Office of the CAO
November 3, 2009
REPORT A6‐2009
9
The following are Ecoplans’ observations and conclusions based on their fieldwork and review of
relevant policy:
•
No records of endangered species or threatened species.
•
No Federally or Provincially designated rare species-at-risk or provincially rare species observed.
•
The creek corridor forms a local east-west linkage, providing an opportunity for wildlife movement.
The wooded area provides a supplemental habitat, but since it is bounded by residential
development it has limited function as ecological linkage/wildlife movement areas.
•
No significant wildlife habitat present on the lands.
•
No record that the wetland on the property is provincially significant or has been evaluated by
MNR.
•
The property contains a watercourse, associated floodplain and steep slopes that are regulated by
the GRCA. The Township should consult the GRCA to determine an appropriate setback of any
development adjacent to the wetland and floodplain areas.
•
The woodland on site would likely not be considered Provincially Significant under their criteria.
•
The Region has not designated all or portion of the site as an Environmentally Sensitive Policy
Area (ESPA).
•
A portion of the woodland, primarily within the environmental features adjacent to the Creek (Units
1a and 1b), does display characteristics of a Locally Significant Natural Area (LSNA). The
Township should avoid significant encroachment into the LSNA limits. The general limit of the
LSNA is coincident with the south limit of Unit 1b.
In considering the ecological significance and sensitivity of the woodland features on site and relevant
policy, Ecoplans recommends the following:
•
No development potential in Unit 1a or 1b because of the existing environmental features
(wetland, creek, floodplain, etc.) which display characteristics of a Locally Significant Natural Area
(LSNA).
•
Some development potential in Unit 2 (a-d) outside the floodplain area because the woodland
generally includes several cultural vegetation features of relatively low ecological significance.
Some of the planted Sugar Maples have naturally regenerated and are in moderately good health.
As a result, the area does offer some ecological function in terms of diversity of wildlife and native
plant species. Rear lot easements are recommended.
•
Unit 3 has limited potential due to the floodplain. The area has been disturbed and displays low
ecological significance.
•
Unit 4 and 5 have the greatest development potential because of disturbance to the area, low
ecological significance, and location outside the floodplain area.
•
To consult with the GRCA to delineate the wetland and floodplain area and determine the
appropriate setbacks to the various features (with buffer management recommendations).
•
Develop a long term management plan strategy for the retained woodlot in Unit 2.
•
Carry out an improvement cut of the woodland in Unit 2 as recommended by the Region.
•
Refine the development concepts to reflect the natural environmental recommendations with input
from the review agencies.
In summary, based on work done by Ecoplans, comments from the Regional Environmental Planner,
and the GRCA’s review of the Ecoplans report, there appears to be no significant environmental
constraints that preclude some forms of residential development on the subject lands as identified on
Map 1. Development in these areas may require shallower lots to maintain an appropriate setback to
the environmental features, as well as wider lots to maximize tree retention. Other mechanisms to
ensure conservation of the natural features and tree retention include but are not limited to: tree
saving plans, erection of monuments, conservation easements, and restriction of rear yard
development. If Council decides to proceed with residential development on the subject lands, a
program should be established to implement Ecoplans’ other recommendations.
C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\BEVERLY\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK95\REPORT.DOC