crawford drive and the parkway natural heritage...

GUIDING SOLUTIONS IN THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

MARKHAM 144 Main St. North, Suite 206 Markham, ON L3P 5T3 T)905.201.7622 F)905.201.0639

BRACEBRIDGE 126 Kimberley Avenue Bracebridge, ON P1L 1Z9 T)705.645.1050 F)705.645.6639

GUELPH 373 Woolwich Street Guelph, ON N1H 3W4 T)519.826.0419 F)519.826.9306

PETERBOROUGH 469 Water Street, 2nd Floor Peterborough, ON K9H 3M2 T) 705.243.7251

OTTAWA 470 Somerset Street West Ottawa, ON K1R 5J8 T) 613.627.2376

Crawford Drive and The Parkway Natural Heritage Review

Prepared For:

City of Peterborough

Prepared By:

Beacon Environmental Limited

Date: Project:

April 2016 216094

C r a w f o r d D r i v e a n d t h e P a r k w a y N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e R e v i e w

N

T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s

p a g e

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

2. Policy Review ............................................................................................... 1

2.1 Provincial Policy Statement (2014) ............................................................................... 1 2.2 City of Peterborough Official Plan (2015) ...................................................................... 2

2.2.1 City of Peterborough Zoning By-Law (2015) ................................................................. 2 2.3 Otonabee Region Conservation Authority Regulations (2006) and Watershed

Planning and Regulation Policy (2012) ......................................................................... 3

3. Agency Consultation ................................................................................... 5

4. Review of Features and Functions ............................................................ 6

5. Appropriate Extent of Holding Provision.................................................. 8

5.1 Rationale for 30 m Holding Provision ............................................................................ 8

6. Next Steps .................................................................................................... 9

7. References ................................................................................................. 10

F i g u r e s

Figure 1. Subject Property ................................................................................................. after page 2

Figure 2. Holding Provision ................................................................................................ after page 8

T a b l e s

Table 1. Screening of Natural Heritage Features ................................................................................ 6


N

Page 1

1. Introduction

Beacon Environmental Limited (Beacon) was retained by the City of Peterborough to complete a preliminary review of the natural heritage features at the proposed casino site in the City of Peterborough. The subject property is located north of Crawford Drive and the Parkway in the City of Peterborough (Figure 1). The City of Peterborough has initiated an Official Plan Amendment (OPA)

and Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA) to permit a casino on the subject property which will be operated by the Ontario Gaming East Limited Partnership (OGELP).

The subject property is located within an area that permits commercial land uses. A Tim Hortons and the City’s Visitor Centre are located on the subject property. A tributary of Harper Creek flows along the southern property boundary within the Crawford Road right-of-way. The tributary is coldwater system known to support Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). A wooded area that includes wetland and groundwater discharge is located along the western portion of the site and extends west of the property (Figure 1). Several studies and approvals have been completed for the site and surrounding area in recent years including the Crawford Road Environmental Assessment (EA) and the Visitors Centre Fish Compensation Plan. The natural heritage features and functions are relatively well understood, sufficient to support the OPA and ZBA process, although detailed site specific investigations will be required in the future. The purpose of this report is to provide a preliminary overview of natural heritage features located on and adjacent to the property using existing information and knowledge of the subject property and to provide recommendations for the next steps to address natural heritage features through the site plan application phase. These tasks have been completed through a combination of background review, review of applicable natural heritage policies, consultation with the City and Otonabee Region Conservation Authority (ORCA), reconnaissance level site investigation in 2016 and personal knowledge of the site from previous investigations.

2. Policy Review

2.1 Provincial Policy Statement (2014)

The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) (MMAH 2014) should be considered and applied as one related document with respect to the proposed development application.

Policy 2.0 of the PPS provides direction to regional and local municipalities regarding planning policies specifically for the protection and management of natural heritage features and resources.

Section 2.1.5 of the PPS describes seven natural heritage features and provides planning policies for each. The Natural Heritage Reference Manual (MNRF 2010) is a technical document used to help

assess the natural heritage features listed below:

a) significant wetlands/significant coastal wetlands; b) habitat of endangered and threatened species; c) fish habitat;


N

Page 2

d) significant woodlands; e) significant valleylands; f) significant Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs); and g) significant wildlife habitat.

Each of these features is afforded varying levels of protection subject to guidelines, and in some cases, regulations. Of these features, significant wetlands and ANSIs are designated by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). The municipality is responsible for designating significant woodlands using MNRF criteria. Habitat of Endangered or Threatened species is addressed with MNRF consistent with the Endangered Species Act ,if a species is identified on a property through

site specific investigation or through existing information. Fish habitat is governed by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). The identification of the remaining features is the responsibility of the municipality. Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on “adjacent lands” to the natural heritage features/areas addressed in policies 2.1.4, 2.1.5, 2.1.6, and 2.1.7 “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”. Adjacent lands are defined in the PPS as: “those lands contiguous to a specific natural heritage feature or area where it is likely that development or site alteration would have a negative impact on the feature or area”.

2.2 City of Peterborough Official Plan (2015)

The City of Peterborough published its latest Official Plan Consolidation on December 31, 2015. The City identifies and protects Significant Natural Heritage Features consistent with the requirements of the PPS. The subject property is designated as Commercial on Schedule A - Land Use of the Official Plan (2015). There are no Natural Areas and Corridors identified on Schedule C – Natural Areas & Flood Plains and the subject property does not contain a Flood Plain.

Schedule D – Development Areas designates the subject property as falling within a Development Stage 2 area and Schedule F – Key Map to Secondary Land Use Plans identifies the subject property as being subject to the Lansdowne Secondary Plan.

The Commercial designation recognizes existing commercial areas and provide opportunities for

additional development and redevelopment. Schedule I further categorizes the subject property as Service Commercial.

2.2.1 City of Peterborough Zoning By-Law (2015)

The subject property is zoned as M2.2-SP.268 which designates the property as M2.2 Industrial District (Business Park) and Special District 268.

Harp

er R

oad

Crawford Drive

The P

arkway

Highway 115

Project 216094April 2016

-1:120,000

0 2,100 4,2001,050 Metres

UTM Zone 17 N, NAD 83

Site Location Figure 1

DRAFT

First Base SolutionsWeb Mapping Service 2011

Crawford DrivePreliminary Natural Heritage Review

Highway 115

North Monaghan Parkway

Landsdowne Street

Sherbrooke Street

Parkhill Road

Brown Line

Bensfort Road

Wallace Point Road

Matchett Line

Crowley Line

Airport Road

Highway 7

Preston Road

Site Location


N

Page 3

2.3 Otonabee Region Conservation Authority Regulations (2006) and Watershed Planning and Regulation Policy (2012)

ORCA regulates hazard lands, including creeks, valleylands, shorelines, and wetlands under Ontario Regulation 167/06, under the Conservation Authorities Act. Development, interference and/or

alteration activities shall not be undertaken within a regulated area without written permission from ORCA. A wetland is present on the adjacent property to the west and may extend onto the subject property. This wetland is regulated by ORCA. ORCA approved their Watershed Planning & Regulation Policy Manual in Draft in May 2012. Land

use planning policies are detailed in Chapter 3 of the Manual and Section 3.2.2(1) outlines the maximum buffers (referred to as “setbacks’) to natural features and natural hazards including:

Wetlands – Provincially Significant: 120 m from the limit of the wetland;

Wetlands – Non provincially significant: 30 m from the limit of the wetland;

Fish Habitat: 120 m from the Upper Controlled Navigation Limit, normal high-water mark,

line that connects each outside curve/concave bank at bankfull stage, centre line of a channel depression that concentrates flow;

Significant Woodlands: 120 m;

Significant Valleylands: 120 m;

Significant Life Science Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest: 120 m;

Significant Earth Science Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest: 120 m;

Significant Wildlife Habitat: 120 m from the limit of habitat;

Significant Habitat of Threatened or Endangered Species: to be determined through the completion of an EIS or Technical Report;

Other areas (sensitive groundwater recharge/discharge areas, wellhead protection areas, surface water intakes, vulnerable aquifers): to be determined through the completion of a Technical Report.

The approach taken by the ORCA is to provide maximum buffers, often following the limit of the regulated area, and then the agency requires that proponents demonstrate that there will be no negative impact on the feature or its ecological functions should the buffer be reduced. It is important to understand a priori that these buffers apply to features that have already been screened to a certain level of importance and that there is a difference to the regulatory role of the ORCA compared to its advisory role to the City. Hazards and wetlands are regulated features whereas other natural features and their buffers are addressed by the ORCA in its role as an advisor to the municipality. Even for wetlands, the regulation is primarily concerned with the hydrologic function of the wetland. Section 3.3.6(6) states that “ORCA will recommend that new development and/or site alteration will not be permitted within 30 metres of the boundary of a non-provincially significant wetland except as permitted by the policies contained in Chapter 4.”

General policies regarding regulated areas are detailed in Chapter 4 of the Manual and state the following:


N

Page 4

“4.2(1) Development, interference and/or alteration will not be permitted within a regulated area, except in accordance with the policies contained in this Chapter.

4.2(2) Notwithstanding Policy 4.2.2(1), the ORCA’s Board of Directors may grant permission for development, interference and/or alteration where the applicant provides evidence acceptable to the Board of Directors that documents that the development and/or activity will have no adverse effect on the control of flooding, erosion, pollution or the conservation of land with respect to river or stream valleys, hazardous land, wetlands and areas of interference, or result in unacceptable interference with a watercourse or wetland.

4.2(3) Development, interference and/or alteration within a regulated area will be permitted only where:

risk to public safety is not increased;

susceptibility to natural hazards is not increased or new hazards created (e.g., there will be no impacts on adjacent properties with respect to natural hazards);

pollution, sedimentation and erosion during construction and post construction is minimized using best management practices including site, landscape, infrastructure and/or facility design, construction controls, and appropriate remedial measures;

access for emergency works and maintenance of flood or erosion control works is available;

proposed development is constructed, repaired and/or maintained in accordance with accepted engineering principles and approved engineering standards or to the satisfaction of ORCA, whichever is applicable based on the structural scale and scope, and the purpose of the project;

there are no adverse hydraulic or fluvial impacts on rivers, creeks, streams, or watercourses;

there are no adverse impacts on the hydrologic function of wetlands as demonstrated by a qualified professional; and,

the control of flooding, erosion, pollution and/or the conservation of land is not adversely affected during construction and post development.”

Section 8 outlines the specific policies for development within wetlands and areas of interference (30 m from a non-provincially significant wetland) and states the following:

8.1(1) New development will not be permitted within a wetland, regardless of previous approvals provided under the Planning Act or other regulatory process (e.g. Building Code), except as outlines below 8.1(2) New development on an existing lot(s) within a small portion of a wetland to facilitate the development of the lot OR where a wetland is less than 0.5 hectares may be permitted provided that:


N

Page 5

the wetland is not a bog or fen, or part of a Provincially Significant Wetland;

is not part of a groundwater recharge area or a groundwater discharge area; and,

it can be demonstrated through an Environmental Impact Study that offsetting will be accommodated on the subject lands resulting in a net gain in wetland function and, where applicable, the maintenance of existing hydrologic and ecological linkages.

Development under Section 8.1 includes agriculture, conservation activities, passive low intensity recreational uses, infrastructure, ponds and drains, and organic soil (peat) extraction. Section 8.2(5) states that:

New residential or structural agricultural development OR development associated with an existing commercial or industrial use will be permitted within 30 metres of a non-provincially significant wetland on an existing lot(s) provided that:

it is not feasible to locate the development at least 30 metres away from the wetland boundary;

it can be demonstrated through a site review and/or Environmental Impact Study that there will be no negative impact on the hydrologic function of the wetland.

3. Agency Consultation

A meeting was held with the City of Peterborough, ORCA, Ainley Group, SGL Planning, Beacon Environmental and Great Canadian Gaming on March 4, 2016. During the meeting, the natural heritage features for the site were reviewed and requirements to address the features was discussed. ORCA confirmed that their policies require a 30 m buffer to be applied to non-provincially significant wetlands unless it can be demonstrated that a reduced buffer will not result in negative impact on the feature or its ecological functions. ORCA identified that seasonal investigations of the wooded/ wetland area will be required should a reduced buffer be proposed. Previous approvals and plans for the subject property were reviewed at the March 4, 2016 meeting with a specific focus on the Visitor Centre Fish Compensation Plan (City of Peterborough 2007). The plan was developed by the City and D.M. Wills in 2007 to outline mitigation and compensation for the installation of two culverts as part of the development of the Visitors Center. The plan stipulated compensation measures that included planting woody vegetation along the creek to compensate for the vegetation removal required for the culvert installation. The recommendations from the Visitor Centre Fish Compensation Plan were incorporated as conditions into a Fisheries Act approval issued

by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) for the Visitor Centre works. It was agreed at the March 2016 meeting with ORCA that the limit of the existing woody vegetation along the tributary is considered to still be an appropriate buffer for the Harper Creek tributary.


N

Page 6

As a follow-up to the March 2016 meeting, a site visit with ORCA’s Watershed Biologist was undertaken on March 10, 2016. The purpose of the site visit was to review the natural heritage features on and adjacent to the site, specifically with a focus on attempting to identify the presence and extent of wetland within the wooded area. During the site assessment, the coldwater tributary of Harper Creek was also reviewed throughout the wooded area and along the Crawford Road Right of Way (ROW). Several seepage areas were observed within the wooded area and along the upstream portions of the coldwater tributary. Vegetation within the wooded area includes Trembling Aspen (Populus tremuloides), White Cedar (Thuja occidentalis), White Birch (Betula papyrifera), Common Buckthorn (Rhamuns cathartica), willow (Salix) and dogwood (Cornus). Given the time of year, it was concluded during the site walk that it was not possible to certainly determine the presence or absence of wetland within the wooded area due to the lack of groundcover vegetation and presence of facultative woody vegetation. Since the extent of wetland could not be accurately determined (other than the fact that it did not extend beyond the woody vegetation limit), it was agreed that the most appropriate approach would be stake the limit of the woody vegetation for the purposes of the Zoning By-Law Amendment and to confirm the extent of wetland through seasonally appropriate surveys. The limit of woody vegetation associated with the Harper Creek Tributary and wooded area were staked by a Beacon Ecologist on March 15, 2016.

4. Review of Features and Functions

The findings of the background review, reconnaissance field investigations and knowledge of the site have been relied upon to confirm whether the subject property supports any of the natural heritage components recognized under the PPS, the City’s Official Plan or ORCA policies. The Natural Heritage Reference Manual was consulted to provide additional technical guidance. Table 1 summarizes the screening of natural heritage features found on and adjacent to the subject property.

Table 1. Screening of Natural Heritage Features

Natural Heritage Feature Assessment Conclusion

Wetland – Provincially Significant No Provincially Significant Wetlands are identified on or within 120 m of the subject property (MNRF database).

Not triggered

Wetland – non-provincially Significant

There is wetland present within the wooded area along and adjacent to the western property boundary. The limit of the wetland has not been established and needs to be confirmed through seasonal investigations. For purposes of the ZBA a conservative approach has been applied; as the limit of the wetland is known to be within the limit of woody vegetation, this limit has been used (knowledge of site, existing information).

Present and regulated by ORCA

(to be delineated through seasonal

investigations)

Fish Habitat

The tributary of Harper Creek is a coldwater system that supports Brook Trout. The creek flows through the wooded area and along the Crawford Road ROW (existing information).

Yes


N

Page 7

Natural Heritage Feature Assessment Conclusion

Significant Woodland

No Significant Woodlands have been identified by the City on or adjacent to the subject property and in our opinion the vegetation present would not qualify as significant woodland (site visit).

No

Significant Valleyland No valleyland on the subject property (site visit). No

Significant Life Science Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest

(ANSI)

No Life Science ANSI’s are present on the subject property (MNRF database).

No

Significant Earth Science Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest

No Life Science ANSI’s are present on the subject property (MNRF database).

No

Significant Wildlife Habitat

Based on the location of the property at an urban intersection Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) is not anticipated. Based our knowledge of the site and surrounding features amphibian breeding habitat (woodland) would be the most likely potential SWH designation that could possibly apply to the wooded area. The municipality has not identified SWH at this location. SWH should be evaluated based on the results of seasonal investigations at a municipality-wide level such that the relative importance of sites can be established. Notwithstanding, it is anticipated that seasonal investigation would demonstrate that no SWH is present even using the suggested MNRF Significant Wildlife Habitat Criteria Schedules (MNRF 2015).

Likely not present, to be confirmed through

seasonal investigations

Habitat of Threatened or Endangered Species

No threatened or endangered species are known to occur for the subject property. However, seasonal investigations should be completed to determine if threatened or endangered species are present. A review of the MNRF NHIC database indicates that there is a historic record (1934) for Common Five-Lined Skink (Plestiodon fasciatus) within one kilometer of the subject property. Although, the historic nature of the record, lack of habitat for the species, and the property being located outside of the species current known range indicate that it is almost certainly extirpated from the area.

Likely not present, to be through seasonal

investigations

Other Areas (sensitive groundwater

recharge/discharge areas, wellhead protection areas,

surface water intakes, vulnerable aquifers)

Seepage areas were observed within the wooded area and the upstream portion of the Harper Creek Tributary.

Sensitivity to be determined through

hydrogeological study


N

Page 8

5. Appropriate Extent of Holding Provision

It is our professional opinion that through the Zoning By-Law Amendment process a 30 m Holding Provision should be applied to the limit of woody vegetation associated with the natural feature on the western portion of the subject property. This 30 m limit represents a conservative approach that assumes that: 1) the limit of the woody vegetation coincides with the potential maximum limit of wetland conditions and that 2) a 30 m buffer is the maximum that would be required to protect the function of the feature. The proposed 30 m Holding Provision line from the limit of woody vegetation is shown on Figure 2.

5.1 Rationale for 30 m Holding Provision

The determination of wetland designation is a minor element in determining buffer width. The width of a buffer should be determined on a combination of the sensitivity and importance of the receiving feature, the stressor type and the intervening site conditions, current and/or created. These features and functions are discussed in context of appropriate maximum buffer widths. Maximum buffer widths have been recommended to establish the ZBA Holding Provision line and should be reviewed based on the results of seasonal investigations. The following features and functions fall out from the screening undertaken in Table 1.

Other Wetlands For Provincially Significant Wetlands on the Oak Ridges Moraine (arguably one of the higher levels of sensitivity and importance) prescribed buffers are 30 m and rarely do they exceed this minimum. Other wetlands in settlement areas that do not have highly sensitive wildlife values are typically subject to 15 m buffers, though they may vary from a few metres to 30 m. In all of these cases, it is necessary to ensure that the hydrology of the wetland (including groundwater contributions) is maintained. This is seldom achieved through a wider buffer. Typically engineering is applied to ensure that appropriate wetland hydrology is maintained. Significant Wildlife Habitat In the unlikely event that SWH was determined to be present it is unlikely that a buffer greater than 30 m would be required. The existing condition of the subject property is not conducive to use by amphibians that might trigger this designation. Fish Habitat The limit of woody vegetation along the tributary as it flows along the southern property boundary should be applied in the ZBA and site plan application phase of the project as the required buffer for the watercourse. This vegetated area was established through a Fisheries Act authorization as part of a compensation package for a Harmful Alteration Disturbance or Destruction (HADD) resulting from culvert installation for the development of the Visitor Centre. The woody vegetation acts to prevent bank erosion

Harp

er R

oad

Project 216094April 2016

-1:1,2500 20 4010 Metres

UTM Zone 17 N, NAD 83

PreliminaryNatural Heritage

Review

DRAFT

Figure 2

Crawford DrivePreliminary Natural Heritage Review

First Base SolutionsWeb Mapping Service 2011

LegendSubject PropertyStaked Limit of Woody Vegetation30 m Setback Subject to ZoningBy-law Holding ProvisionStaked Limit of ColdwaterCreek Vegetation Corridor


N

Page 9

and sedimentation to downstream reaches as well as provides shading to assist in maintaining thermal stability within the watercourse.

In the western area the watercourse is within the woody vegetation, the buffer as applied by the Holding Provision is greater than 30 m from any watercourse channel within the feature (if a defined channel exists). In this western area detailed study should ensure that the appropriate buffer is applied to the watercourse once its location is surveyed. Endangered Species Act Seasonal investigations are required to confirm that no species subject to the Endangered Species Act are present on the subject property. This is unlikely given the location and habitat extent and types available. Other Areas

There are known seepage or groundwater discharge areas within the natural feature that feed the coldwater tributary. Therefore, their protection and maintenance is important. Hydrological study is required to ensure this function is maintained post-development. In our opinion rarely would this result in a required buffer width greater than 30 m but it may result in the use of engineering solutions to maintain water balances.

6. Next Steps

As established through consultation with ORCA and the City the 30 m Holding Provision could be removed once seasonal field investigations delineate the limit of the wetland, creek channel location (to the west) and determine the function of the features. The function of the feature needs to be evaluated through an Environmental Impact Study (EIS). The EIS should include:

A review of applicable policies and regulations related to the subject property and natural heritage;

Review of relevant background information;

Results of seasonal investigations, including but not limited to:

Aquatic habitat assessment

ELC/Floral Inventory

Breeding amphibian surveys

Breeding bird surveys

Species at Risk assessment

Hydrology (including hydrogeology)

Assessment of the importance of natural heritage features;

An impact assessment, including consideration for hydrologic/hydrogeologic impacts;

Recommended buffers and other mitigation; and

Identify net effects within the appropriate policy context.


N

Page 10

Should the EIS recommend that less than a 30 m buffer is required it needs to be demonstrated that a reduced buffer will be sufficient to prevent negative ecological or hydrological impacts relative to the important features or functions that have been confirmed or identified.

Report prepared by: Beacon Environmental

Report reviewed by: Beacon Environmental

Lindsey Waterworth, B.Sc. Aquatic Ecologist

Brian E. Henshaw Principal

7. References

City of Peterborough. 2015 Official Plan City of Peterborough and D.M. Wills. 2007 Visitor Centre Fish Compensation Plan Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. 2014

Provincial Policy Statement. Queen’s Printer for Ontario, Toronto. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. 2016

Natural Heritage Information Database. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. 2015 Significant Wildlife Habitat Criteria Schedules Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. 2010

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

Otonabee Region Conservation Authority. 2012.

Watershed Planning & Regulation Policy Manual. Draft May 2012. Otonabee Region Conservation Authority. 2006.

Ontario Regulation 167/06

crawford drive and the parkway natural heritage...

Documents