Environmental Impact Assessment

Transcription

E.I.S. for Proposed
Residential and Commercial
Development
Township of Centre Wellington,
Elora, ON.
Prepared for:
LFL Properties Inc.
275 Colborne St.
Elora, ON
N0B 1S0
Attn: Michelle Phillips
Prepared by:
Dance Environmental Inc.
R.R. #1
Drumbo, ON
N0J 1G0
Phone: (519) 463-6156
DE-329
November 10, 2008.
E.I.S. for Proposed Residential & Commercial Development
Township of Centre Wellington,
Elora, Ontario.
1.0
INTRODUCTION
LFL Properties Inc. are proposing to create a residential and commercial
development southwest of Metcalfe Street in Elora, Township of Centre
Wellington, Ontario.
The site is approximately 3ha in area and is located south of the Grand River.
A zone change and Official Plan Amendment are required. Since a number of
natural environment features are located on or near the subject property an
Environmental Impact Study (E.I.S.) is required to meet the requirements of the
Provincial Policy Statement and the County of Wellington Official Plan.
Dance Environmental Inc. was retained in 2008 to prepare the E.I.S. Figure 1
shows the site context.
2.0
BACKGROUND
The existing zonings which apply to the subject lands include: M2 General
Industrial, EP Environmental Protection and FD Future Development.
Development on the subject lands may be allowed by approving the proposed
planning changes. The planning documents which seek the zone change and
Official Plan amendment must be accompanied by an acceptable E.I.S.
3.0
RATIONALE
The proposed development is thought to make more effective use of lands which
no longer support an industrial land use.
A variety of combinations of residential and commercial uses were designed and
considered. A market research study was also conducted to assist in selecting
an economically viable land use in the area.
-1-
FIGURE 1. SITE CONTEXT.
DE-329
Nov. 3/08.
Elora Mill
Inn
Dam
Irvine River
SITE
Elora Gorge
Conservation
Area
Road 7
4.0
STUDY METHODS
4.1
Existing Information
In January 2004 Little Folks Ltd. retained Dance Environmental Inc. to provide
advice on the nature and extent of biological constraints present on the Little
Folks site. At that time existing file information sought from the GRCA, the
Ministry of Natural Resources, County of Wellington, and Township of Centre
Wellington was reviewed. Reports that were reviewed are listed in the
Bibliography.
In 2008, the NHIC web site and DFO web source of species at risk were
searched for information pertinent to the study area.
Updated ANSI boundary mapping was obtained from Donald Kirk of MNR on
May 15, 2008.
A current site survey showing site boundaries, point elevations, the location of
the gorge face, margins of treed areas and buildings or foundations was provided
by Black, Shoemaker, Robinson & Donaldson.
A study of physical constraint considerations on the site was prepared by Chung
and Vander Doelen Engineering Ltd. (2004).
Other studies prepared by the proponents’ consultants which have been
reviewed include: MTE (2008) the Concept Plan prepared by MSAi (2008), and
a Cut Slope Study by Chung and Vander Doelen Engineering Ltd. (2008).
4.2
Site Studies/Inventory
The site visited by Dance Environmental Inc. staff on December 11, 2003, at
which time the ground had no snow cover. On January 28, 2004, the site was
visited again. During this second site visit there were 30m of snow on the
ground.
On March 29, 2004, GRCA staff: Chris Powell, Resource Planner and Tony
Zammit, Ecologist, met on site with Bruce Donaldson of Black, Shoemaker,
Robinson & Donaldson and the author, Ken Dance of Dance Environmental Inc.
Mr. Zammit identified the Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) edge with
flagging tape. Generally the ESA edge was defined as the upslope edge of the
more mature Eastern White Cedar trees.
Black, Shoemaker, Robinson & Donaldson subsequently surveyed and plotted
this ESA boundary.
-2-
During a May 4, 2004, site visit by K.W. Dance, observations were made on
spring flora, bird and mammal species present, and searches were made for fern
and other uncommon plant species. The species of plants and birds outside of
and inhibiting the margins of the ESA were also examined.
Dance Environmental Inc. was also retained to document and map the use of the
Little Folks site by breeding birds during 2004. Two early morning site visits were
made: June 14 and July 3, 2004. The locations of the bird sightings were
mapped.
Clean up of contaminated debris from a former factory building was conducted
under the supervision of Frontline Environmental in Winter 2007-2008. This
required machinery use within the ESA boundary which disturbed soils and
vegetation cover.
On May 15, 2008 a site meeting was held to check the ANSI/ESA boundary and
to review the width of the undeveloped buffer required between the ESA and the
active development zone. Parties present at the site meeting included: GRCA,
MNR and the proponents’ consulting team and Michelle Phillips representing
Little Folks.
Additional site visits were made by K.W. Dance on May 28, June 4, 8 and 19,
and August 27, 2008 to inventory plants, fish habitat, trees and drainage
conditions.
Trees greater than 10 cm diameter at breast height (dbh) growing along the
south bank of the Grand River were tagged and described on May 28, 2008. The
locations of tagged trees were surveyed and plotted by Black, Shoemaker,
Robinson and Donaldson.
Site visits to inventory breeding birds were made at dawn on June 8 and 19,
2008.
Vegetation units and species present were mapped and described during several
site visits. Vegetation present along the cliff face and river bank was examined
on May 28, 2008.
On June 4, 2008 Tony Zammit, Ecologist with the GRCA, and K.W. Dance
examined the edge of the ESA which Dance had flagged. Subsequently the ESA
edge was surveyed and plotted by BSR&D.
The Terms of Reference of the present E.I.S. is contained in Appendix 1.
-3-
5.0
EXISTING CONDITIONS
5.1
Location and Key Features
Figure 1 shows the location and extent of the proposed undertaking relative to
the key site features.
The study area is located on the south bank of the Grand River, between
Metcalfe Street, Elora and Elora Gorge Conservation Area. The proposed
development area has been the site of industrial buildings for a century or more.
To the west and northwest of the proposed development area there is a wooded
polygon and the limestone gorge of the Elora Gorge.
Elsewhere adjacent to the study area there is residential and commercial land
use.
5.2
Vegetation
Figures 2A and 2B show the vegetation polygons which are present on the site.
Figure 2A shows the location and extent of the vegetation units on the eastern
portion of the site. Descriptions of the vegetation communities on the site follow:
Bedrock Cultural Woodland
CUW2:
There are two lobes to this unit which consists of narrow bands of secondary
growths of trees along the southern bank of the Grand River. Historically, this
area was an active industrial site where the original tree cover would have been
cleared. Bedrock is close to the surface in this area. The range of tree species
and sizes in this area is reflected in trees described in the tree inventory
contained in Appendix 2.
Dominant tree species include: Norway Maple, Manitoba Maple, Eastern White
Cedar, and White Elm. Most of these trees have a diameter at breast height
(dbh) of ≤45cm. Grass and herb species present in this unit include: Smooth
Brome, Orchard Grass, Quack Grass, Canadian Goldenrod, Daisy Fleabane,
Horseweed, Common St. John’s-wort, Garlic Mustard, Tansy, Wild Carrot,
Common Burdock, Common Mullein, Motherwort, Catnip, Herb-Robert,
Bittersweet Nightshade, Common Ragweed, White Vervain, Dame’s Rocket,
Yellow Avens, White Snakeroot, Zig-zag Goldenrod, Common Teasel, Bull
Thistle, Common Burdock, Musk Mallow and Common Sow-thistle. Vines and
shrubs observed included: Virgin’s Bower and Common Lilac.
In very small localized pockets where seepage occurs along the bank, patches of
Stinging Nettle, Spotted Joe-pye-weed and Spotted Jewelweed occur.
-4-
FIGURE 2A. VEGETATION
UNITS.
Code
ELC Unit
Bedrock Cultural
Woodland
MAM1-1 Reed Canary-grass
Bedrock Meadow
Marsh
CUW2
MAM1-1
CUW2
SITE
CUW2
SITE
DE-329
August 27, 2008.
MAM1-1:
Reed Canary-grass Bedrock Meadow Marsh
This unit is present on bedrock pavement downstream of the Elora Mill Dam,
along the southern bank of the Grand River. This area is inundated during high
flows and has marsh meadow characteristics. Grasses and herbs recorded from
this unit include: Reed Canary-grass, Purple Loosestrife, Curled Dock, Spotted
Joe-pye-weed, Grass-leaved Goldenrod, Early Goldenrod and Purple-stemmed
Aster.
Figure 2B shows the location of four vegetation units present in the western
portion of the study area.
CLT1-1:
White Cedar Treed Carbonate
This unit exists along the cliff face present in the river gorge. Eastern White
Cedar trees are the dominant tree cover, with a few scattered. Eastern Hemlock
also occurring, Kenilworth Ivy, White Lettuce, Carex spicata, Bulbet Fern,
Marginal Shieldfern, Maidenhair Spleenwort, Smooth Cliff-brake, Green
Speenwort and Rock Polypody were found.
FOC2:
Dry-Fresh Cedar Coniferous Forest
Eastern White Cedar growing in shallow soils over bedrock dominate this unit.
Other tree and shrub species present in this unit include: Black Cherry, Eastern
Hemlock, Mountain Maple, Yellow Birch, Mountain Ash, Norway Maple,
Pin Cherry, White Ash, Horse Chestnut, Apple, Black Walnut, Smooth
Serviceberry, Bush Honeysuckle, Staghorn Sumac, Common Lilac, Highbush
Cranberry, Common Buckthorn, Chokecherry, Alternate-leaved Dogwood, Red
Elder, Red Raspberry and Garden Red Currant.
Vines present include: Riverbank Grape, Poison Ivy, Bittersweet and
Nightshade.
Ferns and sedges observed included: Bulbet Fern, Lady Fern, New York Fern
and Carex spicata. Herbaceous plants found include: Common Speedwell,
Herb-Robert, Zig-zag Goldenrod, Wild Strawberry, Canada Anenome, Common
Dandelion, Calico Aster, Blue-stemmed Goldenrod, Wild Columbine, Avens
species, Common St. John’swort, Common Burdock, Common Plantain, White
Lettuce, Downy Yellow Violet, Common Blue Violet, Yellow Hawkweed, Mother
of Thyme, Colt’s-foot, Tall Enchanter’s Nightshade, Dames Rocket, Red
Baneberry, Heal-all, Lily-of-the-Valley and Moneywort.
CUW1:
Mineral Cultural Woodland
This unit consists of secondary growth and successional species growing on
topsoil and fill along the southern margin of Cedar Coniferous Forest. This area
was historically cleared and disturbed by dumping and fill placement but has
since become colonized by trees currently ≤30cm dbh. Tree species present
-5-
p 2008
Figure 2 B. VEGETATION
UNITS.
CLT1-1
Code
ELC UNIT
White Cedar
Treed Carbonate
CUM1-1 Dry - Moist Old
Field Meadow
Mineral Cultural
CUW1
Woodland
Dry-Fresh Cedar
FOC2
Coniferous Forest
CLT1-1
CLT1-1
FOC2
CUW1
CUM1-1
SITE
DE-329
August 27, 2008.
include: Trembling Aspen, Manitoba Maple, Black Cherry, Apple, and White Ash.
Shrub and vine species present include: Common Lilac, Staghorn Sumac,
Chokecherry, Tartarian Honeysuckle, Common Buckthorn, Highbush Cranberry,
Alternate-leaved Dogwood, Riverbank Grape, Thicket Creeper, Red Raspberry
and Virgin’s Bower. Herbaceous species present include: Helleborine, Common
Burdock, Wild Carrot, New England Aster, Tansy, Common Teasel, Yellow
Avens, Common Milkweed, Creeping Bellflower, English Plantain, Calico Aster,
Musk Mallow, Canada Goldenrod, Common Blue Violet , Common Burdock,
Garlic Mustard, Dames Rocket and Great Solomon’s-seal.
CUM1-1:
Dry-Moist Old Field Meadow
This unit is on soils over shallow bedrock. The vegetation present grows on
lands which mainly have been disturbed by building, demolition and soil
remediation. Vegetation has become established across most of the area since
disturbances occurring from less than 1 to 5± years ago.
Saplings or seedlings of Trembling Aspen, Eastern Cottonwood, Balsam Poplar,
Eastern White Cedar, Manitoba Maple Mountain Ash, Black Walnut along with
Staghorn Sumac, Tartarian Honeysuckle, Red Raspberry, Riverbank Grape, and
Poison Ivy occur.
Grasses present include: Canada Bluegrass, Orchard Grass, Green Foxtail,
Timothy and Quack Grass. Herbs and weedy species observed include: White
Vervain, Lamb’s-quarters, Musk Mallow, Tansy, Motherwort, Common
St. John’s-wort, Common Evening Primrose, Black Meddick, White Clover,
Birdfoot Trefoil, White Sweet Clover, Common Mullein, Garlic Mustard,
Bittersweet, Nightshade, Common Plantain, Common Dandelion, Early
Goldenrod, Kenilworth Ivy, White Snakeroot, Bladder Campion, Butter-and-eggs,
New England Aster, Tall Enchanter’s Nightshade, Horseweed, Maize, Pigweed,
Canada Thistle, Common Ragweed, Common Milkweed, Chickory, Cow Vetch,
English Plantain, Yarrow, Viper’s Bugloss, Curled Dock and Yellow Hawkweed.
Human Use Impacts
Currently there is public access throughout the ESA component that is present
on the LFL Inc. lands. Foot and cycle traffic is particularly heavy on existing trails
through the Cedar Coniferous Forest Unit. People walk dogs and cycle,
kayakers and fishermen access the river and people picnic and build camp fires
within this vegetation unit.
Soil compaction over the shallow rooted trees and shrubs appears to be an
existing issue. Understorey plant diversity is low and in time tree mortality may
result from the heavy human use of the area.
-6-
Vegetation Significance
Of the ELC units present, the White Cedar Treed Carbonate unit present on the
limestone cliff face is most significant. The extent of this vegetation type is very
limited, even on a national level. This unit provides habitat for a number of
uncommon and rare fern species eg.
(a)
Maidenhair Spleenwort – Asplenium trichomanes
(rare in Hamilton-Wentworth, rare in Waterloo);
(b)
Green Spleenwort – Asplenium trichomanes-ramosum (A. viride)
(rare in Wellington/Dufferin, rare in Halton, absent from Waterloo
and Hamilton-Wentworth);
(c)
Smooth cliff-brake – Pellaea glabella
(rare in Hamilton-Wentworth, rare in Waterloo); and
(d)
Rock polypody – Polypodium virginianum
(uncommon in Hamilton-Wentworth).
Given the diameter of some of the cedar trees (greater than 60cm at breast
height) and the slow growth rate of trees rooted in bedrock, it may be the case
that some of the Eastern White Cedar trees on site are several hundred years
old.
Larson et al. (2000) confirm that Eastern White Cedar have a preference for sites
that remain cool and moist for extended periods of time. These authors have
also discovered that ancient Eastern White Cedar growing on cliffs are the oldest
trees in Ontario. The age of the trees on the Little Folks property is not known
but the significance of cliff vegetation communities in Ontario is not related only
to the age of the trees present. The limited and localized distribution of cliff
vegetation communities makes them important provincially.
It should be recognized that tree cover on the Gorge walls and along the
riverbank play an important role in maintaining cool, shady, moist micro-habitat.
A habitat critical to the rare and scarce plant species.
Many of the scarce rare plant species listed in the ESA account for the Elora
Gorge were not found in the Little Folks study area. Presumably the other scarce
and rare plants listed in the ESA report occur within the lands owned by the
GRCA.
Kenilworth-ivy (Cymbalaria muralis) is listed in the ESA report among the scarce
and rare plants found in the Elora Gorge.
Kenilworth-ivy was found to be widespread on the Little Folks property, including
on building ruins and bridge abutments. This is a plant from Europe which has
escaped cultivation and has also been observed by the author to be growing on
limestone in an urban setting in Cambridge, Ontario. This plant is not considered
-7-
to be regionally significant in the Region of Waterloo. Riley et al. (1989) do not
list this plant as being rare in Wellington-Dufferin or other areas of Central
Region.
Other functions of vegetation in the study area are:
(a)
to stabilize the soils and the bank of the Grand River;
(b)
to provide wildlife habitat;
(c)
to buffer more interior vegetation units from the effects of wind and
sun (i.e. provide shade), for example unit CUW1 buffers unit FOC2,
which in turn buffers unit CLT1-1; and
(d)
provide movement corridors for animals and plant propagules.
Appendix 2 contains a table listing and describing the trees which were tagged,
inventoried, surveyed and plotted along the south bank of the Grand River.
Norway Maple, Manitoba Maple and Eastern White Cedar are the most
numerous tree species along the river bank in the area inventoried. The majority
of the trees are in either fair or poor condition. Most of the trees are ≤35cm
diameter at breast height being trees that have grown back along the river bank
since the original industrial land uses became established.
5.3
Wildlife
Table 1A lists the bird species found and breeding status during the 2004
inventory.
Table 1B lists the bird species found and breeding status during the 2008
inventory.
Most of the species observed were expected in an urban natural habitat with
water present.
None of the birds observed breeding on the site are considered to be Species at
Risk, nor would they be significant breeding species at the County level.
The ESA study (Elrick et al. 1977) reported the occurrence of 3 wild bird species
nesting on the walls of the Gorge. During the 2004 and /or 2008 bird inventories
the following bird species might have been nesting on the walls of the Gorge in
the present study area: Rock Pigeon, Eastern Phoebe, Northern Rough-wing
Swallow and Cliff Swallow. The importance of the Gorge cliff walls to nesting
birds first documented in the ESA study has continued to the present time.
Mammals observed in the study area during the 2004 and 2008 site visits
include: Eastern Cottontail, Eastern Chipmunk, Grey Squirrel and Red Squirrel.
No reptiles or amphibians were observed in the study area.
-8-
TABLE 1A.
Birds Observed at the Little Folks Site, During
the 2004 Breeding Season.
Common Name
Code
Date Observed
June 14, 2004
Great Blue Heron
Canada Goose
Mallard
Spotted Sandpiper
Ring-billed Gull
Rock Pigeon
Mourning Dove
Eastern Phoebe
Red-eyed Vireo
Blue Jay
American Crow
Tree Swallow
Northern Roughwinged Swallow
Cliff Swallow
Black-capped
Chickadee
American Robin
European Starling
Cedar Waxwing
Song Sparrow
Northern Cardinal
Common Grackle
House Finch
American Goldfinch
House Sparrow
GBHE
CAGO
MALL
SPSA
RBGU
ROPI
MODO
EAPH
REVI
BLJA
AMCR
TRSW
NRWS
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Y
Y
Y
Y
CLSW
BCCH
+
+
+
Y
Y
AMRO
EUST
CEWA
SOSP
NOCA
COGR
HOFI
AMGO
HOSP
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
16
20
18
Number of Species
Legend
+ = species was present
- = species was not present
Y = species thought to be breeding on or near the site
-9-
Date
July 3, 2004
Species
thought to be
breeding:
2004
Y
Y
Y
TABLE 1B.
Common Name
Great Blue Heron
Canada Goose
Mallard
Turkey Vulture
Spotted Sandpiper
Ring-billed Gull
Rock Pigeon
Mourning Dove
Downy Woodpecker
Eastern Phoebe
Great Crested
Flycatcher
Red-eyed Vireo
Blue Jay
American Crow
Tree Swallow
Northern Roughwinged Swallow
Bank Swallow
Cliff Swallow
Black-capped
Chickadee
House Wren
Wood Thrush
American Robin
European Starling
Cedar Waxwing
Chipping Sparrow
Song Sparrow
Northern Cardinal
Common Grackle
Birds Observed at the Little Folks Site, During
the 2008 Breeding Season.
DE-329
Code
Date Observed
June 8, 2008
Date
June 19,
2008
Species
thought to be
breeding:
2008
GBHE
CAGO
MALL
TUVU
SPSA
RBGU
ROPI
MODO
DOWO
EAPH
GCFL
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
Y off site
Y
Y
Y off site
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
REVI
BLJA
AMCR
TRSW
NRWS
+
+
-
+
+
-
N
Y
Y
Y
N
BKSW
CLSW
BCCH
+
+
+
Y
N
Y
HOWR
WOTH
AMRO
EUST
CEWA
CHSP
SOSP
NOCA
COGR
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
-10-
TABLE 1B. cont’d
Birds Observed at the Little Folks Site,
During the 2008 Breeding Season.
Common Name
Code
Date Observed
June 8, 2008
Brown-headed
Cowbird
House Finch
American Goldfinch
House Sparrow
BHCO
-
+
Y
HOFI
AMGO
HOSP
+
+
+
N
Y
Y
18
18
23
Number of Species
Date
June 19,
2008
Species
thought to be
breeding:
2008
Legend
+ = species was present
- = species was not present
Y = species thought to be breeding on or near the site
N = species thought not to be breeding on or near the site.
5.4
Fish Habitat and Community Structure
The Grand River between the Belwood Reservoir and West Montrose supports a
coldwater fish community typified by resident Brown Trout in the tailwaters of the
Belwood Reservoir. The Elora site is within this reach of the Grand River. The
habitat in the Grand River for 25km downstream of Bellwood Lake appears to be
controlled by the Devonian limestone bedrock. There are regional groundwater
discharge points originating from the bedrock (OMNR and GRCA 1998). During
the winter we observed frozen groundwater seepage along the Gorge walls
within the site. During the May 4, 2004 site visit there was ground seepage along
the Gorge face on the Little Folks bank of the Grand River.
The Grand River Fisheries Management Plan (OMNR and GRCA 1998)
describes management strategies for the present reach of the Grand River which
include: protecting groundwater and riparian zones to maintain water
quality/quantity and identifying opportunities to restore riparian vegetation and/or
rehabilitate fish habitat, eg. through development projects.
-11-
Photo 1.
Grand River seen from the Little Folks Site. Looking
Upstream at the Elora Mill Dam.
May 28, 2008.
Photo 2.
South Bank of Grand River at Little Folks Site.
-12-
May 28, 2008.
At the site level, habitat conditions range from standing water upstream of the
Elora Mill Dam to plunge pool and riffle/run habitat downstream of the dam.
South of the Elora Mill Hotel/Restaurant the river flows over limestone pavement
then tumbles in the Elora Gorge downstream of the Mill, see photo 1. The south
bank of the Grand River along the former industrial portion of the study site has a
concrete wall that is more than 2m high, see Photo 2. Photo 2 also shows the
outfall pipe from the Elora Wastewater Treatment Plant.
During much of the year downstream of the Elora Mill Dam, flow in the Grand
River channel does not extend laterally to the south bank but rather flows through
the central and northern portions of the channel.
OMNR have provided fish community data for the area which are valuable (Art
Timmerman Email to K.W. Dance July 17, 2008). Upstream of the Elora Mill Dam
a fish collection was made in 1971; Common Shiners, Carp, Brown Bullheads,
White Suckers and Yellow Perch were caught. These fish reflect the standing
water conditions present in the dam backwater.
Downstream of the dam, collections were made in 1976. White Sucker,
Hornyhead Chub, Common Shiner, Bluntnose Minnow, Fathead Minnow,
Blacknose Dace, Longnose Dace, Creek Chub, Johnny Darter, River Chub,
Rainbow Darter, Fantail Darter and Mottled Sculpin were caught.
Since these fish collections were made, Brown Trout stocking was initiated in
1989 and this species has become established throughout the present study
area.
Department of Fisheries and Oceans Species at Risk data and maps for the
study area were provided by Andrea Doherty of DFO. The Wavy-rayed
Lampmussel is known from the Grand River more than 2km downstream of the
present study site. The Black Redhorse is known to occur in the Grand River
more than 5km downstream of the present study site. No aquatic Species at
Risk are known from the site or the Elora Gorge. The bedrock substrate in the
present study area probably precludes the occurrence of the Wavy-rayed
Lampmussel and Black Redhorse in the present study area.
5.5
Physical Conditions
Frontline Environmental, a division of MTE Consultants Inc., provided borehole
logs from a series of monitoring wells that were constructed on the site.
In general, a veneer of topsoil and/or fill of depth up to 1.2m was found in the
boreholes. Fractured limestone bedrock was found to underlie the topsoil and till.
-13-
Frontline Environmental prepared a Figure 3g which illustrated the direction of
groundwater flow in January 2007. Figure 3g shows that the groundwater flows
across the site from north to south toward the Grand River. This conclusion is
consistent with ground surface contours and our observations of seepage from
the rock along the south bank of the Grand River.
Other than the Grand River, and further downstream, the Grand River confluence
with the Irvine River, no surface water features have been observed to be
present in the study area.
Given the fractured nature of the bedrock any precipitation which reaches
undeveloped portions of the site appears to quickly drain away.
Chung and Vander Doelen Engineering Ltd. (2008) examined the cut slope
located north of Building G in September 2008. Chung and Vander Doelen
recommended that the slope be shaped to 3:1 and the surface be topsoiled and
seeded or sodded. Alternatively, a retaining wall could be constructed to support
the soil.
5.6
Elora Gorge Life Science Area of Natural and Scientific Interest
(ANSI)
The Elora Gorge ANSI is considered to be a “Regionally Significant” Life Science
ANSI. The ANSI covers 95ha and it extends downstream along the Grand River
from the Little Folks property, for about 2km. Regionally Significant ANSIs do not
receive any planning protection in the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS, OMNR
1999).
Life Science ANSI boundaries are mapped by MNR Ecologists. A recent update
of the Elora Gorge Life Science ANSI has been made by Donald Kirk of the
MNR, Guelph, based on air photo interpretation.
Mr. Kirk attended a site visit with the study team on May 15, 2008, at which time
site conditions were observed. Remedial work to remove soil contaminants
during the Winter of 2007-2008 had reduced the extent of the cedar forest
polygon somewhat. Mr. Kirk agreed that the eastern boundary of the remaining
cedar forest polygon would represent the current ANSI boundary.
5.7
Elora Gorge Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA)
The Elora Gorge ESA is 95ha in area – the same size as the MNR Life Science
ANSI. The boundaries of the two features have been identical in historical
mapping.
-14-
FIGURE 3. Groundwater Flow Direction.
DE-329
Aug. 28/08.
Basemap Source:
The ESA description is based primarily on information gathered in 1972 and
1977. The ESA was designated because six ESA designation criteria were met
(Elrick et al. 1977). The criteria and their application to the Little Folks site are
described as follows:
Criterion 1: a geologic criterion – narrow, deep gorge and exposed Guelph
Formation dolomite occur within the ESA, and on the Little Folks property.
Criterion 3 & 6: rare and scarce plant species occur within the ESA, particularly
rock-loving ferns which require very moist, cool, shady habitat. Large, 198cm
circumference at breast height Eastern White Cedar, are present in the ESA.
During the December 2003 site visit we observed one of the scarce fern species
on the Little Folks property. On May 4, 2004, four significant plant species were
found along the cliff facing the Grand River.
Nearly 20 rare or scarce plants are reported from the Elora Gorge ESA. Habitat
conditions in the area of the cliff face within the mature cedar growth appear to
be suitable for several of these rare or scarce plant species.
Three wild bird species were observed nesting on the walls of the Gorge during
the ESA study.
Criterion 4: another geological criterion relating to the limestone gorge feature –
this would apply within the Little Folks portion of the ESA.
Criterion 8: wildlife habitat value of the Gorge and river valley which is a
significant wildlife corridor. This criterion would apply to the Little Folks portion of
the ESA.
Criterion 9: aesthetic value of the Gorge and river. This criterion would apply to
the Little Folks portion of the ESA.
Based on discussions with MNR and GRCA staff during the May 15, 2008 site
visit, it was agreed that the new edge of mature vegetation would be flagged by
Dance Environmental Inc. as the current margin of the ESA.
K.W. Dance and Tony Zammit of the GRCA met on site on June 4, 2008 to
examine the ESA boundary. Dance placed flags identifying the ESA margin.
These flags were subsequently surveyed and plotted by Black, Shoemaker,
Robinson and Donaldson.
This ESA boundary is shown on Figure 4 and was used as guidance to the
Architect in designing the footprint of the proposed development.
-15-
Based on the 2004 and 2008 inventory work, what ESA criteria are still present in
the study area and where do these features and functions occur?
Criterion 1: deep gorge and dolomite – Gorge is present in the western portion
of the study area and dolomite is present under the entire site.
Criterion 3 & 6: rare and scarce plant species and large diameter Eastern White
Cedar- still present within the ESA; mainly to the west of the development area.
Cliff face nesting birds were observed in 2004 and 2008.
Criterion 4: geological criterion relating to the deep, narrow limestone gorge –
present mainly to the west of the development area.
Criterion 8: a continuation of the West Montrose Valley; a significant natural
corridor – the water and geologic corridor remain intact, some localized loss of
the vegetation corridor along the south bank of the Grand River has occurred
during soil quality remediation work.
Criterion 9: aesthetic beauty of the Gorge and river – probably little changed
since the 1977 ESA study was undertaken.
5.8
Other Considerations
The geotechnical stability of the river bank and slope received attention in 2004
and 2008. The Architect took geotechnical issues and setbacks into account
while preparing the current design – including a Top of Bank Setback.
Flooding and other water management issues have been addressed by the
Project Architect and Engineers.
5.9
Policy Framework
Planning approvals must be obtained from the County of Wellington.
Environmental policies at several levels must be properly addressed in order to
meet planning requirements.
Federal
DFO policies require that negative impacts on fish habitat be avoided and/or
compensated. Aquatic Species at Risk must also be addressed.
Provincial
Requirements of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) must be addressed
regarding significant woodlands, wetlands and valley lands. Habitat and species
listed in the 2007 Species at Risk legislation must be addressed.
-16-
GRCA
Regulation 150/06 indicates that alterations to waterways or lands within or
adjacent to floodplains requires approvals from the GRCA. The GRCA assists
the County of Wellington by providing advice on other ecological considerations,
eg. Core Greenlands and Greenlands.
County of Wellington
The Official Plan contains requirements regarding significant terrestrial and
aquatic ecosystem features and functions. The County O.P. indicates that PPS
requirements must be adhered to.
Project design and mitigation sections of the E.I.S. have considered how
compliance with environmental policies at all levels can be achieved.
6.0
PROPOSED UNDERTAKING
Figure 4 shows the proposed redevelopment concept. The concept is to have a
network of streets that connects the development to Metcalfe Street, in the east
and County Road 7, in the west.
The development consists of 14 buildings and two underground parking garages.
One hundred and seventy-four residential units and approximately 2,725 square
metres of commercial space would be provided. A “river walk” would be created
at the eastern end of the northern margin of some of the development. This walk
would connect Victoria Street to the central square, with pedestrian access from
here to Ross Street.
Urban services would be provided including: sewers, drinking water, electricity,
natural gas and so on. These services would be primarily routed through the
main road right-of-way.
Stormwater Management
Figure 5, based on MTE (2008) Figure 4.0 shows the storm drainage catchment
areas within the development site. The eastern catchment area will be treated to
the Enhanced Level, using 2 oil-grit separators and will be directed to the existing
storm outlet to the Grand River, which is located adjacent to the dam. Existing
green space will drain by overland flow to the Grand River.
In the western post-development catchment area clean roof water from Buildings
I, J, K, L and M will be directed to a continuous infiltration gallery located outside
of the ESA boundary and the 5m setback, see Figure 5.
The infiltration analysis which MTE has completed, indicates a 21% increase in
post-development infiltration quantities compared with pre-development
quantities along the northwestern end of the site.
-17-
Elora Mill Inn
Maintenance
Access
Central
Square
Power Generation
Flume
FIGURE 4.
PROPOSED
UNDERTAKING.
ESA
Boundary
10m setback
from ESA
5m setback
from ESA
DE-329
Nov. 7/08.
Infiltration
Trench
Location
FIGURE 5 . INFILTRATION ANALYSIS
& INFILTRATION TRENCH LOCATION.
DE-329
Sept. 8/08
Basemap Source:
MTE, Figure 3-0.
The infiltration gallery has been included in the development concept to ensure
that clean water continues to reach the trees and other vegetation in the ESA.
The GRCA has indicated to MTE that water quantity control will not be required
for the site.
Snow/Ice Management
The new development should be designed and managed to avoid the ice of
de-icing chemicals on the streets and sidewalks. The particular sodium chloride
use should be avoided, since chloride could have negative impacts on vegetation
and aquatic life.
A snow and ice management plan should be prepared for the property at the
detailed design stage of development.
River Walk/Maintenance Access and River Bank Treatment
To provide for views of the Grand River from the buildings to be constructed
removal of the existing trees along the south bank of the river “in front of”
buildings E, F, G and H will be required.
A public walkway “River Walk” will run from Building A westerly to the central
square. West of the central square along the southern bank of the river there will
not be any public access. Private access will be provided by way of a
maintenance access route adjacent to the power generation facility. This access
route would be placed downslope from the top of the bank setback. Work to
construct the maintenance access would require removal of soil and rock along
the southern bank of the Grand River.
Details of the slope/bank treatment design would be developed at a later stage
but it is clear that there would be physical stability components, as well as
ecological and aesthetic criteria to consider in the design.
From an ecological point of view, native plant species should be planted to
replace tree and other vegetation lost due to construction. The size and species
should be selected to achieve a vegetated corridor of value to resident and
migrant wildlife species. Soils should be stabilized so that there is no sediment
delivery to the Grand River.
The buildings proposed would replace any shading of fish habitat which the trees
currently present provide.
-18-
Human Access into ESA
Given the variety of significant plants that are present within the ESA and the
existing level of impact from foot traffic it is recommended that there not be public
access into the ESA west of Units I and J to Wellington County Road 7.
Cessation of trampling, littering and campfire construction will allow the ground
flora to recover. Recovery of the ground flora and absence of human and pet
intrusion is expected to benefit wildlife populations in the ESA.
Setbacks/Buffers
The ESA boundary was identified as the dripline of the mature trees of the
woodland polygon. A 10m wide setback from the ESA to the edge of any
building footprint was recommended and has been reflected in the design
concept.
A 10m wide setback was recommended for the following reasons:
(a)
the lands upslope of the ESA have been in industrial use for a century and
do not generally support significant natural vegetation cover;
(b)
the site is dry, flat and stable so there is not a need for a wider setback;
(c)
much of the southeastern edge of the ESA consists of successional
vegetation species which already provides a functional buffer between the
eastern ESA edge and the more significant and possibly more sensitive
Eastern White Cedar vegetation unit.
For the 5m nearest the ESA we recommend establishment of a “no further
disturbance zone”. In this first 5m habitat restoration using native species would
be implemented, so that the soil surface is stabilized and so that desirable and
suitable plant species would be introduced.
The second 5m wide zone of the building construction setback from the ESA
could be used for construction access along the western margin of the
development and to accommodate the stormwater infiltration system.
Once building and SWM infiltration construction are complete, the second 5m
wide zone (closest to the buildings) should be vegetated with low maintenance
native plant species which attract butterflies, but require no fertilizer or pesticide
applications. Effectively a 10m wide vegetated buffer would separate the
development from the ESA.
At the detailed design stage of development a Sediment and Erosion Control
Plan and a Tree Saving Plan would be prepared.
-19-
7.0
IMPACT PREDICTION
What are the significant natural features and functions present on the site that
need to be addressed in the impact prediction?
Physical
1.
Maintenance of precipitation infiltration ,
2.
Maintenance of groundwater flow direction pathways and seepage
points,
3.
Maintenance or improvement of groundwater quality and quantity,
4.
Maintenance of overland surface water flow paths,
5.
Maintenance of surface water flow quality and quantity,
6.
Maintenance of physical and aesthetic elements of the Elora Gorge,
and
7.
Avoid creation of erosion and sedimentation,
Biological
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Maintenance or enhancement of populations of Species at Risk and
otherwise rare or uncommon lifeforms,
Maintenance of extent and quality of vegetated habitats and
populations,
Maintenance of extent and quality of wildlife habitats and populations,
Maintenance of extent and quality of fish and aquatic life habitats and
populations, and
Maintenance of function and quality of the Gorge and river corridor.
-20-
Table 2. Impact Prediction, Little Folks Property, Elora.
Impact Element
Description of Impact Considerations
1. Precipitation infiltration
- increase in impermeable area on site – requires
stormwater management flow incorporating infiltration
components, with attention to water balance
2. Groundwater flow
direction
- SWM system should replicate pre-development
groundwater flow paths and seepage points
3. Groundwater quality &
quantity
- SWM system should infiltrate adequate quantities of
“clean” stormwater
4. Surface water flow
path
- SWM system should replicate pre-development surface
water flow paths
5. Surface water quality &
quantity
- SWM system should treat street runoff adequately
6. Maintenance of
physical & aesthetic
elements of the Elora
Gorge
7. Erosion and
Sedimentation
- minimize construction impacts on the Gorge
8. Maintain populations of
Species at Risk and rare
and uncommon lifeforms
- prevent habitat loss and construction impacts
- restrict human and pet access from the ESA
9. Maintain vegetated
habitats & populations
10. Maintain wildlife
habitat & populations
11. Maintain fish habitat
& populations
12. Maintain function &
quality of the Gorge &
river corridor
- prevent habitat loss, construction impacts and postconstruction impacts in the Gorge.
- prevent erosion during construction and prevent sediment
transport to the Grand River
Table 2 summarizes the analysis regarding the twelve natural features and
functions which were listed as requiring attention in the impact prediction.
Potential impacts can be addressed through a combination of mitigation and
design approaches.
-21-
8.0
MITIGATION INCLUDING DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES.
8.1
Alternatives
Alternatives involving various footprint locations, building heights, use types
within buildings; parking locations and forms, River Walk and public access
locations were considered. The selected alternative, illustrated in Figure 4,
reflects the most viable alternative which achieving architectural, engineering,
economic, and ecological objectives.
8.2
Mitigation Actions
Table 3 describes the design and mitigation actions which have been
implemented to avoid or minimize potential impacts.
These mitigation actions are designed to protect the ecological functions in the
area.
8.3
Enhancement
Planting the 10m wide setback from the ESA boundary with suitable native
species will stabilize the soils, widen the buffer along the ESA margin and will
introduce “desirable” species to avoid invasion of “undesirable” aggressive alien
plant species. There is research that has shown that breeding bird success is
greater in native shrub species than in invasive alien shrub species.
8.4
Monitoring
8.4.1
During Construction
The Site Inspector would monitor during construction to ensure compliance with
recommendations of the Sediment Control Plan and the Tree Saving Plan. The
Site Inspector would also monitor installation of the infiltration gallery and oil-grit
separator(s) to ensure that they would function effectively when in operation.
The designer of the vegetation plantings should be on site during installation to
ensure that all planting contract specifications are met.
8.4.2
Post Construction
A “year-after” inspection of the plantings should be undertaken and any dead or
defective materials should be replaced under warranty.
The Engineering Consultant should make recommendations on the monitoring
frequency and parameters involving inspection/monitoring of the efficiency of
infiltration gallery and oil-grit separator function.
-22-
Table 3.
Mitigation Actions for Impact Elements, Little Folks Property,
Elora.
Impact Element
1. Precipitation infiltration
2. Groundwater flow
direction
3. Groundwater quality &
quantity
4. Surface water flow
path
5. Surface water quality &
quantity
6. Maintenance of
physical & aesthetic
elements of the Elora
Gorge
7. Erosion and
Sedimentation
8. Maintain populations of
Species at Risk and rare
and uncommon lifeforms
9. Maintain vegetated
habitats & populations
10. Maintain wildlife
habitat & populations
11. Maintain fish habitat
& populations
12. Maintain function &
quality of the Gorge &
river corridor
Description of Impact Mitigations
- infiltration water budget prepared and infiltration gallery
location selected
- SWM system replicates pre-development groundwater
flow paths and seepage points
- SWM system infiltrates pre-development quantities of
“clean” stormwater
- snow and ice management plan to address snow melt
quantity
- SWM system replicates pre-development surface water
flow paths
- SWM system treat street runoff to Enhanced Level
- no direct construction impacts on the Gorge
- 10m setback from outer ESA boundary to building
footprints
- implements a Sediment Control Plan to prevent erosion
during construction and prevent sediment transport to the
Grand River
- design involves no habitat loss and/or direct construction
impacts
- 10m setback from outer ESA boundary to building
footprints
- habitat loss and construction impacts in ESA prevented by
Tree Saving Plan and 10m wide setback from outer ESA
boundary – other vegetation loss along river bank will be
mitigated through plantings
- habitat loss and construction impacts in ESA prevented
by 10m setback from outer ESA boundary
- plantings along the Grand River bank using native species
will provide cover, soil stabilization and a route for wildlife
movement
- design involves no habitat loss and/or direct construction
impacts
- hydro facility design and approvals will minimize or
compensate for any fish habitat impacts
- no construction in Gorge within the ESA
- changes to river bank and slope will be mitigated through
physical and vegetative design components
-23-
9.0
RESIDUAL IMPACTS AND CONCLUSIONS ON DEVELOPMENT
POTENTIAL
9.1
Nature and Magnitude of Impacts After Mitigation
Regarding the physical impact elements, Numbers 1 through 7, inclusive in Table
3, no significant changes in surface water or groundwater quantity should occur.
If the Snow and Ice Management Plan is successfully implemented no significant
changes in chloride concentrations should occur.
Only minor localized short-term impacts on physical parameters are predicted
during the construction period. There may be some noise and some localized
soil erosion but stringent sedimentation control measures must be implemented
to ensure that sediment does not wash into the Grand River.
Regarding biological elements present in Table 3, the following comments apply:
(a)
no impacts on uncommon plants growing within the ESA are expected
since no physical disturbance will occur within the ESA, a buffer
protects the ESA further and the clean storm water infiltration gallery
will maintain groundwater flows to and through the ESA.
(b)
the ESA vegetation is protected from disturbance; short-term loss of
vegetative cover along the river bank in the form industrial lands will be
mitigated by planting of native species – thus, a wildlife movement
corridor will be maintained. The only change will be that taller trees
currently present will be replaced by a shrub layer. This is not
expected to have a significant impact on the urban wildlife species
present.
(c)
the only negative wildlife habitat impact is the loss of taller trees along
the river bank – replacement by shrub planting will favour some
nesting birds species over others. The winter feeding of birds which is
expected will increase populations of certain bird species along the
southern river bank. The plantings of the 10m wide ESA setback with
desirable native species selected for wildlife use will benefit birds,
mammals and butterflies.
(d)
negative impacts on fish habitat or populations are expected to be
associated with the residential – commercial development project.
(e)
the Gorge corridor within the ESA is not expected to be impacted any.
A short-term loss of trees and other vegetation along the southern river
bank will be mitigated by plantings of native species. This will maintain
the wildlife corridor function.
(f)
positive impacts on soils, vegetation and wildlife are expected from
restricting human and pet access from the ESA.
-24-
9.2
Conclusions Regarding Natural Environment Policies
Conclusion regarding policies are as follows:
(a)
the ESA and ANSI and their features and functions are protected through
edge definition, provision of a 10m wide buffer outside the ESA boundary and
through detailed recommendations that would be contained in the Tree Saving
Plan. Positive impacts on soil, vegetation and wildlife are expected from
restricting access to humans and pets from the ESA.
(b)
The layout, design mitigation and monitoring components of the
undertaking will protect physical and biological elements of the development site
and adjacent lands from significant long-term impacts.
(c)
GRCA Regulation 150/06 – the work of the Project Architect and Engineer
addresses certain aspects of Regulation 150/06. From an ecological point-ofview the E.I.S. predicts no significant impacts on wetland habitat, riparian
vegetation or fish and wildlife populations.
(d)
The County Official Plan – the E.I.S. has addressed ecosystem
components which require attention. Protection of the ESA and ANSI, wildlife
and fish habitat, river corridor, Species at Risk, significant vegetative
communities, valleylands, woodlands and floodplains. The E.I.S. addresses Core
Greenland and Greenland issues and factors mandated by the Provincial Policy
Statement (PPS). No significant, long-term impacts on features or functions
addressed in the PPS are expected.
(e)
The Fisheries Act: the present residential/commercial development
proposal will not cause negative impacts on fish habitat since Enhanced Level
stormwater treatment will be implemented. Clean roof water will be infiltrated
through an infiltration gallery into the ESA. This clean water will subsequently
drain toward the Grand River to maintain water quality in the coldwater fish
habitat.
9.3
Development Advisability
Since it complies with pertinent environmental policies this development proposal
could proceed, subject to implementation of all recommended design, mitigation
and monitoring components.
10.0
MONITORING PROGRAM
10.1 During Construction
Elements of the monitoring program include:
(a)
Site Inspector monitors function of Sediment Control Plan elements;
(b)
Site Inspector monitors function of Tree Saving Plan elements eg. tree
saving fence;
(c)
Site Inspector inspects/monitors installation of the infiltration gallery
and oil-grit separator(s);
(d)
Landscape Planting Designer monitors planting of the ESA setback
and river bank cover plantings and undertakes a “year after”
inspection.
-25-
10.2 Post Construction
(e)
Subject to advice from the Project Engineer, monitoring of the
efficiency and function of the oil/grit separator(s) and infiltration gallery
should be undertaken.
(f)
In conjunction with the Municipality and GRCA monitoring of
environmental quality in the ESA should be considered.
Considerations should include: vegetation trampling and soil
compaction, litter illegal tree cutting, fires, quality of conditions for
vegetation and wildlife habitat and quality of the environment for the
new residential occupants.
11.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are made:
(a) Monitoring as described in Chapter 10 of the present E.I.S. should be
conducted.
(b) Mitigation recommendations as discussed in Chapter 8 of the present
E.I.S. should be implemented.
(c) The following plans or designs should be prepared at the detailed design
stage of development:
1. Sediment Control Plan;
2. Tree Saving Plan;
3. ESA Setback Planting Plan;
4. Grand River Bank/Slope Stabilization and Planting Plan Design;
and
5. Snow/Ice Management and Road Salting Control Plan.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Ornithologist Union. 1993. The A.O.U. Checklist of North American
Birds. Sixth Edition.
Argus, G.W., K.M. Pryer, D.J. White and C.J. Keddy. 1982-87. Atlas of Rare
Vascular Plants of Ontario. Parts 1 to 4. National Museums of Canada. Ottawa.
Cadman, M.D. et al. 2007. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, 2001-2005.
Bird Studies Canada and others. 706pp.
Campbell, C.A. and A.I. Dagg. 1972. Mammals of Waterloo and South
Wellington Counties. Published privately. 130pp.
Chung and Vander Doelen. 2008. Cut Slope Recommendations, Little Folks
Lands Redevelopment, Village of Elora, Ontario.
-26-
Conservation Ontario http:// www.conservation-ontario.on.ca/projects/DFO.html.
County of Wellington. 2004. County of Wellington Official Plan, Last Updated
January 5, 2004.
Dance Environmental Inc. 2004a. Preliminary Review of Biological Constraints
on the Little Folks Ltd. Property, Elora, Ontario. January 30, 2004.
Dance Environmental Inc. 2004b. Updated Review of Biological Constraints on
the Little Folks Ltd. Property, Elora, Ontario. May 14, 2004.
Dance Environmental Inc. 2004c. Bird Occurrence at the Little Folks, Elora Site
During the Breeding Season, 2004. July 6, 2004.
Eagles, P. et al. South Wellington Environmentally Sensitive Areas Study –
University of Guelph.
Elrick, W., D. Kirk, K. Loebel, and Alan Wormington. 1977. North Wellington
Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Centre for Resources Development, University
of Guelph.
Government of Ontario. 1997. Provincial Policy Statement. 18pp.
Grand River Conservation Authority. 2007. GRCA Policies for the
Administration of the Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to
Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation. Ontario Regulation 150/06.
Guelph Naturalists Club. 1977. Natural Areas of Wellington County.
Guelph Field Naturalists. 1988. Checklist of the Birds of Wellington County.
Larson, D.W., U. Matthes and P.E. Kelly. 2000. Cliff Ecology: Pattern and
Process in Cliff Ecosystems. Cambridge University Press.
Lee, H.T., W.D. Bakowsky, J.Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Ulrig and
S. McMurray. 1998. Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: First
Approximation and Its Application. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resouces,
Southcentral Science Section, Science Development and Transfer Branch.
SCSS Field Guide FG-02.
Lindsay, K.M. 1984. Life Science Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest in Site
District 6-5. OMNR. Central Region, Richmond Hill.
-27-
MSAi. 2008a. Concept Plan, September 12, 2008. Prepared by Michael
Spaziani Architect Inc.
MSAi. 2008b. Urban Design Brief LFL Properties Inc. Site Redevelopment
Ross St. Elora, Ontario.
MTE. 2008. LFL Lands Preliminary Servicing Report, Elora, Ontario.
September 2008.
Natural Heritage Information Centre Website at
http://nhic.mnr.gov.on.ca/nhic_.cfm
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Grand River Conservation Authority.
1998. Grand River Fisheries Management Plan.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1999. Natural Heritage Reference
Manual for Policy 2.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2000. Significant Wildlife Habitat
Technical Guide. 139pp.
Riley, J.L. 1989. Distribution and Status of the Vascular Plants of Central
Region, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. MNR, Richmond Hill. 110 pp.
Sandilands, A.P. 2005. Birds of Ontario, Habitat Requirements, Limiting Factors
& Status. UBC Press. 365pp.
Scoggan, H.J. 1978 and 1979. The Flora of Canada. National Museums of
Canada.
Soper, J.H. and M.L. Heinburger. 1982. Shrubs of Ontario. ROM, Toronto.
495pp.
Report prepared by:
K.W. Dance, M.Sc.
President
Dance Environmental Inc.
-28-
APPENDIX 1
Terms of Reference
For E.I.S.
-29-
DE-329
May 12, 2008.
DRAFT
Terms of Reference for
Scoped E.I.S for
Little Folks Limited Properties,
Elora, Township of Centre Wellington,
County of Wellington.
Former industrial lands located south of the Grand River and west of Metcalfe
Street in Elora are proposed for residential condominium and commercial use.
To the west of the proposed development lands there is a treed area and
limestone gorge which has been identified as Regionally Significant Life Science
ANSI, ESA and Core Greenland. The Grand River, a significant fish habitat is
also located adjacent to the subject lands. An Environmental Impact Study must
be completed to delineate the exact location and extent of the ANSI boundary
and other significant natural environment features, to recommend suitable
setbacks and buffers, and to identify design considerations for the proposed
undertaking to ensure that no significant negative environmental impacts will
result.
The Terms of Reference for an E.I.S. for the subject property follows.
1.0
INTRODUCTION
Residential condo and commercial land use is proposed
County and Township staff have indicated that an E.I.S. is required.
2.0
BACKGROUND
Zoning designations on property: current and proposed
Assessment relative to GRCA Regulation 150/06, the PPS, County of
Wellington Official Plan, and the Fisheries Act
Development may be considered subject to completion of an
acceptable E.I.S.
3.0
RATIONALE
Rationale for the development proposal
Alternatives to the proposal.
4.0
STUDY METHODS
Existing information: obtained from GRCA, County, Township, MNR,
geotechnical report and water resource, servicing, stormwater
management reports and Architect’s design studies
-30-
DE-329
May 12, 2008.
DRAFT
Terms of Reference for Little Folks

Field studies, site visit dates in 2004 and 2008 April through early July
proposed
May 15, 2008 site visit with GRCA staff re: scope of work for E.I.S.
Contact with MNR regarding review/refinement of regionally significant
Life Science ANSI.
Review GRCA/MNR data on fish community and habitat in adjacent
Grand River
Describe fish habitat in Grand River adjacent to condo development
Site visits in May through June 2008 to examine vegetation patterns
and species occurrences to define the limit of the ANSI.
Completed two dawn site visits during June through early July period in
2004 to record breeding bird use of the study area, check for changes
in 2008.
5.0
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Description of the proposed development concept including a location
map showing proposed roads, lots, blocks, SWM etc. existing
vegetation, fauna (birds, fish, reptiles and amphibians), site
topography, drainage, hydrology, soils, hydrogeological conditions,
aquatic habitat, fish community habitat areas and other applicable
matters, eg. map eastern edge of ANSI and any significant valleyland
present;
Description of adjacent land use and the existing regulations affecting
the development proposal and adjacent lands, eg. DFO, GRCA,
County policies applicable.
6.0
PROPOSED UNDERTAKING
Site sketch/plan and conceptual layout showing roads, lots, blocks,
SWM etc. and setbacks/buffers between development and the
watercourse
Rationale for width of setbacks/buffers
Discussion on how to maintain surface water quality and quantity in the
Grand River.
-31-
DE-329
May 12, 2008.
DRAFT
7.0
IMPACT PREDICTION
Description of all natural features and their ecological functions that
might directly or indirectly be negatively impacted,
Description of the negative impacts that might reasonably be caused to
the natural heritage feature and its associated ecological functions by
the development proposal, including a statement of the significance of
the natural heritage features and significance of anticipated impacts.
8.0
MITIGATION INCLUDING DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES
Description of alternate forms that the development proposal could
take including an assessment of the advantages and disadvantages
of each;
Description of the actions necessary to prevent, change, mitigate or
remedy any expected negative impacts upon natural heritage features;
Description of alternative methods of protecting the ecological
functions of the areas affected;
Where reasonable and appropriate, measures to provide for the
enhancement of natural heritage features and their ecological
functions;
Description of any short/long term monitoring techniques/devices that
will be necessary to determine if negative impacts to the natural
heritage features are occurring; this may also be used to trigger
identified remediation measures.
9.0
RESIDUAL IMPACTS AND CONCLUSIONS ON DEVELOPMENT
POTENTIAL
Nature and magnitude of impacts after mitigation;
Conclusions regarding policies and development advisability; and
Conclusions relative to GRCA Regulation 150/06, the PPS, the County
of Wellington Official Plan and the Fisheries Act.
-32-
DE-329
May 12, 2008.
DRAFT
10.0
MONITORING PROGRAM
11.0
RECOMMENDATIONS
12.0
BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDIX 1:
STUDY TEAM
C.V. of E.I.S. author.
Attachment:
Figure showing the study area:
see Context Plan Figure 1.
Prepared by K.W. Dance
President, Dance Environmental Inc.
May 12, 2008.
Phone: (519) 463-6156
Email: [email protected]
-33-
APPENDIX 2
Tree Observation Data
-34-
Sheet 1 of 4.
DANCE ENVIRONMENTAL INC.
TREE OBSERVATION FORM
Site:
Little Folks, Elora
Weather:
Fair
Project #:
DE-329
Staff:
KWD/CPC
Date:
May 28, 2008
Tag #
SPECIES
383
388
389
390
Norway Maple
(N.M.)
N.M.
N.M.
N.M.
Manitoba Maple
(M.M.)
N.M.
N.M.
M.M.
391
384
385
386
387
LEGEND FOR CONDITION
G = good
F = fair
P = poor
Diam.
(cm)
20
Condition Remarks
G
12
15
16
47
F
F
F
P
30
12
22
G
G
F
Hybrid Soft Maple
44 & 37
P
392
393
M.M.
White Cedar (W.C.)
22
38
F
P
394
395
396
397
398
W.C.
M.M.
N.M.
N.M.
W.C.
26
48
42
33
26 & 28
P
F
G
G
Dead
Poor
399
411
N.M.
M.M.
89
32
G
P
412
M.M.
37
P
-35-
- damage to bark at base
- dead limbs, damage to
bark, suckering
- red-leaved form
- damage to bark at lower
trunk
- double stemmed; half
dead, few leaves
- poor form; suckering
- damage to trunk bark;
dying crown
- poor form; dying crown
- dead limbs
- fill placed on roots
- rot in roots; multistemmed; one stem dead;
crown is sparse
- damage at base of trunk
poor form, branches ripped
off
- multi-stem; rot at base;
dead stems, damage to
bark
Sheet 2 of 4.
TREE FIELD OBSERVATION FORM cont’d
Tag #
SPECIES
413
Willow
414
415
N.M.
N.M.
416
M.M
417
M.M.
418
M.M.
419
420
M.M.
M.M.
421
M.M.
422
White Elm (W.E.)
423
M.M.
424
M.M.
425
426
427
428
M.M.
W. E.
W.C.
W.C.
429
Mountain Ash
430
431
W. E.
W.C.
432
W.C.
433
M.M.
434
W.C.
DE-329
Diam. Condition Remarks
(cm)
75 & 67
F to G
- double stemmed; one
branch ripped off
12
G
- few branches ripped off
14
P
- bark damage on trunk
roots with fill on top
18
F
- fill on roots; some
damage on trunk
18
P
- damage on trunk; some
branches broken
36
F
- trunk damage; crown
thinning
30
F
- trunk damage
25
F
- poor form – leaning two
stems
26
P
- trunk damage; dead
branches in crown
37
P
- many dead branches in
crown, leaning
26
F
- many dead branches in
crown
25
P
- many dead branches,
bad lean
29-39
F
- multi-stemmed
32
F
- dead branches in crown
14
P
- damage to bark
17
P
- damage to bark;
branches ripped off
14
P
- root was pulled up; dead
branches
16
P
- roots exposed
23
F
- few branches broken
possible root damage
18
P
- thin crown possible root
damage
33
F
few
11
P
- exposed roots; multistemmed
-36-
Sheet 3 of 4
DE-329
Tag #
SPECIES
435
436
W.C.
Black Cherry (B.C.)
Diam.
(cm)
12
35
Condition Remarks
437
438
W.C.
N.M.
45
17
G
F
439
440
Trembling Aspen
Common Apple
12
28
F
P
441
White Ash
56
F
442
443
W.C.
W.C.
53
29
F
P
444
W.C.
39
F
445
446
447
Trembling Aspen
Trembling Aspen
B.C.
20
26
46
P
G
P
448
18
F to G
449
450
Black Walnut
(B.W.)
W.C.
W.C.
27
22
G
P
451
452
W.C.
W.C.
G
F
453
M.M.
20
18 to
20
16
454
M.M.
20
P
455
456
M.M.
W.C.
G
P
457
M.M.
49
20 to
22
23
F
P
P
F
-37-
- fill placed on roots
- extensive root damage,
hazard tree – remove
- one root is damaged
- some root damage from
excavation
- rot at base of trunk; dead
branches
- limb damage; roots
trampled, minor damage
on trunk
- dead limbs; root damage
- some trunk & root
damage
- multi-stemmed; root
damage, stem dying
- root damage; thin crown
- dying – hazard tree –
remove
- possible root damage
from excavation
- two stems; one crown is
gone; crowed
- two stems; crowed
- bad form; leaning; dead
branches; exposed roots
- dead branches; exposed
roots from excavation
- multi-stemmed
- 3 stems; thin crown;
dead foliage
- dead branches in
crown
Sheet 4 of 4.
DE-329
Tag #
SPECIES
458
459
M.M.
M.M.
Diam.
(cm)
30
21
Condition Remarks
460
M.M.
24
F
461
M.M.
40
F
462
M.M.
37
F
463
M.M.
30
F
464
M.M.
40
F
465
M.M
12
P
-38-
G
P
- two stems
- poor form; dead
branches
- poor form; dead
branches
- poor form; dead
branches
- poor form; dead
branches
- poor form; dead
branches
- poor form; dead
branches
- dead branches
APPENDIX 3
C.V. of
E.I.S. Author:
K.W. Dance, M.Sc.
-39-