Appendix G: Natural Heritage Impact Assessment Report Hall/environmental-assessment-studies... · Natural Heritage Impact Assessment Report . AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC.

Appendix G:

Natural Heritage Impact Assessment Report

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC.

Natural Environmental Impact Assessment Bayview Drive and Big Bay Point Road

Phases 3 & 4 City of Barrie

County of Simcoe

Prepared for: C.C. Tatham & Associates Ltd.

Prepared by: Azimuth Environmental

Consulting, Inc.

January 2017

AEC 15-152

642 Welham Rd., Barrie, Ontario L4N 9A1 telephone: (705) 721-8451 • fax: (705) 721-8926 • [email protected] • www.azimuthenvironmental.com

January 20, 2017 AEC 15-152 C.C. Tatham & Associates Ltd. 41 King Street, Unit 4 Barrie, Ontario L4N 6B5 Attention: David Perks, M.Sc, PTP, Transportation Planner Re: Natural Environmental Impact Assessment Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, Phases 3 & 4 for Bayview Drive and Big Bay Point Road, City of Barrie Dear Mr. Perks:

Azimuth Environmental Consulting, Inc. has prepared this Natural Environmental Impact Assessment to evaluate the alternatives being investigated through the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process for Phases 3 & 4 of the Bayview Drive and Big Bay Point Road upgrades within the City of Barrie. This report characterizes the natural environmental features and identifies potential key natural heritage features associated with the study area. The assessment is based on a review of background natural heritage information and site-specific information collected during visits to the study area in 2015. A review of the Preliminary Design Alternatives prepared by C.C. Tatham & Associates indicates that from a natural sciences perspective the alternatives are not dissimilar. Assuming the inclusion of recommended mitigation measures within the detailed design, these alternatives would not be expected to result in significant environmental impacts to the terrestrial and aquatic natural features and functions identified in this report.

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. II

Yours truly, AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. Brad Baker, H.B.Sc Sara Murphy, B.Sc. Terrestrial Ecologist Fisheries Ecologist/Partner Attach:

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. III

Table of Contents page

Letter of Transmittal....................................................................................i

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1

2.0 PLANNING CONTEXT ...................................................................... 1 2.1 Provincial Planning Statement (2014) ................................................................. 1

2.1.1 Natural Heritage ............................................................................................. 2 2.1.2 Wetlands ......................................................................................................... 2 2.1.3 Significant - Woodlands, Valleylands, Wildlife Habitat, and Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs) ...................................................................... 2 2.1.4 Fish Habitat ..................................................................................................... 3 2.1.5 Endangered and Threatened Species .............................................................. 3 2.1.6 Adjacent Lands ............................................................................................... 3

2.2 Ontario’s Endangered Species Act, 2007 ............................................................ 3 2.3 Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, 2009 ..................................................................... 4 2.4 City of Barrie ......................................................................................................... 5 2.5 Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority .................................................... 6

3.0 STUDY APPROACH ........................................................................... 6 3.1 Study Area ............................................................................................................. 7 3.2 Background Data .................................................................................................. 7 3.3 Methodology and Surveys .................................................................................... 7

3.3.1 Vegetation Community Mapping and Surveys .............................................. 7 3.3.2 Wildlife Surveys ............................................................................................. 8

3.4 Fish and Fish Habitat ........................................................................................... 9 3.5 Species at Risk ....................................................................................................... 9

4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................ 10 4.1 Land Use .............................................................................................................. 10

4.1.1 On-site Land Use .......................................................................................... 10 4.1.2 Adjacent Land Use ....................................................................................... 10

4.2 Terrestrial Resources .......................................................................................... 10 4.2.1 Vegetation ..................................................................................................... 10 4.2.2 Wetlands ....................................................................................................... 10 4.2.3 Wildlife ......................................................................................................... 10 4.2.4 Terrestrial Species at Risk ............................................................................ 11

4.3 Fish and Fish Habitat ......................................................................................... 12 4.3.1 Crossing #1 - Tributary of Whiskey Creek (Figure 2) ................................. 13

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. IV

4.3.2 Crossing #2 - Whiskey Creek, main branch (Figure 2) ................................ 13

5.0 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND FUNCTIONS ........... 14 5.1 Summary of Natural Heritage Features ........................................................... 14 5.2 Mapped Significant Woodland .......................................................................... 14 5.3 Other Wetlands ................................................................................................... 14 5.4 Species at Risk ..................................................................................................... 14 5.5 Candidate Significant Wildlife Habitat (Special Concern & Rare Wildlife

Species). ................................................................................................................... 15 5.5.1 Eastern Wood-pewee .................................................................................... 15 5.5.2 Red-headed Woodpecker .............................................................................. 15 5.5.3 Wood Thrush ................................................................................................ 15 5.5.4 Milksnake ..................................................................................................... 15 5.5.5 Monarch Butterfly ........................................................................................ 16

5.6 Fish Habitat ......................................................................................................... 16

6.0 PROPOSED DESIGN ALTERNATIVES ....................................... 16 6.1 Bayview Drive Alternative 1 .............................................................................. 17 6.2 Bayview Drive Alternative 2 .............................................................................. 17 6.3 Big Bay Point Road Alternative 1...................................................................... 17 6.4 Big Bay Point Road Alternative 2...................................................................... 17 6.5 Big Bay Point Road Alternative 3...................................................................... 17 6.6 Big Bay Point Road Alternative 4...................................................................... 18

7.0 NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ........ 18 7.1 Mapped Significant Woodland .......................................................................... 18 7.2 Other Wetlands ................................................................................................... 18 7.3 Species at Risk ..................................................................................................... 19 7.4 Significant Wildlife Habitat ............................................................................... 19 7.5 Fish and Fish Habitat ......................................................................................... 20

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................... 22 8.1 Timing Restrictions ............................................................................................. 22

8.1.1 Birds .............................................................................................................. 22 8.1.2 Fisheries ........................................................................................................ 23

8.2 Species at Risk ..................................................................................................... 24 8.2.1 Worker Training ........................................................................................... 24

8.3 Isolation of Work Area ....................................................................................... 25 8.4 Vegetation Protection Zones / Edge Management Plans ................................. 25 8.5 Sediment and Erosion Controls ......................................................................... 25 8.6 Site Restoration ................................................................................................... 26

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. V

8.6.1 Opportunities for Restoration ....................................................................... 26 8.7 Operations ........................................................................................................... 26 8.8 Monitoring ........................................................................................................... 26

8.8.1 During Construction Monitoring .................................................................. 27 8.8.2 Post Construction Monitoring ...................................................................... 27

9.0 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................. 27

10.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................... 29

List of Figures Figure 1 Study Area Figure 2a Environmental Features (Bayview Drive) Figure 2b Environmental Features (Big Bay Point Road) Figure 3a Proposed Development - Alternative 1 (Bayview Drive) Figure 3b Proposed Development - Alternative 1 (Big Bay Point Road) Figure 4a Proposed Development - Alternative 2 (Bayview Drive) Figure 4b Proposed Development - Alternative 2 (Big Bay Point Road) Figure 5a Proposed Development - Alternative 3 (Big Bay Point Road) Figure 5b Proposed Development - Alternative 3 (Bayview Drive)

List of Tables Table 1 Species at Risk Habitat Assessment Table 2 Ecological Land Classification Table 3 Vascular Plants List Table 4 Bird Species List Table 5 Amphibian Surveys Table 6 Significant Wildlife Habitat Assessment Table 7 Existing and Proposed Culvert Modifications

List of Appendices Appendix A: City of Barrie Background Information Appendix B: Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Appendix C: Provincial Data Appendix D: Photographs

AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION Azimuth Environmental Consulting Inc. (Azimuth) was retained by C.C. Tatham & Associates Ltd. (C.C. Tatham) to undertake a Natural Environmental Impact Assessment (NEIA) for the Bayview Drive and Big Bay Point Road Transportation Improvements Phase 3 and 4 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA; Schedule C). Road improvements have been proposed on Bayview Drive (from north of Little Avenue to south of Big Bay Point Road) and Big Bay Point Road (from just west of Bayview Drive to just east of Huronia Road). The location of the study area is shown on Figure 1. The City of Barrie (the City) has retained C.C. Tatham to complete the engineering design for road improvements on Phase 3 and Phase 4. Design alternatives are being considered as part of the Class EA process and include:

Bayview Drive Alternative 1: 3-Lane Profile with Regular Bicycle Lanes: Bayview Drive Alternative 2: Reduced 3-Lane Profile with Regular Bicycle

Lanes: Big-Bay Point Road Alternative 1: 7-Lane Profile with Buffered Bicycle Lanes: Big-Bay Point Road Alternative 2: Reduces 7-Lane Profile with Buffered Bicycle

Lanes: Big-Bay Point Road Alternative 3: 5-Lane Profile with Buffered Bicycle Lanes;

and, Big-Bay Point Road Alternative 4: 5-Lane Profile with Buffered Bicycle Lanes.

This NEIA report identifies the key natural heritage features that occur in the study area, and presents an assessment of the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed road improvements.

2.0 PLANNING CONTEXT This section of the report summarizes the various federal, provincial and local planning policies and regulations related to natural heritage that apply to the proposed road work for the purpose of the NEIA. 2.1 Provincial Planning Statement (2014)

The Planning Act (1990) requires that planning decisions shall be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS, 2014). For the purpose of this assessment it should be noted that the term 'development' is defined within the PPS as the creation of a new lot, a change in land use, or the construction of buildings and structures requiring approval


under the Planning Act, but does not include: activities that create or maintain infrastructure authorized under an environmental assessment process. 2.1.1 Natural Heritage

Section 2.1 of the PPS specifies policy related to protection of natural heritage features and functions as follows: Section 2.1.1 requires that natural features and areas shall be protected for the long term. Section 2.1.2 requires that the diversity and connectivity of the natural features in an area and the long-term ecological function and biodiversity of natural heritage systems, should be maintained, restored, or where possible, improved, recognizing linkages between and among natural heritage features and areas, surface water features and ground water features. 2.1.2 Wetlands

Section 2.1.4 of the PPS states that development and site alteration shall not be permitted in significant wetlands in “southern Ontario” (i.e., Ecoregions 5E [Georgian Bay Region], 6E and 7E) and significant coastal wetlands. 2.1.3 Significant - Woodlands, Valleylands, Wildlife Habitat, and Areas of Natural and

Scientific Interest (ANSIs)

Section 2.1.5 of the PPS states that development and site alteration shall not be permitted in:

significant wetlands in the Canadian Shield north of Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E; significant woodlands in Ecoregions 6E and 7E (excluding islands in Lake Huron

and the St. Marys River) significant valleylands in Ecoregions 6E and 7E (excluding islands in Lake Huron

and the St. Marys River); significant wildlife habitat; significant Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI); and coastal wetlands in Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E that are not subject to

policy 2.1.4 (b) unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions.


2.1.4 Fish Habitat

Pursuant to Section 2.1.6 of the PPS, development and site alteration shall not be permitted in fish habitat except in accordance with provincial and federal requirements. 2.1.5 Endangered and Threatened Species

Pursuant to Section 2.1.7 of the PPS, development and site alteration shall not be permitted in habitat of Endangered and Threatened species, except in accordance with provincial and federal requirements. 2.1.6 Adjacent Lands

Section 2.1.8 of the PPS states that development and site alteration shall not be permitted on adjacent lands to the natural heritage features and areas identified in policies 2.1.4, 2.1.5 and 2.1.6 unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on their ecological functions. The PPS defines no negative impact as “degradation that threatens the health and integrity of the natural features or ecological functions for which the area is identified due to single, multiple or successive development or site alteration activities”. The Natural Heritage Reference Manual (OMNR, 2010) defines ecological integrity as “the condition of an ecosystem in which (a) the structure, composition and function are unimpaired by stresses from human activity, (b) natural ecological processes are intact and self-sustaining and (c) ecosystem evolution is occurring naturally and that ecological integrity includes hydrological integrity”. 2.2 Ontario’s Endangered Species Act, 2007

Ontario’s Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA) provides regulatory protection to Endangered and Threatened species prohibiting harassment, harm and/or killing of individuals and destruction of their habitats. Habitat is broadly characterized within the ESA as the area prescribed by a regulation as the habitat of the species or an area on which the species depends, directly or indirectly, to carry on its life processes including reproduction, rearing of young, hibernation, migration or feeding. The various schedules of the ESA identify Species at Risk (SAR) in Ontario. These include species listed as Extirpated, Endangered, Threatened and Special Concern. As noted above, only species listed as Endangered and Threatened receive protection through the ESA from harm and destruction to habitat on which they depend.


2.3 Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, 2009

The Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (LSPP; MOE, 2009) was developed to protect and restore the ecological health of the Lake Simcoe watershed. The study area is less than three kilometres from Lake Simcoe and is located within a Settlement Area (City of Barrie). The following policies typically apply to Settlement Areas:

6.32-DP Policies 6.32 - 6.34 apply to existing settlement areas and areas of Lake Simcoe adjacent to these lands, including the littoral zone, and these areas are not subject to policies 6.1 – 6.3,6.5, 6.11 and policies 6.20 - 6.29. 6.33-DP An application for development or site alteration shall, where applicable: a. increase or improve fish habitat in streams, lakes and wetlands, and any adjacent riparian areas; b. include landscaping and habitat restoration that increase the ability of native plants and animals to use valleylands or riparian areas as wildlife habitat and movement corridors; c. seek to avoid, minimize and/or mitigate impacts associated with the quality and quantity of urban run-off into receiving streams, lakes and wetlands; and d. establish or increase the extent and width of a vegetation protection zone adjacent to Lake Simcoe to a minimum of 30 metres where feasible. 6.34-DP Where, through an application for development or site alteration, a buffer is required to be established as a result of the application of the PPS, the buffer shall be composed of and maintained as natural self-sustaining vegetation.

For the purposes of this report, it should be noted that the term ‘development’ as per the LSPP is defined as “the creation of a new lot, a change in land use, or the construction of buildings and structures, any of which require approval under the Planning Act, the Public Lands Act, the Conservation Authorities Act, or that are subject to the Environmental Assessment Act, but does not include,

a) the construction of facilities for transportation, infrastructure and utilities used by a public body;

b) activities or works under the Drainage Act; c) or the carrying out of agricultural practices on land that was being used for

agricultural uses on the date the Plan came into effect. (Greenbelt Plan)”.


2.4 City of Barrie

The study area is located within areas designated as General Industrial (EM3, EM4), Environmental Protection Area (EP), Residential (RM2), General Commercial (C4), Educational Institutional (I-E), Major Institutional (I-M); as per Schedule A of the City of Barrie Official Plan (2014; Appendix A), and per City of Barrie Zoning By-law 2009-141 (2009; Appendix A). The large forest feature located along Bayview Drive within the northern portion of the study area, Lackie’s Bush, is designated as EP according to the City’s Schedule A Land Use Plan. Lackie’s Bush has been designated as a “Level 1” Natural Heritage Resource feature according to Schedule H Natural Heritage Resources (Appendix A). The remaining natural heritage features are designated as General Industrial according to the City's Schedule A Land Use Plan. These forested areas are designated as a “Level 1 with Existing Development Designation Subject to 3.5.2.4 d)” according to Schedule H Natural Heritage Resource (Appendix A). Natural heritage features included within this designation includes woodlot and meadow along the east side of Bayview Drive and the riparian wetland to the west. According to Section 3.5.2.4 of the City of Barrie Official Plan (2014), the Schedule H is intended to be used as an overlay to Schedule A: Land Use. Level 1 resource is defined as containing:

a) Provincially significant wetlands b) Non-Provincially significant wetlands greater than 0.5 hectares c) Significant woodlands greater than 10 hectares d) Significant habitat of endangered and threatened species e) Watercourses, minimum vegetation protection zones and connectivity linkages f) Lands through the site specific planning and development process identified as

Environmental Protection Level 1 resources are considered to be critical components of the Natural Heritage Resource network, and no development is permitted within these areas. Section 3.5.4.2 d) states that:

“ Notwithstanding the land use limitations applicable to properties identified as Level 1 in Section 3.5.2.4 a) i), where an existing designation permits other forms of development, such development may proceed subject to the policies of Level 2 in Section 3.5.2.4 a) ii) and the appropriate planning application processes.”


Level 2 resources are defined as containing: a) Significant valleylands b) Provincially significant life science ANSI c) Significant wildlife habitat, including but not limited to core winter deer yards,

colonial water-bird nesting sites, rare vegetation communities (i.e. tall grass prairies), and significant areas of vernal pools

d) Watercourses, minimum vegetation protection zones and connectivity linkages e) Woodlands greater than 4 hectares and less than 10 hectares

2.5 Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority

Portions of the study area are within lands regulated by the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) in accordance with Ontario Regulation 179/06 “Regulation of Development Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses”, (Appendix B). Therefore a permit under O. Reg 179/06 will be required prior to commencement of site works.

3.0 STUDY APPROACH As per discussions held between Azimuth and LSRCA, a revised Terms of Reference for the Bayview and Big Bay Point Class EA NEIA has been circulated to the LSRCA (Appendix B). The LSRCA confirmed that the Terms of Reference would be acceptable in an email response on February 24, 2016 (Appendix B) assuming:

All works are confined to the ROW including grading and any disturbance. Bayview Drive remains a 5 lane platform as presented in the attachments Azimuth

provided. Big Bay Point remains a 5 lane platform as presented in the attachments Azimuth

provided. The wildlife habitat function assessment provides support towards determining

appropriate crossing designs for terrestrial and aquatic migrations. An offsetting strategy is provided in order to compensate for all natural features

removed. Following completion of the Draft NEIA, C.C. Tatham submitted the report to the LSRCA for review. The LSRCA provided a letter response on September 29, 2017 outlining their comments (Appendix B) related to the review of Azimuth's Draft NEIA and the recommendations in C.C. Tatham's Environmental Study Report. Upon receipt of the comments Azimuth arranged a site meeting with the LSRCA which took place on November 10, 2016 to discuss the comments and review the study area. This report includes information intended to address those concerns.


3.1 Study Area

The study area for the NEIA includes Bayview Drive from Little Avenue to Big Bay Point Road and Big Bay Point Road from Bayview Drive to Huronia Road. An area approximately 50m to either side of Bayview Drive and Big Bay Point Road Drive was considered where sight lines allowed evaluation from the road ROW (Figure 1). 3.2 Background Data

A review of background documents provided information on site characteristics, habitat, wildlife, rare species and communities, and general cultural/historic aspects of the study area. This included a review of the following:

Aerial images (Google, VuMap); Simcoe County Interactive Maps; Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario (OBBA) [website]; The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF)’s NHIC Make-A-Map:

Natural Heritage Areas application [website]; Ontario Nature – Ontario Reptile and Amphibian Atlas [website]; MNRF’s Species at Risk Ontario list; Government of Canada's Species at Risk Public Registry; Dobbyn, J. (1994) – Atlas of the Mammals of Ontario; Azimuth. 2008a. Environmental Impact Study for Property Located at 315

Bayview Drive, City of Barrie (AEC 07-103); Azimuth. 2008b. Lackie’s Master Plan. (AEC 08-150); Azimuth. 2015. Scoped Environmental Impact Study for Property Located at Part

of Lot 9, Concession 13, 333 Bayview Drive, City of Barrie. (AEC 15-200); Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. 2012. Barrie Creeks, Lovers Creek,

and Hewitt’s Creek Subwatersheds Plan. 374pp. With respect to referenced Azimuth reports, information from those reports which was deemed relevant to this NEIA is included in this report in the form of compiled tables, and figures. It is our understanding that all of these documents reviewed are readily available on the public record.

3.3 Methodology and Surveys

3.3.1 Vegetation Community Mapping and Surveys

Prior to undertaking the field studies, an initial classification of habitats was undertaken using recent air photo imagery for the study area. Data collected by Azimuth related to other projects on adjacent lands was consulted as a reference to determine vegetation communities present in the study area. The Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario (ELC), (Lee et al., 1998) was used as a general guide to the classification of the


vegetation community types. General vegetation community types were confirmed in through site surveys conducted from within the road ROW in October 2015 and January 2016. 3.3.2 Wildlife Surveys

There were no formal wildlife surveys conducted as a part of this NEIA. Incidental observations through direct observation and through interpretation of sign (i.e. tracks, scats, vocalizations) of mammals, birds, amphibians, and reptiles were recorded as a matter of course during our reconnaissance field investigations. Candidate Significant Wildlife Habitat was investigated where applicable as outlined within the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (MNRF, 2000). Birds The Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas (OBBA, 2009) was consulted and used in conjunction with Azimuth data from surveys on lands adjacent to the study area. Dawn breeding bird surveys were conducted as a part of other environmental investigations on lands in proximity to the study area in 2008, 2009 and 2015 and were based on a combined point count (5 minute duration) and roving survey methodology based on the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas Guide for Participants (OBBA, 2001). Where point counts were established all birds identified through visual or auditory confirmation were recorded at each point for a total of five minutes. When the roving methodology was employed, it required the surveyor to continue to record positive bird identification while in transit between set point count locations and include information related to the proximity of individual birds to existing point count locations. The locations of the relevant point count stations are shown on Figure 2a and 2b. Breeding evidence was assessed based on the criteria of the OBBA (2001). Amphibians Azimuth has surveyed the Whiskey Creek area and its associated wetlands for amphibian populations in 2007, 2008, and 2009. Of the locations surveyed during this time sampling station 1, 2, and 3 were directly relevant to the proposed road upgrades. The locations of these stations are illustrated in Figures 2a and 2b. Azimuth completed evening calling amphibian surveys, according to the Marsh Monitoring Program (Bird Studies Canada 2008) protocol. According to the methodology, surveys are to be conducted 3 times in a year, between April and July 5th, with at least 15 days between each survey; beginning one half-hour after sunset and ending by midnight during evenings with suitable conditions [light winds and minimum night air temperatures of 5ºC, 10ºC and 17ºC for each of the three respective survey periods], with an observation period of 3 minutes carried out at each point count station.


3.4 Fish and Fish Habitat

Background mapping resources were used to determine the location of watercourse crossings in the study area, including available online searches of VuMap (First Base Solutions), LSRCA regulation mapping, and City of Barrie watershed (LSRCA, 2012). Azimuth also completed a site reconnaissance on October 26th, 2015 to ground truth available mapping to determine the location of watercourse/drainage areas. The federal government announced in its Economic Action Plan 2012 its intention to amend the Fisheries Act in order to streamline administrative processes while strengthening environmental and fisheries protection. On November 25, 2013, the amendments to the Fisheries Act, including the Applications for Authorization (under Paragraph 35(2) (b) of the Fisheries Act Regulations) and Information Requirements Regulations, came into force. Under this process, all Fisheries Act reviews and/or approvals, projects are screened using Fisheries and Oceans Canada's (DFO) Self-Assessment guidance literature. Projects are only submitted to DFO for review if the project does not satisfy the specific criteria that allow for Self-Assessment, subject to project 'screening' to determine submission requirements by a qualified fisheries biologist. For this project, proposed works were assessed to determine whether project works could occur under the Self-Assessment Process, or whether submission to DFO review was required. 3.5 Species at Risk

The SAR screening undertaken for the scope of this assignment includes an initial desktop analysis where the habitat requirements of species with potential to occur in the overall planning area are compared to those expected to occur on within the study area. The MNRF was contacted to request background and SAR information that may be relevant to this project (Appendix C). The initial screening is based on air photo interpretation and existing knowledge of the study area. Habitat requirements and appropriate designations (Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern) for all species listed above are outlined in Table 1. Where it is determined that the species have potential habitat in the study area, preliminary mapping is created to determine if the proposed works can be carried out with a reasonable certainty that no impacts to the species or their habitat will be incurred as a result of the works.


4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 4.1 Land Use

4.1.1 On-site Land Use

Land use within the study area is predominantly Bayview Drive and Big Bay Point Road and their respective ROWs (Figure 1). 4.1.2 Adjacent Land Use

Adjacent land use predominantly consists of a mix of commercial and industrial development. Lackie’s Bush is a natural forested area which is present at the northeast end of Bayview Drive (Figure 1). The topography associated with Lackie's Bush drops off quickly from the road ROW, where steep slopes could present an issue for extension of the road into the area. 4.2 Terrestrial Resources

4.2.1 Vegetation

The majority of the vegetation communities identified in the study area are communities resulting from or maintained by anthropogenic based disturbance associated with their placement in the City of Barrie. The vegetation present around commercial and industrial establishments is mainly manicured lawn with scattered ornamental trees and shrubs. ELC units identified in the study area can be found within Table 2. A list of the vascular plants identified in the area is included in Table 3. With the exception of Butternut identified on adjacent lands (private property), none of the ELC communities or vegetative species documented are of federal or provincial conservation concern. 4.2.2 Wetlands

Two wetland communities have been identified within the study area associated with the main branch of Whiskey Creek, close to Crossing #2 (Figure 2a). There is a marsh along the Whiskey Creek (MAM2-2), situated on the east side of Bayview Drive; and a riparian wetland situated on the west side of Bayview Drive (Figure 2a). 4.2.3 Wildlife

Mammals Species documented to occur in the study area during field survey include Eastern Cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), Eastern Chipmunk (Tamias striatus), Red Squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris), Grey Squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), Raccoon (Procyon lotor), White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus), Red Fox (Vulpes fulva) and Coyote (Canus latrans) (Azimuth 2008a; 2015). These species are not of federal, provincial or regional conservation concern.


Birds A total of 38 species of birds have been recorded within or adjacent to the study area as reported in Table 4. Of note, Eastern Wood-pewee is listed as a species of Special Concern, (Azimuth 2008a, b; 2015; Table4). Data for the OBBA atlas is presented in 100km2 data squares, each with a unique identifier (17PK01). A full species list, containing 110 records for the square is presented in Appendix C. SAR birds identified within the OBBA are addressed below. Amphibian There were no calling anuran amphibians observed during the majority of the amphibian surveys conducted. One exception is Sampling Station 1, where 5 Wood Frogs were observed (Table 5). 4.2.4 Terrestrial Species at Risk

Particular care was taken during the field work to determine if habitat for any federally or provincially designated species, notably SAR as identified by the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO), was present in the study area. Azimuth has contacted the MNRF to obtain any SAR information relevant to the project (Appendix C). Information received from MNRF will be forwarded upon receipt. Based on a review of background data the following species have potential to occur within the Midhurst District, specifically in proximity to the study area and were thus considered in our assessment:

Mammals: Little Brown Myotis (Myotis lucifugus), Northern Myotis (Myotis septrentionalis), and Eastern Small-footed Bat (Myotis leibii);

Reptiles and Amphibians: Blanding’s Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii), Eastern Ribbonsnake (Thamnophis sauritus), Eastern Musk Turtle (Sternotherus odoratus), Milksnake (Lampropeltis triangulum), and Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina);

Birds: Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia), Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica), Bobolink (Doliichonyx oryzivorus), Canada Warbler (Wilsonia carolinus), Chimney Swift (Chaetura pelagica), Common Nighthawk (Chordeiles minor), Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna), Eastern Wood-pewee (Contopus virens), Henslow’s Sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii), Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), Red-headed Woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus), and Wood Thrush (Hylocichla mustelina);

Plants and Lichens: Butternut (Juglans cinerea); and, Insects: Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus).


The abovementioned SAR and their preferred habitat were screened to determine whether there is potentially suitable habitat in the study area for these species (Table 1). 4.3 Fish and Fish Habitat

The study area includes two watercourse crossings within the Whiskey Creek watershed, both of which are located on Bayview Drive in the City of Barrie. Whiskey Creek is referred to as one of the 'Barrie Creek's in the LSRCA Barrie area Subwatershed Plan (2012), which is a cold water system flowing through sandy loam soils with moderate to high infiltration rates (LSRCA, 2012). Whiskey Creek is located entirely within the limits of the City of Barrie, and is predominantly surrounded by urban land use. Nonetheless, sections of Whiskey Creek host Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) with evidence that Brook Trout are successfully spawning and surviving in the system due to contributions of groundwater that moderate water temperatures (LSRCA, 2012). Shallow groundwater influences have historically been observed within the central portion of the watershed in Lackie's Bush park area, and from the park downstream to the confluence of Lake Simcoe. Historic fish sampling studies completed by Azimuth for various projects in the City of Barrie confirm the presence of various age classes, including juvenile young of the year (yoy) and adults at Huronia Road, in Willoughby Park, at Yonge Street, and downstream in Minets Point Park (Sara Murphy, personal observation). Flow conditions are permanent from Lackie's Bush downstream to Lake Simcoe, with intermittent and ephemeral conditions occurring upstream of Lackie's Bush owing to several factors including urban influences and stormwater management systems, as well as reductions in groundwater contribution upstream of Lackie's Bush. Several barriers to fish movement occur in the system at both the lower and upper portion of Lackie's Bush (at Huronia Road and Bayview Drive respectively), with the most significant barrier occurring at the rear property of the business "The Source" fronting Bayview Drive (Figure 2a). This hardened barrier includes a series of gabion basket step system tiers that functions to convey flow, but creates a permanent and impassable barrier to fish. Historical fish sampling in Whiskey Creek upstream of Bayview Drive did not capture fish, therefore Bayview Drive forms the transition zone from intermittent and ephemeral flow to permanent, and indirect to direct fish habitat. While Whiskey Creek is managed as a coldwater system, temperature data records suggest that thermal degradation has occurred in the system over time (LSRCA, 2012). There are no watercourse crossings on Big Bay Point Road. The watercourse crossings on Bayview Drive are described as follows:


4.3.1 Crossing #1 - Tributary of Whiskey Creek (Figure 2)

A first order tributary watercourse crosses Bayview Drive at approximately 239 Bayview Drive as shown on Figure 2. Drainage crosses the roadway through 35m long, 1.2m diameter corrugated steel pipe (CSP) culvert as shown on Photographs 1 to 4 (Appendix D). Ephemeral drainage originates from the woodlot west of Highway 400 and flows from west to east under Fairview Road via drainage swales before entering a channelized ditch between two commercial developments on the west side of Bayview Drive. Flow discharges into Lackie's Bush, on the east side of Bayview Drive, and enters the main branch of Whiskey Creek approximately 115m east of the roadway. This tributary is an ephemeral system that flows in response to storm events and following spring snow melt. Drainage is within low lying swales and there is no substrate present. Crossing #1 is considered indirect fish habitat (i.e. no fish habitat present, but flow contributes downstream to direct fish habitat in Lackie's Bush), and flows ephemerally, predominantly in response to storm events. Despite the absence of fish at Crossing #1, drainage contributes to fish habitat downstream, therefore fish habitat sensitivity is considered 'Low'. 4.3.2 Crossing #2 - Whiskey Creek, main branch (Figure 2)

The main branch of Whiskey Creek flows beneath Bayview Drive via 32.7m long, twin 1.6m x 1.1m corrugated steel pipe arch (CSPA) culverts, that transition below grade to a 20.7m long, 3.6m wide x 1.8m high open bottom cast in place box culvert (Photographs 5 and 6) (Appendix D). The combined length of both culvert types is 53.4m (Photograph 6), (Appendix D). At the downstream (north) side of Bayview Drive the culverts are perched (Photograph 7 to 10), (Appendix D). At the culvert the creek channel is approximately 1m wide. On the upstream (south) side of Bayview Drive the channel flows through a defined vegetated corridor consisting of herbaceous growth and small shrubs (Photograph 9), (Appendix D). At the downstream (north) side of the culvert, the creek flows through a thick vegetated buffer for approximately 30m, where it then meanders and braids through an open meadow with abundant herbaceous vegetation and scarce shrub and tree vegetation. Substrate is composed mostly of silt and sand, but there are areas of gravel and cobble substrates at the downstream end of the culvert (contributed from the roadside shoulder). In the summer months, the channel is limited to isolated pools and is dry in most areas. This crossing flows on an intermittent basis, and functions as indirect fish habitat (meaning no fish directly occur at Bayview Drive, but flow contributes to areas of direct fish habitat downstream, in Lackie's Bush). Despite the absence of fish at Crossing #2, drainage contributes to fish habitat downstream therefore fish habitat sensitivity is considered 'Low'.


5.0 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND FUNCTIONS 5.1 Summary of Natural Heritage Features

The results of the field studies and review of background information indicate the potential for the following key natural heritage features and functions to be located on or adjacent to the study area:

Mapped Significant Woodland; Other Wetlands; Potential Habitat for Threatened or Endangered Species; Candidate Significant Wildlife Habitat; and, Fish Habitat

The potential impacts of the proposed road improvements on these natural heritage features and functions specifically is addressed in the following sections. 5.2 Mapped Significant Woodland

Lackie’s Bush is designated as a “Level 1” natural heritage resource by the City of Barrie’s Official Plan; therefore, this woodlot is recognized as Significant by the City. 5.3 Other Wetlands

Wetlands have been identified within the study area (Figure 2a and 2b). These wetlands are not considered provincially or regionally significant. 5.4 Species at Risk

Based on the assessment of the study area undertaken to this point it has been determined that the potential habitat functions for two Endangered bat species exists: Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis both receive individual and General Habitat protection. At the time of submission of this report, the MNRF has not provided direction for the interpretation of general habitat protection in the form of a General Habitat Description guidance document. For the purpose of the assessment of the study area, general habitat is limited to potential maternity roost habitat. Potential roost habitat for these species would be present in existing buildings and large diameter snag and cavity trees within the deciduous woodlots, specifically Lackie's Bush. Butternut trees were identified on lands adjacent to the proposed work areas. At the time of assessment, no individuals were identified within 30 meters of the ROW, thus, they are not considered in the impact assessment. Nonetheless, mitigation is recommended to ensure no contraventions of the ESA (refer to Section 8.2).


5.5 Candidate Significant Wildlife Habitat (Special Concern & Rare Wildlife

Species).

An evaluation of possible Significant Wildlife Habitats within and adjacent to the study area can be found on Table 6. The following species of Special Concern are acknowledged to occur in the general area and the natural areas within the study area have the potential to provide suitable habitat:

Eastern Wood-pewee; Red-headed Woodpecker; Wood Thrush; Monarch Butterfly; and Milksnake

Based on this assessment, Special Concern & Rare Wildlife Species habitat could be considered potential Candidate Significant Wildlife Habitat. Milksnake has been down listed to Not at Risk since the initial assessment for the species. 5.5.1 Eastern Wood-pewee

Eastern Wood-pewee is associated with mixed or coniferous forests, which are common in the overall planning area. In the study area, potential suitable habitat is associated with Lackie’s Bush. 5.5.2 Red-headed Woodpecker

Red-headed Woodpecker lives in open woodland and woodland edges, and is often found in parks, golf courses and cemeteries. These areas typically have many dead trees, which the bird uses for nesting and perching. Red-headed Woodpecker were not observed during site investigations on adjacent properties, however dead or dying trees present in the road ROW or Lackie's Bush may provide potentially suitable habitat for this species. 5.5.3 Wood Thrush

Wood Thrush is associated with most moist mature deciduous and mixed forests with a well-developed understory. This habitat is very common in the overall planning area. In the study area, potential suitable habitat is associated with Lackie’s Bush. 5.5.4 Milksnake

Eastern Milksnake commonly utilizes a wide variety of habitats. In the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) Assessment and Status report dated 2002, Milksnake is described as a species which uses everything from rock


outcrops through natural meadows, and agricultural hayfields. Milksnake is also commonly identified within a broad diversity of forest types. Based on the range of potential habitat types, definitions of a single area based on the potential that a Milksnake may be found in the area would be inappropriate. The COSEWIC Report concludes the habitat section with the statement “It is apparent that the Eastern Milksnake can live in almost any habitat that provides shelter and a source of food” (COSEWIC, 2002). Based on this information, potentially suitable habitat is associated with any of the identified natural areas. 5.5.5 Monarch Butterfly

Monarchs are found in open meadow habitats in proximity to Milkweed (Asclepias spp.), upon which they rely for their life processes (MNRF, 2015). No Monarch Butterfly were identified during site investigations, however this as this species is considered a habitat generalist and able to use a wide variety of meadow communities, suitable habitat is present within all “open” areas (i.e. CUM polygons, roadside vegetation; Figure 2a and 2b) within the study area. These vegetation community type are well-represented in the surrounding area and are abundant on a regional scale. 5.6 Fish Habitat

Both Crossing #1 (Tributary of Whisky Creek) and Crossing #2 (Whisky Creek main branch) are considered indirect fish habitat where there are no fish habitat present, but flow contributes downstream to direct fish habitat in Lackie's Bush. Both crossings are protected features under the Federal Fisheries Act.

6.0 PROPOSED DESIGN ALTERNATIVES Preliminary design alternatives have been provided by C.C. Tatham for an assessment of potential for impacts to the Natural Environmental Features identified in the area. The proposed improvements to Bayview Drive include a 3-lane cross section (i.e. one lane of travel per direction and a continuous center turn lane) with regular bicycle lanes and the implementation of sidewalks. The entire road section will be urbanized with curb and gutter. The proposed improvements to Bayview Drive will fit within the existing 26m ROW, with the exception of minor property requirements at the intersections of Bayview Drive with Little Avenue and Big Bay Point Road to accommodate proposed intersection improvements. These improvements are common to both alternatives.


The proposed improvements to Big Bay Point Road include the widening of the road to a 7 lane cross section (i.e. 3 lanes per direction with a centre median/left turn lane) and buffered bicycle lanes and sidewalks. As per the results of a traffic operations assessment, the improvements may be limited to a 5-lane cross section (i.e. two lanes of travel per direction with a continuous centre turn lane) with buffered bicycle lanes and sidewalks. Under both scenarios, the road section will be urbanized with curb and gutter. The existing ROW is 30m, but the improvements will require a ROW width of up to 41m. The removal of the existing unused railway is being discussed. If the railway remains, the proposed improvements would require that the road be widened to the south between Bayview Drive and Welham Road. If the railway is removed, the widening would occur equally on both sides of the road. 6.1 Bayview Drive Alternative 1

3-Lane Profile w/Regular Bicycle Lanes Widening would occur equally on both sides of the road. A sidewalk is proposed for the west side of the road. Works would occur within the existing ROW (Figure 3a). 6.2 Bayview Drive Alternative 2

Reduced 3-Lane Profile w/Regular Bicycle Lanes Widening would occur predominantly to the west side of the road, with the centre line shifting 1.0m to the west. This option includes provision for sidewalks on both sides of the road. Works would occur within the existing ROW (Figure 4a). 6.3 Big Bay Point Road Alternative 1

7-Lane Profile w/Buffered Bicycle Lanes This alternative considers that the railroad would be removed. Widening would occur equally on both sides of the road to accommodate the proposed 7-lane cross section. It is noted that Big Bay Point Road is not centred within the existing ROW, thus widening will occur equally on both sides of the existing centre line but the property requirements to the north are greater (Figure 3b). 6.4 Big Bay Point Road Alternative 2

Reduced 7-Lane Profile w/Buffered Bicycle Lanes This alternative considers that the railroad would remain. Thus all widening would occur to the south side of the road (Figure 4b). 6.5 Big Bay Point Road Alternative 3

5-Lane Profile w/Buffered Bicycle Lanes


This alternative assumes that the railway corridor will remain and considers a 5-lane profile and includes sidewalks on both sides of the road. Similar to Alternative 2, all widening would occur to the south (Figure 5a). 6.6 Big Bay Point Road Alternative 4

Reduced 5-Lane Profile w/Buffered Bicycle Lanes This alternative also assumes that the railway will remain. This alternative considers reduced boulevard widths and only considers a sidewalk on the south side of the road. The improvements for Alternative 4 can be accommodated within the proposed ROW.

7.0 NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT For the purpose of the NEIA, all of the alternatives outlined in Section 6 are intended to occur within the existing ROW and as such are considered based on the potential for impacts associated with the respective foot prints. Road improvements would require removal of manicured lawn and landscaped areas and any vegetation or trees that occur in proximity to the existing ROW. Therefore, while our impact assessment will apply to any of the described alternatives it is recommended that development on the east side of Bayview Drive in proximity to Lackie's Bush including Crossing #1 be avoided where possible. On the contrary, options related to Crossing #2 should focus on increases to the footprint on the east side of the Bayview Drive where the culvert extension is already in place.

7.1 Mapped Significant Woodland

As indicated above, Lackie's Bush has been identified as significant according to the City of Barrie. A portion of this feature is located adjacent to Bayview Drive (CUP3-1, FOM3-2) (Figure 2a and 2b). It is our understanding that the proposed road improvements will not encroach into this feature. Given the slopes associated with the areas of Lackie's Bush adjacent to Bayview Drive, any fill placement could be expected to result in removal of a larger portion of the forest than would typically be required. Assuming no road improvements are proposed in this feature beyond the flat ROW (ROW), no impact is expected as a result of the proposed works. The woodland will remain intact and its functions are expected to remain post-development. 7.2 Other Wetlands

Two wetlands have been identified within the study area. There will be no loss of vegetation within the MAM2-2 feature (Figure 2a); therefore there will be no impacts to its current form or function.


Slight encroachment into riparian wetland associated with Crossing #2 (Figure 2a) resulting in vegetation loss may occur as a result of the proposed road improvements. As noted in November impacts related to the potential loss of wetland vegetation would be negligible provided the recommended mitigation measures are adhered to. 7.3 Species at Risk

Bat maternity roosting habitat can occur within buildings present in the study area in addition large diameter snag and cavity trees within the deciduous woodlots, specifically Lackie's Bush. No vegetation removals have currently been proposed which would result in impacts to Lackie's Bush, or removals of buildings present on the surrounding lands thus there is no expectation that General Habitat in the form of maternity roost colony locations would be damaged or destroyed. Bats do not show fidelity to a particular cavity tree during the maternity season or among years. Within a maternity season, bats frequently move pups among cavity trees. Between seasons, cavity trees – as large/old and decrepit individuals (hence the cavities), are subject to natural tree fall and hence at the outset of each maternity season, bats must select among standing trees that persist from one year to the next (i.e., a given cavity tree is not consistently or predictably “habitat” from one year to the next). Therefore, as long as cavity trees in the study area are cut outside the maternity season (i.e., late May through mid to late August), there will be no harm to individual bats or bat habitat consistent with Section 2.1.7 of the 2014 PPS and Ontario’s ESA. Following this strategy, no ESA permitting is required to allow the development to proceed. Regardless, we recommend retaining those cavity trees on-site that don’t pose a falling hazard to future dwellings as a way of maintaining “wildlife cavity trees” in general as benefit to local wildlife..

7.4 Significant Wildlife Habitat

Eastern Wood-pewee and Wood Thrush inhabit forest habitat, the Milksnake is a habitat generalist, Red-headed Woodpecker could be expected to utilize dead and dying trees in proximity to the road ROW for foraging and or nesting habitat. All road works are to occur within the existing ROW. This may result in the removal of some potential habitat for Monarch Butterfly which can use Milkweed in the roadside vegetation. While these species do not receive protection under the ESA, 2007, care is recommended while working in areas where these species occur. Where possible, impacts to these species should be avoided. No features which would be considered critical habitat for these species were identified within the proposed development area. If identified during


on-site work, a report should be submitted to the MNRF Midhurst District (Phone # (705) 725-7500) to document the sighting. Suitable habitats for these species are well-represented on a regional level. Loss of these habitat units within the existing ROW will not negatively impact the local availability of habitat for any of these species. Vegetation removal will be restricted to this area and recommendations are included to ensure that no nesting birds will be disturbed as a result of vegetation removals. Proposed works are expected to have no negative effect upon Special Concern species or the ability for these species to carry out their life processes, provided that conformance is required with the environmental considerations and mitigation measures described in Section 9.0 of this report. 7.5 Fish and Fish Habitat

The road improvements proposed will require that the two drainage crossings that include the tributary and main branch crossing of Whiskey Creek be lengthened to the necessary width depending upon the alternative design options proposed. Although both crossings do not provide habitat for fish directly, fish do occur in Lackie's Bush, and include Brook Trout at the downstream limit of the green space. As such, both culvert crossings require fisheries screenings to determine whether the project can be self-assessed, or requires submission to DFO to ensure compliance with the Federal Fisheries Act. A summary of the culvert alterations resulting from road improvements is summarized in Table 7. As shown in Table 7, the existing culvert length at the north crossing at Tributary 1 is 35m long, and the total structure length at the south crossing on the main branch of Whiskey Creek is comprised of a CSP in series with a box culvert, totalling 53.4m in length. The road alternatives all include requirements for extending the culvert structures to accommodate the road platform widening and sidewalk, with widening to occur on the west side of Bayview Drive (CCT, personal communication). At Tributary Crossing #1, the CSP is to be replaced with a closed box culvert. Alternatives 1 and 2 require culvert extensions of 5m, with the third alternative requiring double the extension length of 10m. At the Main Branch Whiskey Creek south crossing, the existing culvert will remain in place, and a box culvert will be added to the inlet. For Alternatives 1 and 2 the 53.4m culvert be extended by 6.6m. For Alternative 3 the total culvert extension is 14.6m. In accordance with DFO's Projects Near Water guidance document, (DFO, 2014), project activities on culverts may occur without DFO review subject to a self-assessment (completed by a qualified biologist) if the following criteria can be met:


1. Culvert works include maintenance including gradual removal of debris and accumulated sediment;

2. Flooding downstream can be prevented; 3. Extreme flows downstream can be avoided; 4. Suspended sediment levels can be managed to levels suitable for fish; 5. Fish stranding is unlikely; 6. Works do not result in an increase in footprint below the high water mark; 7. Works do not result in new fill being placed below the high water mark; 8. Works do not require a channel realignment; 9. Works do not result in narrowing of the channel; 10. No complete obstruction is created to fish passage; 11. Provides for fish passage if restricted by the existing structure; and, 12. Work can be done in isolation of flowing water.

Based on these criteria, the primary trigger that dictates the need for DFO review for this project is the #'s 6 and 7 above; the requirement for fill and increase in footprint below the high water mark. This would include the requirement for culvert extensions, or replacement of structures with culverts that are longer than existing structures. Based on these criteria, and the proposed culvert specifications for each road design Alternative, it is apparent that all road alternatives include a minimum extension on existing culverts by 5m, with the highest degree of extension required at the south crossing on the main branch of Whiskey Creek, of 14.6m. For this reason, works at both culvert crossings should be submitted to DFO under a Request for Review. The submission should include appropriate sediment and erosion control plans, construction staging plans, and environmental notes that outline the commitment to fisheries mitigation consistent with the Mitigation Section 8.0 below. Given that both crossings function with a fish habitat sensitivity of 'Low' (owing to indirect fish habitat conditions and intermittent flow frequency), it is anticipated that the project will not result in 'serious harm to fish'. Fisheries impacts are anticipated to be mitigable with the exception of the footprint change resulting from a culvert extension that would result in a residual effect. It is anticipated that DFO may 'approve' the project under either a Letter of Advice (LOA), or a DFO Authorization may be required depending on the extension length proposed. For each alternative, the addition of culvert extensions impose a change in habitat, or alteration, however there is no habitat loss as a result of culvert extensions given that the channel length remains unchanged and available for fish. Further, the expected potential for negative impacts are considered low given that hydraulic conditions can be maintained or improved, and there are no impacts to fish at each site since both function as indirect fish habitat. Functions of primary productivity and aquatic habitat for aquatic life such as macroinvertebrates will continue


to occur post construction. Standard mitigation measures for working in water shall apply, as outlined in Section 8.0 below, including working in isolation of flowing water, and ensuring that sediment and erosion control measures are properly installed and maintained throughout the duration of construction. To minimize impacts to fish habitat, culvert lengths should be minimized to the extent possible, and designed to mimic natural conditions (i.e. allow for proper embedment and sized to accommodate as a minimum, the bankfull channel width, typically approximating the 2yr storm capacity). In accordance with LSRCA's development policies (LSRCA, 2016) open bottom culverts are encouraged. The above design alternatives propose closed box culvert structures which will eliminate native substrate through the culvert length where currently open bottom, which does impose some degree of impact, however the crossing will contain native substrate as a result of fluvial processes and sediment transport, and does not sustain permanent flow or host fish directly. As such, the risk assessment is considered low given the scale of the project and aquatic conditions present. The impact is considered acceptable from a fisheries perspective.

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are provided as mitigation for the potential for negative environmental impacts arising during and following the proposed road improvements. 8.1 Timing Restrictions

8.1.1 Birds

Construction activities involving the removal of vegetation should be restricted from occurring during the breeding season. Migratory birds, nests, and eggs are protected by the Migratory Birds Convention Act, and the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act. Environment Canada outlines dates when activities in any region have potential to impact nests at the Environment Canada Website (http://www.ec.gc.ca/paom-itmb/default.asp?lang=En&n=4F39A78F-1#_03). In Zones C2 and C3 vegetation clearing should be avoided between April 1st through August 30th of any given year. If work requires that vegetation clearing is required between these dates, screening by an ecologist with knowledge of bird species present in the area could be undertaken to ensure that the vegetation has been confirmed to be free of nests prior to clearing. An appropriate time frame should be determined by the ecologist to ensure that nesting will not occur in screened areas between the time of assessment and the implementation of the proposed work.


8.1.2 Fisheries

Given that the thermal classification of Whiskey Creek is a coldwater system, fisheries timing restrictions apply for this project in order to protect fish habitat during construction. Accordingly, all construction activities occurring in-water are to be completed in accordance with cold water fisheries timing restrictions (mandated by MNRF) as follows:

No in-water work from October 1 to June 30, to protect aquatic habitat during the spring and fall spawning period, (i.e. construction is permitted from July 1 to September 30 in any given year).

It is acknowledged that both crossings do not provide direct habitat for fish, therefore, MNRF may grant timing leniency depending upon the construction mitigation plan proposed by the contractor during the build stage. Should mitigation for sediment and erosion control combined with flow control strategies be sufficient to warrant the project as low risk to fish and fish habitat, then MNRF may permit culvert works to occur outside of the coldwater timing window indicated above. MNRF consultation would be required if the project schedule proposes inwater work outside the fisheries timing window. Fish removal will not be required for the proposed construction activities due to the absence of fish at Bayview Drive culverts. To minimize the potential for environmental impacts, the project should be completed using standard best management practices (BMP's) for working around water. Considerations include completing construction activities over a continuous construction schedule to minimize the duration of work in proximity to the watercourse, and overall project length to minimize risks to natural environmental features associated with construction. Further mitigation considerations include ensuring that the culvert crossings are properly sized to meet the hydraulic criteria for the size and mimic natural flow conditions. Ensure that culverts are properly embedded to promote natural fluvial processes such as sediment transport functions. As discussed in Section 8.5, ensure that areas of disturbance around drainage features are minimized to the extent possible, and that immediately upon completion of construction that all disturbed embankment areas that form the riparian zone are stabilized, and restored with native vegetation consistent with the material removed, to restore the site to preconstruction conditions.


8.2 Species at Risk

It should be noted that the absence of a protected species within the study area does not indicate that they will never occur within the area. Given the dynamic character of the natural environment, there is a constant variation in habitat use. Care should be taken in the interpretation of presence of species of concern including those listed under the ESA and the SARA. Changes to policy, or the natural environment, could result in shifts, removal, or addition of new areas to the list of areas currently considered being Key Natural Heritage features. This report is intended as a point in time assessment of the potential to impact SAR; not to provide long term ‘clearance’ for SAR. While there is no expectation that the assessment should change significantly, it is the responsibility of the proponent to ensure that they are not in contravention of the ESA at the time that works are undertaken. A review of the assessment provided in this report by a qualified person should be sufficient to provide appropriate advice at the time of the onset of future work. At the detailed design stage, it should be determined if any tree removal is required. If required, individual trees should be assessed for the potential to provide roosting habitat for the three SAR bat species. At this time, MNRF should be consulted to determine if further action is warranted. 8.2.1 Worker Training

Worker training would be beneficial to assist the on-site workers in the identification of the SAR with potential to occur in the area. Workers should be instructed to stop work immediately and contact the local MNRF office immediately if any SAR are encountered within the work area. Individuals working on site should ensure that SAR are not harmed during construction or killed by heavy machinery, vehicles or other equipment. The contractor should seek to ensure that all personnel are educated to ensure that, if identified, the SAR are not wantonly injured or killed, and to ensure that damage to features which could constitute habitat is avoided. Information conveyed through this education should include:

Species habitat and identification; Requirements under the ESA including avoidance of harm to the species and

damage to relevant habitat; Appropriate action to take if the species is encountered; How to record sightings and encounters; and That care should be taken when undertaking construction activities in order to

avoid harming the species or damaging/destroying habitat.


The completion of an on-site pre-construction meeting with the Construction Administrator by a qualified biologist will assist in ensuring that all involved are aware of the potential for SAR within the specified areas and the necessity for action. 8.3 Isolation of Work Area

In advance of any vegetation clearing or earth works (i.e., clearing or grubbing) establish the development limits approved in the Plan in proximity to natural heritage features to be protected and erect a hoarding fence along the surveyed limits to prevent inadvertent encroachment into these areas to be protected. Should culvert works occur when flow is present in either drainage system (#1 or #2, Figure 2a), then works must occur in the absence of flow, and appropriate flow controls be implemented around the active work area in combination with sediment and erosion controls to ensure that sediment transport does not occur downstream. Flow quantity and quality must be maintained at all times around the work area to protect downstream aquatic habitat conditions. 8.4 Vegetation Protection Zones / Edge Management Plans

The LSRCA has requested that where possible, Vegetation Protection Zones or Edge Management Plans should be considered associated with natural heritage features at the time of Detailed Design for the project. There is some concern around potential for impacts to Lackie's Bush and the small wetland features associated with the study area. Azimuth concurs that care should be taken in the development of the design around Lackie's Bush to ensure that vegetation loss is limited. This is especially true given the slopes outside of the ROW. 8.5 Sediment and Erosion Controls

Construct the above noted hoarding fence following Ontario Provincial Standard Design OPSD-219.130 (Heavy Duty Silt Fence Barrier) or equivalent to establish physical limits to construction and control/mitigate sedimentation at any drainage areas including ditches. Diligent application of sediment and erosion controls will be required for all construction activities occurring around the two drainage areas and natural areas. All construction activities occurring in or around drainage areas must be completed using best management practices (BMP's) to minimize extent of accidental or unavoidable impacts to fish habitat, and alleviate the risk of sediment entering Whiskey Creek. All sediment and erosion controls are to be maintained until vegetation has been re-established to sufficiently stabilize disturbed soils.


8.6 Site Restoration

All areas disturbed during construction should be restored immediately following the development. Site restoration should include immediate site stability methods (erosion control blankets, silt fencing, as needed) and revegetation efforts of all excavated and erodable soils, using a layer of topsoil and type of soil guard (i.e. geotextile), to minimize the potential for erosion to Whiskey Creek. All disturbed areas should at that time be revegetated with native trees and shrubs combined with a native seed mix. The restoration of the riparian wetland should follow the guidelines suggested by the regulatory agency. 8.6.1 Opportunities for Restoration

Through the site meeting with the LSRCA which took place on November 10, 2016 two areas were identified as opportunities for restoration work which could be pursued if necessary associated with the proposed road works:

1. The area of CUT1-1 on Bayview Drive located to the southeast of Crossing #1 has been identified as an area where historical fill placement and abundant Black Locust Growth present a community which is significantly disturbed in close proximity to Lackie's Bush. Removal of the Black Locust and restoration of the area would be expected to be beneficial for the adjacent Significant Woodland.

2. The Online Flow Control Structure located to the east of the CUT1-1 vegetation community referred to above currently acts as a barrier to fish passage. It is our understanding that the LSRCA would encourage investigations surrounding the removal of that structure and renaturalization of the Whiskey Creek Main Branch illustrated as intermittent in Figure 2a.

8.7 Operations

All maintenance activities required during construction must be conducted 30m away from any drainage areas that discharge to Whiskey Creek to prevent accidental spillage of deleterious substances that may harm the aquatic environment.

8.8 Monitoring

It is recommended that all construction activities be monitored to ensure fish habitat protection measures are functioning properly, including the installation and maintenance of sediment and erosion controls. The work area is directly connected hydraulically to Whiskey Creek therefore every effort will be required to ensure that sediment and erosion


control measures are functioning as intended. The following monitoring strategy is recommended for implementation throughout the project: 8.8.1 During Construction Monitoring

Sediment and erosion control measures are to be monitored by the Contract Administrator/retained inspector after installation and before the initiation of construction;

All silt controls are to be inspected daily, and deficiencies corrected immediately. All silt controls are to be monitored during and following rain events; Photographs are to be collected of the work area prior to, and during construction; A qualified fisheries biologist is to be available on site to complete periodic

inspection at the two drainage areas during culvert works.

8.8.2 Post Construction Monitoring

On site monitoring post construction periodically during the dry summer period to assess channel stability;

Periodic channel inspection following high water events and high precipitation events, to monitor the stability of the channel, substrate, and banks; and

Inspection of all tree and shrub plantings throughout the course of the growing season to determine plant success within all areas planted within the contract. Tree or shrub mortality should be examined, and lost specimens replaced as deemed required by the City.

All construction activities should be monitored by City staff, the CA, or retained biologist, to ensure that drainage area protection measures are installed as proposed, and functioning as intended. Photographic documentation should be collected of existing conditions, during critical stages of construction, and after construction is completed. Copies may be provided to the LSRCA upon request.

9.0 CONCLUSIONS A review of the Preliminary Design Alternatives indicates that from a natural sciences perspective none of the alternatives would be expected to impose significant environmental impacts to the terrestrial and aquatic natural features and functions identified in this report. The results of our assessment indicate that mapped Significant Woodland, potential habitat for Endangered bat species, potential nesting habitat for Barn Swallow, Candidate Significant Wildlife Habitat, fish habitat and wetlands vegetation


units are present within the study area. Based on a review of the proposed alternatives, at present, there is no expectation that the features or functions presented in this report will be impacted negatively by the proposed road works assuming recommended mitigation measures are followed. The road works on Bayview Drive will include the requirement for lengthening of the existing culverts to accommodate the road widening, for all of the alternative designs proposed. The road alternatives will require 5-10m culvert extension at Tributary Crossing #1, and replacement of the structure with a box culvert. Road alternatives at the main branch of Whiskey Creek result in 6.6-14.6m extensions of the existing culvert also with a box culvert. At both sites, culvert extensions will result in habitat alteration, but not habitat loss. Temporary impacts are fully mitigable through the effective use of sediment and erosion controls and through project planning and staging, and permanent residual effects will occur as a result of the enclosure of drainage features within the culvert extensions. The impacts to fish habitat are considered low, owing to the absence of fish (indirect fish habitat) and ephemeral and intermittent flow regimes. Given site conditions present, and works proposed, submission to DFO under a Request for Review is anticipated to be warranted however this will require confirmation at the detail design stage. For shorter culvert extensions, it is anticipated that the project would be approved by DFO under a Letter of Advice (LOA) and will not result in 'serious harm to fish' under the Fisheries Act (as long as fisheries mitigation and BMP's are utilized as required). Longer extensions, if required, may require an Authorization from DFO. Additional consideration to the following may be required at the detailed design stage:

Changes to the design resulting in footprint within Lackie's Bush would require additional consideration at the Detailed Design Stage to investigate the potential for impacts not considered within this assessment.

Work within wetlands associated with the Whiskey Creek crossings will require a permit from the LSRCA to proceed.

No Butternut were identified within 30 meters of the proposed work area which would require consideration during the 2015 field assessments. If Butternut are identified during site work the MNRF should be contacted to ensure that no contravention of the ESA occurs.

No Barn Swallow were identified in the existing Box Culvert at Crossing #2 during a November 2016 site investigation. If Barn Swallow are identified during site work the MNRF should be contacted to ensure that no contravention of the ESA occurs


10.0 REFERENCES Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario (OBBA). 2001-2005. Data Summaries. Available: http://www.birdsontario.org/atlas/datasummaries.jsp?lang=en Azimuth. 2008a. Environmental Impact Study for Property Located at 315 Bayview Drive, City of Barrie (AEC 07-103) Azimuth. 2008b. Lackie’s Master Plan. (AEC 08-150) Azimuth. 2015. Scoped Environmental Impact Study for Property Located at Part of Lot 9, Concession 13, 333 Bayview Drive, City of Barrie. (AEC 15-200) City of Barrie. 2009. Zoning By-law 2009 141. Available: http://www.barrie.ca/Doing%20Business/PlanningandDevelopment/Pages/Zoning.aspx City of Barrie. 2014. City of Barrie Official Plan. 153p. Available: http://www.barrie.ca/doing%20business/planninganddevelopment/Pages/default.aspx Dobbyn, J. 1994. Atlas of the Mammals of Ontario. Endangered Species Act. 2007. Available: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_07e06_e.htm Government of Canada. 2009. Species at Risk List. Available at: http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/sar/index/default_e.cfm LSRCA, 2012. Barrie Creeks, Lover's Creek and Hewitt's Creek Subwatershed Plan. 374pp. Available at: http://www.lsrca.on.ca/pdf/reports/barrie_subwatershed_plan_2012.pdf Lee, H.T., W.D. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig and S. McMurray. 1998. Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario. First Approximation and its Application. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Southcentral Science Section, Science Development and Transfer Branch. SCSS Field Guide FG-02. Migratory Birds Convention Act. 1994. Available: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/m-7.01/


Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH). 2014. Provincial Policy Statement. 56pp. Available: http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page215.aspx Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). 2006. Ontario Regulation 179/06: Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority: Regulation of Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses. Available: http://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/r06179 Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). 2014. Natural Heritage Information Centre Database. Available: http://www.giscoeapp.lrc.gov.on.ca/web/MNR/NHLUPS/NaturalHeritage/Viewer/Viewer.html Ministry of Environment (MOE). 2009. Lake Simcoe Protection Plan. Available: http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/lake-simcoe-protection-plan Murphy, S. 2016. Personal Observation. Senior Aquatic Ecologist/Partner at Azimuth Environmental Consulting Inc. Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas. 2001. Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas Guide for Participants. 45p. Available: http://www.windrush-energy.com/Update%2015-1-08/A%20WIND%20FOR%20OUR%20LIFE/Supplementary%20EA%20Reference%20Studies/Ontario%20Breeding%20Bird%20Atlas%20(2001).pdf Ontario Nature. 2015. Ontario Reptile and Amphibian Atlas. Available at: http://www.ontarioinsects.org/herpatlas/herp_online_expert.html

DAYSTAMP:

Figure No.

REFERENCE:

C

DATE ISSUED:

PROJECT NO.:

CREATED BY:

ONSULTING, INC.ZIMUTHA ENVIRONMENTAL

LEGEND:

M:\15 Projects\15-152 Bayview and Big Bay Point Class EA\04.0 - Drafting\15-152.dwg

Study Area Location

Bayview and Big Bay Point Class EA

Barrie, ON

January 2016

JLM

15-152

MNRF

1

Approx. Property Boundary

REG MAP

Barrie

Kempenfelt Bay

Kempenfelt Bay

H

w

y 400

B

ig

B

a

y

P

o

in

t R

d

.

L

ittle

A

v

e

.

B

a

y

v

ie

w

D

r.

Huronia R

d.

M

L

Lackies Bush (Park)

L

ittle

A

v

e

.

W

h

iske

y C

re

e

k (M

a

in

B

ra

n

ch

)

C

U

M

1

-

1

C

U

M

1

-

1F

O

D

6

M

L

C

U

M

1

-

1

C

U

W

1

c

M

L

B

a

yvie

w

D

r.

C

U

P

3

-1

F

O

M

3

-2

CU

W1a

C

U

T

1

-1

M

L

M

L

M

L

M

L

M

L

M

L

M

L

Crossing #1

M

L

T

rib

u

ta

ry

o

f

W

h

is

k

e

y

C

re

e

k

FO

D4

M

L

M

L

Crossing #2

C

U

M

1

-1

C

U

W

1

b

M

LM

L

M

L

M

L

C

U

T

1

-5

MA

M2-2

R

W

CU

W1

c

M

L

1

2

3

4

6

8

7

2

1

3

5

DATE ISSUED:

CREATED BY:

PROJECT NO.:

REFERENCE:DAYSTAMP:

C

Figure No.


LEGEND:

M:\15 Projects\15-152 Bayview and Big Bay Point Class EA\04.0 - Drafting\15-152.dwg Simcoe County Maps

15-152

JLM

January 2016

2a

Environmental Features


Barrie, ON

Study Area

Watercourse

Vegetation Communities

Bird Point Count Station#

Amphibian Stations (white)#

Dry-Moist Field MeadowCUM1-1

Red Pine Coniferous PlantationCUP3-1

Sumac Cultural ThicketCUT1-1

Raspberry Cultural ThicketCUT1-5

Mineral Cultural WoodlandCUW1

Dry-Fresh Deciduous ForestFOD4

Fresh-Moist Sugar Maple Deciduous ForestFOD6

Fresh Sugar Maple-Hemlock Mixed ForestFOM3-2

Reed-Canary Grass Mineral Meadow MarshMAM2-2

Maintained Lawn/Landscaped AreaML

Watercourse Culvert

Intermittent Flow

Ephemeral Flow

Flow Direction

Location of Online

Flow Control Structure

B

ig

B

a

y

P

o

in

t R

d

C

U

M

1

-1

C

U

P

3

-1

R

a

ilro

a

d

E

d

g

e

V

e

g

e

ta

tio

n

M

L

M

L

M

L

M

L

M

L

M

L

M

L

M

L

M

L

M

L

M

L

M

L

M

L

M

L

M

L

C

U

M

1

-1

C

U

M

1

-1

M

L

R

a

ilro

a

d

E

d

g

e

V

e

g

e

ta

tio

n

C

U

M

1

-

1

C

U

M

1

-

1

F

O

D

6

M

L

C

U

M

1

-

1

C

U

W

1

c

M

L

B

a

yvie

w

D

r.

C

U

T

1

-1

M

L

FO

D4

M

L

M

L

Cro

ssin

g #

2

C

U

M

1

-1

C

U

W

1

b

M

LM

LM

L

M

L

C

U

T

1

-5

MA

M2-2

R

W

CUW1c

M

L

6

8

7

2

1

3

5

DATE ISSUED:

CREATED BY:

PROJECT NO.:

REFERENCE:DAYSTAMP:

C

Figure No.


LEGEND:


15-152

JLM

January 2016

2b

Environmental Features


Barrie, ON

Study Area

Watercourse


Bird Point Count Station#

Amphibian Stations (white)#











Watercourse Culvert

Riparian WetlandRW

Intermittent Flow

Ephemeral Flow

Flow Direction

Little A

ve.

Bayview Dr.

CUP3-1

FOM3-2

CUW1a

CUT1-1

ML

MLML

ML

ML

ML

ML

Crossing #1

Tributary of

Whiskey C

reek

CU

M1-1

CU

M

1-1

CUW1c

ML

ML

FOD

4

ML

ML

Crossing #2

CUM1-1

CUW1b

ML

ML

MLML

CUT1-5

MA

M2-2

RW

C

U

W

1

c

ML

DATE ISSUED:

CREATED BY:

PROJECT NO.:

REFERENCE:DAYSTAMP:

C

Figure No.


LEGEND:


15-152

JLM

January 2016

3a

Proposed Development

Alternative 1


Barrie, ON

Study Area

Watercourse











Intermittent Flow

Ephemeral Flow

Flow Direction

Riparian WetlandRW

Watercourse Culvert

South Bayview

North Bayview

CUP3-1

Railroad Edge Vegetation

MLML

ML

ML

ML

ML

ML

ML

ML

ML

MLML

CUM1-1

CUM1-1


Big Bay Point Rd

CUM1-1

CUP3-1

ML

ML

MLMLCUM1-1

CUM1-1

FOD6

ML

CUM1-1

CU

W1c

ML

ML

DATE ISSUED:

CREATED BY:

PROJECT NO.:

REFERENCE:DAYSTAMP:

C

Figure No.


LEGEND:


15-152

JLM

January 2016

3b


Alternative 1


Barrie, ON

Study Area







East Big Bay Point Rd.

West Big Bay Point Rd.

Little A

ve.

Bayview Dr.

CUP3-1

FOM3-2

CUW1a

CUT1-1

ML

MLML

ML

ML

ML

ML

Crossing #1

Tributary of

Whiskey C

reek

CU

M

1-1

CU

M

1-1

CUW1c

ML

ML

FOD

4

ML

ML

Crossing #2

CUM1-1

CUW1b

ML

ML

MLML

CUT1-5

MA

M2-2

RW

C

U

W

1

c

ML

DATE ISSUED:

CREATED BY:

PROJECT NO.:

REFERENCE:DAYSTAMP:

C

Figure No.


LEGEND:


15-152

JLM

January 2016

4a


Alternative 2


Barrie, ON

Study Area

Watercourse











Intermittent Flow

Ephemeral Flow

Flow Direction

Riparian WetlandRW

Watercourse Culvert

South Bayview

North Bayview

CUP3-1


MLML

ML

ML

ML

ML

ML

ML

ML

ML

MLML

CUM1-1

CUM1-1


Big Bay Point Rd

CUM1-1

CUP3-1

ML

ML

MLMLCUM1-1

CUM1-1

FOD6

ML

CUM1-1

CU

W1c

ML

ML

DATE ISSUED:

CREATED BY:

PROJECT NO.:

REFERENCE:DAYSTAMP:

C

Figure No.


LEGEND:


15-152

JLM

January 2016

4b


Alternative 2


Barrie, ON

Study Area









Little A

ve.

Bayview Dr.

CUP3-1

FOM3-2

CUW1a

CUT1-1

ML

MLML

ML

ML

ML

ML

Crossing #1

Tributary of

Whiskey C

reek

ML

CU

M

1-1

CU

M

1-1

CUW1c

ML

ML

FOD

4

ML

ML

Crossing #2

CUM1-1

CUW1b

ML

ML

MLML

CUT1-5

MA

M2-2

RW

C

U

W

1

c

ML

DATE ISSUED:

CREATED BY:

PROJECT NO.:

REFERENCE:DAYSTAMP:

C

Figure No.


LEGEND:


15-152

JLM

January 2016

5a


Alternative 3


Barrie, ON

Study Area

Watercourse











Intermittent Flow

Ephemeral Flow

Flow Direction

Riparian WetlandRW

Watercourse Culvert

South Bayview

North Bayview

CUP3-1


MLML

ML

ML

ML

ML

ML

ML

ML

ML

MLML

CUM1-1

CUM1-1


Big Bay Point Rd

CUM1-1

CUP3-1

ML

ML

MLMLCUM1-1

CUM1-1

FOD6

ML

CUM1-1

CU

W1c

ML

ML

DATE ISSUED:

CREATED BY:

PROJECT NO.:

REFERENCE:DAYSTAMP:

C

Figure No.


LEGEND:


15-152

JLM

January 2016

5b


Alternative 3


Barrie, ON

Study Area









Table 1: Species at Risk Habitat Assessment. AEC15-152 - City of Barrie

Common Name Species Name ESA SARA Key Habitats Used By Species1

Initial Assessment

Bank Swallow Riparia riparia THR THR

Sand, clay or gravel river banks or steep riverbank cliffs; lakeshore bluffs of easily crumbled sand or gravel; gravel pits, road-cuts, grassland or cultivated fields that are close to water; nesting sites are limiting factor for species presence

ESA Protection: Species and general habitat protection

Species not expected to be present on or adjacent to the study area. Habitat is not representative of key habitat.

Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica THR

Ledges and walls of man-made structures such as buildings, barns, boathouses, and Box Culverts.Cliffs or caves


Species not expected to be present in the study area. Habitat is not generally representative of key habitat. A single Box Culvert was identified at Crossing 2, however no Barn Swallow nests or evidence of historical use were identified in 2016 fall field season when Azimuth attended the site with LSRCA. The lands adjacent to the study area have commercial and industrial buildings (nesting habitat), and it is close to vacant lots (foraging industrial buildings (nesting habitat), and it is close to vacant lots (foraging habitat) and watercourse. The proposed development will not alter existing buildings or vacant lots; therefore, there is no expectation that the proposed work would result in a contravention of, or conflict with the regulations of the ESA.

Blanding's Turtle Enydoidea blandingii THR THR

Fen (poor fens), marsh, swampOpen areas of sand or fine gravelRock-barren

ESA Protection: Species and regulated habitat protection


Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus THR

Large old fields and meadows, tall grasslands, hayfields



Butternut Juglans cinerea END END

Forests (Known to occur in Southern edges of Parry Sound MNR District)


The study area has been surveyed for the presence of Butternuts, and no individual was found. Butternut is known to exist on adjacent lands, however, the individuals are more than 30m away from the proposed development and there is no expectation that the proposed work would

Butternut Juglans cinerea END ENDdevelopment and there is no expectation that the proposed work would result in a contravention of, or conflict with the regulations of the ESA.

Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis SC THR

Wet, mixed deciduous-coniferous forests with a well developed shrub layer. Shrub marshes, red-maple stands, cedar stands, black spruce swamps, larch and riparian woodlands along rivers and lakes. (COSEWIC, 2008)

ESA Protection: N/A


Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica THR THR

Man-made structures such as chimneysHollow trees or cavities in old growth or mature forests


Species not expected to be present in the study area. Habitat is not representative of key habitat. The lands adjacent to the study area have commercial and industrial buildings with potential to provide nesting habitat. The proposed development will not alter existing buildings or vacant lots; therefore, there is no expectation that the proposed work would result in a contravention of, or conflict with the regulations of the ESA.

Open habitats including sand dunes, beaches recently logged/burned over areas, forest clearings, short grass prairies, pastures, open forests, bogs,


Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor SC THR

areas, forest clearings, short grass prairies, pastures, open forests, bogs, marshes, lakeshores, gravel roads, mine tailings, quarries, and other open relatively clear areas. (COSEWIC, 2007)

ESA Protection: N/A

Habitat is not representative of key habitat.

Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna THR

Grasslands, pastures, agricultural fields, old fields, meadows; often overgrown with shrubsCan also use golf courses and sand dunes



Table 1 - AEC15-152 Page 1 of 3



Initial Assessment

Eastern Musk Turtle Sternotherus oderatus SC SC

Marsh, swamp, fen (bog)

ESA Protection: N/A


Eastern Ribbonsnake Thamnophis sauritus SC SC

Marsh, swamp, fen (bog)

ESA Protection: N/A


Eastern Small-footed Bat Myotis Lleibii END END

Generally occurs in mountainous or rocky regions where it has been noted to roost in large boulders and beneath slabs of rock and stones. Hibernation is typically confined to caves and adits. (Best and Jennings, 1997)


Forests; typically in clearings or on edges of deciduous and mixed forests. This species was identified to be present on the within Lackie's Bush. Critical habitat would be associated with nests and would be present within

Eastern Wood-pewee Contopus virens SC ESA Protection: N/ACritical habitat would be associated with nests and would be present within Lackie's Bush. The proposed development will not result in the removal of this habitat, since Lackie’s Bush (suitable habitat adjacent to the study area), will not be affected by the development.

Henslow's Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii END END

Nests in large, open, usually moist to wet, often flat fields with a high graminoid to forb/shrub ratio. Vegetation must be dense and over 30cm in height



Little Brown Bat Myotis lucifugus END END

Forests and regularly aging human structures as maternity roost sites. Overwintering sites are characteristically mines or caves, but can often include buildings.


This species may occur in proximity to the study area. Expected habitat would be directly associated with roosting. Additional assessment may be required at the time of detailed design. Timing restrictions are proposed on removal of vegetation to avoid contraventions of Section 9 of the ESA.

Milksnake Lampropeltis triangulumSC -

Down listed to Not at Risk SC

Rock-barrenField

Habitat is expected to be present associated with the study area associated with Cultural vegetation units and unkempt right of way vegetation. Potential habitat for this species is not uncommon or limiting within the Milksnake Lampropeltis triangulum Down listed to Not at Risk

effective June 15, 2016SC

ESA Protection: N/APotential habitat for this species is not uncommon or limiting within the overall planning area.

Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus SC SC

Caterpillars - Milkweed in meadows and open areasAdults - Meadows and diverse habitats with a variety of wildflowers

ESA Protection: N/A

Habitat is expected to be present associated with the study area associated with Cultural vegetation units and unkempt right of way vegetation. Potential habitat for this species is not uncommon or limiting within the overall planning area.

Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis END END

Maternity roost sites are generally located within deciduous and mixed forests and focused within leaf . Overwintering sites are characteristically mines or caves, but can include buildings.


This species may occur in proximity to the study area. Expected habitat would be directly associated with roosting. Additional assessment may be required at the time of detailed design. Timing restrictions are proposed on removal of vegetation to avoid contraventions of Section 9 of the ESA.

Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi SC

Natural forest openings, forest edges near natural openings (such as wetlands) or open to semi-open forest stands. Occasionally human made openings (such as clear cuts). Presence of tall snags and residual live trees is essential. (COSEWIC, 2007)


(COSEWIC, 2007)

ESA Protection: N/A

Red-Headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus SC THR

Oak and Beech Forests, grasslands, forest edges, orchards, pastures, riparian forests, roadsides, urban parks, golf courses, cemeteries, beaver ponds and burns (COSEWIC, 2007#). ESA Protection: N/A

Species not expected to be present on or adjacent to the study area. Habitat is not representative of key habitat. Notwithstanding that assessment, there is some potential that the species could use dead or dying trees in the right-of-way. While these would not necessarily be considered key habitat for the species, mitigation is included to ensure that no nesting individuals would be disturbed as a result of the proposed works.




Initial Assessment

Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentina SC SC

Marsh, swamp, fen (poor fens)Shallow waters in lakes or along streamsOpen areas of sand or gravel

ESA Protection: N/A

The likelihood of this species may being present in waterbodies adjacent to the study area is considered very low. There is no expectation that critical habitat for this species would be impacted by the proposed road works.

Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina SC THR

Typically associated with moist mature deciduous and mixed forests with a well developed understory.

ESA Protection: N/A

This species was not identified during bird surveys on adjacent lands. Wood Thrush is associated with most moist mature deciduous and mixed forests with a well-developed understory. This habitat is very common in the overall planning area. The proposed development will not result in the removal of this habitat, since Lackie’s Bush (suitable habitat adjacent to the study area), will not be affected by the development.

Whip-poor-will prefer areas with a mix of open and forested habitat, open woodlands, or openings in mature forests (MNRF, 2015).

There is no expectation that Whip-poor-will would use the natural lands associated with Lackie's Bush or the other vacant land associated with that

Whip-Poor-Will Caprimulgus vociferus THR THRwoodlands, or openings in mature forests (MNRF, 2015).


associated with Lackie's Bush or the other vacant land associated with that to the southeast. The features are not representative of general habitat for the species.

2 Jones, C.D., Kingsley, A.,Burke P., Holder, M. The Dragonflies and Damselflies of Algonquin Provincial Park and the Surrounding Area. 2008.

3 Newmaster S.G., Harris A.G, Kershaw L.J. Wetland Plants of Ontario. Lone Pine. 1997.

4 Voss E.G. Michigan Flora: Part 1- Gymnosperms and Monocots. Cranbrook Press. 1972.

5 Gleason H.A. Illustrated Flora of the Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada: Volume 2 - The Choripetalous Dicotyledoneae. Hafner Publishing Company. 1968.

1. Habitat as outlined within the Species at Risk in MNR's Parry Sound District Excel file version 3, updated as of May 10, 2012, MNRF's Species at Risk in Ontario website files (https://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/species-risk-ontario-list), or Species Specific COSEWIC Reports

referenced in this document.


Table 2. Ecological Land Classification AEC15-152 - City of Barrie

SystemCommunity

ClassCommunity

SeriesEcosite Vegetation Type Composition2

Terrestrial Cultural CUP, PlantationCUP3 Coniferous Plantation

CUP3-1 Red Pine Coniferous Plantation Type

Two vegetation communities dominated by Red Pine. Present in the northwestern portion of Lackie’s Bush, on the north side of Whiskey Creek on steeply sloped lands. A second community is present about 20m north of Big Bay Point Road beyond the railway corridor. The community associated with Lackie's Bush included the occurrence of Sugar Maple, Red Maple, Manitoba Maple, Poison Ivy, Paper Birch, Alternate-leaf Dogwood, amongst others, indicates the transitioning of this vegetation community to a Mixed Forest (FOM).

Terrestrial CulturalCUM, Cultural Meadow

CUM1 Mineral Cultural Meadow Ecosite

CUM1-1 Dry-Moist Old Field Meadow Type

Multiple vegetation communities composed of a variety of early successional forb species, such as Bull Thistle, Yellow Rocket, Oxeye Daisy, Sulphur Cinquefoil, Queen Anne’s Lace and Alfalfa. Occurrence of grasses, including Awnless Brome, Reed Canary Grass and Kentucky Bluegrass. Colonies of Staghorn Sumac were registered. There are several patches of Old Field Meadow throughout the study area. Species composition and abundance vary throughout each patch of CUM1-1.

Terrestrial CulturalCUT, Cultural Thicket

CUT1 Mineral Cultural Thicket Ecosite

CUT1-1 Sumac Cultural Thicket Type

Dominated by colonies of Staghorn Sumac, with an abundance of Black Locust. Ground cover dominated by grasses/sedges and forbs.

Terrestrial CulturalCUT, Cultural Thicket

CUT1 Mineral Cultural Thicket Ecosite

CUT1-5 Raspberry Cultural Thicket Type

Dominated by Red Raspberry, with occasional White Elm and Basswood. Ground cover composition within these units was similar to that of the cultural meadow communities. This community could not be assessed via the standard ELC protocol and was limited to the visual survey from the right-of-way.

Terrestrial CulturalCUW Cultural Woodland

CUW1 Mineral Cultural Woodland Ecosite

CUW1aDominated by Black Locust and Manitoba Maple. Occurrence of Red Oak, several species of Hawthorn ( Crataegus sp .) and colonies of Staghorn Sumac.



CUW1bCharacterized by a mixture of forest species, including Honeysuckle, Black Walnut, Basswood, Green Ash, Red Oak, White Ash, Sugar Maple, Staghorn Sumac, Red Maple, Paper Birch, Red Pine, Crabapple, and goldenrods.



CUW1cLocated at the NE intersection between Bayview Drive and Big Bay Point Road. Characterized by a mixture of forest species, such as Sugar Maple, American Beech, White Spruce and Basswood, and introduced species, such as Tartarian Honeysuckle. Trees and shrubs are also scattered through an area of manicured lawn.

Terrestrial ForestFOM Mixed Forest

FOM3 Dry-Fresh Hardwood-Hemlock Mixed Forest Ecosite

FOM3-2 Dry-Fresh Sugar Maple - Hemlock Mixed Forest Type

Dominated by Sugar Maple and Hemlock, with occurrence of Trembling Aspen, Black Cherry, White Ash, Green Ash, Red Raspberry, Canada Violet, Bracken Fern, amongst others. This community is located on steep slope.

Ecological Land Classification1


Table 2. Ecological Land Classification AEC15-152 - City of Barrie

SystemCommunity

ClassCommunity

SeriesEcosite Vegetation Type Composition2

Ecological Land Classification1

Terrestrial ForestFOD Deciduous Forest

FOD4 Dry- Fresh Deciduous Forest Ecosite

Community dominated by American basswood with American Elm and Sugar Maple. Honeysuckle is dominant within the understory, with Red and Black Raspberry. Ground cover is composed of species including Prickly Gooseberry, Riverbank Grape, Woodland Agrimony, Garlic Mustard, Herb-Robert and Virginia Creeper.

Terrestrial ForestFOD Deciduous Forest

FOD6 Fresh-Moist Sugar Maple Deciduous Forest Ecosite

Canopy is dominated by Sugar Maple, with occasional American Beech. Sub-canopy is comprised of American Beech, American Elm, Black Cherry and Hop-hornbeam. Understory is mostly formed by Choke Cherry and tree saplings.

Terrestrial Railroad Edge

Wetland MarshMAM Meadow Marsh

MAM2 Mineral Meadow Marsh Ecosite

MAM2-2 Reed-canary Grass Mineral Meadow Marsh Type

This community is situated in proximity to Whiskey Creek and is largely composed of Reed Canary Grass with other hydrophytic vegetation, such as Broad-leaved Cattail and Spotted Touch-me-not.

Riparian

Wetland2Riparian Wetland

1 Based on Ecological Land Classification (ELC) for southern Ontario (Lee et al . 1998)2Not an ELC description, no good fit of community composition or structure to ELC

The vegetation present along the decommissioned railroad does not fit in any of the ELC designations. It is a mix of trees, shrubs and ground cover resultant of ecological succession and anthropogenic disturbances. It includes Red Oak, White Pine, Scots Pine, White Spruce, Sugar Maple, Trembling Aspen, Staghorn Sumac, Red Raspberry, Queen Anne’s Lace, Common Mullein, Common Lilac, goldenrods, asters, grasses and sedges.

This is a wetland community which was initially included with the MAM but was separated out given that it did not fit with that community especially due to the increased density of trees along the creek. It is mainly composed by wetland species, such as Green Ash, Red Maple, Willows and patches of Cattail, associated with the existing drainage (main branch of Whiskey Creek). Staghorn Sumac, Milkweed and Goldenrods, usually associated to drier sites, are also present.


Table 3 - Vascular Plants List AEC15-152 - City of BarrieFAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME MAM2-2 CUM1-1 CUT1-1 FOD4 FOD6 FOM3-2 CUP3-1 CUW1a CUW1b CUW1c S RANK G RANK SARO STATUSAceraceae Acer negundo Manitoba Maple X X X X X X S5 G5Aceraceae Acer platanoides Norway Maple X X SNA GNRAceraceae Acer rubrum Red Maple X X S5 G5Aceraceae Acer saccharum Sugar Maple X X X X X X X X X S5 G5Anacardiaceae Rhus typhina Staghorn Sumac X X X X X S5 G5Anacardiaceae Toxicodendron radicans Climbing Poison Ivy X X X X X S5 G5Apiaceae Daucus carota Wild Carrot X X X X SNA GNRApocynaceae Apocynum androsaemifolium Spreading Dogbane X X X S5 G5Apocynaceae Vinca minor Periwinkle X X X SNA GNRAquifoliaceae Ilex verticillata Black Holly X S5 G5Araceae Arisaema triphyllum Jack-in-the-pulpit X S5 G5Araliaceae Aralia nudicaulis Wild Sarsaparilla X S5 G5Asclepiadaceae Asclepias syriaca Common Milkweed X X S5 G5Asteraceae Achillea millefolium Common Yarrow X X X SNA G5Asteraceae Antennaria neglecta Field Pussytoes X X S5 G5Asteraceae Arctium minus Common Burdock X X X X SNA GNRAsteraceae Centaurea nigra Black Knapweed X SNA GNRAsteraceae Chrysantemum leucanthemum Oxeye Daisy X X XAsteraceae Cirsium arvense Canada Thistle X X X X SNA GNRAsteraceae Cirsium vulgare Bull Thistle X X SNA GNRAsteraceae Erigeron annuus Annual Fleabane X S5 G5Asteraceae Erigeron canadensis Canada Horseweed X X S5 G5Asteraceae Erigeron hyssopifolius Daisy Fleabane X X S5 G5Asteraceae Erigeron philadelphicus Philadelphia Fleabane X S5 G5Asteraceae Euthamia graminifolia Grass-leaved Goldenrod X X S5 G5Asteraceae Eutrochium maculatum var. maculatumSpotted Joe Pye Weed X X S5 G5T5Asteraceae Hieracium canadense Canada Hawkweed XAsteraceae Hieracium lachenalii Common Hawkweed X SNA GNRAsteraceae Lactuca canadensis Canada Lettuce X X S5 G5Asteraceae Lactuca serriola Prickly Lettuce X X SNA GNRAsteraceae Leucanthemum vulgare Oxeye Daisy X X SNA GNRAsteraceae Pilosella officinarum Mouse-ear Hawkweed X X SNA GNRAsteraceae Rudbeckia hirta var. pulcherrima Black-eyed Susan X S5 G5T5Asteraceae Solidago altissima ssp. altissima Eastern Late Goldenrod X X S5 GNRAsteraceae Solidago canadensis var. canadensis Canada Goldenrod X X S5 G5T5Asteraceae Solidago flexicaulis Zigzag Goldenrod X X S5 G5Asteraceae Solidago gigantea Smooth Goldenrod X S5 G5Asteraceae Solidago rugosa var. rugosa Northern Rough-leaved Goldenrod X S5 G5T5Asteraceae Sonchus oleraceus Common Sow-thistle X SNA GNRAsteraceae Symphyotrichum lateriflorum Starved Aster X X S5 G5Asteraceae Symphyotrichum novae-angliae New England Aster X X S5 G5Asteraceae Symphyotrichum urophyllum Arrow-leaved Aster X S4 G4G5Asteraceae Taraxacum officinale Common Dandelion X X X X X SNA G5Asteraceae Tragopogon dubius Yellow Goat's-beard X X SNA GNRBalsaminaceae Impatiens capensis Spotted Jewelweed X X X X S5 G5


Table 3 - Vascular Plants List AEC15-152 - City of BarrieFAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME MAM2-2 CUM1-1 CUT1-1 FOD4 FOD6 FOM3-2 CUP3-1 CUW1a CUW1b CUW1c S RANK G RANK SARO STATUSBerberidaceae Podophyllum peltatum May-apple X X S5 G5Betulaceae Betula alleghaniensis Yellow Birch X S5 G5Betulaceae Betula papyrifera Paper Birch X X X S5 G5Betulaceae Ostrya virginiana Eastern Hop-hornbeam X X S5 G5Boraginaceae Echium vulgare Common Viper's-bugloss X X SNA GNRBoraginaceae Myosotis scorpioides True Forget-me-not X SNA G5Brassicaceae Alliaria petiolata Garlic Mustard X X X X X X X X SNA GNRBrassicaceae Barbarea vulgaris Bitter Wintercress X SNA GNRBrassicaceae Brassica rapa Field Mustard X SNA GNRCaprifoliaceae Lonicera canadensis Canada Fly Honeysuckle X S5 G5Caprifoliaceae Lonicera tatarica Tartarian Honeysuckle X X X X X X X SNA GNRCaprifoliaceae Sambucus racemosa Red Elderberry X X S5 G5Caprifoliaceae Viburnum acerifolium Maple-leaf Viburnum X S5 G5Caryophyllaceae Saponaria officinalis Bouncing-bet X SNA GNRCaryophyllaceae Silene vulgaris Maiden's Tears X X SNA GNRClusiaceae Hypericum punctatum Common St. John's-wort X X X X X S5 G5Cornaceae Cornus alternifolia Alternate-leaved Dogwood X X X S5 G5Cornaceae Cornus stolonifera Red-osier Dogwood X X X X X X S5 G5Cupressaceae Juniperus communis Ground Juniper X S5 G5Cupressaceae Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar X X X S5 G5Cyperaceae Carex crinita Fringed Sedge X X S5 G5Cyperaceae Carex gracillima Graceful Sedge X S5 G5Cyperaceae Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani Soft-stemmed Bulrush X S5 G5Dennstaedtiaceae Pteridium aquilinum Bracken Fern X X X X S5 G5Dryopteridaceae Dryopteris sp. Wood Fern X XDryopteridaceae Matteuccia struthiopteris Ostrich Fern X X S5 G5Dryopteridaceae Onoclea sensibilis Sensitive Fern X X X S5 G5Elaeagnaceae Elaeagnus angustifolia Russian Olive X SNA GNREquisetaceae Equisetum arvense Field Horsetail X S5 G5Equisetaceae Equisetum pratense Meadow Horsetail X S5 G5Equisetaceae Equisetum sylvaticum Woodland Horsetail X X S5 G5Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia cyparissias Cypress Spurge X SNA G5Fabaceae Coronilla varia Common Crow-vetch XFabaceae Desmodium canadense Showy Tick-trefoil X S4 G5Fabaceae Lotus corniculatus Garden Bird's-foot Trefoil X X SNA GNRFabaceae Medicago lupulina Black Medic X X SNA GNRFabaceae Medicago sativa Alfalfa X SNA GNRFabaceae Melilotus albus White Sweet-clover X X SNA G5Fabaceae Robinia pseudoacacia Black Locust X X SNA G5Fabaceae Trifolium campestre Low Hop Clover X SNA GNRFabaceae Trifolium pratense Red Clover X X SNA GNRFabaceae Trifolium repens White Clover X X SNA GNRFabaceae Vicia cracca Tufted Vetch X X SNA GNRFagaceae Fagus grandifolia American Beech X X S4 G5Fagaceae Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak X X X X X X S5 G5


Table 3 - Vascular Plants List AEC15-152 - City of BarrieFAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME MAM2-2 CUM1-1 CUT1-1 FOD4 FOD6 FOM3-2 CUP3-1 CUW1a CUW1b CUW1c S RANK G RANK SARO STATUSGeraniaceae Geranium robertianum Herb-Robert X X X S5 G5Grossulariaceae Ribes americanum Wild Black Currant X S5 G5Grossulariaceae Ribes cynosbati Prickly Gooseberry X X X S5 G5Hippocastanaceae Aesculus hippocastanum Horse Chestnut X SNA GNRJuglandaceae Juglans cinerea Butternut X S3? G4 ENDLamiaceae Leonurus cardiaca Common Motherwort X SNA GNRLamiaceae Mentha spicata Spearmint X SNA GNRLamiaceae Nepeta cataria Catnip X X SNA GNRLamiaceae Prunella vulgaris ssp. lanceolata Self-heal X X S5 G5T5Liliaceae Asparagus officinalis Garden Asparagus X SNA G5?Liliaceae Clintonia borealis Blue Bead-lily X S5 G5Liliaceae Convallaria majalis European Lily-of-the-valley X SNA G5Liliaceae Erythronium americanum Yellow Trout-lily X S5 G5Liliaceae Hemerocallis lilioasphodelus Yellow Daylily X SNA GNRLiliaceae Maianthemum canadense Wild Lily-of-the-valley X X S5 G5Liliaceae Maianthemum racemosum False Solomon's-seal X X S5 G5Liliaceae Polygonatum pubescens Hairy Solomon's Seal X X S5 G5Liliaceae Trillium erectum Red Trillium X S5 G5Liliaceae Trillium grandiflorum White Trillium X S5 G5Oleaceae Fraxinus americana White Ash X X X X X S4 G5Oleaceae Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash X X X X X X S4 G5Oleaceae Syringa vulgaris Common Lilac X SNA GNROnagraceae Circaea alpina Small Enchanter's Nightshade X X X X S5 G5Onagraceae Circaea canadensis Broad-leaved Enchanter's Nightshade X S5 G5T5Onagraceae Circaea lutetiana Southern Broadleaf Enchanter's NightshadXOnagraceae Epilobium strictum Downy Willowherb X X X S5 G5?Onagraceae Oenothera biennis Common Evening Primrose X S5 G5Orchidaceae Epipactis helleborine Eastern Helleborine X X SNA GNROrobanchaceae Epifagus virginiana Beechdrops X S5 G5Oxalidaceae Oxalis corniculata Creeping Wood-sorrel X SNA GNROxalidaceae Oxalis montana Common Wood-sorrell X S5 G5Oxalidaceae Oxalis stricta European Wood-sorrel X S5 G5Phytolaccaceae Phytolacca americana Common Pokeweed X X S4 G5Pinaceae Larix decidua European Larch X SNA G5Pinaceae Larix laricina American Larch X S5 G5Pinaceae Picea glauca White Spruce X X S5 G5Pinaceae Picea pungens Blue Spruce X SNA G5Pinaceae Pinus resinosa Red Pine X X X X S5 G5Pinaceae Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine X X X X S5 G5Pinaceae Pinus sylvestris Scotch Pine Xy SNA GNRPlantaginaceae Plantago lanceolata English Plantain X X X SNA G5Plantaginaceae Plantago major Common Plantain X X S5 G5Poaceae Bromus inermis Awnless Brome X SNA G5TNRPoaceae Dactylis glomerata Orchard Grass X X SNA GNRPoaceae Elymus repens Creeping Wildrye X X SNA GNR


Table 3 - Vascular Plants List AEC15-152 - City of BarrieFAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME MAM2-2 CUM1-1 CUT1-1 FOD4 FOD6 FOM3-2 CUP3-1 CUW1a CUW1b CUW1c S RANK G RANK SARO STATUSPoaceae Lolium perenne Perennial Ryegrass X SNA GNRPoaceae Phalaris arundinacea Reed Canary Grass X X X X X X S5 G5Poaceae Phleum pratense Common Timothy X X SNA GNRPoaceae Poa pratensis ssp. pratensis Kentucky Bluegrass X X X S5 G5T5Polygonaceae Persicaria maculosa Spotted Lady's-thumb X SNA G3G5Polygonaceae Rumex crispus Curly Dock X X X X SNA GNRRanunculaceae Actaea pachypoda White Baneberry X S5 G5Ranunculaceae Actaea rubra Red Baneberry X X S5 G5Ranunculaceae Aquilegia vulgaris European Columbine X X SNA GNRRanunculaceae Ranunculus acris Tall Buttercup X X X X SNA G5Rhamnaceae Rhamnus cathartica Common Buckthorn X X X SNA GNRRosaceae Agrimonia striata Woodland Agrimony X X S4? G5Rosaceae Amelanchier arborea Downy Serviceberry X S5 G5Rosaceae Crataegus sp. Hawthorn X X XRosaceae Fragaria virginiana Wild Strawberry X X X X S5 G5Rosaceae Geum aleppicum Yellow Avens X X S5 G5Rosaceae Geum canadense White Avens X S5 G5Rosaceae Malus pumila Common Apple X X X SNA G5Rosaceae Physocarpus opulifolius var. opulifoliuEastern Ninebark X S5 GNRRosaceae Potentilla recta Sulphur Cinquefoil X X X SNA GNRRosaceae Prunus pensylvanica Pin Cherry X X S5 G5Rosaceae Prunus serotina Wild Black Cherry X X X X X X X S5 G5Rosaceae Prunus virginiana Choke Cherry X X X X X S5 G5Rosaceae Rubus idaeus ssp. idaeus Common Red Raspberry X X X X X X X SNA G5T5Rosaceae Rubus occidentalis Black Raspberry X X S5 G5Rosaceae Sorbus americana American Mountain-ash X S5 G5Rosaceae Spiraea japonica Japanese Spiraea X SNA G5Rubiaceae Galium boreale Northern Bedstraw X S5 G5Rubiaceae Galium mollugo Smooth Bedstraw X X X SNA GNRRubiaceae Mitchella repens Partridge-berry X S5 G5Salicaceae Populus alba White Poplar X SNA G5Salicaceae Populus balsamifera Balsam Poplar X X S5 G5Salicaceae Populus tremuloides Trembling Aspen X X X S5 G5Salicaceae Salix bebbiana Bebb's Willow X S5 G5Salicaceae Salix eriocephala Heart-leaved Willow X S5 G5Salicaceae Salix euxina Crack Willow X SNA GNRScrophulariaceae Linaria vulgaris Butter-and-eggs X X SNA GNRScrophulariaceae Verbascum thapsus Common Mullein X X SNA GNRScrophulariaceae Veronica americana American Speedwell X S5 G5Scrophulariaceae Veronica officinalis Common Speedwell X SNA G5Smilacaceae Smilax ecirrata Upright Carrionflower X S3? G5?Smilacaceae Smilax herbacea Herbaceous Carrionflower X X S4 G5Solanaceae Solanum dulcamara Climbing Nightshade X X X X SNA GNRTiliaceae Tilia americana American Basswood X X X X X X S5 G5Typhaceae Typha angustifolia Narrow-leaved Cattail X SNA G5


Table 3 - Vascular Plants List AEC15-152 - City of BarrieFAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME MAM2-2 CUM1-1 CUT1-1 FOD4 FOD6 FOM3-2 CUP3-1 CUW1a CUW1b CUW1c S RANK G RANK SARO STATUSTyphaceae Typha latifolia Broad-leaved Cattail X S5 G5Ulmaceae Ulmus americana American Elm X X X X X X S5 G5?Ulmaceae Ulmus parvifolia Chinese Elm X SNA GNRUrticaceae Laportea canadensis Wood Nettle X S5 G5Verbenaceae Verbena hastata Blue Vervain X S5 G5Violaceae Viola canadensis var. canadensis Canada Violet X S5 GNRViolaceae Viola sororia Woolly Blue Violet X X S5 G5Vitaceae Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia Creeper X X X X X X X X S4? G5Vitaceae Vitis riparia Riverbank Grape X X X X X X X X S5 G5


Table 4 - Bird Species List AEC15-152 - City of Barrie

BREEDING STATUSE S RANKG G RANKH SARO STATUSI

Anatidae Anas platyrhynchos Mallard FO Observed S5 G5Bombycillidae Bombycilla cedrorum Cedar Waxwing H S Possible S5B G5Cardinalidae Passerina cyanea Indigo Bunting S Possible S4B G5Charadriidae Charadrius vociferus Killdeer S S S Possible S5B,S5N G5Corvidae Corvus brachyrhynchos American Crow H H H H H FO Possible S5B G5Corvidae Corvus corax Common Raven Obs Observed S5 G5Corvidae Cyanocitta cristata Blue Jay H S Possible S5 G5Emberizidae Melospiza melodia Song Sparrow T S Probable S5B G5Emberizidae Passerculus sandwichensis Savannah Sparrow S Possible S4B G5Emberizidae Spizella passerina Chipping Sparrow S S S S P Probable S5B G5Fringillidae Carduelis tristis American Goldfinch FO FO H FO FO H, S S S Possible S5B G5Fringillidae Carpodacus mexicanus House Finch S Possible SNA G5Hirundinidae Tachycineta bicolor Tree Swallow Foraging Observed S4B G5Icteridae Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged Blackbird T Probable S4 G5Icteridae Icterus galbula Baltimore Oriole S, H Possible S4B G5Icteridae Molothrus ater Brown-headed Cowbird S, H Possible S4B G5Icteridae Quiscalus quiscula Common Grackle H H S Possible S5B G5Laridae Larus delawarensis Ring-billed Gull Obs Observed S5B,S4N G5Paridae Poecile atricapillus Black-capped Chickadee S H S H T S Obs Probable S5 G5Parulidae Geothlypis trichas Common Yellowthroat S, H S Possible S5B G5Parulidae Seiurus aurocapilla Ovenbird S S Possible S4B G5Parulidae Setophaga petechia Yellow Warbler T S Probable S5B G5Parulidae Setophaga pinus Pine Warbler S Possible S5B G5Parulidae Setophaga ruticilla American Redstart S, H Possible S5B G5Picidae Colaptes auratus Northern Flicker H H H Possible S4B G5Picidae Dryocopus pileatus Pileated Woodpecker H Obs Possible S5 G5Sittidae Sitta canadensis Red-breasted Nuthatch S S Possible S5 G5Sittidae Sitta carolinensis White-breasted Nuthatch S H Possible S5 G5Sturnidae Sturnus vulgaris European Starling FO S Possible SNA G5Troglodytidae Troglodytes aedon House Wren S T S Probable S5B G5Turdidae Turdus migratorius American Robin S A, S S S Probable S5B G5Tyrannidae Contopus virens Eastern Wood-pewee S S S S S Possible S4B G5 Special ConcernTyrannidae Empidonax alnorum Alder Flycatcher S Possible S5B G5Tyrannidae Empidonax traillii Willow Flycatcher S Possible S5B G5Tyrannidae Myiarchus crinitus Great Crested Flycatcher S S Possible S4B G5Tyrannidae Tyrannus tyrannus Eastern Kingbird S, H S Possible S4B G5Vireonidae Vireo gilvus Warbling Vireo T S S Probable S5B G5Vireonidae Vireo olivaceus Red-eyed Vireo S S S S S S S Possible S5B G5

Surveys Conditions:AJune 08, 2009; Start Time 0604hr/ End Time 0812hr; Temperature +10°C; Wind B1 ; Cloud Cover 100%; Precipitation Null; Observer J. Broadfoot & B. Baker June 23, 2009; Start Time 0603hr/ End Time 0745hr; Temperature +15°C; Wind B0 ; Cloud Cover 10%; Precipitation Null; Observer J. Broadfoot & B. Baker BFor this survey, no point count stations were determined. June 11, 2008; Start Time 0630hr/ End Time 0730hr; Temperature +18°C; Wind B0; Sky Code 1; Observer J. Broadfoot June 23, 2008; Start Time 0615hr/ End Time 0708hr; Temperature +10°C; Wind B3; Sky Code 2; Observer J. BroadfootCJune 24, 2015; Start Time 0725hr/ End Time 0800hr; Temperature +13°C; Wind B0 ; Cloud Cover 0%; Precipitation Null; Observer M. Fuller & B. Peloso DIncidental observations recorded during vegetation survey. Not breeding season (October 26th, 2015).

Conservation RankingsF

6B 2015 Site VisitDFAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME ENGLISH COMMON NAME 1A 2A 3A 4A 5A 7B 8C


EOBBA Breeding Evidence Codes:A - Agitated behaviour or anxiety calls of an adult. P - Pair observed in suitable nesting habitat in nesting seasonFO - Fly Over S - Singing male present, or breeding calls heard, in suitable nesting habitat in nesting season.H - Species observed in its breeding season in suitable nesting habitat T - Permanent territory presumed trhough registration of territorial behaviour (e.g. song) on at least two days, a week or more apart, at the same place.

FConservation Rank - from OMNRF, NHIC, SAR and SARO Lists 2014GS-rank - S1 - Extremely Rare, S2 - Very Rare, S3 - Rare to Uncommon, S4 - Common, S5 - Very Common HG-Rank - G1 - Critically Imperiled, G2 - Imperiled, G3 - Vulnerable, G4 - Apparently Secure, G5 - Secure ISARO - EXP (Extirpated), END (Endangered), THR (Threatened), SC (Special Concern)


Table 5: Breeding Amphibian Surveys AEC15-152 - City of BarrieWeather Conditions

Wood Frog

Spring Peeper

Chorus Frog

Leopard Frog

American Toad

Green Frog

Gray Treefrog

Pickerel frog

DateAir

Temperature (oC)

Wind (Beaufort/Direction)

Cloud Cover Precipitation

May 14, 2007 Stn. 1 0:00 X May 14, 2007 13 3 80%Nil (thunder&

lightening)Stn. 1 23:15 11(5) April 17, 2008 14 1 0% NilStn. 2 23:30 X May 23, 2008 11 1 30% NilStn. 1 22:09 X June 24, 2008 15 Nil 15% NilStn. 2 22:05 XStn. 1 23:15 X Observers: B. Clayton, L. MoranStn. 2 23:22 X

Weather Conditions

Wood Frog

Spring Peeper

Chorus Frog

Leopard Frog

American Toad

Green Frog

Gray Treefrog

Pickerel Frog

DateAir

Temperature (oC)

Wind (Beaufort/Direction)

Cloud Cover Precipitation

April 16, 2009 Stn. 3 21:00 X April 16, 2009 9 B0/- 0% nilMay 20, 2009 Stn. 3 21:50 X May 20, 2009 23 B3/NE 0% nilJune 19, 2009 Stn. 3 22:10 X June 19, 2009 20 B1/W 100% nil*see mapping

Observers: B. Clayton, D. West

1 Call Code Levels 0 = none heard1 = males could be individually counted2 = calls overlap but numbers could be estimated3 = overlapping calls, not possible to estimate numbers involved in chorus.

Start Time

Date Sampling Station(s)* Start Time

Nothing Heard

Nothing Heard

April 17, 2008

May 23, 2008

June 24, 2008

Species

Species

Date Sampling Station(s)*


Table 6: Significant Wildlife Habitat Evaluation AEC15-152 - City of Barrie


SWH Category SWH Function SWH Criteria Assessment

Seasonal Concentration Area

Waterfowl Stopover & Staging Areas (Terrestrial) Mixed waterfowl species aggregations of >100 birds within flooded field areas used annually during spring migration (mid-March to May).

No evidence of extensive seasonal inundation of fields within or adjacent to subject lands that would provide habitat conditions supporting this function.

Waterfowl Stopover & Staging Areas (Aquatic) Ponds, marshes, lakes, bays, coastal inlets & watercourses used by aggregations of > 100 of listed waterfowl for 7 days during spring and autumn migration. Listed Species: Canada Goose, Cackling Goose, Snow Goose, American Black Duck, Northern Pintail, Northern Shoveler, American Widgeon, Gadwall, Green-winged Teal, Blue-winged Teal, Hooded Merganser, Scaup (Lesser & Greater), Long-tailed Duck, Surf Scoter, Black Scoter, Ring-necked Duck, Common Goldeneye, Bufflehead, Ruddy Duck, Red-breasted Merganser, Brant, Canvasback, Redhead.

None expected to occur in the study area. No suitable habitat is present.

Shorebird Migratory Stopover Area Shorelines of lakes, rivers and wetlands including beach areas, bars, groynes and muddy/un-vegetated shoreline habitat used by 3 or more listed species demonstrating > 1000 “shorebird use days” (i.e., accumulated number of shorebirds over the course of the spring or autumn migration period) or sites used by >100 Whimbrel for 3 or more years. Listed Species: Greater Yellowlegs, Lesser Yellowlegs, Marbled Godwit, Hudsonian Godwit, Black-bellied Plover, American Golden Plover, Semipalmated Plover, Solitary Sandpiper, Spotted Sandpiper, Semipalmated Sandpiper, Pectoral Sandpiper, White-rumped Sandpiper, Baird’s Sandpiper, Stilt Sandpiper, Short-billed Dowitcher, Red-necked Phalarope, Whimbrel, Ruddy Turnstone, Sanderling, Dunlin.

No shoreline habitat providing habitat conditions supporting this function.

Raptor Wintering Area Combinations of fields and woodlands providing roosting, foraging and resting habitat utilized by at least 10 individuals of 2 listed species used regularly for at least 20 days in 3 of 5 years or used by one or more Short-eared Owls. Listed Species: Rough-legged Hawk, Red-tailed Hawk, Northern Harrier, American Kestrel, Snowy Owl, Short-eared Owl.

Most of study area is developed and directly associated with the road right-of-way. Meadow habitat with potential to support an abundance of prey species (i.e., rodents) is not directly associated with the right-of-way. Not significant Raptor Wintering Area.

Bat Hibernacula Caves, mine shafts, underground foundations and Kart formations utilized by bat species during winter.

Not reported as hibernation site. No abandoned structures or mines on site that might provide suitable hibernation habitat.

Bat Maternity Colony Wildlife cavity trees within deciduous or mixed forest communities having >10, large diameter (i.e., >25cm diameter at breast height) trees containing cavities or loose bark pockets of sufficient size to housing five or more adult bats

Not assessed, but potential within woodland areas. However, the development is not expected to impact the woodland areas or cavity trees.

Bat Migratory Stopover Area No Criteria Established. Locations and characteristics of stopover habitats generally unknown.

Not applicable – no criteria to evaluate.

Turtle Wintering Area Areas of deep water associated with core habitat utilized by turtles throughout the year often in the vicinity of areas of concentrations of basking turtles noted on warm, sunny days in autumn (September – October) or spring (March – May)

Not reported as turtle hibernation site, and based on topography and natural features of the study area, there is no suitable habitat for turtles.




Snake Hibernacula Animal burrows, rock fissures and other structures that allow underground access below frost and open wetlands containing sparse trees or shrubs cover providing hummocks or depressions with sphagnum moss or sedge ground cover. Areas of observed concentrations of five or more snakes or two or more snake species observed on sunny, warm days in spring (April-May) and autumn (September-October)

No evidence of snake use of study area. Snake hibernacula might be present at Lackie’s Bush, however the development is not expected to impact Lackie’s Bush. Not a Significant area for Snake Hibernacula.

Colonial Bird Nesting (Bank & Cliff) Sites with exposed soil banks either natural (mainly along shorelines, rivers) or exposed as part of aggregate extraction/material stockpiling. Presence of 1 or more nesting sites with 8 or more pairs of Cliff Swallows or > 50 Bank Swallow or Northern Rough-winged Swallow during the breeding season.

No suitable habitat within study area.

Colonial Bird Nesting (Tree/Shrub) Sites having live or dead trees in wetlands, lakes, islands or peninsulas having > 5 active Great Blue Heron nests or active heronries of other species (Black-crowned Night-heron, Great Egret, Green Heron).

Wetland within the study area does not provide suitable habitat conditions (i.e., lakes, islands, peninsulas, large areas of standing water, etc.).

Colonial Bird Nesting (Ground) Nesting colonies of gulls and terns on islands or peninsulas having > 25 active nests for Herring Gulls or Ring-billed Gulls or > 5 active Common Tern nests or > 2 active Caspian Tern nests or any active nests of Little Gull or Great Blacked-backed Gull. Farm ditches or streams having low shrub cover utilized by 5 or more pairs of Brewer’s Blackbirds during the nesting season.

No suitable habitat (islands or peninsulas).

Migratory Butterfly Stopover Area Meadows and thickets over 10ha in size with a combination of field and forest habitat located within 5km of Lake Ontario having > 5000 Monarch Use Days (MUD = number of days site used by Monarchs X number of Monarchs ) during autumn migration (August – October) or MUD >3000 MUD if Painted Lady or White Admiral are observed.

No suitable habitat for a stopover area, and property not located within 5km of Lake Ontario.

Landbird Migratory Stopover Area Woodlots over 10ha in size located within 5km of Lake Ontario used by >200 birds/day with >35 species total with at least 10 species recorded on at least 5 different survey days during spring (April-May) and autumn (August-October) migration.

No suitable habitat and property not located within 5km of Lake Ontario.

Deer Yarding Area Conifer and mixed forest and swamp communities in areas typically having snow depths > 40cm for more than 60 days that are mapped as Stratum 1 (core) or Stratum 2 deer yard by the MNR and show winter accumulations of deer tracks.

No suitable habitat within the study area. Lackie’s Bush has not been mapped as a Deer Yarding Area according to Allan et al. 2005.1

Deer Winter Concentration Area Large (i.e., woodlots > 100ha) conifer and mixed forest and swamp communities in areas typically having relatively low snow accumulation that are utilized during winter by > 10 deer/km2 and identified by the MNR.

No suitable habitat within the study area. Lackie’s Bush has not been identified by MNRF as a Deer Winter Concentration Area (Allan et al. 2005).2

Cliffs & Talus Slopes Any Ecological Land Classification (ELC) vegetation type for Cliffs or Talus

Slopes associated with a vertical to near vertical rock face >3m high. No cliffs and talus slopes in or adjacent to study area.

1Allan, B.; Broadfoot, J.; Findlay, G. 2005.Midhurst Fistrict Deer Yard Survey – Huronia Area 2004.Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). 2005.

2Allan, B.; Broadfoot, J.; Findlay, G. 2005.Midhurst Fistrict Deer Yard Survey – Huronia Area 2004.Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). 2005.




Sand Barren Area of exposed sand with sparse vegetation and underlaying rock protruding the surface in places. Site not dominated by exotic or introduces species (i.e., <50% vegetative cover by non-native plant species).

No sand barren on or adjacent to study area.

Alvar Area of exposed calcareous bedrock sand with sparse vegetation and shallow soils. Site not dominated by exotic or introduces species (i.e., <50% vegetative cover by non-native plant species) and in excellent condition with few conflicting land uses.

No alvar on or adjacent to study area.

Old Growth Forest Forest communities over 30ha with at least 10ha of “100m forest interior” dominated by trees over 140 years old with a mosaic of gaps establishing a multi-layered canopy with no evidence of forestry activities.

Woodlands within or close to the study area do not have 10ha of 100m forest interior and do not contain an abundance of large diameter/old trees.

Savannah Tallgrass Prairie habitat having tree cover between 25% and 60% No savannah on or adjacent to study area.

Tallgrass Prairie Open grassland having tree cover <25% containing one or more Prairie indicator plant species.

No Tallgrass Prairie on or adjacent to study area.

Other Rare Vegetation Community Type Any ELC vegetation community having a sub-national (S Rank) of S1, S2 or S3 as assigned by the MNRF.

No vegetation community with a S1, S2 or S3 sub-national rank on or adjacent to study area.

Specialized Habitat for Wildlife

Waterfowl Nesting Area All lands adjacent (i.e., within 120m) of wetlands over 0.5ha in size or clusters of 3 or more small (<0.5) wetlands where waterfowl breeding is known to occur that contain 3 or more nesting pairs of listed species excluding Mallard or 10 or more nesting pairs including Mallard or any active nest site of American Black Duck. Listed Species: American Black Duck, Northern Pintail, Northern Shoveler, Gadwall, Blue-winged Teal, Green-winged Teal, Wood Duck, Hooded Merganser, Mallard.

Wetlands within and adjacent to the study area contain limited areas of pooled water. No habitat available for brood rearing by waterfowl. Not Significant Waterfowl Nesting Area.

Bald Eagle & Osprey Nesting, Foraging & Perching Habitat

Forest and swamp wetlands directly adjacent to lakes, rivers, ponds and other wetlands where nesting by Osprey or Bald Eagle is confirmed. Within 300m of active Osprey nest or 400-800m of an active Bald Eagle nest.

The available woodlot is not directly adjacent to lakes, rivers or ponds. The woodlot will remain post-development, so no impact is expected.

Woodland Raptor Nesting Habitat Forests and conifer plantations >30ha with >10ha of “200m interior forest habitat” containing active nests of listed species. Within 400m of an active Red-shouldered Hawk or Northern Goshawk nest or 200m of an active Barred Owl nest or 100m of an active Broad-winged Hawk or Coopers Hawk nest or 50m of a Sharp-shinned Hawk nest. Listed Species: Northern Goshawk, Cooper’s Hawk, Sharp-shinned Hawk, Red-shouldered Hawk, Barred Owl, Broad-winged Hawk.

The study area is directly associated with the road right-of-ways. Even if Lackie's Bush were assessed to provide Suitable Woodland Raptor Nesting Habitat there is no expectation that the proposed work would result in impacts to that habitat function.

Turtle Nesting Area Areas of exposed sand and gravel in proximity to wetlands and waterbodies providing undisturbed shallow weedy areas utilized by turtles having 5 or more nesting Midland Painted Turtles or one or more nesting Northern Map Turtle or Snapping Turtle plus travel routes between wetlands and nesting areas.

Not reported as turtle nesting area, and based on topography and natural features of the study area, there is no suitable habitat for turtles.

Seeps & Springs Forested headwaters of stream or river system containing 2 or more seeps/springs. Although these features may be present in Lackie's Bush, no seeps or springs are evident in proximity to the proposed works.




Amphibian Breeding Habitat (Woodland) Forests and swamp wetlands containing permanent or vernal pools containing water in most years until mid-July having a breeding population of 1 or more listed species with at least 20 individuals (adults, juveniles, eggs/larval masses). Listed Species: Eastern Newt, Blue-spotted Salamander, Spotted Salamander, Gray Treefrog, Spring Peeper, Western Chorus Frog, Wood Frog.

Breeding amphibian surveys from previous studies resulted in limited evidence of amphibian breeding within woodland habitat adjacent to the subject lands. Woodlands protected within development plan. Not a Significant area for Woodland Amphibian Breeding. No impact to amphibian breeding habitat.

Amphibian Breeding Habitat (Wetland) Wetlands and pools (including vernal pools >0.05ha) located >120m from woodlands having a breeding population of 1 or more of the listed salamander species or 3 or more of the listed frog species with at least 20 breeding individuals or wetlands with confirmed breeding by Bullfrog. Listed Species: Eastern Newt, Blue-spotted Salamander, Spotted Salamander, Four-toed Salamander, Gray Treefrog, Spring Peeper, Western Chorus Frog, Wood Frog, Northern Leopard Frog, Pickerel Frog, Green Frog, Mink Frog, Bull Frog, and American Toad.

Breeding amphibian surveys from previous studies resulted in limited evidence of amphibian breeding within woodland habitat adjacent to the subject lands. Woodlands protected within development plan. Not a Significant area for Woodland Amphibian Breeding. No impact to amphibian breeding habitat.

Habitat of Species of Conservation Concern

Marsh Bird Breeding Habitat Wetlands containing 5 or more nesting pairs of Sedge Wren or Marsh Wren or breeding by any combination of 5 or more of the listed species or any wetland with breeding of 1 or more Black Tern, Trumpeter Swan, Green Heron or Yellow Rail. Listed Species: American Bittern, Virginia Rail, Sora, Common Moorhen, American Coot, Pied-billed Grebe, Marsh Wren, Sedge Wren, Common Loon, Sandhill Crane, Green Heron, Trumpeter Swan, Black Tern, Yellow Rail.

Wetlands within and adjacent to the study area are small and devoid of surface water for much of the breeding season. Not Significant Marsh Bird Breeding Habitat.

Woodland Area-sensitive Bird Breeding Habitat Large mature forest stands over 30ha having “200m interior habitat” with breeding pairs of 3 or more listed species or any site with breeding by Cerulean Warbler or Canada Warbler. Listed Species: Yellow-bellied Sapsucker, Red-breasted Nuthatch, Veery, Blue-headed Vireo, Northern Parula, Black-throated Green Warbler, Blackburnian Warbler, Black-throated Blue Warbler, Ovenbird, Scarlet Tanager, Winter Wren, Cerulean Warbler, Canada Warbler.

The study area is directly associated with the road right-of-ways. Even if Lackie's Bush were assessed to provide Woodland Area-sensitive Breeding Bird Habitat, there is no expectation that the proposed work would result in impacts to that habitat function.

Open County Bird Breeding Habitat Grasslands >30ha in size not actively used for farming (i.e., not Class 1 or 2 farmland) with breeding by 2 or more listed species or 1 or more breeding Short-eared Owls. Listed Species: Upland Sandpiper, Grasshopper Sparrow, Vesper Sparrow, Northern Harrier, Savannah Sparrow, Short-eared Owl.

No suitable habitat within or adjacent to the study area.

Shrub/Early Successional Bird Breeding Habitat Large field areas succeeding to thicket >10 in size not actively used for farming (i.e., not Class 1 or 2 farmland) with breeding by 1 of the listed species and at least 2 of the common species of a thicket having breeding Yellow-breasted Chat or Golden-winged Warbler. Listed Species: Indicator Spp.: Brown Thrasher, Clay-colored Sparrow; Common Spp: Field Sparrow, Black-billed Cuckoo, Eastern Towhee, Willow Flycatcher; Other Spp. Yellow-breasted Chat, Golden-winged Warbler.





Terrestrial Crayfish Meadows and edges of shallow marshes containing 1 or more individuals or chimneys of Chimney or Devil Crayfish.


Special Concern & Rare Wildlife Species Site containing wildlife species having a sub-national (S Rank) of S1, S2 or S3 as assigned by the MNR.

Yes. Eastern Wood-Pewee (SC) and Wood Thrush (SC) has been recorded in the area. Snapping Turtle (SC) has been recorded in the general area, although it is unlikely it utilizes the study area, due to lack of suitable habitat. Habitat for Red-headed Woodpecker, Eastern Milksnake and Monarch are also considered in the text of the report.

Animal Movement Corridors

Animal Movement Corridors Movement corridors linking amphibian breeding habitat and summer habitat containing native vegetation and free of gaps such as fields, waterways, waterbodies or developed lands that are >200m wide and having gaps <20m wide. If following a riparian area corridor should include vegetation 15m of either side of watercourse.

Unlikely. Amphibian breeding habitats haven’t been recorded within or adjacent to the study area.

Deer Movement Corridors Forest habitat associated with watercourses and ridges that are >200m wide and having gaps <20m wide. If following a riparian area corridor should include vegetation 15m of either side of watercourse. Corridors leading to deer wintering yards should be unbroken by roads or residential areas.

The study area is located inside the City of Barrie. No known deer yards in the area and snow depth in area is generally low and hence migration to wintering yards is not a component of the spatial behaviours of deer in this area of the province (in contrast to deer in central and northern Ontario).


Table 7. Existing and Proposed Culvert Modifications AEC15-152 - City of Barrie

Location Existing Culvert Proposed Culvert Summary of Alteration

Dimensions Culvert Type Dimensions Culvert Type

Tributary Crossing #1 (north crossing)

35m long x 1.2m diameter CSP Alternative 1:

40m long, 2.4m x 1.2m

Concrete box culvert (closed)

5m extension west side Bayview Drive, 1.2m increase in width

Alternative 2: 40m long, 2.4m x 1.2m




Main Branch Whiskey Creek Crossing #2

(south crossing)

1) 32.7m long x 1.6m x 1.1m

2) 20.7m long, 3.6m x 1.8m

(total length = 53.4m)

Twin CSPA +open bottom box culvert


Existing Culvert Type + Concrete box culvert (closed) extension

6.6m extension west side Bayview Drive, increase in inlet opening of 0.8m





Appendix G: Natural Heritage Impact Assessment Report Hall/environmental-assessment-studies... · Natural Heritage Impact Assessment Report . AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC.

Documents