Pro-Developments.com | Enviromental Impact Study for Woodstock development property

An Official Plan and zone change application is being made for the eastern 30± acres of the George and Margaret Alyea Farm. The developable lands are Parts 5 (29.808 acres) and Part 9 (0.189 acres). Undevelopable lands in the Alyea East area consist of Parts 3 (67.704 acres), Part 4 (1.067 acres) and Part 8 (0.961). The existing land use and zoning are agriculture and the proposed future use is Environmental Protection and Industrial. Wetland and forest habitat exists along the western margin of the subject lands.

2.0 BACKGROUND

Where development is proposed within 120 metres of an EP-2 Zone (wetlands)or within 60 metres of an EP-3 Zone forest, the owner shall provide an Environmental Impact Study (E.I.S.) which determines the appropriate width of setbacks. Where an E.I.S. accepted by the City of Woodstock in consultation with the appropriate Conservation Authority or Provincial agency determines that the setbacks can be less than 120m from an EP-2 zone or less than 60m from an EP-3 Zone, the setback for the purpose of the Zoning By-law will be established by a resolution of council in accordance with the findings of the E.I.S.

The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) also states that development on lands adjacent to significant wetland requires preparation of an E.I.S. - (Government of Ontario 2005).
A Terms of Reference outlining the approach to the content of the E.I.S. for the subject lands was prepared on June 6, 2005, following telephone conversations with City and Conservation Authority staff. The Terms of Reference were provided to City and UTRCA staff for review and comment.

Since certain biological field data had to be collected during the Spring and Summer seasons, the inventory was underway while the Terms of Reference was being reviewed.

3.0 RATIONALE

The City of Woodstock annexed these lands with the prospect of urban expansion in mind. Industrial land use is proposed as a logical extension of the Pattullo Ridge Industrial Area and the frontage on Highways 401 and 403 potentially facilitates prestige industrial uses.

Alternatives are described in detail in report section 6.0, the undertaking. Alternatives exist regarding sanitary waste treatment, stormwater management and road locations.

4.0 STUDY METHODS

Existing reports on the Business Park Design (Green Scheels Pidgeon Planning Consultant Limited et al. 1999) and the Opportunities/Summary Report Alyea Property (PEIL 2004) were reviewed.

Natural environment existing information was obtained from the Upper Thames Conservation Authority (UTRCA): drain/fish classification and wetland mapping and from the Aylmer District MNR a copy of the Wetland Data and Scoring Record and a map of wetland boundaries for the Oxford Centre Swamp Complex were obtained. The PEIL report provided an overview of environmental constraint issues. An Environment Canada (1998) report on wetland watersheds provided context for wetlands in the Cedar Creek drainage basin.

A report by Bruce A. Brown Associates Limited (2005a) provided preliminary soils and shallow groundwater information in the area west of the Alyea Forest. Bruce A. Brown Associates Limited (2005b) provides preliminary soils and shallow groundwater information in the present study area.

Site visits to record vegetation, wildlife, wetland, soils and topographic conditions were made on May 19, June 1, 2, 18, 28 and July 5, 9 and 22. Two visits at dawn were made to document breeding birds.

During site visits on June 16 and July 9, 2005, a soils scientist and biologist collected data to complete Ecological Land Classification (ELC) data sheets and mapping.

During a site visit on July 5, 2005, Ken Dance flagged the edge of the wetland and forest and the edge determination was confirmed by Brenda Gallagher, Vegetation Specialist for the UTRCA and Pud Hunter, Biologist with MNR.

On July 9, 2005, several vegetation units which MNR and UTRCA staff had questions about were visited again and additional soil probing was completed. This work lead to unit boundary refinement and minor changes to unit descriptions.

The flagged wetland and forest edges were subsequently surveyed in and plotted by Baker and Benedict Surveying Inc.

The nature of wetland conditions in the southeastern corner of the site (west of the existing gravel lane) were of interest relative to provision for an adequate right-of-way for roads and services, north from Pattullo Avenue.

During a site visit on August 2, 2005, K.W. Dance documented vegetation conditions in the area and flagged a potential wetland edge to the west of the edge that was flagged during the agency staff site meeting on July 5, 2005. Both the July 5th and August 2, 2005, flagged edges were surveyed in by Baker and Benedict Surveying Inc. during August 2005.

5.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

Figure 1 shows the boundaries of the subject lands which are between Pattullo Avenue and Highways 401/403 and the Alyea Forest to the west. Access to the lands would be made from a cul de sac running north from Pattullo Ave.

Water would be provided from the municipal water main. Sewage treatment options will be compared in detail in report section 6.0; Proposed Undertaking. Other services will be provided along the road access from services present at Pattullo Avenue. Stormwater management options will also be compared in report section 6.0.

The number and configuration of lots within the subject area is not currently known.

On the site there are 5 patches of vegetation that are too small to warrant detailed evaluation using the Ecological Land Classification. The descriptions are based on field work conducted on July 22, 2005.

Figure 2, on an air photo base, shows that the majority of the developable subject lands currently support agricultural crops: soybeans, Unit E. Unit A has been tilled during 2005, but was not planted.

Unit A. Tilled Field
This unit is in the extreme southeastern corner of the site, the eastern margin is flanked by the existing gravel laneway.

A variety of weedy species have grown up in the area. Dominant plant species include: Wild Carrot, Pigweed, Common Ragweed and Penny Cress. Other species (mainly weedy herbs and grasses) included: Common Burdock, Velvet Leaf, Canada Thistle, Nodding Thistle, Quack Grass, Green Foxtail, Timothy, Common Reed Grass,

Common Dandelion, Butter-and-Eggs, Curled Dock, Dodder, Common Teasel, Lamb's Quarters, Common Sowthistle, Common Milkweed, English Plantain, Red Raspberry, Pineapple- weed and Horseweed.

Unit B. Weedy Fill
Again weedy species are predominant. Dominant plant species present include: Lamb's Quarters, Common Ragweed, Curled Dock and Green Foxtail.

Other vegetation species present include: Black Medick, Common Plantain, Wild Carrot, Pineapple-weed, Common Sowthistle, Bird-foot Trefoil, Red Clover, Common Mullein, Common Teasel, Penny Cress, Garlic Mustard, Dodder, Colt's-foot, Barnyard Grass, Pale Smartweed, Pennsylvania Smartweed, Prostrate Knotweed, Lady's Thumb, White Sweet Clover, Yellow Sweet Clover, Path Rush, Tumble Mustard, Canada Thistle, Horseweed, Common St. Johnswort, Canada Goldenrod, Viper's Bugloss and a few Trembling Aspen and Manitoba Maple saplings.

Unit C. Weedy Meadow
Most of the species recorded in Unit B also occur in Unit C. Vegetation species found in Unit C but not Unit B include: New England Aster, Calico Aster, White Ash and Red-osier Dogwood seedlings, Chickory, Riverbank Grape, English Plantain, Orchard Grass, Smooth Brome, Timothy, Quack Grass, Curled Dock, Nodding Thistle and Red Clover. Dominant plants in Unit C are: Wild Carrot, White Sweet Clover, Curled Dock, Pineapple-weed and Common Sowthistle.

Unit D. Deciduous Hedgerow
This hedgerow exists along the northeastern margin of the site. Sugar Maple and American Basswood are the dominant trees. Small trees and shrub species in the canopy and sub-canopy include: English Hawthorn, Chokecherry, Common Buckthorn and White Ash. Important vines include: Riverbank Grape and Thicket Creeper, Red Raspberry is also present. Grasses and herbs present include: Smooth Brome, Orchard Grass, Quack Grass, Catnip, Rough-fruited Cinquefoil, Common St. Johnswort, Garlic Mustard, Small Enchanters Nightshade, Yellow Avens, Daisy Fleabane, Canada Thistle, Black Medick, Dodder, Penny Cress and Common Sowthistle.

Unit E. Soybean Field.
A soybean crop dominates this area. Other plants present include: Black Medick, Scouring Rush, Field Horsetail, Wild Carrot and Twitch Grass.

The Alyea Forest and adjacent wetland and wooded habitats are part of the subject lands. These vegetation units were assessed using the ELC methods. Figure 3 shows the locations of these units. Completed ELC data forms are contained in Appendix 1.

Vegetation units 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are adjacent to the western margin of the potential developable lands. A brief description of species and conditions in each of these units is provided. Common names of plants are used to assist readers who are not familiar with the 7 letter codes used for the scientific names - see data sheets.

Unit 1. Sugar Maple Forest
This forest is dominated by Sugar Maple, Black Cherry and American Beech trees. White Ash, Chokecherry, Running Strawberry Bush, Common Trillium and Sugar Maple regeneration are important elements of the understorey and ground layer.

Units 2 & 3. Maple Organic Deciduous Swamp
Silver Maple is the dominant tree in both units. Unit 2 has Red Ash in both the canopy and sub-canopy, while this ash is only important in the understorey of Unit 3. Unit 2 also has Black Ash in the sub-canopy.

Other dominant species in Units 2 and/or 3 include: White Elm, Red Raspberry, Red Elder, Spotted Jewelweed, Skunk Cabbage, White Avens, Sensitive Fern and Late Goldenrod.

Unit 5. Ash Organic Deciduous Forest
This vegetation unit does not extend east to the site margin, but is within 120m of the edge, to the west of Unit 6.

The canopy is dominated by Red Ash, with White Elm as a sub-dominant. The sub-canopy is Red Ash and elm with Silver Maple. Red Raspberry and Thicket Creeper dominate the understorey, while Reed Canary Grass dominates the ground layer with Stinging Nettle, Garlic Mustard and Canada Thistle as sub-dominants. Spotted Jewelweed, Skunk Cabbage and Common Burdock are also present.

Unit 6. Dry-Fresh Deciduous Forest
This small patch of deciduous forest is dominated by Red Ash, with some Black Walnut and English Hawthorn in the canopy. Ash and Hawthorn, along with Common Buckthorn make up the sub-canopy. The understorey is dominated by Red-osier Dogwood, ash saplings and Red Raspberry. The ground layer consists of Mayapple, Yellow Avens, White Avens and Canada Goldenrod. Alternate-leaved Dogwood, Riverbank Grape and Thicket Creeper are also present.

Red Ash, Silver Maple and White Elm dominate the canopy. The understorey is Silver Maple and Red Raspberry. Spotted Jewelweed, Garlic Mustard and Stinging Nettle dominate the ground layer. Common Elderberry, Common Buckthorn, Reed Canary Grass, Wild Cucumber, Common Burdock, Skunk Cabbage, Fowl Meadow Grass and Yellow Avens are also present in Unit 7.

Unit 8. Organic Cultural Meadow
Organic soils, with some mixture of mineral soils among mounds and depressions occur in the area. The vegetation canopy is dominated by Reed Canary Grass, Bittersweet Nightshade, Stinging Nettle and Common Mullein. The sub-canopy is dominated by Common Burdock, Stinging Nettle and Canada Thistle. These plant growths are so dense that there is no prominent understorey or ground layer vegetation. A few other plant species occur at the occasional abundance level in the canopy and understorey.

Unit 9. Organic Meadow Marsh
The canopy of this unit is dominated by Phragmites (Reed Grass) with three willow shrub species as sub-dominants: Bebb's Willow, Blue-leaved Willow and Slender Willow. The sub-canopy also is dominated by Reed Grass with Narrow-leaved Meadowsweet, Bittersweet Nightshade and Purple Loosestrife. The ground layer is dominated by Spotted Jewelweed and Small Duckweed. Other plant species present include: Reed Canary Grass, Silky Dogwood, Common Elderberry and Silver Maple.

Examination of historic air photos for this area for 1978 and 1989 show that peat extraction had created a large standing water body in the area of Unit 9 in 1978. The 1989 air photo shows less water and more vegetation present in the area of Unit 9. Past disturbance explains why Unit 9 is dominated by Phragmites.

Other vegetation units located farther west are shown on Figure 3 and ELC data sheets are contained in Appendix 1. These units represent wetland or forest cover types. Since these units will not be directly affected by the undertaking, they have not been described in detail here.

The Oxford Centre Swamp Complex was determined in March of 2003 to score at least 613 points, making it a PSW. Figure 4 shows MNRs current mapping of the PSW boundaries relative to the subject property.

As a result of the ELC evaluation completed in the present study, additional wetland habitat has been found. Since MNR maintains the Province's records for wetland mapping, MNR staff were shown the site on July 5, 2005.

The outer wetland boundaries flagged during the July 5, 2005 site visit were surveyed in and plotted by Baker and Benedict Surveying Inc. Figure 1 shows the surveyed outer wetland boundary. This wetland boundary has been provided to MNR Aylmer. We anticipate that MNR's wetland boundary mapping will be changed, in light of the information from the current study.

The Wetland Data and Scoring Record for the Oxford Centre Swamp Complex indicates that the complex is comprised of 9 individual wetlands covering a total of 96 ha. The two largest MNR wetland units, numbers 4 and 5, are located south (downstream) of the subject lands, within Concession 3.

According to the MNR record the wetland consists of swamp. The marsh mapped by the present study as part of the Alyea lands would increase the score assigned to this wetland complex.

The wetland complex has economically valuable products such as wood, bait fish, snapping turtles and furbearers. The wetland complex also has an education/public awareness value.

The Oxford Centre Swamp Complex plays a function in flood attenuation and water quality improvement: MNR wetland record and Environment Canada (1998). The wetland received a maximum score as a ground water recharge area.

At the time of the wetland scoring (March 2003) there was little knowledge of the special features in the Oxford Centre Swamp Complex. The inventory of vegetation and wildlife completed as part of the present study will increase the understanding of species occurrence on the subject lands.

This wetland complex has a range of features and functions present and it scored high enough to be considered Provincially Significant Wetland.

There are several points that can be made about the history of the natural vegetation patches located to the southeast of the Alyea Woodlot - Units 9 and 10 on
Figure 3. The MNR wetland map (Figure 4) shows this area as lake/pond. This is
consistent with the 1978 air photo. It is our understanding that organic soils were extracted from these areas. In 1978 the depressions left following extraction were full of water. The 1989 aerial photography shows that the Downy Drain had been enlarged, possibly creating better drainage so that much less water was present in the area of Units 9 and 10 and vegetation had begun to colonize the former lake/pond areas.

Although these areas being discussed are 150m± away from the subject lands, this history explains some of the historic interpretations of wetland extent and it indicates that changes in drainage intensity can affect wetland extent and quality.

The limited extent of wild vegetation in Vegetation Units A through E results in very small areas of wildlife habitat.

Bird species observed in this area during the breeding season include: Killdeer, Rock Pigeon, Mourning Dove, Barn Swallow, European Starling, Savannah Sparrow, Song Sparrow, Red-winged Blackbird, Common Grackle, American Goldfinch, Eastern Kingbird, American Robin, Mallard, Indigo Bunting, Blue Jay, Spotted Sandpiper and Rough-winged Swallow. All of the above bird species are presumed to breed on or around the potentially developable portion of the site. All of these species are common.

Amphibians and reptiles observed in the forest and wetland portions of study area include: American Toad, Northern Leopard Frog, Green Frog and Eastern Garter Snake.

Mammals observed in the off site study area include: White-tailed Deer, Raccoon, Muskrat, Eastern Chipmunk, Striped Skunk, and Black Squirrel.

For the purposes of this report the forest/wetland site habitat breeding bird study area includes all of the vegetation units shown on Figure 3.

Table 1 indicates which bird species were observed within vegetation units 1, 2, 3, and 4; those units are farthest from the developable lands. Birds observed in units 5 through 10, inclusive are listed separately. Although direct breeding evidence is not available for every species, it is presumed that all of these bird species breed on or near the off site study area.

Bird species observed off site to the east, in or over the adjacent farmland included: Great Blue Heron (overhead), Red-tailed Hawk (overhead), American Crow, Common Grackle, Barn Swallow (overhead), Horned Lark and American Goldfinch. Bird species observed off site, south of Pattullo Avenue and south of Vegetation Units 8, 9 and 10 on Figure 3 include: American Robin, Mourning Dove, Yellow Warbler, Warbling Vireo, Ruby-throated Hummingbird, Gray Catbird, Great Blue Heron (overhead), Rock Pigeon (overhead), House Wren, Red-winged Blackbird, and American Goldfinch. All of these birds are common in Oxford County.

TABLE 1. Birds Observed During the Breeding Season in the On Site Study Areas.

Bird Species Common Name	Observed in Vegetation Units
Bird Species Common Name	1 through 4	5 through 10
Mallard	+	+
Red-tailed Hawk	+
Wild Turkey	+
Spotted Sandpiper		+
American Woodcock		+
Rock Pigeon		+
Ruby-throated Hummingbird	+
Downy Woodpecker	+	+
Northern Flicker	+	+
Eastern Wood-Pewee	+
Willow Flycatcher		+
Least Flycatcher	+	+
Great Crested Flycatcher	+
Red-eyed Vireo	+
Blue Jay	+	+
American Crow	+	+
Tree Swallow		+
Barn Swallow		+
Black-capped Chickadee	+
House Wren	+	+
Winter Wren	+
Wood Thrush	+
American Robin	+	+
Gray Catbird	+	+
European Starling	+
Cedar Waxwing	+
Yellow Warbler	+	+
American Redstart	+
Mourning Warbler	+
Common Yellowthroat	+	+
Song Sparrow	+	+
Swamp Sparrow		+
Northern Cardinal	+	+
Rose-breasted Grosbeak	+	+
Indigo Bunting	+
Red-winged Blackbird	+	+
Common Grackle	+	+
Brown-headed Cowbird	+	+
Baltimore Oriole	+
American Goldfinch	+	+

None of the bird species observed on the site or in the off site study areas are considered to be species at risk in Ontario (Ontario Nature 2004). The following bird species of conservation priority in Oxford County were observed in the forest-wetland study area: American Redstart, American Woodcock, Black-capped Chickadee, Wild Turkey, Wood Thrush, Swamp Sparrow, Gray Catbird, Least Flycatcher, Mourning Warbler, American Goldfinch, and Barn Swallow (Couturier 1999). There is no policy mandate which requires a particular response to occurrences of the species on the Couturier geographic jurisdiction list (in this case Oxford County).

Based on our knowledge of breeding birds in Oxford County, the Winter Wren is the only bird recorded which is of interest. This bird was recorded from Vegetation Unit 2, a maple swamp habitat. This bird is most frequently found in damp cedar forests in Southern Ontario. The swamp habitat present off site must have attracted this bird to the area. The first Breeding Bird Atlas (Cadman et al. 1987) recorded this bird from all of the atlas squares in the Woodstock area. All of the other birds recorded during the present study in the on and off site are common and widespread in suitable habitat in Oxford County.

Prior to dusk on July 22, 2005, hundreds of Common Grackles, European Starlings and Red-winged Blackbirds were observed flying into Vegetation Unit 9 to roost for the night. The Phragmites present in this area provides roosting habitat. This occurrence is of interest, but many people consider concentrations of these bird species to be pests, in an agricultural landscape.

A topographic plan prepared by Baker & Benedict Surveying Inc. (2005) indicates that in the northeastern site corner elevations up to 298.7m± exist. To the south at the edge of the fill and wetland an elevation of 288m is present.

In general, topography is higher on the northern margin of the site and the elevation decreases to the south and southwest.

Figure 5 shows the drainage features on and around the site. Figure 6 shows how the
site drains to Cedar Creek and the Thames River. Within the portion of the site which would not be developed the Downy Drain (a municipal drain) flows from north of the 401 south and southeasterly into Mud Creek, located, south of Pattullo Avenue.

Off site to the east underground tiles are called the Sullivan Drain. Water from this drain contributes to flows in the Mud Creek Drain.

East of the Alyea Forest laneway, drainage enters an open ditch which runs along the north side of Pattullo Avenue and crosses south beneath Pattullo Avenue to become the Mud Creek Drain, a tributary to Cedar Creek.

In early July 2005, following dry Spring and early Summer seasons, connected pools and flowing water was present only east of the Alyea Forest laneway.

Figure 7 shows that the subject lands are entirely within sub-catchment 1200.
Sub-catchment 1200 contributes flows toward Vegetation Units 6, 8 and 9: forest, meadow and marsh habiat.

Sub-catchment 1200 is expected to contribute shallow groundwater which helps to maintain off site wetland and fish habitat.

Bruce A. Brown Associates Limited (2005b) documents soil conditions in soils pits dug to 2.1 to 3.7m± below present grade, on July 20, 2005. The location of these test pits is shown on Figure 8. All pits were to the east of the Alyea Forest.

Brown (2005b) cites published soils reports/maps which indicate that the overburden in the area is glaciofluvial outwash gravel and gravelly sand, frequently overlain by several metres of sand or silt. Deposits of peat, muck or marl are the overburden near the woodlot.

What does the soils report tell us that is important from an environmental point of view?

Our site-specific observations of drainage course location and drain class is consistent with the UTRCA mapping presented in Figure 5. The site has both overland flow across crop fields, open ditch (Downy Drain) and underground tile drainage (Sullivan Drain).

To the east of the laneway to the Alyea Forest, fish were observed in late June and early July 2005. Photo 1 shows fish habitat conditions just east of the laneway to the Alyea Forest. Water is contributed to this pool both from a culvert with flow under Pattullo Ave. and from a drain from the west.

Warmwater fish were observed in this pool. The drain running parallel along the north margin of Pattullo Ave. is considered to be Class B habitat - having permanent flow, warmwater and a top predator, in this location: possibly Northern Pike. On August 2, 2005, baitfish were observed in a pool on the north side of Pattullo Avenue at the eastern end of Part 8 lands - see Figure 1.

The Downy Drain, located on site has been classified as warmwater baitfish habitat. Baitfish were observed by us in this watercourse.

Figures 5 and 6 indicate that drainage from the site flows toward Cedar Creek through the Mud Creek Drain, located downstream of Pattullo Avenue.

Table 2 summarizes the environmental functions which the site performs and the role of the site relative to off site features and functions.

Table 2 indicates that the site has significant terrestrial, wetland and aquatic features and functions. In the case of wetlands and fish habitat the recharge of water on the site and downstream discharge will contribute to maintaining off site wetlands and fish habitat.

Photo 1. Fish habitat

North side of Patullo Ave., east of entrance lane to Alyea Forest June 28, 2005.

June 30, 2005.
DE-296

Frequently a review of constraints and opportunities on a site is completed prior to designing the undertaking and predicting the potential for impact in an E.I.S. report (CVC 1993). Policies and regulations which apply to the site also need to be addressed during preparation of the design concept.

Table 3 summarizes constraints and policies to consider during design on the present site.

FUNCTION	DESCRIPTION
Water Storage	seasonal storage of runoff in soils and wetland - major role
Groundwater recharge/discharge	groundwater recharge, particularly in sandy soils - important role
Water quality improvement	current agricultural land use may reduce water quality
Habitat for wild vegetation	extensive, major role
Amphibian breeding habitat	probably present in wetland and forest pool(s)
Fish habitat	present on site; site contributes baseflow to downstream fish habitat - important role
Breeding bird habitat	present, important role
Winter wildlife habitat	present, role unknown
Rare species habitat	none on site
Travel corridors/ connections to off site features	habitat linkages are severed by 401/403 to the north and Pattullo Avenue to the south, however, wildlife is expected to cross Pattullo Ave. to use habitat to the south - important role
Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW)	present on site; also the 120m wide adjacent lands area applies - site may influence the PSW through water recharge/discharge - important role.

PARAMETER	DISCUSSION
Steep slopes/soil erosion	steep slopes are not an issue on this site; erosion/sediment control during and after construction will be important to protect wetland, forest and fish habitat.
Geologic setting - spillway	permeable soils are present above denser silt and clay soils; shallow groundwater becomes perched above these denser soils - water moves laterally toward and discharges at low points - ditches, tiles, depressions in the wetlands and forest; need to maintain discharge of water to maintain significant features, eg. wetlands and fish habitat.
Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW)	on site; the Provincially Policy Statement (PPS) requires that developments create no impacts on PSWs; existing features and functions must be maintained; the volume of water discharging into the wetland must be maintained and the quality of water being discharged must not decline; and the wetland appears to be drying out - there is potential to enhance flow maintenance.
Groundwater recharge/ discharge functions	the site soils perform a recharge function, that is, precipitation soaks into the soils, is stored and is conveyed through the soils - downslope and later in time, this recharged water is discharged into the ditches, tiles and wetland soils; downstream fish habitat benefits from the discharge of cool water from the site; and the PPS and Fisheries Act require that recharge/ discharge function, quality and quantity be maintained.
Water Quality	must maintain quality of water discharged from the site, this has implications for stormwater management because of fishery and PSW; and address nutrients, road salt and temperature.
Vegetation Cover	maintain site forest and wetland habitat; and use setbacks and tree saving plans to ensure no impacts on site vegetation.
Wildlife	maintain forest and wetland habitat.
Rare Species	none known on site or in off site study area.
Fish Habitat	must cause no net loss of fish habitat; maintain physical habitat, flows, quality and temperature; water table; and consider implications for underground services and stormwater management system.

6.0 PROPOSED UNDERTAKING

Figure 1 shows the boundaries of the parcel to be severed - the site. There are three study areas to consider when addressing the undertaking and impact assessment. The site is the entire severed parcel, the Alyea East lands which includes forest, wetland and cropland. Within the site there are developable (Parts 5 and 9) and undevelopable lands (Parts 3, 4 and 8). The other study area is off site lands, land outside of the site boundaries. The surveyed and plotted margins of the forest and wetland edge are also shown. These edges have been checked by and agreed to by staff of the UTRCA and MNR during a site visit onJuly 5, 2005.

Figure 7 shows existing drainage sub-catchments as determined during the Woodstock New Business Park Design Study and Detailed Servicing Plan by Green Sheels Pidgeon (1999). Figure 9 shows the Preliminary SWM Plan from the same study for the present study area.

The Business Park Design Study figure shows Street 9 constructed 140m± west of the laneway which forms the eastern boundary of the Alyea East site. Figure 9 also shows a single SWM facility (#3), servicing the Alyea East lands and lands to the east, located north of Pattullo Avenue.

The inventory completed for the present study has found organic soils and wetland vegetation species present in the area where Street 9 and SWM #3 were proposed in the Green Sheels Pidgeon (1999) study.

The location of preliminary flagging of the wetland edge examined with MNR and UTRCA staff on July 5, 2005 is shown on Figure 10. During a site visit by K.W. Dance on August 2, 2005, a re-evaluation of wetland flagging was completed. The location of the August 2, 2005 flag locations is also shown on Figure 10.

The entire area between the two sets of flags was dug out as part of a commercial peat operation and is flooded in the 1978 air photo. The 1989 air photo shows that vegetation had begun to colonize the disturbed area to the west of the eastern laneway.

The area between the two sets of flags is at the edge of the wild vegetation polygon and is narrow, so it is subject to continued invasion from alien plants. The area under discussion does not perform on important wildlife corridor function since it is surrounded by disturbed idle land or active agriculture to the north, south and east.

For the purposes of this undertaking we recommend that the more western boundary be defined as the natural area edge. This would provide for an adequately wide corridor to access and service the Alyea East lands, but would not place a street and servicing corridor in a location where it is flanked to the east and west by wild vegetation.

Road(s)
The site would be accessed by a cul de sac servicing an un-known number of industrial lots. This road placement avoids extensive intrusion into wild vegetation.

Services
Potable water (from the municipal system), telephone, electricity, cable and other services would be provided within the cul de sac right-of-way. The 1999 New Business Park Design Study shows watermain servicing along Pattullo Road and through the site.

Sewage Treatment
Sewage treatment options include:
(1) municipal service;
(2) private tile fields; and
(3) a private treatment system, such as the Zenon ZeeWeed technology.

There are advantages and disadvantages to these options.
1. Municipal Sanitary Servicing

The stormwater management concept for the site shown in the Green Scheels Pidgeon (1999) report was to place part of SWM facility #3 in the southeastern corner of the site, see Figure 9.

Based on a review of the site geology, soils and shallow groundwater conditions
Bruce A. Brown (2005a) described SWM system components which could contribute to a system which would preserve and maintain the forest, wetland and fish habitat located west of the developed lands. Concepts from the Brown (2005a) report describe a potential SWM approach for the local area.

Shallow groundwater flow from the subject site extends westward and provides some shallow flow and discharge to the Downy Drain and associated wetlands. Any development of the subject property must ensure that this flow regime is unchanged or effectively replicated, so as to prevent significant change to the shallow groundwater regime.

Alternatives to simply using distance for buffering can replicate pre-redeveloped conditions by control of the shallow groundwater regime and surface drainage. If storm water from development is allowed to discharge in an uncontrolled manner, eventually there will be a loss to recharge and an impact on the wetland with the result that drier conditions will be found during summer months.

If a number of techniques are combined to achieve this replication, the end result should be no significant change to the hydrogeological integrity of the wetland to the west as a consequence of industrial development.

The following are recommended as potential concepts to ensure environmental protection of the forested area and wetlands west of the developable lands:

Peak storm water runoff will be limited by (1) the use of AccurtolÓ roof weirs and maximizing short term storage on all flat roof structures (2) orifice controls on certain catch basins draining hard surface areas, (3) contouring of hard surface parking areas to provide for interim storage at grade above catch basins during significant precipitation events, (4) using porous pavement structures in critical locations, (5) directing overland flow of hard surface areas to green areas avoiding concentration of flows into ditches and storm sewers, (6) use of open ditches rather than sewers where practicable, and (7) where sewers are used, perforate catch basins and connected granular bedding and backfill are used to allow for infiltration of first flush in a storm event.

The availability of water for recharge can be maintained by retaining flows from runoff events at the west limit of development instead of designing to conduct water offsite and beyond the wetland by ditching or sewering to lower water table or redirect water past or beyond the wetland.

The site configuration may have potential for retaining runoff in retention/detention ponds to the east of the Downy Drain and the forest margin. Several lineal ponds in series are recommended for this purpose. In order to construct ponds, the west edges shall not extend beyond the drip line of the forest edge and no fill shall be surcharged between the edge of pond and trees.

Excavate from the ponds might be used for engineered fill on the subdivision, including the till at depth and the fine silty sand. The depth of peat in certain areas may have economic value and can be removed from the site accordingly. It is not suitable for engineered fill in any case. Side slopes on ponds shall not exceed 1 vertical in 4 horizontal in sandy silt or 1 vertical to 2.75 horizontal in tills at depth.

Ponds should maintain a good working depth to ensure best possible water quality. Ponds should have a continuous planting of shrub and overstory species along the west margin including shrub species as Red Osier Dogwood and shrub willows for shoreline stabilization and naturalization, and large hydrophilic overstorey species which will eventually create effective shade.

The control level of ponds should be the same as present grade at the west edge of development so that water can recharge. The system should be allowed to peak up to 0.3m above this control elevation to temporarily store any peak flows and allow them to flood over to the Downy Drain or wetland to the west, rather than escape southward.

A series of two to four lineal ponds should be interconnected with intermediate control structures which take off water from about 0.6m below working level rather than surface skimming with weir structures. The reasons for this are to protect pond ecology, to ensure low maintenance when ponds are frozen, and to prevent beaver activity by removing any running water at the intermediate or outfall structures. The control outfalls should be sized to hold back water and cause temporary peaking in the system.

Under dry weather conditions, the working level in the ponds would fall below the control devices, resulting in periods with no flow, but also in achieving storage capacity in the freeboard created, thus retaining all first flush runoff from summer storm events, to direct this volume of water to recharge.

Creating a lineal pond system with a dense, naturalized low maintenance eastern edge also creates a physical barrier which eliminates potential for trespass, thereby helping to maintain the wetlands in a natural condition, to maintain integrity of habitat.

The width of the strip required to achieve a buffer-barrier-stormwater control system is dictated by the geometry of the ponds. The west edge of pond cannot extend beyond the present drip-lines. To achieve a minimum working depth of 3m from control elevation, which is also present grades, 18m is required for side slopes and another 10m will be required for the naturalized slope and buffer between the east edge of pond and the limit of any form of development such as any road, driveway or parking structure. Assuming a base of pond with a 6m width at full depth, the total width of the engineered buffer system from drip line of forest to edge of any pavement or other structure would be a minimum of 34m.

The pond system should be constructed prior to general regrading, topsoil stripping and servicing of the proposed development in order that they can function as effective siltation control in conjunction with the usual requirements for straw bale and geotextile silt fences used in the course of servicing and development.

The precise physical configuration of the SWM system will be developed when the lot fabric and extent of impermeable area is known. Detailed soils and shallow groundwater studies will need to be completed to support SWM design. A water budget should be completed to prove that post-development water volumes will replicate pre-development delivery of surface and shallow groundwater flow volumes and seasonality to the Downy Drain, wetlands and fish habitat.

The SWM system objectives for quantity and quality should be designed to protect the warmwater top predator (Class B) fish habitat that is present on site and downstream.

The Brown (2005a) report provides some preliminary advice regarding grading and the lineal SWM pond system - see text above.

Ecological research has provided conceptual guidance regarding setbacks from wetland, riparian and forest habitats. We have extensive experience on sites in Ontario in establishing setbacks and monitoring is beginning on some sites which will help us to confirm the effectiveness of the setbacks chosen in the past.

The 120m adjacent lands distance from PSWs is a distance which defines the need for a site specific ecological study, the E.I.S. Unless extremely significant or sensitive features or functions are know to occur in the PSW, an undeveloped setback of 100m or more is not required, nor necessary.

In many cases where a level, dry land development area interfaces with a treed, shrubby or marshy wetland edge a 30m undeveloped setback has been used in Southern Ontario. Fifteen metre wide undeveloped setbacks have been accepted by Conservation Authorities where naturalization, planting or buffer management plans have been agreed upon.

To summarize, what are the site specific conditions which would influence the width of the undeveloped setback?

The wetland (in Part 3) does not possess features, functions, sensitivities that would require a wider than usual undeveloped setback width. The proposed land use - industrial which usually involves day-light activities, with little potential for human intrusion into off site adjacent forest and wetland, has little potential for causing unusual potential for off site impact.

Figure 1 defines the edge of the wetland. The un-developed setbacks would ensure that there is no disturbance of tree or shrub roots, trunks or limbs.

The lineal SWM pond series concept described by Bruce A. Brown (2005a) has the potential for creating aquatic and wetland habitat which does not currently exist. This physical habitat along with the ability to sustain or even improve upon the discharge of water into the wetland, holds the potential to enhance wetland area and quality in the study area.

We recommend a 30m wide un-developed setback from most of the eastern margin of Vegetation Units 8 and 9. By "un-developed" we mean that grading would not occur and that a silt control fence would be installed along the setback line.

Subject to detailed soils, shallow groundwater, water budget studies and subsequent design work, it may be shown that portions of the lineal SWM pond or other SWM facilities should be allowed to be constructed within the setback. Results of the above - mentioned studies would have to be reviewed and approved by the appropriate natural resource agencies and the City, before any intrusion into the 30m wide un-developed setback would be allowed.

The above-noted studies might also conclude that no intrusions into the 30m
un-developed setback should be allowed.

Construction within 30m of the wetland edge might be approved on the basis that it creates new wetland/pond habitat which enhances the current features and functions of the natural area. It may be the case that created wetland/pond features would be a greater enhancement in the 30m setback zone than would naturalization and/or plantings of vegetation alone. Also, to effectively deliver treated stormwater to maintain the hydrology of specific areas of wetland, outfalls or spreader trenches might need to extend up to the edge of the wetland feature, this would require construction within the 30m buffer.

Based on current knowledge, it is our opinion that a 30m wide un-developed setback will protect the features and functions of the PSW, Vegetation Units 8 and 9 and fish habitat located along the northern margin of Pattullo Ave. The SWM system will be another key component of protecting the PSW.

A 20m wide setback from the eastern wetland edge shown on Figure 10 is recommended and is plotted on Figure 1. The August 2, 2005 wetland edge is assumed. Habitat in this area is currently not mapped by the Ministry of Natural Resources as Provincially Significant Wetland.

As noted previously in this report, the vegetated area between the July 5 and August 2, 2005 flags is dominated by species which have colonized the area since peat extraction, including invasive pest species such as Phragmites, Purple Loosestrife, and Common Buckthorn.

The development proposal, see Figure 10 for details, is to leave much of the wild vegetation between the July 5 and August 2 flags intact. This would act as a 20m wide setback between the road and the recommended natural area boundary (the August 2, 2005 line). An area of vegetation approximately 10m x 15m at the eastern most end of the wild vegetation would be removed to accommodate the 20m wide road right-of-way.

To mitigate this vegetation loss and to enhance the southern portion of the 20m wide setback, suitable plantings are proposed within the setback, in the area to the south which is currently cultivated field. Figure 10 shows the location of the proposed enhancement planting area. The area of enhancement planting is more than 5 times greater than the small area of wild vegetation which would be lost to the road right-of-way.

An appropriate mix of native grasses, herbs, shrubs or trees would be planted in the enhancement planting area. The species mix and density would be designed at the detailed design stage, when all aspects of land use between the setback (enhancement planting area) and road are known.

The selection of vegetation species would consider post-development soil-moisture regimes. Planting densities and species selection would dissuade intrusion by humans,
eg. use of prickly shrubs.

To the extent that it is practical, attempts should be made to salvage and transplant suitable species from the area that would be impacted by road construction, for introduction into the enhancement planting area.

As part of the enhancement planting, removal of invasive alien vegetation species: Purple Loosestrife and Common Buckthorn should be undertaken in the 20m setback between the road and the northeastern margin of the recommended natural area boundary.

Dry Fresh-Deciduous Forest (Vegetation Unit 6 on Figure 3) is adjacent to the northwestern corner of the developable lands. Both the forest and adjacent soybean field appear to be on well-drained soils.

The standard approach to forest edge protection is to require no construction disturbance within the dripline of forest trees, plus an additional setback outside the dripline, the width of which depends upon site specific conditions. In the present location, the principal considerations are preservation of the trees in the forest and provision for a right-of-way which would allow for piping of treated stormwater toward the wetlands and/or Downy Drain, to the west.

We recommend a 10m wide un-disturbed setback beyond the dripline of the forest. A silt control fence should be placed along this setback limit. Figure 1 shows the location of the un-developed setback along the forest edge.

Warmwater fish habitat is present 8m± to the west of the southwestern margin of the Part 9 portion of the site.

It is a standard practice to provide a 15m wide setback between development and warmwater fish habitat. Furthermore, if development is expected to cause a Harmful Alteration, Disruption or Destruction (HADD) of fish habitat, approval under the federal Fisheries Act is required. Application for fisheries approvals are made when the details of design; type, location and magnitude of potential impacts are clearly understood. It is premature to be applying for fisheries approvals at this site, since the potential to avoid negative impacts is great.

The 15m setback from warmwater fish habitat recommended at this site is contained within the wider wetland setback shown on Figure 1.

It should be recognized that there may be a need to construct stormwater conveyance and outfall facilities which impinge on the 15m stream setback. If these works benefit fish habitat by maintaining or enhancing stream flows, fisheries approval could be given.

Management considerations within the un-developed setback include the following:

When detailed design of the industrial subdivision is prepared these issues should be addressed with the objective of maintaining existing features and functions associated with the wetland, forest and fish habitat. Since all of these significant natural environment features are located off site in Parts 3, 4 and8, co-operation and co-ordination with the adjacent land owner(s) will be required.

7.0 IMPACT PREDICTION

The spillway feature, with permeable soils near the surface and denser soils causing a perched condition may be affected in the zone penetrated by road beds, foundations, servicing and stormwater management facilities. Associated impacts on the existing shallow groundwater table will need to be mitigated through the stormwater management design, so that water dependent features are maintained.

Grading requirements may involve cut and fill which could affect the permeability and infiltration capacity. It is expected that following grading the site will still drain to the west and southwest.

There is very little wild vegetation on the developable lands. It is expected that most of the existing site vegetation will be lost during site grading and construction. This is not expected to be a significant impact.

The wildlife species using the site are common. Most would be able to find some habitat within the landscaped grounds of the industrial basin. Impacts on wildlife are not considered to be significant.

The hedgerow located along the western property boundary may provide for some wildlife movement, but it is cut off to the north by Highway 401 and it ends in cropland to the south of Pattullo Ave. The value of this corridor for wildlife movement is probably limited to use by on site wildlife. Loss of this corridor is not considered a significant impact.

Hydrologic connections both for surface water and groundwater flow are the most significant function of the site relative to all site features, eg. wetlands and fish habitat. Maintenance of on site recharge and conveyance and off site discharge of water to downslope areas can be achieved through design of the stormwater management system. Mitigation may also play a role in achieving water quality and quantity and habitat objective

Since the un-developed setbacks and silt fence protect the off site soils, grades, vegetation, wildlife and fish habitat from intrusion, direct impacts on these features are not expected during construction.

The design of the stormwater management system will address the need to maintain or enhance the quality and quantity of surface and groundwater discharge from the site to wetland, forest and fish habitat areas.

The lineal SWM pond concept, located east of the Alyea Forest and existing wetland habitats has potential to create new habitat and to maintain or improve existing habitat.

A development design can be prepared which would not cause negative impacts on the wetland, forest, watercourses and associated vegetation, fish and wildlife to the west.

There are not expected to be any negative impacts on features and functions on off site lands to the east and south. Retention of vegetation and wildlife habitat in the undevelopable lands will provide for continued connections and function of wetland, wildlife and fish habitat present to the south of Pattullo Avenue. Stormwater management facilities and erosion and sediment control works will protect downstream aquatic and wetland habitat.

Only minor non-significant impacts are expected on site and negative off site impacts are not expected.

8.0 MITIGATION INCLUDING DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

Alternative servicing and SWM approaches were described in report section 6.0. The advantages and disadvantages were also described in 6.0.

The selection of preferred alternatives will be made at detailed design, based partly on the ability of the preferred options to achieve the environmental objectives.

Design details are not currently known, however, there are certain mitigative approaches which may need to be used on this site, examples include:

At the present site, SWM pond margin plantings using native vegetation species and creation of new water bodies would enhance existing habitat conditions.

Planting selected locations within the setbacks would function to buffer the wetland/forest edges, in locations where this is deemed necessary to mitigate specific impacts. Such plantings could be designed during the detailed design stage.

Monitoring programs can assist in mitigating the magnitude and duration of impacts by identifying un-expected changes which require remediation.

During detailed design, programs should be designed which address any need to monitor biological (eg. fish or breeding amphibian populations), surface water and groundwater quality/quantity or SWM pond function parameters. The parameters, locations, frequency of sampling and reporting and who should pay for the monitoring would be addressed. The duration of the monitoring program should also be indicated, including any need for pre-construction monitoring.

9.0 RESIDUAL IMPACTS AND CONCLUSIONS ON DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL

Assuming that any necessary mitigative measures and a responsible monitoring program are implemented, any remaining effects would be considered to be residual impacts.

No direct, negative construction impacts on off site features and functions are expected.

Potential indirect impacts can be avoided by design and mitigation and the effectiveness of design and mitigation can be confirmed by monitoring.

No significant residual negative impacts are expected. The important natural environment features can be protected through the combination of un-developed setbacks, detailed design and monitoring.

The pertinent legislation and policies have been considered in the foregoing analysis:

There are no areas present on the site which are regulated for flood or fill purposes by the UTRCA.

There is no fish habitat on the developable lands and provisions of the Fisheries Act can be met when approvals for connections to downstream receivers are needed.

It is our opinion that the site can be developed for industrial land use without causing negative impacts on the adjacent natural features (wetland, forest, fish habitat) and their ecological functions.

Setback widths and conceptual SWM pond locations are shown on Figure 1. Refinement of the site layout will result from the recommended studies and detailed design. The present E.I.S. will guide the detailed design process to ensure that significant natural features are protected.

10.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Argus, G.W., K.M. Pryer, D.J. White and C.J. Keddy. 1982-87. Atlas of Rare Vascular Plants of Ontario. Parts 1 to 4. National Museums of Canada. Ottawa.

Bruce A. Brown Associates Limited. 2005a. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment and Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Alyea Farm, 545189 Pattullo Avenue, City of Woodstock Park Lots 14, 15 & 16, Concession 2, formerly Township of East Oxford.

Bruce A. Brown Associates Limited. 2005b. Subsurface Investigation, East Portion of the Alyea Farm, 545189 Pattullo Avenue, City of Woodstock, Part of Lot 16,
Concession 2, formerly Township of East Oxford.

Cadman, M.D., P.F.J. Eagles and F.M. Helleiner. 1987. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario. Published by the Federation of Ontario Naturalists and Long Point Bird Observatory.

City of Woodstock - New Business Park Design Study and Detailed Servicing Strategy. Prepared for the City of Woodstock.

Couturier, A. 1999. Conservation Priorities for the Birds of Southern Ontario. Bird Studies Canada.

Dance Environmental Inc. 2005. Scoped E.I.S. for Western Portion of Alyea Property, Part Lots 15 and 16, Concession 2, (East Oxford), City of Woodstock. July 2005.

Environment Canada. 1998. Lake Erie - St. Clair Basin: GIS Database for Wetland Watersheds A User Guide. Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund.

Grand River Conservation Authority. 2005. Draft E.I.S. Guidelines. Appendix D. Buffer and Setback Guidelines.

Lee, H.T., W.D. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Ulrig and S. McMurray. 1998. Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: First Approximation and Its Application. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Southcentral Science Section, Science Development and Transfer Branch. SCSS Field Guide FG-02.

Newmaster, S.G., A Lehela, P.W.C. Ulrig, S. McMurray and M.J. Oldham. 1998. Ontario Plant List. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Forest Research Institute, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. Forest Research Information Paper No. 123.

Oldham, M.J., W.D. Bakowsky and D.A. Sutherland, 1995. Floristic Quality Assessment System for Southern Ontario. Natural Heritage Information Centre, Ont. Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ont.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs. 1992. Manual of Implementation Guidelines for the Wetlands Policy Statement. 116 pp.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1998. Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Policy 2.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2003. Wetland Data and Scoring Record: Oxford Centre Swamp Complex. Aylmer District Office of MNR. Investigator: Jack Colonnello. March 20, 2003.

Planning & Engineering Initiatives Ltd. Opportunities/Summary Report of Alyea Property City of Woodstock.

Riley, J.L. 1989. Distribution and Status of the Vascular Plants of Central Region, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. MNR, Richmond Hill. 110 pp.

Upper Thames Region Conservation Authority. 2005. File mapping on wetlands and drains watercourses. Provided to Dance Environmental Inc. June 2005.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 BACKGROUND

3.0 RATIONALE

4.0 STUDY METHODS

5.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

5.1 Proposed Development

5.2 Vegetation

5.3 Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW).

5.4 Wildlife

5.4.1 Developable Lands

5.4.2 Forest/Wetland Habitats

5.5 Topography

5.6 Drainage/Hydrology

5.7 Soils and Hydrogeologic Conditions

5.8 Aquatic Habitat and Fish Communities

5.9 Summary of Environmental Functions Occurring on the Site

5.10 Constraints/Opportunities Review

6.0 PROPOSED UNDERTAKING

7.0 IMPACT PREDICTION

7.1 Site - Developable Lands

7.2 Undevelopable Lands to the West

8.0 MITIGATION INCLUDING DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

8.1 Alternative Development Forms

9.0 RESIDUAL IMPACTS AND CONCLUSIONS ON DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL

9.2 Development Potential

10.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY