carmel heights environmental impact study...re: carmel heights environmental impact study project #:...

74 Berkeley Street, Toronto, ON M5A 2W7

Carmel Heights Environmental Impact Study

PECG Project # 170261

Prepared For Mississauga Seniors Housing Corp.

April 27, 2018


May 15, 2018 Michael Corrado Mississauga Seniors Housing Corp. 2 Hostein Drive Ancaster, ON L9G 2S5 Dear Michael: Re: Carmel Heights Environmental Impact Study Project #: 170261 Palmer Environmental Consulting Group (PECG) is pleased to submit the following Environmental Impact Study for the redevelopment of the Carmel Heights property located at 1720 Sherwood Forrest Circle in the City of Mississauga. Based on the findings and recommendations of the report, it is our opinion that with the implementation of the mitigation measures as provided in this report, the proposed development is environmentally feasible and no adverse impacts to the natural environment are expected. Please let us know if you have question or comments on this submission. Yours truly, Palmer Environmental Consulting Group Inc.

Approved By: Dirk Janas, B.Sc.

Principal, Senior Ecologist

i

Table of Contents

Letter

1. Introduction................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Overview ............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Scope of Work and Objectives............................................................................. 1

2. Environmental Policy ................................................................................ 3

2.1 Provincial Policy Statement 2014 ........................................................................ 3 2.2 Region of Peel Official Plan (October 2014 Consolidation) .................................. 3 2.3 City of Mississauga Official Plan .......................................................................... 4 2.4 Credit Valley Conservation Policies and Regulations ........................................... 5 2.5 Endangered Species Act (2007) .......................................................................... 8 2.6 Migratory Birds Convention Act (1994) ................................................................ 8

3. Study Approach ......................................................................................... 8 3.1 Background Review and Agency Liaison ............................................................. 8 3.2 Ecological Inventory ............................................................................................ 9

3.2.1 Vegetation and Flora .......................................................................................... 9 3.2.2 Breeding Bird Survey ......................................................................................... 9 3.2.3 Other Wildlife ..................................................................................................... 9 3.2.4 Species At Risk.................................................................................................. 9

4. Existing Conditions ................................................................................. 10 4.1 Site Description ................................................................................................. 10 4.2 Physiography..................................................................................................... 11 4.3 Vegetation and Flora ......................................................................................... 11

4.3.1 Vegetation Communities .................................................................................. 11 4.3.1 Flora ................................................................................................................ 13

4.4 Wildlife............................................................................................................... 14 4.4.1 Breeding Birds ................................................................................................. 14

4.5 Species At Risk ................................................................................................. 15

5. Significant Natural Heritage Features ................................................... 20 5.1 Natural Environment Designated Areas ............................................................. 20 5.2 Woodlands ........................................................................................................ 22

5.2.1 Tableland Vegetation ....................................................................................... 22 5.3 Species At Risk ................................................................................................. 22 5.4 Significant Wildlife Habitat ................................................................................. 23

6. Proposed Development .......................................................................... 23

ii

7. Impact Assessment and Mitigation ....................................................... 23

7.1 Top of Slope Setback ........................................................................................ 25 7.1 Woodland Buffer ................................................................................................ 25 7.2 Species at Risk .................................................................................................. 27

8. Policy Conformity .................................................................................... 27

9. Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................... 28

10. Certification.............................................................................................. 29

11. References ............................................................................................... 30

List of Figures

Figure 1. Site Location ............................................................................................................................. 2 Figure 1. Existing Environmental Conditions .......................................................................................... 12 Figure 3. Proposed Site Plan ................................................................................................................. 24 List of Appendices

Appendix A. Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan Appendix B. List of Vascular Plants Recorded from Subject Property Appendix C. List of Bird Species Recorded from Subject Property

1

1. Introduction 1.1 Overview

Palmer Environmental Consulting Group (PECG) has been retained to complete an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) for the proposed redevelopment of the Carmel Heights property located at 1720 Sherwood Forrest Circle in the City of Mississauga, Region of Peel (see Figure 1). A plan for the redevelopment of the existing structure for use as a seniors housing facility is proposed on the subject property. The subject property is approximately 11 acres (4.5 ha) in size and currently supports a building complex, maintained lawn on the open grounds and a forested slope. There are no wetlands or aquatic feature on the subject property.

The study area consists of the City of Mississauga Land Use Designations of Residential Low Density II, Greenlands and Natural Hazards. The forested valley corridor that extends into the northern and eastern limits of the subject property occurs within the Credit River at Erindale Regionally Significant Life Science Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) and the Credit River at Erindale Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA). Official Plan (OP) schedules show this forested corridor as part of the ‘Core Areas’ of Peel (Regional Official Plan Schedule A) and ‘Significant Natural Areas’ of the City of Mississauga Natural Heritage System (City Official Plan Schedule 3).

1.2 Scope of Work and Objectives

This Environmental Impact Study addresses environmental considerations identified in the guiding policy documents for this area, namely the City of Mississauga Official Plan (September 2003), and Credit Valley Conservation Authority (CVC) EIS guidelines (2008) and associated correspondence and policies. The objectives of the EIS are to inventory and evaluate the existing natural heritage features and ecological functions associated with the site and assess the impacts of the proposed development. If natural heritage features requiring protection are present, mitigation measures are recommended, where appropriate, to address potential impacts resulting from the proposed development. The following items are addressed as part of the Scoped EIS report:

� Documentation of existing conditions and associated natural heritage features and constraints on the site.

� Review and summary of applicable environmental policies and regulatory requirements.

� Confirmation of the development limits and appropriate setbacks.

� Identification of proposed mitigation measures for potential direct and indirect impacts to existing natural heritage features and functions.

Document Path: C:\Egnyte\Shared\Projects\Active\17026 - Mississauga Seniors Housing Corp\170261 - Carmel Heights Redevelopment EIS\Mapping\mxd\170261_Figure1_Site.mxd

Site Location

FIGURE 1

LEGEND DATA SOURCES: Site Plan/Contours provided by TarasickMcMillan Kubicki Limited (georeferenced - not exact). Roadsprovided by National Road Network - Ontario and containinformation licensed under the Open Government Licence -Canada. Imagery ©2017 Google (DigitalGlobe, First BaseSolutions). Overview Basemap Content may not reflectNational Geographic's current map policy. Sources: NationalGeographic, Esri, Garmin, HERE, UNEP-WCMC, USGS,NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, increment PCorp.

Mississauga RoadDundas Street West

Deers W

old

King Richards Place

Sherwood Forrest Circle

110 m105 m

100 m

115 m

608200

608200

608300

608300

608400

608400

608500

608500

608600

608600

608700

608700

4821

600

4821

600

4821

700

4821

700

4821

800

4821

800

4821

900

4821

900

NAD 1983 UTM ZONE 17NCOORDINATE SYSTEM:

SCALE: 1:2500

0 20 40 60 80METRES

PREPARED BY:

Client: Mississauga Senior Housing Corp

DRAWN:CHECKED:

Apr 12, 2018

B. ElderD. Janas

PROJECT:DATE:

170261

Project: Carmel Heights Redevelopment EIS

SITE LOCATION

2 km

OVERVIEW MAP

Credit River

CONTOUR (1 m INTERVAL)

SUBJECT PROPERTY (5.0 ha)1720 Sherwood Forrest Circle, Mississauga

TOP OF SLOPE

TOP OF SLOPE

3

2. Environmental Policy 2.1 Provincial Policy Statement 2014

Policy 2.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement (2014) provides direction to regional and local municipalities regarding planning policies for the protection and management of natural heritage features and resources. The 2014 PPS defines eight natural heritage features and provides planning policies for each. Section 2.1 of the 2014 PPS relates to Natural Heritage. The following subsections are provided.

2.1. Natural heritage systems shall be identified in Ecoregions 6E & 7E, recognizing that natural heritage systems will vary in size and form in settlement areas, rural areas, and prime agricultural areas.

2.1.4 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in:

a) significant wetlands in Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E; and b) significant coastal wetlands.

2.1.5 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in:

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

the St. Mary’s River); c) significant valleylands in Ecoregions 6E and 7E (excluding islands in Lake Huron and

the St. Mary’s River); d) significant wildlife habitat; e) significant areas of natural and scientific interest; and f) 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. 2.1.6 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in fish habitat except in

accordance with provincial and federal requirements.

2.1.7 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in habitat of endangered species and threatened species, except in accordance with provincial and federal requirements.

2.1.8 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.

Each of these natural heritage features is afforded varying levels of protection subject to guidelines, and in some cases, regulations. The study area is located in Ecoregion 7E.

2.2 Region of Peel Official Plan (October 2014 Consolidation)

Peel Region recently completed Official Plan Review to bring the OP policies into conformity with provincial requirements. The Office Consolidation was completed in October 2014.

4

The natural environment policies are provided in Chapter 2 of the OP with the stated goal to create and maintain a system of viable, well-functioning environmental features to ensure a healthy, resilient and self-sustaining natural environment within Peel Region. The Region is separated into the Urban System, consisting of Brampton and Mississauga, and the Rural System, Caledon. The subject property is within the Urban System. The Greenlands System in Peel consists of Core Areas, Natural Areas and Corridors, and Potential Natural Areas and Corridors. The System is intended to support the Region’s vision for the protection of the environment. The components of the Greenlands System are shown on Schedule A. The forest community on the east side of the property is identified as part of the Region’s Greenlands System. Peel Region provides direction to area municipalities to develop criteria and thresholds for woodlands identified as Natural Areas and Corridors and Potential Natural Areas and Corridors in accordance with criteria provided by the Region. The policies and criteria for the identification of woodlands within the City of Mississauga are provided below.

2.3 City of Mississauga Official Plan

The office consolidation of the City of Mississauga Official Plan has recently been updated as of October 14, 2015, which includes Ontario Municipal Board decisions and City Council approved Official Plan Amendments. As there are still outstanding appeals, the 2003 Mississauga OP remains partially in effect. Schedule 10 identifies the Land Uses for the City, which includes a wide range of Designations. The specific designations for the subject property consist of Residential Low Density II, Greenlands, and Natural Hazards, which is an overlay on the Greenlands (see Map A). The Natural Hazards Designation is associated with the steep forest slope on the east side of the property. Section 6, Value the Environment, of the OP provides the environmental policies for the City. The woodland areas on the property are identified as part of the Urban System – Green System on Schedule 1a (see Map B); and, part of the Significant Natural Areas and Natural Green Spaces component of the City’s Natural Heritage System as shown on Schedule 3 (see Map C). The City’s Green System makes up about 23% of the land area of Mississauga and is comprised of the Natural Heritage System (NHS), Urban Forest, Natural Hazard Lands, and Parks and Open Spaces. The Official Plan, Section 6.3 states that: 6.3 Green System Buffers 6.3.8: Buffers will be determined on a site specific basis as part of an Environmental Impact Study or

other similar study to the satisfaction of the City and appropriate conservation authority.

5

Significant Woodlands 6.3.12 f: significant woodlands are those that meet one or more of the following criteria:

• woodlands, excluding cultural savannahs, greater than or equal to four hectares; • woodlands, excluding cultural woodlands and cultural savannahs, greater than or equal

to two hectares and less than four hectares; • any woodland greater than 0.5 hectares that:

o supports old growth trees (greater than or equal to 100 years old); o supports a significant linkage function as determine through an Environmental

Impact Study approved by the City in consultation with the appropriate conservation authority;

o is located within 100 meters of another Significant Natural Area supporting a significant ecological relationship between the two features;

o is located within 30 meters of a watercourse or significant wetland; or o supports significant species or communities.

Natural Hazard Lands and buffers will be designated Greenlands and zoned to protect life and property. Uses will be limited to conservation, flood and /or erosion control, essential infrastructure and passive recreation. Valleylands 6.3.47 Development and site alteration will not be permitted within erosion hazards associated with

valleyland and watercourse features. In addition, development and site alteration must provide appropriate buffer to erosion hazards, as established to the satisfaction to the City and appropriate conservation authority.

6.3.48 Development adjacent to valleyland and watercourse features may be required to be supported by detailed slope stability and stream erosion studies, where appropriate.

2.4 Credit Valley Conservation Policies and Regulations The CVC regulates hazard lands including watercourses, valleylands, shorelines, and wetlands, including lands adjacent to these features under the Conservation Authorities Act through Ontario Regulation 160/06 – Regulations of Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses. There are regulated lands on the property associated with the steep forested slope along the east side of the site (see Map D). The associated CVC policies, regulations and permitting will therefore apply and approvals will be required from the agency.

6

Map A: Schedule 10 - Land Use Designations (City of Mississauga)

Map B: Schedule 1a - Urban System - Green System (City of Mississauga)

7

Map C: Schedule 3 - Natural Heritage System (City of Mississauga)

Map D: CVC Regulation Limits in the vicinity of the study area

8

2.5 Endangered Species Act (2007)

Ontario’s ESA came into effect on June 30, 2008 and replaced the former legislation. Species designated as Threatened or Endangered by the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO), otherwise known as Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO), and their habitats (e.g. areas essential for breeding, rearing, feeding, hibernation and migration) are afforded legal protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (Government of Ontario 2007). The protection provisions for species and their habitat within the ESA apply only to those species listed as endangered or threated on the SARO list. The Act prohibits the killing or harming of Threatened and Endangered species, as well as the destruction of their habitat. For Special Concern species, the Act does not afford protection to the individual or their habitat. Special Concern species may be afforded protection through policy instruments respecting significant wildlife habitat as defined by the Province or other relevant authority, or other protections contained in OP policies. There are two key protection provisions in the ESA:

• Section 9 describes prohibited activities (e.g., kill, harm, harass, possess, collect, buy and sell) for species listed as extirpated, endangered or threatened on the SARO List.

• Section 10 prohibits the damage of destruction of protected habitat of species listed as extirpated, endangered or threatened on the SARO List.

2.6 Migratory Birds Convention Act (1994)

The Migratory Birds Convention Act, MBCA (1994) and Migratory Birds Regulations, MBR (2014) protect most species of migratory birds and their nests and eggs anywhere they are found in Canada. General prohibitions under the MBCA and MBR protect migratory birds, their nests and eggs and prohibit the deposit of harmful substances in waters / areas frequented by them. The MBR includes an additional prohibition against incidental take, which is the inadvertent harming or destruction of birds, nests or eggs. Compliance with the MBCA and MBR is best achieved through a due diligence approach, which identifies potential risk, based on a site specific analysis in consideration of the Avoidance Guidelines and Best Management Practices information on the Environment Canada website.

3. Study Approach

3.1 Background Review and Agency Liaison

PECG has initiated agency consultation (i.e., requests for background information) and reviewed relevant background material to provide a focus to field investigations and ensure compliance with regulations and policy. Background review and agency liaison included the following:

9

� Collection and review of relevant mapping and reports, including Official Plans and Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) Make-a-map application for species occurrences and designated area mapping.

� The CVC and Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), Aurora District office, were contacted for natural heritage information in the study area.

3.2 Ecological Inventory

PECG ecologists visited the subject property for a reconnaissance review on November 10 th, 2015 and May 15th 2017, with more detailed field investigations completed on June 10th, June 24th and August 22, 2017. Survey methods are described below.

3.2.1 Vegetation and Flora

Vegetation communities were mapped and described following the Ecological Land Classification (ELC) System for Southern Ontario (Lee et al. 1998). Vegetation community boundaries were delineated on field maps through the interpretation of recent aerial photographs and refined in the field. Information collected during ELC surveys includes dominant species cover, community structure, as well as level of disturbance, presence of indicator species, and other notable features. Botanical surveys were completed by traversing the site and recording species observed in each vegetation community during fall, spring and summer season. Local plant rarity status for Mississauga is based on CVC/Peel species ranks (CVC 2002). Provincial plant status was based on the Provincially Rare Flora of Ontario (Oldham and Brinker 2009) and the Natural Heritage Information Centre. Searches for Butternut (Endangered) were completed during the botanical surveys.

3.2.2 Breeding Bird Survey

Breeding bird surveys were conducted on the subject property on June 10 and June 24, 2017 to document the bird communities in the following habitats and locations: (i) residential yard/lawn, (ii) wooded ravine, and (iii) flyovers and adjacent areas. Surveys were carried out between 08:50 and 10:15 h to coincide with the dawn chorus. Weather conditions during the surveys were 0-95% overcast, with calm to gentle breezes, no precipitation, and temperatures from 15-21°C.

3.2.3 Other Wildlife

Any wildlife or evidence of wildlife, including nests, tracks, scat observed during the ecological inventories was recorded.

3.2.4 Species At Risk

For the purposes of this report, Species at Risk (SAR) include species listed as Endangered, Threatened or Special Concern under Ontario’s ESA. Prior to fieldwork, existing SAR records were queried through correspondence with Aurora MNRF and the NHIC database. Habitat opportunities for SAR on the site were then assessed by comparing habitat preferences of species deemed to have potential to occur, against current site conditions. The SAR identified by MNRF as being recorded in the vicinity of the site, those noted during the NHIC search and others known through professional experience to have potential

10

to occur in urban environments were considered in the assessment. A brief discussion of the status, habitat requirements, and assessment of likely presence on the subject property for each of these species is provided in Section 4.5. A screening of on site buildings for potential SAR bat maternity roosting habitat was completed by a PECG ecologist. The screening consisted of searched for entry holes in the structures that may be suitable for bats to access the building. The man-made structures present at the site included a 7-door garage and a large residential building, located along the western property boundary and central part of the property, respectively (see Figure 1). A visual survey with binoculars was conducted around the perimeter of both buildings to screen for the presence of any gaps or openings in the building where bats could access and roost. The survey was conducted on April 3, 2018, the temperature was 3⁰C, with 100% cloud cover, and calm winds (0-2 km/hr).

4. Existing Conditions 4.1 Site Description

The subject property is located to the south of Dundas Road West, west of Mississauga Road. Lands in the vicinity of the subject property are largely residential to the southwest of the property. There is a large forested corridor associated with the Credit River Valley to the northeast, along a steep slope that parallels Mississauga Road. The manicured lawns, garden beds, building complexes and driveway on the subject property occupy much of the lands (see Photograph 1). There are no wetlands or aquatic features on the property.

11

Photograph 1. Manicured lawn and building complex

4.2 Physiography

The study area is located within the Iroquois Plain physiographic region (Chapman and Putman, 1984). This area is characterized by a gentle slope extending back from the Lake Ontario Shoreline. This plain is the remnant shoreline of glacial Lake Iroquois, composed of a thin veneer of glacio-lacustrine sand and silty sand.

4.3 Vegetation and Flora

Field investigations identified two vegetation community types on site, consisting of deciduous forest and cultural woodland. Vegetation community boundaries are illustrated on Figure 2 with detailed descriptions provided below. Groupings of trees outside of natural vegetation communities are identified on Figure 2 and are described in detail in the Tree Preservation Report (Appendix A).

4.3.1 Vegetation Communities

FOD5-8: Dry-Fresh Sugar Maple - White Ash Deciduous Forest Type This forest community occurs along the northeastern portion of the subject property on a sleep slope towards Mississauga Road (Figure 2, Photograph 2). The community is characterized by a dense canopy of Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum) with some American Basswood (Tilia americana) and Wild Black Cherry (Prunus serotina). Canopy cover is greater 100% with heights ranging from 15 to greater than 20m. The sub-canopy exhibits low diversity, dominated by Sugar Maple. This layer is between 2 to 6 m in height and cover is between 25 to 60%. The sparse understory predominately includes Sugar Maple saplings, with Choke Cherry (Prunus Virginiana) and some Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), providing less than 10% cover at a height of 1 to 2 m. Sugar Maple seedlings are dominant in the ground layer, with some Garlic Mustard (Alliaria petiolata), providing typically 15 to 35% cover, and up to 90% in some areas, at a height of 0.2 to 0.5m. Evidence of erosion was identified on the slope from tableland drainage, as well as dumping of garden scraps, fallen branches, stones and some refuse. CUW-1: Mixed Mineral Cultural Woodland This community is located along the northwestern corner of the subject property, along Dundas Street West (Figure 2) and is characterized by a young to mid-aged moderately closed canopy of White Ash (Fraxinus Americana), Black Walnut (Juglans nigra) and Norway Maple (Acer platanoides) (see Photograph 3), providing 35 to 60% cover at a height of 6 to 15m. The dense sub-canopy is predominately Staghorn Sumac (Rhus typhina) with some Manitoba Maple (Acer negundo), providing great than 60% cover at a height of 2 to 6m. Staghorn Sumac is the dominant species in the dense shrub layer, with lesser amounts of Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), with some Tartarian Honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica). The shrub layer provides greater than 60%cover, at a height of 1 to 2m. The herbaceous layer in this community is dominated over large areas by Garlic Mustard, with Riverbank Grape (Vitis riparia) and some Herb-robert (Geranium robertianum), providing 35 to 60% cover at a height of 0.2 to 0.5m.

Document Path: C:\Egnyte\Shared\Projects\Active\17026 - Mississauga Seniors Housing Corp\170261 - Carmel Heights Redevelopment EIS\Mapping\mxd\170261_Figure2_Existing.mxd

Existing EnvironmentalConditions

FIGURE 2

LEGEND

CUW1

TG-5

TG-4

TG-3

TG-1

FOD5-3

TG-2

Lawn/Residential

608200

608200

608300

608300

608400

608400

608500

608500

608600

608600

608700

608700

4821

600

4821

600

4821

700

4821

700

4821

800

4821

800

4821

900

4821

900


SCALE: 1:2500

0 20 40 60 80METRES

PREPARED BY:


DRAWN:CHECKED:

Apr 12, 2018

B. ElderD. Janas

PROJECT:DATE:

170261


Credit River


VEGETATION COMMUNITIES Terrestrial System Forest (FO) FOD5-3: Dry-Fresh Sugar Maple-Oak Deciduous Forest Type Cultural (CU) CUW1: Mixed Mineral Cultural Woodland

Anthropogenic Tree Groupings (TG) TG-1: Norway Spruce TG-2: White Pine-White Cedar TG-3: Norway Spruce TG-4: White Cedar TG-5: Mixed

DATA SOURCES: Roads provided by National RoadNetwork - Ontario and contain information licensed underthe Open Government Licence - Canada. Imagery ©2017Google (DigitalGlobe, First Base Solutions).

ELC COMMUNITY

13

Photograph 2. FOD5-8 forest community.

4.3.1 Flora

A total of 51 species were recorded during field surveys. Of the identified species, only 29 (57%) are native, which is reflective of the low floristic quality of the site. This is higher than the average percentage of non-native species for a specific site when compared with about 25% of the flora of Ontario being non-native. At the site level, a high percentage of non-native species is indicative of higher levels of disturbance at the site. Non-native species were recorded from all vegetation community types. Several highly invasive species were observed on the subject property, including Tartarian Honeysuckle, Common Buckthorn, and Garlic Mustard. Non-native species were abundant along the edge of the forest area and the cultural woodland. Pale Jewelweed (Impatiens pallida) is the only species on the site with a CVC/Peel rank of rare (a species that occurs at fewer than eleven locations within the watershed and in Peel). This species was found along the slope in the FOD5-3 community outside of the area of proposed development. CVC provided a list of rare species records for the general vicinity of the study area, none of which occur within or directly adjacent to the subject property. None of the recorded species are provincially rare. A plant list for the subject property is provided in Appendix B. No Butternut trees were observed during the surveys.

14

Photograph 3. CUW1 Community

4.4 Wildlife

4.4.1 Breeding Birds

A total of 22 bird species were documented on the property, which are listed in Appendix C. Most of the birds recorded on the property are considered common in Peel Region. The most common species found on the property included birds, characteristic of residential yards, such as Common Grackle (Quiscalus quiscula), American Robin (Turdus migratorius), House Sparrow (Passer domesticus), Blue Jay (Cyanocitta cristata), American Goldfinch (Cardeulis tristis) and European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris). Some birds present on the property are more specifically associated with woodlands, including Great Crested Flycatcher (Myiarchus crinitus) and Red-eyed Vireo (Vireo olivaceus). Area-sensitive species require large areas of continuous habitat for breeding and foraging and the specific habitat requirements vary by species. Two area-sensitive species were found on the property: Red-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta canadensis) and White-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis). Red-breasted Nuthatch nests in coniferous and mixed wood forests typically in a tree cavity of decaying coniferous tree with dbh >12 cm and thus requires a coniferous component to its habitat. It is most abundant in mature woods and relatively dense forests and nests in forest interior, requiring at least 10 ha

15

of forest. Two Red-breasted Nuthatches were found during both breeding bird survey visits in the wooded ravine area of the property. White-breasted Nuthatch nests in natural cavities in trees with dbh >30 cm in mature, broad-leafed woodland, orchards, or shade trees in suburban and rural areas. It needs at least 10 ha or more of continuous forest and tolerates mixed forest. Two White-breasted Nuthatches were found during both breeding bird survey visits in the residential yard and wooded ravine areas of the property. The Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas recorded 84 bird species in the 10 km2 square 17PJ02 that includes the Carmel Heights subject property. These species include two species at risk for which the property has potential habitat opportunities: Chimney Swift (Chaetura pelagica) and Eastern Wood-Pewee (Contopus virens). Chimney Swift is listed as Threatened nationally and provincially. It is commonly found in urban areas near buildings and nests in hollow trees, crevices of rock cliffs, and most commonly in chimneys. Eastern Wood-Pewee is listed as Special Concern provincially and nests in open, deciduous, mixed or coniferous forest predominated by oak with little understory; forest clearings or edges; and farm woodlots or parks. Other species at risk were found in the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas square, but suitable habitat for these species was not found on the property. No Species at Risk birds were found on the property. An active raptor stick nest was observed outside of the property east of Mississauga Road. This species could not be confirmed.

4.5 Species At Risk

The MNRF were contacted for information on SAR occurrences or potential presence in and surrounding the subject property. SAR records in the vicinity of the property include Butternut (Endangered) and Henslow’s Sparrow (Endangered). MNRF also identified the potential for Endangered bats (Eastern Small-footed Myotis, Little Brown Myotis, Northern Myotis and Tri-coloured bat). One incidental observation of a single Monarch (Danaus plexippus) was recorded during field surveys. No other SAR or evidence (e.g., nests) of their presence were observed during the field surveys. The table below includes the MNRF SAR records, CVC rare species information and species records from the NHIC for the area surrounding the subject property. Table 1 SAR Species Screening

Common Name Scientific Name Status (SARO)

Source

Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos END CVC Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus SC CVC Henslow’s Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii END NHIC, MNRF Bank Swallow Riparia riparia THR CVC Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentina SC CVC Eastern Musk Turtle Sternotherus odoratus SC NHIC Monarch Danaus plexippus SC CVC Rapids Clubtail Gomphus quadricolor END CVC Butternut Juglans cinerea END CVC, MNRF

16

Habitat opportunities for the SAR listed in Table 1 were assessed by comparing habitat preferences of each species against current site conditions. This habitat screening is provided below. Golden Eagle (END) Golden Eagle is afforded general habitat protection under the ESA. This species prefers to nest in undisturbed, remote areas. Typically, they build their nests on ledges along steep cliffs or river banks but will use large trees. Small numbers of this species winter in Southern Ontario most often near large deer wintering areas (SARO 2017). This species was not observed. Potentially suitable habitat is associated with the forested river valley, primarily outside the subject property to the northeast. During the May 15, 2017 site visit, a raptor was observed on a stick nest in the forest east of Mississauga Road in close proximity to the Credit River. The species could not be confirmed. Bald Eagle (SC) Bald Eagle does not have habitat protection under the ESA as it is listed as Special Concern. Provisions under the significant wildlife habitat designation of the PPS may afford habitat protection. Bald Eagles nest in a variety of habitats and forest types near a major lake or river where they can do most of their hunting. While fish is their main source of food, they frequently feed on dead animals including White-tailed Deer. Typically, they nest in large trees such as poplar and pine (SARO 2017). Potentially suitable habitat is associated with the forested river valley, outside the subject property to the northeast. Bald Eagle was not observed during field investigations. As discussed above, an active raptor stick nest was observed outside of the property east of Mississauga Road. Henslow’s Sparrow (END) Henslow’s Sparrow is afforded general habitat protection under the ESA. Henslow’s Sparrow required grassland habitat and occurs more frequently and in higher densities in large patches of suitable habitat. In Ontario, colonies have been identified in abandoned fields, lightly grazed pasture and wet meadows. No Henslow’s Swallows were recorded during field investigations and there are no habitat opportunities. Bank Swallow (THR) Bank Swallow is afforded general habitat protection under the ESA. Bank Swallows build nest burrows in eroding vertical banks, such as lakeshore bluffs, riverbanks and banks created in aggregate pits and construction sites. During breeding and migration, Bank Swallows forage in a variety of open terrestrial and aquatic habitats. Bank Swallows roost at night in large wetlands or shrub thickets in or near water. No Bank Swallows were recorded during field investigations and there are no habitat opportunities. Snapping Turtle (Special Concern) Snapping Turtle does not have habitat protection under the ESA as it is listed as Special Concern. Provisions under the significant wildlife habitat designation of the PPS may afford habitat protection. The preferred habitat for this species is characterized by slow-moving water with a soft mud bottom and dense aquatic vegetation. Although individual turtles will persist in heavily urbanized water bodies and aquatic

17

areas, it is unlikely that population could become established in these habitats. Nesting sites usually occur on gravely or sandy areas along streams (COSEWIC 2008). Potentially suitable habitat is restricted to the forested river valley of the Credit River, outside the subject property to the northeast. Eastern Musk Turtle (SC) Eastern Musk Turtle does not have habitat protection under the ESA as it is listed as Special Concern. Provisions under the significant wildlife habitat designation of the PPS may afford habitat protection. The Eastern Musk Turtle is a highly aquatic species inhabiting the littoral zones of waterways such as rivers, lakes, bays, streams, ponds, canals and swamps with slow to no current and soft bottoms. This species prefers shallow water (depth <2 m) with abundant floating and submerged vegetation. Most often, individuals are found close to shore and usually do not venture onto land except to nest or to access adjacent wetlands. Nest sites are typically 3 to 11 m from shore (COSEWIC 2012). There are no habitat opportunities for this species within the property and it is unlikely that there is potentially suitable habitat in the portion of the Credit River to the northeast of the property. Monarch (SC) Monarch does not have habitat protection under the ESA as it is listed as Special Concern. Provisions under the significant wildlife habitat designation of the PPS may afford habitat protection. The breeding habitat for Monarch caterpillars is confined to areas where milkweeds grow, as this is sole food source. Milkweeds occur in a range of habitats including roadsides, fields, wetlands, meadows, prairies and open forests. Staging habitat for Monarchs occur along the north shores of the Great Lakes where they will roost in trees before crossing these large areas of open water (COSEWIC 2016). One Monarch was observed during field surveys (August 23, 2017). No milkweed plants were identified within the subject property although scattered occurrences are possible. Rapid’s Clubtail (END) Rapid’s Clubtail is afforded general habitat protection under the ESA. This species is typically found in clear, cool medium to large rivers with gravel shallows and muddy pools. Adult males perch on exposed rocks and other projections in the rapids, making short flights over the water, repeatedly returning to the same perch. Adult females inhabit forests along riverbanks and only visit shallows and pools when they are ready to mate and lay eggs (SARO 2017). Potentially suitable habitat is limited to the banks of the Credit River, outside the subject property to the northeast. Butternut (Endangered) Butternut is afforded general habitat protection under the ESA. This tree grows best in rich, moist, and well-drained soils often found along streams, well-drained gravel sites, especially those made up of limestone and seldom found on dry, rocky and sterile soils (COSEWIC 2003). Butternut is a shade intolerant species, and prefers rich, moist and well-drained soils, and is often found along the edges of streams and rivers. It can grow alone or in small groups in deciduous forests. Young seedlings and

18

saplings can tolerate up to 60% crown closure. Common associates include basswood, black cherry, beech, black walnut, elm, hickory, oak, red maple, sugar maple, white ash and yellow birch (FGCA 2011). The subject property was searched for any occurrences. No Butternuts were found. SAR bats Populations of several bat species have been in decline in recent years due to the spread of a fungal pathogen known as white nose syndrome. This includes a number of species in Ontario including the Little Brown Myotis, Northern Myotis, and Tri-Coloured Bat, which are all listed as Endangered under the ESA and have general habitat protection. Northern Myotis bats are associated with boreal forests, choosing to roost under loose bark and in the cavities of trees (MNRF SARO website). They may also roost in anthropogenic structures (Environment Canada 2015). Little Brown Myotis often select attics, abandoned buildings and barns for summer colonies where they can raise their young. Tri-colored Bat is found in a variety of forested habitats during the summer. It forms day roosts and maternity colonies in older forest and occasionally in barns or other structures. They forage over water and along streams in the forest (MNRF SARO website). From past project experience, summer maternal roosting habitat, representing one of the most sensitive life stages for bats, is generally the focus of protection efforts on the part of MNRF in regards to the ESA requirements for these species. The other primary concern is winter hibernation habitat, but these habitats include caves and old mines, none of which are present in the vicinity of the subject property. The primary habitat opportunities on the property, consisting of snag trees, are associated with the forest community (FOD5-3) along the northeast side of the property. There is no development proposed in the forest as the area is protected. There is some potential for bats such as Little Brown Myotis to utilize some of the building on the property. A screening of on site buildings through a search for entry holes in the structures that may be suitable for bats to access the building for the maternity roosting. The 7-door garage on the west side of the building is an old building with a flat roof however, the structure remains well intact. During the garage screening survey, two potential bat entries were found leading into the building. Both were holes behind eaves troughs on opposite corners of the south side of the building (Photographs 4 and 5). Roosts are often located on the south side of buildings but these holes are surrounded by densely planted cedar trees, which may be difficult for bats to locate.

19

Photographs 4 and 5. Holes behind the eaves troughs of garage

The second building, the 3-floor residential building in the center of the property, also has bat roosting opportunities. In total there were 4 holes available for bats to enter. The first hole observed (Photograph 6) is facing south and located about 3 meters off the ground. The next three holes are circular and clustered together on an old wooden section of the building. Two of the holes (Photograph 7) are in a vertical line, one just below the roof and the other about 6 meters above ground. The last hole (Photograph 8) is about 5.5 meters from the ground. For the remaining areas of the building, all windows, doors and roof shingles of the main building are in good condition and minor defects such as cracks between bricks and peeling siding are not accessible for bats to utilize for roosting. Summer season surveys for potential presence/absence of bats utilizing the buildings are recommended.

Photographs 6 to 8. Possible bat roosting holes in the main residential building

20

In addition to the SAR screening discussed above, a site survey for potential Chimney Swift habitat was completed. While the main residential building has a chimney, it is capped (Photography 9), which will not allow Chimney Swifts access it.

Photograph 9. Capped chimney on the main building

5. Significant Natural Heritage Features 5.1 Natural Environment Designated Areas

Designated areas are environmentally significant features that are identified by provincial or local authorities, such as provincial plan areas (e.g., Greenbelt Plan), Provincially Significant Wetlands, Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest, and components of regional or municipal natural heritage systems or other significant areas identified in Official Plans. The forested valley corridor that extends into the northern and eastern limits of the subject property occurs within the Credit River at Erindale Regionally Significant Life Science ANSI and the Credit River at Erindale ESA (valley related) (Map E). Official Plan schedules show this forested corridor as part of the ‘Core Areas’ of Peel (Regional Official Plan Schedule A) and ‘Significant Natural Areas’ of the City of Mississauga Natural Heritage System (City Official Plan Schedule 3). The forested valley corridor is part of Natural Area Site CRR7 under the City of Mississauga Natural Areas Survey (2013). The study classifies this area as a significant natural area on the basis of the large natural area, environmental designated areas and SAR and other rare species it supports. The Natural

21

Areas Survey lists the importance of this area as a natural corridor in the city for the movement of birds and animals. Guidance for identifying and evaluating natural features and determining constraints is provided by Official Plan policies, the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (OMNR 2010), and CVC regulations and policy. A summary and evaluation of the potential significance, functions and sensitivity of existing features on site is provided below.

Map E: Credit River Coastal Marshes Context Map (Credit River Watershed and Region of Peel

Natural Areas Inventory 2011)

22

5.2 Woodlands

Criteria for determining woodland significance are provided in the Region of Peel Official Plan, City of Mississauga Official Plan and in the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (NHRM) (OMNR 2010). The forest community on the east side of the site is considered significant woodland and a component of the Natural Heritage System as the woodland meets at least one of the criterion for designation as significant, as defined by regional and city Official Plans and the NHRM. The vegetation community within the study area (CUW1 on Figure 2) along the northwestern part of the property has been designated as part of the significant woodland. While this feature is protected through Peel Region OP environmental policies as part of the Regional Greenlands System, and through the City of Mississauga policies as part of Green System and Natural System, this feature is less sensitive and could potentially be excluded from the significant woodland designation.

5.2.1 Tableland Vegetation

Any removal of trees is subject to the City’s Private Tree Protection By-law (254-12) which “protects and enhances Mississauga’s existing tree cover while respecting a landowner’s right to make changes to the landscape of their property in an environmentally responsible manner”. Under this by-law, for the removal of three or more healthy trees, replacement is required according to the following guidelines:

• If you remove a healthy tree with a diameter that is 49 cm or less, one replacement tree is required.

• If you remove a healthy tree with a diameter of 50 cm or greater, two replacement trees are required.

• Replacement trees must be at least 1.8 m tall if coniferous or at least 6 cm in diameter if deciduous.

The tree inventory assessment and report (Appendix A) provides the total number of trees that have been identified for removal based on the proposed site plan.

5.3 Species At Risk

The results of the SAR screening indicate that there is potential for bats and Eastern Wood-Pewee to utilized the forest slope (FOD5-3) as habitat. There is no development proposed in this woodland as it is protected. Some of the buildings on the property may provide habitat opportunities for SAR bats and Chimney Swift. Surveys were conducted to screen for these species for any buildings proposed to be removed as discussed in Section 4.5. The single chimney on the main residential building was inspected to determine whether the chimney was capped or open. It was observed that it chimney is capped and does not provide any opportunity for nesting for Chimney Swifts. Additionally, the parameter of the buildings were inspected for defects such as small holes, cracks and missing bricks or shingles as entry points for bats. The results from the screening exhibit two possible entries on the south side of the garage behind the eaves trough and four possible entry holes in the main building. These entries into the building may be suitable habitat for Little Brown Myotis, Northern Myotis, and Tri-Coloured Bat and further surveys in June 2018 are proposed.

23

5.4 Significant Wildlife Habitat

Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) is considered a significant feature in Provincial, Regional, and Municipal (City of Mississauga) policies. Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) is defined by the MNRF in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) and includes the following broad categories:

� seasonal concentration areas;

� rare vegetation communities or specialised habitats for wildlife;

� habitats of species of conservation concern, excluding the habitats of endangered and threatened species; and

� animal movement corridors

Criteria for the identification of these features are provided in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Criteria Schedules For Ecoregion 7E (MNRF 2015). Potential for SWH on the site would be limited to the forested slope (FOD5-3) given its connectivity to an important animal movement corridor through the Credit River Valley and its potential provision of habitat for rare species. As this area is part of a designation ANSI, ESA and significant woodland, there will be no development or encroachment into the natural feature. The remaining natural features on site are limited in size and function.

6. Proposed Development The proposed site plan is shown on Figure 3 and provides an illustration of the proposed development overtop of the environmental constraints to allow for an assessment of the environmental feasibility of the proposed site plan with associated property access and future building envelopes. The proposal for the subject property includes the demolition of the existing buildings and the redevelopment of the following buildings and associated driveways and parking areas.

• Building A (Retirement Home) – six stories with one level of basement; • Building B (Condominium) – six stories with one level of basement; • Building C (Convent) – two stories with one level of basement and; • Building D (Chapel) – one story with one level of basement.

7. Impact Assessment and Mitigation Given the location of the proposed development within an area supporting an existing building complex and associated paved area with manicured lawns and garden beds, there is minimal natural vegetation removal required.

Docu

ment

Path:

C:\E

gnyte

\Share

d\Proj

ects\

Activ

e\170

26 - M

ississ

auga

Senio

rs Ho

using

Corp

\1702

61 - C

armel

Heigh

ts Re

deve

lopme

nt EI

S\Ma

pping

\mxd

\1702

61_F

igure3

_Prop

osed

.mxd

Environmental Features and Proposed Site Plan

FIGURE 3

LEGEND

PREPARED BY:

Deers W

old

Sir Johns Homestead

King Richards Place

Dundas Stree

t West

Mississauga Road



608000

608000

608100

608100

608200

608200

608300

608300

608400

608400

608500

608500

608600

608600

608700

608700

4821

600

4821

600

4821

700

4821

700

4821

800

4821

800

4821

900

4821

900


0 25 50 75 100METRES

SCALE: 1:1800Project: Carmel Heights Redevelopment EIS

Client: Mississauga Senior Housing Corp INVENTORY TREE

DATA SOURCES: Roads provided by National Road Network - Ontario and contain information licensed under the Open Government Licence - Canada. Imagery ©2017Google (DigitalGlobe, First Base Solutions). Additional Basemap Imagery Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

110 m

105 m

115 m100 m

115 m0 10 20 30 40 50

METRES

INSET

SEE INSET FOR DETAIL


ELC COMMUNITY

CHECKED: D. JanasPROJECT: 170261

DRAWN: B. Elder

Apr 12, 2018DATE:

TOP OF BANKSTABLE TOP OF BANK10 m SETBACKPROPOSED SITE PLAN

25

Potential impacts of the proposed development of the property could include:

• Impacts to planted landscape trees and shrubs (outside of natural vegetation communities). The impacts and proposed mitigation associated with the removal of these anthropogenic tree groups, as shown on Figure 2, are described in the accompanying Tree Preservation Plan (Appendix A).

There will be no development or encroachment into features designated as part of the Region of Peel or the City of Mississauga’s natural heritage system including any natural vegetation community identified on the subject property (i.e., significant woodland – FOD5-3). There are also no rare or highly sensitive species of flora recorded within the subject property that could be affected by the development. In compliance with the Migratory Bird Convention Act, vegetation removal should be avoided within the “regional nesting period” for this area (generally late April to late July).

7.1 Top of Slope Setback

The siting of the development, especially in the areas abutting the valley slope, has been influenced by the long-term stability and erosion risks, and therefore a slope stability study and erosion risk assessment were carried out by Terraprobe to help establish the hazard zone associated with the valley land and the development limit (Terraprobe 2017). The Long-Term Stable Crest of Slope location, calculated by Terraprobe is shown on Figure 3. In accordance with the CVC Watershed Planning and Regulation Policies (CVC 2010) and based on the findings of the slope stability study, a 10m buffer is required from the greater of the staked top of bank and the Long-term Stable Slope Crest. A 10m buffer has been applied to the Top of Bank and Stable Crest of Slope line on Figure 3, recognizing that the top of bank is subject to future staking with CVC. There is no encroachment of the proposed site plan into the 10m buffer applied to the Stable Crest of Slope line.

7.1 Woodland Buffer

Buffers are generally defined as vegetated areas of land between development areas and sensitive natural features within which no or limited site alteration may occur. These buffers function to protect the features within the wetland / woodland by way of creating a biophysical barrier between an adjacent land use, such as a development, and the natural feature. The proposed establishment of the woodland buffer for the study area is based on a variable buffer approach. This approach takes into consideration the natural heritage features and functions to be protected, buffer function, the proposed and existing adjacent land uses, as well as enhancement and mitigation opportunities. Under current conditions, many of the areas adjacent to the woodland edge have existing paved roads or walkways. There are opportunities to improve these existing conditions through plantings and restoration.

26

Credit Valley Conservation typically recommends minimum buffers in the range of 10 m for significant woodlands, non-significant protected wetlands, hazards; and, 30 m for provincially significant wetlands and from bank full flow of watercourses. The significant woodland provides the following ecological functions: • Slope stability, sediment retention and moderate (due to slope) surface water infiltration • Woodland habitat for forest birds and plants • Wildlife movement corridor and linkage Buffer Functions The goal for establishing a functional buffer for the subject property is to protect the natural features and maintain the ecological functions of the woodland. Depending on existing conditions, buffer functions can be enhanced. For example, in the case of the subject property an asphalt driveway currently parallels directly adjacent to the woodland edge. These conditions limit infiltration, increase surface water run-off into the woodland, restrict vegetation and edge protection functions. Restoration for the re-establishment of vegetation and functional improvement is proposed within the buffer. Buffer Enhancements To further support the development and enhancement of the buffers and achieve the intended functions, the following approaches are proposed to be implemented as part of the development. This includes the early establishment and management of the buffer land. The following plan is proposed:

• Develop a buffer planting plan and management/monitoring requirements in consultation with the agencies.

• Remove soil compaction and enrich soils with organics (e.g., compost/mulch). • Early control of erosion issues, removal of woody and other debris that is currently within the

forest edge and management of invasive species. • Complete the vegetation planting as early as possible and establish a barrier and

sediment/erosion control fencing and regular environmental inspection. • Continued management and monitoring.

Trails and Buffers The Natural Heritage Reference Manual (OMNR 2010) recognizes that trails can be a compatible use within buffers. This allows for buffers to be public spaces where users advocate for the areas to remain in a natural state. This also contributes to healthy communities, an appreciation of the natural environment by residents, and provides for natural places that can be accessed by the residents that are outside of sensitive natural heritage areas. The existing woodland edge area has become established and adapted to the conditions of the driveway, and while asphalt removal and plantings are proposed, residents use of a trail within the buffer area should not reduce the buffer function or results in impacts to the woodland. This can be accomplished through proper design (e.g., narrow path gravel/wood chip path) and management. Site Specific Buffer Based on the foregoing assessment, a variable 5 to 10 m buffer for the woodland has been identified that will function to maintain the associated natural features. The proposed buffer is largely associated with

27

the 10 m setback from the stable top of bank (see Figure 3). The specific determination of the woodland buffer is to ensure that the natural features adjacent to the proposed development are protected. The current site conditions of the asphalt driveway will be replaced with native vegetation through a restoration plan to enhance the woodland edge and augment the adjacent forest cover. This will improve the functions of the buffer and significant woodland. The application of the proposed buffer is sufficient to protect the woodland features and associated functions from impacts associated with this proposed development.

7.2 Species at Risk

Based on results of the SAR assessment there is limited potential for impacts to SAR birds or their habitats in the area of proposed development. With respect to SAR bats that may utilize some of the buildings on the property, further consultation with the MNRF may be required pending the results of further surveys. While screening for potential bat maternity roosting habitat, opportunities for suitable roosting habitat were found but additional assessment is recommended as described in Section 5.3. Presence/absence surveys can be conducted after dusk to assess whether bats are utilizing these holes by observing and using ultrasonic detection equipment. As a mitigation option, it may be feasible to permit proposed development activities (i.e., removal of buildings) over the fall into early spring period (i.e., late October to early April) such that the activities would not result in a direct impact to SAR bats. However, the results of the additional surveys would inform any further requirements, along with MNRF confirmation.

8. Policy Conformity Provincial and Municipal Policy According to the Provincial Policy Statement, Region of Peel and City of Mississauga OP policies, development is generally prohibited within significant natural heritage features as defined in those policies. The results of our assessment indicate that significant natural heritage features are present on the site but outside the area of proposed development. Thus, the development as proposed does not contravene the abovementioned policies. The study area supports significant woodland (communities FOD5-8 shown on Figure 2) that has been identified by Peel Region and the City of Mississauga. This feature therefore qualifies as “significant” under the PPS. This feature occurs within the Credit River at Erindale Regionally Significant Life Science ANSI and the Credit River at Erindale ESA. There are no other Provincially designated significant features found within the subject property based on background review and mapping. The Credit River is located approximately 100 m to the east of the study area. There are no aquatic features or fish habitat within or directly adjacent to the subject property. The steep slopes along the east side of the property could be considered part of a significant valleyland associated with the Credit River and will be protected by the identified buffer and setback. Conservation Authorities Act The subject property falls within the jurisdiction of the Credit Valley Conservation Authority (CVC). There are lands on the property associated within the steep forested slope along the east side of the site that

28

are regulated under the CVC O.Reg. 166/06 – Regulation of Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses. The associated CVC policies, regulations and permitting will therefore apply and approvals will be required from the agency.

Endangered Species Act Based on the results of our field surveys, it is considered unlikely SAR birds or their habitat is present within the areas of proposed development. The mitigation measures proposed in Section 7 (including further consultation with the MNRF) regarding to the possibility of bats should avoid contravention of the Act. Migratory Birds Convention Act (MBCA) Works with potential MBCA implications will occur during the construction phase of the project when the subject property is cleared and grubbed of vegetation. Compliance with the MBCA may be achieved using the following due diligence approach:

� Proponent awareness of the MBCA and the potential for bird nesting in the area and for inadvertent impacts to migratory birds, nests and eggs

� Avoiding vegetation removal within the “regional nesting period” for this area (generally late April to late July). Should vegetation removal be required during this period, a wildlife biologist will need to screen the area for nesting birds and advise of specific mitigation protection measures.

9. Conclusions and Recommendations The findings of our study are the result of a background review, an ecological field survey, and an analysis of data using current scientific understanding of the ecology of the area and natural heritage policy requirements. We have evaluated the environmental sensitivities, constraints and development opportunities of the subject property, which are described in this report and illustrated on Figure 3. Based on the results of the EIS it is our professional opinion that the proposed development of the Draft Plan is environmentally feasible and would not result in a negative effect to the natural heritage features provided that the recommended mitigation and enhancement measures described in this report are implemented.

29

10. Certification This report was prepared, reviewed and approved by the undersigned:

Prepared By: Jennifer Patterson, M.Sc.

Terrestrial Ecologist

Reviewed By: Dirk Janas, B.Sc.

Senior Ecologist, Principal

30

11. References City of Mississauga. 2017. City of Mississauga Official Plan Office Consolidation August 2, 2017

Credit River Watershed and Region of Peel Natural Areas Inventory 2011

Credit Valley Conservation, 2010. Watershed Planning and Regulation Policies

Credit Valley Conservation, 2002. Plants of the Credit River Watershed.

COSEWIC. 2016. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Monarch Danaus plexippus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xiii + 59 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm).

COSEWIC. 2012. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Eastern Musk Turtle Sternotherus ordoratus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xiii + 68 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm).

COSEWIC, 2008: COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentina in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. Vii + 47 pp.

COSEWIC 2003. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the butternut Juglans cinerea in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 32 pp.

Environment Canada. 2015. Recovery Strategy for Little Brown Myotis (Myotis lucifugus), Northern Myotis (Myotis septentrionalis), and Tri-colored Bat (Perimyotis subflavus) in Canada [Proposed]. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa.

Forest Gene Conservation Association (FGCA). 2011. About Butternut. Available:http://fgca.net/conserv ation/sar/butternut_about.aspx.

Lee, H.T, W.D. Bakowsky, J.L. 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 Region, Science Development and Transfer Branch. Technical Manual ELC-005.

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH). 2014. Provincial Policy Statement.

Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). 2016. Species At Risk in Ontario Website. Available: https://www.ontario.ca/page/species-risk

Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). 2015. Significant Wildlife Habitat Criteria Schedules For Ecoregion 7E.

Natural Heritage Information Centre. 2016. Make a Map: Natural Heritage Areas (Online mapping and species database application). Ministry of Natural Resources. Available: http://www.gisapplicatio

31

n.lrc.gov.on.ca/mamnh/Index.html?site=MNR_NHLUPS_NaturalHeritage&viewer=NaturalHeritage&locale=en-US

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2010. Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Natural

Heritage Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005. Second Edition. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 248pp.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2000. Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide. 151p.

Oldham, M.J., and S.R. Brinker. 2009. Rare Vascular Plants of Ontario, Fourth Edition. Natural Heritage Information Centre, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Peterborough, Ontario.

Oldham, M. J., W. D. Bakowsky and D. A. Sutherland. 1995. Floristic Quality Assessment System for

Southern Ontario. Natural Heritage Information Centre, Ministry of Natural Resources. Peterborough, Ontario.

Region of Peel. 2014. Region of Peel Official Plan. October 2014 Consolidation

Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO). www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/species-risk-ontario-list. Accessed on November 14, 2017

32

Appendix A

T r e e I n v e n t o r y a n d P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n


Memorandum

Date: April 27, 2018

Project #: 170261

File #:

Carmel Heights Redevelopment EIS

To: Michael Corrado, Mississauga Seniors Housing Corp.

From: Carly Van Daele, PECG Natalie Dunn, PECG Dirk Janas, PECG

Re: Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan for 1720 Sherwood Forrest Circle, City of Mississauga

1. Introduction and Background This document represents the Arborist Report by Palmer Environmental Consulting Group Inc. (PECG) for the proposed redevelopment of the Carmel Heights property at 1720 Sherwood Forrest Circle, City of Mississauga, Region of Peel (Figure 1). The subject property is approximately 11 acres (4.5 ha) in size and currently supports a building complex, maintained lawn with planted trees, and a forested slope. There are no wetlands or aquatic feature on the subject property. The Arborist report has been developed to satisfy the City of Mississauga's Private Tree Protection By-law 254-12. The tree preservation plan is intended to identify trees and shrubs that can be preserved, trees that may be injured, and trees that require removal. Recommendations for the tree replacement in compensation for the trees proposed to be removed is provided in the memo. 2. Methods A tree inventory was completed for all trees greater than 15 cm diameter at breast height (DBH) within and directly adjacent to the proposed work areas, per the City of Mississauga's Private Tree Protection By-law (Figure 2). Information collected for the inventory included species name, tree tag number, location, DBH, and an assessment of tree health and condition. The inventory was completed by a Certified Arborist on August 22, 2017.

Memorandum Page 2 | April 27, 2018

3. Results A total of 132 trees, of which 69 (52%) are native species and 63 (48%) are non-native species (Table 1). The majority of the inventoried trees within the study area included Norway Spruce (Picea abies) and Eastern White Cedar (Thuja occidentalis). The majority of the inventoried trees located on the table land have been planted and is largely comprised of non-native species. The trees inventoried along the edge of the woodland feature are mostly comprised of naturally occurring native species. There were no Species at Risk (SAR) such as Butternut (Juglans cinerea) and no trees at high risk of disease or infestation such as ash species (Fraxinus sp.) recorded within the study area. Based on the health and condition assessment, 127 (96%) trees are fair to good health and condition and the remaining 5 (4%) trees were in poor health and condition. A full list of all the inventoried trees is provided in Appendix A.

Table 1. Summary of Tree Inventory

Scientific Name Common Names Total Number Picea abies Norway Spruce 39 Thuja occidentalis* Eastern White Cedar 24 Picea pungens Colorado Spruce 14 Pinus strobus* Eastern White Pine 10 Acer saccharum* Sugar Maple 8 Picea glauca* White Spruce 6 Quercus rubra* Red Oak 5 Pinus sylvestris Scots Pine 4 Prunus serotina* Black Cherry 4 Acer platanoides Norway Maple 3 Tilia americana* American Basswood 3 Salix babylonica* Weeping Willow 2 Juglans regia English Walnut 2 Juglans nigra* Black Walnut 2 Acer rubrum* Red Maple 2 Acer freemanii* Freeman’s Maple 1 Gleditsia triacanthos* Honey Locust 1 Quercus macrocarpa* Bur Oak 1 Malus pumila Common Apple 1

Total 132 Native species*

4. Potential Trees to be Retained Based on the proposed footprint of development, an assessment of trees which can potentially be retained has been completed. This assessment is subject to final grading plans and confirmation of the limits of disturbance. A many as 87 of the inventoried trees can be retained (Table 2), pending final detailed design and grading plans. This includes 83 trees in fair to good health and condition and 4 trees in poor health and


condition. However, 49 (56%) of these trees are non-native species, with the majority being Norway Spruce. All trees within the woodland edge of the native deciduous forest will be protected as well as many trees as possible within the variable woodland buffer and 10 m stable top of bank setback, depending on final grading requirements (see Figure 2). Notably, trees 192 to 200 are located within the woodland edge and are confirmed to be protected. Trees 177 to 191 are anticipated to be all or mostly protected within the 10 m stable top of bank setback. Furthermore, trees 153 – 157 and 159 – 162 are along the southwest edge of the property boundary and are anticipated be retained. Trees 75 – 121 and 124 are located in the west end of the property are to be protected due to distance from the construction. Tree 122 is located along the existing driveway could also be retained, pending final grading (Figure 2).

Table 2. Potential Trees to be Retained

Scientific Name Common Name Fair to Good Health and Condition

Poor Health and Condition Total

Picea abies Norway Spruce 33 1 34 Picea pungens Colorado Spruce 8 1 9 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 8 0 8 Acer saccharum Sugar Maple 8 0 8 Quercus rubra Red Oak 5 0 5 Picea glauca White Spruce 4 0 4 Prunus serotine Black Cherry 4 0 4 Tilia americana American Basswood 3 0 3 Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine 2 0 2 Pinus sylvestris Scots Pine 1 1 2 Salix babylonica Weeping Willow 2 0 2 Juglans regia English Walnut 1 1 2 Juglans nigra Black Walnut 1 0 1 Acer platanoides Norway Maple 1 0 1 Gleditsia triacanthos Honey Locust 1 0 1 Quercus macrocarpa Bur Oak 1 0 1

Total estimated trees to be retained 83 4 87 5. Trees to be Removed Based on the proposed footprint of development, an assessment of trees which are to be removed has been completed. A total of 45 inventoried trees are to be removed (Table 3). This includes 11 species, of which six species are native (representing 29 of the tree removals), and five are non-native species (representing 16 of the tree removals). One tree is in poor health, while the remaining 44 trees are in fair to good health and condition.


Table 3. Trees to be Removed

Scientific Name Common Name Fair to Good Health and Condition

Poor Health and Condition Total

Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 15 1 16 Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine 8 0 8 Picea pungens Colorado Spruce 5 0 5 Picea abies Norway Spruce 5 0 5 Picea glauca White Spruce 2 0 2 Acer platanoides Norway Maple 2 0 2 Acer rubrum Red Maple 2 0 2 Pinus sylvestris Scots Pine 2 0 2 Juglans nigra Black Walnut 1 0 1 Acer freemanii Freeman’s Maple 1 0 1 Malus pumila Apple 1 0 1

Total trees to be removed 44 1 45 6. Compensation The purpose of the tree compensation is to maintain the urban tree canopy cover within the City of Mississauga by planting replacement trees. The City of Mississauga states that replacement plantings are required when removing three or more healthy trees (good to fair condition) which are greater than 15 cm DBH, including both native and non-native species. The removal of a tree between 15 and 49 cm DBH must be replaced by one (1) native tree. And the removal of a tree greater than 50 cm DBH must be replaced by two (2) native trees. Of the inventoried trees to be removed, one (1) tree is in poor health and will not require compensation, 29 trees are between 15 and 50 cm DBH each require one (1) replacement tree each, and 15 trees have a DBH greater than 50 cm each require two (2) replacement trees each. Thus, a total of 59 trees must be planted in compensation for the removal of the 45 trees on site. All replacement trees must be native and common the Credit River Watershed. Recommended species include Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum), Red Oak (Quercus rubra), and American Basswood (Tilia americana) (CVC 2015). The replacement trees must be at least 1.8 m tall for a coniferous tree or at least 6 cm in diameter for a deciduous tree. 7. Tree Protection Certain trees to be retained are located in close proximity to the limit of development. Therefore, the implementation of tree protection measures is recommended to protect tree root systems from compaction and tree trunk and branches from mechanical injury during construction activities (i.e. excavation, grading, building). For the protection of trees adjacent to the limit of development, including trees 153 to 157 and 159 to 162, pruning limbs may be required to reduce the risk of mechanical injury. Tree protection fencing


is also recommended to be installed along the limit of development and/or beyond the canopy dripline to reduce the risk of soil compaction. The tree protection fencing should be 1.2 to 1.8 m tall, well anchored into the ground, highly visible, and maintained for the entire duration of the construction-related activities. Furthermore, all tree protection measures must be implemented and installed prior to the commencement of construction and maintained until all construction related activities are complete. 8. Conclusion In summary, a total of 132 trees were inventoried, of which 69 (52%) are native species and 63 (48%) are non-native species. It is estimated that 45 trees are proposed to be removed within the redevelopment area and 87 trees are proposed to be retained. The final number of trees to be removed will be confirmed as part of the detailed design and grading plan. The trees to be retained should be protected by pruning overhanging limbs (where applicable such as tree in close proximity to the construction works) and installing tree protection fencing around the limit of development and/or beyond the canopy dripline. A total of 59 trees are to be planted in compensation for the identified number tree removals required on site. The replacement trees are to be planted on the subject property following construction or in suitable areas in consultation with the agencies. Prepared and Reviewed By:

Natalie Dunn, B.Sc., PG[ER] Ecologist, Certified Arborist

Approved By:

Dirk Janas, B.Sc. Principal, Senior Ecologist


References

City of Mississauga. Private Tree Protection. http://www.mississauga.ca/portal/residents/parks-private-tree-protection

Credit Valley Conservation (CVC). Plant Selection Guideline: Species List for Planting Plans within the Credit River Watershed. Version 1.3. May 2015. https://cvc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/plant-selection-guideline-May-2015-v1_3.pdf


Appendix A – Tree Inventory Results

Tree ID Common Name Species Name DBH (cm) Health/Condition Potential Retained / Removed

075 Norway Spruce Picea abies 42 Fair, crown dieback retained

076 Norway Spruce Picea abies 51 Fair, dead branches, multiple leaders retained

077 Norway Spruce Picea abies 34.4 Fair, crown dieback retained 078 Norway Spruce Picea abies 38 Fair, crown dieback retained 079 Norway Spruce Picea abies 20.8 Fair, crown dieback retained 080 Norway Spruce Picea abies 28 Fair, crown dieback retained 081 Norway Spruce Picea abies 34.5 Fair, crown dieback retained

082 Norway Spruce Picea abies 38.2 Fair, crown dieback retained

083 Norway Spruce Picea abies 52 Fair, 2 leads retained 084 Norway Spruce Picea abies 42.5 Fair, crown dieback retained 085 Norway Spruce Picea abies 23.4 Fair, crown dieback retained 086 Norway Spruce Picea abies 33.6 Fair, crown dieback retained 087 Norway Spruce Picea abies 21 Fair, crown dieback retained

088 Norway Spruce Picea abies 36.7 Fair, crown dieback retained 089 Norway Spruce Picea abies 18.2 Fair, crown dieback retained 090 Norway Spruce Picea abies 30.4 Fair, crown dieback retained 091 Norway Spruce Picea abies 22.8 Fair, crown dieback retained

092 Norway Spruce Picea abies 14.2, 11.2, 26.5 Fair, st. retained 093 Norway Spruce Picea abies 30.8 Fair, crown dieback retained 094 Norway Spruce Picea abies 21.5 Fair, crown dieback retained 095 Norway Spruce Picea abies 31.2 Fair, crown dieback retained 096 Norway Spruce Picea abies 23.4 Fair, crown dieback retained

097 Norway Spruce Picea abies 16 Fair, crown dieback retained

098 Norway Spruce Picea abies 40.7 Fair, crown dieback retained 099 Norway Spruce Picea abies 22 Fair, crown dieback retained




103 Norway Spruce Picea abies 26.8 Fair retained

104 Norway Spruce Picea abies 37 Poor, trunk cracks, crown

dieback retained 105 Norway Spruce Picea abies 51 Fair retained

106 Scots Pine Pinus sylvestris 49.7 Poor, lean, crown dieback, dead limbs retained

107 Scots Pine Pinus sylvestris 39 Fair, dead limbs retained 108 Norway Spruce Picea abies 35.5 Fair, crown dieback retained 109 Weeping Willow Salix babylonica 105 Fair, dead limbs retained

110 English Walnut Juglans regia 52 Fair, crown dieback, dead

limbs, no rot on trunk retained


Tree ID Common Name Species Name DBH (cm) Health/Condition Potential Retained /

Removed

111 English Walnut Juglans regia 92 Poor, evidence of trunk rot

broken top, dead limbs, epicormic shoots retained

112 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 36, 35.2, 48.9, 24, 19.6

Good, st. retained

113 Weeping Willow Salix babylonica 121 Fair, broken limbs, seam retained

114 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 6.5, 7, 8.5, 10.4, 16,

7, 10, 19.3, 10, 8, 8.3

Fair, st., crown dieback

retained

115 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 16.5, 8.4, 20, 8, 9,

10 Fair, st., crown dieback retained

116 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 28, 26.6, 16, 7, 8 Fair, st., crown dieback retained

117 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10, 6.5, 13,16.7, 22, 5, 20.5, 5, 4, 4, 17, 5, 19, 9.4, 4, 3, 7, 7


retained

118 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis

37, 16, 27, 7, 22, 18.5, 8, 7, 22.6, 9,

15, 12, 22, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 7.5, 13, 18

Good, st.

retained

119 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 5, 14.5, 5, 18.6, 22, 18.3, 30, 4, 5, 6, 3,

22.5 Fair, st., epicormic shoots

retained

120 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 20, 4, 12, 18, 6, 6,

21, 6, 5.3, 16.6, 14, 3, 3, 5, 6, 17, 22, 16


retained

121 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 20, 6, 13, 5, 11, 5, 18, 14, 19, 6.5, 19

Fair, st., crown dieback retained

122 Eastern White Pine Pinus strobus 51 Good retained 123 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 45.4 Good removed

124 Honey Locust Gleditsia triacanthos

51 Fair, dead branches, crown dieback retained

125 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 20.5, 14 Fair, trunk wound, st. removed

126 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 17.5, 9.5, 15, 10 Good removed

127 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 15.5, 20, 18.5, 7,

15.5 Good removed

128 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 18, 11, 16, 12, 20 Good removed

129 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 15.5 Fair, trunk wound removed 130 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 28 Good removed

131 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 19.5, 35,16, 18 Good removed

132 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 16 Good removed



Removed

133 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 17 Good removed 134 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 17.5 Good removed

135 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 16 Good removed

136 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 16, 17, 16.5, 7, 7, 17, 5.8, 12, 5, 6,

16.5 Fair, st., crown dieback

removed

137 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 8, 15, 18.5, 10.6, 20, 6, 3, 5, 16, 9.2 Fair, st., crown dieback

removed

138 Red Maple Acer rubrum 46.5, 32.5, 50, 48 Fair, st., epicormic shoots, dead branches removed

139 Scots Pine Pinus sylvestris 50 Fair, dead branches, foliar

necrosis removed

140 Scots Pine Pinus sylvestris 43 Fair, broken top, crown dieback removed

141 Norway Spruce Picea abies 91 Good removed

142 Norway Spruce Picea abies 52 Good removed 143 Norway Spruce Picea abies 60 Good removed 144 Norway Spruce Picea abies 66.5 Good removed 145 Eastern White Pine Pinus strobus 40.2 Fair, dead branches removed 146 Eastern White Pine Pinus strobus 35 Good removed 147 Eastern White Pine Pinus strobus 50 Good removed 148 Eastern White Pine Pinus strobus 42.7 Fair, crown dieback removed 149 Eastern White Pine Pinus strobus 50 Good removed

150 Eastern White Pine Pinus strobus 40.5 Fair, cracked bark, dead limbs removed

151 Eastern White Pine Pinus strobus 34 Fair, trunk wound removed

152 Eastern White Pine Pinus strobus 51 Fair, trunk wound, dead limbs removed

153 White Spruce Picea glauca 34.5 Good retained

154 Colorado Spruce Picea pungens 32.8, 35 Good, st. retained 155 White Spruce Picea glauca 30, 31 Good, st. retained 156 Colorado Spruce Picea pungens 42 Good retained 157 Colorado Spruce Picea pungens 30.3 Good retained

158 Freeman's Maple Acer freemanii 124 Fair, crown dieback, dead branches removed

159 Colorado Spruce Picea pungens 40 Good retained

160 Colorado Spruce Picea pungens 50 Good retained

161 White Spruce Picea glauca 40.5 Good retained

162 Colorado Spruce Picea pungens 40.1 Good retained 163 Apple Malus pumila 43.5 Good removed

164 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 41, 30.6, 22.4 Fair, st., crown dieback removed

165 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 21.1 Fair, seam, crown dieback removed

166 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 50, 26.7 Poor, broken top, lean trunk wound removed

167 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 60 Fair, epicormic shoots removed



Removed

168 White Spruce Picea glauca 38.6 Fair, crown dieback removed 169 White Spruce Picea glauca 50 Fair, crown dieback removed

170 Red Maple Acer rubrum 51 Fair, defoliation, crown dieback removed

171 Colorado Spruce Picea pungens 49 Good removed

172 Colorado Spruce Picea pungens 39.4 Good removed



175 Colorado Spruce Picea pungens 49.2 Good removed

176 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 108 Fair, crown dieback, dead

branches removed 177 Black Cherry Prunus serotina 43.8 Good retained

178 Red Oak Quercus rubra 51 Good retained

179 Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa

45 Fair, dead limbs retained

180 Red Oak Quercus rubra 18.8 Good, defoliation retained 181 Black Cherry Prunus serotina 33.2, 37.9 Fair, crown dieback retained 182 Black Cherry Prunus serotina 33 Fair, lean, sparse canopy retained 183 Eastern White Pine Pinus strobus 51.5 Good, branch dieback retained 184 Black Cherry Prunus serotina 45.8, 28.8 Fair, thin crown, dead limbs retained

185 American Basswood Tilia americana 55 Fair, adventagous branching retained

186 Norway Spruce Picea abies 49 Good retained

187 American Basswood Tilia americana 14.2, 31.8, 35.7, 34 Good retained

188 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 41.7 Fair, crown die back retained

189 Norway Spruce Picea abies 52 Good removed

190 Norway Spruce Picea abies 25.5 Fair, canopy dieback, dead

branches retained

191 Red Oak Quercus rubra 62 Fair, defoliation, dead branches retained

192 Red Oak Quercus rubra 52, 56 Fair, dead leaf clusters, defoliation, dead branches retained

193 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 43.2 Fair, lean, small canopy retained

194 Colorado Spruce Picea pungens 25.4 Poor, dead limbs, crown

dieback, epicormic sheets retained

195 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 56 Fair, Foliar clorosis, trunk

wound retained

196 White Spruce Picea glauca 31.6 Fair, small canopy, dead limbs retained

197 Colorado Spruce Picea pungens 26 Fair, dead branches, small canopy retained

198 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 24.5 Fair, foliar clorosis, crown

dieback retained

199 Red Oak Quercus rubra 46.5, 27.9 Fair, epicormic shoots, crown dieback retained

200 Colorado Spruce Picea pungens 21.7, 11.9 Fair, dead top, dead branches retained 201 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 76 Good retained 202 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 46.2 Good retained



Removed

203 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 36.5 Fair, small canopy retained 204 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 24, 49.5 Good retained

205 American Basswood Tilia americana 44.7, 11.6 Good retained

206 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 50.5 Good retained

Document Path: C:\Egnyte\Shared\Projects\Active\17026 - Mississauga Seniors Housing Corp\170261 - Carmel Heights Redevelopment EIS\Mapping\mxd\170261_Figure1_Site.mxd

Site Location

FIGURE 1

LEGEND DATA SOURCES: Site Plan/Contours provided by TarasickMcMillan Kubicki Limited (georeferenced - not exact). Roadsprovided by National Road Network - Ontario and containinformation licensed under the Open Government Licence -Canada. Imagery ©2017 Google (DigitalGlobe, First BaseSolutions). Overview Basemap Content may not reflectNational Geographic's current map policy. Sources: NationalGeographic, Esri, Garmin, HERE, UNEP-WCMC, USGS,NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, increment PCorp.

Mississauga RoadDundas Street West

Deers W

old

King Richards Place


110 m105 m

100 m

115 m

608200

608200

608300

608300

608400

608400

608500

608500

608600

608600

608700

608700

4821

600

4821

600

4821

700

4821

700

4821

800

4821

800

4821

900

4821

900


SCALE: 1:2500

0 20 40 60 80METRES

PREPARED BY:


DRAWN:CHECKED:

Apr 12, 2018

B. ElderD. Janas

PROJECT:DATE:

170261


SITE LOCATION

2 km

OVERVIEW MAP

Credit River

CONTOUR (1 m INTERVAL)


TOP OF SLOPE

TOP OF SLOPE

Docu

ment

Path:

C:\E

gnyte

\Share

d\Proj

ects\

Activ

e\170

26 - M

ississ

auga

Senio

rs Ho

using

Corp

\1702

61 - C

armel

Heigh

ts Re

deve

lopme

nt EI

S\Ma

pping

\mxd

\1702

61_F

igure3

_Tree

s.mxd

Tree Inventory andPreservation Plan

FIGURE 2

LEGEND

PREPARED BY:

122 123125126

130132133

134136

137

139140

141142

143

144145

147

148150

153 154155

156157

159160

160

161162

165

167168

170

171

174

176

177178

180183184

185

186188

190

191

192193194

195197

198200

127128

129

131

135138

146

149151

152

158

163

164

169172173

175

179181

182

187

189

196199

Deers W

old

King Richards Place

Dundas Stree

t West

Mississauga Road



608100

608100

608200

608200

608300

608300

608400

608400

608500

608500

608600

608600

608700

608700

4821

600

4821

600

4821

700

4821

700

4821

800

4821

800

4821

900

4821

900


0 25 50 75 100METRES

SCALE: 1:1800Project: Carmel Heights Redevelopment EIS


75

76 7779

81

83

8687 89

9192 9395 96

98

101 103

104

106

107

111

112 113

114

116117

118119

120121

124

201

202203

204205

20678

80 84

8590

9799

100102

105

108

109110

115

Mississauga Road


WOODLAND BOUNDARYINVENTORY TREE

0 10 20 30 40METRES

INSET

DATA SOURCES: Roads provided by National Road Network - Ontario and contain information licensed under the Open Government Licence - Canada. Imagery ©2017Google (DigitalGlobe, First Base Solutions). Additional Basemap Imagery Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

SEE INSET FOR DETAIL

CHECKED: D. JanasPROJECT: 170261

DRAWN: B. Elder

Apr 12, 2018DATE:

TOP OF BANKSTABLE TOP OF BANK10 m SETBACKPROPOSED SITE PLAN

33

Appendix B

P l a n t L i s t

34

Appendix B Plant Species List

Scientific Name Common Name SRANK

CVC/PEEL STATUS (CVC 2002) CUW1 FOM5-8

Acer negundo Manitoba Maple S5 X X Acer platanoides Norway Maple SE5 X Acer saccharum var. saccharum Sugar Maple S5 X Acer X freemanii Freeman's Maple S5 X Alliaria petiolata Garlic Mustard SE5 X X Arctium minus Lesser Burdock SE5 X X Symphyotrichum lateriflorum var. hirsuticaule Hairy Calico Aster S4? X Symphyotrichum novae-angliae New England Aster S5 X Campanula rapunculoides Creeping Bellflower SE5 X

Circaea lutetiana ssp. canadensis Enchanter's Nightshade S5 X

Cirsium vulgare Bull Thistle SE5 X

Cornus alternifolia Alternate-leaf Dogwood S5 X

Dactylis glomerata Orchard Grass SE5 X X Daucus carota Queen Anne's Lace SE5 X Erigeron annuus White-top Fleabane S5 X Fraxinus americana White Ash S5 X X Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash S5 X Fragaria vesca ssp. americana Woodland Strawberry S5 X Geranium robertianum Herb-robert SE5 X Hypericum perforatum St. John's-wort SE5 X X Impatiens capensis Spotted Jewel-weed S5 X Impatiens pallida Pale Jewel-weed S5 rare X Juglans nigra Black Walnut S4 X X Leonurus cardiaca ssp. cardiaca Common Motherwort SE5 X

Lonicera tatarica Tartarian Honeysuckle SE5 X X

Parthenocissus vitacea Thicket Creeper S5 X X Picea abies Norway Spruce SE3 X Picea glauca White Spruce S5 X Picea pungens Colorado Spruce SE1 X Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine S5 X Poa pratensis ssp. pratensis Kentucky Bluegrass S5 X Potentilla recta Sulphur Cinquefoil SE5 X Prunus serotina Wild Black Cherry S5 X Prunus virginiana var. virginiana Choke Cherry S5 X Prunella vulgaris ssp. vulgaris Common Heal-all SE3 X Pyrus communis Common Pear SE4 X

35

Scientific Name Common Name SRANK

CVC/PEEL STATUS (CVC 2002) CUW1 FOM5-8

Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak S5 X Ranunculus recurvatus var. recurvatus Hooked Crowfoot S5 X X Rhamnus cathartica Buckthorn SE5 X X Rhus hirta Staghorn Sumac S5 X X

Rorippa sylvestris Creeping Yellow-cress SE5 X

Rubus occidentalis Black Raspberry S5 X X Rumex acetosella ssp. acetosella Sheep Sorrel SE5 X Solidago canadensis var. scabra Tall Goldenrod S5 X X Solanum dulcamara Climbing Nightshade SE5 X Sonchus arvensis ssp. arvensis Field Sowthistle SE5 X Tilia americana American Basswood S5 X Tsuga canadensis Eastern Hemlock S5 X Ulmus rubra Slippery Elm S5 X Verbascum thapsus Common Mullein SE5 X Vitis riparia Riverbank Grape S5 X X


April 27, 2018 36

Appendix C

B r e e d i n g B i r d L i s t


37

Appendix C Breeding Bird Species List

Locations

Common Name Scientific NameProvincial breeding

season SRANK bTRCA

Status d

Area-

sensitive

(OMNR)c

Highest

breeding status

e 1 2 3 1 2

Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis S5 L5 T 1 3 1 1

Killdeer Charadrius vociferus S5 L5 X 2 1

Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis S5 L5 X 1 1

Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens S5 L5 T 2 1 1

Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus S4 L4 H 1 1

Great Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus S4 L4 A 2 1 1

Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata S5 L5 T 10 3 1 1 1

Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus S5 L5 P 4 3 1 1

Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis S5 L4 A T 2 1 1

White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis S5 L4 A T 1 1 1 1

American Robin Turdus migratorius S5 L5 NY 11 10 1 1

Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum S5 L5 T 3 1 1

European Starling Sturnus vulgaris SE L+ CF 4 4 1 1

Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus S5 L4 S 1 1 1

Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis S5 L5 T 3 3 1 1

Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus S4 L5 P 3 1 1 1

Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula S5 L5 FY 15 5 3 1 1

Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater S5 L5 H 1 1 1

Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula S4 L5 S 1 1

House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus SE L5 S 1 1 1 1

American Goldfinch Cardeulis tristis S5 L5 H 1 1 7 1 1

House Sparrow Passer domesticus SE L+ T 16 1 1 1

Field Work Conducted On: DateCloud cover

(%)Start time

Level of effort

(h:min)

Number of species observed

Site visit 1 03-Jun-17 0 8:50 1:25 20

Site visit 2 17-Jun-17 95 9:05 1:00 18

Observed on site visitStatus

carmel heights environmental impact study...re: carmel heights environmental impact study project #:...

Documents