Page 32
September 2013
Project No. TA4907
New wildlife species at risk documented during the 2010 field investigations included monarch, a species
of special concern provincially and federally and barn swallow (recently uplisted Provincially as a
threatened species). Landowners in the project area report the presence of snapping turtle (confirmed in
2011) and milksnake, both species of special concern Provincially and Federally. LGL staff confirmed
the presence of milksnake in 2009 within the existing road allowance at Strasburg Creek for the Part A
project area. Reports for the southern limits of the project area for milksnake remain unconfirmed
by LGL.
Potential species at risk reported for the larger area (including Blanding’s turtle and cerulean warbler)
were not confirmed in 2010 or 2011, nor are they reported in available background information for the
project area limits.
The largest constraint to the project area remains the regulated habitat of the Jefferson salamander.
Alignments with the potential to impact individuals of the species and regulated habitat would trigger a
Section 17(c) permit under the Endangered Species Act, 2007. The MNR would determine if any new
ponds merit inclusion into the regulated habitat limits. Much like wetland files for Provincially
significant wetlands, regulated habitat is considered as a ‘living document’ whereby new information may
be utilized to update regulated habitat limits.
Page 33
September 2013
Project No. TA4907
6.0 REFERENCES
Bird Studies Canada. March 2009. Chimney Swift (Chaetura pelagic) Monitoring Protocol. In
partnership with: Canadian Wildlife Service, The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Species
at Risk, The Ontario Trillium Foundation and McIlwraith Field Naturalists.
Bird Studies Canada. May 2011. Whip-poor-whil Roadside Survey Participant’s Guide.
Cadman, M.D., P.F.J Eagles, & F.M. Helleiner, 1987. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario. University
of Waterloo Press, Waterloo.
Cadman, M.D. D.A. Sutherland, G.G. Beck, D. LePage, and A.R. Couturier (eds.). 2007. Atlas of the
Breeding Birds of Ontario, 2001-2005. Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Field
Ornithologists, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Nature, Toronto.
Doon Creek Subdivision North of Stauffer Dr., West of Tilt Dr., City of Kitchener. Environmental Impact
Report September 2004. Ecoplans.
Doon Phase 2 Official Plan Amendment, City of Kitchener Collector Road Municipal Class
Environmental Assessment, Environmental Study Report. November 2008. Ecoplans Ltd., MTE
Consultants, MHBC Planning, Paradigm Ltd.
Doon South Lands Environmental Impact Report. April 2006. Ecoplans Ltd.
Hallman – Groh Property Environmental Impact Study. September 2003. Ecoplans Ltd.
Hallman – Groh Property Stage 2 Lands, Blair Creek Watershed Environmental Impact Report December
2004. Ecoplans Ltd.
Hallman/Gubler Subdivision Lands West of Tilt Drive Environmental Impact Report. April 2006.
Ecoplans Ltd.
Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) (2009). Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Natural Heritage
Policies for the Provincial Policy Statement 2005 Working Draft Second Edition. Accessed on
May. 12, 2010 from website
http://publicdocs.mnr.gov.on.ca/View.asp?Document_ID=12714&Attachment_ID=32290
Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) (2007). Ontario Wind Resource Atlas. Accessed on May 12, 2010
from website www.ontariowindatlas.ca/en/welcome.html
Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) (January 2009 Working Draft) Significant Wildlife Habitat
Ecoregion Criteria Schedules Addendum to Significant Wildlife Habitat technical Guide.
Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) (2000) Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (and Decision
Support System .zip)
Natural Resource Solutions Inc. (November 2010) Conestogo Wind Farm Bat Monitoring Report and
Environmental Impact Study.
Region of Waterloo. 2001. ESPA 24 Technical Data Sheet Doon South Woods
Page 34
September 2013
Project No. TA4907
Region of Waterloo. 2001. ESPA 39 Technical Data Sheet Roseville Swamp
Royal Ontario Museum. Ontario’s Biodiversity: Species at Risk website.
http://www.rom.on.ca/ontario/risk.php. Accessed June 2011.
South Strasburg Gravity Trunk Sanitary Sewer Schedule "B" Class Environmental Assessment- Final
Report, Appendix B: Natural Environment Report. September 2008. Stantec Consulting Ltd.
Stauffer Drive Residential Development South of Stauffer Dr., West of Groh Dr. Stage 1 Environmental
Impact Report. November 2006. Ecoplans Ltd.
Stauffer Woods Subdivision South of Stauffer Dr. between Reidel Dr, New Dundee Rd., Groh Dr., and
Dodge Dr. Phases 2-4 Environmental Impact Report. June 2008. Ecoplans Ltd.
Page 35
APPENDIX A MNR CORRESPONDENCE
September 2013
Project No. TA4907
Allison Featherstone
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Buck, Graham (MNR) [[email protected]]
Friday, April 09, 2010 1:26 PM
strasburb road
Hi Allison,
In my opinion I think the salamander minnow trapping season is passed or passing. This week I have noticed a significant
drop off in minnow trap captures. Last week we caught 21 and this week 1. I think they are leaving the ponds or becoming
less active in the ponds. I have also heard of mortality, perhaps due to water temps heating up.
But you are not too late for egg mass surveys, provided you do not enter the pond or handle the egg masses, you don’t
need an ESA permit. This could give you a sense if there is salamander breeding.
As for the Strasburg Road extension, can you send me a map of the area, so I can check into the habitat regulation for
this area?
Graham Buck
Species at Risk Biologist
Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District
1 Stone Road West,
Guelph ON
N1G 4Y2
P:519 826 4505
F: 519 826 4929
[email protected]
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5013 (20100409)
__________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Buck, Graham (MNR) [[email protected]]
Thursday, April 15, 2010 4:36 PM
RE: strasburb road
Hi Allison,
Thank you for providing the map. The area is certainly a priority for evaluating habitat for Jefferson Salamander. There are
confirmed breeding ponds east of the proposed road, north and south of Stauffer road. There are also 1 suitable breeding
pond west of the proposed road, within 1 kilometer of the known breeding pond. This means the proposed road would
destroy regulated habitat of the species, which means the activity must be permitted if it is going to continue which makes
them part of regulated habitat.
This year, without an ESA permit you can evaluate the suitability of the ponds within the study area. What is required for a
pond to be suitable, if within 1 kilometer of a known breeding pond are (all 4 criteria must be met):
1. Water retention duration: There is water in the pond long enough for the Jefferson Salamander larvae to develop
and emerge, in an average or wet year. Since Jefferson’s Salamander is long lived and it will return to the pond
every year a dry pond one year does not rule out breeding. Therefore if the survey is done in a dry year, or after a
low amount of snow the preceding winter it may take more than 1 year to determine this. Unfortunately we might
be having one of those years this year.
2. There is any amphibian breeding (consider to be any of: mating, calling, eggs, larvae) occurring in the pond.
3. There are no predatory fish in the pond. Small fish, such as sticklebacks are not considered to be predators on
salamander eggs and larvae.
4. There are egg attachment sites.
You can also complete egg mass surveys, but without entering the pond or handling the egg masses. I recommend you
go soon, because they maybe very close to hatching now.
This data will help you verify ponds that you may need to sample next year.
Very soon we will be sharing the habitat regulation mapping for this area, and another, with the City of Kitchener, so they
understand the implications and the processes clearer.
Graham Buck
1 Stone Road West,
Guelph ON
N1G 4Y2
P:519 826 4505
F: 519 826 4929
[email protected]
From: Allison Featherstone [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: April 9, 2010 1:46 PM
To: Buck, Graham (MNR)
Subject: RE: strasburb road
Hi Graham, Thanks so much for your help. I did suspect we were missing the timing window for trapping. In 2008 it ended very abruptly around April 18 for trapping – but it was a later start with peak movement around April 13 in Kitchener. 1
Here is a map of the preliminary list of properties we are requesting permission to enter. This may not be a final list. We are just barely kicking off with this project. We are a sub‐consultant to SNC Lavelin for the City of Kitchener Strasburg Road Extension (DD and Schedule C EA – two portions of the extension are at different levels of study)—City’s Project Manager is Binu Korah and SNC Lavelin is Ian Upjohn. You can see the road allowance and small easement (see #12) and the proposed route then continues down Reidl Drive (based on the RFP Study Area) – the hand drawn purple line is very approximate. Thanks, Allison Allison Featherstone, B.Sc. (Hons.) Planning Ecologist 2
LGL Limited 3365 Harvester Road Burlington, ON CANADA L7N 3N2 (905) 333‐1667 x30 (905) 333‐2660 fax [email protected] www.lgl.com From: Buck, Graham (MNR) [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 1:26 PM
To: Allison Featherstone
Subject: strasburb road
Hi Allison,
In my opinion I think the salamander minnow trapping season is passed or passing. This week I have noticed a significant
drop off in minnow trap captures. Last week we caught 21 and this week 1. I think they are leaving the ponds or becoming
less active in the ponds. I have also heard of mortality, perhaps due to water temps heating up.
But you are not too late for egg mass surveys, provided you do not enter the pond or handle the egg masses, you don’t
need an ESA permit. This could give you a sense if there is salamander breeding.
As for the Strasburg Road extension, can you send me a map of the area, so I can check into the habitat regulation for
this area?
Graham Buck
1 Stone Road West,
Guelph ON
N1G 4Y2
P:519 826 4505
F: 519 826 4929
[email protected]
__________
http://www.eset.com
__________
http://www.eset.com
3
Region of Waterloo Known Species-at-Risk
Endangered Species
Acadian Flycatcher
American Badger
American Chestnut
Butternut
False Hop Sedge (Historical - no recent records) **
Henslow's Sparrow (Historical - no recent records) **
Loggerhead Shrike (Historical - no recent records) **
Northern Bobwhite (Historical - no recent records)
Wavy-rayed Lampmussel
Threatened Species
Black Redhorse
Blanding's Turtle
Chimney Swift**
Jefferson Salamander
Least Bittern
Queen Snake
Rainbow Mussel
Whip-poor-will**
Special Concern Species
Bald Eagle
Black Tern
Cerulean Warbler
Common Nighthawk
Eastern Ribbonsnake
Green Dragon
Hooded Warbler
Louisiana Waterthrush
Milksnake
Monarch
Northern Map Turtle
Silver Shiner
Snapping Turtle
Yellow-breasted Chat (Historical - no recent records)
** ESA (2007) Schedule 1 Species: Currently receive General Habitat Protection.
APPENDIX B RUNNING WILDLIFE LIST
September 2013
Project No. TA4907
Type September 2013
Project No. TA4907
Scientific_Name
Common_Name Amphibian Amphibian Amphibian Amphibian Amphibian Amphibian Amphibian Amphibian Amphibian Amphibian Bufo americanus Ambystoma laterale Pseudacris maculata Notophthalmus viridescens Plethodon cinereus Hyla versicolor Rana clamitans Ambystoma jeffersonianum Ambystoma hybrid pop. 1 Amphibian Amphibian Amphibian Amphibian Amphibian Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Rana pipiens Ambystoma maculatum Pseudacris crucifer Pseudacris triseriata Rana sylvatica Anas rubripes Corvus brachyhrynchos Carduelis tristis Falco sparverius Turdus migratorius Spizella arborea Scolopax minor Icterus galbula Riparia riparia Hirundo rustica Ceryle alcyon Ceryle alcyon Coccyzus erythropthalmus Poecile atricapillus Dendroica virens Cyanocitta cristata Polioptila caerulea Dolichonyx oryzivorus Certhia americana Toxostoma rufum Molothrus ater Branta canadensis Aimophila cassinii Bombycilla cedrorum Dendroica pensylvanica Spizella passerina Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Quiscalus quiscula Geothlypis trichas Accipiter cooperii Junco hyernalis Picoides pubescens Tyrannus tyrannus Sternella magna Sayornis phoebe Otus asio Pipilo erythrophthalmus Contopus virens Sturnus vulgaris Spizella pusilla Ambystomid salamanders American Toad Blue‐spotted Salamander Boreal Chorus Frog Eastern (Red‐spotted) Newt Eastern Red‐backed Salamander Gray Treefrog Green Frog Jefferson Salamander Jefferson Salamander x Blue‐spotted Salamander, Jefferson genome dominates Northern Leopard Frog Spotted Salamander Spring Peeper Western Chorus Frog Wood Frog American Black Duck American Crow American Goldfinch American Kestrel American Robin American Tree Sparrow American Woodcock Baltimore Oriole Bank Swallow Barn Swallow Belted Kingfisher Belted Kingfisher Black‐billed Cuckoo Black‐capped Chickadee Black‐throated Green Warbler Blue Jay Blue‐gray Gnatcatcher Bobolink Brown Creeper Brown Thrasher Brown‐headed Cowbird Canada Goose Cassin's Sparrow* Cedar Waxwing Chestnut‐sided Warbler Chipping Sparrow Cliff Swallow Common Grackle Common Yellowthroat Cooper's Hawk Dark‐eyed Junco Downy Woodpecker Eastern Kingbird Eastern Meadowlark Eastern Phoebe Eastern Screech‐Owl Eastern Towhee Eastern Wood Pewee European Starling Field Sparrow LGL Limited environmental research associates
2a x x 2b x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Within EA study area, documented by LGL in 2010
3a 3b 5/6a
5/6b
4
7/8
9/10
x
x
x x
x
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
v
x
x
x
x
x
x
v
v
9
13
x
1,9,10,12,13,14,15
9,14,15
1,9,10,11,12,13,14,15
2,14,15
1,9,10,11,12,13,14,15
13
1,9,10,11,12,13,14,15
1,9,10,11,12,13,14,15
14,15
1,9,10,11,12,13,14
13
10,13,14,15
9,10,12,14,15
1,14,15
1,10,12,13,14,15
9,15
13,14
1,15
1,9,10,11,12,13,14,15
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
v
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
v
v
v
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
1,9,10,11,12,13,14,15
14,15
9
1,13,14,15
1,9,10,12,14,15
10,12,13,14,15
15
9,10,11,12,13,14,15
15
9,10,12,13,14,15
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Documented by Others 2
1,10,12,13,14,15
14,15
10,11,12,13
14,15
9,14,15
1,10,12,14,15
1,13,14,15
6,14,15
5,6,14,15
x
1,10,12,13,14,15
1,9,10,11,12,13,14,15
14,15
14,15
1,9,10,11,12,13,14,15
1,10,12,13,14,15
14,15
13,14,15
14,15
15
1,9,10,12,13,14,15
1,9,10,11,12,13,14,15
1,9,10,11,12,13,14,15
G Rank
S Rank
G5
S5
G5
G5T5
G5
G5
G5
G4
GNA
S5
S5
S5
S5
S5
S2
S2
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
S5
S4
S5
S4
S5
S5B
S5B
S5B
S5B
S5B
S5B
S5B
S5B,SZN
S5B,SZN
S5B,SZN
S5B,SZN
S5B,SZN
S4B,SZN
S5
S5B,SZN
S5
S4B,SZN
S4B
S5B,SZN
S5B,SZN
S5B,SZN
S5B,SZN
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
S5B,SZN
S5B,SZN
S5B,SZN
S5B,SZN
S5B,SZN
S5B,SZN
S4B,SZN
S5B,SZN
S5
S5B,SZN
S5B,SZN
S5B,SZN
S5
S4B,SZN
S5B,SZN
SE
S5B,SZN
COSEWIC MNR SARA SARO FWCA
END THR END THR P
P
P
NAR THR THR NAR NAR NAR THR NAR THR NAR THR THR P
P
P
P
P
MBCA
GRCA
Waterloo Region Partners in Flight X
X
CP
CP
BCR13
X
X
X
X
X
BCR13
BCR13, 12
CP
CP
RS
RS
X
X
X
CP
CP
CP
RS
X
CP
RS
X
X
CP
CP
RS
RS
CP
RS
BCR13, 12, 8
BCR13, 12, 8
BCR13, 12
BCR13, 12
BCR13, 12
X
X
X
X
X
CP
X
X
X
X
X
X
CP
CP
RS
CP
CP
CP
BCR13
BCR13
X
X
CP
BCR13
BCR13, 12
X
CP
BCR13, 12
Type Scientific_Name
Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Bird Invertebrates Invertebrates Regulus satrapa Dumetella carolinensis Ardea herodias Myiarchus crinitus Bubo virginianus Butorides virescens Picoides villosus Catharus guttatus Eremophila alpestris Carpodacus mexicanus Passer domesticus Troglodytes aedon Limosa haemastica Passerina cyanea Charadrius vociferus Melospiza lincolnii Anas platyrhynchos Zenaida macroura Oporornis philadelphia Cardinalis cardinalis Colaptes auratus Seiurus aurocapilla Dryocopus pileatus Dendroica pinus Progne subis Melanerpes carolinus Sitta canadensis Vireo olivaceus Buteo jamaicensis Agelaius phoeniceus Columba livia Pheucticus ludovicianus Archilochus colubris Bonasca umbellus Passerculus sandwichensis Piranga olivacea Accipiter striatus Tringa solitaria Melospiza melodia Actitis macularius Melospiza georgiana Tachycineta bicolor Cathartes aura Pooecetes gramineus Vireo gilvus Caprimulgus vociferus Sitta carolinensis Zonotrichia albicollis Maleagris gallopavo Troglodytes troglodytes Aix sponsa Hylocichla mustelina Dendroica petechia Sphyrapicus varius Coccyzus americanus Euphydryas phaeton Tramea lacerata September 2013
Project No. TA4907
Common_Name Golden crowned Kinglet Gray Catbird Great Blue Heron Great Crested Flycatcher Great Horned Owl Green Heron Hairy Woodpecker Hermit Thrush Horned Lark House Finch House Sparrow House Wren Hudsonian Godwit Indigo Bunting Killdeer Lincoln's Sparrow Mallard Mourning Dove Mourning Warbler Northern Cardinal Northern Flicker Ovenbird Pileated Woodpecker Pine Warbler Purple Martin Red‐bellied Woodpecker Red‐breasted Nuthatch Red‐eyed Vireo Red‐tailed Hawk Red‐winged Blackbird Rock Dove (Pigeon) Rose‐breasted Grosbeak Ruby‐throated Hummingbird Ruffed Grouse Savannah Sparrow Scarlet Tanager Sharp‐shinned Hawk Solitary Sandpiper Song Sparrow Spotted Sandpiper Swamp Sparrow Tree Swallow Turkey Vulture Vesper Sparrow Warbling Vireo Whip‐poor‐will White‐breasted Nuthatch White‐throated Sparrow Wild Turkey Winter Wren Wood Duck Wood Thrush Yellow Warbler Yellow‐bellied Sapsucker Yellow‐billed Cuckoo Baltimore Checkerspot Black Saddlebags LGL Limited environmental research associates
2a x x x x x x x x x x x 2b x x x x x Within EA study area, documented by LGL in 2010
3a 3b 5/6a
5/6b
4
7/8
9/10
x x
x
x
x x
x
x
x
x
x x
x
v
v
x x x
x
x
x x
x x x
x
x
x
x x
v
v
x
x x
x
x
x x x
x
x
x
x
x
v
x
x x x
x
x
v v v
v
v
x
x
x
x
x x x
x
x
m
x
x
x
x
x
v
x x
x
x
x
x x x
x x
x
x
9
13
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
1,14,15
9,13,14,15
1,9,14,15
1, 9,10,12,13,14,15
1,9,10,11,12,13,14,15
14,15
1,9,10,12,14,15
10,12,15
13
1,14,15
14,15
9
x
m
x
x
1,9,10,11,12,13,14,15
1,9,10,12,13,14,15
13
1,13,14,15
1,9,10,11,12,14,15
1,9,10,11,12,13,14,15
1,9,10,12,13,14,15
14,15
1,9,10,12,14,15
1,9,14,15
x
x
x
x
1,9,10,12,13,14,15
1,9,13,15
1,9,10,11,12,13,14,15
9,14,15
13
1,10,12,14,15
14,15
1,14,15
10,11,12,15
1,10,12,13,14,15
1,9,10,11,12,13,14,15
x
1,9,10,11,12,13,14,15
1,13
13
1,9,10,12,14,15
1,10,12,13,14,15
14,15
10,12,14,15
1,10,12,13,14,15
14,15
13,14,15
13,15
1,13,14,15
1,14,15
1,9,10,12,14,15
14,15
14,15
9,13
G Rank
S Rank
MBCA
GRCA
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G4
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G4
G5
S5B,SZN
S5B,SZN
S5B,SZN
S5B,SZN
S5
S4B,SZN
S5
S5B,SZN
S5B,SZN
SE
SE
S5B,SZN
S2S3B
S5B,SZN
S5B,SZN
S5B,SZN
S5B,SZN
S5B,SZN
S5B,SZN
S5
S5B,SZN
S5B,SZN
S4S5
S5B,SZN
S4B,SZN
S4
S5B,SZN
S5B,SZN
S5B,SZN
S5B,SZN
SE
S5B,SZN
S5B,SZN
S5
S5B,SZN
S5B,SZN
S5B,SZN
S4B
S5B,SZN
S5B,SZN
S5B,SZN
S5B,SZN
S4B,SZN
S4B,SZN
S5B,SZN
S4B
S5
S5B,SZN
S4
S5B,SZN
S5B,SZN
S5B,SZN
S5B,SZN
S5B,SZN
S4B,SZN
S4
S4
NAR THR NAR THR THR THR P
G
P
G
X
X
X
X
CP
CP
CP
X
X
X
X
Waterloo Region RS
Partners in Flight RS
RS
CP
CP
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CP
RS
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
RS
RS
RS
RS
RS
CP
CP
CP
CP
RS
BCR13, 12, 8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
BCR13, 12
BCR13
RS
CP
CP
RS
CP
CP
RS
RS
BCR13
RS
BCR13, 12
CP
RS
RS
BCR13, 12
CP
RS
September 2013
Project No. TA4907
Within EA study area, documented by LGL in 2010
2a 2b 3a 3b 5/6a
5/6b
4
7/8
9/10
Invertebrates Papilio polyxenes Black Swallowtail Invertebrates Pieris rapae Cabbage White x x
x
Invertebrates Papilio canadensis Canadian Tiger Swallowtail x
Invertebrates Colias philodice Clouded Sulphur x
Invertebrates Anax junius Common Green Darner x
Invertebrates Coenonympha tullia Common Ringlet x x
Invertebrates Plathemis lydia Common Whitetail x x x
x
x
x
Invertebrates Cercyonis pegala Common Wood Nymph Invertebrates Papilio glaucus Eastern Tiger Swallowtail Invertebrates Thymelicus lineola European Skipper x x x
x
x
x
Invertebrates Speyeria cybele Great Spangled Fritillary x
x
x
Invertebrates Aeshna constricta Lance‐tipped Darner x
Invertebrates Megisto cymela Little Wood‐Satyr x x
x
Invertebrates Aglais milberti Milbert's Tortoiseshell x
Invertebrates Danaus plexippus Monarch x
x
x
x
Invertebrates Nymphalis antiopa Mourning Cloak Invertebrates Enodia anthedon Northern Pearly‐Eye x
Invertebrates Phyciodes tharos Pearl Crescent x
x
x
Invertebrates Polygonia interrogationis Question Mark x
x
Invertebrates Vanessa atalanta Red Admiral x x x
x
x
Invertebrates Limenitis arthemis astyanax Red‐spotted Purple x x
Invertebrates Sympetrum rubicundulum Ruby Meadowhawk x
x
Invertebrates Celastrina ladon Spring Azure Invertebrates Celastrina neglecta Summer Azure x
x
Invertebrates Libellula pulchella Twelve‐spotted Skimmer x x
x
x
Invertebrates Limenitis archippus Viceroy Invertebrates Libellula luctuosa Widow Skimmer x
Mammals Castor canadensis Beaver Mammals Canis latrans Coyote Mammals Peromyscus maniculatus Deer Mouse Mammals Tamias striatus Eastern Chipmunk x x x x
x
x
Mammals Sylvilagus floridanus Eastern Cottontail x
Mammals Sciurus carolinensis Eastern Gray Squirrel Mammals Marmota monax Groundhog Mammals Myotis lucifuga Little Brown Bat Mammals Microtus pennsylvanicus Meadow Vole Mammals Ondatra zibethicus Muskrat Mammals Procyon lotor Northern Raccoon x
x
Mammals Vulpes vulpes Red Fox Mammals Tamiasciurus hudsonicus Red Squirrel Mammals Mephitis mephitis Striped Skunk Mammals Didelphis virginiana Virginia Opossum Mammals Odocoileus virginianus White‐tailed Deer x x
x
x
x
Reptile Storeria dekayi Dekay's Brown Snake x Reptile Thamnophis sirtalis Eastern Gartersnake x x x
x
Reptile Lampropeltis triangulum Milksnake Reptile Chrysemys picta marginata Northern (Midland) Painted Turtle x
Reptile Chelydra serpentina Snapping Turtle x (B&B Pond)
*sightings in Ontario are rare, as the province is well outside of the normal breeding and migratory range (southwest United States and Mexico) for this species Type Scientific_Name
Common_Name 9
13
9,10,11,12,13
10,12
x
9,13
13
9,13
10,12
x
9,10,12,13
11
13
9
x
x
10,12
10,12
9,11
9,10,12
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
13
13
9,11
1,9,11
9,11
1,9,10,11,12,13
10,12,13
10,12,13
10,12
13
1,9,10,11,12,13
11,13
1,9,13
1,10,12,13
13
1,9,10,11,12,13
9,14,15
3,8
1,9
7,14
G Rank
S Rank
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5T5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5T5
G5
G5T5
G5
S5
SNA
S5
S5
S5
S5
S5
S5
S4S5
SNA
S5
S5
S5
S5
S4B, S2N
S5
S4
S4
S5
S5
S5
S5
S5
S5
S5
S5
S5
S5
S5
S5
S5
S5
S5
S5
S4
S5
S5
S5
S5
S5
S5
S4
S5
S5
S5
S3
S5
S5
SC END NAR SC SC SC NAR SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC F
F
P
G
G
F
F
F
F
F
F
G
P
P
G
MBCA
GRCA
Waterloo Region Partners in Flight Strasburg Road Extension EA Project Area
September 2013
Project No. TA4907
STATUS LEGEND
The running wildlife list presents the best known data to date for the project area, and is considered a living list that can be updated as
new information comes available through field work or through other background information. Species at identified for project parcels
based on LGL Limited field work, whereas background information is listed as “Documented by Others”. The following column
summaries provide a summary or status legend of information in each column.
Column 1 - Wildlife group
Column 2 - Scientific name
Column 3 - Common name
Column 4 - Property and project area locations pertaining to the south/environmental assessment portion of the project area.
 x - species present; for birds it indicates likely breeding as it was found in suitable breeding habitat or observed breeding
behaviour
 x - indicates species is a visitor using the foraging, roosting, resting, drinking, etc., but not likely breeding in area
 v- visitor to area
 m-migrant
Property Description
2a woodlot on property 2
2b thickets / old field / agricultural lands to west of 2a on property 2
3a woodlot on property 3 (including sliver of woodlot in property 4)
3b thickets / old field / agricultural lands to west of 3a on property 3
4 woodland at SW corner of property 4 and adjacent to agricultural fields
5/6a woodlot
5b includes the old field to the east of woodlot 5/6, and the agricultural lands and the meadow marsh / reed marsh / old
field on hill to west of woodlot 5/6
7/8 woodland on properties 7 and 8 and adjacent agricultural fields
9 woodland strip along Dodge Creek and adjacent agricultural fields
9/10 woodland at north end of property 9 including the enclosed property 10 and adjacent agricultural fields
11 woodlot and retention pond on property 11
13 conifer plantation on property 9 and adjacent agricultural fields
Column 5 –Wildlife records documented by others, such as previous studies by landowners, subwatershed studies, environmental assessments,
background information provided by agencies such as Ministry of Natural Resources, and personal knowledge of the project area by team
members.
Reference No.
Citation
South Strasburg Gravity Trunk Sanitary Sewer Schedule "B" Class Environmental Assessment- Final Report, Appendix B: Natural
1
Environment Report (Sept. 2008) Stantec Consulting Ltd.
Doon Phase 2 Official Plan Amendment, City of Kitchener Collector Road Municipal Class Environmental Assessment,
2
Environmental Study Report (Nov. 2008) Ecoplans Ltd, MTE Consultants, MHBC Planning, Paradigm Ltd.
LGL Staff. September 2009. Pers. comm. Milksnake documented within existing unopened road allowance of Strasburg Road at
3
Strasburg Creek (Detail Design portion of study area).
4
Background information provided to the project team regarding regulated species at risk habitat.
5
Region of Waterloo. 2001. ESPA 24 Technical Data Sheet Doon South Woods
6
Region of Waterloo. 2001. ESPA 39 Technical Data Sheet Roseville Swamp
7
Pers. Comm. Landowner
8
Pers. Comm. Landowner
Doon Creek Subdivision Environmental Impact Report (Sept. 2004), North of Stauffer Dr., West of Tilt Dr.
9
City of Kitchener, Ecoplans Ltd.
10
Doon South Lands Environmental Impact Report (April 2006), Ecoplans Ltd.
11
Hallman – Groh Property Environmental Impact Study (Sept 2003) Ecoplans Ltd.
12
Hallman – Groh Property Stage 2 Lands Blair Creek Watershed Environmental Impact Report (Dec. 2004) Ecoplans Ltd.
13
Hallman/Gubler Subdivision Lands West of Tilt Drive Environmental Impact Report (April 2006), Ecoplans Ltd.
Stauffer Drive Residential Development South of Stauffer Dr., West of Groh Dr. Stage 1 Environmental Impact Report (Nov. 2006)
14
Ecoplans Ltd.
Stauffer Woods Subdivision South of Stauffer Dr. Between Reidel Dr, New Dundee Rd., Groh Dr., and Dodge Dr. Phases 2-4
15
Environmental Impact Report (June 2008) Ecoplans Ltd.
Column 6 - G- Rank
G1- extremely rare; usually 5 or fewer occurrences in the overall range or very few remaining individuals or because of some factor
(s) making it especially vulnerable
G2-very rare; usually between 5 and 20 occurrences in the overall range or with many individuals in fewer occurrences or because of
some factor (s) making it vulnerable to extinction
G3- rare to uncommon; usually between 20 and 100 occurrences; may have fewer occurrences but with a large number of individuals
in some populations or may be susceptible to large-scale disturbances
G4-common; usually more than 100 occurrences, usually not susceptible to immediate threats
G5-very common; demonstrably secure under present conditions
GH-historic; no records in the past 20 years
GU-status uncertain; often because of low search effort or cryptic nature of species, more data needed
GX-globally extinct; no records despite specific searches
?-denotes inexact numeric rank
G- means that a global rank has not been obtained from the Nature Conservancy
G?-unranked; or if following a ranking the rank is tentatively assigned
Q-denotes taxonomic status of species, subspecies or variety as questionable
September 2013
Project No. TA4907
T-denotes the rank applies to a subspecies or variety
Column 7 - S-Rank
S Rank
SX-presumed extirpated; species or community is believed to be extirpated from the nation or state/province, not located despite
intensive searches of historical sites and other appropriate habitat and virtually no likelihood it will be rediscovered
SH-possibly extirpated (historical); species or community occurred historically in the nation or state/province and three is some
possibility that it may be rediscovered. Its presence may not have been verified in the past 20-40 years
S1-critically imperilled; critically imperilled in the nation or state/province because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer occurrences) or
because of some factor (s) such as very steep declines making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the state/province
S2-imperilled; imperilled in the nation or state/province because of rarity due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20
or fewer), steep declines or other factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the nation or state/province
S3-vulnerable; vulnerable in the nation or state/province due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer),
recent and widespread declines or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation
S4-apparently secure; uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors
S5-secure; common, widespread and abundant in the nation or state/province
SNR-unranked; nation or state/province conservation status not yet assessed
SU- unrankable; currently unrankable due to lack of information or due to substantially conflicting information about status or trends
SNA- not applicable; a conservation status rank is not applicable because species is not a suitable target for conservation activities
S#S#-range rank; a numeric range rank is used to indicate any range of uncertainty about the status of the species or community
C-captive/cultivated; existing in the province only in a cultivated state; introduced population not yet fully established and selfsustaining
S?-not ranked yet- species rank not yet assigned
SA-accidental; accidental or casual occurrence in the province; far outside its normal range, some species may occasionally breed in
the province
SAB- breeding accidental
SAN- non-breeding accidental
SE-exotic; not believed to be a native component of Ontario's flora
SR-reported for Ontario; no persuasive documentation which would provide a basis for either accepting or rejecting the report
SRF-reported falsely in Ontario
SX-apparently extirpated from Ontario with little likelihood of rediscovery
SZ-not of practical conservation concern; no clearly definable occurrences
SZB-breeding migrants/vagrants
SZN-non-breeding migrants/vagrants
Column 8 - COSEWIC
NAR- not at risk; a wildlife species that has been evaluated and found to be not at risk of extinction given the current circumstances
THR-threatened; a wildlife species likely to become endangered if limiting factors are not reversed
END-endangered; a wildlife species facing imminent extirpation or extinction
EXT-extirpated; a species no longer existing in the wild in Canada but occurring elsewhere
SC-special concern; a wildlife species that may become a threatened or an endangered species because of a combination of biological
characteristics and identified threats
DD-data deficient; a wildlife species for which there is in adequate information to make a direct, or indirect, assessment of its risk of
extinction
Column 9 - MNR
EXT-extinct; a species that no longer exists anywhere
EXP-extirpated; a species that no longer exists in the wild in Ontario but still occurs elsewhere
END-R- endangered regulated; a species facing imminent extinction or extirpation in Ontario which has been regulated under
Ontario's endangered Species Act
END-endangered; a species facing imminent extinction or extirpation in Ontario which is a candidate for regulation under Ontario's
Endangered Species Act
THR-threatened; a species that is at risk of becoming endangered in Ontario if limiting factors are not reversed
SC-special concern; a species with characteristics that make it sensitive to human activities or natural events
NAR- not at risk; a species that has been evaluated and found to be not at risk
DD- data deficient; a species for which there is insufficient information for a provincial status recommendation
Column 10 - SARA – Species at Risk Act
Schedule 1- official list of wildlife species at risk
THR-threatened; a wildlife species likely to become endangered if limiting factors are not reversed
END-endangered; a wildlife species facing imminent extirpation or extinction
EXT-extirpated; a species no longer existing in the wild in Canada but occurring elsewhere
SC-special concern; a wildlife species that may become a threatened or an endangered species because of a combination of biological
characteristics and identified threats
Column 11 - SARO –Species at Risk in Ontario
END-Endangered; a species facing imminent extinction or extirpation in Ontario which is a candidate for regulation under Ontario's
ESA
EXP-Extirpated; a species that no longer exists in the wild in Ontario but exists elsewhere
THR-Threatened; a species that is at risk of becoming endangered in Ontario if limiting factors are not reversed
SC-Special Concern; a species with characteristics that make it sensitive to human activities or natural events
Column 12 - FWCA –Wildlife species regulated under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, P = protected, G = game
Column 13 - MBCA –Birds regulated under the Migratory Birds Convention Act
Column 14 - GRCA – Conservation Priority Species as identified by the GRCA
Column 15 - Waterloo Region – Regionally significant species as identified by the Region of Waterloo.
Column 16 – Partners in Flight BCR13 - Priority species within Great Lake/St. Lawrence Region
BCR12 - Priority species within Boreal Hardwood Transition Region
BCR8 - Priority species within Boreal Softwood Shield Region
September 2013
Project No. TA4907
1a
11
1
LEGEND
EA Study Area
Parcels
e
ndal
1b
11
2
2a
riv
Tilt D
Drive
2b
Watercourse
Cary
1c
Do
on
S
2
hC
5
12
woodlot of property 1
thickets / old field / agricultural lands
to west of 1a on property 1
hydro corridor that splits the woodland
1c
on property 1
woodlot on property 2
2a
2b
woodlot on property 3 (including sliver
3a
of woodlot in property 4)
3b
woodland at SW corner of property 4 and
4
adjacent to agricultural fields
5/6a woodlot
includes the old field to the east of
5b
woodlot 5/6, and the agricultural lands
and the meadow marsh / reed marsh /
old field on hill to west of woodlot 5/6
7/8 woodland on properties 7 and 8 and
adjacent agricultural fields
woodland strip along Dodge Creek and
9
9/10 woodland at north end of property 9
including the enclosed property 10 and
woodlot and retention pond on property 11
11
conifer plantation on property 9 and
13
1a
1b
e
ou
t
re
ek
oa
d
5b
5/6a
Pla
ins
R
3a
3b
3
6
4
riv
fer D
Stauf
e
4
Groh
10
Driv
9/10
e
9
Blai
9
7/8
r Cr
eek
Property ID Number
eD
Dodg
rive
8
7
13
Reid
llman
er Ha
Fisch
Strasburg Road
Extension
Detailed Design
ive
el Dr
Road
Project Area
Du
New
R
ndee
oad
Cam
R
eron
oad
±
0
90
180
360
Project
Date
540
Meters
720
Scale
TA4907
January, 2012
1:13,000
Figure
Prepared By:
Verified By:
KC
AHF
September 2013
Project No. TA4907
APPENDIX C POND DESCRIPTION SUMMARY TABLE
September 2013
Project No. TA4907
Description of ponds investigated within project area
Pond ID
Description/Photo
1 – Part of the
larger wetland
area, this pond is
identified as
“potential
breeding pond”
by the existing
regulated limits
of habitat
provided to the
project team by
the MNR
This pond was very shallow and comprised of a detritus bottom. In most
areas, the soils were saturated but without standing water. Areas of standing
water were searched in April and no egg masses were visually observed.
Other amphibian activity was limited to dispersing wood frog later into July.
2 – Small pond
within an open
agricultural field.
Photo taken April 21, 2010.
Leopard frogs were observed in this pond which has a grass and shrub
vegetation along the margin and some woody debris within the pond. Depth
ranged from few centimetres at the edge to approximately 60cm towards the
centre. No egg masses were observed. A minnow trap was observed past
the high water mark of this pond in the dry area.
2011 Trapping
Results
Spotted
salamander
was trapped in
this pond,
numbers
ranging from 2
to 5
individuals.
Other species
documented
during anuran
calling or
visually
observed by
LGL:
Wood frog,
spring peeper,
grey tree frog,
leopard frog
No
salamanders
were trapped in
this pond.
Other species
documented:
Wood frog,
spring peeper,
grey tree frog,
leopard frog
Pond ID
3 – Agricultural
pond
September 2013
Project No. TA4907
Description/Photo
An agricultural pond with a dense margin of willow shrubs and abundant
woody debris in the water. Green frog, leopard frog, grey treefrog and spring
peepers were documented here in 2010. Pond was dry on August 26, 2010.
This pond is drained beneath the farm lane through a CSP.
2011 Trapping
Results
No
salamanders
were trapped in
this pond.
Other species:
wood frog,
spring peeper,
leopard frog,
green frog,
grey tree frog.
4 - Thicket
This pond was approximately 25m by 40m and shallow (estimated at 40cm
in depth). Margins were comprised of shrub vegetation. No amphibians
were observed at this pond.
No
salamanders
were trapped in
this pond.
Other species:
No other
amphibians
were
documented in
this pond.
Photo taken May 21, 2010.
Pond ID
5 – Thicket
September 2013
Project No. TA4907
Description/Photo
This pond was small in size (approximately 15m by 20m) and had an
estimated water depth of 50cm. Dense algae covered the surface. Woody
debris in pond and shrubs along the margin were visually searched, no egg
masses were found. Leopard frogs were observed in this pond.
2011 Trapping
Results
No
salamanders
were trapped in
this pond.
Other species:
Leopard frogs
were visually
observed.
6 – Bed and
breakfast pond
A large, deep pond with limited vegetation around the edges. Frogs were
observed at this pond (green and leopard frog) and the landowner reports
snapping turtle, which later confirmed by LGL in April 2011. No egg
masses were observed at pond edges.
No
salamanders
were trapped in
this pond.
Other species:
Catfish,
snapping turtle,
leopard frog,
green frog.
Pond ID
7 – Marsh just
west of woodlot
September 2013
Project No. TA4907
Description/Photo
This marsh area contained a small section of open water on April 22, 2010.
On July 22, 2010, this pond was reduced to a 10 by 3m patch of shallow
open water. Leopard frog and painted turtle were documented at this site.
2011 Trapping
Results
This pond was
not trapped
based on
information
provided to the
project team by
the MNR in
February 2011.
Other species:
Painted turtle,
spring peeper,
wood frog,
grey tree frog,
green frog.
8 – Air photo
identified area for
investigation
This area was identified through air photo review as a potential pond site.
During field investigations, it was determined that the area had been cleared
or altered and no standing water was found. Overland drainage on the
southern edge of the clearing drained beneath the debris and a small area at
the surface remained wet into the summer months. No amphibians were
noted in this area. Garter snake and brown snake were documented at the
edges of the clearing and red-backed salamander was documented within the
woodlot in close proximity.
n/a
Pond ID
11 – Potential
breeding pond
identified by
MNR
12 – Potential
breeding pond
identified by the
MNR.
15- Potential
breeding pond
(identified by
LGL Limited
through ortho
photography)
September 2013
Project No. TA4907
Description/Photo
This pond was investigated on August 26, 2010. Vegetation was dense with
willow trees and meadow vegetation along the pond margins, and the pond
was covered with pond weed. The intermittent tributary that drains to the
north was dry on the day of investigation. No other amphibians were
documented in this pond, although it was not included in frog monitoring due
to its late identification to the project team in the project area. It is likely that
this pond would support amphibians such as green frog, leopard frog, grey
treefrog, American toad, spring peeper, but this was not confirmed by LGL
in 2010.
Photo taken August 26, 2010.
This pond was not documented at the time of this interim report. It was not
included in frog monitoring due to its late identification to the project team in
the project area.
n/a
2011 Trapping
Results
Not trapped as
it is outside of
the project area
limits.
Due to
information
received in
February 2011
by MNR, this
pond was
identified as no
longer in
existence.
LGL confirmed
in March 2011
that this pond
no longer
exists.
September 2013 EEx
Project No. TA4907
APPENDIX D ELC DATA USED IN EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANT
WILDLIFE HABITAT
LEGEND
29
ELC
49
50
16
14
12
15
13
47
43
41
46
36
32
1
20
17 18
31
40
21
0
30
34
7
38
33
37
24
39
42
19
45
6
35
48
22
8
4
23
27
44
26
5
28
51
25
2
Strasburg Road
Extension
3
9
10
±
0
70
140
280
11
Project
Date
420
Meters
560
Du
New
Road
ndee
Scale
TA4907
June, 2011
1:8,000
Figure
Prepared By:
Verified By:
KC
LGL_ID
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
ELC
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ELC_Code
SAM 1‐4
FOD 3‐1
CUW 1
CUP 3‐2
SWT 3‐2
MAS 3‐1
SWM 6‐1
FOD 8‐1
MAS 3‐1
HROW
HROW
HROW
HROW
HROW
HROW
OAO
HROW
SWT 3‐2
MAS 3‐1
HROW
FOD 6‐5
HROW
HROW
FOD 8‐1
MAS 3‐1
MAS 3‐1
MAS 3‐1
CUP 3‐1
CUT‐1‐5
MAM 3‐6
CUM 1‐1
MAM 3‐6
MAM 3‐6
CUM 1‐1
CUT 1‐7
SWT 3‐2
SWT 2‐2
MAM 3‐6
CUT 1‐7
SAM 1‐4
MAM 3‐6
MAM 3‐6
FOD 5‐2
FOD 5‐2
CUP 3‐1
FOD 8‐1
MAM 3‐6
CUM 1‐1
MAS 3‐1
SWD 2‐2
FOD 5‐7
CUP 3‐1
Code
SAM 1‐4
FOD 3‐1
CUW 1
CUP 3‐2
SWT 3‐2
MAS 3‐1
SWM 6‐1
FOD 8‐1
MAS 3‐1
HROW
HROW
HROW
HROW
HROW
HROW
OAO
HROW
SWT 3‐2
MAS 3‐1
HROW
FOD 6‐5
HROW
HROW
FOD 8‐1
MAS 3‐1
MAS 3‐1
MAS 3‐1
CUP 3‐1
CUT‐1‐5
MAM 3‐6
CUM 1‐1
MAM 3‐6
MAM 3‐6
CUM 1‐1
CUT 1‐7
SWT 3‐2
SWT 2‐2
MAM 3‐6
CUT 1‐7
SAM 1‐4
MAM 3‐6
MAM 3‐6
FOD 5‐2
FOD 5‐2
CUP 3‐1
FOD 8‐1
MAM 3‐6
CUM 1‐1
MAS 3‐1
SWD 2‐2
FOD5‐7
CUP 3‐1
Descriptio
Pondweed Mixed Shallow Aquatic
Dry Fresh Poplar Deciduous Forest
Black Locust Black Walnut Cultural Woodlot
White Pine Coniferous Plantation
Willow Organic Swamp Thicket
Cattail Organic Shallow Marsh
Yellow Birch Conifer Mixed Swamp
Fresh Moist Poplar Deciduous Forest
Hedgerow
Hedgerow
Hedgerow
Hedgerow
Hedgerow
Hedgerow
Open Water
Hedgerow
Hedgerow
Fresh Moist Sugar Maple‐Hardwood Forest
Hedgerow
Hedgerow
Red Pine Coniferous Plantation
Red Raspberry Cultural Thicket
Broad‐leaved Sedge Organic Meadow Marsh
Dry‐Moist Old Field Meadow
Hawthorn Buckthorn Cultural Thicket
Hawthorn Buckthorn Cultural Thicket
Pondweed Mixed Shallow Aquatic
Dry Fresh Sugar Maple‐Beech Forest
Dry Fresh Sugar Maple‐Beech Forest
Green Ash Mineral Deciduous Swamp
Dry Fresh Sugar Maple Black Cherry Deciduous
Legend
SAM 1‐4 (Pondweed Mixed Shallow Aquatic)
FOD 3‐1 (Dry Fresh Poplar Deciduous Forest)
CUP 3‐2 (White Pine Coniferous Plantation)
SWT 3‐2 (Willow Organic Swamp Thicket)
MAS 3‐1 (Cattail Organic Shallow Marsh )
SWM 6‐1 (Yellow Birch Conifer Mixed Swamp)
FOD 8‐1 (Fresh Moist Poplar Deciduous Forest)
HROW (Hedgerow)
HROW (Hedgerow)
HROW (Hedgerow)
HROW (Hedgerow)
HROW (Hedgerow)
HROW (Hedgerow)
OAO (Open Water)
HROW (Hedgerow)
HROW (Hedgerow)
FOD 6‐5 (Fresh Moist Sugar Maple‐Hardwood Forest)
HROW (Hedgerow)
HROW (Hedgerow)
CUP 3‐1 (Red Pine Coniferous Plantation)
CUT‐1‐5 (Red Raspberry Cultural Thicket)
MAM 3‐6 (Broad‐leaved Sedge Organic Meadow Marsh)
CUM 1‐1 (Dry‐Moist Old Field Meadow)
CUT 1‐7 (Hawthorn Buckthorn Cultural Thicket)
CUT 1‐7 (Hawthorn Buckthorn Cultural Thicket)
SAM 1‐4 (Pondweed Mixed Shallow Aquatic)
FOD 5‐2 (Dry Fresh Sugar Maple‐Beech Forest)
FOD 5‐2 (Dry Fresh Sugar Maple‐Beech Forest)
SWD 2‐2 (Green Ash Mineral Deciduous Swamp)
FOD 5‐7 (Dry Fresh Sugar Maple Black Cherry Deciduous)
Perimeter
Area
Acres
Hectares
103.14503867900
608.48455006600 0.15035980686 0.06084845501
539.81880157900
6600.12439495000 1.63092625635 0.66001243950
358.14294138900
3815.13741468000 0.94274098621 0.38151374147
304.10785678100
4533.97818357000 1.12037040862 0.45339781836
386.77540394700
6798.28653556000 1.67989318769 0.67982865356
279.75181403600
4062.53875503000 1.00387518879 0.40625387550
1128.22050041000 20981.14105130000 5.18455286311 2.09811410513
779.72356352000
7846.07297126000 1.93880685458 0.78460729713
147.54630405200
1205.50030420000 0.29788561253 0.12055003042
729.11745719900
3889.05638990000 0.96100676277 0.38890563899
1288.24085085000
5740.32511422000 1.41846522709 0.57403251142
871.69713156200
7515.01004507000 1.85699942392 0.75150100451
543.79704259800
2094.01280186000 0.51744183220 0.20940128019
569.91035878300
4299.24519166000 1.06236662311 0.42992451917
802.10600745700
5059.63018032000 1.25026184579 0.50596301803
309.12931717300
4862.11888510000 1.20145574184 0.48621188851
514.96308259400
2544.06341828000 0.62865176145 0.25440634183
351.65603670200
1582.38286685000 0.39101532194 0.15823828669
125.27965135100
545.77918108800 0.13486497274 0.05457791811
168.61493809200
431.77920985200 0.10669496636 0.04317792099
611.80397496000
8831.79801776000 2.18238481822 0.88317980178
666.08140713100
1110.87889196000 0.27450415236 0.11108788920
274.74558903200
1816.74853885000 0.44892834072 0.18167485389
263.45649344100
1579.55206910000 0.39031581658 0.15795520691
305.60725430900
2446.56742400000 0.60455997659 0.24465674240
87.40443073480
515.50317430300 0.12738360853 0.05155031743
114.74990967200
637.67409362300 0.15757270016 0.06376740936
240.48817922700
1813.68872041000 0.44817224312 0.18136887204
565.37439434200 21485.87517940000 5.30927538235 2.14858751794
418.41133497200
8731.88463650000 2.15769568403 0.87318846365
532.92927813900
5170.36910612000 1.27762603029 0.51703691061
153.29122335100
876.62786201000 0.21661946225 0.08766278620
75.61711533100
272.12490156200 0.06724352761 0.02721249016
112.72288018300
745.36698150000 0.18418419230 0.07453669815
285.41412207000
2067.04430126000 0.51077777057 0.20670443013
1212.04848902000 11117.82948380000 2.74727549569 1.11178294838
794.01378498400
3541.04966906000 0.87501242927 0.35410496691
117.89697087900
650.33340366900 0.16070088379 0.06503334037
610.39449053100
7032.45393509000 1.73775721228 0.70324539351
50.63030487380
172.65091818700 0.04266297100 0.01726509182
55.96069905550
225.59015016200 0.05574454011 0.02255901502
71.22242793790
240.24597435100 0.05936607314 0.02402459744
3372.24869947000 117200.87221700000 28.96096623740 11.72008722170
0.85220212805
0.02054642274 0.00000507713 0.00000205464
414.55976247600
6966.08689638000 1.72135755986 0.69660868964
1455.28341435000
9744.38837869000 2.40789080748 0.97443883787
421.49232625000
5567.45817909000 1.37574887715 0.55674581791
895.29129090900
2997.68324114000 0.74074366082 0.29976832411
83.86011037590
379.01413147100 0.09365643154 0.03790141315
82.81334408710
418.01712313200 0.10329428067 0.04180171231
513.82685120800
9432.54540128000 2.33083272959 0.94325454013
309.39295545300
1622.99481006000 0.40105075166 0.16229948101
Hydrogeology
331650-4E-Rev 1
October 2013
Part A
Hydrogeology Report
Prepared for
Grand River Conservation Authority
on behalf of the City of Kitchener
January 2012
Part A
Hydrogeology Report
Report to
City of Kitchener
January 2012
331650
SNC♦LAVALIN Inc.
CITY OF KITCHENER
(Part A) Hydrogeology Report
331650-0000-4EGE-0001
Revision
No.
Date
Page
00
2012-01-25
2 of 24
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................... 4
2.0
REGIONAL TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY ............................ 6
2.1
Topography ........................................................................................................................ 6
2.2
Geology .............................................................................................................................. 6
2.3
Hydrogeology and Regional Aquifers .............................................................................. 7
3.0
LOCAL TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY .................................... 9
3.1
Local Topography .............................................................................................................. 9
3.2
Local Geology .................................................................................................................... 9
3.3
Local Hydrogeology ........................................................................................................ 11
3.3.1
Previous Studies ............................................................................................... 11
3.3.2
Surface Water – Groundwater Interactions .................................................... 12
4.0
SOURCE WATER PROTECTION AND EXISTING GROUNDWATER USAGE ....... 14
4.1
Source Water Protection.................................................................................................. 14
4.1.1
Well Head Protection Areas ............................................................................ 14
4.1.2
Regional Recharge Areas ................................................................................ 15
4.2
Existing Groundwater Usage .......................................................................................... 15
4.3
Key Natural Environmental Features ............................................................................. 16
5.0
POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ............................................ 19
5.1
Evaluation of Potential Impact........................................................................................ 19
5.2
Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................ 20
5.2.1
Measures During Road Design ....................................................................... 20
5.2.2
Measures During Road Construction .............................................................. 21
5.2.3
Measures During Road Operation and Maintenance ..................................... 21
6.0
MONITORING ...................................................................................................................... 22
6.1
Baseline Monitoring ........................................................................................................ 22
6.2
Construction Period Monitoring ..................................................................................... 22
6.3
Post-Development Monitoring........................................................................................ 23
6.4
Alternative to Monitoring................................................................................................ 23
7.0
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 24
I:\331650\40-ENG\4E-ENV\GE-Site Investigation Reports\Hydrogeology\Part A\331650-0000-4EGE-0001 Part A .docx
CITY OF KITCHENER
331650-0000-4EGE-0001
Revision
No.
Date
Page
00
2012-01-25
3 of 24
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 2.1: Aquifers Within the Grand River Watershed .................................................................... 7
Table 4.1: Key Natural Environment Features in the Doon South Community Setting ................ 17
LIST OF FIGURES
Follows Page / Page
Figure 1.1
Strasburg Road Extension (Limits of Part A and Part B) ................................... 4
Figure 2.1
Figure 2.2
Figure 2.3
Surface Topography .............................................................................................. 6
Sediment Thickness ............................................................................................... 6
Conceptual Model of the Waterloo Moraine ....................................................... 8
Figure 3.1
Figure 3.2
Figure 3.3
Figure 3.4
Figure 3.5
Surface Topography and Drainage ....................................................................... 9
Surficial Geology................................................................................................... 9
Borehole Locations and Cross-section ................................................................. 9
MOE Well Locations .......................................................................................... 11
Groundwater Contours – Shallow Overburden Soils ........................................ 11
Figure 4.1
Figure 4.2
Figure 4.3
Municipal Supply Wells...................................................................................... 15
Regional Recharge Areas .................................................................................... 15
Natural Environmental Areas ............................................................................. 16
CITY OF KITCHENER
331650-0000-4EGE-0001
1.0
Revision
No.
Date
Page
00
2012-01-25
4 of 24
INTRODUCTION
SNC-Lavalin Inc. has been retained by the City of Kitchener to undertake studies related to the
Extension of Strasburg Road from Rush Meadow Street to New Dundee Road. In support of the
undertaking, a hydrogeological study is required to describe groundwater conditions within the
area. The scope of the work includes the following two parts:
Part A:
Schedule “C” Municipal Class Environmental Assessment for Strasburg Road
from 500 m north of Stauffer Drive to New Dundee Road; and
Part B:
Detail Design and Contract Administration for Strasburg Road from Rush
Meadow Street to Robert Ferrie Drive.
Figure 1.1, extracted from the City’s Official Plan, illustrates the conceptual Strasburg Road
alignment and the limits of the EA Study and Detail Design assignments. Strasburg Road was
designated as a four/five lane “Secondary Arterial Road” through the study area, with a proposed
right-of-way of 26 m wide. One creek crossing is included in Part A of the design.
Detailed Design
(Part -B)
Strasburg Road
EA Study-Schedule ‘C’
(Part -A)
Figure 1.1 : Strasburg Road Extension (Limits of Part A and Part B)
CITY OF KITCHENER
331650-0000-4EGE-0001
Revision
No.
Date
Page
00
2012-01-25
5 of 24
The purpose of this study is to complete a hydrogeological investigation, to support the “Class
EA” study under Schedule “C” for Strasburg Road from approximately 500 m north of Stauffer
Drive to New Dundee Road (Part A). The main tasks include:
•
Understand the baseline hydrogeological conditions of the study area through
reviewing existing literature and prior geotechnical investigations conducted in
the area;
•
Evaluate the road alignment alternatives from a hydrogeological perspective;
•
Evaluate dewatering requirements and prepare PTTW application documents if
necessary;
•
Evaluate the potential impact of the undertakings on the groundwater systems and
the wells within 500 m from the boundaries of the proposed project area;
•
Recommend mitigation measures to minimize the potential impacts; and,
•
Design a monitoring program to provide basis for assessing impacts to
groundwater resources during construction and in the post-construction period.
Much of the information provided within this report has been distilled from larger area studies,
including the Blair, Bechtel and Bauman Creeks Subwatershed Plan (CH2M Gore & Storrie et
al., 1997), hereafter referred to as the BBB Study, the Integrated Water Budget Report
(AquaResource Inc., 2008) referred to as the IWBR, the Upper Blair Creek (Kitchener)
Functional Drainage Study (Stantec, 2009), hereafter referred to as the UBC study, and the
updated Waterloo Region Official Plan (2009).
It is our understanding that the geotechnical/hydrogeological fieldwork and analysis for the UBC
study was provided to Stantec by Naylor Engineering Associates Ltd. (NEAL). An updated
geotechnical study supporting the detailed design of the northern portion of the road extension
was completed in 2010 by Chung & Vander Doelen Engineering Ltd. (CVD).
CITY OF KITCHENER
331650-0000-4EGE-0001
2.0
Revision
No.
Date
Page
00
2012-01-25
6 of 24
REGIONAL TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY
The study area is located near the edge of the Waterloo Moraine Complex. The Waterloo
Moraine has been the subject of a considerable number of studies that have provided the basic
background information for this study as documented in the preceding section.
2.1
Topography
Figure 2.1 (Region of Waterloo, 2010) presents the surface topography map for the Waterloo
Moraine. The topography across the study area is best described as “rolling” with intermittent
creeks (tributaries of Strasburg Creek in Part B, and Upper Blair Creek in Part A) and swampy
areas.
The three most important physical attributes that influence recharge on the Waterloo Moraine
(Region of Waterloo, 2010) are:
1)
2)
3)
Topographic relief;
Permeability and configuration of the underlying geologic materials; and,
The presence/absence of hummocky topography (i.e., closed depressions).
While influencing recharge, these three physical attributes also define the “core” or backbone of
the Waterloo Moraine, which trends in a southeast-northwest direction, beginning roughly in the
southeast corner of Wellesley Township and ending in the northwest corner North Dumfries.
The core area contains the greatest thickness of stratified moraine sediments – nearly 150 m
thick in some locations, which represents a significant relief against the surrounding landscape.
2.2
Geology
The Waterloo Moraine is a large geologic feature that covers much of the Cities of Kitchener and
Waterloo, the Township of Wilmot and parts of the Townships of Wellesley and North
Dumfries. The central area of the Waterloo Moraine consists of significant thicknesses of sand
and gravel that are exposed at ground surface and provide significant recharge to the
groundwater systems (Region of Waterloo, 2010). Figure 2.2 presents the sediment thickness
map for the Waterloo Moraine.
According to the report by Stantec Consulting Ltd. (2009), beneath the overburden soils lies
sedimentary bedrock of the Salina and Guelph Formations. The Salina Formation is composed
of deposits of shale and dolostone with evaporitic deposits of salt, anhydrite, and gypsum, while
the Guelph Formation is typically a massive fine to medium crystalline dolostone. The bedrock
has a gentle regional slope to the southwest, towards the Michigan Basin, which is a broad,
saucer-shaped depression that accumulated a vast thickness of marine sediments throughout most
CITY OF KITCHENER
331650-0000-4EGE-0001
Revision
No.
Date
Page
00
2012-01-25
7 of 24
of the Paleozoic Era. The inferred contact between the younger Salina Formation (to the west)
and the older Guelph Formation (to the east) is located beneath the Kitchener-Waterloo area. As
such, the Salina rocks may or may not underlie the site. If present, they would form a thin
veneer over the Guelph Formation rocks.
2.3
Hydrogeology and Regional Aquifers
The project area is located in the central part of the Grand River Watershed, where groundwater
represents an important water supply source. More than 80% of the water supply within the
Grand River Watershed is extracted from groundwater, including both rural domestic users and
many of the municipalities within the watershed. The municipalities of Kitchener, Waterloo,
Cambridge, and Guelph (in the centre of the watershed) represent the largest municipal
groundwater users in the province.
The Integrated Water Budget Report (AquaResource Inc., 2008) provides a summary of many of
the key aquifers relied upon for water supply within the Grand River Watershed (Table 2.1).
Table 2.1 : Aquifers Within the Grand River Watershed
Name
Overburden Aquifers within the
Regional Municipality of Waterloo
Bedrock Aquifers within the Regional
Municipality of Waterloo
Guelph Bedrock Aquifers
The Guelph and Amabel Formations
The St. George Aquifer
Description
The Waterloo Moraine within the Region of Waterloo provides
a source of numerous overburden aquifers supporting a large
number of high capacity wells. Due to the complexity of the
Moraine, the lateral and vertical continuity of these deposits
remains a complex issue. From a regional point of view,
however, groundwater flow is characterized by having high
recharge rates throughout the Waterloo Moraine, with
groundwater discharging to the Grand and Nith Rivers.
The bedrock units in Cambridge provide an excellent water
supply. The Guelph and Amabel Formations primarily act as
one unit within the Cambridge area – the Eramosa member is not
found to be an aquitard throughout most of Cambridge.
Most of Guelph’s water comes from a permeable zone within the
Amabel Formation, which is locally referred to as the
“Production Zone”. The Eramosa member of the Amabel
Formation acts as a low permeability aquitard for the Guelph
water supply; however, the extensiveness of the Eramosa member
is not certain.
In general, the Guelph and Amabel Formations provide an
ample water supply for rural residents and many smaller towns
throughout their subcrop region (Fergus, Elora, Arthur, etc.)
The Galt Moraine yields two local aquifers to the north of St.
George; a deep aquifer consisting of 3.0 to 5.0 m thick gravel
deposits, and a shallow aquifer of sand and gravel.
CITY OF KITCHENER
331650-0000-4EGE-0001
Name
The Norfolk Sand Plain Aquifer
Orangeville Moraine Aquifer
Revision
No.
Date
Page
00
2012-01-25
8 of 24
Description
The Norfolk Sand Plain, extends between Brantford, Boston and
Cathcart. This area is covered by sand and gravel of ice-contact
and outwash origins and by some Port Stanley till.
While municipal wells do not directly tap the Orangeville
Moraine, it does provide a major recharge source for the bedrock
wells located within the town of Orangeville, just outside of the
watershed.
The Waterloo Moraine within the Region of Waterloo provides a source of numerous overburden
aquifers supporting a large number of high capacity wells (AquaResource Inc., 2008). Due to
the complexity of the Moraine, the lateral and vertical continuity of these deposits remains a
complex issue. From a regional point of view, however, groundwater flow is characterized by
having high recharge rates throughout the Waterloo Moraine, with groundwater discharging to
the Grand and Nith Rivers.
Figure 2.3 (Region of Waterloo, 2010) presents the conceptual model of the aquifers and
aquitards within the Waterloo Moraine. Many of the Region’s wells are located in the uppermost
regional aquifer (Aquifer 1) which is recharged directly at ground surface in the high-lying areas
of the Waterloo Moraine. However, several important well fields are located in deeper aquifers
(i.e., Aquifers 2 and 3) on the flanks of the Waterloo Moraine, which are hydraulically connected
to Aquifer 1 – either locally or regionally – through “windows” in the overlying impermeable
geologic materials. In order for a significant quantity of precipitation to recharge the regional
aquifers, a good hydraulic connection between the ground surface and Aquifer 1 must exist.
Appreciable thicknesses of less permeable materials at or near the surface over large areas will
impede the downward movement of water into the aquifers. On the Waterloo Moraine, the
Regional Recharge Area is mostly associated with the high-lying areas where ice-contact sands
and gravels associated with Aquifer 1 are present at or near the ground surface, and where local
depressions trap rainwater and snowmelt until it infiltrates into the ground.
Significant aquifers in the City of Kitchener include the overburden aquifers within the Waterloo
Moraine and the bedrock aquifer of the Guelph Formation.
CITY OF KITCHENER
331650-0000-4EGE-0001
3.0
Revision
No.
Date
Page
00
2012-01-25
9 of 24
LOCAL TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY
Hydrogeological investigations have previously been conducted in the vicinity of the study area
(Terra Investigations Limited, 1990 and the NEAL work as cited in the UBC report). In 2010,
SNC-Lavalin Inc. retained Chung & Vander Doelen Engineering Ltd. (CVD) to perform a
geotechnical investigation along a portion of the proposed Strasburg Road Extension to support
detailed design for Part B of the Strasburg Road Extension. This section summarizes the main
findings from previous work, including any relevant portion of the CVD report.
3.1
Local Topography
Figure 3.1 (Region of Waterloo, 2010) presents the surface topography and locations of the
creeks in the southwest portion of Kitchener. The conceptual alignment of the Strasburg Road
Extension is also shown in this figure. The majority of the study area is characterized by a
moderately to strongly varied topography that generally slopes to the east. Two valleys occur in
the central portion of the combined study area (i.e., Part A and Part B) and are oriented in a west
to east direction (Stantec Consulting Ltd., 1999).
3.2
Local Geology
The Quaternary Geology map of the Cambridge Area (Karrow, 1987) identifies soils in the
general study area as composed mainly of sands of an ice contact origin, as well as some Port
Stanley sandy silt till, isolated pockets of ice-contact gravel, and stream deposits of mixed
lithology. However, investigation of the subsurface stratigraphy of the study area through
borehole drilling by NEAL (as described in the following paragraphs) has revealed a more
heterogeneous assemblage of soil types than the Quaternary Geology mapping suggests.
Figure 3.2 (Region of Waterloo, 2010) shows the surficial geology and the location of surface
water catchments west of Reidel Drive. The surface soils in the study area mainly consist of
sand of an ice contact origin, with isolated pockets of ice-contact gravel. A relatively large patch
of gravel is present in the north portion of Part A. A large lobe of Port Stanley Till is present to
the west of the study area. Water Well Records (WWR) from the Ontario Ministry of the
Environment (MOE) indicate that overburden soils in the study area are composed of quaternary
deposits approximately 50 to 60 m in depth (Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2009).
The general subsurface geology of the study area is interpreted to consist of interlayered deposits
of ice contact sands and gravels, and lacustrine silts. This interlayering is apparent in the
majority of borehole logs from across the study area. Figure 3.3 (as amended from Stantec
Consulting Ltd., 2009) shows some of the borehole and test pit locations in the vicinity of the
study area. The cross section indicates that, in addition to sandy deposits, there are significant
layers of silt, silt and sand, and silt till encountered at or near the ground surface in the study
CITY OF KITCHENER
331650-0000-4EGE-0001
Revision
No.
Date
Page
00
2012-01-25
10 of 24
area. The cross sections show that while thick sand sequences exist, they are often overlain by or
interlayered with silt and/or silt till layers.
Beneath the overburden soils lies sedimentary bedrock of the Salina and Guelph Formations. The
Salina Formation is composed of deposits of shale and dolostone while the Guelph Formation is
typically a massive fine to medium crystalline dolostone. Bedrock has a gentle Regional slope to
the southwest.
The stratigraphy encountered in the different portions within and in the vicinity of the study area
is taken from the UBC report and summarized as follows:
•
In the northwestern portion of the study area (northwest of Reidel Drive and Stauffer
Drive) test pits typically encountered subsurface deposits of sand or silt, with occasional
occurrences of silt till and sand and gravel. Two boreholes which have been drilled in the
area show that they encountered approximately 3.5 to 6 m of sand deposits overlying
silt/silt till up to approximately 5 m or more in thickness.
•
In the southwestern portion of the study area (west of Reidel Drive) test pits encountered
a variety of soils types, with silty deposits being more common close to New Dundee
Road, and sand/silt and sand deposits being more common distal to New Dundee Road.
Again, two boreholes which have been drilled in this area encountered thick sand and
gravel deposits over silt till (distal to New Dundee Road).
•
In the east portion of the study area (between Reidel Drive and Groh Drive) test pits
typically encountered subsurface deposits of silt, with some isolated pockets of sandy
soil. Borehole logs from the central portion encountered interlayered sands, silts, and
tills. The geology is generally dominated by silty soils, with pockets of predominantly
sandy material.
•
Further east to the study area (north of Dodge Drive and east of Groh Drive), boreholes
and test pits encountered sandy deposits proximal to Dodge Drive, grading to sandy soils
over silts to the north (distal to Dodge Drive).
•
In the further northeastern portion of the study area (north-east of Groh Drive and
further north of Dodge Drive) boreholes typically encountered thick sand sequences,
occasionally interlayered with silts and tills.
•
In the far eastern portion of the study area (east of Dodge Drive), test pits generally
encountered sandy soils with occasional occurrences of silt and silt till. Boreholes in the
CITY OF KITCHENER
331650-0000-4EGE-0001
Revision
No.
Date
Page
00
2012-01-25
11 of 24
far-eastern portion of the area encountered thick sequences of sand and/or silt, with
occasional till deposits. Silty units were typically encountered in proximity to Dodge
Drive, grading to interlayered sands and silts, and then to sands in further north direction
(distal to Dodge Drive).
CVD conducted geotechnical and hydrogeological investigations in 2010 along Part B of the
proposed Strasburg Road Extension. The results indicated that in the southern portion of Part B
(the northern portion of this study area, the surficial material encountered was peat.
3.3
Local Hydrogeology
3.3.1
Previous Studies
As described in the BBB report (CH2M Gore & Storrie et al., 1997), groundwater in the area
occurs in two overburden deposits of sand and gravel, which are separated by a low permeability
confining till layer. The shallow and deep overburden aquifers provide water for residential and
municipal wells, in addition to contributing flow to Blair Creek, Roseville Swamp, and the
Grand River.
Well Records from the MOE’s Water Well Record (WWR) Database were plotted for the study
area to determine the number of residential wells drawing water from the shallow and deep
overburden aquifers, as well as the bedrock aquifer. As shown on Figure 3.4, almost two
hundred private wells are located in the general vicinity of the study area. According to the
MOE WWR Database, among the nearly two hundred wells, seventy-five (75) wells were
screened in the upper aquifer overburden sands and gravels (based on the Blair, Bechtel and
Bauman Creeks Subwatershed Plan Report’s isopach map indicating the thickness of the upper
sand and gravel unit as less than 20 m in the general study area), and eighty-nine (89) wells were
screened in the lower aquifer overburden unit. Additionally, eighteen (18) wells were identified
as being screened in bedrock.
The shallow groundwater contour data shown on Figure 3.5 is compiled from a number of
studies completed over the last ten years, and includes two wells from the Blair, Bechtel and
Bauman Creeks Subwatershed Plan study with water level measurements from 1994. Although
the water level measurements were collected on different dates and during different seasons, the
contouring clearly identifies flow in a southeasterly direction, and towards Blair Creek.
Figure 3.3 shows a cross section along one orientation through and in the vicinity of the study
area with borehole logs and water levels from various engineering reports by Naylor Engineering
Associates Ltd. The shallow water table can be seen generally following the ground surface
topography, flowing to the southeast and sloping towards Blair Creek from the south and north.
CITY OF KITCHENER
331650-0000-4EGE-0001
Revision
No.
Date
Page
00
2012-01-25
12 of 24
The shallow groundwater table generally occurs at a depth of less than 7 m below ground surface
across the study area. Topographic influences such as kettle depressions, hummocky topography,
and the Blair Creek valley all cause variation in the depth at which groundwater is encountered.
The hydraulic conductivity of the various subsurface soil types encountered across the Study
Area varies widely. Typically conductivity ranges are 10-6 to 10-4 m/sec for sandy and silty sand
soils, 10-7 to 10-5 m/sec for silty and sandy silt soils, and 10-8 m/sec for clayey fine grained till
soils, which were only sporadically indicated in the majority of the investigated area.
The BBB study had concluded that while Blair Creek originates in the ice-contact sands and
gravels of the Waterloo Moraine, it is primarily an intermittent and losing stream fed by surface
water runoff. However, consistent with the water table contours developed in 2009 and indicated
in Figure 3.3, the UBC report noted that measurements of surface water and groundwater
elevations in and beside the creek indicate that at some times during the year, groundwater
discharge to Blair Creek does occur even west of Reidel Drive, supporting wetlands and marshes
in the area. The intermittent nature of the headwaters area has been confirmed via site
inspections and ecological investigations as part of the EIS study.
3.3.2
Surface Water – Groundwater Interactions
As noted in the preceding section, topographic influences cause variation in the depth at which
groundwater is encountered. The soils stratigraphy also plays a significant role, as thick
sequences of permeable soils allow water to infiltrate deeper into the ground, while low
permeability silts and tills can act as aquitards and cause infiltrated water to deflect laterally
instead of continuing to percolate through the ground. Infiltrating precipitation percolates down
through surficial materials into the shallow groundwater aquifer, where it contributes flow to a
number of hydrological features. A portion of shallow groundwater discharges to Blair Creek
when the elevation of the water table coincides with the elevation of the creek bed.
The other area of localized interaction is the dug pond at 500 Stauffer Drive. The pond likely
serves as an alternating recharge/discharge zone, in reaction to seasonal variations in the local
water table, and as a result of precipitation accumulation in the pond. To SLE’s knowledge, the
pond has not been identified as an ANSI or part of an ANSI by MNR, nor is it part of an ESPA
designated by the municipal governments. The pond has been noted as being likely
hydraulically connected to the upper, shallow overburden aquifers. It is also likely that it is
therefore also connected to the shallow groundwater supply well which we believe services the
residential buildings. As the pond is constructed, and not likely to be included in any wetland or
sensitive property complexing, sensitivities and vulnerabilities considered are specifically related
only to potential impacts to it and/or the residential water well due to the construction and/or
operation of the proposed road extension.
CITY OF KITCHENER
331650-0000-4EGE-0001
Revision
No.
Date
Page
00
2012-01-25
13 of 24
As indicated in the cross section (Figure 3.3), monitoring locations with multiple well screens
typically exhibit a downwards hydraulic gradient. Therefore, a portion of shallow groundwater
percolates through the stratigraphic sequence to the deeper overburden aquifer, providing
recharge to the more regional deep aquifer. Discontinuities or thinning of the till sequence that
acts as an aquitard between the shallow and deep overburden aquifers may allow higher volumes
of shallow groundwater to infiltrate deeper into the stratigraphic column in discrete areas.
Groundwater discharge also supports wetlands and marshes in the area. Ultimately, the
overburden aquifers discharge water to the Grand River southeast of the study area.
CITY OF KITCHENER
331650-0000-4EGE-0001
4.0
Revision
No.
Date
Page
00
2012-01-25
14 of 24
SOURCE WATER PROTECTION AND EXISTING GROUNDWATER USAGE
The Waterloo Regional Official Plan (2009) provides guidelines on source water protection.
This chapter summarizes those parts that directly relate to the proposed Strasburg Road
Extension project. In addition, the existing groundwater usage around the proposed Strasburg
Road Extension is described.
4.1
Source Water Protection
The Waterloo Regional Official Plan (2009) designates Source Water Protection Areas to protect
the current and future municipal drinking-water supply system. The Source Water Protection
Areas include:
•
•
•
•
Well Head Protection Areas;
Wells that obtain their water from Groundwater Under the Direct Influence of surface
water (GUDI) wells;
Surface Water Intake Protection Zones; and
Regional Recharge Areas.
Surface Water Intake Protection Zones and GUDI wells do not exist in the vicinity of the project
area, and therefore are not described here.
4.1.1
Well Head Protection Areas
The Waterloo Region Official Plan (2009) designates Wellhead Protection Areas around each
municipal drinking-water supply well. Wellhead Protection Areas are the total area of land that
contribute water to a municipal drinking-water supply well. Within each Wellhead Protection
Area, one or more Wellhead Protection Sensitivity Areas (WPSA) may be delineated. The
purpose of these designations is to prevent land uses involving hazardous chemicals and/or
substances, disease causing organisms and land uses that increase the vulnerability of
groundwater from becoming water quantity and/or quality risks to municipal drinking-water
supply wells.
WPSA are classified from 1 to 8, with 1 representing the highest sensitivity area within a 100 m
radius of each municipal drinking-water supply well, and 8 indicating the lowest sensitivity area
outside of the ten-year time of travel to the limit of the total land area contributing water to a
municipal drinking-water supply well. This classification accounts for varying degrees of
management relative to the vulnerability of the underlying groundwater to contamination, the
importance of the well to the capacity of the municipal drinking-water supply systems, as well as
the length of time groundwater within the WPSA will take to reach the municipal drinking-water
supply well.
CITY OF KITCHENER
331650-0000-4EGE-0001
Revision
No.
Date
Page
00
2012-01-25
15 of 24
The closest municipal supply wells to the study area include the Region’s Strasburg production
wells K34 and K36 to the north. Wellhead Protection Sensitivity Area (WPSA) 4, for the
Strasburg production wells is located the nearest to Part A of the project area, as shown in
Figure 4.1 (Region of Waterloo, 2009) and is explained as follows:
•
4.1.2
WPSA 4 - delineates medium sensitivity areas found within the two-year time of
travel to a municipal drinking-water supply well.
Regional Recharge Areas
The Waterloo Moraine is a large geologic feature that covers much of Cities of Kitchener and
Waterloo, the Township of Wilmot and parts of the Townships of Wellesley and North
Dumfries. The central area of the Waterloo Moraine consists of significant thicknesses of sand
and gravel that are exposed at ground surface and provide significant recharge to the
groundwater systems.
Proposed designated Regional Recharge Areas (RRA) are shown on Figure 4.2 (Region of
Waterloo, 2010). Regional Recharge Areas play a crucial role in providing clean water to the
Region’s municipal drinking-water supply system. This designation identifies portions of the
Waterloo Moraine where considerable deposits of sand and gravel allow for the natural
infiltration of large quantities of rainfall, snowmelt, and in some cases, seepage from creeks and
streams into a series of deep and shallow aquifers. The deep aquifers are a significant source of
the Region’s existing and future municipal drinking-water supply, and the protection of these
aquifers is vital to the Region’s health and economic prosperity.
The lands west of Reidel Drive, located in the southwest corner of the City of Kitchener, have
been identified in the BBB Plan and in Report PC-97-008/E-97-009 as Regional Recharge Areas.
Additional hydrogeologic work in support of the current UBC Functional Drainage Study
confirmed the presence of higher recharge rates on the west side of Reidel Drive.
Although the Region has no immediate plans to develop additional groundwater supplies in this
area, it remains a target area for future water supply with respect to the Long Term Water
Strategy, and therefore the groundwater resources in the subwatershed should be protected
accordingly.
4.2
Existing Groundwater Usage
Groundwater within and in the vicinity of the study area consists of a small number of private
well supplies installed primarily within the overburden aquifers. The closest municipal supply
wells include the Region’s Strasburg production wells K34 and K36 to the north as shown on
Figure 4.1.
CITY OF KITCHENER
331650-0000-4EGE-0001
Revision
No.
Date
Page
00
2012-01-25
16 of 24
Of particular interest is the shallow water supply well located at 500 Stauffer Drive. SLI
understands that it is likely hydraulically connected with the existing farm pond on the property
at 500 Stauffer Drive. The pond is classified as a dug pond that is spring-fed.
Due to the potential limited impacts from road salt spray to the pond and the proximity of the
water supply well to the road, combined with the shallow depth of the well and potential
interaction between the well and the pond, it is recommended that additional efforts be taken to
assess whether water quality/quantity is impaired in the future due to construction or operation of
the road.
4.3
Key Natural Environmental Features
The proposed Strasburg Road Extension (Part A) is located in an area which is dominated by
active agricultural fields and natural features with a small amount of rural residential
development.
Thirteen (13) focal natural environment areas in the Doon South Community have been
identified by Ecoplans Limited (2008) and are shown on Figure 4.3. Of the 13 natural
environmental, the following 6 areas are generally located in the more immediate vicinity of the
study area:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Area 4
Area 5
Area 6
Area 7
Area 10
Area 11
Table 4.1 provides a detailed review of the key attributes of these 6 natural areas in terms of
aquatics, hydrogeology and groundwater surface water connectivity/linkages.
AREA 7
AREA 11
Caryndale
Woodlot
AREA 6
AREA 6
AREA 4
Stauffer Woods
ESPA #33
AREA 5
AREA 10
CITY OF KITCHENER
331650-0000-4EGE-0001
Revision
No.
Date
Page
00
2012-01-25
17 of 24
Table 4.1 Key Natural Environment Features in the Doon South Community Setting
Area
4. Stauffer Woods
Designations/
Regulations
• PSW (partial)
• ESPA # 33
• GRCA
Regulated Area
5. Agricultural
Fields
adjacent to Stauffer
Woods
• PSW along
Narrow
watercourse
channels
• GRCA
Regulated Area
(in part)
6. Upper Blair
Creek Headwaters
Area
(upstream of Reidel
Drive)
• PSW (partial)
• GRCA
Regulated Area
Key Attributes
• Overview. Large, predominantly treed natural area
(swamp/deciduous forest/plantation) with high biodiversity, and
numerous significant attributes.
• Aquatics. Contains several defined (coldwater) channels that
convey groundwater discharge through swamp, ultimately
discharging to Upper Blair Creek; no fish habitat (intermittent flow,
small size, barriers to movement). These channels contribute
groundwater to Upper Blair Creek.
• Hydrogeology. Predominantly within the Blair Creek watershed;
small area drains northeast to Doon South Creek. Substantial
groundwater discharge evident on north slopes of ESPA 33 (within
the PSW) immediately south of western agricultural field. Contains
three tributaries (with varying degrees of channel definition /
permanence of flow) that convey seasonal surface flows and
groundwater discharge to Blair Creek.
• Connectivity / linkages. Some existing connectivity with Blair
Creek valley via intermittent watercourses. Connectivity with
Caryndale woodlot to north (close proximity). Some connectivity
with ESPA 34 to the east along narrow roadside hedgerows (minor
link for wildlife).
• Overview. Active agricultural lands in three areas: between ESPA
33 and Blair Creek; and two enclosed fields at the north end of ESPA
33 adjacent to Stauffer Drive.
• Hydrogeology. Small surface water catchments to Pond 7 and Pond
8 in the northeast corner of ESPA 33. Three tributaries from ESPA
33 convey seasonal and groundwater flows to Blair Creek.
Substantial groundwater contribution to PSW wetland in ESPA 33,
including maintenance of coldwater tributaries to Blair Creek.
Notable area of groundwater seepage on north slopes of ESPA 33
immediately south of ‘west’ agricultural field.
Caryndale woodlot to north (close proximity). Some connectivity
with ESPA 34 to the east along narrow roadside hedgerows (minor
link for urban-adapted wildlife).
• Groundwater recharge/discharge mixing zone.
Caryndale woodlot to north (close proximity).
CITY OF KITCHENER
331650-0000-4EGE-0001
Area
7. Agricultural
Field
Between Blair
Creek and
Strasburg Creek
watersheds
9. Woodlot
southwest of Upper
Blair Creek
Headwaters
10. New Dundee
/ Reidel Wetland
11. Caryndale
Woodlot
Designations/
Regulations
• PSW (former
pond area)
Revision
No.
Date
Page
00
2012-01-25
18 of 24
Key Attributes
• Currently agricultural field with ponding and some intermittent
drainage.
• Protection and enhancement measures to be developed in
association with any future development application.
• PSW
• GRCA
Regulated Area
• GRCA
Regulated Area
(small portion in
SE corner)
• Overview. Small isolated PSW wetland / woodland feature
northeast of Reidel Drive / New Dundee Road intersection.
Predominantly treed swamp, with small open water / marsh feature,
narrow woodland fringe and
associated cultural woodland on slopes to the west. Moderate
biodiversity, and numerous significant attributes.
• Aquatics. Small open water pond (ephemeral); small defined
channel conveys surface flows from pond. The north portion of the
channel is piped to Blair Creek valley dripline. Discharges to Blair
Creek via diffuse overland flow through floodplain - no direct
connection. No direct fish habitat.
• Hydrogeology. Within the Blair Creek watershed; small channels
drains northerly to Blair Creek. Groundwater discharge evident in
east end of swamp (flows in spring to pond).
• Connectivity / linkages. Isolated feature. Some existing
connectivity with Blair Creek valley via intermittent watercourse, but
discontinuous through piped reach. Agricultural fields extend up to
watercourse edges.
• Overview. Large, predominantly Maple-Beech deciduous forest
with small marsh in SE corner and fairly large vernal pool in NE
corner.
• Aquatics. No defined watercourses associated with woodlot.
Diffuse overland flows are seasonally expressed from the SE wetland
but no defined channel is present.
• Hydrogeology. Groundwater generally flows east / northeast away
from the woodlot. The small wetland at the SE corner likely exists as
a surface
expression of the static water table in surrounding soils.
• Connectivity / linkages. Some existing connectivity with ESPA 33
to the south (close proximity). Some connectivity with ESPA 34 to
the east along narrow roadside hedgerows (minor link for urbanadapted wildlife).
CITY OF KITCHENER
331650-0000-4EGE-0001
Revision
No.
Date
Page
00
2012-01-25
19 of 24
5.0
POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
5.1
Evaluation of Potential Impact
Potential threats to groundwater quantity and quality were identified as follows:
1) Development may restrict recharge to the underlying aquifer systems, which may
result in a reduction of groundwater flows to municipal water supply wells and
local baseflow to Blair Creek as well as other down-gradient receivers, such as
Roseville Swamp and ultimately the Grand River.
2) The long term cumulative loading of road salt could have consequences for water
quality in the underlying aquifers. This has the potential to impact existing
groundwater users and the surface water quality of the Blair Creek drainage
system.
Since 2000 the Region has reportedly observed a marked increase in chloride levels in
groundwater supplies as a result of winter road salting over the last several decades. The
Region’s approach to mitigating the impacts of road salt through the planning process is to
ensure that chloride levels in the groundwater from proposed development meet the Ministry of
the Environment’s Reasonable Use Concept (RUC) water quality guidelines.
As noted in prior sections, the farm at 500 Stauffer Drive has potential concerns relating to
potential impacts to the dug pond and shallow residential water supply well, due to construction
and/or the long term operation of the roadway.
Construction of the road in the vicinity of the pond will involve marginal changes to grade, with
minimal cuts/fills anticipated at this time. As a result, there would be essentially no impact to
the shallow aquifer anticipated due to dewatering needs. Similarly, the area that may be changed
from permeable to impermeable relative to local recharge is very small and is also not
anticipated to affect long term groundwater levels in the area.
Given the local topography, it is also unlikely that the construction of the road will cut off any
significant quantities of overland flow which would affect recharge/discharge behaviour of the
pond.
As has been documented in other reports, there is a marginal potential for salt impacted road
spray, surface runoff or shallow groundwater to affect the pond. These potential impacts are
expected to be negligible due to the minimal quantities involved and the anticipated flushing of
CITY OF KITCHENER
331650-0000-4EGE-0001
Revision
No.
Date
Page
00
2012-01-25
20 of 24
the pond. As noted above, the pond would be expected to receive of clean groundwater
upgradient of the pond during some portions of the year, and to discharge to the upper
overburden at other times.
In summary, it is possible that the pond could experience some very marginal impact from road
salt but it is unlikely to have any notable long term changes in water quality from operation of
the roadway as this would be more than offset by the continued replenishment of the pond from
clean groundwater input and surface water contributions. Nevertheless, given the potential
connection between the pond and the shallow water supply well, mitigation during construction
and monitoring activities are warranted here.
5.2
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures to minimize the impacts on groundwater quantity and quality include:
•
•
•
•
Minimizing impervious areas, reducing road densities, and changing road grades
and orientations;
Promoting at-source infiltration where feasible to infiltrate only clean stormwater;
Bypassing end-of-pipe infiltration facilities during the winter months and spring
thaw; and
Emplacing clay liners beneath boulevards to redirect road splash back onto roads.
These measures should be incorporated into the whole process of road development, from
planning, design, construction to operation and maintenance.
Specifically in the area of 500 Stauffer Drive, the design should incorporate management of road
run-off during melt periods to ensure that it is not directed to an infiltration zone that is directly
hydraulically connected to the pond or upgradient of the resident’s water supply well.
5.2.1
Measures During Road Design
Measures should be taken, where possible, in the design phase to minimize the impacts of road
construction on groundwater recharge\discharge.
Many Landscape Best Management Practices (BMP) can be used to enhance groundwater
recharge such as:
•
•
•
•
Ditches\Grassed swales;
Use of berms/barriers to restrict road salt spray;
Soakaway pits, infiltration galleries, and permeable pavement; and,
Exfiltration systems and storage pipes.
CITY OF KITCHENER
331650-0000-4EGE-0001
Revision
No.
Date
Page
00
2012-01-25
21 of 24
These BMPs should be taken into account in the design phase.
5.2.2
Measures During Road Construction
During the road construction, environmental protection and mitigation would include
implementation of standard construction practices, conformance with agency requirements
identified during the design review process, and recognition of additional control measures that
may be identified through good construction environmental practice.
The construction will focus on minimizing the footprint for construction access, providing robust
and ongoing protection of the natural areas bordering the working footprint, maintaining a high
level of sediment control throughout construction, and providing post-construction stabilization
and enhancement of disturbed areas.
Measures to ensure that any groundwater encountered during construction is contained, filtered,
and appropriately released should be implemented during construction. Dewatering measures are
identified in OPSS 518.
Groundwater quality protection also includes proper equipment operation and spills management
during construction (and during operation), and maximizing roadway runoff quality prior to
release to receiving areas.
5.2.3
Measures During Road Operation and Maintenance
Roadway contaminants and runoff are environmental management concerns. These will require
careful attention in the road drainage design as well as road salt management strategy. The
drainage design may need to provide runoff quality control prior to any runoff reaching the creek
and/or recharge areas floodplain. This may be accomplished through implementation of Best
Available Technology at the time of construction and operation.
With the Environment Canada 2001 designation of road salt as a priority substance, improved
use and management of road salt will be required. Municipalities are required to prepare Salt
Management Plans for more efficient control and use of road salt while still providing an
acceptable level of safety. Salt storage techniques as well as management and stockpiling of
salt-laden snow are also areas of management improvement.
CITY OF KITCHENER
331650-0000-4EGE-0001
6.0
Revision
No.
Date
Page
00
2012-01-25
22 of 24
MONITORING
The monitoring program has been designed to provide sufficient data to document background
(pre-construction) conditions, during the development period, and over the long term in order to
identify potential negative impacts to groundwater quality and/or hydrogeological conditions
within the study area.
In particular, this applies to the pond and water supply well at the 500 Stauffer Drive property.
6.1
Baseline Monitoring
Baseline monitoring includes assessing and documenting hydrogeological conditions to provide
baseline set for comparison with future, development-associated conditions. The program
should include as a minimum:
1. Installation of at least one well nest within the ROW near the 500 Stauffer Drive
property. The well nest should consist of at least two monitoring wells, be installed prior
to construction, and designed to obtain pre-construction information on fluctuations in
quantity and quality near the water table and near the screened interval of the residential
water well.
2. Groundwater quantity and quality monitoring on a seasonal basis. A seasonal frequency
(spring, summer and fall) is suggested as sufficient for groundwater levels, while
chemistry can be monitored annually. It will be important to identify, to the extent
feasible, the range of ‘normal’ fluctuations of groundwater level and quality, particularly
through the predevelopment time period, in order to properly assess cause and effect
evaluations following development.
6.2
Construction Period Monitoring
This monitoring is intended to observe detailed hydrogeological conditions during construction
to provide sufficient information such that:
(1) it can be determined if the targets established in the monitoring program are being
met; and,
(2) potential offsite impacts during or post-construction can be readily identified and/or
more easily traced back to their source.
This monitoring may need to be conducted on a more frequent basis (i.e. monthly or weekly)
while construction is occurring in the vicinity of the observations wells to confirm allowable
CITY OF KITCHENER
331650-0000-4EGE-0001
Revision
No.
Date
Page
00
2012-01-25
23 of 24
impact thresholds are not exceeded and contingency actions (if required) are implemented
quickly.
6.3
Post-Development Monitoring
The purpose of monitoring during this phase is to evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation
measures to ensure that they function as designed and prevent impacts to vulnerable areas, and to
assess on-going operations of the road and confirm maintenance requirements.
The post-development monitoring should be conducted on a seasonal basis following the
construction of the road for up to 2 years and then discontinued.
6.4
Alternative to Monitoring
As the purpose of monitoring is to identify potential specific impacts to the shallow water supply
well at 500 Stauffer Drive, an alternative would be to reach an agreement with the landowner
resulting in the decommissioning of the existing water supply well (in accordance with Ontario
Regulations) and replacing it with a new drilled well that would draw water from deeper
overburden and/or underlying bedrock aquifer.
CITY OF KITCHENER
331650-0000-4EGE-0001
7.0
Revision
No.
Date
Page
00
2012-01-25
24 of 24
REFERENCES
Ecoplans Limited, MTE, MHBC, and Paradigm (November 2008), Doon South Community –
Phase 2 Collector Road Environmental Study Report, Report No.: 05-2945.
Regional Official Plan, Region of Waterloo, 2009.
Delineation of the Regional Recharge Area in the 2009 Regional Official Plan, Region of
Waterloo, 2010.
Stantec Consulting Ltd. (March 2009), Upper Blair Creek Functional Drainage Study.
AquaResource Inc. (January 2008), Integrated Water Budget Report, Grand River Watershed.
Water Resources Protection Master Plan, Region of Waterloo, 2008.
Stantec Consulting Limited, ESG International (May 1999), Huron Road Subdivisions,
Environmental Implementation Report, 603-07192.
Terraqua Investigations Limited (1990), Hydrogeological Investigation Freture Homes – Huron
Road, Kitchener, Ontario.
DOCUMENT END
www.snclavalin.com
SNC-Lavalin Inc.
195 The West Mall
Toronto (Ontario)
M9C 5K1 Canada
Telephone: 416-252-5311
FAX: 416-231-5356
October 2013
331650-4E-Rev 1
Kitchener, Ontario
Draft Report to
City of Kitchener
April 2011
331650
SNC♦LAVALIN Inc.
•))
CITY OF KITCHENER
Ktthet, Ontario
SNC LAVALLN
Revision
No.
Date
Page
01
2011-10-24
1 of 13
‘
331650-0000-4EGE-0001
CLIENT: CITY OF KITCHENER
PROJECT: Contamination Overview Study
Strasburg Road Extension, Kitchener, Ontario
-
Prepared By:
FabienneFfieiin
Signature:
Date:
Pra i a W gh, P.Eng.
Reviewed By:
Signature:
Date:
2OiV\0’)—l
Approved By:
Signature:
Date:
Ted Taylor PSng
•
of
—
L.’
L
—
ISSUE/REVISION INDEX
Issue
Code
RR
RR
Issue Codes
No.
00
01
By
FE
FE
Revision
Rev’d.
App.
PS
TI’
PS
TI’
Date
April 27, 2011
Oct. 24, 2011
Revision Details
Released for Review and Comments
Released for Review and Comments
RC Released for Constmction, RD Released for Design, RF Released for Fabncation Ri Released for Information PP
Released for Purchase, RQ Released for Quotation, PR Released for Review and Comments
I:’33 1650\40-ENG\4E-ENV GE-Site Investigation Reports Contamination Overview Study\33 1650-00004EGE-000I VerOl
Strasburg COS.DOC
CITY OF KITCHENER
Kitchener, Ontario
331650-0000-4EGE-0001
Revision
No.
01
Date
Page
2011-10-24 2 of 13
TABLE OF CONTENTS``
Page
1.0
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 4
1.1
Scope of Work .........................................................................................................4
2.0
STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................ 6
2.1
Location ...................................................................................................................6
2.2
Study Area Limits ....................................................................................................6
2.3
Land Uses.................................................................................................................6
2.4
Topography and Drainage .......................................................................................6
2.5
Physiography ...........................................................................................................7
2.6
Geology ....................................................................................................................7
2.7
Hydrogeology ..........................................................................................................7
3.0
REVIEW OF RECORDS.................................................................................................... 9
3.1
EcoLog ERIS Database Search................................................................................9
3.2
Aerial Photography Review ...................................................................................10
3.3
Historical Insurance Plans .....................................................................................10
4.0
STUDY AREA RECONNAISSANCE ............................................................................ 11
5.0
KEY FINDINGS ............................................................................................................... 12
6.0
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................... 13
I:\331650\40-ENG\4E-ENV\GE-Site Investigation Reports\Contamination Overview Study\331650-0000-4EGE-0001 Ver01
Strasburg COS.DOC
CITY OF KITCHENER
Kitchener, Ontario
331650-0000-4EGE-0001
Revision
No.
01
Date
Page
2011-10-24 3 of 13
LIST OF FIGURES
Follows Page
Figure 1
Site Diagram ........................................................................................................... 4
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
EcoLog ERIS Report
Historical Aerial Photographs
Site Photographs
Strasburg COS.DOC
CITY OF KITCHENER
Kitchener, Ontario
331650-0000-4EGE-0001
1.0
Revision
No.
01
Date
Page
2011-10-24 4 of 13
INTRODUCTION
SNC-Lavalin Inc. (SLI) was retained by the City of Kitchener to prepare the detailed design for
the extension of Strasburg Road, Kitchener, Ontario. As required, a Contamination Overview
Study (COS) was conducted to identify actual or potential contamination in the study area. The
assessment included a site inspection and historical review. The site inspection was undertaken
on March 7, 2010. The general layout of the study area is shown in Figure 1.
1.1
Scope of Work
The objective of the COS is to provide a general overview of the area and identify properties or
areas with the potential for site contamination, either within the proposed rehabilitation work
area, or in adjacent areas with the potential to migrate onto the proposed work area.
The following activities were conducted in order to collect information on the potential for
contamination in the study area:
•
Description of the Study Area: The location and limit of the work, the current land use,
topography and drainage, physiography, geology and hydrogeology of the project area
have been described.
•
Review of Records: Historical information was reviewed to identify any past, actual or
potential environmental issues within the project area. This included the identification of
activities that have the potential to result in environmental impact, as well as occurrences
such as spills. An EcoLog Environmental Risk Information Services (ERIS) database
search was commissioned for the study area to obtain information from federal,
provincial and private databases that may be relevant to the project area.
•
Review of Historical Aerial Photographs: Historical aerial photographs were requested
from the Ministry of Natural Resources and reviewed in order to identify any potential
sources of contamination or disturbances that may have existed in the study area in the
past.
•
Review of Historical Fire Insurance Plans: Fire insurance plans for the City of Kitchener
were reviewed to identify potential sources of contamination that may have existed in the
study area.
•
Study Area Reconnaissance: A reconnaissance of the study area was performed by an
SLI investigator experienced in the assessment of environmental issues related to the area
Strasburg COS.DOC
STRASBURG
ROAD EXTENSION
PART B
PART A
STUDY AREA
CITY OF KITCHENER
Kitchener, Ontario
331650-0000-4EGE-0001
Revision
No.
01
Date
Page
2011-10-24 5 of 13
of concern. The investigator observed the area by a windshield survey. Actual or
potential sources of contamination were recorded.
The findings of the activities outlined above were analysed to determine the potential for
contamination to soil and/or groundwater in the study area.
Strasburg COS.DOC
CITY OF KITCHENER
Kitchener, Ontario
331650-0000-4EGE-0001
2.0
STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION
2.1
Location
Revision
No.
01
Date
Page
2011-10-24 6 of 13
The study area extends north of the south boundary of the City of Kitchener (at New Dundee
Road) to approximately 500 m north of Stauffer Drive. The preferred alignment for the
Strasburg Road extension is to expand Strasburg Road from its current terminus, at
approximately Rush Meadow Street, to New Dundee Road.
2.2
Study Area Limits
The study area is approximately 306 hectares located 1,250 m and 500 m west and east of Reidel
Drive respectively, and north of New Dundee Road to approximately 500 m north of Stauffer
Drive.
2.3
Land Uses
The land use in the study area is predominantly agricultural. Upper Blair Creek is located in the
south part of the area of study.
2.4
Topography and Drainage
The topography of the area is very uneven and is affected by intermittent ditches, creeks and
swampy areas. As described in the Upper Blair Creek (Kitchener) Functional Drainage Study
prepared by Stantec (2009):
“The headwaters of the Blair Creek have their source in wetland areas west of Reidel Drive.
From the headwaters to Reidel Drive, the creek flows intermittently through lowland/wetland
areas with fairly good riparian cover at a moderate slope of 0.8%. A permanent tributary drains
agricultural areas southwest of the headwater wetland and joins the Blair Creek just west of
Reidel Drive. Blair Creek is classified as an intermittent stream from its headwaters to west of
Dodge Drive. South of Dodge Drive, Blair Creek enters a 5 ha marsh before its confluence with
the Roseville Swamp tributary east of King’s Road”.
Strasburg COS.DOC
CITY OF KITCHENER
Kitchener, Ontario
331650-0000-4EGE-0001
2.5
Revision
No.
01
Date
Page
2011-10-24 7 of 13
Physiography
A description of the physiography of the area is provided by Map P. 2226 Physiography of the
South Central Portion of Southern Ontario, Ontario Department of Mines and Northern affairs,
Ontario Research Foundation. The physiography of the area is described as Kame Moraines.
The bedrock geology is provided by Map 2441, Geological Highway Map, Southern Ontario,
Ministry of Natural Resources, and comprises the Salina Formation: dolostone, shale, gypsum,
salt.
2.6
Geology
The Quaternary Geology map of the Cambridge area (Karrow, 1987) identified the soil deposit
in the study area to be composed mainly of ice-contact sand with pockets of ice-contact gravel.
Boreholes record from Naylor Engineering revealed deposit of sand or silt with occasional
occurrences of silt till and sand and gravel in the area northwest of Reidel and Stauffer Drive.
Near New Dundee Road, silty deposit and sand/till and sand deposits were encountered.
2.7
Hydrogeology
The EcoLog ERIS database search (as described in Section 3.1) identified (12) wells within the
study area including four (4) water supply wells.
According to the Blair, Bechtel and Bauman Creeks Subwatershed Plan prepared by CH2M
Gore and Storrie et al. (1997):
“The groundwater occurs in two overburden deposits of sand and gravel, which are
separated by the Catfish Creek till; a low permeability confining layer. The shallow and
deep overburden aquifers provide water for residential and municipal wells, in addition to
contributing flow to Blair Creek, Roseville Swamp and the Grand River”.
Various studies of the area including the Upper Blair Creek (Kitchener) Functional Drainage
Study prepared by Stantec (2009) have shown that groundwater flows southeast towards Blair
Creek. Where data was available, it was identified that shallow groundwater contributing to the
Creek match roughly the surface water catchment. It also appears that a groundwater divide is
present along the north and south limit of the study area where groundwater flows to the
Roseville Swamp.
Strasburg COS.DOC
CITY OF KITCHENER
Kitchener, Ontario
331650-0000-4EGE-0001
Revision
No.
01
Date
Page
2011-10-24 8 of 13
The shallow groundwater table occurs at a depth of less than 7 m below ground surface across
the study area.
Strasburg COS.DOC
CITY OF KITCHENER
Kitchener, Ontario
331650-0000-4EGE-0001
3.0
REVIEW OF RECORDS
3.1
EcoLog ERIS Database Search
Revision
No.
01
Date
Page
2011-10-24 9 of 13
EcoLog ERIS specializes in providing environmental and historical information compiled from
government and private source records. An EcoLog ERIS database search was commissioned
for the study area. The EcoLog ERIS Report (Project No. 20110222034) is included in
Appendix A.
The EcoLog ERIS report identified twelve (12) wells within the study area including four (4)
water supply wells.
Certificates of Approval (C of A) have been issued to properties north of the study area,
including:
•
•
•
Waterloo County Board of Education – Lot 8 (Biehn and Caryndale Drive) - Municipal
sewage and water approval;
Kitchener City – Chapel Hill Drive (Caryndale Drive and Robertson Crescent) Municipal sewage and water approval; and
Hearthwood Caryndale Dev. Inc. (Evenstone Avenue and Hearthway Street) – Municipal
water approval.
No information regarding the type of discharge released was available in the report.
The EcoLog ERIS database search identified three (3) records of spills in Strasburg Creek north
of the study area. The exact location of the first spill is not available, but the records indicated
that an unknown quantity of diesel fuel was released to the Creek on March 17, 1992. The MOE
report indicated that the nature of the impact was not anticipated. The second spill was located
near Anvil Street. The spill occurred on March 30, 1992 and involved the release of half litre of
used motor oil to the storm sewer. The MOE report indicated that the nature of the impact was
to a watercourse or lake, and that environmental impact was possible. The third spill occurred
near Biehn Drive on April 6, 2001. MT Engineering discharged chlorinated wastewater from
washing pipes to the Strasburg Creek. The MOE report indicated that the nature of the impact
was to a watercourse or lake, and that environmental impact was possible.
The EcoLog ERIS report identified two records from the Environmental Registry (Permit To
Take Water) and from the Private and Retail Fuel Storage Tanks database. However, these
properties are located outside the study area.
Strasburg COS.DOC
CITY OF KITCHENER
Kitchener, Ontario
331650-0000-4EGE-0001
3.2
Revision
No.
01
Date
Page
2011-10-24 10 of 13
Aerial Photography Review
Aerial photographs showing the subject property were provided by the Ministry of Natural
Resources for the years 1951 and 1976. The photographs, including the location of the subject
property, are presented in Appendix B.
The 1951 photograph shows the area to be agricultural lands. No buildings are present in the
study area. Huron and New Dundee Roads and Caryndale, Stauffer and Reidel are constructed.
The wooded areas located south of Stauffer Drive and Blair and Strasburg Creeks are also shown
in the photographs.
The farms currently located on Stauffer Drive, Riedel Drive and New Dundee Road are present
on the 1976 photograph.
The aerial photograph of 1976 was compared to the 2009 Google Map image. The latest image
on Google Maps shows new residential developments north of the study area, south of Huron
Road.
3.3
Historical Insurance Plans
An attempt was made to find the historical information from Fire Insurance Maps in the Toronto
Reference Library. No maps were available for the study area.
Strasburg COS.DOC
CITY OF KITCHENER
Kitchener, Ontario
331650-0000-4EGE-0001
4.0
Revision
No.
01
Date
Page
2011-10-24 11 of 13
STUDY AREA RECONNAISSANCE
A survey was conducted on March 7, 2010 by an SLI Site inspector. Site photographs were
taken and are included in Appendix C. Key observations made during the field visit are
described below:
•
The land use within and adjacent to the study area is predominantly agricultural with
three farms located on Stauffer Drive, Reidel Drive and New Dundee Road.
•
Various litter, tires and scrap metals were noted on the property west of Stauffer Drive
terminus.
•
Scrap metals and tires were noted on two farms located on Reidel Drive and New Dundee
Road, respectively.
It should be noted that snow cover prevented full inspection of the ground surface.
Strasburg COS.DOC
CITY OF KITCHENER
Kitchener, Ontario
Revision
No.
331650-0000-4EGE-0001
5.0
01
Date
Page
2011-10-24 12 of 13
KEY FINDINGS
The key findings of the contamination overview study are as follows:
•
The land use within and adjacent to the study area is predominantly agricultural,
indicating that the potential for contamination to be present is low in the agricultural
fields. However, any use of pesticides and/or fertilizers could pose an environmental
concern particularly in the three farms present in the study area.
•
The EcoLog ERIS database search identified twelve (12) wells within the study area
including four (4) water supply wells.
•
Various litter, tires and scrap metal were noted on properties in the study area, including
the property west of Stauffer Drive terminus and the farms located on Reidel Drive and
New Dundee Road, respectively.
Although no evidence was noted during the windshield survey, it is possible that fuel tanks
(underground and/or above ground) could be present, or were formerly present, at properties
in the study area, particularly the older properties such as the three farms located on Stauffer
and Reidel Drive and New Dundee Road.
Strasburg COS.DOC
CITY OF KITCHENER
Kitchener, Ontario
331650-0000-4EGE-0001
6.0
Revision
No.
01
Date
Page
2011-10-24 13 of 13
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the findings above, the potential for adverse environmental impacts within the study
area is low, and no further environmental work is recommended at this time, providing that the
alignment for the Strasburg extension does not encroach on the farms located at 500 Stauffer
Drive, 271 Reidel Drive or on New Dundee Road. If the preferred alignment is E1, a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment would be recommended on the two farms located at 500 Stauffer
Drive and 271 Reidel Drive. If the preferred alignment is E2, C2 or W3, a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment would be recommended on the farm located at 271 Reidel Drive.
DOCUMENT END
Strasburg COS.DOC
CITY OF KITCHENER
Kitchener, Ontario
331650-0000-4EGE-0001
Revision
No.
01
Date
Page
2011-10-24 Appendix
Appendix A
EcoLog ERIS Report
Strasburg COS.DOC
Project Site:
Un-named
Strasburg Rd
Kitchener, ON
Client:
Pravina Singh
SNC-Lavalin Inc.
400 Carlingview Dr
Toronto, ON M9W6N9
ERIS Project No:
20110222034
Report Type:
Custom Report – .25km Search Radius
Prepared By:
Matt Thompson
[email protected]
Date:
March
03, 2011
DISCLAIMER AND COPYRIGHT NOTICE
The information contained in this report has been produced by EcoLog ERIS Ltd. using various sources of information, including information provided by
Federal and Provincial government departments. Although EcoLog ERIS Ltd. has endeavoured to present you with information that is accurate, EcoLog
ERIS Ltd. disclaims, except as set out below, any and all liability for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in such information and data, whether
attributable to inadvertence or otherwise, and for any consequences arising therefrom. Liability on the part of EcoLog ERIS Ltd. is limited to the
monetary value paid for this report. The report applies only to the address specified on the cover of this report, and any alterations or deviation from
this description will require a new report. This report and the data contained herein does not purport to be and does not constitute a guarantee of the
accuracy of the information contained herein and does not constitute a legal opinion nor medical advice. This report is solely intended to be used to
focus further investigation and is not intended to replace a full Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment. No page of this report should be used without
this cover page, this disclaimer and the project property identifier.
The contents of this Service are protected by copyright. Copyright in the Service is owned by EcoLog ERIS Ltd. Copyright in data obtained from private
sources is owned by EcoLog ERIS Ltd. or its licensors. The Service and its contents may not be copied or reproduced in whole or in any substantial part
without prior written consent of EcoLog ERIS Ltd.
Table of Contents
Order Number:
Site Name:
Site Address:
Report Type:
20110222034
Un-named
Strasburg Rd Kitchener, ON
Custom Report, 0.25 km Search Radius
Section
Report Summary
i
This outlines the number of records from each database that fall on the site, and within various distances from
the site.
Site Diagram
ii
The records that were found within a specified distance from the project property (the primary search radius) have
been plotted on a diagram to provide you with a visual representation of the information available. Sites will be
plotted on the diagram if there is sufficient information from the database source to determine accurate geographic
coordinates. Each plotted site is marked with an acronym identifying the database in which the record was found
(i.e., WDS for Waste Disposal Sites). These are referred to as "Map Keys". A variety of problems are inherent when
attempting to associate various government or private source records with locations. EcoLog ERIS has attempted to
make the best fit possible between the available data and their positions on the site diagram.
Site Profile
iii
This table describes the records that relate directly to the property that is being researched.
Detail Report
iv
This section represents information, by database, for the records found within the primary search radius. Listed at
the end of each database are the sites that could not be plotted on the locator diagram because of insufficient
address information. These records will not have map keys. They have been included because they may be found to
be relevant during a more detailed investigation.
Abandoned Aggregate Inventory
Certificates of Approval
Environmental Registry
ERIS Historical Searches
Private and Retail Fuel Storage Tanks
Ontario Spills
Water Well Information System
Appendix: Database Descriptions
Environmental Risk Information Services Ltd.
Page
1
2
7
8
9
10
11
Report Summary
Order Number:
Site Name:
Site Address:
Report Type:
20110222034
Un-named
Number of Mappable Records Surrounding the Site
Database
Selected
On-site
Within 0.25
0.25km to 0.25km
Total
AAGR
Y
0
0
0
0
AGR
Aggregate Inventory
Y
0
0
0
0
AMIS
Abandoned Mine Information System
Y
0
0
0
0
ANDR
Anderson's Waste Disposal Sites
Y
0
0
0
0
AUWR
Automobile Wrecking & Supplies
Y
0
0
0
0
BORE
Borehole
Y
0
0
0
0
CA
Y
0
5
0
5
CFOT
Commercial Fuel Oil Tanks
Y
0
0
0
0
CHEM
Chemical Register
Y
0
0
0
0
COAL
Coal Gasification Plants
Y
0
0
0
0
CONV
Compliance and Convictions
Y
0
0
0
0
DRL
Drill Hole Database
Y
0
0
0
0
EBR
Y
0
0
0
0
EEM
Environmental Effects Monitoring
Y
0
0
0
0
EHS
Y
0
1
0
1
EIIS
Environmental Issues Information System
Y
0
0
0
0
FCON
Federal Convictions
Y
0
0
0
0
FCS
Contaminated Sites on Federal Land
Y
0
0
0
0
FOFT
Fisheries & Oceans Fuel Storage Tanks
Y
0
0
0
0
FST
Fuel Storage Tank
Y
0
0
0
0
GEN
Ontario Regulation 347 Waste Generators Summary
Y
0
0
0
0
IAFT
Indian & Northern Affairs Fuel Tanks
Y
0
0
0
0
MINE
Canadian Mine Locations
Y
0
0
0
0
MNR
Mineral Occurrences
Y
0
0
0
0
NATE
National Analysis of Trends in Emergencies System (NATES)
Y
0
0
0
0
NCPL
Non-Compliance Reports
Y
0
0
0
0
NDFT
National Defence & Canadian Forces Fuel Storage Tanks
Y
0
0
0
0
NDSP
National Defence & Canadian Forces Spills
Y
0
0
0
0
NDWD
National Defence & Canadian Forces Waste Disposal Sites
Y
0
0
0
0
NEES
National Environmental Emergencies System (NEES)
Y
0
0
0
0
NPCB
National PCB Inventory
Y
0
0
0
0
NPRI
National Pollutant Release Inventory
Y
0
0
0
0
OGW
Oil and Gas Wells
Y
0
0
0
0
OOGW
Ontario Oil and Gas Wells
Y
0
0
0
0
OPCB
Inventory of PCB Storage Sites
Y
0
0
0
0
PAP
Canadian Pulp and Paper
Y
0
0
0
0
PCFT
Parks Canada Fuel Storage Tanks
Y
0
0
0
0
PES
Pesticide Register
Y
0
0
0
0
PRT
Y
0
0
0
0
REC
Ontario Regulation 347 Waste Receivers Summary
Y
0
0
0
0
RSC
Record of Site Condition
Y
0
0
0
0
RST
Retail Fuel Storage Tanks
Y
0
0
0
0
Section i
Report Summary
Order Number:
Site Name:
Site Address:
Report Type:
20110222034
Un-named
Database
Selected
On-site
Within 0.25
0.25km to 0.25km
Total
SCT
Scott's Manufacturing Directory
Y
0
0
0
0
SPL
Ontario Spills
Y
0
0
0
0
SRDS
Wastewater Discharger Registration Database
Y
0
0
0
0
TANK
Anderson's Storage Tanks
Y
0
0
0
0
TCFT
Transport Canada Fuel Storage Tanks
Y
0
0
0
0
WDS
Waste Disposal Sites - MOE CA Inventory
Y
0
0
0
0
WDSH
Waste Disposal Sites - MOE 1991 Historical Approval Inventory
Y
0
0
0
0
WWIS
Y
0
39
0
39
TOTAL
0
45
0
45
The databases chosen by the client as per the submitted order form are denoted in the 'Selected' column in the above table. Counts have been provided
outside the primary buffer area for cursory examination only. These records have not been examined or verified, therefore, they are subject to change.
Section i
SITE DIAGRAM
WWIS-3
WWIS-3
WWIS-3
WWIS-3
WWIS-3
WWIS-3
WWIS-6
WWIS-6
WWIS-6
WWIS-6
WWIS-6
WWIS-6
WWIS-7
WWIS-7
WWIS-7
WWIS-7
WWIS-7
WWIS-7
Un-named
Strasburg Rd
Kitchener, ON
WWIS-16
WWIS-16
WWIS-16
WWIS-16
WWIS-16
WWIS-16
Open Area
Residential
CA-5
CA-5
CA-5
CA-5
CA-5
CA-5
WWIS-26
WWIS-26
WWIS-26
WWIS-26
WWIS-26
WWIS-26
Waterbody
WWIS-25
WWIS-25
WWIS-25
WWIS-25
WWIS-25
WWIS-25
Recreation
Golf Course/Driving Range
Transformer Station
WWIS-27
WWIS-27
WWIS-27
WWIS-27
WWIS-27
WWIS-27
WWIS-23
WWIS-23
WWIS-23
WWIS-23
WWIS-23
WWIS-23
Parks and Recreational
Pipeline
WWIS-31
WWIS-31
WWIS-31
WWIS-31
WWIS-31
WWIS-31
WWIS-28
WWIS-28
WWIS-28
WWIS-28
WWIS-28
WWIS-28
WWIS-29
WWIS-29
WWIS-29
WWIS-29
WWIS-29
WWIS-29
Park/Sports Field
Rail
Other Recreation Area
Railway - Main
Campground
Bridge
Wooded Area
Embankment
Orchard
Trail
Vineyard

WWIS-36
WWIS-36
WWIS-36
WWIS-36
WWIS-36
WWIS-36
WWIS-33
WWIS-33
WWIS-33
WWIS-33
WWIS-33
WWIS-33
WWIS-35
WWIS-35
WWIS-35
WWIS-35
WWIS-35
WWIS-35
R
R
R
D
D
DR
R
R
LL
LL
LD
D
D
E
E
EL
ID
ID
IDE
E
E
E
E
EID
ID
ID
R
R
RE
E
E
R
R
R
Vegetation
Transportation - Other
D
D
R
R
R
D
D
N
RD
R
N
A
NR
N
A
M
AN
A
LLLM
M
MA
A
A
H
H
ALLLLLLM
A
H
R
HA
R
E
E
RH
R
H
ER
E
E
H
C
C
HE
H
C
IS
CH
IS
F
ISC
IS
FIS
FF
FF
Cemetery
Railway - Abandoned
R
R
D
D
DR
R
RD
D
D
R
E
ER
R
EE
FF
FF
FFFFE
U
UF
U
A
AU
U
A
TTT
TA
A
S
S
ST
S
S
S
WWIS-30
WWIS-30
WWIS-30
WWIS-30
WWIS-30
WWIS-30
Sports/Race Track
Railway - Sidetrack
Runway
WWIS
WWIS
WWIS17
17
17
17to
to
to
to18
18
18
18
WWIS
WWIS
WWIS
17
17
to
to
18
18
WWIS-20
WWIS-20
WWIS-20
WWIS-20
WWIS-20
WWIS-20
Government and Institutional
Pipe & Transmission Lines
Tunnel
SSSSSSTTTTTT
RAA
RR
RR
R
AAAS
A
SSSBBB
BBBU
UU
UUR
RGGG
RR
RR
GGGRRR
RRRD
D
DD
DD
WWIS
WWIS
WWIS21
21
21
21to
to
to
to22
22
22
22
WWIS
WWIS
WWIS
21
21
to
to
22
22
WWIS-24
WWIS-24
WWIS-24
WWIS-24
WWIS-24
WWIS-24
Resource and Industrial
Silo
Transmission Tower
R
RR
RR
DDDR
NDDD
NN
NN
HHHN
IIE
IIIIE
EHHH
EE
E
B
B
B
B
B
B
EHS-1
EHS-1
EHS-1
EHS-1
EHS-1
Commercial
Chimney
Transmission Line
WWIS-14
WWIS-14
WWIS-14
WWIS-14
WWIS-14
WWIS-14
R
R
R
R
R
DR
D
EE
ED
E
A
A
LE
LLL
AL
A
A
DA
D
N
N
ND
N
YY
R
YN
Y
R
RY
R
AR
A
C
C
C
CA
C
R
R
R
D
D
R
DR
D
D
EED
LEEE
LLL
STTTL
A
A
A
C
C
ASSSTTT
C
CA
W
W
EEW
WC
N
N
N
NEEEW
N
Landuse Classifications
Points of Interest
CA
CA
CA1
11
11
1to
to
to
to2
22
22
2
CA
CA
CA
to
to
WWIS-12
WWIS-12
WWIS-12
WWIS-12
WWIS-12
WWIS-12
WWIS-13
WWIS-13
WWIS-13
WWIS-13
WWIS-13
WWIS-13
WWIS-15
WWIS-15
WWIS-15
WWIS-15
WWIS-15
WWIS-15
LEGEND
Database Location
WWIS-19
WWIS-19
WWIS-19
WWIS-19
WWIS-19
WWIS-19
WWIS
WWIS
WWIS9
99
99
9to
to
to
to11
11
11
11
WWIS
WWIS
WWIS
to
to
11
11
DD
DD
D
RRRD
NNRR
OOO
ONNN
O
R
R
R
R
R
UUU
U
HH
HU
HH
MAR-03-2011
Project Property
WWIS-5
WWIS-5
WWIS-5
WWIS-5
WWIS-5
WWIS-5
CA
CA
CA3
33
33
3to
to
to
to4
44
44
4
CA
CA
CA
to
to
ERIS Project #: 20110222034
Date:
PPPPPPAAA
AAAR
RR
RR
RK
KK
KK
KVVVVVV
A
AA
AA
ALLLLLL
EEEEEE
D
DD
DD
DR
RR
RR
R
0.564
Kilometers
WWIS-2
WWIS-2
WWIS-2
WWIS-2
WWIS-2
WWIS-2
R
R
D
D
D
R
R
N
D
DR
N
H
H
N
ND
H
IE
HN
IE
IE
IEH
B
BIE
B
Project Property:
WWIS-4
WWIS-4
WWIS-4
WWIS-4
WWIS-4 O
D
D
DR
R
R
W
WD
OW
D
D
W
D
DO
O
W
D
O
EA
EAD
D
EA
LL
LL
LM
MEA
M
EA
AR
ARL
M
MAR
AR
M
AR
M
M
WWIS-8
WWIS-8
WWIS-8
WWIS-8
WWIS-8
WWIS-8
12 Concorde Pl, Suite 800 North York, ON M3C 4J2
416-510-5204

0
WWIS-1
WWIS-1
WWIS-1
WWIS-1
WWIS-1
WWIS-1
WWIS-38
WWIS-38
WWIS-38
WWIS-38
WWIS-38
WWIS-38
WWIS-32
WWIS-32
WWIS-32
WWIS-32
WWIS-32
WWIS-32
WWIS-37
WWIS-37
WWIS-37
WWIS-37
WWIS-37
WWIS-37
Industrial Resources
Conveyor
Hydrographic Features
Crane: Moveable
Intermittent Waterway
Crane: Stationary
Ü
Permanent Waterway
Open Reservoir
Tank
Dyke/Levee
Rock Cut
Dam
Auto Wrecker
Breakwall
Lumber Yard
Wetland
Pit
This diagram is to be used solely for relative street location purposes.
It may not accurately portray street or site positions.
WWIS-39
WWIS-39
WWIS-39
WWIS-39
WWIS-39
WWIS-39
WWIS-34
WWIS-34
WWIS-34
WWIS-34
WWIS-34
WWIS-34
D
D
R
R
RD
D
D
D
E
E
R
R
E
E
E
E
ER
D
D
E
E
EE
N
N
D
D
DE
U
U
N
N
ND
D
D
D
U
U
UN
W
W
D
DU
E
E
W
W
N
WD
N
N
E
E
EW
N
N
NE
Section ii
Site Report
Order Number:
Site Name:
Site Address:
Report Type:
20110222034
Un-named
FOR COMPLETE INFORMATION, REFER TO DETAIL REPORT
A search has been conducted for this site (address) and company name. No records were
found, within the database(s) selected, that meet either of these criteria.
Section iii
Detail Report
Order Number:
Site Name:
Site Address:
Report Type:
20110222034
Un-named
Strasburg Rd Kitchener ON
If information is required for sites located beyond the selected address, please contact your ERIS representative.
Ontario Spills
Section iv
Provincial Source Database
Map Key
Company
n/a
Address
Type
Region/County
Bechtel's tract
City of Kitchener
Pit
Waterloo
Concession:
Lot:
Size (ha):
Landuse:
Comments:
n/a
Bechtel's tract
City of Kitchener
Pit
Concession:
Lot:
Size (ha):
Landuse:
Comments:
Page 1 of Abandoned Aggregate Inventory
s
s City of Kitchener
s
s City of Kitchener
s
1.3
development
Concession:
Lot:
Size (ha):
Landuse:
Comments:
n/a
s City of Kitchener
Bechtel's tract
Waterloo
Bechtel's tract
City of Kitchener
Township
Bechtel's tract
rehabilitated
Waterloo
Bechtel's tract
0.8
development
site part of Homer-Watson Shopping Centre
Page
1
of Detail Report
Map Key
Company
Address
Certificate #
Application
Year
Issue Date
Approval Type
CA-1
WATERLOO COUNTY BOARD
OF EDUCATION-LOT 8
BIEHN DR./CARYNDALE DR.
KITCHENER CITY
3-0533-91-
91
4/29/1991
Municipal sewage
s Cancelled
s
s
5/15/1991
Municipal water
s Approved
s
s
5/15/1991
Municipal sewage
s Approved
s
s
5/15/1991
Municipal water
s Approved
s
s
Status
Application Type
Client Name:
Client Address:
Client City:
Client Postal Code:
Project Description:
Contaminants:
Emission Control:
CA-2
WATERLOO COUNTY BOARD
OF EDUCATION-LOT 8
BIEHM DR./CARYNDALE DR.
KITCHENER CITY
7-0444-91-
91
Client Name:
Client Address:
Client City:
Client Postal Code:
Contaminants:
Emission Control:
CA-3
KITCHENER CITY - CHAPEL
HILL DRIVE
CARYNDALE DR./ROBERTSON CR.
KITCHENER CITY
3-0535-91-
91
Client Name:
Client Address:
Client City:
Client Postal Code:
Contaminants:
Emission Control:
CA-4
KITCHENER CITY - CHAPEL
HILL DRIVE
CARYNDALE DR./ROBERTSON CR.
KITCHENER CITY
7-0445-91-
91
Client Name:
Client Address:
Client City:
Client Postal Code:
Contaminants:
Emission Control:
Page 1 of Certificates of Approval
Page
2
of Detail Report
Map Key
Company
Address
Certificate #
Application
Year
Issue Date
Approval Type
Status
CA-5
HEARTHWOOD CARYNDALE
DEV. INC.
EVENSTONE AVE./HEARTHWAY
ST.
KITCHENER CITY
7-0792-99-
99
10/12/1999
Municipal water
s Approved
s
s
BIEHN DR.
KITCHENER CITY
3-0343-87-
3/31/1987
Municipal sewage
s Approved
s
s
5/20/1986
Municipal sewage
s Approved
s
s
3/31/1987
Municipal water
s Approved
s
s
n/a
KITCHENER CITY BRIGADOON
TWO SUBD.
Application Type
Client Name:
Client Address:
Client City:
Client Postal Code:
Contaminants:
Emission Control:
87
Client Name:
Client Address:
Client City:
Client Postal Code:
Contaminants:
Emission Control:
n/a
KITCHENER CITY HURON
BUSINESS PARK ST. I
STRASBURG RD.
KITCHENER CITY
3-0643-86-
86
Client Name:
Client Address:
Client City:
Client Postal Code:
Contaminants:
Emission Control:
n/a
KITCHENER CITY BRIGADOON
TWO SUBD.
BIEHN DR.
KITCHENER CITY
7-0285-87-
87
Client Name:
Client Address:
Client City:
Client Postal Code:
Contaminants:
Emission Control:
Page
3
of Detail Report
Map Key
Company
Address
Certificate #
Application
Year
Issue Date
Approval Type
n/a
DEV. INC.
CARYNDALE DR./HEARTHWOOD
DR.
KITCHENER CITY
3-1162-99-
99
10/12/1999
Municipal sewage
s Approved
s
s
PT.LOTS 8-10, HEARTHWOOD
SUBD.
KITCHENER CITY
3-1232-99-
11/2/1999
Municipal sewage
s Approved
s
s
STRASBURG RD.
KITCHENER
7-0763-85006
9/6/85
Municipal water
s Approved
s
s
9/6/85
Municipal sewage
s Approved
s
s
n/a
n/a
DEV. INC.
CITY
Status
Application Type
Client Name:
Client Address:
Client City:
Client Postal Code:
Contaminants:
Emission Control:
99
Client Name:
Client Address:
Client City:
Client Postal Code:
Contaminants:
Emission Control:
85
Client Name:
Client Address:
Client City:
Client Postal Code:
Contaminants:
Emission Control:
n/a
CITY
STRASBURG RD.
KITCHENER
3-1039-85006
85
Client Name:
Client Address:
Client City:
Client Postal Code:
Contaminants:
Emission Control:
Page
4
of Detail Report
Map Key
Company
Address
Certificate #
Application
Year
Issue Date
Approval Type
Status
n/a
KITCHENER CITY
PT.LOT 4, RP# 1478 (SWM)
KITCHENER CITY
3-1494-95006
95
11/29/95
Municipal sewage
9/23/02
Municipal & Private sewage s Approved
s Approved
Application Type
s
s
Client Name:
Client Address:
Client City:
Client Postal Code:
Contaminants:
Emission Control:
n/a
Country Hills East - Stage 2
Lot 8 and Part of Lot 13, Plan No.
1482
Kitchener
5637-5E6JLN 02
Client Name:
Client Address:
Client City:
Client Postal Code:
Contaminants:
Emission Control:
n/a
Settler's Grove
Parts of Lot 10
Kitchener
8745-4PCKXF 00
Client Name:
Client Address:
Client City:
Client Postal Code:
Contaminants:
Emission Control:
n/a
Huron Woods West Subdivision
Pt. of Blk. A, RP 696, Strasburg Road
Area
Kitchener
34104PAQH2
00
Client Name:
Client Address:
Client City:
Client Postal Code:
Contaminants:
Emission Control:
s New Certificate of Approval s
The Corporation of the City of Kitchener
200 King Street West
Kitchener
N2G 4G7
This application is for the construction of storm and sanitary sewers on Fallowfield Drive, Anastasia Drive,
Jeffrey Place, Fallview Street, and Fallview Court.
9/25/00
Corporation of the City of Kitchener
Kitchener
N2G 4G7
storm and sanitary sewers to be constructed on Lantern Street, Winifred Place, and Block 50.
9/19/00
Corporation of the City of Kitchener
Kitchener
N2G 4G7
This application is for the installation of storm and sanitary sewers on Strasburg Road, 78 metres north of
Huron Road.
Page
5
of Detail Report
Map Key
Company
Address
Certificate #
Application
Year
n/a
Settler's Grove
Parts of Lot 10
Kitchener
5340-4PCL3X 00
Client Name:
Client Address:
Client City:
Client Postal Code:
Contaminants:
Emission Control:
Issue Date
Approval Type
9/25/00
Municipal & Private water
Status
s Approved
Application Type
Corporation Of The City Of Kitchener
Kitchener
N2G 4G7
watermains to be constructed on Lantern Street and Winifred Place
Page
6
of Detail Report
Map Key
Company
Address
Year
EBR Registry No.
n/a
Deer Ridge Golf Club
Lot 12
Kitchener
2005
IA05E0749
Instrument Type:
Proposal Date:
Location:
Proponent Address:
Page 1 of Environmental Registry
Ministry Ref. No.
s 5657-6BUQRQ
Type
s Instrument Decision
Permit to take water - OWRA s. 34
Lot 12, Beasley's Broken Front, City of Kitchener, Regional Municipality of Waterloo
665 Pioneer Tower Road Kitchener Ontario N2P 2H7
Page
7
of Detail Report
Private Source Database
Map Key
Company
EHS-1
Page 1 of ERIS Historical Searches
Address
Order No.
No Municipal Address (see attached
map)
Kitchener
20080520028
Addit. Info Ordered:
Report Date
s 5/26/2008
Report Type
s Custom Report
Search Radius (km)
s 0.25
s
Fire Insur. Maps And /or Site Plans
Page
8
of Detail Report
Map Key
Company
Address
Location ID
Type
Expiry Date
Capacity (L)
Licence #
n/a
JOHN SCHULLER
ENTERPRISES LTD
PRT LOT 6 REG PL 1033
KITCHENER
7339
retail
1995-04-30
2000
0033617001
Page 1 of Private and Retail Fuel Storage Tanks
s
Page
9
of Detail Report
Ontario Spills
Map Key
Company
Address
Ref No.
Incident Dt
MOE Reported Dt
n/a
UNKNOWN
STRASBURG CREEK
KITCHENER CITY
68125
3/17/1992
3/17/1992
Incident Summary:
Incident Cause:
Incident Reason:
Nature of Impact:
Receiving Medium:
Environmental Impact:
n/a
n/a
UNKNOWN
MT ENGINEERING
Page 1 of Ontario Spills
STRASBURG CREEK ANVIL
STREET
KITCHENER CITY
76526
STRASBURG CREEK, NEAR BEHN
DR
CONTRACTORS/CONSTRUCTION
(519)743-6500
KITCHENER CITY
197798
3/29/1992
Incident Summary:
Incident Cause:
Incident Reason:
Nature of Impact:
Receiving Medium:
4/6/2001
Incident Summary:
Incident Cause:
Incident Reason:
Nature of Impact:
Receiving Medium:
Contaminant Name
s
Contaminant Quantity
s
s
DIESEL FUEL IN STRASBURG CREEK, SOURCE UNKNOWN, CREEK DYKED.
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
Water course or lake
WATER
NOT ANTICIPATED
3/30/1992
s
s
s
BACKENTRY: 1/2 L USED MOTOR OIL TO STORM SEWER FROM UNKNOWN SOURCE.
OTHER CONTAINER LEAK
VANDALISM
WATER
POSSIBLE
4/6/2001
s
s
s
MT ENGINEERING: BUILDING SUB-DIV. WASHING PIPES WITH CHLORINE - TO CREEK
WASTEWATER DISCHARGE TO WATERCOURSE
OTHER
Water
Possible
Page 10 of Detail Report
Map Key
Company
WWIS-1
Address
Well Id
Lot
lot 7
6500919
007
Concession
Concession Name
County
Municipality
BT
WATERLOO
KITCHENER CITY
(WATERLOO TWP)
Easting Nad83: 544014.1
Northing Nad83: 4804483
Zone:
17
Utm Reliability: margin of error : 100 m - 300 m
Construction Date: 10/6/1966
Primary Water Use: Not Used
Secondary Water Use:
Well Depth (ft): 124
Pump Rate (gpm):
Static Water Level (ft):
Flow Rate (gpm):
Clear/Cloudy:
Specific Capacity:
Final Well Status: Test Hole
Construction Method: Rotary (Convent.)
Flowing (y/n): Y
Elevation (ft): 305.329467
Elevation Reliability:
Depth to Bedrock (ft):
Overburden/Bedrock: Overburden
Water Type: FRESH
Casing Material: STEEL
Page 1 of Water Well Information System
Material Colour
Material
Thickness
(ft)
Original
Depth (ft)
1
1
3
4
GREY
CLAY, MEDIUM SAND
1
5
BLACK
MUCK
65
70
12
82
GREY
CLAY
2
84
GREY
CLAY, SILT
7
91
21
112
4
116
2
118
6
124
TOPSOIL
SILT, GRAVEL, CLAY
GRAVEL, MEDIUM SAND,
BOULDERS
GRAVEL, BOULDERS
MEDIUM SAND, GRAVEL
WHITE
CLAY, GRAVEL
MEDIUM SAND, GRAVEL
Map Key
Company
WWIS-2
Address
Well Id
Lot
lot 7
6500920
007
Concession
Concession Name
County
Municipality
BT
WATERLOO
KITCHENER CITY
(WATERLOO TWP)
Zone:
17
Primary Water Use: Municipal
Pump Rate (gpm): 300
Flow Rate (gpm):
Clear/Cloudy: CLEAR
Specific Capacity:
Flowing (y/n): Y
Water Type: Not stated
Thickness
(ft)
Original
Depth (ft)
Material Colour
Material
7
7
GREY
CLAY, MEDIUM SAND
2
9
BLACK
MUCK
12
21
FINE SAND, SILT, GRAVEL
46
67
CLAY, MEDIUM SAND
5
72
GREY
CLAY
9
81
GREY
31
112
9
121
CLAY, MEDIUM SAND,
GRAVEL
GRAVEL, BOULDERS,
MEDIUM SAND
GRAVEL, BOULDERS, CLAY
Map Key
Company
WWIS-3
Address
Well Id
Lot
lot 7
KITCHENER
6509756
007
Concession
Concession Name
County
Municipality
BT
WATERLOO
KITCHENER CITY
(WATERLOO TWP)
Easting Nad83: 543979
Zone:
17
Utm Reliability: margin of error : 10 - 30 m
Primary Water Use:
Well Depth (ft): 21.32546
Pump Rate (gpm):
Flow Rate (gpm):
Clear/Cloudy:
Specific Capacity:
Final Well Status: Observation Wells
Construction Method: Boring
Flowing (y/n):
Water Type:
Casing Material: PLASTIC
Thickness
(ft)
Original
Depth (ft)
Material Colour
Material
2.2
7.217848
BROWN
SILT, SAND
0.8
9.84252
BROWN
SAND, SILT
3.5
21.32546
GREY
SAND, SILT
Map Key
Company
WWIS-4
Address
Well Id
Lot
Concession
Concession Name
6507212
County
Municipality
WATERLOO
KITCHENER CITY
(BRIDGEPORT)
Zone:
17
Primary Water Use:
Well Depth (ft): 62
Pump Rate (gpm): 15
Static Water Level (ft): 34
Flow Rate (gpm):
Clear/Cloudy: CLEAR
Specific Capacity:
Final Well Status: Water Supply
Construction Method: Rotary (Air)
Flowing (y/n): N
Water Type: FRESH
Thickness
(ft)
Original
Depth (ft)
Material Colour
Material
15
15
BROWN
CLAY, STONES, HARD
17
32
BROWN
STONES
26
58
GREY
CLAY, STONES, HARD
4
62
BROWN
GRAVEL
Map Key
Company
WWIS-5
Address
Well Id
Lot
lot 11
KITCHENER
6509906
011
Concession
Concession Name
County
Municipality
BT
WATERLOO
KITCHENER CITY
(WATERLOO TWP)
Zone:
17
Pump Rate (gpm):
Flow Rate (gpm):
Clear/Cloudy:
Specific Capacity:
Construction Method: Driving
Flowing (y/n):
Water Type: FRESH
Thickness
(ft)
Original
Depth (ft)
Material Colour
Material
11.88
38.9763792
BLACK
FILL, TOPSOIL
0.31
39.9934396
BROWN
MEDIUM SAND, FINE SAND
2.44
47.9986892
GREY
MEDIUM SAND, FINE SAND
Map Key
Company
WWIS-6
Address
Well Id
Kitchener
7115454
Lot
Concession
Concession Name
County
Municipality
WATERLOO
KITCHENER CITY
Zone:
17
Construction Date:
Primary Water Use:
Well Depth (ft):
Pump Rate (gpm):
Flow Rate (gpm):
Clear/Cloudy:
Specific Capacity:
Final Well Status: Abandoned-Other
Construction Method:
Flowing (y/n):
Overburden/Bedrock:
Water Type:
Casing Material:
Thickness
(ft)
Original
Depth (ft)
Material Colour
Material
Map Key
Company
WWIS-7
Address
Well Id
Lot
lot 12
6500930
012
Concession
Concession Name
County
Municipality
BT
WATERLOO
KITCHENER CITY
(WATERLOO TWP)
Zone:
17
Utm Reliability: unknown UTM
Primary Water Use:
Pump Rate (gpm):
Flow Rate (gpm):
Clear/Cloudy:
Specific Capacity:
Flowing (y/n):
Water Type:
Casing Material:
Thickness
(ft)
Original
Depth (ft)
Material Colour
1
1
TOPSOIL
27
28
FINE SAND, GRAVEL
25
53
13
66
CLAY, MEDIUM SAND,
GRAVEL
GRAVEL
3
69
CLAY
29
98
CLAY, GRAVEL
6
104
GRAVEL
18
122
CLAY, GRAVEL
39
161
BROWN
Material
CLAY, GRAVEL
Map Key
Company
WWIS-8
Address
Well Id
Kitchener
7125411
Lot
Concession
Concession Name
County
Municipality
WATERLOO
KITCHENER CITY
Zone:
17
Primary Water Use: Monitoring
Pump Rate (gpm):
Static Water Level (ft): 0.5
Flow Rate (gpm):
Clear/Cloudy:
Specific Capacity:
Final Well Status: Dewatering
Flowing (y/n):
Overburden/Bedrock:
Thickness
(ft)
Original
Depth (ft)
Material Colour
Material
0.65
2.132546
BROWN
SILT
1.75
7.874016
BROWN
SAND, SILT
Map Key
Company
WWIS-9
Address
Well Id
KITCHENER
6510668
Lot
Concession
Concession Name
County
Municipality
WATERLOO
KITCHENER CITY
(WATERLOO TWP)
Zone:
17
Pump Rate (gpm): 1.8
Flow Rate (gpm):
Clear/Cloudy: CLEAR
Specific Capacity:
Construction Method: Jetting
Flowing (y/n):
Water Type: FRESH
Thickness
(ft)
Original
Depth (ft)
Material Colour
Material
4.8
15.748032
BROWN
2.8
24.934384
GREY
FINE SAND, MEDIUM SAND,
LOOSE
CLAY, SILTY, TILL
Map Key
Company
WWIS-10
Address
Well Id
KITCHENER
6510665
Lot
Concession
Concession Name
County
Municipality
WATERLOO
KITCHENER CITY
(WATERLOO TWP)
Zone:
17
Pump Rate (gpm):
Flow Rate (gpm):
Clear/Cloudy:
Specific Capacity:
Flowing (y/n):
Water Type:
Thickness
(ft)
Original
Depth (ft)
Material Colour
Material
4.5
14.76378
BROWN
3.1
24.934384
GREY
FINE SAND, MEDIUM SAND,
LOOSE
CLAY, SILTY, TILL
Map Key
Company
WWIS-11
Address
Well Id
Lot
Concession
lot 11 con 12
7051322
011
12
Concession Name
County
Municipality
WATERLOO
KITCHENER CITY
Zone:
17
Primary Water Use:
Well Depth (ft):
Pump Rate (gpm):
Flow Rate (gpm):
Clear/Cloudy:
Specific Capacity:
Flowing (y/n):
Overburden/Bedrock:
Water Type:
Casing Material:
Thickness
(ft)
Original
Depth (ft)
Material Colour
Material
Map Key
Company
WWIS-12
Address
Well Id
Lot
Concession
lot 1 con 1
KITCHENER
7046585
001
01
Concession Name
County
Municipality
WATERLOO
KITCHENER CITY
Zone:
17
Well Depth (ft):
Pump Rate (gpm):
Flow Rate (gpm):
Clear/Cloudy:
Specific Capacity:
Flowing (y/n):
Overburden/Bedrock:
Water Type:
Thickness
(ft)
Original
Depth (ft)
Material Colour
Material
Map Key
Company
WWIS-13
Address
Well Id
Lot
lot 12
KITHCENER
7137897
012
Concession
Concession Name
County
Municipality
WATERLOO
KITCHENER CITY
(WATERLOO TWP)
Zone:
17
Primary Water Use:
Well Depth (ft):
Pump Rate (gpm):
Flow Rate (gpm):
Clear/Cloudy:
Specific Capacity:
Flowing (y/n):
Overburden/Bedrock:
Water Type:
Casing Material:
Thickness
(ft)
Original
Depth (ft)
Material Colour
Material
Map Key
Company
WWIS-14
Address
Well Id
KITCHENER
7046364
Lot
Concession
Concession Name
County
Municipality
WATERLOO
KITCHENER CITY
(WATERLOO TWP)
Zone:
17
Primary Water Use:
Pump Rate (gpm):
Flow Rate (gpm):
Clear/Cloudy:
Specific Capacity:
Final Well Status:
Flowing (y/n):
Overburden/Bedrock:
Water Type: FRESH
Thickness
(ft)
Original
Depth (ft)
Material Colour
Material
6.9
22.637796
BROWN
SAND, LOOSE, WATERBEARING
Map Key
Company
WWIS-15
Address
Well Id
Lot
lot 12
6506558
012
Concession
Concession Name
County
Municipality
BT
WATERLOO
KITCHENER CITY
(WATERLOO TWP)
Zone:
17
Primary Water Use: Domestic
Well Depth (ft): 38
Pump Rate (gpm): 10
Flow Rate (gpm):
Clear/Cloudy: CLEAR
Specific Capacity:
Flowing (y/n): N
Water Type: FRESH
Thickness
(ft)
Original
Depth (ft)
Material Colour
Material
2
2
BLACK
TOPSOIL, SAND, CLAYEY
16
18
BROWN
SAND, CLAY, SOFT
17
35
BROWN
SAND, CLAY, HARD
3
38
BROWN
COARSE GRAVEL
Map Key
Company
WWIS-16
Address
Well Id
Lot
lot 12
KITCHENER
7042037
012
Concession
Concession Name
County
Municipality
WATERLOO
KITCHENER CITY
(WATERLOO TWP)
Zone:
17
Primary Water Use:
Well Depth (ft):
Pump Rate (gpm):
Flow Rate (gpm):
Clear/Cloudy:
Specific Capacity:
Final Well Status:
Flowing (y/n):
Overburden/Bedrock: No formation data
Water Type:
Casing Material:
Thickness
(ft)
Original
Depth (ft)
Material Colour
Material
Map Key
Company
WWIS-17
Address
Well Id
Lot
lot 10
KITCHENER
6509901
010
Concession
Concession Name
County
Municipality
BT
WATERLOO
KITCHENER CITY
(WATERLOO TWP)
Zone:
17
Primary Water Use:
Pump Rate (gpm):
Flow Rate (gpm):
Clear/Cloudy:
Specific Capacity:
Flowing (y/n):
Water Type: FRESH
Casing Material: PLASTIC, PLASTIC
Thickness
(ft)
Original
Depth (ft)
Material Colour
Material
1.5
4.92126
BROWN
SILT, TOPSOIL
1.9
11.154856
BROWN
SILT, SAND
0.4
12.467192
GREY
SILT, SAND
1.2
16.4042
GREY
SILT, CLAY
Map Key
Company
WWIS-18
Address
Well Id
Lot
lot 10
KITCHENER
6510287
010
Concession
Concession Name
County
Municipality
WATERLOO
KITCHENER CITY
(WATERLOO TWP)
Zone:
17
Utm Reliability:
Primary Water Use:
Well Depth (ft):
Pump Rate (gpm):
Flow Rate (gpm):
Clear/Cloudy:
Specific Capacity:
Flowing (y/n):
Water Type:
Casing Material:
Thickness
(ft)
Original
Depth (ft)
Material Colour
Material
Map Key
Company
WWIS-19
Address
Well Id
Lot
lot 7
6506160
007
Concession
Concession Name
County
Municipality
BT
WATERLOO
KITCHENER CITY
(WATERLOO TWP)
Zone:
17
Flow Rate (gpm):
Clear/Cloudy: CLEAR
Specific Capacity:
Construction Method: Cable Tool
Flowing (y/n): N
Water Type: FRESH
Casing Material: STEEL, STEEL
Thickness
(ft)
Original
Depth (ft)
Material Colour
Material
5
5
5
10
BROWN
CLAY
15
25
BROWN
CLAY
21
46
GREY
CLAY
14
60
GREY
SAND, GRAVEL
8
68
GREY
CLAY
42
110
GREY
SAND
4
114
GREY
CLAY
36
150
GREY
CLAY
1
151
GREY
SAND
12
163
GREY
GRAVEL, BOULDERS
3
166
BROWN
CLAY
FILL
Map Key
Company
WWIS-20
Address
Well Id
Lot
Concession
Concession Name
7149415
County
Municipality
WATERLOO
KITCHENER CITY
Zone:
17
Primary Water Use:
Well Depth (ft):
Pump Rate (gpm):
Flow Rate (gpm):
Clear/Cloudy:
Specific Capacity:
Final Well Status:
Flowing (y/n):
Elevation (ft):
Overburden/Bedrock:
Water Type:
Casing Material:
Thickness
(ft)
Original
Depth (ft)
Material Colour
Material
Map Key
Company
WWIS-21
Address
Well Id
Lot
lot 10
6507120
010
Concession
Concession Name
County
Municipality
BT
WATERLOO
KITCHENER CITY
(WATERLOO TWP)
Zone:
17
Flow Rate (gpm):
Clear/Cloudy:
Specific Capacity:
Flowing (y/n): N
Depth to Bedrock (ft): 249
Overburden/Bedrock: Bedrock
Water Type: FRESH
Casing Material:
Thickness
(ft)
Original
Depth (ft)
Material Colour
Material
103
103
BROWN
SAND, SILT, GRAVELLY
43
146
GREY
CLAY, SAND, HARD
8
154
GREY
TILL, SILT, HARD
10
164
GREY
SAND
32
196
GREY
SAND, GRAVEL, SOFT
4
200
GREY
STONES, TILL, HARD
49
249
BROWN
CLAY
12
261
GREY
SHALE, LIMESTONE, SOFT
13
274
BROWN
LIMESTONE
33
307
GREY
LIMESTONE
58
365
BROWN
LIMESTONE
Map Key
Company
WWIS-22
Address
Well Id
Lot
lot 10
6507121
010
Concession
Concession Name
County
Municipality
BT
WATERLOO
KITCHENER CITY
(WATERLOO TWP)
Zone:
17
Primary Water Use: Public
Flow Rate (gpm):
Clear/Cloudy: CLEAR
Specific Capacity:
Flowing (y/n): N
Water Type: FRESH
Thickness
(ft)
Original
Depth (ft)
Material Colour
Material
103
103
BROWN
SAND, SILT, SOFT
43
146
GREY
CLAY, SAND, HARD
8
154
GREY
TILL, SILT, HARD
10
164
GREY
SAND
32
196
GREY
SAND, GRAVEL, SOFT
Map Key
Company
WWIS-23
Address
Well Id
Lot
lot 12
6508172
012
Concession
Concession Name
County
Municipality
BT
WATERLOO
KITCHENER CITY
(WATERLOO TWP)
Zone:
17
Utm Reliability: margin of error : < 3 m
Pump Rate (gpm): 20
Flow Rate (gpm):
Clear/Cloudy: CLEAR
Specific Capacity:
Flowing (y/n): N
Water Type: FRESH
Thickness
(ft)
Original
Depth (ft)
Material Colour
Material
115
115
BROWN
SAND, CLAY, STONES
50
165
GREY
CLAY, SILT
40
205
GREY
CLAY, STONES
15
220
BROWN
GRAVEL
Map Key
Company
WWIS-24
Address
Well Id
Lot
lot 13
6506516
013
Concession
Concession Name
County
Municipality
BT
WATERLOO
KITCHENER CITY
(WATERLOO TWP)
Zone:
17
Pump Rate (gpm): 15
Flow Rate (gpm):
Clear/Cloudy: CLEAR
Specific Capacity:
Flowing (y/n): N
Water Type: FRESH
Casing Material: STEEL, STEEL
Thickness
(ft)
Original
Depth (ft)
Material Colour
Material
12
12
BROWN
CLAY
9
21
BROWN
GRAVEL, SAND, SOFT
49
70
GREY
CLAY
12
82
BROWN
SAND
45
127
GREY
CLAY
60
187
GREY
SAND, CLAY, SOFT
5
192
GREY
SAND
17
209
GREY
SAND, CLAY, SOFT
6
215
BROWN
GRAVEL
Map Key
Company
WWIS-25
Address
Well Id
KITCHENER
7150547
Lot
Concession
Concession Name
County
Municipality
WATERLOO
KITCHENER CITY
Zone:
17
Well Depth (ft): 20
Pump Rate (gpm):
Flow Rate (gpm):
Clear/Cloudy:
Specific Capacity:
Flowing (y/n):
Elevation (ft):
Overburden/Bedrock:
Water Type: Untested
Casing Material: STEEL, PLASTIC
Thickness
(ft)
Original
Depth (ft)
Material Colour
Material
9
9
BLACK
PEAT
11
20
BROWN
SAND, GRAVEL
Map Key
Company
WWIS-26
Address
Well Id
Lot
lot 13
Kitchener
7104584
013
Concession
Concession Name
County
Municipality
WATERLOO
KITCHENER CITY
(WATERLOO TWP)
Zone:
17
Construction Date:
Pump Rate (gpm):
Flow Rate (gpm):
Clear/Cloudy:
Specific Capacity:
Flowing (y/n):
Overburden/Bedrock:
Thickness
(ft)
Original
Depth (ft)
Material Colour
Material
0.3
0.984252
BROWN
SILT
0.3
1.968504
BROWN
SILT, SAND
7.9
27.88714
BROWN
SAND, SILT
Map Key
Company
WWIS-27
Address
Well Id
Lot
Concession
Concession Name
6508244
County
Municipality
WATERLOO
KITCHENER CITY
Zone:
17
Utm Reliability: margin of error : < 3 m
Pump Rate (gpm): 25
Flow Rate (gpm):
Clear/Cloudy: CLEAR
Specific Capacity:
Flowing (y/n): N
Water Type: FRESH
Thickness
(ft)
Original
Depth (ft)
Material Colour
Material
49
49
BROWN
GRAVEL, SILT, SAND
13
62
BROWN
GRAVEL, BOULDERS, HARD
61
123
GREY
CLAY, SILT, STONES
26
149
GREY
SAND, SILT, SOFT
22
171
GREY
TILL, STONES, HARD
13
184
GREY
SAND, GRAVEL, SOFT
2
186
GREY
SAND, SILT, SOFT
Map Key
Company
WWIS-28
Address
Well Id
Lot
Concession
Concession Name
6500106
County
Municipality
WATERLOO
CAMBRIDGE CITY (GALT)
Zone:
17
Well Depth (ft): 69
Pump Rate (gpm): 8
Flow Rate (gpm):
Clear/Cloudy: CLEAR
Specific Capacity:
Flowing (y/n): N
Water Type: FRESH
Casing Material: STEEL, OPEN HOLE
Thickness
(ft)
Original
Depth (ft)
Material Colour
Material
10
10
TOPSOIL, STONES
20
30
GRAVEL
8
38
MEDIUM SAND
9
47
WHITE
ROCK
13
60
BROWN
ROCK
9
69
WHITE
ROCK
Map Key
Company
WWIS-29
Address
Well Id
KITCHENER
6510709
Lot
Concession
Concession Name
County
Municipality
WATERLOO
KITCHENER CITY
(WATERLOO TWP)
Zone:
17
Primary Water Use:
Pump Rate (gpm):
Flow Rate (gpm):
Clear/Cloudy:
Specific Capacity:
Flowing (y/n):
Water Type:
Thickness
(ft)
Original
Depth (ft)
Material Colour
Material
0.4
1.312336
BROWN
2.6
9.84252
BROWN
SILT, TOPSOIL, DARKCOLOURED
SILT, SAND, CLAY
0.8
12.467192
BROWN
SILT, CLAY
0.7
14.76378
GREY
SILT, CLAY
Map Key
Company
WWIS-30
Address
Well Id
Lot
lot 14
6503114
014
Concession
Concession Name
County
Municipality
BT
WATERLOO
KITCHENER CITY
(WATERLOO TWP)
Zone:
17
Well Depth (ft): 25
Pump Rate (gpm):
Flow Rate (gpm):
Clear/Cloudy: CLOUDY
Specific Capacity:
Flowing (y/n): N
Water Type: FRESH
Casing Material: GALVANIZED
Thickness
(ft)
Original
Depth (ft)
Material Colour
Material
1
1
BLACK
TOPSOIL
3
4
BROWN
CLAY
21
25
BROWN
MEDIUM SAND
Map Key
Company
WWIS-31
Address
Well Id
Lot
lot 9
6500923
009
Concession
Concession Name
County
Municipality
BT
WATERLOO
KITCHENER CITY
(WATERLOO TWP)
Zone:
17
Primary Water Use: Livestock
Secondary Water Use: Domestic
Well Depth (ft): 55
Pump Rate (gpm): 15
Flow Rate (gpm):
Clear/Cloudy: CLEAR
Specific Capacity:
Flowing (y/n): N
Water Type: FRESH
Thickness
(ft)
Original
Depth (ft)
Material Colour
Material
22
22
BROWN
CLAY
28
50
CLAY, MEDIUM SAND
5
55
MEDIUM SAND
Map Key
Company
WWIS-32
Address
Well Id
Lot
lot 14
6509829
014
Concession
Concession Name
County
Municipality
BT
WATERLOO
KITCHENER CITY
(WATERLOO TWP)
Zone:
17
Primary Water Use:
Pump Rate (gpm):
Flow Rate (gpm):
Clear/Cloudy:
Specific Capacity:
Flowing (y/n):
Water Type: FRESH
Thickness
(ft)
Original
Depth (ft)
Material Colour
Material
4
13.12336
BROWN
SAND, SILT
1
16.4042
GREY
SILT
Map Key
Company
WWIS-33
Address
Well Id
Lot
lot 14
6507679
014
Concession
Concession Name
County
Municipality
WATERLOO
KITCHENER CITY
(WATERLOO TWP)
Zone:
17
Pump Rate (gpm):
Flow Rate (gpm):
Clear/Cloudy:
Specific Capacity:
Construction Method: Rotary (Reverse)
Flowing (y/n):
Overburden/Bedrock: Mixed in a Layer
Water Type:
Thickness
(ft)
Original
Depth (ft)
Material Colour
Material
11
11
BROWN
SAND, SILTY, SOFT
22
33
GREY
SAND, SILTY, SOFT
15
48
GREY
26
74
GREY
34
108
GREY
53
161
GREY
STONES, SILT, MEDIUMGRAINED
CLAY, LAYERED, MEDIUM
SAND
GRAVEL, CEMENTED,
MEDIUM-GRAINED
GRAVEL, SOFT, CEMENTED
43
204
GREY
19
223
BROWN
16
239
GREY
13
252
GREY
SAND, SILTY, MEDIUMGRAINED
CLAY, STONES, MEDIUMGRAINED
CLAY, STONES, SHALE
SHALE, LIMESTONE,
LAYERED
Map Key
Company
WWIS-34
Address
Well Id
Lot
lot 6
kitchener
6509715
006
Concession
Concession Name
County
Municipality
BNS
WATERLOO
KITCHENER CITY
(WATERLOO TWP)
Zone:
17
Primary Water Use:
Pump Rate (gpm):
Flow Rate (gpm):
Clear/Cloudy:
Specific Capacity:
Flowing (y/n):
Water Type:
Thickness
(ft)
Original
Depth (ft)
Material Colour
Material
13.1
42.979004
BROWN
SAND
9.2
73.162732
BROWN
SAND, GRAVEL
3.3
83.989504
BROWN
SILT, SAND
Map Key
Company
WWIS-35
Address
Well Id
Kitchener
7118822
Lot
Concession
Concession Name
County
Municipality
WATERLOO
KITCHENER CITY
Zone:
17
Pump Rate (gpm):
Flow Rate (gpm):
Clear/Cloudy:
Specific Capacity:
Final Well Status:
Flowing (y/n):
Elevation (ft):
Overburden/Bedrock:
Water Type:
Thickness
(ft)
Original
Depth (ft)
Material Colour
Material
0.1
0.328084
BROWN
SILT, TOPSOIL
11.8
39.041996
BROWN
SAND, SILT
5.2
56.102364
BROWN
SAND, GRAVEL
2.7
64.960632
BROWN
SILT, SAND
Map Key
Company
WWIS-36
Address
Well Id
Lot
lot 344
Kitchener
7116518
344
Concession
Concession Name
County
Municipality
WATERLOO
KITCHENER CITY
Zone:
17
Pump Rate (gpm):
Flow Rate (gpm):
Clear/Cloudy:
Specific Capacity:
Flowing (y/n):
Overburden/Bedrock:
Thickness
(ft)
Original
Depth (ft)
Material Colour
Material
0.3
0.984252
BROWN
SILT, TOPSOIL
3
10.826772
BROWN
SILT, SAND, CLAY
4
23.950132
BROWN
SAND, SILT
Map Key
Company
WWIS-37
Address
Well Id
Lot
lot 4
KITCHENER
6510322
004
Concession
Concession Name
County
Municipality
WATERLOO
KITCHENER CITY
(WATERLOO TWP)
Zone:
17
Utm Reliability:
Primary Water Use:
Pump Rate (gpm):
Flow Rate (gpm):
Clear/Cloudy:
Specific Capacity:
Flowing (y/n):
Water Type:
Thickness
(ft)
Original
Depth (ft)
Material Colour
Material
3
9.84252
BROWN
SAND, DRY
2.5
18.04462
BROWN
SAND, SILT, WATERBEARING
Map Key
Company
WWIS-38
Address
Well Id
Lot
lot 4
6504970
004
Concession
Concession Name
County
Municipality
BNS
WATERLOO
KITCHENER CITY
(WATERLOO TWP)
Zone:
17
Primary Water Use:
Pump Rate (gpm):
Flow Rate (gpm):
Clear/Cloudy:
Specific Capacity:
Flowing (y/n):
Water Type:
Casing Material:
Thickness
(ft)
Original
Depth (ft)
Material Colour
26
26
SILT, COARSE SAND
24
50
COARSE GRAVEL, STONES
20
70
TILL, SANDY
7
77
CLAY, TILL
33
110
GRAVEL, BOULDERS
30
140
GRAVEL, STONES
80
220
CLAY, TILL, STONES
64
284
CLAY, TILL, STONES
8
292
GREY
Material
LIMESTONE
Map Key
Company
WWIS-39
Address
Well Id
Lot
lot 6
KITCHENER
7113289
006
Concession
Concession Name
County
Municipality
WATERLOO
KITCHENER CITY
Zone:
17
Pump Rate (gpm): 7
Flow Rate (gpm):
Clear/Cloudy: CLEAR
Specific Capacity:
Flowing (y/n):
Overburden/Bedrock:
Water Type:
Casing Material:
Thickness
(ft)
Original
Depth (ft)
28
91.86352
Material Colour
Material
OTHER
Map Key
Company
n/a
Address
Well Id
Lot
lot 10
6505518
010
Concession
Concession Name
County
Municipality
BOS
WATERLOO
KITCHENER CITY
(WATERLOO TWP)
Easting Nad83:
Northing Nad83:
Zone:
17
Well Depth (ft): 50
Pump Rate (gpm):
Flow Rate (gpm):
Clear/Cloudy:
Specific Capacity:
Final Well Status: Abandoned-Supply
Flowing (y/n):
Elevation (ft):
Water Type:
Casing Material: GALVANIZED
Thickness
(ft)
Original
Depth (ft)
Material Colour
Material
4
4
BROWN
CLAY
1
5
12
17
GREY
CLAY
1
18
GREY
TOPSOIL
11
29
GREY
CLAY
21
50
BLUE
LIMESTONE
GRAVEL
Map Key
Company
n/a
Address
Well Id
Lot
lot 12
6507339
012
Concession
Concession Name
County
Municipality
BET
WATERLOO
KITCHENER CITY
(WATERLOO TWP)
Easting Nad83:
Northing Nad83:
Zone:
17
Pump Rate (gpm): 12
Flow Rate (gpm):
Clear/Cloudy: CLOUDY
Specific Capacity:
Flowing (y/n): N
Elevation (ft):
Thickness
(ft)
Original
Depth (ft)
Material Colour
Material
50
50
BROWN
CLAY, SAND, LOOSE
10
60
BROWN
SAND
63
123
GREY
CLAY, HARD
57
180
GREY
CLAY, SAND, GRAVEL
17
197
GREY
SAND, GRAVEL, LOOSE
1
198
GREY
GRAVEL, FINE SAND
Map Key
Company
n/a
Address
Well Id
Lot
lot 4
6507399
004
Concession
Concession Name
County
Municipality
BOS
WATERLOO
KITCHENER CITY
(WATERLOO TWP)
Easting Nad83:
Northing Nad83:
Zone:
17
Well Depth (ft): 92
Pump Rate (gpm): 10
Flow Rate (gpm):
Clear/Cloudy: CLEAR
Specific Capacity:
Flowing (y/n): N
Elevation (ft):
Water Type: FRESH
Thickness
(ft)
Original
Depth (ft)
Material Colour
Material
38
38
BROWN
CLAY, STONES, BOULDERS
17
55
GREY
CLAY, HARD
28
83
GREY
CLAY, STONES, HARD
7
90
BROWN
SAND, STONES, LOOSE
2
92
BROWN
GRAVEL, LOOSE
Map Key
Company
n/a
Address
Well Id
Lot
lot 4
6508076
004
Concession
Concession Name
County
Municipality
BOS
WATERLOO
KITCHENER CITY
(WATERLOO TWP)
Easting Nad83:
Northing Nad83:
Zone:
17
Well Depth (ft): 76
Pump Rate (gpm): 15
Flow Rate (gpm):
Clear/Cloudy: CLEAR
Specific Capacity:
Flowing (y/n): N
Elevation (ft):
Thickness
(ft)
Original
Depth (ft)
Material Colour
Material
52
52
BROWN
CLAY, STONES, GRAVEL
24
76
GREY
LIMESTONE
Map Key
Company
n/a
Address
Well Id
Lot
lot 12
6508173
012
Concession
Concession Name
County
Municipality
BOS
WATERLOO
KITCHENER CITY
(WATERLOO TWP)
Easting Nad83:
Northing Nad83:
Zone:
17
Pump Rate (gpm): 30
Flow Rate (gpm):
Clear/Cloudy: CLEAR
Specific Capacity:
Flowing (y/n): N
Elevation (ft):
Water Type: FRESH
Thickness
(ft)
Original
Depth (ft)
Material Colour
Material
65
65
BROWN
CLAY, STONES, HARD
37
102
GREY
SILT, SOFT
33
135
GREY
CLAY, HARD
25
160
GREY
CLAY, STONES, HARD
5
165
BROWN
GRAVEL, LOOSE
Map Key
Company
n/a
Address
Well Id
Lot
lot 10
6508592
010
Concession
Concession Name
County
Municipality
BOS
WATERLOO
KITCHENER CITY
(WATERLOO TWP)
Easting Nad83:
Northing Nad83:
Zone:
17
Pump Rate (gpm): 8
Flow Rate (gpm):
Clear/Cloudy: CLEAR
Specific Capacity:
Flowing (y/n): N
Elevation (ft):
Water Type: FRESH
Thickness
(ft)
Original
Depth (ft)
Material Colour
Material
37
37
BROWN
SAND, GRAVEL, SOFT
59
96
GREY
CLAY
11
107
GREY
SAND, SILT
4
111
GREY
SAND, GRAVEL
Map Key
Company
n/a
Address
Well Id
Lot
lot 8
6509133
008
Concession
Concession Name
County
Municipality
WATERLOO
KITCHENER CITY
Easting Nad83:
Northing Nad83:
Zone:
17
Well Depth (ft):
Pump Rate (gpm):
Flow Rate (gpm):
Clear/Cloudy:
Specific Capacity:
Construction Method: Not Known
Flowing (y/n):
Elevation (ft):
Water Type:
Casing Material:
Thickness
(ft)
Original
Depth (ft)
Material Colour
Material
Map Key
Company
n/a
Address
Well Id
Lot
lot 4
6509294
004
Concession
Concession Name
County
Municipality
BOS
WATERLOO
KITCHENER CITY
(WATERLOO TWP)
Easting Nad83:
Northing Nad83:
Zone:
17
Well Depth (ft): 81
Pump Rate (gpm): 20
Flow Rate (gpm):
Clear/Cloudy:
Specific Capacity:
Construction Method: Air Precussion
Flowing (y/n): N
Elevation (ft):
Thickness
(ft)
Original
Depth (ft)
Material Colour
Material
18
18
BROWN
CLAY, SANDY, STONES
17
35
BROWN
CLAY, GRAVEL, SANDY
7
42
BROWN
GRAVEL, SAND
36
78
GREY
CLAY, SANDY, GRAVEL
3
81
GREY
GRAVEL, SAND
Map Key
Company
n/a
Address
Well Id
Lot
DOON CREEK SUBDIVISION TILT
DRIVE
lot 5
Kitchener
7122596
005
Concession
Concession Name
County
Municipality
WATERLOO
KITCHENER CITY
Zone:
17
Pump Rate (gpm):
Flow Rate (gpm):
Clear/Cloudy:
Specific Capacity:
Final Well Status:
Flowing (y/n):
Elevation (ft):
Overburden/Bedrock:
Water Type:
Thickness
(ft)
Original
Depth (ft)
Material Colour
Material
5.5
18.04462
BROWN
FINE SAND, MEDIUM SAND
0.5
19.68504
GREY
CLAY, TILL, CLAYEY
Appendix: Ontario Database Descriptions
EcoLog Environmental Risk Information Services Ltd can search the following databases. The extent of historical
information varies with each database and current information is determined by what is publicly available to EcoLog ERIS at
the time of update. Note: Databases denoted with “*” indicates that the database will no longer be updated. See the
individual database descriptions for more information.
Provincial Government Source Databases:
Abandoned Aggregate Inventory Up to Sept 2002
AAGR
The MAAP Program maintains a database of all abandoned pits and quarries. Please note that the database is only
referenced by lot and concession and city/town location. The database provides information regarding the location, type,
size, land use, status and general comments.
Aggregate Inventory Up to Jun 2010
AGR
The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources maintains a database of all active pits and quarries. Please note that the database
is only referenced by lot\concession and city/town location. The database provides information regarding the registered
owner/operator, location, status, licence type, and maximum tonnage.
Abandoned Mines Information System 1800-2005
AMIS
The Abandoned Mines Information System contains data on known abandoned and inactive mines located on both Crown
and privately held lands. The information was provided by the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (MNDM),
with the following disclaimer: “the database provided has been compiled from various sources, and the Ministry of Northern
Development and Mines makes no representation and takes no responsibility that such information is accurate, current or
complete”. Reported information includes official mine name, status, background information, mine start/end date, primary
commodity, mine features, hazards and remediation.
Borehole 1875-Sept 2010
BORE
A borehole is the generalized term for any narrow shaft drilled in the ground, either vertically or horizontally. The
information here includes geotechnical investigations or environmental site assessments, mineral exploration, or as a pilot
hole for installing piers or underground utilities. Information is from many sources such as the Ministry of Transportation
(MTO) boreholes from engineering reports and projects from the 1950 to 1990’s in Southern Ontario. Boreholes from the
Ontario Geological Survey (OGS) including The Urban Geology Analysis Information System (UGAIS) and the York Peel
Durham Toronto (YPDT) database of the Conservation Authority Moraine Coalition. This database will include fields such
as location, stratigraphy, depth, elevation, year drilled, etc.
For all water well data or oil and gas well data for Ontario please refer to WWIS and OOGW.
Certificates of Approval 1985-Sept 2002* (for current CofA info please check the EBR Database)
CA
This database contains the following types of approvals: Certificates of Approval (Air) issued under Section 9 of the Ontario
EPA; Certificates of Approval (Industrial Wastewater) issued under Section 53 of the Ontario Water Resources Act
(“OWRA”); and Certificates of Approval (Municipal/Provincial Sewage and Waterworks) issued under Sections 52 and 53
of the OWRA. For more current Certificate of Approval information please see the EBR database, which will include
information such as 'Approval for discharge into the natural environment other than water (i.e. Air) (EPA s.9)', and Approval
for sewage works (OWRA s.53(1)).
TSSA Commercial Fuel Oil Tanks 1948-Aug 2010
CFOT
Since May 2002, Ontario developed a new act where it became mandatory for fuel oil tanks to be registered with Technical
Standards & Safety Authority (TSSA). This data would include all commercial underground fuel oil tanks in Ontario with
fields such as location, registration number, tank material, age of tank and tank size.
Coal Gasification Plants 1987, 1988*
COAL
This inventory of all known and historical coal gasification plants was collected by the Ministry of Environment. It
identifies industrial sites that produced and continue to produce or use coal tar and other related tars. Detailed information is
available and includes: facility type, size, landuse, soil condition, site operators/occupants, site description, and potential
environmental impacts. This information is effective to 1988, but the program has since been discontinued.
Compliance and Convictions 1989-2010
CONV
This database summarizes the fines and convictions handed down by the Ontario courts beginning in 1989. Companies and
individuals named here have been found guilty of environmental offenses in Ontario courts of law.
Drill Holes 1886-2005
DRL
The Ontario Drill Hole Database contains information on more than 113,000 percussion, overburden, sonic and diamond
drill holes from assessment files on record with the department of Mines and Minerals. Please note that limited data is
available for southern Ontario, as it was the last area to be completed. The database was created when surveys submitted to
the Ministry were converted in the Assessment File Research Image Database (AFRI) project. However, the degree of
accuracy (coordinates) as to the exact location of drill holes is dependent upon the source document submitted to the
MNDM. Levels of accuracy used to locate holes are: centering on the mining claim; a sketch of the mining claim; a
1:50,000 map; a detailed company map; or from submitted a “Report of Work”.
Environmental Registry 1994-2010
EBR
The Environmental Registry lists proposals, decisions and exceptions regarding policies, Acts, instruments, or regulations
that could significantly affect the environment. Through the Registry, thirteen provincial ministries notify the public of
upcoming proposals and invite their comments. For example, if a local business is requesting a permit, licence, or certificate
of approval to release substances into the air or water; these are notified on the registry. Data includes things like; Approval
for discharge into the natural environment other than water (i.e. Air), Permit to Take Water (PTTW), Certificate of Property
Use (CPU), Approval for a waste disposal site, Order for preventative measures.(EPA s. 18), Order for conformity with Act
for waste disposal sites.(EPA s. 44), Order for remedial work.(EPA s. 17) and many more.
TSSA Fuel Storage Tanks Current to Jun 2010
FST
The Technical Standards & Safety Authority (TSSA), under the Technical Standards & Safety Act of 2000 maintains a database
of registered private and retail fuel storage tanks in Ontario with fields such as location, tank status, license date, tank type, tank
capacity, fuel type, installation year and facility type.
Ontario Regulation 347 Waste Generators Summary 1986-Oct 2010
GEN
Regulation 347 of the Ontario EPA defines a waste generation site as any site, equipment and/or operation involved in the
production, collection, handling and/or storage of regulated wastes. A generator of regulated waste is required to register the
waste generation site and each waste produced, collected, handled, or stored at the site. This database contains the
registration number, company name and address of registered generators including the types of hazardous wastes generated.
It includes data on waste generating facilities such as: drycleaners, waste treatment and disposal facilities, machine shops,
electric power distribution etc. This information is a summary of all years from 1986 including the most currently available
data. Some records may contain, within the company name, the phrase “See & Use…” followed by a series of letters and
numbers. This occurs when one company is amalgamated with or taken over by another registered company. The number
listed as “See & Use”, refers to the new ownership and the other identification number refers to the original ownership. This
phrase serves as a link between the 2 companies until operations have been fully transferred.
Mineral Occurrences 1846-Nov 2010
MNR
In the early 70’s, the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines created an inventory of approximately 19,000 mineral
occurrences in Ontario, in regard to metallic and industrial minerals, as well as some information on building stones and
aggregate deposits. Please note that the “Horizontal Positional Accuracy” is approximately +/- 200 m. Many reference
elements for each record were derived from field sketches using pace or chain/tape measurements against claim posts or
topographic features in the area. The primary limiting factor for the level of positional accuracy is the scale of the source
material. The testing of horizontal accuracy of the source materials was accomplished by comparing the planimetric (X and
Y) coordinates of that point with the coordinates of the same point as defined from a source of higher accuracy.
-2-
Non-Compliance Reports 1992(water only), 1994-2008
NCPL
The Ministry of the Environment provides information about non-compliant discharges of contaminants to air and water that
exceed legal allowable limits, from regulated industrial and municipal facilities. A reported non-compliance failure may be
in regard to a Control Order, Certificate of Approval, Sectoral Regulation or specific regulation/act.
Ontario Oil and Gas Wells 1800-Nov 2010
OOGW
In 1998, the MNR handed over to the Ontario Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Corporation, the responsibility of maintaining a
database of oil and gas wells drilled in Ontario. The OGSR Library has over 20,000+ wells in their database. Information
available for all wells in the ERIS database include well owner/operator, location, permit issue date, well cap date, licence
no., status, depth and the primary target (rock unit) of the well being drilled. All geology/stratigraphy table information, plus
all water table information is also provide for each well record.
Ontario Inventory of PCB Storage Sites 1987-Oct 2004
OPCB
The Ontario Ministry of Environment, Waste Management Branch, maintains an inventory of PCB storage sites within the
province. Ontario Regulation 11/82 (Waste Management - PCB) and Regulation 347 (Generator Waste Management) under
the Ontario EPA requires the registration of inactive PCB storage equipment and/or disposal sites of PCB waste with the
Ontario Ministry of Environment. This database contains information on: 1) waste quantities; 2) major and minor sites
storing liquid or solid waste; and 3) a waste storage inventory.
Pesticide Register 1988-Jan 2010
PES
The Ontario Ministry of Environment maintains a database of all manufacturers and vendors of registered pesticides.
Private and Retail Fuel Storage Tanks 1989-1996*
PRT
The Fuels Safety Branch of the Ontario Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations maintained a database of all
registered private fuel storage tanks and licensed retail fuel outlets. This database includes an inventory of locations that have
gasoline, oil, waste oil, natural gas and/or propane storage tanks on their property. The MCCR no longer collects this
information. This information is now collected by the Technical Standards and Safety Authority (TSSA).
Ontario Regulation 347 Waste Receivers Summary 1986-2008
REC
Part V of the Ontario Environmental Protection Act (“EPA”) regulates the disposal of regulated waste through an operating
waste management system or a waste disposal site operated or used pursuant to the terms and conditions of a Certificate of
Approval or a Provisional Certificate of Approval. Regulation 347 of the Ontario EPA defines a waste receiving site as any
site or facility to which waste is transferred by a waste carrier. A receiver of regulated waste is required to register the waste
receiving facility. This database represents registered receivers of regulated wastes, identified by registration number,
company name and address, and includes receivers of waste such as: landfills, incinerators, transfer stations, PCB storage
sites, sludge farms and water pollution control plants. This information is a summary of all years from 1986 including the
most currently available data.
Record of Site Condition 1997-Sept 2001, Oct 2004-2010
RSC
The Record of Site Condition (RSC) is part of the Ministry of the Environment’s Brownfields Environmental Site Registry.
Protection from environmental cleanup orders for property owners is contingent upon documentation known as a record of
site condition (RSC) being filed in the Environmental Site Registry. In order to file an RSC, the property must have been
properly assessed and shown to meet the soil, sediment and groundwater standards appropriate for the use, such as
residential, proposed to take place on the property. The Record of Site Condition Regulation (O. Reg. 153/04) details
requirements related to site assessment and clean up. Information available includes Registration Number, Filing Owner,
Property Address, Filing Date and Municipality.
-3-
Ontario Spills 1988-Jun 2010
SPL
This database identifies information such as location (approximate), type and quantity of contaminant, date of spill,
environmental impact, cause, nature of impact, etc. Information from 1988-2002 was part of the ORIS (Occurrence
Reporting Information System). The SAC (Spills Action Centre) handles all spills reported in Ontario. Regulations for spills
in Ontario are part of the MOE’s Environmental Protection Act, Part X.
Wastewater Discharger Registration Database 1990-2009
SRDS
Information under this heading is combination of the following 2 programs. The Municipal/Industrial Strategy for
Abatement (MISA) division of the Ontario Ministry of Environment maintained a database of all direct dischargers of toxic
pollutants within nine sectors including: Electric Power Generation; Mining; Petroleum Refining; Organic Chemicals;
Inorganic Chemicals; Pulp & Paper; Metal Casting; Iron & Steel; and Quarries. All sampling information is now collected
and stored within the Sample Result Data Store (SRDS).
Waste Disposal Sites - MOE CA Inventory 1970-Sept 2002
WDS
The Ontario Ministry of Environment, Waste Management Branch, maintains an inventory of known open (active or
inactive) and closed disposal sites in the Province of Ontario. Active sites maintain a Certificate of Approval, are approved
to receive and are receiving waste. Inactive sites maintain Certificate(s) of Approval but are not receiving waste. Closed
sites are not receiving waste. The data contained within this database was compiled from the MOE's Certificate of Approval
database. Locations of these sites may be cross-referenced to the Anderson database described under ERIS’s Private Source
Database section, by the CA number. For more current information for Waste Disposal Sites please see the EBR database,
which will include information such as 'Approval for a waste disposal site (EPA s.27)' and 'Approval for use of a former
waste disposal site (EPA s.46)'.
Waste Disposal Sites - MOE 1991 Historical Approval Inventory Up to Oct 1990*
WDSH
In June 1991, the Ontario Ministry of Environment, Waste Management Branch, published the "June 1991 Waste Disposal
Site Inventory", of all known active and closed waste disposal sites as of October 30st, 1990. For each "active" site as of
October 31st 1990, information is provided on site location, site/CA number, waste type, site status and site classification.
For each "closed" site as of October 31st 1990, information is provided on site location, site/CA number, closure date and
site classification. Locations of these sites may be cross-referenced to the Anderson database described under ERIS’s Private
Source Database section, by the CA number.
Water Well Information System 1955-Sept 2010
WWIS
This database describes locations and characteristics of water wells found within Ontario in accordance with Regulation 903.
It includes such information as coordinates, construction date, well depth, primary and secondary use, pump rate, static water
level, well status, etc. Also included are detailed stratigraphy information, approximate depth to bedrock and the
approximate depth to the water table.
Diagram Identifier:
Federal Government Source Databases:
Environmental Effects Monitoring 1992-2007*
EEM
The Environmental Effects Monitoring program assesses the effects of effluent from industrial or other sources on fish, fish
habitat and human usage of fisheries resources. Since 1992, pulp and paper mills have been required to conduct EEM
studies under the Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations. This database provides information on the mill name, geographical
location and sub-lethal toxicity data.
Environmental Issues Inventory System 1992-2001*
EIIS
The Environmental Issues Inventory System was developed through the implementation of the Environmental Issues and
Remediation Plan. This plan was established to determine the location and severity of contaminated sites on inhabited First
Nation reserves, and where necessary, to remediate those that posed a risk to health and safety; and to prevent future
environmental problems. The EIIS provides information on the reserve under investigation, inventory number, name of site,
environmental issue, site action (Remediation, Site Assessment), and date investigation completed.
-4-
Federal Convictions 1988-Jun 2007
FCON
Environment Canada maintains a database referred to as the “Environmental Registry” that details prosecutions under the
Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) and the Fisheries Act (FA). Information is provided on the company name,
location, charge date, offence and penalty.
Contaminated Sites on Federal Land June 2000-Jan 2011
FCS
The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat maintains an inventory of all known contaminated sites held by various Federal
departments and agencies. This inventory does not include properties owned by Crown corporations, but does contain nonfederal sites for which the Government of Canada has accepted some or all financial responsibility. All sites have been
classified through a system developed by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. The database provides
information on company name, location, site ID #, property use, classification, current status, contaminant type and plan of
action for site remediation.
Fisheries & Oceans Fuel Tanks 1964-Sept 2003
FOFT
Fisheries & Oceans Canada maintains an inventory of all aboveground & underground fuel storage tanks located on
Fisheries & Oceans property or controlled by DFO. Our inventory provides information on the site name, location, tank
owner, tank operator, facility type, storage tank location, tank contents & capacity, and date of tank installation.
Indian & Northern Affairs Fuel Tanks 1950-Aug 2003
IAFT
The Department of Indian & Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) maintains an inventory of all aboveground & underground
fuel storage tanks located on both federal and crown land. Our inventory provides information on the reserve name,
location, facility type, site/facility name, tank type, material & ID number, tank contents & capacity, and date of tank
installation.
National Analysis of Trends in Emergencies System (NATES) 1974-1994*
NATE
In 1974 Environment Canada established the National Analysis of Trends in Emergencies System (NATES) database, for the
voluntary reporting of significant spill incidents. The data was to be used to assist in directing the work of the emergencies
program. NATES ran from 1974 to 1994. Extensive information is available within this database including company names,
place where the spill occurred, date of spill, cause, reason and source of spill, damage incurred, and amount, concentration,
and volume of materials released.
National Defence & Canadian Forces Fuel Tanks Up to May 2001*
NDFT
The Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces maintains an inventory of all aboveground & underground
fuel storage tanks located on DND lands. Our inventory provides information on the base name, location, tank type &
capacity, tank contents, tank class, date of tank installation, date tank last used, and status of tank as of May 2001. This
database will no longer be updated due to the new National Security protocols which have prohibited any release of this
database.
National Defence & Canadian Forces Spills Mar 1999-Aug 2010
NDSP
The Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces maintains an inventory of spills to land and water. All spill
sites have been classified under the “Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act - 1992”. Our inventory provides information
on the facility name, location, spill ID #, spill date, type of spill, as well as the quantity of substance spilled & recovered.
National Defence & Canadian Forces Waste Disposal Sites 2001-April 2007
NDWD
The Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces maintains an inventory of waste disposal sites located on
DND lands. Where available, our inventory provides information on the base name, location, type of waste received, area of
site, depth of site, year site opened/closed and status.
-5-
National Environmental Emergencies System (NEES) 1974-2003
NEES
In 2000, the Emergencies program implemented NEES, a reporting system for spills of hazardous substances. For the most
part, this system only captured data from the Atlantic Provinces, some from Quebec and Ontario and a portion from British
Columbia. Data for Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the Territories was not captured. However, NEES is also a
repository for all previous Environment Canada spill datasets. NEES is composed of the historic datasets – or Trends –
which dates from approximately 1974 to present. NEES Trends is a compilation of historic databases, which were merged
and includes data from NATES (National Analysis of Trends in Emergencies System), ARTS (Atlantic Regional Trends
System), and NEES. In 2001, the Emergencies Program determined that variations in reporting regimes and requirements
between federal and provincial agencies made national spill reporting and trend analysis difficult to achieve. As a
consequence, the department has focused efforts on capturing data on spills of substances which fall under its legislative
authority only (CEPA and FA). As such, the NEES database will be decommissioned in December 2004.
National PCB Inventory 1988-2008
NPCB
Environment Canada’s National PCB inventory includes information on in-use PCB containing equipment in Canada
including federal, provincial and private facilities. All federal out-of-service PCB containing equipment and all PCB waste
owned by the federal government or by federally regulated industries such as airlines, railway companies, broadcasting
companies, telephone and telecommunications companies, pipeline companies, etc. are also listed. Although it is not
Environment Canada’s mandate to collect data on non-federal PCB waste, the National PCB inventory includes some
information on provincial and private PCB waste and storage sites.
National Pollutant Release Inventory 1993-2008
NPRI
Environment Canada has defined the National Pollutant Release Inventory (“NPRI”) as a federal government initiative
designed to collect comprehensive national data regarding releases to air, water, or land, and waste transfers for recycling for
more than 300 listed substances.
Parks Canada Fuel Storage Tanks 1920-Jan 2005
PCFT
Canadian Heritage maintains an inventory of all known fuel storage tanks operated by Parks Canada, in both National Parks
and at National Historic Sites. The database details information on site name, location, tank install/removal date, capacity,
fuel type, facility type, tank design and owner/operator.
Transport Canada Fuel Storage Tanks 1970-March 2007
TCFT
With the provinces of BC, MB, NB, NF, ON, PE, and QC; Transport Canada currently owns and operates 90 fuel storage
tanks. This inventory will also include The Pickering Lands, which refers to the 7,530 hectares (18,600 acres) of land in
Pickering, Markham and Uxbridge - owned by the Government of Canada since 1972. Properties on this land has been
leased by the government since 1975, falls under the Site Management Policy of Transport Canada, but administered by
Public Works and Government Services Canada. Our inventory provides information on the site name, location, tank age,
capacity and fuel type.
Private Source Databases:
Anderson’s Waste Disposal Sites 1860s-Present
ANDR
The information provided in this database was collected by examining various historical documents which aimed to
characterize the likely position of former waste disposal sites from 1860 to present. The research initiative behind the
creation of this database was to identify those sites that are missing from the Ontario MOE Waste Disposal Site Inventory, as
well as to provide revisions and corrections to the positions and descriptions of sites currently listed in the MOE inventory.
In addition to historic waste disposal facilities, the database also identifies certain auto wreckers and scrap yards that have
been extrapolated from documentary sources. Please note that the data is not warranted to be complete, exhaustive or
authoritive. The information was collected for research purposes only.
-6-
Automobile Wrecking & Supplies 2001-Jun 2010
AUWR
This database provides an inventory of all known locations that are involved in the scrap metal, automobile
wrecking/recycling, and automobile parts & supplies industry. Information is provided on the company name, location and
business type.
Chemical Register 1992, 1999-Jun 2010
CHEM
This database includes information from both a one time study conducted in 1992 and private source and is a listing of
facilities that manufacture or distribute chemicals. The production of these chemical substances may involve one or more
chemical reactions and/or chemical separation processes (i.e. fractionation, solvent extraction, crystallization, etc.).
ERIS Historical Searches 1999-Sept 2010
EHS
EcoLog ERIS has compiled a database of all environmental risk reports completed since March 1999. Available fields for
this database include: site location, date of report, type of report, and search radius. As per all other databases, the ERIS
database can be referenced on both the map and “Statistical Profile” page.
Canadian Mine Locations 1998-2009
MINE
This information is collected from the Canadian & American Mines Handbook. The Mines database is a national database
that provides over 290 listings on mines (listed as public companies) dealing primarily with precious metals and hard rocks.
Listed are mines that are currently in operation, closed, suspended, or are still being developed (advanced projects). Their
locations are provided as geographic coordinates (x, y and/or longitude, latitude). As of 2002, data pertaining to Canadian
smelters and refineries has been appended to this database.
Oil and Gas Wells Oct 2001-2010
OGW
The Nickle’s Energy Group (publisher of the Daily Oil Bulletin) collects information on drilling activity including operator
and well statistics. The well information database includes name, location, class, status and depth. The main Nickles’
database is updated on a daily basis, however, this database is updated on a monthly basis. More information is available at
www.nickles.com.
Canadian Pulp and Paper 1999, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2009
PAP
This information is part of the Pulp and Paper Canada Directory. The Directory provides a comprehensive listing of the
locations of pulp and paper mills and the products that they produce.
Retail Fuel Storage Tanks 2000-Jun 2010
RST
This database includes an inventory of retail fuel outlet locations (including marinas) that have on their property gasoline,
oil, waste oil, natural gas and / or propane storage tanks. Information is provided on company name, location and type of
business.
Scott’s Manufacturing Directory 1992-Sept 2009
SCT
Scott’s Directories is a data bank containing information on over 70,000 manufacturers in Ontario. Even though Scott’s
listings are voluntary, it is the most comprehensive database of Ontario manufacturers available. Information concerning a
company’s address, plant size, and main products are included in this database. This database begins with 1992 information
and is updated annually.
Anderson’s Storage Tanks 1915-1953*
TANK
The information provided in this database was collected by examining various historical documents, which identified the
location of former storage tanks, containing substances such as fuel, water, gas, oil, and other various types of miscellaneous
products. Information is available in regard to business operating at tank site, tank location, permit year, permit &
installation type, no. of tanks installed & configuration and tank capacity. Data contained within this database pertains only
to the city of Toronto and is not warranted to be complete, exhaustive or authoritative. The information was collected for
research purposes only.
-7-
CITY OF KITCHENER
Kitchener, Ontario
331650-0000-4EGE-0001
Revision
No.
01
Date
Page
2011-10-24 Appendix
Appendix B
Historical Aerial Photographs
Strasburg COS.DOC
RO
ST
R
AD AS
BU
EX
TE RG
NS
IO
N
PART B
PART A
STUDY AREA
RO
ST
R
AD AS
BU
EX
TE RG
NS
IO
N
PART B
PART A
STUDY AREA
RO
ST
R
AD AS
BU
EX
TE RG
NS
IO
N
PART B
PART A
STUDY AREA
CITY OF KITCHENER
Kitchener, Ontario
331650-0000-4EGE-0001
Revision
No.
01
Date
Page
2011-10-24 Appendix
Appendix C
Site Photographs
Strasburg COS.DOC
CITY OF KITCHENER
Kitchener, Ontario
331650-0000-4EGE-0001
Revision
No.
01
Date
Page
2011-10-24 App C-1
Photograph 1: Study Area – Looking southwest from Caryndale Drive
Photograph 2: Study Area – Looking northeast from Caryndale Drive
CITY OF KITCHENER
Kitchener, Ontario
331650-0000-4EGE-0001
Revision
No.
01
Date
Page
2011-10-24 App C-2
Photograph 3: Study Area – Looking west from Caryndale and Stauffer Drive’s intersection
Photograph 4: Study Area – Looking northeast
CITY OF KITCHENER
Kitchener, Ontario
331650-0000-4EGE-0001
Revision
No.
01
Date
Page
2011-10-24 App C-3
Photograph 5: Study Area – Looking north from New Dundee Road
Photograph 6: Study Area – Looking south from the trail west of Stauffer Drive terminus
CITY OF KITCHENER
Kitchener, Ontario
331650-0000-4EGE-0001
Revision
No.
01
Date
Page
2011-10-24 App C-4
Photograph 7: Study Area – Swampy area at Stauffer Drive terminus
Photograph 8: Study Area – Dumped tires on the trail west of Stauffer Drive terminus
CITY OF KITCHENER
Kitchener, Ontario
331650-0000-4EGE-0001
Revision
No.
01
Date
Page
2011-10-24 App C-5
Photograph 9: Study Area – Dumped tires and scrap metals on the trail west of Stauffer Drive
terminus
Photograph 10: Study Area – Various litter inside the silo located on the trail west of Stauffer
Drive terminus
CITY OF KITCHENER
Kitchener, Ontario
331650-0000-4EGE-0001
Revision
No.
01
Date
Page
2011-10-24 App C-6
Photograph 11: Farm located at 271 Reidel Drive
Photograph 12: Farm located on New Dundee Road
CITY OF KITCHENER
Kitchener, Ontario
331650-0000-4EGE-0001
Revision
No.
01
Photograph 13: Farm located at 500 Stauffer Drive
Date
Page
2011-10-24 App C-7

Appendix D.2 - October 2013

Transcription

Similar documents

Brochure - Habitat for Zoomanity A Life Science Webquest

Slotomania Big Win - Bingo Card Game For Ipad

Waterloo Public Library Waterloo Public Library

Playdium is pleased to present our new Education Program

Winter 2016 - Kidsability

U.S.A. - Raisin-South Nation Source Protection

Fish Spawning Areas - Raisin Region Conservation Authority

Community Matters

Vol 8 Issue 3 Winter 2013.pub