Subwatershed Study for Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand by Region of Waterloo

East Side Lands â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Master Environmental Servicing Plan and Community Plan

APPENDIX B1 Final Draft Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November, 2013

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Aquafor Beech Ltd

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 2.0

3.0

Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 5 Project Context ........................................................................................................................... 7 2.1 Purpose, Goals and Objectives ...................................................................................... 10 2.2 Definition of Subwatershed Study Area ......................................................................... 11 2.3 Overview of Subwatersheds & Surface Watercourses .................................................... 14 2.4 Study Organization and Report Structure....................................................................... 17 Characterization of Existing Conditions ...................................................................................... 20 3.1 Overview of Historical/Existing Land Use ....................................................................... 20 3.2 Physiography ................................................................................................................ 22 3.3 Geology ........................................................................................................................ 24 3.3.1 Surficial Geology .............................................................................................................. 24 3.3.2 Bedrock Geology .............................................................................................................. 24 3.4 Hydrogeology ............................................................................................................... 27 3.4.1 Objectives ........................................................................................................................ 27 3.4.2 Work done in 2011-2012 ................................................................................................. 27 3.4.3 Hydrogeology Setting ...................................................................................................... 28 3.4.4 Monitor Wells and Aquifer Properties............................................................................. 32 3.4.5 The Shallow Water Table ................................................................................................. 34 3.4.6 Water Levels in the Underlying Till .................................................................................. 36 3.4.7 Piezometers ..................................................................................................................... 38 3.4.8 Recharge Capability ......................................................................................................... 38 3.4.9 Water Balance ................................................................................................................. 42 3.4.10 Water Quality .................................................................................................................. 43 3.4.11 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 43 3.5 Hydrology / Hydraulics .................................................................................................. 45 3.5.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 45 3.5.2 Surface Drainage System ................................................................................................. 47 3.5.3 Hydrologic Model Development...................................................................................... 48 3.5.4 Event-Based Hydrologic Model Pre Development .......................................................... 58 3.5.5 Existing Conditions Continuous Hydrologic Model.......................................................... 64 3.5.6 Post Development Hydrologic Model .............................................................................. 72 3.5.7 Hydraulics ........................................................................................................................ 80 3.5.8 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 95 3.6 Stream Geomorphology ................................................................................................ 96 3.6.1 Historic Assessment ......................................................................................................... 96 3.6.2 Drainage Characteristics .................................................................................................. 99 3.6.3 Stream Reach Delineation and Rapid Geomorphic Assessments .................................. 103 3.6.4 Detailed Field Site investigation .................................................................................... 117 3.7 Terrestrial Ecology ...................................................................................................... 122 3.7.1 General Introduction ..................................................................................................... 122

Aquafor Beech Ltd

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 3.7.2 3.7.3 3.7.4 3.7.5

3.8

4.0

5.0 6.0

7.0

Flora (i.e. Botanical Inventories) .................................................................................... 123 Ecological Land Classification ........................................................................................ 136 Wetlands and Wetland Evaluations............................................................................... 154 Fauna (i.e. Wildlife Inventories) ..................................................................................... 167

Aquatic Ecology .......................................................................................................... 217 3.8.1 General Introduction ..................................................................................................... 217 3.8.2 Surface Water Quality.................................................................................................... 218 3.8.3 Benthic MacroInvertebrates .......................................................................................... 233 3.8.4 Aquatic Habitat and Fisheries ........................................................................................ 248 Opportunities and Constraints to Development ....................................................................... 259 4.1 Constraints to Development ........................................................................................ 259 4.1.1 Hazard Lands.................................................................................................................. 259 4.1.2 Groundwater ................................................................................................................. 265 4.1.3 Greenlands Network ...................................................................................................... 270 4.1.4 Greenspace Plan ............................................................................................................ 307 4.1.5 Buffers and Setbacks ..................................................................................................... 312 4.2 Opportunities For Development .................................................................................. 327 Proposed Land Use ................................................................................................................. 330 Potential Impacts of Proposed Land Use .................................................................................. 331 6.1 Potential Impacts to Terrestrial Ecology....................................................................... 332 6.1.1 Corridors and Linkages .................................................................................................. 332 6.1.2 Endangered and Threatened Species ............................................................................ 332 6.1.3 Significant Species of Concern ....................................................................................... 333 6.1.4 Regionally Significant Species ........................................................................................ 333 6.1.5 Significant WIldlife Habitat ............................................................................................ 334 6.1.6 Significant Woodlands ................................................................................................... 335 6.1.7 Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest ......................................................................... 335 6.1.8 Significant Valleylands ................................................................................................... 336 6.2 Potential Impacts To Surface Water and Aquatic Environment ..................................... 336 6.3 Potential Impacts to Groundwater Resources .............................................................. 337 6.4 Potential Impacts to Natural Hazard Areas .................................................................. 339 6.5 Potential Impacts on Wetlands .................................................................................... 339 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................................... 340 7.1 Surface Water Management Plan ................................................................................ 340 7.1.1 Stormwater Management ............................................................................................. 341 7.1.2 Opportunities for Watercourse Enhancement .............................................................. 346 7.1.3 Infrastructure Deficiencies ............................................................................................ 346 7.1.4 Development of a Master Drainage Plan....................................................................... 347 7.2 Groundwater Management Plan ................................................................................. 353 7.3 Greenspace Management Plan .................................................................................... 369 7.3.1 Vegetation Protection.................................................................................................... 369

Aquafor Beech Ltd

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 7.3.2 7.3.3 7.3.4 7.3.5 7.3.6 7.3.7

8.0

9.0 10.0 11.0

Woodland Edge Management ....................................................................................... 369 Trails............................................................................................................................... 371 Fencing ........................................................................................................................... 372 Environmental Stewardship Measures .......................................................................... 372 Species at Risk................................................................................................................ 374 Other Best Management Practices ................................................................................ 374

7.4 Development Best Management Practices ................................................................... 376 Monitoring Program ............................................................................................................... 380 8.1 Groundwater Monitoring ............................................................................................ 380 8.2 Surface Water Monitoring ........................................................................................... 382 8.3 Stream Geomorphology Monitoring ............................................................................ 387 8.4 Terrestrial Ecology Monitoring .................................................................................... 391 8.5 Aquatic Ecology Monitoring ........................................................................................ 395 Implementation Plan .............................................................................................................. 398 9.1 Future Studies............................................................................................................. 398 Summary - Conclusions & Recommendations .......................................................................... 406 References ....................................................................................................................... 408

Aquafor Beech Ltd

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 East Side Lands Integrated Planning Process Figure 2.1.1: Study Area Figure 2.4.1: Subwatershed Study Area Figure 3.1.1: Stage 1 Existing Land Uses by Area (ha) Figure 3.1.2: Existing Land Use Figure 3.2.1: Physiography Figure 3.3.1: Surficial Geology Figure 3.3.1A: Surficial Geology Cross-Section Figure 3.4.1 Typical Hydrogeological Cross-Section of the East Side Lands Figure 3.4.2: Static Water Levels in MOE Water Wells Figure 3.4.3: Water Levels in the Shallow Aquifer in MW1-C with Daily Precipitation Depths 2011-2012 Figure 3.4.4: Water Levels in the Shallow Aquifer in MW1-C with Daily Precipitation Depths 2012-2013 Figure 3.4.5: MW-1C and MW-1B Water Levels and Precipitation Depths (January, 2011 – January, 2012). Note both are set to 0 at start to show relative changes in water levels Figure 3.4.6: MW-1C and MW-1B Water Levels and Precipitation Depths (January, 2012 – January, 2013). Note both are set to 0 at start to show relative changes in water levels Figure 3.4.7: Water Level Responses to Significant Rain Events (June 2011 – January 2013) Figure 3.5.1: Hydrologic Subcatchments Figure 3.5.2: Flow Diagram for Surface Runoff in the Study Area Figure 3.5.3: SWM Pond 130 Inflows and Outflows under Regional Flow Conditions 3 Figure 3.5.4: Surface Runoff Generated from Freeport Creek Subwatershed (m /s) (2002-2007) 3 Figure 3.5.5: Surface Runoff Generated from Riverbank Creek and Allendale Creek (m /s) (2002-2007) Figure 3.5.6: SWM Pond 130 Inflows and Outflows between 2002 and 2007 Figure 3.6.1: Geomorphic Reaches and Detailed Survey Sites Figure 3.6.2: Freeport Creek Subwatershed Comparison between 1951 and 2009 Historical Aerial Photographs Figure 3.6.3: Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Comparison between 1951 and 2006 Historical Aerial Photographs Figure 3.6.4: Longitudinal Profile for Freeport Creek Figure 3.6.5: Longitudinal Profile for Riverbank Creek Figure 3.6.6: Longitudinal Profile for Allendale Creek Figure 3.7.1: Significant Species Figure 3.7.2: Wetlands Figure 3.7.3: Spring air photo from 1951 and 1983 showing wet areas (generally darker with different texture) in the area now occupied by the Upper Freeport Creek Wetland Complex. Figure 3.7.4: Reptile and Amphibian Survey Locations Figure 3.7.5: Locations of Observed Reptiles and Amphibians Figure 3.7.6: Raptor Wintering and Nest Survey

Aquafor Beech Ltd

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Figure 3.7.7: Red-Shouldered Hawk and Woodpecker Survey Map Figure 3.7.8: Breeding Bird Survey Locations Figure 3.7.9: Crepsucular Survey Locations Figure 3.7.10: Fall Waterfowl Staging and Survey Locations Figure 3.7.11: Bird Habitats Figure 3.7.12: Avian Species at Risk Observation Locations Figure 3.7.13: Deer Survey Figure 3.7.14: Significant Wildlife Habitat Figure 3.8.1: Monitoring Locations Figure 3.8.2: Thermogram of Maximum Daily Air Temperature and Water Temperatures Collected Continuously at Monitoring Locations FC0004, FC0008, FC0009 Figure 3.8.3: FC0009 (May 10, 2011) downstream end facing upstream Figure 3.8.4: FC0009 (May 10, 2011) downstream end facing downstream Figure 3.8.5: FC0009 (May 10, 2011) upstream end facing upstream Figure 3.8.6: FC0009 (May 10, 2011) upstream end facing downstream Figure 3.8.7: FC0009 (Nov 2, 2011) downstream end facing upstream Figure 3.8.8: FC0009 (Nov 2, 2011) downstream end facing downstream Figure 3.8.9: FC0009 (Nov 2, 2011) upstream end facing upstream Figure 3.8.10: FC0009 (Nov 2, 2011) upstream end facing downstream Figure 3.8.11: FC0004 (May 10, 2011) downstream end facing upstream. Figure 3.8.12: FC0004 (May 10, 2011) downstream end facing downstream. Figure 3.8.13: FC0004 (May 10, 2011) upstream end facing upstream. Figure 3.8.14: FC0004 (May 10, 2011) upstream end facing downstream. Figure 3.8.15: FC0010 downstream end facing downstream Figure 3.8.16: FC0010 downstream end facing upstream Figure 2.8.17: FC0010 upstream end facing downstream Figure 3.8.18: FC0010 upstream facing upstream Figure 3.8.19: FC0006 downstream facing downstream Figure 3.8.20: FC0006 downstream end facing upstream Figure 3.8.21: FC0006 upstream facing downstream (L) and Upstream (R) Figure 3.8.22: Upstream end of site facing upstream (to the left), and facing downstream (to the right) view of Freeport Creek fish community survey location downstream of King St. E. (FC0009) Figure 3.8.23: Downstream end of site facing upstream (to the left) and facing downstream (to the right), view of Freeport Creek fish community survey location downstream of King St. E. (FC0009) Figure 3.8.24: Allendale Creek EW9042 facing upstream (left) and downstream (right) Figure 3.8.25: Riverbank Creek NS9044 facing upstream (left) and downstream (right) Figure 4.1.1: Meander Belt Width Figure 4.1.3: Municipal Wellhead Protection Area and Intake Protection Zone Figure 4.1.4: Potential Environmentally Sensitive Policy Areas Figure 4.1.5: Significant Woodlands Figure 4.1.6: Three sets of White-tailed deer tracks spanning between natural features in the east and west of Area C. Arrows show the direction of travel for each set of prints. Figure 4.1.7: Restoration and Enhancement Opportunities

Aquafor Beech Ltd

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Figure 4.1.8: Greenlands Network Figure 4.1.9: Greenspace Plan – Area A Figure 4.1.10: Greenspace Plan – Area B Figure 4.1.11: Greenspace Plan – Area C Figure 4.1.12: Greenspace Plan – Area D Figure 4.1.13: Buffer Widths – Area A Figure 4.1.14: Buffer Widths – Area B Figure 4.1.15: Buffer Widths – Area C Figure 4.1.16: Buffer Widths – Area D Figure 4.2: Opportunities and Constraints to Development Figure 7.1: Unadjusted Intrinsic Vulnerability (Intrinsic Susceptibility Index or ISI) of the Deep Overburden Aquifer for Wells P16, and the southernmost extent of Wells K80, K-81 and K82. Figure 7.2: Significant Drinking Water Threat Policy Application Map (Cambridge and North Dumphries Area), from Schedule F of the Region of Waterloo Proposed Source Protection Plan (January 25, 2013) Figure 7.3: Proposed Source Protection Policies RW-CW-15 and -16 Related to Stormwater Figure 7.4: Proposed Source Protection Policies RW-CW-17 and -18 Related to Stormwater Figure 7.5: Proposed Source Protection Policies RW-CW-19 and -20 Related to Stormwater Figure 7.6: Proposed Source Protection Policy RW-CW-34 Related to Road Salt Figure 7.7: Proposed Source Protection Policy RW-CW-35 Related to Road Salt Figure 7.8: Proposed Source Protection Policy RW-CW-36 and -37 Related to Road Salt Figure 7.9: Proposed Source Protection Policy RW-CW-38 and -39 Related to Road Salt Figure 7.10: Proposed Source Protection Policy RW-CW-40 Related to Road Salt and Policies RW-CW 41 and -42 Related to Storage of Snow Figure 7.11: Proposed Source Protection Policies RW-CW 43 and -44 Related to Storage of Snow Figure 9.1: Landowner Contact Record

Aquafor Beech Ltd

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

LIST OF TABLES Table 3.4.1: Description of Geologic and Hydrogeologic Units in the Region of Waterloo and within the Subwatershed Study Area Table 3.4.2: Details on the Monitor Wells and Screened Section Table 3.4.3: Summary of Hydraulic Conductivity (K) Measurements of Monitor Wells (metres/second) Table 3.4.4: Freeport Creek Piezometer Readings (August 2012 – February 2013) Table 3.4.5: Shallow Aquifer Rises, Falls and Durations in Response to Significant Rainfall Events Table 3.4.6 Water Budget Analysis for the Study Area Based on Climate Normals from 1971 to 2000 Table 3.5.1: Existing Subcatchment Characteristics for Freeport Creek Subwatersheds Table 3.5.2: Existing Subcatchment Characteristics for the Tributary to the Grand Subwatersheds Table 3.5.3: SWM Pond 130 Storage Characteristics (Conestoga-Rovers, 1990) Table 3.5.4: Soil Types and Hydrologic Characteristics for Freeport Creek Subwatersheds Table 3.5.5 Soil Types and Hydrologic Characteristics for Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed 3 Table 3.5.6: Summary of Existing Conditions Peak Flows - Freeport Creek Subwatershed (m /s) (Cumulative Flows) 3 Table 3.5.7: Summary of Existing Conditions Peak Flows - Tributary of the Grand Subwatershed (m /s) (Cumulative Flows) Table 3.5.8: Comparison between Current EPA-SWMM Model and Previously Reported Peak Flows for Existing 3 Conditions (m /s) Table 3.5.9: Pre-development Annual Water Budget Components and Peak Runoff Estimates for Freeport Creek Table 3.5.10: Pre-development Annual Water Budget Components and Peak Runoff Estimates for Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Table 3.5.11: Existing and Future Land Use Percentages and Hydrologic Parameters Table 3.5.12: Peak Flow Estimates under Future Conditions (Freeport Creek Subwatershed) Table 3.5.13: Peak Flow Estimates under Future Conditions (Trib. to Grand Subwatershed) 3 Table 3.5.14: Peak Flow Estimates (m /s) for Existing and Future Conditions with no Stormwater Management (Freeport Creek Subwatershed) – Cumulative Flows 3 Table 3.5.15: Peak Flow Estimates (m /s) for Existing and Future Conditions with no Stormwater Management (Tributary to Grand Subwatershed) – Cumulative Flows Table 3.5.16: Hydraulic Structures (2011) along Freeport Creek Table 3.5.17: Typical Bankfull Channel Dimensions Table 3.5.18: Recommended Expansion and Contraction Coefficients Table 3.5.19: Regional Peak Flow Estimates for Floodplain Mapping along Freeport Creek Table 3.5.20: As Designed Pond Function, Peak Flows, and Water Surface Elevations for the Various Design Storms Table 3.6.1: Drainage Characteristics for the Subwatersheds within the Study Area Table 3.6.2: Rapid Geomorphic Assessment Descriptions Based on Index Value Table 3.6.3: Reach Breaks and Rapid Geomorphic Assessments for Freeport Creek Table 3.6.4: Reach Breaks and Rapid Geomorphic Assessments for the Walter Bean Trail Tributary Table 3.6.5: Reach Breaks and Rapid Geomorphic Assessments for Tributary to the Grand – Riverbank Creek Table 3.6.6: Reach Breaks and Rapid Geomorphic Assessments for Tributary to the Grand Allendale Creek Table 3.6.7: Summary of Channel Parameters for Freeport Creek Table 3.6.8: Summary of Channel Parameters for Tributary to the Grand Allendale Creek

Aquafor Beech Ltd

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Table 3.7.1: Terrestrial Fieldwork Dates (Flora), 2011 Table 3.7.2: Summary Table of Wetland Enhancement Recommendations Table 3.7.4.3: Analysis of Wetlands Against Relevant Criteria in GRCA’s Wetland Policy (2009) Table 3.7.3: Salamander surveys completed by Aquafor Beech Limited Table 3.7.4: Amphibian Calling Survey Stations Table 3.7.5: Species captured during Aquafor Beech Limited salamander surveys Table 3.7.6: Amphibian calling surveys conducted in 2011 Table 3.7.7: Species detected during 2011 calling surveys Table 3.7.8: Reptile surveys conducted by Aquafor Beech Limited Table 3.7.9: Reptile road mortality surveys conducted by Aquafor Beech Limited Table 3.7.10: Snakes located during Aquafor Beech Limited road mortality surveys Table 3.7.11: Bald Eagle Surveys Conducted by Aquafor Beech Limited Table 3.7.12: Bald Eagle Survey, Observations Table 3.7.13: Deer track/trail surveys conducted by Aquafor Beech Limited Table 3.7.14: Deer track/trail survey locations Table 3.7.15: Select Species Scheduled to be Assessed by COSSARO in 2013 Table 3.7.16: Assessment of Significant Wildlife Habitat within the East Side Lands Table 3.8: Monitoring Station Locations Table 3.8.1: Water quality sampling events conducted by GRCA at FC0004 and FC0009 in the spring (March May), summer (June-September) and fall (October-November) from 2006-2010. Table 3.8.2: List of the Site Descriptions, GPS Coordinates and relevant watercourse for the four monitoring sites where water quality sampling was conducted in 2011 Table 3.8.3: 2011 Water Quality Sampling Dates Table 3.8.4: Water Quality Parameters Sampling & Sampling Procedure Table 3.8.5: Water quality Variables and Sources of Guidance Table 3.8.6: Summary of the 2011 Water Quality Monitoring Results for Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand River Table 3.8.7: Summary of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Conducted by GRCA from 2005-10 Table 3.8.8: Locations of 2011 Benthic Invertebrate Sampling Table 3.8.9: Hilsenhoff’s Biotic Index (HBI) value and Respective Interpretation Table 3.8.10: 2011 Benthic Invertebrate Habitat Summary Table 3.8.11: Summary of 2005 – 2010 Freeport Creek (FC009) Benthic macroinvertebrate data Table 3.8.12: Freeport Creek: Results of Spring 2011 Biotic Indices, Compared by Site Table 3.8.13: Results of 2011 biotic indices for FC0009, compared by season Table 3.8.14: Comparison of 2005-2010 Freeport Creek Averages vs. 2011 Results Table 3.8.15: Overall Summary of Freeport Creek Benthic Data (2005-2011) Table 3.8.16: Presence/absence of fish species within Freeport Creek and Tributaries to the Grand River (Riverbank Creek and Allendale Creek) between 2005 and 2011 Table 3.8.17: Fish Community Survey Results from Freeport Creek and Tributaries to the Grand River, 2005-2011 Table 4.1.1: Meander Belt Width Results for Freeport Creek Table 4.1.2: Potential Groundwater constraints to Development Proposals

Aquafor Beech Ltd

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Table 4.1.3: Significant Woodland Analysis for the General Subwatershed Study Area Table 4.1.4: Significant Valley Features within the General Subwatershed Study Area Table 4.1.5: Watercourse Classifications within the General Subwatershed Study Area Table 4.1.6: Status of Supporting Environmental Features in the East Side Lands Subwatershed Table 4.1.7: Linkage Assessment of Hedgerow Function on the Landscape Table 4.1.8: Summary of Other Linkages in the Study Area Table 4.1.9: Opportunities for Aquatic Enhancement and Restoration Table 4.1.10: Potential Impacts to Natural Heritage Resources Table 4.1.11: Recommended Buffers and Setbacks for Core Environmental Features within the Detailed Study Area Table 4.1.12: Recommended Buffers and Setbacks for Locally Significant Natural Areas within the Detailed Study Area Table 5.1: Proposed Land Use Breakdown by Category Table 7.1: Wellhead Protection Sensitivity Area Limitations Table 8.1: Groundwater Monitoring Table 8.2.1: 2012 Surface Water Quality Parameters Sampling & Sampling Procedure Table 8.2.2: Surface Water Monitoring Table 8.3: Geomorphic Monitoring Table 8.4 Terrestrial Ecology Monitoring Table 8.5 Aquatic Ecology Monitoring Framework Table 10.0: Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations

Aquafor Beech Ltd

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

APPENDICES (on CD) APPENDIX A HYDROGEOLOGY •

BOREHOLE LOGS

•

COMPILED HYDROGRAPHS FOR ALL MONITOR WELLS

APPENDIX B HYDROLOGY •

IDF TABLES

•

REGIONAL FLOW HYETOGRAPH

•

EVENT-BASED MODEL INPUT AND OUTPUT

•

CONTNIOUS MODEL INPUT AND OUTPUT

APPENDIX C STREAM GEOMORPHOLOGY •

RAPID GEOMORPHIC ASSESSMENT FORM

•

SITE PHOTOS

APPENDIX D TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY •

FLORA INVENTORIES

•

FAUNA INVENTORIES

•

2012 BREEDING BIRD SURVEYS CONDUCTED BY DILLON LIMITED

•

REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS LOCATED DURING SURVEYS

•

ECOLOGICAL LAND CLASSIFICATION (End of this Document)

APPENDIX E WATER QUALITY •

WATER QUALITY DATA

•

WATER TEMPERATURE DATA

APPENDIX F AQUATIC ECOLOGY •

BENTHICS FIELD SHEETS

•

ELECTROFISHING FIELD SHEETS

APPENDIX G

•

FREEPORT CREEK FLOODPLAIN MAPPING

Aquafor Beech Ltd

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

1.0 INTRODUCTION Subwatershed planning is founded on the principles of Integrated Watershed Management and Adaptive Management. Integrated Watershed Management is defined by Conservation Ontario (2010) as “managing human activities and natural resources in an area defined by watershed boundaries aiming to protect and manage natural resources and their functions today and into the future”. Embedded in Integrated Watershed Management is the adaptive management approach, which promotes continuous improvement and learning in a cycle of plan development, implementation, evaluation and updating. Subwatershed studies are technical reports which provide comprehensive background on how surface water, groundwater, terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems function in a subwatershed, and recommend how planned land use changes can take place in a sustainable manner. The advantage of subwatershed planning is that it integrates many interrelated disciplines to develop a more complete understanding of how the overall study area functions; this permits the development of management strategies that can best maintain its long term biophysical integrity. Subwatershed studies are intended to inform planning and decision making so that urban development meets the objectives of Regional, City and GRCA planning policies and proceeds in a manner that is sustainable in terms of maintaining and, where necessary, restoring the biophysical integrity of the study area and the Grand River. The Region of Waterloo and the City of Cambridge in cooperation with the GRCA and MNR as well as the other area municipalities, have developed the terms of reference for the East Side Lands Subwatershed Study: Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand. It is in keeping with the aforementioned principles that this subwatershed study document has been prepared. This subwatershed study and Master Drainage Plan (Appendix B2) are one part of an integrated planning process (Figure 1.1) for the East Side Stage 1 Lands as part of a Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP). Other individual components include: •

Community Plan;

•

Municipal Water and Wastewater Service Requirements Assessment;

•

Transportation System Assessment;

•

Utilities Assessment;

•

Fiscal Impact Analysis; and,

•

Staging and Implementation Strategy.

Figure 1.1 East Side Lands Integrated Planning Process

Page 5

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 The Official Plan of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo (ROP, 2009) recognizes that subwatershed planning is required prior to significant development. Planning for these lands requires the completion of various technical studies (i.e. subwatershed studies, transportation and servicing) and the construction of new infrastructure (i.e. transportation, servicing, and utilities). Similarly, the Official Plan of the City of Cambridge (2012 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; currently under appeal) prioritizes the protection, enhancement and/or restoration of Cambridgeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s natural heritage. Through the application of the natural heritage and environmental management policies contained within the Plan, the city endeavors to ensure that development maintains and improves the quality of the natural environment within the City while protecting and contributing to the health and well-being of its residents. These plans are supported by the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) through various polices which promote the protection, restoration and enhancement of natural features through long-term adaptive management.

Page 6

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

2.0 PROJECT CONTEXT In June 2003, Regional Council approved the Region of Waterloo’s Growth Management Strategy (RGMS), which set out a long term strategic framework and identifies where, when and how future residential and employment growth will be accommodated. Goal 5, “foster a strong economy”, included an action to form the necessary partnerships to develop the East Side Employment Lands, as it identified the east side of the Grand River as representing a significant opportunity for employment development. It noted that the range and complexity of planning, development and servicing issues calls for a coordinated, partnership-based arrangement. It recommended the Region take the lead in order to create the necessary partnerships to facilitate the development of key infrastructure and to establish cost-sharing arrangements. In adopting the Growth Management Strategy, Regional Council endorsed the consideration of expansion of the urban area into the East Side Lands. A subsequently completed East Side Community Scoping Study (Meridian, 2004) identified the steps required to bring the East Side Community into the urban area. The Scoping Study recommended that a Structure Plan be developed to: •

Guide and coordinate future development;

•

Confirm priorities for subwatershed planning;

•

Provide input to various Master Plans; and

•

Provide direction for consideration of future amendments to the Regional Official Policies and Local Official Plans.

The Structure Plan was completed in 2006 and recommended the completion of a subwatershed study for Freeport Creek (as well as the Chilligo and Hopewell Creeks and the Breslau and Randall Drains) to refine the amount of developable land. The Structure Plan also developed a staging strategy for future development. In 2004, the City of Cambridge in partnership with the GRCA, completed the Hespeler West Subwatersheds Study (identified as a priority area through the Structure Plan process), including the study of the West, Middle and East Creeks. Two (2) companion documents were also prepared in 2004 for the Hespeler West Subwatershed, namely: 1. Hespeler West Subwatersheds Study Summary Report (HWSS Working Committee Sept 2004); and 2. Hespeler West Subwatershed Floodplain Mapping Corrections and Review of Subcatchment Scenarios Final Report (TSH, Oct 2004); It should be noted that Hespeler West Subwatersheds Study Summary Report contains recommendations for adoption as part of the Hespeler West Subwatershed study and where there are differences between the HWSS Report (PEIL, 2004) and the HWSS Summary Report (HWSS Working Committee Sept 2004) the Summary report shall supersede the HWSS (PEIL) Report. In 2006, the GRCA and Region of Waterloo initiated a process to complete the Phase 1 Subwatershed Planning for the remainder of the East Side subwatersheds, including the priority subwatersheds of Freeport Creek and the area that drains into the Grand (Tributary to the Grand). At that time, it was

Page 7

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 determined that the East Side Lands Subwatershed (Freeport and Tributary to the Grand) Study would be best suited to an integrated approach (such as an MESP) that would consider other elements required for the development of the area. In addition, the Regional Industrial and Business Park Vacant Land Inventory and Demand Analysis study was also completed in 2006. This study recommended that the City Urban designation be expanded to provide for 300 net hectares (741 acres) of fully serviced land in parcels greater than 8 hectares in size, with a minimum of half being in parcels of 20 to 40 hectares (50 to 100 acres) within the East Side Lands Study Area. In 2007, a Regional Official Policies Plan amendment (ROPPA No. 28) was adopted by Regional Council to include designation of approximately 150 hectares of land in northern Cambridge, east of Fountain Street, for large lot employment uses. This amendment was appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), which in 2009 approved a settlement which included the designation of additional lands west of Fountain Street and south of Allendale Road bringing the Prime Industrial Strategic Reserve (PISR) lands to 239 net hectares within the Urban Area Boundary for employment uses.

In June 2009, the Council adopted the Regional Official Plan (ROP) which includes the land designated as part of ROPPPA No. 28, plus additional land for a total for approximately 300 net hectares as PISR (Figure 2.1.1). The new Regional Official Plan was approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) in December 2010 and is currently under appeal. Prior to designating the PISR lands within the relevant City of Cambridge and Region of Waterloo Official Plans a subwatershed study is required. The Official Plan of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo (section 7.F) directs that completion of subwatershed planning is required prior to approval of significant development. This requirement is echoed within Section 3 of the City of Cambridge Official Plan and further supported by GRCA Wetlands Policy 6.2.3 which speaks to the need to assess wetlands at the landscape scale. In addition, a stormwater study (master drainage plan), a transportation study, water and wastewater servicing studies, a utility review, community planning and fiscal impact analysis shall also be undertaken. Due to the interrelationship of all of these studies and the need for a comprehensive planning approach, it was deemed appropriate to combine all of these studies into one project; the East Side Lands (Stage 1) Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) and Community Plan.. The Region of Waterloo, City of Cambridge and Grand River Conservation Authority, in conjunction with the City of Kitchener and Township of Woolwich, are working together to complete the background work needed to advance the development of the East Side Stage 1 Lands for employment uses.

Page 8

RD COBER

ich

EAST SIDE LAND MESP AND COMMUNITY PLAN

Woolwich

FREEPORT CREEK AND TRIBUTARY TO THE GRAND SUBWATERSHED STUDY

IN FOUNTA

ST N

E RIV

TH KOSSU

CR EE

FIGURE 2.1.1 STUDY AREA

R IV

RIV ER BA NK

Kitchener

HIGHWAY

MIDDLE BLOC

K RD

MUNICIPAL ROADS REGIONAL ROADS LOCAL ROADS

ALL

PRIME INDUSTRIAL STRATEGIC RESERVE (SERVICED)

STREAMS WATER BODIES

E RE K

K S EA

T C R K EE

Cambridge SALTMAN DR.

G RO

TA R

SWM POND

MOHAWK RD

I BU

DETAILED SUBWATERSHED STUDY AREA

ALLENDALE RD

A IL

D ID M

SPEEDSVILLE

BANAT

REGION OF WATERLOO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

GENERAL SUBWATERSHED STUDY AREA

BA RN

LT E

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY

STAGE 1 STUDY AREA

D R IV ER

BY PA SS

KING ST E

olw Wo

250

500 Meters

ES W T

Base data provided by the Ministry of Natural Resources: Produced by Dillon Consulting under Licence with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2011

C R EE K

Additional data sources and mapping provided by the RMOW, the City of Cambridge, and the GRCA. File Location: C:\Projects\65107-EastSideLands\GIS\MXD\Final-June12-2013\ Figure-2.1.1-StudyArea.mxd Date: June 12, 2013

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

2.1 PURPOSE, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Study Purpose The overall study purpose is to complete a Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) and Community Plan to provide the framework to guide the development for the Stage 1 East Side Lands in the City of Cambridge and develop stage-specific implementation recommendations and associated servicing estimates. The overall MESP study will provide for comprehensive integration of the studies necessary to support future planning for the area. It is intended that the completed MESP will address the first two phases in the Planning and Design Process of the Class Environmental Assessment (EA) for all roads, water, stormwater management and wastewater projects and that the MESP be integrated with the Planning Act as outlined in Approach No. 4 of the Master Planning Process. This document has been prepared as a two (2) part document and forms both the: •

Freeport Creek and Tributary to Grand Subwatershed Study (Appendix B1 – this document); and

•

The East Side Lands Master Drainage Plan (Appendix B2)

Collectively these documents are a key component of the overall process to prepare the Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) for the East Side Lands. The overall purpose of the subwatershed study is to develop a management plan for the significant environmental features and ecological functions of those areas potentially affected by the development of the Stage 1 of the East Side Lands. Study Goal It is the goal of the East Side Lands (Stage 1) Subwatershed Study: Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand to inform planning and decision making so that urban development meets the objectives of Regional, City and GRCA planning policies and proceeds in a manner that is sustainable in terms of maintaining and, where necessary, restoring the biophysical integrity of the study area and the Grand River. Study Objectives The overall MESP will build on existing work and studies and provide the necessary environmental, stormwater management, transportation, water and wastewater servicing, utility, community planning and fiscal impact analysis to facilitate the development of approximately 300 net hectares of land currently designated as Prime Industrial Strategic Reserve (PISR) in the Region of Waterloo’s new Regional Official Plan (ROP). Through the MESP process a comprehensive plan will be developed within the PISR lands for municipal water and wastewater services, transportation systems, and stormwater management within the context of a completed subwatershed study.

Page 10

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

As such, the East Side Lands Freeport Creek and Tributary to Grand Subwatershed Study, is intended to satisfy the following five (5) objectives: 1. Identify, protect, enhance and where feasible restore, the environmental features and ecological functions that sustain the biophysical integrity of the subwatersheds; 2. Identify and protect existing and future vulnerable areas where municipal drinking water sources may be at risk, and direct land use activities that pose a threat to drinking water away from vulnerable areas; 3. Provide guidance as to how, where, and when urban development can occur within the subwatersheds; 4. Develop a Master Drainage Plan (MDP); and 5. Include a monitoring and adaptive management strategy to guide the ongoing stewardship of the subwatersheds during and following development.

2.2 DEFINITION OF SUBWATERSHED STUDY AREA The East Side Lands consist of approximately 3,700 gross hectares (9,142 acres) and includes land in the Township of Woolwich, the City of Cambridge and the City of Kitchener. Within this there are several smaller areas that will serve as the focus for different elements of the Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) and Community Plan. The Freeport Creek and the Tributary to Grand subwatersheds cover approximately 580 hectares of the project study area. For the purpose of the subwatershed study, two levels of study and corresponding boundaries have been identified (Figure 2.4.1): 1. General Subwatershed Study Area 2. Detailed Subwatershed Study Area 1. General Subwatershed Study Area The general subwatershed study area includes the geographic area of the Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand (lands that drain directly to the Grand River) subwatersheds and the lands west of Fountain Street and south of Middle Block Road which are within the Hespeler West subwatershed (Figure 2.4.1). The majority of these lands are within the City of Cambridge, with a much smaller proportion within the City of Kitchener. The general subwatershed study area does not include the area to the east of Fountain Street as a subwatershed study has been previously completed for this area as part of the Hespeler West Subwatersheds Study (see Section 2.0), and information related to impact of development on

Page 11

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 environmental features and ecological functions within that area had been gathered to guide development scenarios for the Stage 1 study area. Within the general subwatershed study area a “reconnaissance level” assessment has been completed based primarily on the review of existing information sources but also included limited field work and general desktop analysis. Lands within the general subwatershed study area which make up the Hespeler West subwatersheds have previously been assessed through the completion of the following documents: • Hespeler West Subwatershed Study (HWSS) Summary Report (HWSS Working Committee, Sept 2004); • Hespeler West Subwatershed Floodplain Mapping Corrections and Review of Subcatchment Scenarios Final Report (TSH, Oct 2004); and • Hespeler West Subwatersheds Study (PEIL, 2004). The Freeport Creek, Tributary to the Grand (Allendale and Riverbank Creeks) and Hespeler West subwatershed boundaries within the general subwatershed study area are illustrated within Figure 2.4.1. 2. Detailed Subwatershed Study Area The detailed subwatershed study area is a focused area of study within the boundaries of the general subwatershed study area located east of Riverbank Drive, south of Middle Block Road and north of Highway 8 (Figure 2.4.1). The detailed subwatershed study area, which includes portions of the Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand subwatersheds, represents a primary area of proposed urban development and as such is the main focus for this subwatershed study component of the MESP. The general and detailed subwatershed study areas lie adjacent to other lands that share natural heritage features and functions. Environmental linkages between the general and detailed subwatershed study areas and surrounding areas such as the Speed River corridor to the south and the upland connections to the adjacent subwatersheds (e.g., Chilligo Creek) have been recognized and included where relevant within each study discipline.

Page 12

EAST SIDE LAND MESP AND COMMUNITY PLAN

Woolwich

R KD

FREEPORT CREEK AND TRIBUTARY TO THE GRAND SUBWATERSHED STUDY

ST N

E RIV

ich RD COBER

olw Wo

IN FOUNTA

RANDALL DRAIN SWS

CR EE

TH RD KOSSU

FIGURE 2.4.1 SUBWATERSHED STUDY AREA

R IV

RIV ER BA NK

Kitchener

MIDDLE BLOC

HIGHWAY

K RD

MUNICIPAL ROADS REGIONAL ROADS

TRIBUTARY TO THE GRAND RIVER

LOCAL ROADS STAGE 1 STUDY AREA WEST OF FOUNTAIN STREET

SW S( WE ST

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY

OF F

MOHAWK RD

WATER BODIES

Y S EA

SUBWATERSHEDS

FREEPORT CREEK TRIBUTARY TO THE GRAND RIVER

K VE

RANDALL DRAIN HESPELER WEST

D R

SALTMAN DR.

G RO LE AP

RN ES

HESPELER WEST SWS (EAST OF FOUNTAIN ST.)

E RE

FR FREEPORT CREEK SWS

Cambridge

TA R

SWM POND STREAMS

I BU

SPEEDSVILLE

DR TR

DETAILED SUBWATERSHED STUDY AREA

E RE

A IL

ALLENDALE RD

SUBWATERSHED BOUNDARIES

ST .)

BANAT

GR AN

REGION OF WATERLOO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

ID M

LT E

KING ST E

OU NT AIN

I VE

ALL

HE SP EL ER WE ST

ES W

0.5

1 km

T C R EE K

Base data provided by the Ministry of Natural Resources: Produced by Dillon Consulting under Licence with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2011 Additional data sources and mapping provided by the RMOW, the City of Cambridge, and the GRCA. File Location: C:\Projects\65107-EastSideLands\GIS\MXD\Final-June12-2013\ Figure-2.4.1-SubwatershedAreas.mxd Date: June 12, 2013

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

2.3 OVERVIEW OF SUBWATERSHEDS & SURFACE WATERCOURSES The following section provides an overview of the surface water catchments (subwatersheds) and the associated watercourses and is intended to provide context for the reader. Surface Water Catchments (subwatersheds) The general subwatershed study area is comprised of portions of three (3) distinct surface water catchments or subwatersheds. These include the Freeport Creek, Tributary to the Grand River and Hespeler West subwatersheds. These subwatersheds are illustrated in Figure 2.4.1 and are described briefly below. Freeport Creek Subwatershed Freeport Creek subwatershed has a drainage area of 4.01 km2 and drains into the east side of the Grand River downstream of the Highway 8 bridge in Kitchener, ON. The majority of the subwatershed lies to the north of Highway 8 and south of Allendale Road. The entire subwatershed lies between Fountain Street to the east and the Grand River to the west, a distance of approximately 3 km. Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Tributary to the Grand subwatershed has a drainage area of 2.15 km2 and drains into the east side of the Grand River at two separate locations. The majority of the subwatershed lies along the east side of the Grand River, extending approximately 200 m inland, north of Highway 8. At Allendale Road, the subwatershed extends approximately 1 km inland from the Grand River and continues north of Middle Block Road for another 500m. Hespeler West Subwatershed While the Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand subwatersheds drain into the Grand River, the portion of the Hespeler West subwatersheds within the study area is part of the Middle Creek subwatershed which drains into the Speed River in the north part of the City of Cambridge (PEIL, 2004). A small portion of the Hespeler West subwatersheds (0.51 km2) lies within the general subwatershed study area (Figure 2.4.1) north of Allendale Road and west of Fountain Street North. This area of Hespeler West is outside the detailed subwatershed study area, however field activities, environmental surveys and analysis were conducted within the area per the study TOR. Watercourses Portions of two (2) surface watercourse systems (Freeport Creek and the Tributaries to the Grand River) are located within the detailed subwatershed study area. One (1) watercourse exists within the

Page 14

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Freeport Creek subwatershed, while the Tributary to the Grand subwatershed consists of three (3) watercourses: •

Riverbank Creek;

•

Allendale Creek; and

•

The Walter Bean Trail Tributary.

Although not within the detailed subwatershed study area, it is important to note that the Grand River is located immediately to the west of the Stage 1 lands, adjacent to the detailed subwatershed study area and within the general subwatershed study area. The Grand River, Freeport Creek and the three (3) Tributaries to the Grand River are illustrated in Figure 2.1.1 and 2.4.1. Freeport Creek and the three (3) Tributaries to the Grand River are described below. The morphology, hydrology and aquatic ecology of these watercourses are discussed in greater detail in Section 3. Freeport Creek The headwaters of Freeport Creek originate in the vicinity of the Challenger Motor Freight facility and the École Père-René-De-Galinée School on the north side of Maple Grove Road in the City of Cambridge. The creek flows west for approximately 750 m before turning south and flowing into a large wetland unit which functions as a stormwater management detention area, known as Pond 130. The creek continues to flow north-west through agricultural fields and rear residential lots before passing under the CPR railway and King Street East. West of King Street East, the creek continues to Headwaters upstream of Pond 130 flow west through the Grand River Garden Village nursery and under Highway 8, outletting to the east side of the Grand River, downstream of the Highway 8 Bridge in the City of Kitchener. SWM facility – Pond 130 (view from Challenger Motor Freight)

Page 15

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Freeport Downstream of Pond 130

Freeport Downstream of King St (Grand River Garden Village)

Tributaries to the Grand River: Riverbank Creek Riverbank Creek (inset photo) is a first order tributary to the Grand River that originates to the west of Riverbank Drive, north of Middle Block Road. Riverbank Creek flows south, parallel to Riverbank Drive before its confluence with Allendale Creek. At its confluence approximately 500 m south of Middle Block Road, the watercourse turns to the west and outlets to the east side of the Grand River. Riverbank Creek parallel to Riverbank Drive

Tributaries to the Grand River: Allendale Creek Allendale Creek (inset photo) is a first order tributary to the Grand River that originates to the east of Riverbank Drive, between Middle Block Road and Allendale Road. Allendale Creek flows west, perpendicular to Riverbank Drive within a wooded valley which contains its headwaters. After crossing under Riverbank Drive, the Allendale Creek turns south for approximately 75 m before turning back to the west and its confluence with Riverbank Creek. After the confluence, the watercourse flows west for approximately 50 m before outletting to the east side of the Grand River.

Allendale Creek upstream of Riverbank Drive

Tributaries to the Grand River: the Walter Bean Trail Tributary

Walter Bean Trail Tributary at the outlet to the Grand River

The Walter Bean Trail Tributary (inset photos) originates within the largest of two wetlands comprising the Lower Freeport Creek Wetland Complex, north of Highway 8 and west of King Street East. This tributary of the Grand River flows to the west for approximately 250 m before outletting to the east side of the Grand River immediately upstream of the Highway 8 bridge.

Page 16

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

2.4 STUDY ORGANIZATION AND REPORT STRUCTURE Study Organization The subwatershed study component of the MESP and Community Plan focuses on the environmental analysis and study of the Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand subwatersheds and has been completed in parallel with other technical studies in a fully integrated and comprehensive process, which has allowed for a more holistic study of the environmental features in the context of future development and servicing. Within this overall process, the subwatershed study process can be broken down into three (3) separate but linked phases. They are: •

Phase 1 – Background Report and Technical Work Plan;

•

Phase 2 – Completion of the Subwatershed Study; and

•

Phase 3 – Subwatershed Study Finalization and Implementation (Master Drainage Plan)

Phase 1 - Background Report and Technical Work Plan Completed in July 2011, the East Side Lands (Stage 1) Master Environmental Servicing Plan and Community Plan Background Report documented the findings from the Phase 1 background information review, and identified any information gaps while developing general recommendations for Phases 2 and 3 of the subwatershed study (as well as the broader MESP and Community Plan). The background report was not intended to be an exhaustive review of all materials concerning the East Side Lands, rather it was prepared to consolidate key background information which supported future analysis and reports. The report was organized into nine (9) main chapters, including the Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study and Master Drainage Plan as Chapter 6 which included sections detailing: • • • •

Guiding Policies and Plans; Reviewed Documents; Existing Environmental Conditions (hydrology, hydrogeology, stream morphology, terrestrial and aquatic ecology and surface water protection); and Information Gaps

The purpose of Chapter 6 was to provide a preliminary characterization of the study area based on the review of existing information sources in order to refine the goals and objectives of the subwatershed

Page 17

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 study and most importantly to identify data gaps. The identified gaps were utilized as the basis for the refinement of the detailed subwatershed study work plan. The detailed subwatershed work plan, was developed in December 2010 in conformance with the Terms of Reference (C2010-05) as part of the East Side Lands (Stage 1) Master Environmental Servicing Plan and Community Plan and was developed by the consultant teams in consultation with the East Side Subwatershed Study Steering Sub-committee (Steering Committee) which included representatives from the Regional Municipality of Waterloo (RMOW), the City of Cambridge (City), the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) and the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA).

Phase 2 - Completion of the Subwatershed Study This document represents the completion of the subwatershed study for Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand. The document provides detailed information with regards to the field activities, studies, analysis and investigations performed by the project teams within the various disciplines over the study period. This document identifies constraints and opportunities to development, potential impacts and mitigation strategies and outlines surface water, groundwater and greenspace management plans. The subwatershed study is also a Comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and will be used as a guide for future development as well as to scope future site-specific EIS studies. It should be noted that by the inherent nature of the subwatershed study within an integrated Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) and Community Plan, report sections have been refined in parallel with the other technical documents as development patterns, land-use options, infrastructure and servicing plans were are also refined. This parallel process ensures that impact assessment, management options and mitigation measures accurately reflect the proposed development and help to ensure that the subwatershed study informs planning and decision making so that urban development meets the objectives of Regional, City and GRCA planning policies and proceeds in a manner that is sustainable in terms of maintaining and restoring the biophysical integrity of the study area and the Grand River. Phase 3 - Study Finalization and Implementation (Master Drainage Plan) From the findings and recommendations of the subwatershed study, specifically the Surface Water, Groundwater and Greenspace Management Plans, the implementation plan for the subwatershed study has been developed. Phase 3 includes the development of a Master Drainage Plan (MDP) for the Stage 1 lands which has been developed as a stand-alone companion document to this subwatershed study report (see Appendix B2).

Page 18

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 The MDP will be a critical component of the overall implementation plan as it aims to identify, protect and enhance natural features, ecological function, biophysical integrity, appropriately manage risks and through the establishment of environmental targets for water quality, water quantity, erosion, infiltration (water balance) and guidance with respect to the protection of natural features. Report Structure The sections and information provided in this Subwatershed Study for Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand include: Section 1.0 – Section 2.0 – Section 3.0 – Section 4.0 – Section 5.0 – Section 6.0 – Section 7.0 – Section 8.0 – Section 9.0 – Section 10.0 – Section 11.0 –

Provides general direction to reviewers of the draft subwatershed study document Introduction to the study, background, purpose, goals and objectives Characterization of the Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatersheds Identification of the opportunities and constraints to development Description of proposed land uses Identification of potential Impacts associated with proposed land use Identification of management and mitigation measures Describes the proposed monitoring program for each discipline Describes the broader implementation plan including future studies Provides a summary of the key findings and recommendations of the report Outlines the references/sources of information

Page 19

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

3.0

CHARACTERIZATION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS

3.1 OVERVIEW OF HISTORICAL/EXISTING LAND USE Historic land use within the Stage 1 study area consisted primarily of rural/agricultural uses, with select rural residential uses along Riverbank Drive and the northwest corner of Fountain Street and Allendale Road. Natural areas are partially contained within the corridor of the Grand River, with some blocks of forests and swamps located amongst agricultural lands. Comparison of historical aerial photography from the 1950s and the 1980s documents significant loss of hedgerows, which is most evident in the northern portion of the Stage 1 study area. During the same time period, there was limited reforestation in the form of coniferous plantations counterbalanced by the reduction of upland forest area. Institutional, industrial, and large-scale commercial uses were absent from the landscape until the early 1980s The existing Stage 1 study area contains a mixture of land uses. Generally, the lands to the south of Freeport Creek are urban type uses and include industrial, commercial, institutional and vacant properties. The majority of the lands to the north and east of Freeport Creek are presently being used for either agricultural or open space uses. The lands to the north and west of Freeport Creek, along Riverbank Drive are mostly rural residential type uses. A second smaller cluster of residential uses is concentrated on the northwest corner of Allendale Road and Fountain Street North. Natural features have been reduced from their historic extent. Previously extant successional habitats have been lost, with the majority of forest and swamp blocks remaining intact. Reforestation efforts (e.g. coniferous plantations) are evident south of the residential properties on Riverbank Drive. Existing land uses within the Stage 1 study area are summarized in Figure 3.1.1 and illustrated in Figure 3.1.2. 6%

1% Rural/ Agricultural = 465 ha (60%) Commercial = 2 ha (0%)

21%

Industrial = 65 ha (8%) Institutional = 33 ha (4%) 60%

Woodlands/Wetland = 165 ha (21%) Residential = 49 ha (6%)

8% 0%

Vacant = 8 ha (1%)

Figure 3.1.1: Stage 1 Existing Land Uses by Area (ha) (Note: These areas have been rounded and are approximate for demonstration purposes only based on the information obtained from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation in 2011)

Page 20

IN ST N FOUNTA

H RD

T KOSSU

Kitchener

EAST SIDE LAND MESP AND COMMUNITY PLAN

RIVERBANK CREEK

RIV ER BA NK

FREEPORT CREEK AND TRIBUTARY TO THE GRAND SUBWATERSHED STUDY

MIDDLE BLOCK

FIGURE 3.1.2 EXISTING LAND USE (BASED ON MPAC DATA AND SITE VISIT)

HIGHWAY MUNICIPAL ROADS

ALL

PA S

REGIONAL ROADS DA LE

LOCAL ROADS

EEK

GENERAL SUBWATERSHED STUDY AREA STAGE 1 STUDY AREA WEST OF FOUNTAIN STREET MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY

R IV

DETAILED SUBWATERSHED STUDY AREA

TR IBU TA RY

WATER BODIES

ALLENDALE RD *GENERAL LAND USE RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL RURAL/AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTIONAL

FR EE

PO RT C

OPEN SPACE/ENVIRONMENTAL

RE E

VACANT

8 D R ES

SALTMAN DR.

LAND USE CHANGES SINCE 2011 NOT SHOWN

BA R N

BE AN TR AIL

M AP L

WA LT ER

STREAMS

BANAT RD

GR AN D

KING ST E

*Based on Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC)

Cambridge 0

250

500 Meters

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

3.2 PHYSIOGRAPHY The subwatershed study area is located within the Waterloo hills physiographic region (Chapman and Putnam, 1966). The surficial deposits are primarily ice-contact and outwash deposits within the Grand River and Speed River valley spillways separated by till plain (part drumlinized). The physiography is presented in Figure 3.2.1. The Waterloo Hills covers the Freeport Creek, Tributary to the Grand, and the Hespeler West subwatersheds, and is situated east of the Waterloo Moraine (Till Moraine in Figure 3.2.1). The Waterloo Hills region is characterized by sand hills, gravel terraces and many swampy valleys on the till plain. The soils are coarse- to medium-textured, comprising sand and gravelly loams of the Burford-Fox and Guelph Associations. These soil associations are generally well-drained with low water-holding capacity and low fertility (Present and Wicklund, 1971). Most natural areas are small, fragmented and sinuous along streams and steep slopes. The well-drained soils indicate that precipitation infiltrates in the sand hills and discharges as groundwater to the headwater wetlands and 1st order streams.

Page 22

BA ER

DR 31 0

R1I0V 3

IN ST N FOUNTA

310

29 5

0 31

31 0

0 31

305

KOSSU

TH RD

EAST SIDE LAND MESP AND COMMUNITY PLAN 31 0

310

FREEPORT CREEK AND TRIBUTARY TO THE GRAND SUBWATERSHED STUDY

DR NK

31 0 315

310

RB A

310

31 5

30 5

310

FIGURE 3.2.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY

310

31 0

310 310

310

HIGHWAY

310

MIDDLE BLOC K RD

310

RIV E

310

RIVERBANK CREEK

310

305

290

Kitchener

MUNICIPAL ROADS

315

REGIONAL ROADS LOCAL ROADS

ALL EN

300

GENERAL SUBWATERSHED STUDY AREA DA

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY

31 5

EE K

315

DETAILED SUBWATERSHED STUDY AREA SWM POND

315

310

315

5 31

310

1 METER CONTOUR LINE

315

30 5

310

290

305

31 0

Kame Moraines 30 5

305 305 305

31 0

PHYSIOGRAPHY

310

315

5 28

295

315

ALLENDALE RD

5 METER CONTOUR LINE

0 31

TR IBU TA RY

31 5

0 31

Spillways Till Moraines

315

295

Till Plains (Drumlinized) 295

300

31 0

PO RT

305

R D O VE

G R

PL E

R S

31 0 31 31 5 5

0 31

32 5

31 0

32 0

31 0 325

315

31 0

0 31

31 0

310

Cambridge 0

250

500 Meters

0 31

305 31 0

SALTMAN DR.

0 32

325

0 31

31 5

0 31

32 0

0 31

315

31 0

M A

5 30

31 5

315

31 0

315

30 5

Y HW

305

300

310

5 28

29 0

BE AN TR AIL

BANAT

GR AN D

WA LT ER

STREAMS

315

RI VE

WATER BODIES

305

PA S

300

305

KING ST E

KI NG

315

0 31

File Location: C:\Projects\65107-EastSideLands\GIS\MXD\Final-June12-2013\ Figure-3.2.1B-Physiography.mxd Date: June 12, 2013

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

3.3 GEOLOGY The following section describes the surficial and bedrock geology of the general study area as well as the Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatersheds.

3.3.1 SURFICIAL GEOLOGY The Freeport Creek Subwatershed lies east of the Waterloo Moraine. The primary overburden material is till (diamicton), comprising the sandy and stony Port Stanley Till and the Maryhill Till. These tills are overlain by a thin (less than 6 metre layer) of outwash deposits of sand and gravel, most prevalent near the Grand River spillway. Layers of fine sand and silt (likely glaciolacustrine deposits from Lake Whittlesley) are present. Within the Tributary to the Grand subwatershed (as shown in Figure 3.3.1), the primary materiasl are sand and gravel deposited along the Grand River spillway.

3.3.2 BEDROCK GEOLOGY The bedrock is not exposed within the study area as it is overlain by approximately 30 metres of overburden. The bedrock consists of the Guelph Formation of middle Silurian-age (GRCA, 2012). The Guelph Formation consists of dolostone, underlain by the Amabel formation and overlain by the Salina Formation. The bedrock is an important source of potable groundwater supply for the Region of Waterloo and surrounding municipalities (GRCA, 2012). The Guelph Formation can be a moderately productive aquifer but the Amabel formation is considered to be a highly productive aquifer, mainly as a result of karstification resulting in higher porosity and enhanced groundwater transmissivity. Figure 3.3.1A shows a cross-section (A-Aâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;) that runs through Freeport Creek subwatershed (MTE Consultants Inc, 2012). The data sources are discussed in the following sections.

Page 24

# # # ## ## # # # ##

# ## ## # # # # # ##

# #

# Kitchener

# # # ## # # # #

RB AN K

# ##

RIV E

# ##

## TH KOSSU

# # FIGURE 3.3.1 SURFICIAL GEOLOGY

# # #

# Y

MW4

MIDDLE BLOC

####

K RD

A R ND

GENERAL SUBWATERSHED STUDY AREA

ALLENDALE RD

## Y

5b: STONE-POOR, CARBONATE-DERIVED SILTY TO SANDY TILL - PORT STANLEY TILL 5d: GLACIOLACUSTRINE-DERIVED SILTY TO CLAYEY TILL - MARYHILL TILL

G RO

## Y ## Y FSTP1-10 FSTW1-06 Y

D R ES

## # ## # ##

20: ORGANIC DEPOSITS

# # # ####

# # #

GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION (SEE FIGURE 3.3.1A)

# # # # #

# Y

MTE WELL

MOE DATABASE WELL

# #

# # 0

# ##

## ## #

## #

## # ## #

## ## # # # #

250

500 Meters

## # # # #

# #

Cambridge

19: MODERN ALLUVIAL DEPOSITS

# #

SALTMAN DR.

# ###

7b: GRAVELLY DEPOSITS

MW2

# Y

7a: SANDY DEPOSITS

FSTW1-10

# #

3: PALEOZOIC BEDROCK

6: ICE-CONTACT STRATIFIED DEPOSITS

# ## # # # # ## # ### # # ## # ## # # # # ## # # ## # # # # # # # # ## # # ## # ## ### ## # # ### ## # ## # # # ### # # # # ## ## # # # ## ## # ## # # # ### # #

# #

## ## # #

MOHAWK RD

## # # # # ## # #

MW3 #

PO RT CR #EE

# # # ## # ## # #

BANAT

# #

# # # ##### # ## # # ## ## ### # ## # # # # # # ## # # # ##### # # # ### #

FR EE

# #

STREAMS

## # # # # # # # # ### # # # # ## # # # ## ### # # ### # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # MW1 Y #

# # # ##

TR IBU TA # #RY

# # #

# #

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY

# BE AN TR AIL

EEK

## #

G RA

WA LT ER

LOCAL ROADS

SPEEDSVILLE

RI VE

# # # # # # # # ## #

REGIONAL ROADS

WATER BODIES

DA LE

MUNICIPAL ROADS

# #

HIGHWAY

# ALL EN

BA RN

BY PA SS # #

FREEPORT CREEK AND TRIBUTARY TO THE GRAND SUBWATERSHED STUDY

# ##

# #

# # #

RIV ER BA NK

CR EE K

EAST SIDE LAND MESP AND COMMUNITY PLAN

Woolwich #

RIV

# ## #

ST N

# ## # #### # # # # # # DR NK # A B # ER

# # #

IN FOUNTA

# #

# # # #### ###

ich RD COBER

olw # Wo #

## ##

# #

KING ST E

# ## #

Base data provided by the Ministry of Natural Resources: Produced by Dillon Consulting under Licence with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2011

Additional data sources and mapping provided by the RMOW, the City of Cambridge, and the GRCA.

# ## # #

File Location: C:\Projects\65107-EastSideLands\GIS\MXD\Final-June12-2013\ Figure-3.3.1-SurficialGeology.mxd Date: June 12, 2013

# ## # # ### ### #

# ## #

# #

# # # ##

# #

# # #

# #

## #

# #

# # # # #

# ###

# #

# ##

### ## # # # # ## ### ### ###### ##### #### ## # ### # #

RIV ER BA N

6: ICE-CONTACT STRATIFIED DEPOSITS 7a: SANDY DEPOSITS 7b: GRAVELLY DEPOSITS

19: MODERN ALLUVIAL DEPOSITS

# ##

20: ORGANIC DEPOSITS

GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION (SEE FIGURE 3.3.1A)

# Y

MTE WELL

MOE DATABASE WELL

# BANAT

# #

# # # ## ## #

## Y

# Y

MW2

# # ## FSTW1-10

## Y ##Y FSTP1-10 FSTW1-06Y

# #

# # #

## #####

# Cambridge

# # #

# # # ## # #

# # # # ## # # # # # # # ## # # # ## # ### # # # # # #

# #

MOHAWK RD

MW3 # # # #

ALLENDALE RD

5b: STONE-POOR, CARBONATE-DERIVED SILTY TO SANDY TILL - PORT STANLEY TILL 5d: GLACIOLACUSTRINE-DERIVED SILTY TO CLAYEY TILL- MARYHILL TILL

3: PALEOZOIC BEDROCK

####

# ##

# # #

# RD SSUTH

## # ##

# # #

# #

# # # # # # TR ## # IBU # # #T#ARY #### # ##### # # # # # # ## ### # # # # # # # ## # # # ## # # FR # EY ## #EPOMW1 # R Y HW

# # #

STREAMS

# # #

## #

BE AN TR # AIL

MIDDLE BLOCK

MW4

# ## # # # # # #

WA LT ER

## #

# ## #

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY WATER BODIES

# olwic # Wo

# ND A LE

LOCAL ROADS

REGIONAL ROADS

## #

# # #

Woolwich #

ALL E

M AP

PA S

# # #

# Y

RI V

MUNICIPAL ROADS

# #

# # # # KI N G

ER BA RIV

GR AN

# # # ## # # # #

KING ST E

# #

# # ##

# # # # ## #

# Kitchener

## #

# # # # # ## #

# # # # ##### #### # # # # # # # # DR # ## NK ### # BA ## # # ER V # I ## ## R ## # #

# # ## # # # #### ## #

HIGHWAY

# #

## # # #

# #

FIGURE 3.3.1A SURFICIAL GEOLOGY CROSS-SECTION

# #

# ##

# # #

## # # ## #

FREEPORT CREEK AND TRIBUTARY TO THE GRAND SUBWATERSHED STUDY

IN ST N

# #

EAST SIDE LAND MESP AND COMMUNITY PLAN

# ## #

FOUNTA

# #

SPEEDSVILLE

# #

## # # ## ### # # # # # # # # ## # # # #

## ### #### # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # ### ### # # # ## # # ## ### ## ## #

# #

# # # #

## # #

RD CO BER

250

# #

500 Meters

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

3.4 HYDROGEOLOGY

3.4.1 OBJECTIVES The objective of this section is to establish existing conditions within the East Side Lands: •

To summarize work accomplished and data obtained;

•

To refine the conceptual model of the hydrogeology of the East Side Lands, identifying aquifers and aquitards;

•

To review the hydrogeology of the shallow water table and its relation to deeper aquifers and aquitards;

•

To compile data on water levels in shallow monitor wells and precipitation to determine water table responses to precipitation events;

•

To summarize monitoring of drive-point mini-piezometers along Freeport Creek; and

•

To propose a regional water balance incorporating the Thornthwaite & Mather evapotranspiration model.

3.4.2 WORK DONE IN 2011-2012 In March of 2011, monitor wells were proposed to fill in perceived gaps in the hydrogeology of the shallow overburden. This was deemed necessary since most water wells and municipal production wells in the area extend to a deep aquifer at depths of the order of 30 metres. A pump test of municipal well P-16 by Golder (2009) revealed no direct hydraulic connection between the surface and deep aquifer. During field reconnaissance to select suitable drilling sites in June 2011, existing monitor well nests were found in the proposed locations. Four monitor wells (MW1, -2, -3 and -4) had been previously established in 2010 by MTE Consultants in support of a Class EA and long-term pump test of a well (FSTP1-10) near Maple Grove Road west of Fountain Street. The locations are shown in Figure 3.4.2. The proposed groundwater and surface water sampling events were critically reviewed in April 2012. A consensus was reached that a limited scope of surface water quality sampling would not add anything meaningful to existing data collected by GRCA in Freeport Creek at King Street in 2006. Groundwater data were available from the Hespeler West Subwatershed Study. In August 2012, four (4) drive-point mini-piezometers were installed in the Freeport Creek wetland and surface water. This had been delayed until the completion of the pump test on FSTP1-10 (which was discharging in excess of 7,100 cubic meters per day to the upper reach of Freeport Creek). The locations are shown in Figure 3.4.2.

Page 27

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 In August 16, 2012, slug tests were performed on the four shallow monitor wells (MW1C, MW2C, MW3C and MW4-C with the assistance of Mr. James Hutton of the Region of Waterloo. The responses and recoveries were logged with In-Situ miniTROLL loggers and the hydraulic conductivities were calculated with AquiferTest Pro. The 40-day pump test occurred on Well FSTP1-10 between May 17 and June 28, 2011 at a rate of 60 litres/second (MTE Consultants Inc., 2013). Well P-16 on Fountain Street was pumped at 23 litres/second from June 13 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 28, 2011 to determine the aquifer safe yield at a combined pumping rate of 83 litres/second (1,096 imperial gallons/minute). Well logs for wells FSTP1-10, MW-1, MW-2, MW-3 and MW-4 were graciously provided to the study team by MTE Consultants Inc. and the Region of Waterloo, along with water level spreadsheets and pump test results. Well FSTP1-10 was drilled in July 2010 to a depth of 57.91 metres by PQ coring. Sand, gravel and cobbles were intersected between 29.5 and 57 metres, identified as pre-Catfish Creek sand and gravel, corresponding to Aquifer 3. Limestone bedrock was found at 57 metres. Well P-16 on Fountain Street was drilled in 1986, reaching a total depth of 38.4 metres. Between 27.7 and 38 metres, a 10.7 metre section of sand and gravel was intersected, again corresponding to Aquifer 3.

3.4.3 HYDROGEOLOGY SETTING The surficial geology of the subwatershed study area is summarized in Figure 3.3.1 and in cross-section in Figure 3.3.1A, developed from information compiled by MTE Consultants (2012) from water well records and the 2010 monitor well logs. The logs of the monitor wells advanced by MTE Consultants are attached as Appendix A. The 3-dimensional geology and hydrogeology of the area (including the East Side Lands) was summarized by Bajc (2007), from a comprehensive study undertaken for the Region of Waterloo. In all, 19 overburden depositional layers (or hydrostratigraphic units) were identified. Four aquifer units have been identified in the Region of Waterloo. These are summarized in Table 3.4.1 along with representative geologic units.

Page 28

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Table 3.4.1: Description of Geologic and Hydrogeologic Units in the Region of Waterloo and Within the Subwatershed Study Area Layers

1-4

Region Aquifer

Representative Geologic Unit(s)

Description

Present in the Study Area?

Shallow Overburden Aquifer

Whittlesey sediment, Wentworth Till & Outwash deposits

Post-glacial lacustrine sediment

Yes

7-9

Aquifer 1

Waterloo Moraine & Middle Maryhill Till

Sand and stone-free sand till

Aquifer 2

Catfish Creek Outwash

Sand with minor gravel

16 - 18

Deep Aquifer 3

Pre-Catfish Creek Aquifer, Canning and Pre-Canning deposits

Glaciofluvial sand & gravel

Yes

It is significant to note that there are only two (2) aquifers present in the East Side Lands, namely the Shallow Aquifer and a Deep Aquifer 3. The aquifers and intervening aquitards are shown schematically in Figure 3.4.1.

Figure 3.4.1: Typical Hydrogeological Cross-Section of the East Side Lands

Page 29

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

The potentiometric static water level derived from water wells (tapping Deep Aquifer 3) exhibit a southwest gradient towards the Grand River (from Golder 2009) and is reproduced in Figure 3.4.2. Four measurements of the shallow water table (from August 2011) are superposed on the figure. The shallow water table lies between 1 and 2.5 metres below ground surface and is under dominant topographic control. The gradient is also to the southwest.

Page 30

# # # ## ## # # # ##

# ## ## # # #

# #

# # # ## # # # #

RB AN K

# ##

RIV E

# ##

TH KOSSU

# # FIGURE 3.4.2 STATIC WATER LEVELS

# # #

311.2

# Y

MW4

MIDDLE BLOC

####

K RD

RI VE

## # #

R VE

# #

# # # ####

SALTMAN DR.

D R ES

# #

# ## #

## ## #

## #

## # ## #

## ## # # # #

500 Meters

Base data provided by the Ministry of Natural Resources: Produced by Dillon Consulting under Licence with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2011

250

# #

290 #

ES W

# #

## # # #

28 5

# # # # #

# #

Cambridge

K EE

FSTW1-10

PIEZOMETER (2012)

(AUGUST 2011) FROM MTE CONSULTANTS

MW2

# ###

MOE DATABASE WELL

310.3 SURFACE WATER TABLE ELEVATIONS

# ## # ## # #

S EA

# Y

MTE WELL

# ## # # # # ## # ### # # ## # ## # # # # ## # # ## # # # # # # # # ## # # ## # ## ### ## # # ### ## # ## # # # ### # # # # ## ## # # # ## ## # ## # # # ### # #

# Y

WATER ELEVATION CONTOUR

310.3

## ## # #

# # E RE

MOHAWK RD

## Y " ## Y FSTP1-10 FSTW1-06 Y

# # # ## # ## # #

280 # #

## # # # # ## # #

MW3 #

29 5

# # # ##### # ## # # ## ## ### # ## # # # # # # ## # # # ##### # # # ### #

# #

300

STREAMS

## Y

WATER BODIES

# # # ##

ALLENDALE RD

## # # # # # # # # ### # # # # ## # # # ## ### # # ### # # # # # # # # # ## # # 299.5 # # FRY MW1 # # EE # P

306.7

TR IBU TA # #RY

# # #

# #

BE AN TR AIL

G RO

BANAT

STAGE 1 STUDY AREA MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY

# #

EEK

## #

G RA

WA LT ER

LOCAL ROADS

D ID M

# # # # # # ## #

DA LE

# #

REGIONAL ROADS

ALL EN

MUNICIPAL ROADS

BA RN

BY PA SS # #

HIGHWAY

# #

# ##

FREEPORT CREEK AND TRIBUTARY TO THE GRAND SUBWATERSHED STUDY

# Kitchener

# # #

RIV ER BA NK

# #

SPEEDSVILLE

# # ##

CR EE K

EAST SIDE LAND MESP AND COMMUNITY PLAN

Woolwich #

RIV

# ## #

ST N

# ## # #### # # # # # # DR NK # A B # ER

# # #

IN FOUNTA

# #

# # # #### ###

ich RD COBER

olw # Wo #

## ##

# #

KING ST E

Additional data sources and mapping provided by the RMOW, the City of Cambridge, and the GRCA.

# ## # #

File Location: C:\Projects\65107-EastSideLands\GIS\MXD\Final-June12-2013\ Figure-3.4.1-StaticWaterLevel.mxd Date: June 12, 2013

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

3.4.4 MONITOR WELLS AND AQUIFER PROPERTIES The four nested monitor well nests, established by MTE Consultants in 2010, were designed to test the responses of the Deep Aquifer (A-series wells), the intervening till aquitard (B-series wells) and the Shallow Aquifer (C-series wells). The locations of these four wells (MW1 to MW-4) are shown on Figure 3.4.2. The screened sections of the monitor well nests are summarized in Table 3.4.2. Table 3.4.2: Details on the Monitor Wells and Screened Section Monitor well MW-1A MW-1B MW-1C MW-2A MW-2B MW-2C MW-3A MW-3B MW-3C MW-4A MW-4B MW-4C

Screened Section (m below ground)

Screened section

Freeport Creek, south of Riverbank

38.5 – 44.7

Pre-Catfish Creek sand & gravel Aquifer 3

15.2 -20.1

Middle/Lower Maryhill Till)

0.7 – 5.8

Outwash & Lake Whittlesey sand (Shallow Aquifer)

Freeport Creek, west of Maple Grove

35.9 – 40.9

Pre-Catfish Creek sand & gravel Aquifer 3

Allendale Road, west of Fountain St.

Location

Middle Block Road, east of Riverbank

14.8 – 20.1

Upper Maryhill Till, Port Stanley Till

11.1 – 5.2

Outwash sand & gravel (Shallow Aquifer)

45.0 -20.1

Pre-Catfish Creek sand & gravel Aquifer 3

15.2 – 20.7

Port Stanley Till, Upper Maryhill Till

2.0 – 6.5

Outwash sand & Lake Whittlesey sand (Shallow Aquifer)

32.0 – 37.0

Pre-Catfish Creek sand & gravel Aquifer 3

13.8 -20.3

Lower Maryhill Till

3.4 – 8.1

Lake Whittlesey fine sand (Shallow Aquifer)

Hydraulic conductivity (K) of the Deep Aquifer was derived from pumping of wells FSTP-1-10 on Maple Grove and P16 on Fountain Street and during recoveries following cessation of the pump tests. These data were provided by MTE Consultants and are summarized in Table 3.4.3. The hydraulic conductivity of the Deep Aquifer 3 is approximately 10-4 metre/second. The hydraulic conductivity of the confining till units (assigned to the Port Stanley Till and Maryhill Till) was previously determined to be in the range of 10-6 and 10-9 in the Maple Grove and Fountain Street Water Supply EA (Golder, 2009) and in the Waterloo North Water Supply Class EA (Golder, 2011). The hydraulic conductivity of the shallow soils in MW-1, -2, -3 and -4 “C” varies between 10-5 metre/second in silty sand (MW4-C) to 10-8 metre/second in Whittlesey silt (MW1-C). These data are summarized in Table 3.4.3.

Page 32

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Table 3.4.3: Summary of Hydraulic Conductivity (K) Measurements of Monitor Wells (metres/second) Well

Pumping Well

Hydrostratigraphic zones

Hydraulic Conductivity (m/sec)

FSTP1-10

FSTP1-10, P16

Pre-Catfish Creek sand & gravel (Aquifer 3)

1.2 x 10E-4

MW-1A

â&#x20AC;&#x153;

Pre-Catfish Creek sand & gravel (Aquifer 3)

1.6 - 2.4 x 10E-4

MW-1C slug test

Single well slug test

Whittlesey silt (Shallow Aquifer)

6.5 x 10E-8

MW-2A

FSTP1-10, P16

Pre-Catfish Creek sand & gravel (Aquifer 3)

1.2 - 5.2 x 10E-4

MW-2C slug test

Single well slug test

Sand & gravel outwash (Shallow Aquifer)

2.3 x 10E-6

MW-3A

FSTP1-10, P16

Pre-Catfish Creek sand & gravel (Aquifer 3)

2.3 x 10E-4

MW-3C slug test

Single well slug test

Whittlesey sand (Shallow Aquifer)

2.3 x 10E-6

MW-4A

FSTP1-10, P16

Pre-Catfish Creek sand & gravel (Aquifer 3)

3.4 - 3.8 x 10E-4

MW-4C slug test

Single well slug test

Silty sand under Whittlesey (Shallow Aquifer)

1.4 x 10E-5

P16

Pre-Catfish Creek sand & gravel (Aquifer 3)

1.7 - 2.4 x 10E-4

Page 33

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

3.4.5 THE SHALLOW WATER TABLE The 40-day pump test of well FSTP1-10 revealed that the Shallow Aquifer displayed no response to the pump test, due to the intervening layers of till (MTE, 2013); similar to what was observed in well P-16 by Golder (2009). Water levels in four monitor wells in the Shallow Aquifer (30-minute logged intervals) were compiled over a 2-year period (January 2011 – January 2013). Using MW-1C as an example (Figures 3.4.3 – 3.4.4), a typical seasonal fluctuation is apparent, with minima in mid-September. The compiled hydrographs for all the monitor wells1 are presented in Appendix A. What was also apparent is that the monitor well hydrographs also exhibit measurable responses to daily precipitation depths, compiled from the Waterloo-Wellington station (43o27’39”N, 80o22’43”, Elevation 321.60 ASL). The behaviour of the shallow water table in response to precipitation events in a typical monitor well (MW-1C) over a two-year period is presented in Figures 3.4.3 – 3.4.4. Figure 3.4.3: Water Levels in the Shallow Aquifer in MW1-C with Daily Precipitation Depths 2011-2012

NOTE: The logger in MW2-C was not functioning and no data are available after September 2011.

Page 34

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Figure 3.4.4: Water Levels in the Shallow Aquifer in MW1-C with Daily Precipitation Depths 2012-2013

Page 35

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

3.4.6 WATER LEVELS IN THE UNDERLYING TILL In order to explore if there is a hydraulic connection between the shallow water table and the underlying till aquitard, the recorded water levels of both in MW1-B (screened in till) and MW1-C (screened in the Shallow Aquifer) were normalized, superposed and are reproduced in Figures 3.4.5 and 3.4.6. The water levels of both were set to “0” on January 25, 2011 to visualize their relative changes. The example of MW1 near Freeport Creek demonstrates that the water level in the till (at 16 metres below surface) is a subdued reflection of the water table near surface sands (at 2 metres below ground) for over the two-year period, implying a weak hydraulic connection between the two units. Similar plots for other monitor wells are presented in Appendix A.

Figure 3.4.5: MW-1C and MW-1B Water Levels and Precipitation Depths (January, 2011 – January, 2012). Note both are set to 0 at start to show relative changes in water levels

Page 36

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Figure 3.4.6: MW-1C and MW-1B Water Levels and Precipitation Depths (January, 2012 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; January, 2013). Note both are set to 0 at start to show relative changes in water levels

Page 37

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

3.4.7 PIEZOMETERS Four hand-driven drive-point piezometers were installed along Freeport Creek on August 15, 2012, at locations shown in Figure 3.4.2. The purpose was to determine reaches of the creeks where upwelling was occurring and the streams were “gaining” as a result of groundwater discharge and which reaches were infiltrating water into the ground (“losing”). Although Section 5(b)(2)(c) of the TOR in Appendix A requested stream flow measurements, it was determined from site reconnaissance that Freeport Creek lacked a well-defined channel upstream of the pond on Freeport Creek and that such measurements would be too inaccurate to be meaningful. Instead the piezometers were installed and monitored between August 2012 and February 2013 to determine if there was groundwater up-welling. The measurements are summarized in Table 3.4.4. Table 3.4.4: Freeport Creek Piezometer Readings (August 2012 – February 2013) Piezometer #

Date

Aug. 28, 2012 Oct. 11, 2012 P1 Dec. 18, 2012 Jan. 30, 2013 Feb. 19, 2013 Aug. 28, 2012 Oct. 11, 2012 P2 Dec. 18, 2012 Jan. 30, 2013 Feb. 19, 2013 Aug. 28, 2012 Oct. 11, 2012 P3 Dec. 18, 2012 Jan. 30, 2013 Feb. 19, 2013 Aug. 28, 2012 Oct. 11, 2012 P4 Dec. 18, 2012 Jan. 30, 2013 Feb. 19, 2013 * - Water frozen inside piezometer

Water Level In (m)

Water Level Out (m)

Gradient Difference (m)

Gradient Direction

Gaining or Losing

0.855 0.78 0.585 0.19 *0.555 1.26 0.95

0.87 0.83 0.73 0.11 0.52 0.84 0.78

0.015 0.05 0.145 -0.08 n/a -0.42 -0.17

↑ ↑ ↑ ↓

0.745 0.63 0.63

0.72 0.21 0.47

-0.025 -0.42 -0.16

0.56 1.48

0.64 0.725 (dry)

0.08 n/a

0.49 0.465 *0.4

0.5 0.16 *0.345

0.01 -0.305 -0.055

0.61 0.98

0.58 0.69

-0.03 -0.29

0.8 0.815 0.8

0.56 0.29 0.49

-0.24 -0.525 -0.31

Gaining Gaining Gaining Losing n/a Losing Losing Losing Losing Losing Gaining n/a Gaining Losing Losing Losing Losing Losing Losing Losing

↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓

3.4.8 RECHARGE CAPABILITY The soils in the East Side Lands are described as sand and gravel loam, with good drainage, low waterholding capacity and low fertility, likely a result of their permeability. In order to gauge the Shallow Aquifer response to significant rain events, six major rainfall events (25.3 – 123.3 mm with durations between 1 and 16 days) were compiled along with the water table responses, specifically the times for the water level to peak and the time for the water level to subside (Table 3.4.5).

Page 38

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Well

Event

1C 2C

Rise Recover Rise

Recover Rise Recover

Rise Recover

Rise

Recover Rise

Recover Rise Recover

Rise

Recover Rise Recover

Rise Recover

Table 3.4.5: Shallow Aquifer Rises, Falls and Durations in Response to Significant Rainfall Events Duration W/l at start W/l at end W/l change Rainfall Event Start Event End (hrs) (mbgs) (mbgs) (m) (mm) 22/06/11 19:00 24/06/11 23:00 52 2.109 1.89 0.219 36.7 24/06/11 23:00 30/06/11 14:00 135 1.89 2.103 0.213 0.8 22/06/11 22:30 24/06/11 23:30 49 0.36 0.24 0.12 36.7 24/06/11 23:30 30/06/11 14:00 134 0.24 0.29 0.05 1.1 22/06/11 23:30 25/06/11 3:30 53 1.19 1.0 0.19 36.7 25/06/11 3:30 26/06/11 19:00 39 1.0 1.19 0.19 0.3 22/06/11 22:30 25/06/11 3:00 52.5 3.27 2.09 1.18 36.7 25/06/11 3:00 01/07/11 9:00 150 2.09 3.27 1.18 1.1 19/10/11 20:30 20/10/11 23:30 27 1.451 1.076 0.375 48.2 20/10/11 23:30 25/10/11 3:00 99 1.076 1.213 0.137 4.1 19/10/11 21:00 21/10/11 5:00 32 1.83 1.15 0.68 48.2 21/10/11 5:00 21/10/11 13:30 8 1.15 1.26 0.11 4.1 19/10/11 18:30 20/10/11 14:30 20 2.141 1.519 0.622 48.2 20/10/11 14:30 23/10/11 10:00 67.5 1.519 1.674 0.155 0.3 29/11/11 3:00 30/11/11 0:30 21.5 0.941 0.11 0.831 52.1 30/11/11 0:30 04/12/11 12:00 107 0.11 0.613 0.503 1.6 28/11/11 22:30 29/11/11 17:30 19 0.95 0.36 0.59 56.1 29/11/11 17:30 01/12/11 0:00 30 0.36 0.59 0.23 0.8 29/11/11 0:00 29/11/11 16:00 16 1.505 1.293 0.212 56.1 29/11/11 16:00 01/12/11 10:00 42 1.293 1.502 0.209 0.8 06/06/12 18:30 08/06/12 2:00 31.5 1.232 1.088 0.144 25.3 08/06/12 2:00 09/06/12 2:30 24 1.088 1.124 0.036 1 06/06/12 18:30 07/06/12 5:00 11 1.23 0.96 0.27 25.3 07/06/12 5:00 07/06/12 9:30 4 0.96 1.14 0.18 0 06/06/12 18:30 07/06/12 16:00 21.5 2.634 2.347 0.287 25.3 07/06/12 16:00 09/06/12 9:30 41.5 2.347 2.419 0.072 1

Page 39

Rain Days 3 1 3 2 3 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 1

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 1C

Rise

13/10/12 2:30

30/10/12 9:30

415

2.318

0.973

1.345

123.3

Rise

13/10/12 2:30

30/10/12 15:00

420.5

2.57

0.92

1.65

123.3

4C 1C

Rise Rise

13/10/12 10:30 13/01/13 4:00

30/10/12 5:00 13/01/13 15:00

402.5 11

4.579 0.741

2.053 0.352

2.526 0.389

123.3 28.9

16 1

Recover

13/01/13 15:00

22/01/13 7:30

208

0.352

0.741

0.389

1.6

Rise

13/01/13 5:00

13/01/13 13:00

0.58

0.41

0.17

28.9

Recover

13/01/13 13:00

15/01/13 1:00

0.41

0.58

0.17

0.3

Rise Recover

13/01/13 3:00 13/01/13 10:30

13/01/13 10:30 14/01/13 5:00

7.5 18.5

1.383 1.324

1.324 1.386

0.59 0.62

28.9 0.3

1 1

3C 4C

Page 40

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

These data indicate that infiltration to the Shallow Aquifer occurs in approximately direct proportion to the depth of rainfall. In general, the water table rise occurs over a period of 1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2 days, with the recovery period often lasting twice as long (Table 3.4.5). Plots of water table rises in the Shallow Aquifer versus precipitation depths show a reasonable correlation (Figure 3.4.7).

Figure 3.4.7: Water Level Responses to Significant Rain Events (June 2011 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; January 2013)

Page 41

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

3.4.9 WATER BALANCE The climate normals (1971 – 2000) from the Waterloo Wellington 2 station (43O27’00’’N, 80023’00’’W, 317.0 m ASL) were used to obtain monthly actual Evapotranspiration (AET) values using the Thornthwaite and Mather (1957) procedure. This climate station provides a 30-year climate record that allows a representative ET calculation. According to the monthly calculations presented in Table 3.4.6, the annual evapotranspiration amounts to almost 62% of annual precipitation; the remaining 38% (352.5 mm annually) is the water surplus that may be partitioned between infiltration and runoff. *Note: when mean monthly temperatures fall below 0oC, the Thornthwaite and Mather model assumes that evapotranspiration does not occur. Table 3.4.6 Water Budget Analysis for the Study Area Based on Climate Normals from 1971 to 2000

Month

Precipitation (mm)

Average Temperature (oC)

Potential ET* (mm)

Actual ET* (mm)

January

64.4

7.1

0.0

February

51.5

6.4

0.0

March

69.9

2.0

0.0

April

76.9

5.8

30.2

May

78.3

12.5

75.6

June

81.3

17.3

111.4

109.3

July

91.8

19.8

127.7

119.8

August

86.3

18.7

111.6

104.3

September

85.8

14.3

71.8

October

65.6

8.2

37.1

November

82.7

2.3

7.3

December

73.6

3.8

0.0

TOTAL

907.90

555.3

% Lost to ET (annual)

61.2

Page 42

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

3.4.10

WATER QUALITY

Groundwater quality samples were not conducted during 2011 and 2012. Surface water quality sampling was conducted during 2011 and 2012 however the results were not analyzed. The neighbouring Hespeler West Subwatershed Study (PEIL, 2004) reported 10 groundwater analyses from boreholes advanced within an area bounded by Fountain Street (west), Beaverdale Road (east), Middle Block Road (north) and Highway 401 (south). Chloride concentrations ranged from 15 mg/L to 1,330 mg/L. Nitrate concentration ranged from <1 mg/L to 32 mg/L. Freeport Creek was sampled 12 times in 2006 (May to November) and 14 times in 2011 (see Section 3.8.2). The results for the sampling at King Street indicate that spikes in chloride concentration (>400 mg/L) are common in May through September. Chloride concentrations fall to their lowest <200 mg/L by late September. Nitrate concentrations for the same period are uniformly low, ranging from 0.1 to 0.8 mg/L.

3.4.11

CONCLUSIONS

1. The East Side Lands are underlain by 3 main hydrostratigraphic overburden units: a thin surface veneer of sand outwash (â&#x2030;¤6 metres thick), overlying 20 metres of till (Port Stanley, Maryhill Till and/or Catfish Creek Till) and 20 metres of sand & gravel (pre-Catfish Creek). Bedrock is found at depths between 37 and 50 metres below surface. The Waterloo Moraine deposits (or its equivalents) are absent. 2. There are two aquifers in the study area, namely a Shallow Aquifer, hosted in outwash sand and gravel (less than 6 metres thick), which has not been exploited on the East Side Lands. The main drinking water aquifer is located in thick sand & gravel deposits at depths >20 metres, corresponding to Deep Aquifer 3 of the Regionsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; FEFLOW hydrostratigraphic model (specifically Layers 16, 17 and 18). Aquifer 3 is confined by 20 metres of overlying till. 3. Regional Aquifer 1 (within the Waterloo Moraine and equivalents) and Aquifer 2 (within with post-Catfish Creek outwash sand & gravel) were not present in the study area. 4. Potentiometric groundwater levels, derived from water well records, exhibit a regional northeast to southwest gradient across the study area. Limited water level data in the Shallow Aquifer suggest a similar gradient. 5. Two years of groundwater level monitoring in four nested monitor wells indicate that the shallow water table fluctuates by 2 metres annually, with highest water levels attained between March and May, a minimum in mid-September and a gradual rise in early November to the following spring. The exception is MW-2 near the stormwater management pond at Freeport Creek PSW (Pond 130), where groundwater levels remains constant throughout the year (fluctuating less than 0.3 metre annually). This may be due to shallow groundwater mounding in the wetland (Pond 130).

Page 43

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 6. There is a poor hydraulic connection from surface to the deep Aquifer 3 based on the 40-day pump test at FSTP1-10. 7. The shallow water table responds quickly to rainfall events with the water table rising in direct proportion to the depth of rain. 8. The underlying till (screened at depths >16 metres) mimics the shallow water table in a more subdued manner. 9. Hydraulic conductivity of the Shallow Aquifer, as measured in four shallow monitor wells ranges from sand is 10-5 m/second in sand to 10-8 m/second in silty till. 10. The hydraulic conductivity of the Deep Aquifer 3 is of the order of 10-4 m/second. 11. Hydraulic conductivity in the confining till layer is of the order of 10-6 to 10-9 m/second, indicating there is no significant hydraulic connection between the Deep Aquifer and surface. 12. Four piezometers installed along Freeport Creek in August 2012 revealed that the headwaters of Freeport Creek are “gaining” (characterized by groundwater upwelling). Downstream, the piezometers demonstrate that Freeport Creek is “losing” (surface water is recharging groundwater). 13. The vulnerability of the subwatershed study area, based on existing and future Well Head Protection Areas (WHPA) and the Intake Protection Zone (IPZ) for Hidden Valley, is discussed in detail in Section 4.1.2.

Page 44

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

3.5 HYDROLOGY / HYDRAULICS Section 3.5 summarizes the hydrologic and hydraulic assessments undertaken as part of this study. To assist the reader, the structure of Section 3.5 has been summarized below: •

Section 3.5.1 - describes the background information;

•

Section 3.5.2 – describes the surface drainage systems of Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand used within the model architecture;

•

Section 3.5.3 – describes the hydrologic model development (EPA- SWMM), summarizes previous hydrologic models, the subcatchment delineation, existing conditions (predevelopment) subcatchment characteristics, the discharge characteristics of Pond 130, climate data, soils within the study area and infiltration model inputs;

•

Section 3.5.4 – summarizes existing conditions (pre-development) event-based peak flows/results and model validation;

•

Section 3.5.5 – summarizes the existing conditions (pre-development) continuous hydrologic model development, results, validation, water budget analysis;

•

Section 3.5.6 – summarizes future conditions uncontrolled (post development) event-based peak flows/ results and model validation;

•

Section 3.5.7 – describes the hydraulic model development, provides a summary of existing hydraulic structures and summarizes the floodplain hydraulics assessment;

•

Section 3.5.8 – summarizes the hydrologic and hydraulic study conclusions

3.5.1 BACKGROUND Hydrologic analysis is required to understand the relationship between precipitation and the response of the study area to precipitation events. There are many benefits that result from this understanding. These benefits include: •

Defining the drainage system;

•

Defining streamflow regime and variability;

•

Conducting water budget estimates and identifying key elements in the Hydrological Cycle;

•

Identifying stormwater management targets; and

•

Assessing flood and erosion potential.

In order to carry out the hydrologic analysis, background information was obtained from several sources including and not limited to the following: •

Field investigations o Creek flow observations, photographs and diagnostic measurements o Field confirmation of watercourse mapping

Page 45

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 •

Technical reports covering the study area, including o GRCA, 2012. Draft Phase 1 Characterization Report East Side Lands Subwatersheds Study, V1 o AMEC, 2010. Stormwater Management Master Plan, Freeport Basin o Water’s Edge, 2010. Fluvial geomorphology characterization report for East Side Lands o AquaResource, 2009. Integrated Water Budget Study for the Grand River Watershed o PEIL, 2004. Hespeler West Subwatersheds Study (HWSS) o Conestoga-Rovers and Associates, 1990. City of Cambridge Business Park Stormwater Management Works

•

Historical metrological data (Environment Canada and University of Waterloo Weather Station), including o Hourly precipitation values o Air temperature o Relative humidity o Wind speed o Pan evaporation o IDF tables. City of Cambridge, 2011. Stormwater Policies and Guidelines o Stream gauge on Freeport Creek at the outlet of Pond 130

•

Soils data, including o Research Branch, Canada Department of Agriculture, 1971. Soils of Waterloo County. Report No.44 of the Ontario Soil Survey o Field Observations

•

Hydrologic models, including o AMEC, 2010. Stormwater Management Master Plan, Freeport Basin o TSH, 2004. GAWSER model - update version, Hespeler West

•

Hydraulic models, including o K. Smart Associates Limited, 2010. Floodplain Mapping, 3800 King Street Site Plan o 300 Maple Grove Road (provided by GRCA) o TSH, 2004. HEC-RAS Version 3.1.1 - update version, Hespeler West

•

Maps and GIS layers o 1 m contour mapping (2009) o Aerial photography (2006)

Page 46

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

3.5.2 SURFACE DRAINAGE SYSTEM The surface drainage systems in the study area are located within three distinct subwatersheds. These subwatersheds are: Freeport Creek subwatershed with a drainage area of 4.01 km2, Tributary to the Grand subwatershed with a drainage area of 2.15 km2, and a portion of the Hespeler West Subwatersheds with a drainage area of 0.51 km2 (PEIL, 2004). While the Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand subwatersheds drain into the Grand River, the portion of the Hespeler West subwatersheds within the study area is part of the Middle Creek subwatershed which drains into the Speed River in the northern part of the City of Cambridge (PEIL, 2004). The study area is mostly rural with dominant agricultural land use, and with soils that consist primarily of loam and sandy loam. These dominant soils generally have high groundwater recharge potential and baseflow input. The surface drainage features within the study area are comprised of the following two watercourse systems: •

Freeport Creek

•

Tributaries to the Grand River: o Riverbank Creek o Allendale Creek o Walter Bean Trail Tributary

3.5.2.1 Freeport Creek Freeport Creek originates in the vicinity of Challenger Motor Freight and the École Père-René-DeGalinée School on the north side of Maple Grove Road in the City of Cambridge. The creek flows into a large wetland unit which functions as a stormwater management detention area (Pond 130) and significant natural heritage area. The creek continues to flow north-west through agricultural fields and rear residential lots before passing under the CPR line, a local access road, and King Street East. West of King Street East, the creek continues to flow west through the Grand Valley Garden Village nursery and under Highway 8, outletting to the east side of the Grand River, downstream of the Highway 8 Bridge in the City of Kitchener.

Prior to 1990, Freeport Creek originated within what is now Pond 130. In the 1990’s, the upstream channel was constructed between the Pond 130 and Maple Grove road to provide drainage to the adjacent low-lying areas. These low-lying areas once drained to West Creek. It was noted by HowesJones (2003) that prior to the construction of Maple Grove Road (approximately 1988), Freeport Creek used to flow from the wetland west of the Challenger Motor Freight site to the north and then east.

Page 47

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

3.5.2.2 Tributary to the Grand: Riverbank Creek Riverbank Creek is a first order tributary to the Grand River, located to the north of Freeport Creek subwatershed and located within the regulatory floodplain of the Grand River. It joins the Allendale Creek before outleting to the Grand River.

3.5.2.3 Tributary to the Grand: Allendale Creek Allendale Creek is a first order tributary to the Grand River. It joins Riverbank Creek on the Grand River floodplains before draining into the Grand River.

3.5.2.4 Tributary to the Grand: Walter Bean Trail Tributary Walter Bean Trail Tributary is a watercourse that originates within the largest of two wetlands comprising the Lower Freeport Creek Wetland Complex. The Tributaries to the Grand River do not have well-defined channels at their headwater and appear to be intermittent in nature. Like Freeport Creek, groundwater discharge may contribute to baseflow in the headwaters of the watercourse where it is considered intermittent. In general, the full length of the Riverbank creek, including its confluence with the Allendale Creek, is within an identified potential groundwater discharge area.

3.5.2.5 Other Drainage Areas There are two additional areas that constitute a part of the study area (i.e. Hespeler West subcatchment No. 2125 (PEIL, 2004) and a catchment area south of Freeport Creek, west of Fountain Street). However, both areas were not included in the hydrologic analysis and the modeling effort because they both drain out of the study area. These areas are described in more detail within subsequent sections.

3.5.3 HYDROLOGIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT In order to conduct hydrologic analysis for the study area, computer models in conjunction with other desktop analyses were developed. The hydrologic models used in this study include event-based and continuous models. Event-based models are short term models that are generally used to assess impacts of urbanization or other management practices on peak flows in a study area. The event-based model, uses as input the Intensity-Duration-Frequency (IDF) tables based on rainfall data between 1971 and 2008 from the City of Cambridge (City of Cambridge, 2011).

Page 48

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Continuous models are used to determine long term impacts on the hydrology of a study area. Continuous models examine parameters that require long term simulations such as evaporation and runoff and infiltration volumes using measured atmospheric climate data as the primary input. Data requirements vary between the two modeling types based on many reasons including purpose of the model, availability of data, and management consideration. The hydrologic analysis of the existing hydrologic conditions in the study area was carried out using the EPA SWMM (Environmental Protection Agency Storm Water Management Model) model, version 5.0.022, a deterministic event-based and continuous hydrologic model that can be used to simulate runoff quantity and quality. EPA SWMM and its varieties (e.g. PCSWMM, XP-SWMM) have been applied extensively in Ontario for watershed studies, stormwater management plans, and water budget estimates (e.g. AMEC, 2010. Stormwater Management Master Plan - Freeport Basin). EPA SWMM version 5.0.022 is suitable for modeling pre- and post-development conditions because it includes several modules that can simulate physical conditions in both cases. For post-development scenarios, EPA SWMM models the hydrologic performance of Low Impact Development (LID) controls, such as porous pavement, bioretention areas, rain barrels, infiltration trenches, and vegetative swales. The model allows engineers and planners to determine the effectiveness of LID measures in managing stormwater and combined sewer overflows under future development conditions. In this report, computer modeling simulations and spreadsheet analysis have been carried out to provide information about the hydrological processes under existing conditions and selected future conditions (post development) in the study area including surface runoff peak flow estimates (m3/s) and volumes of water budget components (i.e. precipitation, evaporation, runoff, and infiltration). The majority of the post-development modeling simulations for development areas are included within the East Side Lands Master Drainage Plan (Appendix B2).

3.5.3.1 Previous Hydrologic Models Freeport subcatchments that represent the drainage area from Maple Grove Road down to the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) railway were previously delineated and characterized in a previous study (i.e. AMEC (2010) Stormwater Management Master Plan, Freeport Basin). One of the objectives of this study is to update AMEC’s hydrologic model and extend it to the confluence with the Grand River. Following the requirements of the Terms of Reference (TOR), the following activities were carried out: •

Revising drainage areas and catchment mapping based on surface runoff patterns. For example, an area (1.5 hectares) that was annexed to subcatchment FP15 (a Freeport subcatchment) in AMEC’s model was added to the Allendale Creek subwatershed (subcatchment TG4);

•

Additional subcatchments were added that were not originally included. Subcatchment FP39 was not included as outleting to subcatchment FP25 in AMEC’s model. However, based on

Page 49

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 topographical considerations and drainage patterns, FP39 was added to Freeport Creek subwatershed. As a matter of fact, multiple property owners (For example, 280 Riverbank Dr. and 288 Riverbank Dr., Cambridge) residing within subcatchment FP39 to the west of Riverbank Dr. have notified the Grand River Conservation Authority and the Region of Waterloo that flooding has affected their properties in recent years. According to the property owners in that area, surface runoff from agricultural lands north of Allendale Road and east of Riverbank Dr. perpendicularly crosses Riverbank Dr. and moves south-west toward a culvert on Riverbank Dr. which drains to Freeport Creek. •

The percentage of imperviousness was changed to properly account for directly connected impervious areas as per EPA SWMM model requirements.

•

The event-based model results were cross-referenced with available studies including AMEC’s (2010), Water’s Edge (2010) and Conestoga-Rovers (1990).

•

Previous continuous models do not exist for the study area. Although streamflow monitoring has been ongoing on Freeport Creek since 2009, the data was deemed to be unreliable and as such model calibration and validation of the continuous model proved unattainable.

3.5.3.2 Subcatchment Delineation The drainage boundaries within the study area were delineated based on the topography of the study area and existing storm sewer configurations. The XP-SWMM model developed by AMEC (2010) was used as a starting point, but modified or confirmed according to field investigations and desktop analysis as mentioned earlier. The subcatchments in the study area (Figure 3.5.1) reflect different surface drainage characteristics, soil conditions, and land uses. As shown in Figure 3.5.1, the study area has been delineated into two main subwatersheds: 1. Freeport Creek Subwatershed: consists of forty (40) subcatchments. The subcatchments can be broken down as follows: a. Twenty-four (24) of these subcatchments are located to the east of the study area as part of the City of Cambridge Business Park and its developed surroundings (mostly industrial and institutional land use). b. Seven (7) subcatchments are located to the south of railroad along Highway 8 (mostly industrial and green space) c. Nine (9) subcatchments are located in the centre and mouth of the subwatershed and can be classified as agricultural. 2. Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed: consist of seven (7) subcatchments. These subcatchments are mostly rural/agricultural with some residential land use especially along the Grand River (e.g. TG6). A model schematic diagram showing the linkages between the subcatchment and storage elements is shown in Figure 3.5.2. As shown in Figure 3.5.2, the drainage –in general- can be described as follows:

Page 50

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 •

Freeport Creek Subwatershed: o The subcatchments within the industrial/institutional area to the east of the Freeport Creek subwatershed, including the City of Cambridge Business Park outlet via a storm sewer system to the west of Maple Grove Road at two locations: § In the north (FP13 and FP14): where Freeport Creek originates (i.e. the larger of two wetlands near the École Père-René-De-Galinée) § In the south (FP23): where a storm sewer outlets directly to SWM Pond 130 from the Regional Operations building and its surroundings. o The subcatchments to the south of the railroad outlet to the mouth of Freeport Creek. o The subcatchments in the centre of the subwatershed drain to the SWM Pond 130 or downstream of the pond towards the confluence with the Grand River.

•

Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed: There are three (3) watercourses in this subwatershed, namely: o Riverbank Creek : draining from subcatchment TG2 o Allendale Creek: draining from subcatchments TG3 and TG4 o Walter Bean Trail Tributary: draining from subcatchment TG7 The three (3) watercourses outlet westward to the Grand River. The remaining subcatchments (i.e. TG1, TG5, and TG6) drain directly to the Grand River.

The discretization of the study area took into consideration topography, soil types, land use and vegetation conditions as discretizing factors. Natural, hydrologic and land use characteristics and parameters were examined based on the need to systemically analyze the study area besides fulfilling the EPA SWMM modeling requirements.

3.5.3.3 Existing Conditions Subcatchment Characteristics Subcatchment properties that are geometry-based such as areas, widths, and slopes in addition to land uses and imperviousness values were estimated using GIS data layers and aerial photographs. Tables 3.5.1 and 3.5.2 present the properties associated with the study area subcatchments delineated earlier. The drainage areas of Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand subwatersheds were estimated to be 401 hectares (4.01 km2) and 215.1 hectares (2.15 km2), respectively. The subcatchments constituting the Freeport Creek subwatershed range in size between 0.4 hectare for subcatchment FP04 and 59.0 hectares for subcatchment FP15. The subcatchments constituting the Tributary to the Grand subwatershed range in size between 6.8 hectares for subcatchment TG06 which drains directly to the Grand River and 50.6 hectares for subcatchment TG04 which drains to Allendale Creek before draining to the Grand River. Percent impervious area was determined using land use maps and aerial photographs. The values calculated represent the directly connected impervious areas only.

Page 51

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Table 3.5.1: Existing Subcatchment Characteristics for Freeport Creek Subwatersheds Subcatchment

Area (ha)

Slope (m/m)

Major land use

% Imp.

Subcatchment

Area (ha)

Slope (m/m)

Major land use

% Imp.

FP01 FP02 FP03 FP04 FP05 FP06 FP07 FP08 FP09 FP10 FP11 FP12 FP13 FP14 FP15 FP16 FP17 FP18 FP19 FP20

22.0 4.2 1.8 0.4 5.8 4.8 3.0 1.9 1.6 9.4 4.3 2.3 11.0 14.6 59.0 8.0 8.4 47.9 0.8 4.7

0.007 0.006 0.004 0.005 0.005 0.006 0.011 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.005 0.006 0.003 0.014 0.002 0.081 0.036 0.044 0.009 0.007

Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Institutional Industrial Agricultural Agricultural Agricultural Agricultural Industrial Industrial

68 24 47 95 87 78 77 58 45 42 5 38 24 65 8 26 4 16 25 5

FP21 FP22 FP23 FP24 FP25 FP26 FP27 FP28 FP29 FP30 FP31 FP32 FP33 FP34 FP35 FP36 FP37 FP38 FP39 FP40

11.7 7.0 7.3 23.2 44.9 4.7 3.3 3.5 2.5 6.6 6.7 4.2 6.3 4.0 4.2 2.2 8.0 7.6 18.9 8.3

0.007 0.007 0.011 0.004 0.029 0.008 0.013 0.009 0.005 0.005 0.022 0.020 0.019 0.076 0.032 0.020 0.035 0.028 0.012 0.040

Industrial Industrial Institutional Agri + Inst. Agricultural Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Roads Roads Roads Roads Mixed Use Open Space Agri + Res. Roads +Inst

60 75 62 49 8 74 86 79 87 91 69 7 37 55 18 7 38 10 40 41

Table 3.5.2: Existing Subcatchment Characteristics for the Tributary to the Grand Subwatersheds Subcatchment

Area (ha)

Slope (m/m)

Major land use

% Imperviousness

TG1 TG2 TG3 TG4 TG5 TG6 TG7

28.20 45.60 45.00 50.61 22.94 6.83 15.88

0.004 0.014 0.016 0.036 0.040 0.053 0.006

Agricultural Agricultural Agricultural Agricultural Agricultural Residential Open Space

10 25 5 5 20 40 10

The subcatchments draining out of the study area have the following characteristics: Hespeler West subcatchment (No. 2125): Area: 51.5 hectares and Imperviousness: 7% Tributary to the Grand in the south end: Area: 6.0 hectares and Imperviousness: 85%

Page 52

ST N IN FOUN TA

Kitchener DR

45 .6

BA NK

28 .2

EAST SIDE LAND MESP AND COMMUNITY PLAN FREEPORT CREEK AND TRIBUTARY TO THE GRAND SUBWATERSHED STUDY

TG2

TG 1

TG 3 ha

RIVERBANK CREEK

RIV

45 .0

MIDDLE BLOCK RD

FIGURE 3.5.1 HYDROLOGICAL SUBCATCHMENTS

HIGHWAY MUNICIPAL ROADS

DA LE

REGIONAL ROADS

TG 4

50 .6

LOCAL ROADS

1 ha

STAGE 1 STUDY AREA WEST OF FOUNTAIN STREET GENEREAL SUBWATERSHED STUDY AREA PRIME INDUSTRIAL STRATEGIC RESERVE (SERVICED) FP 0

22 .0

TG5

RI VE TR IBU TA RY

External Drainage (Draining outside the Modeled Area)

7.9 8

FP 1 4

1 4 .6

3 ha

FR EE P

2 ha

OR TC

RE E

K FP 1 8

FP 3 5

4. 1 7

4. 2 7

47 .9

FP 1 0

FP 1 2

0 ha

2. 2 9

0 .8 1

9 .3 5

FP 3 3 6 .2 5

FP 3 4.1 8

FP 2

7.3 0

FP 0 3 1 .8 1

4 .7 1

FP 0 7 2. 97

FP 2 7 3. 27

5 ha

FP 2 9

2.5 3

FP 2 1

11 .7

FP 3 0

6. 5 9

Cambridge

FP 2 8

FP 3 1

FP 2 0 4. 6 7

3. 4 5

6. 6 7

FP 2 4

23 .1

Hydrologic Flow Reference Stations

FP 2 6

FP 0 6 4. 8 2

FP 2 2

7 .0 0

4 ha

SALTMAN DR.

FP 3 4

FP 0 8 1. 8 8

FP 1 9

4. 0 h a

Subcatchments

FP 1 1

Y HW

FP 2 5

FP 0

0.3 9

44 .9

4. 1 7

1. 6 2

2. 1 5

FP 0 2

5 ha

FP 0 9

FP 3 6

Tributary to the Grand River

FP 1 3

10 .9

FP 4 0

8 .4 0

FP 1

8.3 4

Freeport Creek

FP 1 7

3 ha

18 .9

FP 3 9

TG 6 6 .8 3

8. 0

SWM POND

FP 3

WATER BODIES

Hydrologic Catchments

FP 3 8

7 .5 5

FP 1 5 59 .0

ALLENDALE RD

8 ha

BANAT

TG 7 15 .8

2 ha

STREAMS

4 ha

BE AN TR AIL

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY

250

500 Meters

WA LT ER

22 .9

BA R

PA S

ALL

GR AN D

KING ST E

T H RD KOSSU

FP 0 5 5 .8 3

EAST SIDE LAND MESP AND COMMUNITY PLAN FREEPORT CREEK AND TRIBUTARY TO THE GRAND SUBWATERSHED STUDY

FIGURE 3.5.2 FLOW DIAGRAMS FOR SURFACE RUNOFF WITHIN THE STUDY AREA

! POI #1

POI #1 – HEADWATERS OF FREEPORT CREEK POI #2 – INPUT FROM HEADWATERS AND EXISTING INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL AREAS POI #3 – FLOW DOWNSTREAM OF POND 130* POI #4 – FLOW AT RAILWAY POI #5 – FLOW AT THE MOUTH OF THE GRAND RIVER

D R IV

HYDRAULIC POINT OF INTEREST (POI)

POI #3

POI #4

! POI #5

DR. MAN T L A S

GR AN

POI #2 !

Note: *POI #3 pond element was not used in hydraulic analysis

250

500 Meters

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

3.5.3.4 Stormwater Management Pond Characteristics An on-line stormwater management facility (SWM Pond 130 in AMEC, 2010) is located in the Freeport Creek subwatersheds area. The pond is located in the middle of subcatchment FP18 and occupies a considerable area of the subcatchment. According to the Cambridge Business Park SWM report (Conestoga-Rovers, 1990), the design area of the facility was 12.9 hectares. Prior to 1990, Freeport Creek originated within what is now Pond 130. In the 1990s, the upstream channel was constructed between the Pond 130 and Maple Grove Road to provide drainage to the adjacent low-lying areas. These low-lying areas once drained to West Creek. However, one major issue with Pond 130 is that it tends to inundate areas to the north and south of the original footprint of the pond, including agricultural and woodland areas, due to issues pertaining to sediment build-up and maintenance of the existing low-flow outlet (see Section 3.5.7.4 for additional detail). According to Conestoga-Rovers (1990), the storage characteristics of Pond 130 are as shown in Table 3.5.3 Table 3.5.3: SWM Pond 130 Storage Characteristics (Conestoga-Rovers, 1990) Elevation (m)

Q total (m3/s)

Storage (ha-m)

299.60 300.00 300.50 301.00 301.25 301.50 301.75 302.00 302.25 303.00

0.00 0.09 0.17 0.22 0.24 0.92 1.07 1.87 2.77 9.19

0.00 0.09 3.20 6.31 10.10 13.88 17.66 21.45 26.37 41.12

SWM Pond 130 was modeled in EPA SWMM as a storage unit with the storage characteristics input as a tabular table in the EPA SWMM input file. The hydraulic structure downstream of the pond was modeled to include the following components per the pond design details in Conestoga Rovers Report (1990): •

A 300 mm low flow pipe at 299.6 m invert modeled as an orifice;

• •

A 1880mm x 1260mm CSPA @ 301.25 invert; and A 5 m spillway 10:1 side slopes @ 302.5 invert;

Page 55

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

3.5.3.5 Climate Data Climate data for the study area was used according to the role of the climate physical parameter in the water budget, short term or long term implications and the hydrologic model of interest. More specifically: •

For the Event-based Model, the Intensity-Duration-Frequency (IDF) tables based on rainfall data between 1971 and 2008 were obtained from the City of Cambridge (City of Cambridge, 2011). Event-based models were only used to estimate surface runoff for erosion and flood analyses.

•

For the Continuous Model, a record of six (6) years (between 2002 and 2007) included the following input parameters: o Air temperatures; o Precipitation; and o Evaporation.

Actual evapotranspiration values for the continuous model (used to determine mean monthly evaporation rates) were estimated based on a record of thirty (30) years (between 1971 and 2000) of precipitation and air temperature (Thornthwaite-Mather's procedure). The continuous model was used for water budget analysis.

3.5.3.6 Soil Types and Infiltration Model Input Soil types influence water budget components including the amount and rate of surface runoff, and infiltration and evapotranspiration processes. Generally speaking, the study area is dominated by Sandy Loam and Loam. According to Wellington County Soil Survey Report 44, there are five (5) major soil types that can be found in the study area. These soil types are: •

Burford-Fox: Hydrologic Soil Group A

•

Guelph: Hydrologic Soil Group BC

•

Freeport – Woolwich: Hydrologic Soil Group B

•

Bennington – Bookton: Hydrologic Soil Group B

• Grand – Kirkland: Hydrologic Soil Group B For the event-based model, the curve number infiltration model of EPA SWMM was used. Hydrologic Soil Groups and the existing land use per each subcatchment helped estimate curve numbers for the subcatchments in the study area (Tables 3.5.4 and 3.5.5). For the continuous flow model, the curve number method was also used. The rationale behind using curve numbers and not other models such as Green-Ampt is justified as high resolution soil information was unavailable which could have enabled the use of advanced soil parameters such as suction head, hydraulic conductivity and initial moisture deficit at micro land scales.

Page 56

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Table 3.5.4: Soil Types and Hydrologic Characteristics for Freeport Creek Subwatersheds Subcatchment

CN (AMC II)

Hydrologic Soil Group

Soil Type

Subcatchment

CN (AMC II)

Hydrologic Soil Group

Soil Type

FP01

Loam

FP21

Loam

FP02

Loam

FP22

Sandy Loam

FP03

Loam

FP23

Sandy Loam

FP04

Loam

FP24

Loam

FP05

Sandy Loam

FP25

Loam

FP06

Sandy Loam

FP26

Loam

FP07

Sandy Loam

FP27

Sandy Loam

FP08

Sandy Loam

FP28

Sandy Loam

FP09

Sandy Loam

FP29

Sandy Loam

FP10

Loam

FP30

Sandy Loam

FP11

Sandy Loam

FP31

Sandy Loam

FP12

Sandy Loam

FP32

Sandy Loam

FP13

Sandy Loam

FP33

Sandy Loam

FP14

Loam

FP34

Sandy Loam

FP15

Loam

FP35

Silt Loam

FP16

Sandy Loam

FP36

Silt Loam

FP17

Sandy Loam

FP37

Loam

FP18

Loam

FP38

Sandy Loam

FP19

Loam

FP39

Sandy Loam

FP20

Loam

FP40

Sandy Loam

Page 57

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Table 3.5.5 Soil Types and Hydrologic Characteristics for Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed CN (AMC II)

Hydrologic Soil Group

Soil Type

TG1

Sandy Loam

TG2

Sandy Loam

TG3

Loam

TG4

Loam

TG5

Loam

TG6

Sandy Loam

TG7

Sandy Loam

Sub-catchment

3.5.4 EVENT-BASED HYDROLOGIC MODEL PRE DEVELOPMENT Event-based models use discrete design storm events derived from rainfall statistics. As such, it allows the simulation of flood flows of different return periods (e.g. 100-year) or historical storms (i.e. Hurricane Hazel).

3.5.4.1 Estimation of Existing Conditions Event-based Peak Flows Surface runoff peak flow estimates for the existing conditions were calculated using the EPA SWMM model (Version 5.0.022). The flow estimates were based on return period precipitation events in addition to the Regional Storm (i.e. Hurricane Hazel). The Intensity-Duration-Frequency (IDF) tables were obtained from the City of Cambridge (City of Cambridge, 2011) and were used to generate the 2year, 5-year, 10-year, 25-year, 50-year and the 100-year design rainfall events for the EPA SWMM model. The Intensity-Duration-Frequency (IDF) relationship for the City of Cambridge can be expressed as: I = A / (B + T)C Where I is the rainfall intensity in mm/h, T is the storm duration in minutes, and A, B, and C are constants determined by regression analysis. Appendix B shows the IDF tables used. For each subcatchment area, the time to concentration was determined using different methods including the SCS Method and the Bransby Williams Method. The initial soil-moisture conditions were

Page 58

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 set based on AMC II which represents average conditions that applies to all events including the 48-hour Hurricane Hazel (i.e. Regional Flow) as per the recommendations of MTO (1997). Following the estimation of the time of concentration, duration for the design storms was considered so that the duration (in hours) is greater or equal to the time of concentration in order to allow the whole modeled area to contribute to the final flow at the outlet. Time of concentration for the Freeport Creek subwatershed was calculated to be approximately 10 hours. Accordingly, a 12-hour triangular hyetograph based on Yen and Chow (1980) with 1 minute wet weather runoff and 30 seconds routing time steps were applied with the dynamic flow routing as the flow routing method. The decision to use triangular hyetographs comes from their suitability to rural settings as opposed to peak hyetographs such as Chicago design storms that can be used in urban settings (e.g. storm sewer sizing). For the study area under consideration, duration of 12 hours is reasonable due to the availability of storage facilities represented by natural wetlands and SWM facilities. Tables 3.5.6 and 3.5.7 summarize return period peak flows in the study area. It should be noted that the tabulated flows (Tables 3.5.6 and 3.5.7) are cumulative as subcatchments drain into each other and/or watercourses according to Figure 3.5.2.

Page 59

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Table 3.5.6: Summary of Existing Conditions Peak Flows - Freeport Creek Subwatershed (m3/s) (Cumulative Flows) SubCreek 2-yr 5-yr 10-yr 25-yr 50-yr 100-yr Regional catchment Freeport FP01 0.30 0.43 0.54 0.62 0.78 0.86 2.96 Creek Freeport FP02 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.39 Creek Freeport FP03 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.25 Creek Freeport FP04 0.33 0.47 0.59 0.68 0.86 0.95 3.26 Creek Freeport FP05 0.11 0.16 0.19 0.22 0.27 0.30 0.85 Creek Freeport FP06 0.19 0.27 0.34 0.39 0.47 0.52 1.54 Creek Freeport FP07 0.24 0.34 0.42 0.49 0.59 0.66 1.97 Creek Freeport FP08 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.09 0.27 Creek Freeport FP09 0.39 0.57 0.72 0.84 1.05 1.15 4.09 Creek Freeport FP10 0.08 0.12 0.14 0.17 0.23 0.26 1.14 Creek Freeport FP11 0.37 0.56 0.70 0.82 1.02 1.12 3.95 Creek Freeport FP12 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.29 Creek Freeport FP13 0.06 0.08 0.12 0.14 0.22 0.24 1.17 Creek Freeport FP14 1.11 1.66 2.10 2.46 3.18 3.51 15.37 Creek Freeport FP15 0.10 0.15 0.25 0.31 0.58 0.65 4.49 Creek Freeport 1.15 1.74 FP16 2.21 2.58 3.35 3.70 15.95 Creek 4 Freeport FP17 0.02 0.05 0.08 0.09 0.15 0.16 0.94 Creek Freeport FP18 2.06 3.25 4.23 4.92 6.63 7.25 28.88 Creek Freeport FP19 0.15 0.24 0.32 0.38 0.5 0.55 2.05 Creek Freeport FP20 0.14 0.24 0.31 0.37 0.48 0.53 1.99 Creek Freeport FP21 0.15 0.22 0.29 0.34 0.43 0.47 1.62 Creek Freeport FP22 0.11 0.16 0.21 0.24 0.29 0.33 1.01 Creek Freeport FP23 0.63 0.96 1.21 1.40 1.73 1.91 6.36 Creek Freeport FP24 0.24 0.34 0.41 0.49 0.66 0.73 2.95 Creek Freeport FP25 0.45 0.93 1.66 2.21 3.52 3.69 17.17 Creek Freeport FP26 0.31 0.45 0.56 0.65 0.78 0.87 2.63 Creek Freeport FP27 0.06 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.17 0.48 Creek Freeport FP28 0.12 0.18 0.22 0.25 0.30 0.34 0.98 Creek Freeport FP29 0.17 0.25 0.31 0.35 0.42 0.47 1.34 Creek Freeport FP30 0.13 0.18 0.22 0.26 0.31 0.34 0.97 Creek Freeport FP31 0.10 0.14 0.18 0.21 0.26 0.30 0.95 Creek Freeport FP32 0.12 0.19 0.25 0.30 0.38 0.41 1.50 Creek Freeport FP33 0.28 0.45 0.58 0.67 0.83 0.89 2.90 Creek Freeport FP34 0.07 0.10 0.13 0.15 0.18 0.20 0.59 Creek Freeport FP35 0.19 0.29 0.38 0.44 0.55 0.60 2.10 Creek Freeport FP36 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.10 0.11 0.31 Creek Freeport FP37 0.53 0.95 1.68 2.21 3.61 3.83 18.21 Creek Freeport FP38 0.92 1.47 2.08 2.53 4.38 4.76 23.30 Creek Freeport FP39 0.16 0.22 0.30 0.36 0.51 0.55 2.31 Creek Freeport 0.43 0.69 0.45 1.03 1.27 1.39 FP40 4.58 Creek

Page 60

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Table 3.5.7: Summary of Existing Conditions Peak Flows - Tributary of the Grand Subwatershed (m3/s) (Cumulative Flows) Drainage pattern / Creek

Sub-catchment

2-yr

5-yr

10-yr

25-yr

50-yr

100-yr

Regional

Drains directly to the Grand

TG1

0.08

0.20

0.30

0.35

0.56

0.61

3.17

Tributary to the Grand / Riverbank Creek

TG2

0.24

0.38

0.55

0.67

1.01

1.09

5.03

Drains to Allendale Creek (TG4)

TG3

0.11

0.27

0.41

0.50

0.82

0.89

4.28

Tributary to the Grand / Allendale Creek

TG4

0.28

0.63

0.93

1.14

1.81

1.95

9.21

Drains directly to the Grand

TG5

0.11

0.22

0.32

0.39

0.57

0.61

2.77

Drains directly to the Grand

TG6

0.06

0.11

0.15

0.18

0.23

0.25

0.95

Tributary to the Grand / Walter Bean

TG7

0.03

0.06

0.10

0.13

0.22

0.24

1.42

3.5.4.2 Event-Based Model Existing Conditions Validation Although streamflow monitoring has been ongoing on Freeport Creek since 2009, the data was deemed to be unreliable and as such model calibration and validation of the continuous model proved unattainable. Due to lack of reliable streamflow data (see Section3.5.3.1) that correspond with return periods of interest (i.e. 2yr to 100yr events), the calibration of the event-based model for the study area consisted of adjusting sensitive model parameters to correspond with results from previous models covering the study area. The parameters include: •

Subcatchment width;

•

Subcatchment depression storage; and

•

Curve numbers.

Page 61

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 The results then were cross-referenced with estimated and simulated peak flows at four (4) locations from previous reports. The locations are found along Freeport Creek and were used to verify the performance of the event-based model (Figure 3.5.1). All four locations (Inflow to SWM Pond 130, Outflow of SWM Pond 130, Flow at CPR Railway, and Flow at the Grand River Garden Village nursery) of known hydrologic data are shown on Figure 3.5.1. Table 3.5.8 compares hydrological results between values from previous studies and the current hydrologic model for the storm events (2-year, 5-year, 10year, 25-year, 50year, 100-year, and the Regional Flow) at these locations. Table 3.5.8: Comparison between Current EPA-SWMM Model and Previously Reported Peak Flows for Existing Conditions (m3/s)

Model

Hydrologic Flow Reference Stations (see Figure 3.5.1)

Location

2-yr

5-yr

10-yr

25-yr

50-yr

100-yr

Regional

Current Model

Inflows to Pond 130

2.06

3.25

4.23

4.92

6.63

7.25

28.88

AMEC 2010

Inflows to Pond 130

n/a

9.51

n/a

24.24

28.87

Current Model

Outflows from Pond 130

0.25

0.72

1.35

1.79

2.66

2.92

10.98

AMEC 2010

Outflows from Pond 130

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.12

0.30

10.17

Current Model

Flows at Railway

0.45

0.93

1.66

2.21

3.52

3.69

17.17

AMEC 2010

Flows at Railway

0.49

1.04

1.52

2.22

2.81

3.42

11.17

The peak runoff estimates generated using the EPA SWMM model correspond well to the Regional inflows and outflows and runoff estimates at the Railway (Hydrologic Flow Reference Station 3) estimated by AMEC (2010). The difference between the current model and AMEC (2010) in runoff estimates for events below Regional flow at Hydrologic Flow Reference Station 1 are attributed to the different design storms used (AMEC 2010 used Chicago design storms which have higher intensity than Yen and Chow design storms that were used in this report). Triangular hyetographs (e.g. Yen and Chow) have been found to be more reasonable to use in rural settings as opposed to Chicago storms which were originally designed to be implemented in urban settings, hence their â&#x20AC;&#x153;peakinessâ&#x20AC;?. At Hydrologic

Page 62

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Flow Reference Station 2, difference in the estimates of flow rates out of the pond may be related to routing assumptions, pond size/configuration, and/or control structure. This report used the dynamic routing method. For the pond size and control structure, structural details and dimensions were extracted from Business Park SWM report (Conestoga Rovers, 1990). Figure 3.5.3 shows SWM Pond 130 inflows and outflows estimated under Regional Flow Conditions with inflows equal to 28.88 m3/s and outflows of 10.98 m3/s. At Hydrologic Flow Reference Station 4, bankfull flow estimates carried out by Water’s Edge (Water’s Edge, 2010) downstream of the CPR gives a bankfull flow value of 0.36 m3/s. Numerous research has shown that bankfull flow generally corresponds with the 2-year flow (Knighton, 1998). The bankfull flow estimate recorded in Water’s Edge (2010) compares relatively well with the value of 0.45 m3/s (2-year flow) resulted from the current model.

Pond 130 Inflows and Outflows - Regional Inflow s

Outflow s

30.0

25.0

Flow (CMS)

20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0 0

Elapsed Time (days)

Figure 3.5.3: SWM Pond 130 Inflows and Outflows under Regional Flow Conditions In regard to calibrating the runoff values in other locations of the study area, it was found that there were no previous flow estimates reported within the catchment areas of the Tributary to the Grand subwatershed.

Page 63

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

3.5.5 EXISTING CONDITIONS CONTINUOUS HYDROLOGIC MODEL The choice of the EPA SWMM model to run a continuous flow simulation stems from the modelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ability to simulate a hydrologic regime over multi-year continuous periods and estimate water budget components. Continuous hydrologic characteristics including time series flows and annual water budget quantities were calculated for the existing land use conditions using the EPA SWMM based on a 6-year meteorological data obtained from Waterloo-Wellington (A) Airport Station and University of Waterloo weather stations and subcatchment characteristics. For purposes related to convenience of analysis and water budget considerations, the subcatchments in Freeport Creek Subwatershed were broken down into two parts: the City of Cambridge Business Park area which is mostly developed with predominant industrial land use, and the remaining lands which are nearly rural with a predominant agricultural land use. The flows draining from the Business Park were generated from three lumped catchments, namely: o o o

Business Park Area 1 (outlets to FP14): FP01, FP02, FP03, FP04, FP08, FP09, FP12, and FP13 Business Park Area 2 (outlets to FP14): FP05, FP06, FP07, FP10, FP11, FP26 Business Park Area 3 (outlets to FP23): FP19, FP20, FP21, FP22, FP23, FP24, FP27, FP28, FP29, FP30

3.5.5.1 Continuous Model Results Figure 3.5.4 shows the runoff hydrograph for Freeport Creek at the confluence with the Grand River. Between 2002 and 2007, mean annual flow from the six (6) year record is approximately 0.01 m3/s, and mean annual peak flow from the six (6) year record is approximately 1.5 m3/s, with maximum peak flows up to 1.7 m3/s. It was not possible to compare the simulated mean annual flow for the Freeport Creek subwatershed with observed measurements since streamflow data from the monitoring performed from 2009 to present were deemed not to be reliable (see Section 3.5.3.1).

Page 64

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Freeport Creek at Grand River 1.8

1.6

1.4

Flow (CMS)

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0 Jan Mar May Jul Sep Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007

Figure 3.5.4: Surface Runoff Generated from Freeport Creek Subwatershed (m3/s) (2002-2007) Figure 3.5.5 shows the runoff hydrograph for the outfall of Riverbank Creek and Allendale Creek at the confluence with the Grand River. Between 2002 and 2007, mean annual flow from the six (6) year record is approximately 0.01 m3/s, and mean annual peak flow is 1.2 m3/s. It was not possible to compare the simulated annual mean flow for the Tributary to the Grand River subwatershed with observed measurements since streamflow data were not available.

Page 65

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 3.5

3.0

2.5

Flow (CMS)

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

Figure 3.5.5: Surface Runoff Generated from Riverbank Creek and Allendale Creek (m3/s) (2002-2007) Figure 3.5.6 shows Pond 130 inflows and outflows estimated for the period between 2002 and 2007 with mean annual peak inflows equal to 2.47 m3/s and mean annual peak outflow of 0.23 m3/s. The results of the continuous simulation for the Pond 130 inflows and outfalls are reasonably close to the results of the event-based model where 2-year event inflows are equal to 2.05 m3/s and 2-year event outflows are equal to 0.25 m3/s.

Page 66

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Pond 130 Inflows and Outflows 2002-2007 Flow Upstream Pond 130

Flow Dow nstream Pond 130

3.0

2.5

Flow (CMS)

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

Figure 3.5.6: SWM Pond 130 Inflows and Outflows between 2002 and 2007

3.5.5.2 Continuous Model Validation Validation of the continuous model was not possible because historic continuous streamflow measurements have not been available for Freeport Creek or the tributaries to the Grand River. As outlined in the GRCA (2012) report, GRCA installed a stream gauge at Pond 130 along Freeport Creek in 2009. Subsequently AquaResource conducted a flow analysis at this station and concluded that the data was not reliable because of the effect of water level fluctuation.

Page 67

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

3.5.5.3 Water Budget Analysis The hydrologic cycle is a complex process and its natural components are dependent on many factors: soils, topography, vegetation, geology, climate, etc. Any change to these natural factors will result in a change to the hydrologic cycle; these changes accelerate with urbanization. A tool often used in water resources management is water budget analysis, which sums the various components of the hydrologic cycle for a watershed by balancing precipitation input, evapotranspiration output, infiltration, and surface runoff input and output. Modification of the hydrologic cycle through urban development has impacts on water quantity, water quality, and stream morphology. More specifically, urbanization reduces evaporation, evapotranspiration, and infiltration, thereby, increasing surface runoff and resulting in more frequent and higher peak flows in rivers and streams causing increased flooding and erosion. Reduction of infiltration decreases groundwater recharge, potentially affecting cool baseflow to streams and wetlands. The water budget analysis complements other hydrological analyses completed in this study and concern the impact of development on the hydrological cycle within the study area. These other analyses include: • Flood control analysis: The analyses for peak flow were developed using event based modeling which does not rely on continuous rainfall data as a model input. The City of Cambridge IDFs (City of Cambridge, 2011) were used to generate the 2-year, 5-year, 10year, 25-year, 50-year, 100-year and Regional design rainfall events for the EPA SWMM model (See Section 3.5.4.1). Annual rainfall totals were not used in this analysis. •

Erosion control analysis: erosion targets were developed using critical discharge analyses (evaluated based on the shear stress when “most” of the bed material may become entrained i.e., > 50% of the sediments) using the 2-year event based flow developed using the City of Cambridge IDFs (City of Cambridge, 2011). The event based 2-year flow was cross-referenced with a previous study (East Side Subwatersheds Study Fluvial Geomorphological Characterization Report, Water’s Edge, 2010) and the most conservative estimate was selected as critical flow (0.25 m3/s compared to 0.30 m3/s) (See Section 3.6.4.1). Annual rainfall totals were not used in this analysis.

The water budget analysis is independent of flood control analysis (pond sizing/ flood control) and erosion/ critical discharge analyses. More specifically, it is a comprehensive examination of the hydrological cycle based on the following expression: Precipitation (P) = Evapotraspiration (ET) + Runoff (R) + Infiltration (I)

Page 68

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Continuous model for the simulation period between 2002 and 2007 was undertaken to determine the average annual water balance, with the specific goal of developing infiltration targets for the various study area soil types. The data set (2002-2007) was selected specifically with this objective in mind, as the 2002-2007 rainfall contained annual rainfall depths ranging from 500 - 1100 mm/yr, and was selected to represent wet, dry, and average years and represent a ‘real–world’ approach for infiltration target development. As opposed to the analyses of less frequent peak flows conducted in the flood control and erosion control analyses, subwatershed response within the water budget analysis is tested during wet, dry, and average years against micro-scale rainfall patterns such the most frequent storm events (3, 5, 8 & 11mm events– as provided in Appendix B) in order to set infiltration targets for stormwater source and conveyance controls as part of Master Drainage Plan (MDP) see Appendix B2. Within the framework of water budget analysis, different statistical parameters (i.e. average, range, population set, and extremes) can be used depending on the objective of the study and the end-point product. For the purpose of a water balance model investigation that aims at evaluating the impact of development, micro-scale rainfall patterns such the most frequent storm events (3, 5, 8 & 11mm hyetographs) are most relevant and appropriate for developing infiltration targets and defining components of the water balance within the study area. Accordingly, the approach used in the continuous flow model for this study has used the following precipitation values including: •

• •

Precipitation values from a 30 year data set (1971 to 2000) were used to estimate evapotranspiration (ET) values as ET can be highly variable and difficult to accurately quantify. While some studies such as erosion studies and streamflow analysis studies depend often on a long precipitation data set, water balance estimates are mostly dependent on accurate estimates of evapotranspiration values, specific storm hyetographs (most frequent storms), and land use/soil conditions; Precipitation values from 2002 to 2007 were used in the EPA SWMM model to represent a range of annual precipitation including wet, dry, and average precipitation; and Specific storm hyetographs were used to test the application of stormwater source and conveyance controls measures and water balance assumptions

The water budget approach used in the study has been developed to ensure infiltration targets can be implemented by designers and the development community and can be easily confirmed by the municipality and approval agencies. A six-year precipitation record (2002-2007) was collected using Environment Canada’s Waterloo-Wellington Airport station. The Waterloo-Wellington station was selected because of its proximity to the study area. Where data was shown or suspected to be missing, the data set was patched using observations from the University of Waterloo Weather Station using standard methods.

Page 69

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Results of the existing water budget for the subcatchments planned for development are shown in Table 3.5.9 and 3.5.10. Accordingly, the subcatchments planned for development, their existing land uses, soil types, and imperviousness are associated with the water budget model results expressed in volumes (mm) and percentages (%) of the annual precipitation volume. The results of the water budget analysis highlight the importance of infiltration and evapotranspiration in the natural hydrological cycle (i.e. predevelopment) of the study area, where infiltration and evapotranspiration constitute up to 99% of the water budget in some subcatchments (e.g. FP17, TG3). The average percentage of annual infiltration as listed in Table 3.5.9 ranges from 29-36% of total annual rainfall and corresponds well to the adjacent subwatersheds of East and Middle Creek (Hespeler West Subwatershed Study PEIL, 2004) which range from 24-30%.

Page 70

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Table 3.5.9: Pre-development Annual Water Budget Components and Peak Runoff Estimates for Freeport Creek

ET (mm)

% ET

Infil. (mm)

% Infil

Runoff (mm)

%Runoff

Peak Runoff 3 (m /s)

706

284

315

107

0.90

706

500

195

0.31

Fine sand soil

706

372

298

0.16

Agricultural

Fine sand soil

706

483

218

0.04

Agricultural Agricultural Industrial

silt loam silt loam Fine sand soil

706

457

227

0.51

706

500

192

1.16

706

318

194

0.31

Fine sand soil

706

468

212

0.13

silt loam

706

506

102

0.13

Fine sand soil

706

302

349

0.59

Soil type

Existing Land use

Soil

FP24

Industrial

silt loam

FP15

Agricultural

silt loam

FP16

Agricultural

FP17

FP18 FP25 FP31

B B A

FP32

FP36

FP39

Subcatchment

Industrial + Open Space Roads + Open Space Agri + Res.

Imp. (%)

Precip. (mm)

Evapotranspiration

Infiltration

Runoff

Annual Average water budget (%) for silt loam / Freeport

Annual Average water budget (%) for fine sand / Freeport

Table 3.5.10: Pre-development Annual Water Budget Components and Peak Runoff Estimates for Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Subcatchment

Soil type

Existing Land use

Soil

Imp (%)

Precip. (mm)

ET (mm)

% ET

Infil. (mm)

% Infil

Runoff (mm)

%Runoff

Peak Runoff 3 (m /s)

TG3

Agriculture

silt loam

706

517

182

0.59

TG4

Agriculture

silt loam

706

517

181

1.49

TG5

Agriculture

silt loam

706

321

357

0.64

Annual Average water budget (%) for silt loam / Tributary to the Grand 64 34 2 * Modeled results utilize the data obtained from 30 years of climate data analysis using the Thornwaite Mather method

Page 71

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

3.5.5.4 Hydrologic and Water Balance Considerations for the Future Conditions The EPA SWMM estimated average annual infiltration volumes (mm) under existing conditions in both subwatersheds (i.e. Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand), and they are 230 mm and 240 mm, respectively. These numbers are in agreement with the average values recommended by AquaResource (2009) for sand till cover and medium to high vegetation. Therefore, the results of the EPA SWMM continuous model provide a reasonable estimate for average water budget elements in the study area. In that regard, the prescription of infiltration targets under developed conditions shall use these average annual infiltration volumes for different soil types (silt loam and fine sand) estimated by the EPA SWMM besides consulting with other considerations related to land use, percent imperviousness, and other natural environment metrics. A key objective in the water budget analysis for the study area is developing infiltration targets under future developed conditions. This analysis has been completed and is described and summarized within the East Side Lands Master Drainage Plan (MDP) â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Appendix B2.

3.5.6 POST DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGIC MODEL The following sections describe and summarize the event based hydrologic modeling undertaken to determine peak flows for the post development conditions. This analysis includes peak flow modeling for the future uncontrolled scenario (development with no SWM control). Model results were utilized as inputs to the hydraulic modeling for Freeport Creek detailed in Section 3.5.7. Post development hydrologic analysis for flood control under future conditions has been completed and is described and summarized within the East Side Lands Master Drainage Plan (MDP) â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Appendix B2.

3.5.6.1 Modeling Approach In previous sections, the hydrology of the study area was assessed under existing conditions. The EPA SWMM model was used to evaluate event-based and continuous flow hydrology. The modeling approach used for assessing future conditions utilizes the model components that were established earlier; using meteorological data and watershed physical parameters including soil properties, topographic properties and geometric properties. For flow routing, the dynamic wave routing approach was used. Use of the dynamic routing approach results in attenuated and delayed outflow hydrographs as inflow is routed through the channel. This effect is mostly noticed downstream of the existing SWM pond where channel segments were modeled

Page 72

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 to give a physically-sound representation of the hydrologic/hydraulic system. In addition to that, the dynamic wave routing approach helps represent channel storage, backwater, and entrance/exit losses especially with the presence of road crossings and culverts. Upstream of the SWM pond, runoff was routed between subwatersheds and there was no need to use channel routing since the flow is not constrained within a well-defined channel because of the SWM pond/wetland effect. Existing and Proposed Land Use According to the preferred development option, future development within the study area will cover approximately 148 ha of the study area, distributed over two subwatersheds, namely Freeport Creek Subwatershed (91 ha out of 401 ha) and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed (57 ha out of 215 ha). Table 3.5.1.1 presents the percentages of land use for each subcatchment where the development is proposed, in addition to imperviousness and curve number values for existing and proposed conditions. Existing and Future Hydrology As explained earlier, imperviousness for existing land use was estimated using a combination of aerial photos and existing land use maps. The curve number values were based on the suggestions of Technical Release 55 (NRCS, 1986) and CHI SWMM Userâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Guide (CHI, 2010). Other parameters including physical parameters representing natural topography, geometry, and meteorology were maintained from the existing hydrology model since they are not changing in the general sense.

3.5.6.2 Model Validation Existing Conditions Since representative surface runoff data does not exist for calibration and validation of the hydrological model covering the study area, available information from previous studies that have covered the study area were utilized. In order to come up with surface runoff rates similar or comparable to previous studies (AMEC, 2010; Waterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Edge, 2010; K. Smart, 2010), estimated imperviousness and curve number values for existing conditions were calibrated/adjusted within a range that is comparable to the values suggested in previous studies (AMEC, 2010) and guidelines (NRCS, 1986). Proposed Conditions The proposed land use area and percentage cover were estimated using GIS analysis considering the opportunities and constraints to development (See Figure 4.2) at full implementation (build-out). The proposed land use was assumed to have 90 percent imperviousness for all proposed industrial land use. In order to assess the change in the hydrology of the study area under proposed development conditions, imperviousness was area-weighted according to the change in area coverage of different land uses. Similarly, curve number values were area-weighted based on the changes in land use and percentages of land cover. Curve number values were assessed based on USDA TR-55 suggested values for similar land uses. Table 3.5.11 shows the estimated values.

Page 73

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Table 3.5.11: Existing and Future Land Use Percentages and Hydrologic Parameters Developmen t Scenario

Existing Conditions

Land use (%) Subwatershed

Freeport Creek

Trib. to Grand

Subcatchment

Proposed Conditions

Institutional

Agricultural

Residential

FP01

FP02

FP15

FP16

FP17

100

FP18

FP24

FP25

FP31

FP32

FP36

FP39

TG3

100

TG4

TG5

FP01

0.02

FP02

FP15

FP16

FP18

FP24

FP25

PISR

Open Space/ Environment

2 14

FP31 FP32

FP36

Trib. to Grand

Curve Number

Industrial

FP17 Freeport Creek

Impervious ness

Roads/ Other

FP39

TG3

TG4

TG5

Page 74

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

3.5.6.3 Peak Flows under Future Conditions - Uncontrolled Using model parameters that explain the physical change within the study area including imperviousness and curve number values, an event-based model was run using design storms representing return periods that range from the 2-year storm to the 100-year storm. In addition, the Regional Flood scenario was run representing the Hazel Storm. Tables 3.5.12 and 3.5.13 illustrate the results of the event-based model for proposed development for Freeport Creek subwatershed and Tributary to Grand subwatershed, respectively.

Page 75

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Table 3.5.12: Peak Flow Estimates under Future Conditions (Freeport Creek Subwatershed) Creek

Subcatchment

2-yr

5-yr

10-yr

25-yr

50-yr

100-yr

Regional

Freeport Creek Freeport Creek Freeport Creek Freeport Creek Freeport Creek Freeport Creek Freeport Creek Freeport Creek Freeport Creek Freeport Creek Freeport Creek Freeport Creek Freeport Creek Freeport Creek Freeport Creek Freeport Creek Freeport Creek Freeport Creek Freeport Creek Freeport Creek Freeport Creek Freeport Creek Freeport Creek Freeport Creek Freeport Creek Freeport Creek Freeport Creek Freeport Creek Freeport Creek Freeport Creek Freeport Creek Freeport Creek Freeport Creek Freeport Creek Freeport Creek Freeport Creek Freeport Creek Freeport Creek Freeport Creek Freeport

FP01 FP02 FP03 FP04 FP05 FP06 FP07 FP08 FP09 FP10 FP11 FP12 FP13 FP14 FP15 FP16 FP17 FP18 FP19 FP20 FP21 FP22 FP23 FP24 FP25 FP26 FP27 FP28 FP29 FP30 FP31 FP32 FP33 FP34 FP35 FP36 FP37 FP38 FP39 FP40

0.30

0.43

0.54

0.62

0.78

0.86

2.96

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.07

0.39

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.25

0.33

0.47

0.59

0.68

0.86

0.95

3.26

0.11

0.16

0.19

0.22

0.27

0.3

0.85

0.19

0.27

0.34

0.39

0.47

0.52

1.54

0.24

0.34

0.42

0.49

0.59

0.66

1.97

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.08

0.09

0.27

0.39

0.57

0.72

0.84

1.05

1.15

4.09

0.08

0.12

0.14

0.17

0.23

0.26

1.14

0.37

0.56

0.7

0.82

1.02

1.12

3.95

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.29

0.06

0.08

0.12

0.14

0.22

0.24

1.17

1.6

2.38

3.03

3.53

4.5

4.96

18.5

Cumulative flow (m3/s)

0.6

0.86

1.11

1.3

1.69

1.86

7.15

1.68

2.51

3.19

3.71

4.73

5.21

19.3

0.14

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.36

0.41

1.2

2.95

4.57

5.91

6.91

8.78

9.68

34.35

0.15

0.24

0.32

0.38

0.5

0.55

2.05

0.14

0.24

0.31

0.37

0.48

0.53

1.99

0.15

0.22

0.29

0.34

0.43

0.47

1.62

0.11

0.16

0.21

0.24

0.29

0.33

1.01

0.63

0.96

1.21

1.4

1.73

1.91

6.36

0.32

0.46

0.59

0.69

0.87

0.96

3.25

0.86 0.31

2.04 0.45

2.87 0.56

3.31 0.65

4.82 0.78

5.08 0.87

19.43

0.06

0.09

0.11

0.13

0.15

0.17

0.48

0.12

0.18

0.22

0.25

0.3

0.34

0.98

0.17

0.25

0.31

0.35

0.42

0.47

1.34

0.13

0.18

0.22

0.26

0.31

0.34

0.97

0.11

0.15

0.19

0.23

0.28

0.31

0.95

0.13

0.21

0.27

0.31

0.39

0.43

1.50

0.28

0.45

0.58

0.67

0.83

0.90

2.90

0.07

0.10

0.13

0.15

0.18

0.20

0.59

0.19

0.31

0.39

0.46

0.57

0.63

2.1

0.04

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.10

0.11

0.31

0.98

1.94

2.96

3.39

4.88

5.24

20.52

1.45

2.39 0.35

3.53 0.45

5.84 0.53

5.83 0.67

6.26 0.73

25.62

0.24 0.43

0.69

0.45

1.03

1.27

1.39

4.58

2.63

2.6

Page 76

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Table 3.5.13: Peak Flow Estimates under Future Conditions (Trib. to Grand Subwatershed)

Drainage pattern / Creek

Subcatchment

2-yr

5-yr

10-yr

25-yr

50-yr

100-yr

Regional

Cumulative flow (m3/s)

Drains directly to the Grand

TG1

0.08

0.20

0.30

0.35

0.56

0.61

3.17

Tributary to the Grand / Riverbank Creek

TG2

0.24

0.38

0.55

0.67

1.01

1.09

5.03

Drains to Allendale Creek (TG4)

TG3

0.19

0.39

0.57

0.67

1.03

1.12

4.87

Tributary to the Grand / Allendale Creek

TG4

0.93

1.46

1.90

2.23

2.87

3.17

11.93

Drains directly to the Grand

TG5

0.26

0.42

0.57

0.67

0.85

0.93

3.21

Drains directly to the Grand

TG6

0.06

0.11

0.15

0.18

0.23

0.25

0.95

Tributary to the Grand / Walter Bean

TG7

0.03

0.06

0.10

0.13

0.22

0.24

1.42

The proposed change in land use within the study area causes imperviousness to increase within developed subcatchments. As seen in Table 3.5.11, these subcatchments are: â&#x20AC;˘ â&#x20AC;˘

Freeport Creek Subwatershed: FP1, FP2, FP15, FP16, FP17, FP18, FP24, FP25, FP31, FP32, FP36, FP39 Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed: TG3, TG4, TG5

Tables 3.5.14 and 3.5.15 show the increase in the magnitude of flows, ranging between the 2-year flow and the Regional, under proposed conditions. The increase ranges between 10% and 600% of the original magnitudes under existing conditions. Highest increase in simulated flows is noticed in subcatchments 15 and 17, where imperviousness is expected to increase dramatically from 8 and 4 to 50 and 77, respectively.

Page 77

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Table 3.5.14: Peak Flow Estimates (m3/s) for Existing and Future Conditions with no Stormwater Management (Freeport Creek Subwatershed) â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Cumulative Flows 3

Creek

Sub-catchment

FP01 FP02 FP03 FP04 FP05 FP06 FP07 FP08 FP09 FP10 FP11 FP12 FP13 FP14 FP15 FP16 FP17 FP18 FP19 FP20 FP21 FP22 FP23 FP24 FP25 FP26 FP27 FP28 FP29 FP30 FP31 FP32 FP33 FP34 FP35 FP36 FP37 FP38 FP39 FP40

2 Year Storm (m /s)

5 Year Storm (m /s)

10 Year Storm (m /s)

25 Year Storm (m /s)

50 Year Storm (m /s)

100 Year Storm (m /s)

Regional Storm (m /s)

Existing

Future No SWM

Existing

Future No SWM

Existing

Future No SWM

Existing

Future No SWM

Existing

Future No SWM

Existing

Future No SWM

Existing

Future No SWM

0.30

0.43

0.54

0.62

0.78

0.86

2.96

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.07

0.39

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.25

0.33

0.47

0.59

0.68

0.86

0.95

3.26

0.11

0.16

0.19

0.22

0.27

0.30

0.85

0.19

0.27

0.34

0.39

0.47

0.52

1.54

0.24

0.34

0.42

0.49

0.59

0.66

1.97

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.08

0.09

0.27

0.39

0.57

0.72

0.84

1.05

1.15

4.09

0.08

0.12

0.14

0.17

0.23

0.26

1.14

0.37

0.56

0.70

0.7

0.82

1.02

1.12

3.95

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.29

0.06

0.08

0.12

0.14

0.22

0.24

1.17

1.11

1.60

1.66

2.38

2.10

3.03

2.46

3.53

3.18

4.5

3.51

4.96

15.37

18.5

0.10

0.60

0.15

0.86

0.25

1.11

0.31

1.30

0.58

1.69

0.65

1.86

4.49

7.15

1.15

1.68

1.74

2.51

2.21

3.19

2.58

3.71

3.35

4.73

3.70

5.21

15.95

19.3

0.02

0.14

0.05

0.20

0.08

0.25

0.09

0.30

0.15

0.36

0.16

0.41

0.94

1.2

2.06

2.95

3.25

4.57

4.23

5.91

4.92

6.91

6.63

8.78

7.25

9.68

28.88

34.35

0.15

0.24

0.32

0.38

0.50

0.55

2.05

0.14

0.24

0.31

0.37

0.48

0.53

1.99

0.15

0.22

0.29

0.34

0.43

0.47

1.62

0.11

0.16

0.21

0.24

0.29

0.33

1.01

0.63

0.96

1.21

1.40

1.73

1.91

6.36

0.24

0.32

0.34

0.46

0.41

0.59

0.49

0.69

0.66

0.87

0.73

0.96

2.95

3.25

0.45

0.93

19.43

0.87

5.08 0.87

17.17

0.78

4.82 0.78

3.69

0.65

3.31 0.65

3.52

0.56

2.87 0.56

2.21

0.45

2.04 0.45

1.66

0.31

0.86 0.31

2.63

0.06

0.09

0.11

0.13

0.15

0.17

0.48

0.12

0.18

0.22

0.25

0.30

0.34

0.98

0.17

0.25

0.31

0.35

0.42

0.47

1.34

0.13

0.18

0.22

0.26

0.31

0.34

0.97

0.10

0.11

0.14

0.15

0.18

0.19

0.21

0.23

0.26

0.28

0.30

0.31

0.95

0.12

0.13

0.19

0.21

0.25

0.27

0.30

0.31

0.38

0.39

0.41

0.43

1.50

0.28

0.45

0.58

0.67

0.83

0.89

0.90

2.90

0.07

0.10

0.13

0.15

0.18

0.20

0.59

0.19

0.29

0.31

0.38

0.39

0.44

0.46

0.55

0.57

0.60

0.63

2.10

2.1

0.04

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.10

0.11

0.31

0.53

0.98

0.95

1.94

1.68

2.96

2.21

3.39

3.61

4.88

3.83

5.24

18.21

20.52

0.92

1.45

1.47

2.08

5.83 0.67

4.76

6.26 0.73

23.30

25.62

0.22

5.84 0.53

4.38

0.16 0.43

3.53 0.45

2.53

0.24

2.39 0.35

2.31

2.6

0.69

1.39

4.58

0.43

Page 78

0.30 0.45

0.45

0.36 1.03

1.03

0.51 1.27

1.27

0.55 1.39

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Table 3.5.15: Peak Flow Estimates (m3/s) for Existing and Future Conditions with no Stormwater Management (Tributary to Grand Subwatershed) â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Cumulative Flows 3

Drainage pattern / Creek

2 Year Storm (m /s)

5 Year Storm (m /s)

10 Year Storm (m /s)

25 Year Storm (m /s)

50 Year Storm (m /s)

100 Year Storm (m /s)

Regional Storm (m /s)

Sub-catchment Existing

Future No SWM

Existing

Future No SWM

Existing

Future No SWM

Existing

Future No SWM

Existing

Future No SWM

Existing

Future No SWM

Existing

Future No SWM

Drains directly to the Grand

TG1

0.08

0.20

0.30

0.35

0.56

0.61

3.17

Tributary to the Grand / Riverbank Creek

TG2

0.24

0.38

0.55

0.67

1.01

1.09

5.03

Drains to Allendale Creek (TG4)

TG3

0.11

0.19

0.27

0.39

0.41

0.57

0.50

0.67

0.82

1.03

0.89

1.12

4.28

4.87

Tributary to the Grand / Allendale Creek

TG4

0.28

0.93

0.63

1.46

0.93

1.90

1.14

2.23

1.81

2.87

1.95

3.17

9.21

11.93

Drains directly to the Grand

TG5

0.11

0.26

0.22

0.42

0.32

0.57

0.39

0.67

0.57

0.85

0.61

0.93

2.77

3.21

Drains directly to the Grand

TG6

0.06

0.11

0.15

0.18

0.23

0.25

0.95

Tributary to the Grand / Walter Bean

TG7

0.03

0.06

0.10

0.13

0.22

0.24

1.42

Page 79

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

3.5.7 HYDRAULICS 3.5.7.1 Background Freeport Creek is located in the northern part of the City of Cambridge. If urban development proceeded within the Freeport Creek subwatershed without any stormwater controls, the City of Cambridge would be susceptible to higher surface runoff rates and volumes, leading to flood and erosion damage. The Stormwater Management Master Plan (AMEC, 2010) assessed the hydrology and hydraulics that impact stormwater quantity within the City of Cambridge including the Freeport Creek subwatershed. Key findings of AMEC (2010) related to floodplain hydraulics and hydraulic capacity along Freeport Creek include the following: •

The simulation of Major System performance during the 100-year storm showed that around half of the roadway lengths modeled (26) have flooding depths between 0 and 0.08 m, and the rest of roadway lengths with flooding depth above 0.15 m.

•

Historic flood locations as identified by AMEC (2010) are in the Cambridge Business Park area, namely at the Fountain Street and Maple Grove intersection and at the Cherry Blossom Road and Saltsman Drive intersection.

•

The replacement of any of the crossings along Freeport Creek is not a priority for hydraulic improvements.

Page 80

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

3.5.7.2 Hydraulic Structures Table 3.5.16 shows the hydraulic structures’ inventory along Freeport Creek completed in 2011 by Aquafor Beech Limited. Included in the inventory are crossing size, crossing type, and location. The data included: •

structure type (culvert / bridge);

•

material (concrete / steel / other);

•

opening shape and dimensions;

•

upstream & downstream invert elevations; and

•

overflow / weir profile elevations.

Topographic surveys were undertaken at culvert crossing locations in 2012 by GRCA staff in order to collect additional hydraulic and geometric data necessary to setup the hydraulic model (See Section 3.5.6.3). With respect to the topographic survey information, all points were surveyed geodetically. The results of the 2012 structure surveys are presented in the Structure Inventory Forms in Appendix G.

Page 81

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Table 3.5.16: Hydraulic Structures (2011) along Freeport Creek Crossing Identifier

Location

Type /Material

Size* (mm)

Length (m)

Span (m)

Width (m)

Rise (m)

ES1

Crossing at Walter Bean Trail â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Between Grand River and Hwy 8

Culvert / CSPA

700 x 480

Downstream (masl)

Upstream (masl)

Invert

Obvert

Invert

Obvert

283.24

283.63

283.21

283.80

284.48

185.69

284.49

285.72

285.29

285.75

285.43

285.77

285.73

285.78

285.26

285.70

ES2

Crossing of Hwy 8.

98.7

ES3a

Box Culvert /Concrete

1300 x 1200

Crossing at Walter Bean Trail Approx. 40m upstream of Hwy 8

Double Culvert / CSP

450

6.0

Between Hwy 8 and Grand River Garden Village

Culvert / CSPA

1250 x 950

6.1

286.01

287.04

285.89

287.20

Grand River Garden Village Grand River Garden Village

Pedestrian Bridge Wooden Pedestrian Bridge / Wooden

0.435

2.5

1.0

0.475

2.0

1.0

ES7

Grand River Garden Village

Pedestrian Bridge / Wooden

0.495

3.0

0.9

ES8

Grand River Garden Village

Pedestrian Bridge / Wooden

0.495

2.0

1.0

Grand River Garden Village downstream of King St. E Crossing at King St. East

Double Culvert / CSPA

1420 x 940

9.1

288.46

289.44

288.53

289.52

288.53

289.52

288.81

289.59

Culvert

1500

22.5

289.24

290.81

289.66

290.90

Between King St. E and Between CNR King St. E and

Box Culvert / Concrete Culvert / CSP

250 x 1800

15.9

290.22

292.05

290.38

292.06

1500

9.5

290.40

292.09

290.77

292.05

CNR Crossing at CPR

Double Culvert / CSP

900

16.8

292.82

293.73

293.06

294.02

900

15.3

291.89

292.93

292.08

292.88

Between CPR and SWM facility

Pedestrian Bridge / Wooden

3.0

1.5

1.1

Between CPR and SWM facility

Double Culvert / CSP

350

3.5

Culvert / CSP

600

ES12

Between CPR and SWM Betweenfacility CPR and SWM

Culvert / CSP

600

ES11

Outlet offacility SWM facility

Culvert / CSPA

1880 x 1260

ES3b ES4 ES5 ES6

ES9a ES9b ES10 ES18 ES17 ES16a ES16b ES15 ES14a ES14b ES13

298.41

298.72

298.57

298.94

3.7

298.37 298.09

297.72 298.69

298.38 298.19

298.82 198.79

6.5

298.96

299.61

298.93

299.51

14.0

300.96

302.25

301.25

302.48

Page 82

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

3.5.7.3 Floodplain Hydraulics Based on a review of previous hydraulic assessments for the study area (Aquafor Beech, 2011), engineered floodlines have been completed as part of proposed development applications over three sections of the Freeport Creek. These sections are: •

A headwater segment located north of Challenger Motor Freight (300 Maple Grove)

•

A segment downstream of SWM Pond 130 (AMEC, 2010)

•

A segment near the mouth of the creek (3800 King Street site plan)

At the project onset, engineered floodlines have not yet been developed for the remaining reaches of Freeport Creek or Tributary to the Grand River subwatershed. Previous studies noted that spoil piles adjacent to Freeport creek act as levees to the natural flow during storm events. However, the floodplain is sufficiently broad to allow for proper flow dispersion during storm events during existing conditions. The general study area includes other natural hazards such as steep slopes along the Grand River and Allendale Creek. Note: the floodlines as mapped will be considered approximate for GRCA Regulatory purposes. GRCA Regulation Limit as it relates to the floodplain will consist of a 15 metres allowance (offset) from the mapped floodline. The exact location of the Regulatory Floodline will be based on surveyed information provided in support of future development applications Hydraulic Modeling Hydraulic modeling and floodplain mapping have been developed for Freeport Creek as part of this study. Per the MESP and Community Plan Terms of Reference (Step 6), in order to complete the floodplain hydraulics component, the following activities were undertaken: •

A topographic survey for existing crossings (completed in 2011 by Aquafor Beech and the GRCA staff in 2012. Note: Where discrepancies were noted, GRCA data was to supersede);

•

Determine/confirm watershed modeling parameters (completed see Section 3.5.1 Hydrology);

•

Prepare updated existing conditions model (HEC RAS); and

•

Determine and map the post-development floodline.

The modeling and floodplain mapping were undertaken in two (2) phases, specifically: • Phase #1 - Complete floodplain mapping for Freeport Creek upstream of the CPR tracks. The modeling and mapping for this phase used 2009 topographic base mapping supplied by GRCA. The resultant floodlines have been included within Figure 4.2 – Opportunities & Constraints to Development;

Page 83

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 •

Phase #2 - Complete floodplain mapping for Freeport Creek downstream of the CPR tracks including the Honda site, King Street and the Grand River Garden Village. The 2009 topographic base mapping used in Phase 1 does not reflect the recent construction of the Honda site and the driveway structure at this location. Therefore, a number of other sources of information were used to develop “composite” topographic mapping for this area. This information was used to extend the hydraulic model downstream of the CPR.

The hydraulic model used to assess floodplain hydraulics is HEC-RAS v.4.1.0 (Hydraulic Engineering Centre River Analysis System) software developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The software is widely used throughout Ontario and within the Grand River watershed. The HEC RAS model requires several parameters to be input before an analysis. The parameters include: •

Channel geometry, in the form of station/elevation data points for cross sections;

•

Flow values, including the 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, and 100-year return periods as well as the Regional flow;

•

Channel and floodplain roughness, using Manning’s “n” coefficient

•

Bridge/culvert structure geometry and associated roadway/rail profiles.

Models and supporting documentation are provided in Appendix G. PHASE 1 Hydraulic Modelling Field Surveys Field investigations were completed on Freeport Creek in order to collect hydraulic data for use in the development of the hydraulic model and floodplain mapping. The data collected included details related to bridge/culvert crossing structures and typical bank-full channel measurements. Surveys were completed by Aquafor Beech Limited staff in 2011 and GRCA staff in 2012. Where discrepancies were noted, GRCA data was to supersede. Channel Measurements and Geometry Typical bank-full channel dimensions were inspected in the vicinity of the structure surveys. These dimensions were used, together with topographic information from the base mapping and 2009 contours, to define cross-sectional information for use in the hydraulic model. A summary of the typical dimensions measured along various creek reaches is provided in Table 3.5.17 below. Table 3.5.17: Typical Bankfull Channel Dimensions Location

Channel Base Width

Bankfull Width

Bankfull Depth

Railway to Pond outlet

0.5m to 0.75m

1.5m to 2.0m

0.4m to 0.7m

Pond outlet to Maple Grove Road

0.5m to 1.0m

1.0m to 1.5m

0.7m to 1.0m

Page 84

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Cross-Sections and Parameters A base model was assembled using topographical information from the GRCA 2009 contours, together with ArcGIS software and the HEC-GeoRAS. This spatial data was used to define channel cross-sections, stream centerlines, and overbank locations. Cross sections were spaced to account for changes in channel geometry, meanders, bridge/culvert structures, and to account for the narrowest sections of the creek valley. The base model was then supplemented with bank-full channel dimensions, as measured during the field investigation (Section 3.2), using the channel modification tools in HEC-RAS.

Channel and Floodplain Roughness Manning’s roughness coefficients were assigned to each cross-section based on observations of land cover from air photography and during the field surveys. The following were applied: •

bank-full channel: 0.035

•

overbank in urban, manicured areas: 0.055

•

overbank in rural, non-manicured areas: 0.075

Culvert/Bridge Structures and Parameters Four cross sections were coded at each bridge/culvert structure to account for expansion and contraction of the flow at these structures (i.e. two upstream and two downstream of each structure). Expansion and contraction coefficients used in the model were setup using the recommended values in Table 3.5.18. Table 3.5.18: Recommended Expansion and Contraction Coefficients Contraction Coefficient

Expansion Coefficient

Natural Sections

0.1

0.3

Abrupt Changes (culverts)

0.3

0.5

Data from the structure survey including the structure material, opening dimensions and invert elevations, were applied to code the culvert structures into the model. Overflow/weir profiles were defined using 2009 topographic information from the GRCA and surveyed information. Manning’s roughness coefficients for the structures were selected from standard values recommended for use with concrete and corrugated steel pipes. The ineffective flow area option was applied in the model to restrict the flow area to the width of the structure opening, until weir flow began over the structure. To do so, the elevation of the ineffective flow area was set equal to the weir elevation above it, or, if the low-point on the weir was located to the

Page 85

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 left or right of the structure opening, then the left or right ineffective boundary was set to the elevation of the low-point. During the field investigation, a number of small footbridges were identified at select locations within the watershed. In many cases, these minor structures had little or no embankments located within the valley. As such, these structures were judged to have negligible impact during flood events, and were therefore not included in the hydraulic model.

Flows Regional storm flood flow rates were established through the hydrologic modeling as detailed in Section 3.5.3 at various locations throughout the watershed. Consistent with flood hazard mapping standards, the hydrologic modeling assumed that the on-line pond (Pond 130) between Maple Grove Road and the CPR Railway was filled to capacity and no storage was available to attenuate the flood flows. Regional flows for both existing and future land use scenarios were established. These flood flows were applied to the appropriate stream reaches during the setup of the hydraulic model, including the headwaters, mid sections, the railway (downstream of subcatchment FP25), and the mouth of Freeport Creek as summarized below in Table 3.5.19. Hydraulic Points of Interest (POI) corresponding to those listed in Table 3.5.19 are illustrated on Figure 3.5.2. Table 3.5.19: Regional Peak Flow Estimates for Floodplain Mapping along Freeport Creek Hydraulic POI (see Figure 3.5.2)

Subcatchment

Regional 3 (Existing) m /s

Regional 3 (Post Dev.) m /s

Notes

FP15

2.88

4.57

Tributary to Freeport Creek within FP15

FP16

15.40

18.50

Outleting to FP16, including flow from FP15

FP18

29.00

34.35

Drains out of FP18-No Pond

FP25

34.90

42.40

Flow at Railway

FP38

40.90

48.30

Flow at mouth

At the request of the GRCA, and for the purposes of floodplain mapping of the headwaters sections of Freeport Creek, subcatchment FP15 was divided into two parts: •

One area draining to a small tributary west of École Père-René-De-Galinée School (drainage area = 37.8 ha, Regional flow = 4.57m3/s); and

•

Areas draining directly to FP16 (drainage area = 21.2 ha, Regional flow = 2.56m3/s).

Page 86

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Model Results, Floodplain Mapping and Spills The model was applied to determine the Regional Storm flood profiles for future land use scenario. Model results, including profile plots and output tables are presented in Appendix G. Results from the HEC-RAS model were exported and the HEC-GeoRAS extension was applied again in order to plot floodlines onto the supplied 2009 base mapping. The floodplain mapping results were reviewed in conjunction with the model output to verify, refine and finalize the floodplain extents for Freeport Creek. The resulting floodplain mapping, based on post-development Regional Storm flows is included in Appendix G. PHASE 2 Hydraulic Modeling The 2009 topographic base mapping used in Phase 1 does not reflect the recent construction of the Honda site and the driveway structure at this location. Therefore, a number of other sources of information were used to develop “composite” topographic mapping for this area, including: • GRCA and Aquafor topographic survey data; • grading plans from the Honda site provided by the GRCA; • a topographic survey of the Grand River Garden Village site provided by the GRCA. This information was used to extend the Phase 1 hydraulic model downstream of the CPR railway. Preliminary model results in this area indicate that a significant portion of the Freeport Creek flood flows could spill out of the channel and to the north, along the King Street corridor. Therefore, further hydraulic modeling was completed to estimate the magnitude and extent of the spills. At each of the CPR, Honda driveway and King Street crossings, the overflow (i.e. weir flow) was proportioned between flows which spill to the north and flows which continue downstream after flowing over the road. The proportion was estimated iteratively using the HEC-RAS model results and separate weir flow calculations. For the post-development Regional flood flow, the estimated proportion of the flows which spill to the north and continue through the downstream reach of Freeport Creek is as follows: •

at the CPR: - Inflow = 48.3 m3/s - Weir flow = 43.4 m3/s (from HEC-RAS) - Portion spilling to north = 11.6 m3/s - Flow continuing downstream = 48.3 - 11.6 = 36.7 m3/s

•

Honda Driveway: - Inflow = 36.7 m3/s - Weir flow = 17.9 m3/s (from HEC-RAS) - Portion spilling to north = 17.9 m3/s - Flow continuing downstream = 36.7 – 17.9 = 18.8 m3/s

Page 87

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 •

King Street: - Inflow = 18.8 m3/s - Weir flow = 9.8 m3/s - Portion spilling to north = 8.2 m3/s - Flow continuing downstream = 18.8 – 8.2 = 10.6 m3/s

The hydraulic model was expanded to include basic cross-sections over the estimated spill path based on the “composite” topographic mapping information. A Manning’s roughness coefficient of 0.020 was applied to the model cross-sections over the King Street corridor. As noted above, there are three crossing locations behind which spills are predicted to occur. However, based on the topography of the area all of these spills would be expected to converge within the Honda site and continue north along the King Street corridor. Therefore, a single spill flow of 37.7 m3/s was assumed over the spill path in the model. The resulting floodplain mapping for the Phase 2 area downstream of the CP railway is included in Appendix G. As shown, the predicted spill extends from the Honda site north to roughly the intersection of King Street and Riverbank Drive. Here, the spill flows drain to the Grand River floodplain to the northwest. Potential for Increased Downstream Flooding Following the completion of Phases 1 and 2 of the Hydraulic Modeling by Aquafor Beech and approval by GRCA, a subsequent analysis was performed by GRCA staff to determine the potential for increased downstream flooding as a result of development within the Phase 1 lands, specifically as its relates to lands within the City of Kitchener, downstream of the CPR Railway. At the project onset only estimated floodlines for Freeport Creek were available. Through this study an updated HEC-RAS model was developed. Using the updated model, GRCA staff undertook the mapping of the Existing Condition Regional Floodline for Freeport Creek and compared it to the Future Conditions Regional Floodline. This comparative analysis found that the Future Conditions Regional Floodline had a maximum increase in water level of 9cm upstream of King Street to the CPR Railway and no increase downstream of King Street (Appendix G). Upon completion of their review of the Future Conditions Regional Floodline analysis completed by the GRCA, City of Kitchener concluded that properties in the City of Kitchener will not be negatively impacted from upstream development within the Stage 1 lands

Page 88

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

3.5.7.4 SWM Pond Facility (Pond 130) Background An existing stormwater management (SWM) facility on Freeport Creek is located behind the Regional Operations Centre and Challenger Motor Freight on Maple Grove Road and is designated as Pond 130 within the City of Cambridge SWM Master Plan (Figure 2.4.1). The facility has joint ownership. The majority is owned by the City of Cambridge (approximately ¾), with the Region owning the remainder, including the outlet from Cherry Blossom Road. The City of Cambridge retains an easement on the channel and a Certificate of Approval (No. 3-1419-90-006) for this stormwater management facility (under Municipal and Private Sewage Works: Section 52 and 53 of the Ontario Water Resources Act R.S.O 1990). Pond 130 was originally designed as an on-line flood control facility for events up to and including the Regional storm. This flood control facility currently functions ecologically as a wetland (see Section 3.7.4). A lack of adequate SWM control up gradient of the facility has been reported to cause sediment deposition within the facility. In addition an ongoing operational issue with the facility outlet has caused extensive tree die-off in part of the adjacent swamp (wooded areas) due to prolonged inundation. Inundation was also noted within adjacent meadow marshes and agricultural fields. Inundated areas are represented by the ELC polygons in Appendix D as follows: •

Swamp – Polygons D9, D11, D12, D18

•

Marsh – Polygons D6, D8a, D15, D15A and a portion of D7.

L to R: Inundation of adjacent agricultural lands and wooded areas

As a result, at the onset of this study questions were raised as to: •

the adequacy of the design;

•

future management of the facility;

•

impacts to the woodland vegetation communities;

Page 89

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 â&#x20AC;˘

the ability of the facility to accept additional drainage; and

â&#x20AC;˘

potential options for rehabilitation.

Facility Description and Design History As part of this study, the City of Cambridge Business Park Stormwater Management Works (CRA, April 1990) report was reviewed and has been summarized below. The Pond 130 facility was originally designed as a Regional Flood control facility for 209 ha of the Freeport Creek basin within the only available location (at that time) with adequate size to capture the large volumes (411,200m3) associated with the regional event. The facility was designed as a large drypond (meaning the pond was intended to drain completely between events) with inflow from a channel to the north and from a storm sewer outlet north of the Regional Operations Centre and was intended to function for both stormwater and sediment control. The earthen berm at the lower end of facility was designed and sited to maintain the existing woodlot and wetland in the lower reaches of the basin.

Page 90

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Outlet Design Within the earthen berm, two outlets were constructed. The first a 300mm diameter CSP with a trash rack was placed at the invert of the upstream channel (299.60m AMSL) to allow the facility to function as a drypond and drain between events. A second larger CSPA (1880mm x 1260mm – inset photo) was placed 1.65m above the first outlet (301.25m AMSL). The top of the berm was designed as a 5m wide emergency spillway (302.50m AMSL). The pond outlets were designed to limit post-development peak outflows from all storms larger than the 1-in-5 year return period to less than the predevelopment peak outflows. Pond function, peak flows, and water surface elevations for the various design storms per the 1990 design as presented in the City of Cambridge Business Park Stormwater Management Works (CRA, April 1990) have been reproduced below in Table 3.5.20. Table 3.5.20: As Designed Pond Function, Peak Flows, and Water Surface Elevations for the Various Design Storms Recurrence Intervals (yrs) 2 5 25 100 Regional Storm 3 Peak Inflow (m /s) 24.97 33.94 55.91 77.42 34.27 3 Peak Outflow (m /s) 0.23 0.68 1.00 7.17 0.21 (* Pre-development flows) (0.23*) (0.80*) (1.42*) (11.12*) Max Storage (ha m) 5.62 7.76 12.55 15.89 38.58 Surface Area (ha) 10.3 12.6 15.0 16.0 20.7 High Water Level (m) 300.89 301.10 301.47 301.63 302.87 Max. Depth at outlet (m) 1.49 1.70 2.07 2.23 3.27 Drawdown Time (days) 5.5 7 9 10 11.5 Through the public consultation process and in discussion with area landowners, the facility function was reported to be ‘predominantly elevated and was not draining down between events’ resulting in inundation of local agricultural fields and woodlands and has affected local private trails. Site visits found fluctuating water levels throughout the year (see site pictures below), however full facility drawdown was not observed.

Page 91

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

L to R: Water level fluctuations in May 2011 and July 2011 (note the birch tree reference point)

Site visits and surveys of the SWM facility (pond 130) in May through to September 2011 could not locate the 300mm diameter CSP low flow outlet and found that the facility was generally outletting to the downstream channel through only the larger CSPA (1880mm x 1260mm), which was somewhat blocked by woody debris (see insert photo). Surveyed water surface elevations, found the water level to be above 301.25m, 1.65m above the original channel invert as designed in 1990. For reference, current mapping of the facility (water edge) (Figure 2.4.1) represents a surface area of approximately 10 hectares and roughly corresponds to the 2 year storm surface area in Table 3.5.20. Modeling of existing conditions of Pond 130 has been completed as part of this study and previously as part of the City of Cambridge SWM Master Plan (August 2011). In both, modeled outflows from the existing facility were found to be 10.98 m3/s and 10.17 m3/s respectively; above the designed outflow rate of 7.17 m3/s and approaching the 1990 pre-development flow of 11.12 m3/s for the Regional Storm (See Table 3.5.20). Management Options The City of Cambridge Stormwater Management Master Plan (August 2011) suggests a preferred municipal retrofit approach, whereby stormwater control (outlined primarily for quality control) is provided via consolidated and centralized retrofits to existing storm outfalls and existing dry pond facilities, in order to reduce overall operations and maintenance requirements and improve functionality by providing treatment to those areas most in need. In that regard, Pond 130 was identified within the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s SWM Master Plan as one of six candidate sites for retrofit (to provide water quality). It is noted during the course of the Stormwater Management

Page 92

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Master Plan that GRCA staff expressed concern with respect to the implementation of centralized stormwater management facilities for water quality, primarily due to: •

a preference to providing treatment at source or as a minimum treating stormwater runoff by way of a treatment train approach (i.e. source, conveyance, and end-of-pipe); and

•

potential for retrofits conflicts and encroachments into natural features, particularly Provincially Significant Wetlands.

This facility is regulated by the GRCA per Ontario Regulations under Section 28 of the Conservation Authority Act and under the 2003 GRCA Wetland Policy and the 2013 Policies for the Administration of Development Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourse Regulation Ontario Regulation 150/06. As a component of the overall subwatershed study, Master Drainage Plan and MESP it has been suggested that the possibility of retrofitting the existing flood control facility (Pond 130) to accommodate and manage the post-development regional flows from the contributing Freeport Creek drainage basin be investigated as part of a comprehensive plan to improve overall environmental conditions and achieve multiple management objectives. Both the suggested retrofit of Pond 130 for water quality control per the City’s SWM Master Plan and ability of the facility to accommodate and manage the post-development regional flows has implications with respect to the Greenspace Management Plan and the Surface Water Management Plan. Key implications include: • Impacts to the surrounding environmental constraints (designation of this feature as a candidate Environmentally Sensitive Policy Area and a Provincially Significant Wetland -see Section 4.1); •

Agreement with Provincial, Municipal and Conservation Authority policies in regards to wetlands, on-line SWM ponds for water quality etc;

•

Increased regional storage volume requirements of approximately 40% (from the 41.12 ha∙m at a water level of 303m as approved within the Certificate of Approval No. 3-1419-90-006);

•

Periodic inundation of adjacent lands to the north of the facility outlet;

•

Increased high water levels during regional event from current water surface elevation of 303.2m during the Regional event (see Section 3.5.6.3 – Hydraulics);

•

Based on surrounding topography, land to the south and east (Regional Operations Centre Waterloo Regional Police Services Headquarters and Challenger Motor Freight on Maple Grove Road) have significant relief from the facility (elevation of 310-315m – See Figure 3.2.1).

•

One Threatened species (Section 3.7.5.5), several species of Special Concern, and multiple Regionally Significant species (Section 3.7.2.2) are located within SWM Wetland (Pond 130) and natural heritage features within the immediate vicinity. These species have the potential to be affected by significant changes in hydrologic regime;

•

Significant changes in hydrologic regime will likely impact Core Environmental features of the Greenlands Network, including candidate Environmentally Sensitive Policy Areas, Provincially

Page 93

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Significant Wetlands, significant woodlands and significant wildlife habitat (see Figures 3.7.2, 3.7.14, 4.1.4, and 4.1.5); and •

Amphibian habitat, including that of ambystomid salamanders, may also be impacted (see Sections 3.7.5.1 and 8.4).

Discussions regarding the management options for Pond 130 were undertaken as part of this study with representatives from the Region, City, GRCA and MNR. Comments from the adjacent landowners and the public were noted and recorded as part of the Public Information centres (PICs). Management options and recommendations for Pond 130 are discussed within the Master Drainage Plan (MDP) Appendix B2: • •

Sections 3.2.3 Specific Issues: The Freeport Creek Stormwater Management Facility (Pond 130); and Section 8.0 Additional Studies and Recommendations.

Page 94

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

3.5.8 CONCLUSIONS •

Under existing conditions, it is evident from background information, previous hydrologic analyses, and the current analysis that the surface runoff volumes and rates within the study area are attenuated by the following: o Low percent imperviousness except for the Cambridge Business Park area and the Highway 8 corridor; o High infiltration rates provided primarily by predominant permeable sandy loam and loam; o SWM Pond/Wetland storage system located in the centre of Freeport Creek subwatershed; and o High depression storage provided by agricultural use, natural storage areas, and forest litter that dominate the land use in the study area.

•

The dominance of permeable soils with high infiltration rates suggests the following: o Low surface runoff volumes and rates; o High volumes of infiltrated water; and o Significant contributions to groundwater storage, local groundwater table and base flows.

•

An increase in the 2-year through Regional flow are anticipated in the future uncontrolled conditions for hydrologic subcatchments where significant development is expected (FP14-16, FP24-25, FP37-39, and TG3-5). Without mitigation and appropriate stormwater management controls, downstream impacts are anticipated.

•

Water budget analysis was done at the subcatchment and subwatershed scales. More specifically, subcatchment water budget was estimated for each subcatchment based on distinct land use and soil type. The subwatershed-scale water budget was based on annual averages for subcatchments with the same soil type (i.e. silt loam and fine sand). In that regard, it may be more appropriate to consider subwatershed-scale water budget components (Table 3.5.9 and 3.5.10) for identifying water budget targets due to its general agreement with the Grand River Watershed Water Budget Study (AquaResource, 2009). In absence of observed streamflow data for Allendale Creek and Riverbank Creek, appropriate calibration and validation of the hydrologic model was rendered unattainable. Although streamflow monitoring has been ongoing on Freeport Creek since 2009, the data was deemed to be unreliable and as such model calibration and validation of the continuous model also proved unattainable. However, cross-referencing the results of the current analysis with the results of previous models and studies show reasonable agreement

•

Page 95

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

3.6 STREAM GEOMORPHOLOGY A fluvial geomorphic assessment of the subwatershed study area watercourses was conducted in 2011. This assessment included stream walks along all watercourses (Freeport Creek and Tributaries to the Grand River: Riverbank Creek, Allendale Creek, and the Walter Bean Trail Tributary) and detailed field site surveys along Freeport Creek and Allendale Creek (Figure 3.6.1). The reconnaissance level field walks and Rapid Geomorphic Assessments were conducted along each channel to characterize the current geomorphic state of the watercourse. The two detailed topographic channel surveys were completed to determine the geometric properties of the channel and substrate characteristics. The data collected during the field portion of the study aided in the analysis of stormwater discharge targets and meander belt widths. Meander belt width targets are discussed in Section 4.1.1 Hazard Lands.

3.6.1 HISTORIC ASSESSMENT Historic aerial photographs were compared between 1951 and 2009 to gain insight into historic land-use and channel changes associated with the subwatershed study area watercourses (Figure 3.6.2 and Figure 3.6.3). Common points of reference include: • Freeport Creek (Figure 3.6.2) - Riverbank Drive, Allendale Road and ELC Polygon D17 and D18 (see Figure 4.1.12). • Allendale Creek (Figure 3.6.3) - Riverbank Drive, Middle Block Road and ELC Polygon C5 and C6 (see Figure 4.1.10) The 1951 aerial photograph confirmed that the Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand subwatersheds were dominated by rural residential and agricultural land-uses. A small portion of the residential development along Riverbank Drive in the Freeport Creek watershed was present in the 1951 aerial photograph. Fewer wooded areas existed during 1951 resulting in very little woody riparian vegetation adjacent to the watercourses. The 1951 Freeport Creek channel appears to have been straightened and channelized, for agricultural purposes. This was later confirmed through communications with adjacent landowners during site visits. Upstream of the railway tracks the channel exhibited a meandering planform in behind the residential buildings and further upstream the channel became straighter through the agricultural fields to the large woodlot. No channel planform changes were identified within the Tributary to the Grand watercourses. Notable changes between the 1951 and 1966 aerial photographs include the increase in number of residential buildings along Riverbank Drive, but the dominant land-use within the watersheds continued to be agricultural. Highway 8 was also constructed sometime during this time period. The channel’s meandering planform was maintained in behind the residential buildings and remained straighter downstream of King Street East. A more defined channel was present within the headwaters of Freeport Creek, possibly for agricultural drainage. The 2009 aerial photograph shows that the land-use was still predominantly residential and agricultural, but industrial/commercial and institutional

Page 96

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 development was also present within the upper and lower portion of the Freeport Creek watershed (GRCA, 2012). In the 1990s a large on-line stormwater facility (Pond 130) was created in the upstream reaches of Freeport Creek. Prior to 1990, Freeport Creek originated within what is now Pond 130. In the 1990s, the upstream channel was constructed between the Pond 130 and Maple Grove Road to provide drainage to the adjacent low-lying areas. These low-lying areas historically drained to West Creek. It was noted by Howes-Jones (2003) that prior to the construction of Maple Grove Road (approximately 1988), Freeport Creek used to flow from the wetland west of the Challenger Motor Freight site to the north and then east.

Page 97

N A IN NT

V RI

U FO

S KO

TH SU

EAST SIDE LAND MESP AND COMMUNITY PLAN

FIGURE 3.6.1 GEOMORPHIC REACHES & DETAILED SURVEY SITES

DR RIVERBANK

ne tch e

RIVERBANK CR EEK TG NS TG -2

-1

FREEPORT CREEK AND TRIBUTARY TO THE GRAND SUBWATERSHED STUDY

LE M ID D

B L OC

K RD

HIGHWAY MUNICIPAL ROADS REGIONAL ROADS LOCAL ROADS STAGE 1 STUDY AREA WEST OF FOUNTAIN STREET MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY REGION OF WATERLOO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

TGEW-2 TGE ALLEND ALW E -CR 1 EEK

D BANAT R

DETAILED SUBWATERSHED STUDY AREA WATER BODIES

RI V E R

STREAMS

NDA

A LL E

LE R

GEOMORPHIC REACH

FC-9

W ALT

DR. MA N SALT

-1 0

id g e

FC7

FC-3

C R EE

FC-2

FC-6

P O RT

8 FC-

MA PL

F R EE

FC-5

FC-1

br Ca m

E R BE AN T R WB AIL T R WB-2 -1 IBU TA RY

FC-4

DETAILED SURVEY SITE REACH BREAK

GR A

KIN

YPA

N BA ER

250

500 Meters

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

3.6.2 DRAINAGE CHARACTERISTICS Drainage characteristics were determined for Freeport Creek and the Tributary to the Grand subwatersheds (Riverbank Creek, Allendale Creek, and Walter Bean Trail Tributary) (Table 3.6.1). These characteristics, which include the drainage density, relief ratio, bifurcation ratio, and stream order, are influenced by the underlying sediment type, geological structure, topography, and various hydrologic factors. Past glacial processes have contributed to a surficial geology within Freeport Creek and the Tributary to the Grand subwatersheds that consists of tills composed of sand, silts, and coarse grained material, with very little clay content (GRCA, 2012). Soil types found within these subwatersheds includes fine sandy loam, sandy loam, loam, gravelly loam, and cobblely loam. Drainage areas for the watercourses are 4.01km2 for Freeport Creek, 0.16km2 for Walter Bean Trail Tributary, and 1.41km2 for the Riverbank Creek and Allendale Creek Tributaries to the Grand River combined. The drainage density is defined as the total length of all channels in the drainage basin divided by the total area of the drainage basin. This value provides information on how well or how poorly a watershed or subwatershed is drained by the stream channels. The low drainage densities for the Allendale Creek and Riverbank Creek and Freeport Creek suggest that they are poorly drained (Gordon, N.D. et al, 2006). Alterations to the watercourse, such as straightening and channelizing will contribute to a low drainage density due to the fact that the stream lengths become shorter and watercourses are spaced further apart. The drainage density is also influenced by the surficial geology. For example, areas with permeable soils (i.e. sands and gravels) have a lower drainage density due to increased infiltration and reduced runoff.

Page 99

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Figure 3.6.2: Freeport Creek Subwatershed Comparison between 1951 and 2009 Historical Aerial Photographs

ELC Polygon D17 & D18 (see Figure 4.1.16)

Freeport Creek – 1951 Historical Aerial Photograph

ELC Polygon D17 & D18 (see Figure 4.1.16)

Freeport Creek – 2009 Aerial Photograph

Page 100

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Figure 3.6.3: Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Comparison between 1951 and 2006 Historical Aerial Photographs

Maple Grove Wetland Complex ( ELC Polygons C5 & C6) See Figure 4.1.15

Allendale Creek â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 1951 Historical Aerial Photograph

Maple Grove Wetland Complex (ELC Polygons C5 & C6) See Figure 4.1.15

Allendale Creek â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2006 Historical Aerial Photograph

Page 101

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Table 3.6.1: Drainage Characteristics for the Subwatersheds within the Study Area Bifurcation Ratio Watercourse

Drainage Density

Relief Ratio

Order

Number of Segments

Stream Order

Bifurcation Ratio

1st Order

2nd Order

Total Length

Length: 0.51Km Walter Bean

Riverbank Creek and Allendale Creek Combined

Freeport Creek

3.19

1.70

1.61 (GRCA, 2012)

0.20%

Riverbank Creek: 0.41% Allendale Creek: 3.17%

0.67%

N/A

Percent of Total Length: 100%

0.51Km

Length: 2.36Km

Length: 0.04Km

Percent of Total Length: 98%

Percent of Total Length: 2%

Length: 1.2Km

Length: 3.3Km

Percent of Total Length: 27%

Percent of Total Length: 73%

(GRCA, 2012)

2.40Km

4.5Km

The relief ratio for each of the watercourses provides information on the average drop in elevation per unit length of the watercourse. This value is significant because it influences general patterns of sediment movement and velocity within the channel. Freeport Creek has slopes that vary from moderate to steep throughout the watershed (Figure 3.6.4). The Tributary to the Grand, Riverbank Creek and the Walter Bean Trail Tributary generally have an overall moderate slope, with Allendale Creek having a steeper section close to the outlet into the Grand River (Figure 3.6.5). Allendale Creek is a steep watercourse and as a result higher velocities and larger substrate (due to the surface geology)

Page 102

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 are observed (Figure 3.6.6). Moderate slopes are present in the upper portion of the Freeport Creek subwatershed and the channel becomes steeper through the residential portion to downstream of King Street East. The channel slope becomes moderate again until it steepens at the outlet into the Grand River. The bifurcation ratios for all the watercourses within the study area are low. This value is the ratio of the number of stream segments of one stream order to the number of the next higher stream order. A low ratio indicates that water is concentrated in one channel rather than spread out through the watershed due to the low number of stream orders within the watershed. Stream orders were calculated for Freeport Creek, the Walter Bean Trail Tributary, Riverbank Creek and Allendale Creek (combined). Stream orders ranged from 1 to 2 for the respective subwatershed, 1 being first-order streams and the smallest tributaries. These numbers indicate the small size of the watercourses since stream order is an indication of stream size and discharge. All of the watercourses are classified as headwater systems. There are no higher order streams in the study area.

3.6.3 STREAM REACH DELINEATION AND RAPID GEOMORPHIC ASSESSMENTS Reach breaks were determined along each of the watercourses, as well as documentation of existing conditions conducted in the field using the Rapid Geomorphic Assessment protocol (RGA) (MOE, 1999). Collection of field data was completed through field walks in each of the watercourses in order to characterize the current geomorphic state of the channel and to delineate the stream reaches. This process also aided in the selection of sites for the site specific assessments. The Rapid Geomorphic Assessment (RGA) uses visual indicators to determine whether the stream is stable or in adjustment. Stability is determined by adjustments in slope, either an increase (aggradation) due to sediment deposition or a decrease (degradation) due to bed erosion. It also considers an increase in the bank to bank width (widening) and by any evidence indicating adjustment in the planimetric form regime.

Page 103

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Figure 3.6.4: Longitudinal Profile for Freeport Creek

Figure 3.6.5: Longitudinal Profile for Riverbank Creek

Page 104

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Figure 3.6.6: Longitudinal Profile for Allendale Creek Evidence of aggradation, degradation, channel widening, and planimetric form adjustment were determined using the form in Appendix C. Based on the Rapid Geomorphic Assessment results, the reaches were classified as ‘stable’, ‘transitional’, or ‘in-adjustment’. Refer to Table 3.6.2 for descriptions of classifications. Table 3.6.2: Rapid Geomorphic Assessment Descriptions Based on Index Value Stability Index Value

Stability Class

0 – 0.25

Stable

0.25 – 0.40

Transitional

0.40 – 1.0

In Adjustment

Description Channel morphology is within the expected range of variance for stable channels of similar type. Channels are in good condition with minor adjustments that do not impact the function of the watercourse. Channel morphology is within the expected range of variance but with evidence of stress. Significant channel adjustments have occurred and additional adjustment may occur. Metrics are outside of the expected range of variance for channels of similar type. Significant channel adjustments have occurred and are expected to continue.

(MOE, 1999)

Page 105

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Stream reaches were delineated by key factors that include hydrology, channel gradient, geology, valley setting, sinuosity, and riparian vegetation. These reaches are lengths of channel that display similar channel characteristics, functions, and processes and can be used as a guide for management objectives and restoration opportunities. The following sections provide additional detail for each watercourse within the study area.

3.6.3.1 Freeport Creek Fieldwork completed along Freeport Creek during the summer of 2011 resulted in the watercourse being divided into ten (10) reaches. Reach lengths ranged from approximately 59m to 953m to total approximately 4.0km of stream within the study area. The longitudinal profile for Freeport Creek and the reach gradients were evaluated using contour mapping provided by Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) (Figure 3.6.4). Figure 3.6.1 displays the location of the channel reaches. The reconnaissance field walk investigation was undertaken to document existing conditions and to gain insight into existing form and process for Freeport Creek. A summary of existing conditions and the results of the RGA for each reach are within Table 3.6.3. Detailed descriptions of each stream reach are discussed in the following section. Table 3.6.3: Reach Breaks and Rapid Geomorphic Assessments for Freeport Creek Average Dominant Reach ID Channel Form and RGA Gradient Form/Process Classification ~ Length (m) Setting Score (%) Interpretations Historically straightened with evidence of Slight evidence of Reach FC-1 meander development, 0.95 0.07 aggradation and Stable 262m Riparian dominantly widening herbaceous species Historically straightened with evidence of Reach FC-2 meander development, Slight evidence of 0.59 0.04 Stable 169m Riparian dominantly aggradation herbaceous species, box culvert at upstream end Historically straightened Slight evidence of with evidence of aggradation, Reach FC-3 meander development, 0.51 0.13 degradation, and Stable 98m Riparian consists of planimetric form deciduous trees, shrubs, adjustment and herbaceous species

Page 106

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Reach ID ~ Length (m)

Channel Form and Setting

Reach FC-4 59m

Historically straightened with evidence of meander development, Riparian dominantly herbaceous species

Reach FC-5 319m

Historically straightened with evidence of meander development, Watercourse is channelized, Small boulders placed under pedestrian bridges (possibly grade control), Riparian consists of herbaceous species with deciduous trees and shrubs at upstream end

Reach FC-6 622m

Channel meanders through residential properties, Multiple weirs present, Manicured lawns adjacent to the channel through majority of reach

Reach FC-7 549m

Channel is bifurcated and multi-channeled, stormwater management facility present at upstream end, Riparian consists of herbaceous species and wetland type vegetation

Average Gradient (%)

RGA Score

Dominant Form/Process Interpretations

Classification

0.07

Slight evidence of aggradation and planimetric form adjustment

Stable

0.16

Evidence of degradation and minor evidence of planimetric form adjustment

Stable

0.96

0.10

Slight evidence of degradation, widening, and planimetric form adjustment

Stable

0.36

No RGA

1.69

1.88

Page 107

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Reach ID ~ Length (m)

Reach FC-8 462m

Reach FC-9 953m

Reach FC-10 463m

Channel Form and Setting Channel is bifurcated and multi-channeled, Storm water pond exists, wooded wetland type vegetation exists in the riparian Historical straightened with evidence of meander development, Riparian consists of deciduous trees, shrubs, and herbaceous species Tributary to Freeport Creek, Channel is bifurcated and multichanneled, Wooded wetland type vegetation surrounds channel, Storm water pond within this reach

Average Gradient (%)

RGA Score

Dominant Form/Process Interpretations

Classification

0.21

No RGA

0.31

0.11

Slight evidence of aggradation and widening

Stable

1.08

No RGA

* Note: Gradient based on 1m contour mapping received from GRCA; RGA Scores: 0 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 0.25 = Stable; 0.25 - 0.4 = Transitional; >0.4 = In Adjustment (MOE, 1999)

Reach Descriptions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Existing Conditions Freeport Creek Reach FC-1 Reach FC-1 begins at the outlet into the Grand River and ends just upstream of the trail/path adjacent to the Grand River. The first 10m of the Freeport Creek channel is generally backwatered due to the Grand River. The channel was unconfined within this reach and good access to the floodplain was present at this location. Herbaceous vegetation and tall grasses exist within the riparian area, as well as a few deciduous trees. The channel substrate was mainly fines and gravel, with larger cobbles present along the bed upstream of the trail. The source of this cobble may be from the highway embankment and culvert further upstream. The channel appears to have been historically straightened but reestablishment of meanders was evident along the channel. A submerged culvert was present at the trail and debris had accumulated on the upstream side of the culvert. Rapid geometric channel measurements, taken at a representative cross-section, indicated that bankfull channel width and depth were 1.0m and 0.50m respectively. Only minor evidence of adjustment was identified within this reach

Page 108

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 during the field assessment. Deposition of sediment by the watercourse was present in the overbank zone indicating aggradation along the channel bed. Also, large organic debris within the channel may be attributed to width adjustments causing the banks and riparian vegetation to become unstable. The Rapid Geomorphic Assessment classified this reach as ‘stable’, stating that the channel form was within the expected range of variance. Freeport Creek Reach FC-2 Reach FC-2 begins upstream of the trail/path adjacent to the Grand River and ends at the box culvert at Highway 8. This reach also appeared to be historically straightened, but there was evidence of meanders reforming. Larger round-stones and gravel were found along the channel bed through this reach, which may be sourced by the embankment and culvert at Highway 8. The riparian zone consisted mostly of herbaceous vegetation with some deciduous trees also present. The channel within this reach appeared to be wider and shallower than the downstream reach with the rapid geometric channel measurements indicating a bankfull width of approximately 1.7m and a depth of 0.40m. Debris (empty plastic pots) was observed to be partially submerged on the floodplain, indicating that the watercourse has been depositing sediment in the overbank zone and aggradation has been occurring along the bed. The crossing at Highway 8 included an opened bottomed box culvert, approximately 1.4m wide and 1.0m tall. This reach was classified as ‘stable’ using the Rapid Geomorphic Assessment, stating that the channel form was within the expected range of variance. Freeport Creek Reach FC-3 Reach FC-3 begins at the upstream end of the box culvert at Highway 8 and ends in the wooded area upstream. A gravel road transects the reach and one of the twin culverts (450 mm) underneath was severely damaged. Embankment erosion on the upstream side of the culvert existed. On the downstream side of the culvert there was a drop of approximately 0.10m from the invert of the culvert to the channel bed. Large cobbles and boulders line the channel to the concrete box culvert at Highway 8, providing grade control for the reach. The riparian vegetation upstream of the twin culverts was a mix of deciduous trees, shrubs, and herbaceous vegetation. The channel substrate consisted of some angular gravel on the riffles, as well as fine unconsolidated sediment along the channel bed, indicating that adjustment through aggradation may be occurring within the reach. The channel appeared to be over-widened for the low flow discharge and was meandering within the straighter channel. Historical aerial photographs suggest that the reach was straightened prior to 1951, but the re-development of meanders indicates that planimetric form re-adjustment has been occurring. Minor evidence of degradation from a suspended armor layer visible in the bank was present. Rapid geometric channel measurements indicate that channel width and depth were approximately 3.95m and 0.40m, respectively. The Rapid Geomorphic Assessment classified this reach as ‘stable’, stating that the channel form was within the expected range of variance.

Page 109

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Freeport Creek Reach FC-4 Reach FC-4 begins at the upstream end of the wooded area (just upstream from Highway 8) and ends at the downstream end of the commercial property (Grand River Garden Village). The channel appeared to have been historically straightened and a low flow meandering form was present, indicating adjustment in planimetric form. Riparian and in-stream vegetation consisted predominantly of herbaceous vegetation. Gravel and fine, unconsolidated sediment existed along the channel bed, as well as in the pools. Some angular material, which appeared to be non-native, was also identified along the reach. A culvert (approximately 1200mm) was present at the hydro tower access road and a small berm present along the left bank (looking upstream). Rapid geometric channel measurements were completed for a representative cross-section and average bankfull channel dimensions were determined to be 2.0m wide and 0.50m deep. The Rapid Geomorphic Assessment classified this reach as ‘stable’, stating that the channel form was within the expected range of variance. Freeport Creek Reach FC-5 Reach FC-5 begins at the downstream end of the commercial building (Grand River Garden Village) and ends at the CPR tracks. This reach has been historically channelized and straightened and a meandering low flow channel was present with some pool-riffle form. This re-development of meandering flow indicates planimetric form adjustment. Bed substrate consisted of fine sediment with some angular gravel and small cobble. Riparian vegetation along the reach section was limited to short grasses, with some minor slumping and undercutting noted along the bank. A retaining wall was present along the left bank which demonstrated evidence of failure at the downstream end. Evidence of channel degradation was present at a culvert outfall near King Street East where an approximate drop of 0.10m from the culvert invert to the water surface existed. Grade control measures were present along this section of the reach in the form of small boulders and cobbles lining the channel bed between the King Street East culvert and downstream culvert. Four pedestrian bridges cross over the channel and larger cobbles and small boulders have been placed along the bed underneath the bridge. The rapid geometric channel measurements completed at this section were 1.40m wide and 0.35m deep. Upstream of King Street East, the channel flowed within a larger trapezoidal channel that terraces on either side. The approximate dimensions of this trapezoidal channel were 8.0m wide and 2.5m deep. Construction on the adjacent property (Honda Site) began in the fall of 2011. During the time of fieldwork, stone and concrete rubble had been dumped along the banks. A long culvert within the channel also existed and it was exposed along the surface and broken (not connected) at the seams; therefore the slope of the culvert varied throughout and was much steeper at the upstream end. Sediment deposition was occurring at the upstream end of this culvert due to flow obstructions in front of the culvert. An erosion scar existed downstream of the railroad track along the right bank (looking upstream). The culvert underneath the railroad track was broken and also raised. The Rapid Geomorphic Assessment classified this reach as ‘stable’, stating that the channel form was within the expected range of variance.

Page 110

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Freeport Creek Reach FC-6 Reach FC-6 begins at the CPR railroad tracks and continues through the rear yards of residential properties fronting onto Riverbank Drive. The channel through this reach was u-shaped with meander development. Channel form consisted of riffle and pools, where the pools were wider than the riffles. Flood chutes were identified along some of the meanders indicating that channel has been adjusting its planimetric form. Channel substrate within the reach was sandy, with small pebbles. In-channel vegetation was present throughout the reach but the majority congregated at the downstream end of the reach. Minor bank erosion was identified due to some residents mowing the turf/ grasses to the edge of the channel, but relatively large vegetative riparian buffers were present through the reach. Some large organic debris was found within the channel may be attributed to localized adjustments along the banks. Knickpoints along the channel bed were present, as well as numerous grade control structures, such as stoned banks and weirs, weirs with backwatered sections, and some placed roundstone along the bed. These grade control structures limit the rate of channel degradation within the reach. The rapid geometric channel measurements completed at this section were 1.5m wide and 0.45m deep. An on-line pond was located at the upstream end of this reach with twin 450mm culverts. A detailed topographic survey was completed at the upstream end of this reach which indicated that the average bankfull width was 4.0m and the depth was 0.40m. The Rapid Geomorphic Assessment classified this reach as â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;stableâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, stating that the channel form was within the expected range of variance. Freeport Creek Reach FC-7 Reach FC-7 begins at the end of the residential properties fronting onto Riverbank Drive and ends at the confluence with the tributary (within the boundaries of Pond 130). The channel through this reach has undergone numerous adjustments which include historical straightening and the presence of an existing stormwater management facility (Pond 130) within this reach. Blockages of the low-flow outlet from the stormwater management facility at the farm road crossing appeared to be causing the channel to become backwatered and undefined within the wetlandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s reeds and grasses. The headwall at the upstream end of the pond is constructed using gabion baskets and roundstone. Freeport Creek Reach FC-8 Reach FC-8 begins at the tributary (within the boundaries of Pond 130) and ends where the channel becomes defined again at the upstream end of the facility backwater (nominal water level). Similar to Reach FC-7, this reach has been altered by historical straightening and the existing stormwater management facility. The channel through this reach was surrounded by wooded wetland type vegetation and was multi-channeled and ill-defined. A Rapid Geomorphic Assessment was not completed at this location due to the lack of channel definition. Freeport Creek Reach FC-9 Reach FC-9 begins where the channel becomes defined again at the upstream end of the facility backwater (nominal water level) and ends at Maple Grove Road. The channel appeared to have been

Page 111

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 historically channelized and straightened but there was re-establishment of meandering form indicating planimetric form adjustment. Prior to 1990, reach FC-9 did not exist. Based on information provided by the City of Cambridge, prior to the 1990s Freeport Creek originated within what is now the stormwater management facility (Pond 130). In the 1990s, reach FC-9 was constructed to provide drainage to the adjacent low-lying areas. It is suspected that these low-lying areas once drained to West Creek. The channel substrate of Reach FC-9 was composed of loose unconsolidated material, as well as rounded cobbles. Deposition of this loose sediment has caused coarse material in the riffles to become embedded and deposition was occurring in the pools. A canopy over top of the channel was present due to deciduous trees, shrubs, and grasses in the riparian zone. In-channel vegetation, such as cattails (Typha spp.), was also present. Unstable banks were identified in a few locations, possibly due to adjustments in channel widths, and have caused large organic debris to be deposited within the channel. A cobbled embankment was present along the left bank adjacent to the Challenger Motor Freight main building. The rapid geometric channel measurements completed at this section were 1.10m and 0.25m for width and depth, respectively. The Rapid Geomorphic Assessment classified this reach as â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;stableâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, stating that the channel form was within the expected range of variance. Freeport Creek Reach FC-10 Reach FC-10 begins at the confluence with Reach FC-7 and ends at the Regional Operations Centre buildings. This tributary channel was surrounded by wooded wetland type vegetation consisting of herbaceous vegetation and deciduous trees, and cattails within the channel. The downstream end of this reach was within the stormwater management facility. No Rapid Geomorphic Assessment was completed at this site due to the lack of channel definition.

3.6.3.2 Tributary to the Grand- Walter Bean Trail Tributary The Walter Bean Trail Tributary was divided into two reaches after completion of fieldwork in 2011 along the watercourse. Reach lengths were 208m to approximately 302m, totaling approximately 510m of stream. The longitudinal profile for the Walter Bean Trail Tributary and the reach gradients were evaluated using contour mapping provided by Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA). Stream reaches can be seen in Figure 3.6.1. Existing conditions were documented during the reconnaissance field walk, as well as completion of the Rapid Geomorphic Assessment. A summary of existing conditions and the results of the RGA for each reach are within Table 3.6.4 and detailed descriptions of the reaches are discussed in the following sections.

Page 112

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Table 3.6.4: Reach Breaks and Rapid Geomorphic Assessments for the Walter Bean Trail Tributary Average Dominant Reach ID Channel Form and Gradient RGA Score Form/Process Classification ~ Length (m) Setting (%) Interpretations Historically straightened with evidence of Reach WB-1 meander development, N/A 0.11 Aggradation Stable 208m Herbaceous vegetation in the riparian Reach WB-2 302m (channel Channel becomes nonbecomes less defined within wetland 0.20 No RGA No RGA No RGA defined in this type area reach) * Note: Gradient based on 1m contour mapping received from GRCA; RGA Scores: 0 – 0.25 = Stable; 0.25 - 0.4 = Transitional; >0.4 = In Adjustment (MOE, 1999)

Reach Descriptions – Existing Conditions Tributary to the Grand – Walter Bean Trail Tributary Reach WB-1 Reach WB-1 begins at the Grand River and ends at the trail/path adjacent to the Grand River. The channel flows into the Grand River just upstream of the Highway 8 Bridge and backwatering was evident. Historical aerial photographs show that this reach has been straightened prior to 1951. Unconsolidated sediment along the channel bed has led to coarse material in the riffles to be embedded, as well as deposit in the pools. Additional evidence of aggradation was present where the watercourse has deposited sediment in the overbank zone. Tall grasses, herbaceous vegetation, reeds, and other aquatic vegetation were within and adjacent to the channel. Rapid geometric channel measurements indicated that bankfull width was approximately 1.2m and depth measured at 0.35m. The Rapid Geomorphic Assessment classified this reach as ‘stable’, stating that the channel form was within the expected range of variance. Tributary to the Grand – Walter Bean Trail Tributary Reach WB-2 Reach WB-2 begins at the trail/path adjacent to the Grand River and ends at the upstream limit of the watercourse. There was no defined channel within the upper portion of this section and the topography was relatively flat. Deciduous trees, grasses, and some reeds were present in the reach. No Rapid Geomorphic Assessment was completed at the site due to the lack of channel definition.

Page 113

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

3.6.3.3 Tributary to the Grand - Riverbank Creek Fieldwork completed along approximately 1.2km of watercourse for Riverbank Creek resulted in the watercourse being divided into 2 reaches. Reach lengths were approximately 165m and 1065m. The longitudinal profile for Tributary to the Grand Riverbank Creek and the reach gradients were evaluated using contour mapping provided by the GRCA (Figure 3.6.5). Channel reach locations are demonstrated in Figure 3.6.1. Existing conditions, determined during the field assessment, provided insight of the existing form and process for the Tributary to the Grand Riverbank Creek. A summary of existing conditions for each reach are within Table 3.6.5 and detailed descriptions of each stream reach are discussed in the following section. Table 3.6.5: Reach Breaks and Rapid Geomorphic Assessments for Tributary to the Grand â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Riverbank Creek Average Dominant Reach ID Channel Form and Gradient RGA Score Form/Process Classification ~ Length (m) Setting (%) Interpretations Historically straightened with evidence of meander development, Reach TGEW-1 Herbaceous and 0.42 No RGA No RGA No RGA 1065m deciduous vegetation dominant the riparian zone Historically straightened with evidence of meander development, Reach TGEW-2 Herbaceous and 0.31 No RGA No RGA No RGA 161m deciduous vegetation dominant the riparian zone * Note: Gradient based on 1m contour mapping received from GRCA; RGA Scores: 0 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 0.25 = Stable; 0.25 - 0.4 = Transitional; >0.4 = In Adjustment (MOE, 1999)

Page 114

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Reach Descriptions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Existing Conditions Tributary to the Grand Riverbank Creek Reach TGEW-1 Reach TGEW-1 begins at the confluence with the Grand River and ends approximately 1065m upstream. The reach appeared to have been historically altered through straightening. The bed substrate consisted of fine sediment and organic debris but no channel bed form was identified. A defined, ponded section of channel was present along the watercourse but upstream and downstream section had no water within the channel and the channel boundaries were ill-defined. In the upstream portion of this reach, the rapid geometric channel measurements measured the bankfull width as approximately 2.0m and the depth as 0.25m. No Rapid Geomorphic Assessment was completed due to the lack of channel definition. Tributary to the Grand Riverbank Creek Reach TGEW-2 Reach TGEW-2 begins approximately 1065m upstream and ends at the upstream limits of this tributary. Similar to the downstream reach, this upstream section appeared to have been historically altered through straightening. The channel was ephemeral and was poorly defined in the upstream portion of the reach. Where the channel was defined, rapid geometric measurements for width and depth were approximately 3.0m and 0.2m, respectively. There were sections of channel where woody vegetation and grassed sections were within or adjacent to the channel. Field stone from adjacent agricultural operations and metallic debris had been dumped in the channel and there were a number of large woody debris jams present. No Rapid Geomorphic Assessment was completed due to the lack of channel definition.

3.6.3.4 Tributary to the Grand - Allendale Creek Allendale Creek was divided into 2 reaches following fieldwork completion. Reach lengths were approximately 484m and 427m to total 911m of stream channel within the study area. The longitudinal profile for Allendale Creek and the reach gradients were evaluated using contour mapping provided by the GRCA (Figure 3.6.6). Figure 3.6.1 displays the location of the channel reaches. Fieldwork completed in the fall of 2011 documented existing conditions and gained insight with regards to the existing channel form and process. A summary of existing conditions and the results of the RGA are within Table 3.6.6. Detailed descriptions of each stream reach are discussed in the following section.

Page 115

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Table 3.6.6: Reach Breaks and Rapid Geomorphic Assessments for Tributary to the Grand Allendale Creek Average Reach ID Channel Form and RGA Dominant Form/Process Gradient Classification ~ Length (m) Setting Score Interpretations (%) Channel incised into valley slope, Degradation and Widening. Reach TGNS-1 Herbaceous and Minor evidence of Planimetric In 4.6 0.70 484m deciduous vegetation Form Adjustment and evidence Adjustment dominant the riparian of Aggradation zone Valley gradient less steep, Herbaceous and deciduous vegetation Aggradation, Widening. Minor Reach TGNS-2 dominant a portion of 1.3 0.21 evidence of Planimetric Form Stable 427m the riparian and a sod Adjustment farm surrounds the channel in the upper reach * Note: Gradient based on 1m contour mapping received from GRCA; RGA Scores: 0 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 0.25 = Stable; 0.25 - 0.4 = Transitional; >0.4 = In Adjustment (MOE, 1999)

Reach Descriptions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Existing Conditions Tributary to the Grand Allendale Creek Reach TGNS-1 Reach TGNS-1 begins at the confluence with Riverbank Creek and ends where the channel gradient becomes less steep. This reach was incised into the valley slope and numerous steps along the channel bed contributed to its steep gradient. Poorly sorted channel substrate consisted of fine material (majority is sand particles), gravel, cobbles, and small boulders. The coarser bed material was embedded into the sandy deposits and fine material was found within pools. The bed morphology and bar forms along the bed were poorly formed. Upstream of the Riverbank Drive crossing sandy deposits had been deposited in the overbank zone. A large debris jam was present at the upstream end of the crossing. The incised channel was confined within the valley and terraces and suspended armor layers were visible in the channel bank. Outcrops of clay glaciogenic material were exposed at a number of locations along the channel bed. The banks were composed of fine material which included a mix of sand, clay and silt. The steep channel banks ran continuous with the valley slopes causing the woody vegetation to become unstable and creating large woody debris jams within the channel. Scour along the bank toe was present through the most of the reach. Rock, scrap metal and other materials have been dumped along the valley slopes at some locations. A detailed topographic survey completed within the reach verified the average bankfull width and depth being 2.75m and 0.40m, respectively.

Page 116

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Due to the fact that this reach was incised, average top of slope width and depth were 5.55m and 1.27m, respectively. Degradation and widening were the dominant processes occurring within the reach. This reach was classified as ‘in adjustment’ meaning that the morphology was outside the expected range of variance for channels of similar type. Tributary to the Grand Allendale Creek Reach TGNS-2 Reach TGNS-2 begins where the channel gradient becomes less steep and ends further upstream. There were a number of small tributaries that converge within this area. The channel was slightly incised within this area but the channel gradient was much lower than the downstream reach. Smaller substrate material was present along the bed, mostly consisting of sand and small particles, and was poorly sorted. The coarser material was embedded within the fine material at the riffles and deposition of fines was present within the pools. Riparian vegetation consisted of herbaceous species and deciduous trees; with the exception of manicured sod located further upstream at a local sod farm. Instability along the banks has led to leaning and fallen trees that result in debris jams within the channel. The rapid geometric measurements completed in the downstream portion of the reach were 2.0m wide and 0.40m deep. This reach was classified as ‘stable’, stating that the channel form was within the expected range of variance.

3.6.4 DETAILED FIELD SITE INVESTIGATION Detailed field investigations were completed along Freeport Creek and Allendale Creek. This second assessment involved a detailed survey of the sites shown in Figure 3.6.1. This allowed for documentation of channel geometric parameters and substrate characteristics (rapid geometric measurements conducted in the remaining reaches). Using a Total Station the following data were collected at each site: planimetric form, longitudinal profile, channel cross-sections, bank and bed material composition, and photographic documentation. A summary of channel parameters, both detailed and rapid, for all reaches within the Freeport Creek and Allendale Creek are provided in Table 3.6.7 and Table 3.6.8. These parameters were used in the analysis of critical discharge for the specific field sites. The bankfull and bed morphology geometric properties were poorly developed within Freeport Creek and Allendale Creek. The majority of Freeport Creek has been historically altered by channel straightening and the creation of an on-line stormwater management facility within the upper portion of the subwatershed strongly controls the flows in the downstream reaches. Evidence of meander redevelopment and poorly formed riffles and pools were identified through these reaches during the field reconnaissance walk. Oversized channels were present in Reach FC-3 and FC-5 where the bankfull channel was contained within a larger trapezoidal channel.

Page 117

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Allendale Creek also contained poorly formed bed morphology and was classified as an incised, gullytype channel with no accessible floodplain. Erosive flows, up to and greater than the 2 year return period are contained within the channel instead of dissipating onto the floodplain. In general, the longitudinal profile controls the energy available to transport sediment and therefore will influence the rate of degradation and aggradation during channel adjustment. Freeport Creek contains numerous grade control structures in the form of weirs and cobble sized particles along the bed and a steep channel gradient was present in Reach FC-5, downstream of the railroad. Allendale Creek has a steep channel gradient that contributed to a high stream power and is semi-alluvial composed of fine material, resulting in a very erosive channel. Alterations to the hydraulic and sediment load have potential to change the geometric parameters and substrate composition of the channel, which may result in changes to aquatic habitat and water quality.

Page 118

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Table 3.6.7: Summary of Channel Parameters for Freeport Creek Reach ID

FC-1

FC-2

FC-3

FC-4

FC-5

Survey Type

Rapid

Average Bankfull Parameters

Substrate Size

Substrate Type

Survey Channel Gradien t

Bed Morphology Notes

Bank Material Texture

Poor riffle-pool form and meander development

Fines

Poor riffle-pool form and meander development

Fines

Poor riffle-pool form and meander development

Fines

Poor riffle-pool form and meander development, Vegetation controlled

Fines

Trapezoidal section with low flow meandering, riffle/pool (poorly formed)

Fines

Silt Loam

Width

Depth

1.0m

0.5

Approx. D50 15mm

Sand, Silt, Clay, Gravel

0.40m

Approx. D50 15mm

Sand, silt, clay, gravel, cobble

0.40m

Approx. D50 15mm

Sand, silt, clay, gravel, cobble

1.7m

3.95m

2.03m

0.51

Approx. D50 15mm

Sand, silt, clay, gravel

Approx. D50 15mm

Sand, silt, clay, gravel, cobble, small boulders (placed at pedestrian bridges)

D84: 45mm D50: 17.5mm

Sand, silt, clay, gravel, cobbles, placed larger material

0.0072 (0.72%)

Riffle/Pool, On-line pond located at survey site (meander form, riffle/pool)

Rapid

1.42m

0.33

FC-6

Detailed (survey location)

Channel 3.09m On-line Pond 9.13m

Channel 0.40m On-line Pond 1.20m

FC-7

Rapid

Not Defined

Fine unconsolidated sediment

ill-defined, Storm water pond present

Fines

FC-8

Rapid

Not Defined

Fine unconsolidated sediment

ill-defined, Storm water pond present

Fines

Poor riffle-pool form and meander development

Fines

ill-defined, Storm water pond present

Fines

FC-9

Rapid

1.07

0.23

Fine unconsolidated sediment, gravel, cobble

FC-10

Rapid

Not Defined

Fine unconsolidated sediment

Page 119

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Table 3.6.8: Summary of Channel Parameters for Tributary to the Grand - Allendale Creek Reach ID

TGEW -1

TGEW -2

Survey Type

Detailed (survey location)

Rapid

Bankfull Parameters Width

Depth

Averag e 2.75m Range 2.03m to 3.62m

Average 0.39m Range 0.23m to 0.63m

2.0m

0.40m

Top of Bank Slope Parameters Width

Depth

Average 5.55m Range 3.99m to 7.80m

Average 1.27m Range 0.90m to 1.53m

N/A

Average Substrat e Size D84: 85mm D50: 32mm

20mm

Substrate Type Sand, silt, clay, gravel, cobble, small boulders Sand, silt, clay, cobble

Survey Channel Gradient

Bed Morphology Notes

Bank Material Texture

0.0566 (5.66%)

Steep, incised channel with poor meander form and riffle-pool

Loam, Layer of gravel and cobble

Poor meander form and riffle-pool

Fines

3.6.4.1 Critical Discharge Analysis The critical discharge is the flow (m3/s) at which significant bedload movement can occur within a fluvial channel. Naturally, flow above the critical discharge may sustain channel forms and functions (e.g., bed morphology, planform); however, increases in the magnitude and duration of flows above the critical discharge due to development can have negative effects on the channel’s pre-existing erosion and sediment transport processes. In threshold channels, where transport of coarse grained material is limited and bedforms are persistent, critical discharges may be evaluated based on critical shear stress thresholds for the coarse grain fraction (e.g., D84). However, as is the case for the subject area, most bed materials are considered transient and therefore critical discharge is more appropriately evaluated based on the shear stress when “most” of the bed material may become entrained (i.e., > 50% of the sediments). By definition then, the average channel shear stress at this flow will exceed the critical entrainment threshold for the D50 grain size fraction.

Freeport Creek The critical discharge for Freeport Creek was calculated based on field measurements of channel crosssections, bed material size, and hydraulic parameters. Therefore, the critical discharge is representative of the channel conditions within the stream reach. The detailed field site information from Reach FC-6 was used to evaluate channel erosion potential and determine a critical discharge (Table 3.6.7). Reach FC-6 was chosen to determine critical discharge due to the fact that it is located downstream of the existing storm-water management facility. Based on the analysis, a critical discharge of 0.30 m3/s was calculated for Reach FC-6. The boundary conditions throughout the Freeport Creek subwatershed are

Page 120

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 variable, ranging from reaches with steeper channel gradients, reaches that contain larger particle sizes along the bed and other reaches with in-channel vegetation present. The GRCA Subwatershed Report (2012) provides a calculated critical discharge of 0.25m3/s based on the permanent monitoring location near Highway 8 (approximately within Reach FC-3, which is downstream of Reach FC-6). Due to the fact that these values are close in range, Aquafor Beech Limited recommends the GRCA results be adopted for SWM planning. This recommendation acknowledges that the reaches downstream of FC-6, may be slightly more sensitive due to the criteria that control critical discharge and thus a lower critical discharge is appropriate Tributary to the Grand - Allendale Creek The high channel gradient of Allendale Creek, as well as the coarse and fine grained glaciogenic material that composed the bed and bank material, indicates that the channel is highly erosive. The channel cross-sections, bed material size, and hydraulic parameters measured in the field (Table 3.6.8) were used to calculate critical discharge for the Reach TGEW-1. Based on standard tractive force analysis and a Shields parameter of 0.045, the critical discharges for D50 and D84 are 0.07m3/s and 0.27m3/s, respectively. However, as demonstrated by Lamb et al. (2008) the Shields parameter may not be insensitive to channel gradient, which is particularly important for gradients above ~3% (note: surveyed channel gradient of Reach TGEW-1 is 5.66%). As such, critical entrainment thresholds were recalculated based on a revised Shield parameter (as per Lamb et al. 2008), with critical discharges estimates adjusted for D50 and D84 to 0.24m3/s and 0.57m3/s, respectively. Based on this analysis, a reasonable critical discharge recommendation for Allendale Creek is 0.25 m3/s. However, given the erodiblity of the channel, the most important SWM erosion targets shall be to mimic or reduce pre-development runoff volumes and peak flow durations. Management of existing and future erosion hazards for Allendale Creek will require appropriate geomorphological and geotechnical erosion setbacks and is discussed in Section 9.1.

Page 121

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

3.7 TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY The following sections detail the terrestrial ecology of the Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand subwatersheds.

3.7.1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION The subwatershed study area contained a diversity of habitats such as woodlands, wetlands, and meadows located in a diversity of geomorphic features such as floodplains, valleys, eskers, creek channels, and rolling uplands. Aquafor Beech Limited and Dillon Limited conducted a number of field surveys from winter 2010 to fall 2011 identify and record the type and significance of the natural features on the landscape and the flora and fauna found within them. Field surveys included: •

Three-season botanical inventories

•

Ecological Land Classification

•

Wetland evaluations

•

Vernal pool surveys

•

Calling amphibian surveys

•

Road mortality surveys

•

Reptile and amphibian area searches

•

Raptor wintering nest surveys

•

Red-shouldered hawk and woodpecker surveys

•

Breeding bird surveys

•

Crepuscular bird surveys

•

Fall waterfowl staging area surveys

•

Overwintering deer surveys

• Wildlife movement surveys The results of the above surveys are discussed below in Sections 3.7.2 to 3.7.5.

Page 122

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

3.7.2 FLORA (I.E. BOTANICAL INVENTORIES) For the purpose of botanical inventories, and Ecological Land Classification (ELC), the subwatershed study area was split into four Areas: Area A, Area B, Area C and Area D, as illustrated in Appendix D.

3.7.2.1 Methodology Seven background documents containing information on botanical resources within the subwatershed study area were reviewed. Background sources include the following: •

City of Cambridge Business Park Stormwater Management Works (CRA, 1009);

•

Sportsworld Drive Drive/Maple Grove Road Municipal Class EA (MRC, 2004);

•

Woodlot Investigation (Walter Fedy Partnership, 1999);

•

Scoped EIS In Support of Zone Change Application – 300 Maple Grove Road – Cambridge (Howes-Jones and Associates, 2003);

•

Hespeler West Subwatershed Study (PEIL, 2004);

•

Hespeler West Subwatershed Study (HWSS) Summary Report (HWSS Working Committee, Sept 2004);

•

Freeport Creek Woodland Study (LGL, 2005); and

•

East Side Subwatershed Study – Phase 1 Characterization Report (Draft 2012).

In addition, the Natural Heritage Information Centre database was consulted for information on Species at Risk and other species of conservation concern. Further discussion regarding Species at Risk and significant species is in Section 3.7.2.2. With the exception of lands where access was not granted (see Figure 9.1 for a map showing areas not accessed by field staff during 2011 surveys), a comprehensive three season botanical inventory was completed by an Aquafor Beech Limited botanist covering all natural and semi-natural areas within the subwatershed study area using area search methods. Botanical inventories were also supplemented by other surveys such as Ecological Land Classification and wetland evaluations. On August 10th, wetland fieldwork was completed by a Dillon Consulting Limited ecologist. On August 4th and 5th, wetland fieldwork was conducted by a team consisting of an Aquafor Beech Limited botanist and a Dillon Limited ecologist. Other terrestrial fieldwork completed by Aquafor Beech Limited staff only is outlined in Table 3.7.1 below. In total, approximately 21 person days were spent in the field.

Page 123

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

A comprehensive list of the flora found within the subwatershed study area was compiled based on data collected during 2011 field work. Fieldwork dates are listed in Table 3.7.1 and comply with the data collection standards set out by the Grand River Conservation Authorityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (GRCA) Environmental Impact Study Guidelines and Submission Standards for Wetlands (GRCA, 2005) and the Region of Waterloo Greenlands Network Implementation Guideline (RMW, 20112). Species observed during botanical inventories, ELC, and wetland evaluations were compiled to create a single list of flora for the subwatershed study area. Additional species lists organized by Area (i.e. Areas A-D) were also compiled. These lists are found in Appendix D. Nomenclature, wetness values, coefficient of conservatism, and native status follow those of the Ontario Plant List (Newmaster et al, 1998), with the exception of select species that have received status and taxonomic updates since the Ontario Plant List was compiled. Regional status follows that of the Waterloo Region Significant Species List (Regional Municipality of Waterloo, 1999). Table 3.7.1: Terrestrial Fieldwork Dates (Flora), 2011. Month

Day

May June July August September October

6, 12, 19 6, 14, 30 4, 13, 20 2, 4, 5, 10, 16, 17 5, 21,22 14

Page 124

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

3.7.2.2

Results

A total of 428 plant species were recorded within the study area. Approximately 63.3% (271) of the total species recorded are considered native to Ontario. Thirty three species (7.7% of the total flora) found within the study area have high or very high conservation coefficients. The premise upon which a coefficient of conservatism value is based derives from the fundamental character of a regionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s flora (in this case, southern Ontario), specifically the degree of each native speciesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; tolerance to disturbance and ergo fidelity to specific habitats. Each native species in the local flora has been given a numerical value (the coefficient of conservatism) ranging from 1 to 10, as determined by a panel of experts on the local flora. Species with very high Wild Ginger (Asarum canadense, coefficients (i.e. 9 and 10) are the most conservative in their pictured above), is one of the tolerance to disturbance and thus are generally indicative of many species of spring blooming very high quality habitat. Species with high coefficients (i.e. 7 plants present in upland forest habitats within the Subwatershed and 8) are usually found in plant communities in an advanced Study Area. successional stage, and are generally only tolerant of minor disturbance. Species with moderate coefficients (i.e. 4 to 6) are typically associated with a specific habitat type, but will tolerate moderate amounts of disturbance. Species with low coefficients (i.e. 0 to 3) are the least conservative in their tolerance to disturbance and are often found in habitats influenced by human activity. Due to their adaptability, species with low coefficients are not generally indicative of high quality habitat. It is critical to keep in mind that numerical floristic values are not the only criteria that should be used to evaluate natural areas. Rather, it should be considered part of a toolkit consisting of criteria from such provincial guidelines such as the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OMNR, 2003), the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (OMNR, 2010), and the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR, 2000). It is the opinion of Aquafor Beech Limited that some areas, such as the Freeport Esker ANSI, contain conservative species in relatively high quality (remnant) habitat. However, in other cases the presence of conservative species is an artifact of remnant high-quality habitats that have been disturbed through anthropogenic activity. The majority of the species in the study area have low (49.8% of total flora) or medium (36.4% of total flora) conservation coefficients. Some flora (5.4% of the total flora) was only identified to the genus level or is a hybrid (i.e. Freemanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Maple, Acer x freemanii) and thus have

Page 125

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 not been assigned conservation coefficients nor have they been accounted for in the percentages above. The presence of species with high floristic values and the presence of regionally significant species has factored in to the consideration of constraints mapping and protection/mitigation measures. Further discussion regarding constraints is found in Section 4.1. Species lists are found in Appendix D. Species at Risk and Other Significant Flora A total of 24 species of conservation concern were recorded within the general subwatershed study area. Of these, 1 is nationally and provincially Endangered and 23 are regionally significant. Species with low Global Ranks (G Ranks) of G1 to G3 were not found during field investigations. With the exception of the aforementioned Endangered species, species with Provincial Ranks (S Ranks) of S1 to S3 were also not found (staff note that the provincial status of some species, such as Carex jamesii, have been updated since the Ontario Plant List was compiled). Each significant species within the study area is discussed in detail below, with their locations shown on Figure 3.7.1.

Page 126

ST N TA IN FO U N

KO SS

U TH

EAST SIDE LAND MESP AND COMMUNITY PLAN

FREEPORT CREEK AND TRIBUTARY TO THE GRAND SUBWATERSHED STUDY R NK D RBA RIV E

RIVE RBA NK

CRE

Kitchener

FIGURE 3.7.1 SIGNIFICANT SPECIES

MIDDLE BLOCK RD

HIGHWAY MUNICIPAL ROADS REGIONAL ROADS LOCAL ROADS

[S AL

ST B

YP AS S

PRIME INDUSTRIAL STRATEGIC RESERVE (SERVICED)

[F AL

STAGE 1 STUDY AREA WEST OF FOUNTAIN STREET

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY DETAILED SUBWATERSHED STUDY AREA

WATER BODIES

STREAMS

Broad-leaved Wood Sedge

Butternut

/ "

Cardinal Flower Carpenter's Square Columbia Water Meal

IBU TA RY

Dotted Water Meal Eastern Cottonwood

Freshwater Cord Grass Hackberry Hairy Wood Sedge James' Sedge

) " ( &

RE EK

One-seeded Bur Cucumber

Purple-tinged Sedge

Small Yellow Lady's Slipper

# Y

( & & (

SALTMAN DR.

## Y

[

Prickly-ash

[S Rattlesnake Manna Grasse ridg m bWater-lily CaWhite W Small X

/ "

Lindley's Aster Moonseed

" / / "

Y HW

OR TC

) "

EE P

( &

# Y

# Y # Y

TR AIL

#X W

BE AN

SIGNIFICANT SPECIES

ALLENDALE RD

TE K IN G S

WA LTE R

AN D

RIV E

BANAT RD

# Y [F ( &

Three-seeded sedge

125

250 Meters

White Spring Cress White Spruce Yellow Water Buttercup

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Endangered Species Butternut (Juglans cinerea) Butternut is protected under the Endangered Species Act (1997). A single specimen was found in ELC Polygon B5. The 18cm diameter at breast height (DBH) butternut tree was located in a forested area without significant canopy gaps; as a result of shading the lower branches of the tree have died (inset photo, top left). The tree was heavily infested with butternut canker and less than 65% of the canopy is live. This tree was found in an area that will not be affected by development and as such a Butternut Health Assessment was not conducted. Butternut shells were found in Polygon B4 (inset photo, bottom left), but it is unknown if these shells originated from this tree or from a tree offsite. There was no evidence that the tree within Polygon B5 had produced seed. Potential habitat for Butternut occurs throughout the subwatershed study area. The Butternut Recovery Strategy (Environment Canada, 2010) states the following: Butternut can tolerate a large range of soil types. It typically grows best on rich, moist, welldrained loams often found along stream banks but can also be found on well-drained gravelly sites, especially of limestone origin. Butternut is intolerant of shade and competition, requiring sunlight from above to survive but it has the ability to maintain itself as a minor component of forests in later successional stages. As a result, the species is typically scattered throughout a stand and occasionally, groups of butternuts can be found along forest roads, forest edges or anywhere sunlight is adequate to support regeneration through seed.

Suitable habitat for this species was present throughout much of the subwatershed study area; however there were no documented occurrences other than the single tree in ELC Polygon B5. Surveys completed by Aquafor Beech Limited did not cover all potential Butternut habitat in detail; individual Butternut could be present in remnant hedgerows, etc. Additional surveys for Butternut at subsequent planning stages are recommended.

Page 128

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Regionally Rare Species White Spring Cress (Cardamine bulbosa) White spring cress (inset photo) is a spring-blooming perennial herb primarily found in moist woodland, riparian, and wetland habitats. White spring cress was found in three locations within the detailed study area: ELC polygons C2, C6, and D2. In the case of Polygons C2 and D2, plants were found growing in the wet depressions of old tire tracks. In Polygon C6, plants were found growing on hummocks in the southern portion of the polygon. Provided the moisture regime is not significantly altered, it is likely that these plants will persist in their current locations. Hairy Wood Sedge (Carex hirtifolia) Hairy wood sedge is a perennial sedge typically found in woodland habitats. Within the details study area, one clump of hairy wood sedge (inset photo) was found on the southern edge of ELC Polygon D17. Potential threats to this species include rising water levels from the adjacent wetland (ELC Polygon D18).

James’ Sedge (Carex jamesii) James’ sedge is typically found in mesic forest habitats. This sedge (pressed specimen, inset photo) was found in one location within Polygon B1 and is rare within the vegetation polygon. This species’ habitat is located within a Core Environmental Feature of the Greenlands Network; as such development is likely precluded though the sedge is currently under threat from unauthorized dirt bike trails.

Page 129

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Broad-leaved Wood Sedge (Carex platyphylla) Typically found on slopes in upland hardwood forests, broad-leaved wood sedge was located in the aforementioned habitat within Polygon B8. A small colony consisting of fewer than ten (10) individuals exists, and is not in danger of trampling from unauthorized dirt bike trails. This speciesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; habitat is located within a Core Environmental Feature of the Greenlands Network; as such development is likely precluded. Three-seeded Sedge (Carex trisperma) Three-seeded sedge is typically found in wet-moist acidic habitats such as bogs and coniferous swamps. It is the opinion of Aquafor Beech Limited that the presence of three-seeded sedge in Polygon B1, a maple-beech deciduous forest, is an anomaly as the species is not typically found in upland calcareous habitats. Only a single individual specimen was found during surveys. The Sportsworld Drive Drive/Maple Grove Road Municipal Class EA (MRC 2004) states that species with bog or fen affinities are present within the hydro corridor bisecting the wetland to the east of Sportsworld Drive. There was also a sphagnum bog in an excavated pond in Grandview Woods to the south west (GRCA, 2008). It is possible that the species originated from either of these acidic wetlands; accordingly the forest community of Polygon B1 should not be considered habitat for this regionally rare species as the extant habitat is unlikely to support a population. Like Jamesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; sedge, this species was located within a Core Environmental Feature of the Greenlands Network that is protected from development. Current threats to the species include unauthorized dirt bike trails. Purple-tinged Sedge (Carex woodii) Colonies of purple-tinged sedge were found in two maple-beech forests within the detailed study area: Polygons B1 and D10. In the case of Polygon B1 the location of the sedges was within the Freeport Esker ANSI; consequently they will likely not be impacted by development. Unauthorized trails within Polygon B1 do not threaten the colony. Plants in Polygon D10 will similarly not be impacted by development within the study area, provided that water levels in the adjacent wetland/SWM pond do not experience permanent significant rise.

Page 130

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis) Hackberry, a Carolinian tree species, was found in several locations throughout the detailed study area as outlined below. Four hackberry trees, with approximate DBHs ranging from 20 cm to 50 cm, were located in the floodplain/Significant Valleylands of Area A. Flooding hazards and environmental constraints preclude development in this area and as such these hackberry trees will likely persist. A hackberry with an approximate DBH of 15 cm (inset photo, top) was found in a depression along the southern limit of the Polygon B1 and is not threatened by unauthorized trails. One seedling was found on a gravel slope in Polygon B2, and is currently in danger of being trampled by vehicles accessing the hydro cut and/or the unauthorized trail system within the Freeport Esker ANSI. One mature tree with an approximate DBH of 40cm (inset photo, bottom) with many young trees and seedlings in its understory were found on the south east corner of Polygon C2. Appropriate buffers and enhancements will mitigate the impacts of future development and possibly allow for this species to spread. It may also be desirable to retain the open canopy of the tree. Accordingly, it is recommended that buffer planting plans take into consideration the light requirements of this species so that shading does not cause lower branches to die off. Lastly, a single seedling was found near the remnant hedgerow, presently consisting of two mature trees, within Polygon D15. Provided that the water levels of the adjacent SWM pond/wetland do not rise significantly to affect the area where this seedling is growing, the possibility exists that this seedling may grow to reach to maturity. However the chances of a seedling of any species living to maturity is generally quite low.

Page 131

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Small Yellow Ladyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Slipper (Cypripedium calceolus var. parviflorum/Cypripedium parviflorum var. parviflorum) Typically found in moist woodlands, moist meadows, and bogs, this native orchid was present in three distinct locations in the detailed study area. Approximately five (5) individuals were found in the southern half of Polygon C5. Numerous individuals were found in the southern and northern portions of Polygons D2 and D7 (inset photo), respectively. By autumn, many plants had been browsed by herbivores. Provided that suitable habitat is undisturbed, it is likely that this species will persist. Rattlesnake Manna Grass (Glyceria canadensis) A species of wet habitats, rattlesnake manna grass was found in isolated pockets in Polygon C6 and the eastern half of Polygon D2. Provided the hydrologic regime and pH of these habitats are not significantly altered, it is likely that this species will persist. Black walnut (Juglans nigra) Black walnut trees were found throughout the general subwatershed study area. According to the Waterloo Region Significant Species List (1999), black walnut is only significant if it is demonstrably indigenous. In Ontario, many of the black walnuts found in natural and semi-natural areas originate from planted species. It is the opinion of Aquafor Beech Limited that the individuals found throughout the study area are of non-indigenous origin and therefore do not qualify as regionally significant.

Cardinal Flower (Lobelia cardinalis) Cardinal flower is a perennial herb typically found in marshes, riparian areas, and swamps. Within the detailed study area cardinal flower was found in Polygon D11, in Polygon D13 along the interface with Polygon D6, and in the southern portion of Polygon D15a. It is likely that this species will persist in its current habitat provided that there are not significant hydrologic changes over a relatively short time period. The East Side Lands population of cardinal flower is one of two known populations of the plant in the Region of Waterloo (Agency Review Team, personal communication 2012).

Page 132

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Moonseed (Menispermum canadense) Canada moonseed (inset photos) is a woody vine typically found in moist open woodlands, thickets, and hedgerows. This vine was found in one location within the detailed study area: the northern edge of Polygon C3. Approximately 20 plants ranging from approximately 15cm to 350cm in length were found during search efforts. Due to the shrubby sections present in Polygon C3, it is likely that more than 20 individuals were present. Moonseed was also found in Polygon B28 but was not abundant. Moonseed requires moderately moist soils. Presently, the northern edge of Polygon 3 receives runoff from the adjacent agricultural fields and is also an area of groundwater upwelling. So long as the moisture regime is not altered significantly so that soils dry out, moonseed will likely persist in its present habitat under post-development conditions. Buffer planting considerations for Polygon 3 are discussed in Section 4.1.5.

Fragrant Water-lily (Nymphaea odorata) Fragrant water-lily is a perennial floating-leaved plant found in permanent water with (typical) depths of up to 2m. Fragrant water lily was only found in the mouth of the Walter Bean Trail Tributary Tributary, and was not numerous. Development is not proposed for this area and as such any threats to this plant are limited to natural events.

White Spruce (Picea glauca) Like black walnut, discussed above, white spruce is only significant if demonstrably indigenous. Based on fieldwork, it is clear that the trees found in Polygons D2, D3, and D19 were planted. Based on the young age and location of the single tree in Polygon D12, it is the opinion of Aquafor Beech Limited that this tree originated from planted specimens. Consequently, it is the opinion of Aquafor Beech Limited that the specimens in the general subwatershed study area are not regionally significant.

Page 133

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Eastern Cottonwood (Populus deltoides) Like the black walnut and white spruce discussed above, eastern cottonwood is only significant if demonstrably indigenous. Located near an unusual (i.e. for the area) aggregation of tree species (white pine, white spruce) adjacent to an access road, the eastern cottonwood tree found in Polygon D2 was likely planted or originates from planted specimens. It is the opinion of Aquafor Beech Limited that the specimens in the general subwatershed study area are not regionally significant.

Yellow Water Buttercup (Ranunculus flabellaris) Yellow water buttercup is a perennial aquatic plant typically found in shallow standing water or wet mud. Occurring in Polygon D18, this plant was not numerous. This plant will likely tolerate hydrologic changes providing conditions become wetter rather than dryer.

Carpenterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Square (Scrophularia marilandica) Carpenterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s square is a native perennial herb found in a variety of habitat types with moist to wet soil conditions and partial shade. A handful of individuals were found within Polygon B20, along the interface with Polygon B16. Not under threat from anthropogenic activities, this species will likely persist provided it can continue to compete with invasive and non-native species present in the immediate area.

Bur Cucumber (Sicyos angulatus) Bur cucumber (inset photo) is an annual vine that can be found in a number of habitat types provided there is adequate soil moisture throughout the year. Located in Polygons B20 and B28, there are no anticipated anthropogenic threats to this species.

Page 134

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Freshwater Cordgrass (Spartina pectinata) Freshwater cordgrass (inset photo) is a tall, hardy perennial grass typically found in wet meadows/prairies, floodplains, and riparian areas. Only one isolated occurrence of this grass was found in the study area. Located on the western shore of the mouth of the Walter Bean Trail Tributary within Polygon B29, there are no anticipated natural or anthropogenic threats to this species. It is the opinion of Aquafor Beech Limited that this species will likely persist in its present location.

Lindley’s Aster (Symphyotrichum ciliolatum) Lindley’s aster, also known as ciliolate aster (inset photo), is an herbaceous perennial of woodlands and meadows. A patch consisting of approximately 25-30 stems was located next to a path in the south east corner of Polygon D17, where plants are in danger of being trampled by vehicle tires. It is recommended that the light requirements of this species (full sun to partial shade) be taken into consideration when buffers to Polygon D17 and the adjacent wetland are being designed so that over shading does not occur as the buffer plantings mature. Currently, light is entering the forest through an open forest edge accommodating a vehicle path.

Dotted Water Meal (Wolffia borealis) and Columbia Water Meal (Wolffia columbiana) One of the smallest flowering plants, dotted water meal and Columbia water meal are obligate wetland species that floats on the water’s surface in lakes, ponds, marshes, and even ditches. These tiny plants were found throughout Polygon D6, and will likely persist as long as there is standing water present. Northern Prickly Ash (Zanthoxylem americanum) Northern prickly ash is a colonial shrub typically found in sunny places with dry soils such as thickets, meadows, roadsides, woodlands, and forest edges. Within the detailed study area, shrubs were located within canopy openings in Polygon B5 and on the edge of Polygon D5. Located within the Freeport Esker ANSI, shrubs in Polygon B5 will not be affected by development. Shrubs in Polygon D5 will likely persist unless there is a significant rise in the water levels of the nearby wetland/SWM pond.

Page 135

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

3.7.3 ECOLOGICAL LAND CLASSIFICATION The use of Ecological Land Classification (ELC) allows for consistent description, classification, and mapping of ecological land units in Southern Ontario (Lee et al, 1998). Information from soil sampling, forest stand composition, topography, disturbance, floral inventories, and faunal observations are all collected and synthesized to create a detailed description of ecological communities. ELC should always be conducted by individuals certified to do so by the MNR. ELC allows for a comprehensive and consistent approach to ecosystem classification and is best interpreted by individuals familiar with the classification system.

3.7.3.1

Methodology: Delineation of Vegetation Communities

An Aquafor Beech Limited botanist/ecologist classified natural and semi-natural vegetation communities within the detailed study area using methods found in the Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: First Approximation and Its Application (Lee et al, 2008). Methods used comply with the data collection standards set out by the Grand River Conservation Authorityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (GRCA) Environmental Impact Study Guidelines and Submission Standards for Wetlands (GRCA, 2005), as well as the Greenlands Network Implementation Guideline (RMW 20112). Vegetation units outside of the detailed study area were identified to the community series level based air photo interpretation and in most cases, in combination with field visits. In areas where property access was not granted, a combination of air photo interpretation along with visual surveys from property boundaries were conducted. Thorough field visits within the detailed study area occurred during the growing season on June 6th, June 30th, July 4th, July 13th, July 20th, August 17th, and August 18th 2011. Additional field visits supplementing the detailed field visits occurred in concert with spring and fall botanical surveys, as discussed in Section 3.7.2.1 and outlined in Table 3.7.1. In some cases, despite detailed field work vegetation communities were such that they did not fit in with the vegetation types listed in the ELC manual, as is often the case with communities that have experienced anthropogenic impacts. In such cases, communities were described to the most detailed level of refinement possible. The results of ELC field work are discussed below. For the purpose of botanical inventories and ELC field work the general subwatershed study area was divided into four areas: Area A, Area B, Area C, and Area D. This division allowed for manageable field units and ease of ecological community description. A map showing the delineation of these areas is shown in Appendix D.

Page 136

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

3.7.3.2 Results Vegetation Communities In total, 76 ELC vegetation community polygons were present within the detailed study area (Appendix D). Agricultural was the dominant land use type within the detailed study area, though a number of substantial natural and semi-natural communities exist on the landscape. Natural vegetation communities consisting of several wetland types including swamps, meadow marshes, as well as open and shallow water aquatic communities, were present in the middle and southern portions of the study area. Cultural woodlands, forests, and meadows were also present on the landscape. For the purpose of this report, species of conservation concern were defined as those listed by COSSARO or COSEWIC as Endangered, Threatened, or of Special Concern; species with provincial rankings of S1-S3; and regionally rare species as listed by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo (1999). Species of conservation concern are discussed in Section 3.7.2.2 of this report. Vegetation Community Descriptions Vegetation communities within the detailed study area are described in detail below. A complete list of vegetation communities in the study area are listed in Appendix D. Area A Area A was not visited by Aquafor Beech Limited staff during ELC field surveys due to land access issues (see Figure 9.1). Accordingly, the ELC designations for Area A shown on Figure D2, Appendix D were determined using a combination of air photo interpretation, roadside checks, information from the GRCA, and the results of the wetland evaluation completed by Dillon and Associates. Area A is outside of the Detailed Study Area (see Figure 2.1.1). Area B The portion of Area B located within the detailed study area was limited to the lands located between the CPR tracks and the King Street Bypass. The western portion of these lands was contained within the Freeport Esker Earth Science Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI), while the eastern portion has been highly modified and consists of old field cultural meadow. Each vegetation community within Area B located within the Detailed Study Area is described below. Polygon B1 – Dry – Fresh Sugar Maple – Beech Deciduous Forest (FOD5-2) Located on the undulating topography of the Freeport Esker, the canopy of this mature forest community was dominated by sugar maple (Acer saccharum), followed by beech (Fagus grandifolia) and basswood (Tilia americana). In addition to the above, sub-canopy and understory species included ironwood (Ostrya virginiana), red oak (Quercus rubra), chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), European buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), and wild grape (Vitis riparia). The groundcover, particularly rich in spring ephemerals, included species such as zigzag goldenrod (Solidago flexicaulis), Canada enchanter’s

Page 137

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 nightshade (Circaea lutetiana spp. canadensis), garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata, mostly along forest edges) mayapple (Podophyllum peltatum), wild leek (Allium tricoccum), and white trillium (Trillium grandiflorum). Four species of regionally rare plants were present in this community: hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), three-seeded sedge (Carex trisperma), James' sedge (Carex jamesii), and purple-tinged sedge (Carex woodii). Further information regarding these species is found within Section 3.7.2.2. Polygons B2&B3 – Dry – Fresh Old Field Cultural Meadow (CUM1-1) These cultural communities were dominated by old field grasses and forbs, including smooth brome (Bromus inermis), Canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis), smooth bedstraw (Galium mollugo), crown vetch (Coronilla varia), and orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata). Vehicle pathways were evident throughout, with the south eastern portion of the vegetation community encompassed within a hydro right-of-way. Polygon B4 - Sumac Deciduous Shrub Thicket Type (CUT1-1) Located entirely within a hydro right-of-way on undulating topography, this community was dominated by mature staghorn sumac (Rhus typhina). Like staghorn sumac, the exotic invasive European buckthorn was found in abundance throughout most vegetation layers. Other shrubs present in this community included Tatarian honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica), dotted hawthorn (Crataegus punctata), and blackberry (Rubus occidentalis). The ground layer was typified by exotic forbs and grasses, many of which were also found in the adjacent cultural meadow community. Polygon B5 – Dry-Fresh Oak- Hickory Deciduous Forest (FOD2-2) Located on the relatively flat crest and portions of the upper slopes of the Freeport Esker, this vegetation community was dominated by bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis) and red oak. Other woody species present within this community included ironwood, European buckthorn, and white ash (Fraxinus americana). Herbaceous ground layer species included Kentucky blue grass (Poa pratensis), zigzag goldenrod, tufted vetch (Vicia cracca), bittersweet nightshade (Solanum dulcamara), and Canada enchanter’s nightshade. One federally and provincially Endangered species, butternut (Juglans cinerea), and one regionally rare species, prickly-ash (Zanthoxylum americanum), were found in this vegetation community during field investigations. Further discussion regarding these species is found in Section 3.7.2.2.

Page 138

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Polygon B6 – Fresh-Moist Lowland Deciduous Forest (FOD7) Co-dominate canopy species in this vegetation community include bitternut hickory, basswood, and trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides). Located in a relatively flat low-lying area bounded to the north and south by the CPR tracks and a hydro right-of-way, respectively, this vegetation community exhibited signs of historical disturbance. Wet in the spring and becoming moderately moist by summer, there was an abundance of vines and shrubs such as Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus vitacea), grape, and European buckthorn. The ground layer was co-dominated by zigzag goldenrod and sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), with an abundance of Canada goldenrod, European buckthorn, and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). Polygon B7 – Mineral Shallow Marsh (MAS2) Located in a depression near Polygon B6 and a hydro cut, this shallow marsh community was semi-permanently flooded to approximately 45cm in depth. The inset photo, taken from the same point on June 6th and September 5th 2011, illustrates the change in species composition from late spring to late summer (see the downed woody debris in background as a reference point). Devoid of fish, this pond functions as a breeding pond for frogs such as leopard frog (Rana pipiens). More information regarding amphibian surveys is found in Section 3.7.5. The canopy of this community was relatively open, with dominant species consisting of black willow (Salix nigra) and trembling aspen. In spring, reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) and sedges (Carex spp.) were most abundant in the ground layer. By summer’s end reed canary grass remained the most abundant species in the marsh, but herbaceous species such as devil's beggar-ticks (Bidens frondosa) and smartweed species (Polygonum lapathifolium and P. pensylvanica) were dominant in open areas that experienced the greatest duration of flooding (i.e. at the lowest elevations).

Page 139

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Polygon B8 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Dry-Fresh Sugar Maple Deciduous Forest (FOD5-1) Located on the extreme western slope of the Freeport Esker, this mature forest community was dominated by sugar maple. The sub-canopy and understory layers were sparse, indicating prior disturbance. The ground layer was dominated by zigzag goldenrod, with sedges and wild ginger found in abundance.

Disturbances to this community included logging and unauthorized dirt bike trails (most evident in spring, see above photo taken May 6th 2011). No species of conservation concern were found in this vegetation community. Polygon B9 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Dry-Moist Mineral Cultural Meadow (CUM1-1), with a Mineral Meadow Marsh (MAM2) Inclusion This meadow community was bounded by the CPR tracks and the King Street bypass to the north and south, respectively. The topography sloped slightly downward from the Highway 8 embankment to the CPR tracks. Accordingly, species with higher tolerance for wet conditions were located in the northern section of this community while species more tolerant of dry conditions were found in the southern section. Dominant species included smooth brome and Canada goldenrod. Woody species such as European buckthorn, green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) were both scattered and in pockets throughout the community. A number of species typical of wetland communities (inset photo taken on May 6th 2011) were located within tire track ruts located within the cultural meadow community. Species growing within the ruts were widespread and common, and included narrow-leaved cattail (Typha latifolia), fox sedge (Carex vulpinoidea), and dark green bulrush (Scirpus atrovirens). Species of conservation concern were not present in this community.

Page 140

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Area C Three main natural areas existed within Area C of the general subwatershed study area. The largest was a Freeman’s maple swamp approximately 17 ha in size, located in the northwest corner of the subwatershed. Second in size at approximately 4 ha and separated from the abovementioned swamp by an open grassy strip varying from approximately 18 m to 48 m wide, was a maple-dominated forest. Lastly, a total of approximately 5 ha of meadow, woodland, and forest communities associated with Allendale Creek and an uncultivable north-south slope was present in the western portion of Area C. Individual vegetation communities within Area C are discussed below. Polygon C0 - Dry-Moist Old Field Cultural Meadow (CUM1-1) Located on the western side of Area C, this cultural meadow was trisected by cultural woodland and forest communities. Species present were typical of old field meadows and included smooth brome, Canada goldenrod, orchard grass, aster spp., and a variety of non-native grasses and forbs. Of note within the polygon were an old wooden drive shed and a very large pile of field stone. These features were investigated as part of wildlife surveys conducted by Aquafor Beech Limited and are discussed further in Section 3.7.5. Polygon C1 – Mineral Cultural Woodland (CUW1) This small cultural woodland was dominated by Manitoba maple (Acer negundo) and exhibited high rates of past and present disturbance. It is likely that the woodland resulted from disturbance, as it appeared that trees have grown out of refuse piles containing earth and farm equipment. In some cases, trees have grown through the middle of dumped tires. Non-native species dominated the understory, including species such as European buckthorn and garlic mustard.

Polygon C2 –Deciduous Forest (FOD) Located along much of the Allendale Creek, this deciduous forest community (inset photo, spring) was dominated by Manitoba maple with sugar maple and basswood associates becoming increasingly prevalent westward along the stream corridor. Historic dumping was common on the north side of the forest, with stone piles, appliances, rubbish, and farm equipment refuse found on forest edges and along the side of valley walls. In some cases, refuse was in the watercourse. Non-native species such as European buckthorn and Manitoba maple dominated the subcanopy and understory layers, with the ground layer primarily comprised of European buckthorn, non-native grasses and herbs in addition to tolerant native species such as yellow avens (Geum aleppicum) and blue violet (Viola sororia). The regionally rare hackberry was present within this polygon. Further details regarding this species are found in Section 3.7.2.2.

Page 141

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Polygon C3 – Fresh-Moist Lowland Deciduous Forest (FOD7) This moist forest community is part of the headwaters of Allendale Creek. Inset photos represent spring (left) and summer (right) conditions. Receiving runoff from the adjacent agricultural fields, vernal pooling occurred over approximately 15% of the eastern portion of the community in the spring months and subsided by summer. Note that cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea, behind fallen log in foreground) is concentrated around a vernal pool in the left inset photo. The forest canopy was dominated by Manitoba maple, with Freeman’s maple (Acer x freemanii) co-dominant in the eastern portion of the community in areas containing vernal pools. The sub-canopy and understory dominated by European buckthorn throughout. Other species present in the sub-canopy and canopy layers included blue beech (Carpinus caroliniana), black walnut, and Manitoba maple. The ground layer had a high

proportion of vines such as wild grape, Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus vitacea), and poison ivy. The regionally rare moonseed (Menispermum canadense) was also present in this community. Further details regarding regionally rare species are found in Section 3.7.2.2. The ground layer of this community consisted of a mixture of wetland and upland species including Jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum), spotted touch-me-not (Impatiens capensis), Michigan lily (Lilium michiganense), Canada enchanter’s nightshade, and false Solomon’s seal (Maianthemum racemosum ssp. racemosum). Polygon C4 – Dry – Fresh Sugar Maple Deciduous Forest (FOD5), with Fresh – Moist Sugar Maple – Hardwood Deciduous Forest (FOD5-6) inclusion The second largest woodland block within Area C (the large swamp immediately north being the largest), this forest community exhibited varied microtopography and was dominated by sugar maple. The sub-canopy and understory layers consisted of sugar maple, beech, ironwood, and European buckthorn. Commonly occurring ground layer species included graceful sedge (Carex gracillima), starry Solomon’s seal (Maianthemum stellatum), leek, and blue violet. Trees in the north and central portion of the forest community exhibited high incidence of infestation by honey mushroom (Armillaria mellea). This infestation should be taken into account during subsequent monitoring programs.

Page 142

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Polygon C5 – Fresh – Moist Sugar Maple – Hardwood Deciduous Forest (FOD5-6) Located on the south west portion and north east corners of Polygon C4 and the south west corner of Polygon C6, this forest community exhibited complex microtopography and was dominated by sugar maple and beech. Low-lying areas were flooded in spring (inset photo, taken on May 19th); vernal pools were shallow and full of leaf litter. The sub-canopy and understory layers contained blue beech, green ash, and European buckthorn. The ground layer contained a mix of wetland and upland species such as wild grape, fowl manna grass (Glyceria striata), yellow trout lily (Erythronium americanum), Canada enchanter’s nightshade, and jack-in-thepulpit; with a high abundance of sedges were present on hummocks and other raised areas. Small yellow lady’s slipper (Cypripedium parviflorum var. parviflorum) was present within the southern portion of the community. Further details regarding this regionally rare species are found in Section 3.7.2.2. Historical fieldstone dumping has occurred in the southernmost edge of the community, and has grown over with woody vegetation. Polygon C6 - Swamp Maple Mineral Deciduous Swamp (SWD 3-3) Like the northernmost section of Polygon 5, this swamp community (inset photo, taken May 19th) was outside of the detailed study area. Property access to the eastern half of the community was restricted in 2011; ELC community type was determined through a combination of air photo interpretation and field visits during botanical inventories and wetland evaluations on the western half of the swamp. The swamp community was the largest woodland in the study area, and contained interior forest habitat as measured from 100m from the swamp edge. Flooded in the spring; most of the standing water disappeared by mid-summer. Freeman’s maple was the primary tree species in this community, dominating the canopy, sub-canopy, and understory layers. The ground layer contained species such as sedges, marsh fern (Thelypteris palustris), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), mosses, spotted touchme-not, and fowl manna grass. The regionally rare species white spring

Page 143

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 cress (Cardamine bulbosa) and rattlesnake manna grass (Glyceria canadensis) were also present in this community and are further discussed in Section 3.7.2.2. Well-worn ATV trails were evident in the northern portion of this community and there was also evidence of historic logging throughout. Based on air photo interpretation, it appears that ATV trails are relatively more extensive in the (unvisited) eastern half of the wetland. In addition, it appeared from roadside surveys and air photos that dumping has occurred along the edges of the eastern portion of the community. Area D Area D is bounded by Allendale Road to the north, CPR tracks to the south, Riverbank Drive to the west, and Maple Grove Road to the east. Like Area C, agriculture was the predominant land use. Natural and semi-natural features within Area D consisted of coniferous plantations in residential backyards; meadows, forests, swamps, and marshes associated with Freeport Creek; and remnant forests and woodlots nestled amongst agricultural, institutional, industrial, transportation, and civil service land uses. Conditions in Area D may have changed since the ELC mapping was completed due to maintenance of the SWM facility (Pond 130). However, given that a vegetation community will likely take several years to change and SWM maintenance was completed after reporting had been completed, re-classification was not undertaken. Individual vegetation communities within Area D are discussed below. Polygon D1 – Cultural Woodland (CUW), with a Dry – Moist Old Field Cultural Meadow (CUM1-1) Inclusion Located between the Waterloo Regional Operations Center and the CPR tracks, the canopy of the cultural woodland community was dominated by trembling aspen. European buckthorn was dominant in the sub-canopy and understory layers, with green ash, alternate-leaved dogwood (Cornus alternifolia), and wild grape found in abundance. Ground layer vegetation consisted of reed canary grass, European buckthorn, smooth brome, and Canada goldenrod. Polygon D2 – Mineral Deciduous Swamp (SWD4), with a Mineral Meadow Marsh (MAM2) inclusion Partially flooded in the spring, this swamp community occupied a low-lying corner between an agricultural field and the Waterloo Regional Operations Center. Runoff from the agricultural field as well as overflow from the ditch running northsouth along the western edge of the Waterloo Regional Operations Center property were the main hydrologic inputs to this wetland community. Within the swamp, canopy species included trembling aspen, white elm (Ulmus americana), and green ash. Sub-canopy and understory species included

Page 144

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 European buckthorn, trembling aspen, red-osier dogwood, and wild grape. Commonly found ground layer species included sensitive fern, reed canary grass, sedges, and dwarf raspberry (Rubus pubescens). Several regionally rare species were present within this vegetation community, including white spring cress, small yellow lady’s slipper, rattlesnake manna grass, white spruce (Picea glauca), and eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides); though the last two aforementioned species were believed to be of non-indigenous origin. These species are discussed in Section 3.7.2.2. Polygon D3 – Mineral Cultural Woodland (CUW1) This small cultural woodland contained a mixture of planted and naturally occurring species. Like the adjacent swamp, the dominant canopy species in this community was trembling aspen. The sub-canopy consists of European buckthorn, trembling aspen, and green ash. Understory species included European buckthorn, wild grape, green ash, and red osier dogwood. The ground layer consisted of graceful sedge, Canada goldenrod, and one-sided aster (Aster lateriflorus var. lateriflorus). White spruce was the only regionally rare species present in the community, but the trees’ planted origin negates its rarity status. Further discussion regarding this species is found in Section 3.7.2.2. Polygon D3a – Mineral Cultural Woodland (CUW1) Separated from Polygon D2 by a gravel access road and connected hydrologically by a ditch, the canopy and sub-canopy of this cultural woodland community was dominated by balsam poplar (Populus balsamifera). Other species present in the sub-canopy and understory included pussy willow (Salix discolor), European buckthorn, and red osier dogwood. The ground layer consisted of Canada goldenrod, fowl manna grass, reed canary grass, and one-sided aster.

Polygon D3b – Dry – Moist Old Field Cultural Meadow (CUM1-1) Dominated by reed canary grass, this cultural meadow community was located on a gentle slope sloping towards a low point occupied by Polygon D3a. Other species such as Canada goldenrod, tufted vetch (Vicia cracca), and wild carrot (Daucus carota) were all found in abundance throughout. Polygon D4 – Mineral Cultural Woodland (CUW1) Located between what once was a sparse agricultural hedgerow and what is currently the Waterloo Regional Operations Center, this linear woodland runs north-south from Polygon D2 (SWD4) to Polygon D5 (FOD5-4). Canopy species included green ash, white elm, bitternut hickory, and bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa). The sub-canopy, understory, and ground layers were dominated by an often thick layer of European buckthorn. Other species present in these layers included green ash, bur oak, wild grape, garlic mustard, and mayapple.

Page 145

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Polygon D5 – Dry – Fresh Sugar Maple – Ironwood Deciduous Forest (FOD5-4) Once part of a larger contiguous woodland, this forest community was located within a small upland area adjacent to the Wetland/SWM pond. Sugar maple dominated the canopy layer, with basswood and ironwood as associates. The sub-canopy consisted of ironwood, sugar maple, and green ash; with the understory consisting of species such as chokecherry and European buckthorn. Ground layer species were typical of upland maple forests, including zigzag goldenrod, Canada enchanter’s nightshade, Pennsylvania sedge (Carex pennsylvanica), and running strawberry-bush (Euonymus obovata). Of note in the community was the presence of wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo); both feathers and egg shells were observed during field work. Polygon D6 – Shallow Marsh (MAS), with an Open Aquatic (OAO) Inclusion and a Submerged Shallow Aquatic (SAS1) Complex This community occupied lands flooded by stormwater management activities along Freeport Creek and was the largest community in Area D. Occupying what were once upland and lowland forests as well as open fields, the community exhibited high structural diversity characterized by groups of standing snags, open water, submerged shallow aquatic communities, cattail and reed canary grass marshes, regenerating swamps; and interfaces with communities such as forests, meadows, swamps, meadow marshes, and agricultural lands. Community diversity within Polygon D6 is further discussed in Section 3.7.4. Hydrology is discussed in Section 3.5.

Within the community, young Freeman’s maple, green ash, and white elm (DBH 3 – 7 cm) were starting to colonize flooded areas once occupied by forests and/or swamps. Understory species consisted of willows (Salix spp.) and green ash, with narrow-leaved cattail and lesser duckweed (Lemna minor) dominating most of the vegetation community. Columbia water meal (Wolffia columbiana) was the only regionally rare plant species located in the community. Further details regarding this species are provided in Section 3.7.2.2.

Page 146

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Polygon D7 – Mineral Meadow Marsh (MAM2), with a Cultural Thicket (CUT) Inclusion This meadow marsh community represents the interface between the shallow marsh to the north (Polygon D6) and the agricultural lands to the south. Canopy and sub-canopy species consisted of green ash, willows, white elm, and European buckthorn; while the understory consisted of red osier dogwood, European buckthorn, and green ash. The ground layer was dominated by reed canary grass, with Canada goldenrod, Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), dark-green bulrush (Scirpus atrovirens), field horsetail (Equisetum arvense), yellow sedge (Carex flava), and fox sedge as common associates. The regionally rare small yellow lady’s slipper was present in the northern portion of the polygon, and is further discussed in Section 3.7.2.2. Polygon D8a – Mineral Meadow Marsh (MAM2) This meadow marsh community was associated with a section of Freeport Creek located between the wetland/SWM pond berm (Pond 130) to the east and another berm to the west associated with a residential property line. The marsh was bounded to the north and south by a cultural meadow and agriculture, respectively. Reed canary grass was the dominant species in the community, with European buckthorn, willows, and purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) scattered throughout the community but mostly restricted to the creek channel. Polygon D8b – Dry – Moist Old Field Meadow (CUM1-1) This cultural meadow community was located on land sloping from agricultural fields to the north, down to the meadow marsh at the southern limit of this community. Species present include typical old field species such as smooth brome, Canada goldenrod, crown vetch, asters, and common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca). White elm, Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila), European buckthorn, and red osier dogwood are found scattered throughout. Polygon D9 – Deciduous Swamp (SWD) Occupying land that was once upland but has since experienced flooding due to stormwater management activities, this community was comprised of upland species (most are in poor health) and species tolerant of seasonal flooding. Blue beech was the dominant species in the canopy and subcanopy, with white elm and ironwood also present in the canopy layer. Green ash, European buckthorn, and alternate-leaved dogwood were present in the sub-canopy, with glossy buckthorn (Rhamnus frangula), green ash, and highbush cranberry (Viburnum trilobum) occupying the understory. Ground layer vegetation consisted of rough goldenrod (Solidago rugosa), European buckthorn, fowl manna grass, and field horsetail. Polygon D9a – Dry – Moist Old Field Meadow (CUM1-1) Dominated by typical old field species such as smooth brome, Canada goldenrod, asters, and tufted vetch; the eastern section of this cultural meadow community was largely unmaintained, while the western portion was regularly mowed. The western section of this community surrounded a small stormwater management facility dominated by narrow-leaved cattail.

Page 147

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Polygon D10 – Fresh – Moist Sugar Maple – Hardwood Deciduous Forest (FOD6-5) Occupying an upland slope, this forest community was located between the parking lots for the Police headquarters and Challenger Motor Freight. The canopy was dominated by sugar maple, with beech, green ash, and black cherry as associates. The sub-canopy consisted of beech, blue beech, ironwood, and sugar maple; and the understory primarily consisted of alternate-leaved dogwood, green ash, and European buckthorn. Ground layer species included one-sided aster, sedges, mayapple, and European buckthorn. One regionally rare species, purple-tinged sedge, was present in this vegetation community; further details are provided in Section 3.7.2.2. Polygon D11 – Bur Oak Mineral Deciduous Swamp (SWD1-2) Located at the tip of the western “arm” of Polygon D10, this small swamp community was flooded throughout 2011. Bur oak and green ash were the dominant species within this community, occupying the subcanopy beneath a few remnant unhealthy sugar maples. Bitternut hickory and white elm were associates within the sub-canopy, and the understory consisted of glossy buckthorn, spicebush (Lindera benzoin), green ash, and bitternut hickory. The ground layer consisted of glossy buckthorn, mayapple, fowl manna grass, and one-sided aster; mostly present on sections of higher ground. Polygon D12 – Black Ash Mineral Deciduous Swamp (SWD2-1) Located along the northern edge of the western “arm” of Polygon D10, this community occupied the interface between the upland maple forest of Polygon D10 and the shallow marsh of Polygon D6. Young black ash (Fraxinus nigra) was the dominant canopy species, followed by bur oak, Freeman’s maple, and white elm. Bur oak and bitternut hickory were equally dominant in the subcanopy, with green ash as an associate. The understory was dominated by spicebush, followed by wild grape and red osier dogwood. Ground vegetation consisted of reed canary grass, sensitive fern, and fowl manna grass. This vegetation community was completely flooded in the spring, and remained wet throughout the year with standing water only occurring in select leaf-filled silty depressions. Polygon D13 – Maple Mineral Deciduous Swamp (SWD3), with a Mineral Shallow Marsh Inclusion (MAS2) Located at the toe of a forested slope (Polygon D10), this swamp community experienced temporary flooding. The small (0.2 ha) shallow marsh was permanently flooded, connected to the surrounding wetland via surface water only during high water conditions. The canopy of the swamp community was co-dominated by mature red maple (Acer rubrum) and Freeman’s maple, with green ash as an associate. The subcanopy consisted of green ash, blue beech, and glossy buckthorn; while the understory consisted of spicebush, blue beech, green ash, and Freeman’s maple. Ground vegetation was dominated by sensitive fern, followed by graceful sedge and Canada goldenrod, mostly present on slightly higher ground. The regionally rare cardinal flower (Lobelia cardinalis) was present in the northern third of the community; further details are provided in Section 3.7.2.2.

Page 148

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Polygon D13a - Fresh-Moist Sugar Maple- Ash Lowland Deciduous Forest Type (FOD6-1)* This small community was located in a slight depression at the outlet of a ditch along the northern property boundary of the regional police headquarters property. Sugar maple is the dominant species in the canopy, with black and green ash as associates, while the subcanopy was co-dominated by black ash and green ash, with sugar maple as an associate. The understory consisted of red osier dogwood, European buckthorn, and green ash. The ground layer contained reed canary grass, with Canada goldenrod and one-sided aster as associates. Standing water was not present during surveys; it is likely that any runoff from the ditch would infiltrate through the sandy soils. *Note: ELC Polygon D13a may likely undergo vegetation community change in the future as a result of hydrologic inputs from an adjacent ditch. As such, it is recommended that the community be revisited and its vegetation community classification verified at the EIS stage, if applicable. Polygon D14 – Dry – Moist Old Field Meadow (CUM1-1) This cultural meadow community occupied open upland areas surrounding west and north margins of the Challenger Motor Freight property. Common species consisted of smooth brome, reed canary grass, and Canada goldenrod. Some planted trees were present on the slopes directly adjacent to the Challenger Motor Freight property, and two mature trees of a remnant hedgerow were present on the flatter portion of the community. One regionally rare species existed in this community; hackberry is discussed further in Section 3.7.2.2. Polygon D15 – Reed Canary Grass Mineral Shallow Marsh (MAM2-2), with Mineral Shallow Marsh (MAS3) and Cattail Mineral Shallow Marsh (MAS2-1) Inclusions (D15a) This meadow marsh community was associated with temporarily flooded areas around the channel of Freeport Creek, as well as permanently and seasonally flooded low-lying areas of what appears to have once been pastureland. Reed canary grass was the dominant species, followed by narrow-leaved cattail and Canada goldenrod. Water levels were highest in spring, with much of the water surrounding the channel disappearing by the end of summer. Lower elevations in the southern portion of this community were permanently flooded and included two distinct semi-open shallow marsh communities, referred to as Polygon D15a, located in the south eastern portion of Polygon D15. The regionally rare cardinal flower was present in the southern edge of this Polygon D15a; further details are provided in Section 3.7.2.2. A historical man-made pond in Polygon D15a has naturalized into a cattail mineral shallow marsh, and supports a family of muskrats (inset photo, with muskrat lodge in foreground). A small pond located at the northern extent of Polygon 15 was not investigated during ELC mapping in 2011, but was

Page 149

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 investigated by the project team which included the GRCA and MNR staff in June 2012. The pond was dredged between July and September 2012. Accordingly, the pond is not described in this section. Upon the direction of the study review team, the pond been shown as a component of the Upper Freeport Creek Wetland Complex in the wetland boundary mapping. Polygon D16 – Dry-Moist Old Field Meadow (CUM1-1). Located on sloped upland, this old field meadow community was dominated by smooth brome, with Canada goldenrod and orchard grass as associates. Other species present such as Canada thistle, red clover (Trifolium pratense), and timothy (Phleum pratense); are typical of old field communities. More leopard frogs (inset photo) were observed in this community than in the nearby old field meadow community (Polygon D14), most likely due to a combination of proximity to open water and shorter vegetation in Polygon D16 than in Polygon D14.

Polygon D17 – Dry – Fresh Sugar Maple – Beech Deciduous Forest (FOD5-2) Dominated by sugar maple, this maple-beech forest was located on tableland and a gentle slope sloping towards the adjacent wetland. Common canopy associates included beech, white ash (Fraxinus americana), and basswood. The subcanopy consisted of sugar maple, beech, and ironwood; and the understory consisted of chokecherry, blue beech, and sugar maple. Ground layer species vary from location to location based on disturbance within the forest but overall sugar maple, zigzag goldenrod, Canada enchanter’s nightshade, and Pennsylvania sedge were the most representative. Two regionally rare species were present within this woodlot. The first, hackberry, was represented by a single tree on the eastern edge of the forest. The second, Lindley’s aster (Symphyotrichum ciliolatum), was located in the south west corner of the forest. Further discussion regarding regionally rare species is found in Section 3.7.2.2. A well-worn vehicle path located in forest ran from the northeast corner of the forest, along the eastern third and down to the southernmost edge, and exited at the south western corner of the forest. At the southwestern corner, the path split off in a north easterly direction, leading to the northern portion of the forest. Historical and ongoing disturbances such as logging, dumping, and brush cutting were all evident in the northern portion of the forest.

Page 150

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Polygon D18 – Green Ash Mineral Deciduous Swamp (SWD2-2) This young green ash swamp (inset photo, left) was located amongst a canopy of standing snags that have died as a result of flooding. Other species growing alongside green ash included white elm, Freeman’s maple and, to a lesser extent, bur oak. Much of the same species composition was found in the understory as in the subcanopy, except for the addition of glossy buckthorn. The ground layer was dominated by lesser duckweed, with reed canary grass and fowl manna grass as associates. The swamp community was flooded throughout the year, and an abundance of animal tracks were present along its edge. The inset photo was taken from the boundary of Polygons D17 and D18, and illustrates the marked differences between the swamp and upland forest habitats. Polygon D19 – Scotch Pine Coniferous Plantation (CUP3-3) Located primarily in what are now the backyards of residential properties, this pine plantation was dominated by non-native species. Scotch pine was the dominant species in the canopy and sub-canopy layers, with Manitoba maple and green ash as associates in the sub-canopy. The canopy in the easternmost portion of this community was dominated by planted white spruce. The understory consisted of species such as wild grape, green ash, and Tatarian honeysuckle. The ground layer was generally sparse, with vegetation consisting primarily of lawn grasses (Poa spp.) and exotic herbs such as garlic mustard, dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), and self-heal (Prunella vulgaris). Disturbance rates within the community were high, consisting primarily of dumping, brush cutting, trails, and earth displacement. The small pine plantation to the west did not exhibit these disturbances, and due to a denser canopy did not have the floristic diversity of the aforementioned section of the Polygon. Polygon D20 – Mineral Cultural Woodland (CUW1) Consisting of a narrow strip of woodland between the edge of an agricultural field and Freeport Creek, this cultural woodland was dominated by non-native species. Common apple (Malus pumila) and Manitoba maple dominated the canopy layer, with green ash and common pear (Pyrus communis) as associates. European buckthorn dominated the sub-canopy, understory, and ground layers; with common apple, Tatarian honeysuckle, wild grape, and red osier dogwood also present. Ground vegetation was sparse and in addition to the wild grape and European buckthorn mentioned above, consisted of species such as reed canary grass, Canada goldenrod, and dame’s rocket (Hesperis matronalis). Historic field stone dumping was prevalent in the western portion of the community, and extensive gaps in the woodland canopy were found throughout the length of the community.

Page 151

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Polygon D21 – Dry – Moist Old Field Meadow (CUM1-1) This old field meadow community was associated with upland areas surrounding Freeport Creek. Dominated by reed canary grass, smooth brome was a common associate along with typical old field species such as Canada goldenrod, asters, wild carrot, and common burdock (Arctium minus ssp. minus). Woody species such as green ash, pussy willow, and European buckthorn were scattered throughout the community. Polygon D22 – Mineral Shallow Marsh (MAS2) This small (approximately 0.2 ha) wetland community was the headwaters for a minor intermittent tributary to Freeport Creek. European buckthorn, white willow (Salix alba), glossy buckthorn, and wild grape were present on the margins of the marsh; with reed canary grass as the dominant species throughout. Additional species in the ground layer included narrow-leaved cattail, cut-leaved waterhorehound (Lycopus americana), and bittersweet nightshade. Polygon D23 – Mineral Cultural Meadow (CUM1), with a Cultural Woodland (CUW) Inclusion This cultural meadow community likely serves as a yard for the adjacent school. Specimen trees such as European beech (Fagus sylvatica) and silver maple were scattered throughout the semi-manicured lawn (inset photo, right). A hedgerow (CUW) containing a mixture of mature, mid-aged, and young trees was located along the eastern edge of the community, underneath which a variety of old field herbs and grasses grew. Surprisingly for a schoolyard, this meadow was generally devoid of litter. Polygon D24 – Dry – Fresh Sugar Maple – Basswood Deciduous Forest (FOD5-6) This remnant forest was located within the property boundary of the École Père-René-De-Galinée School property. The canopy was dominated by sugar maple, with basswood and beech as associates. The sub-canopy was also dominated by sugar maple, with green ash and European buckthorn as associates. The understory consisted mostly of European buckthorn, with some regenerating sugar maple and green ash. The ground layer consisted of European buckthorn, Canada bluegrass (Poa compressa), and one-sided aster. Of note in the community was a patch of northern maidenhair-fern (Adiantum pedatum), most likely a surviving remnant of a once high-quality forest. Currently, well marked trails and litter were prevalent throughout this community. In some areas, young trees and shrubs had been damaged to make forts. Polygon D25 – Mineral Cultural Thicket (CUT1) Located between the abovementioned forest and Freeport Creek, this cultural thicket community was dominated by European buckthorn, with Tatarian honeysuckle and chokecherry as associates. The

Page 152

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 ground layer was dominated by smooth brome, with typical old field meadow species such as Canada goldenrod, asters, wild carrot, and orchard grass as common associates.

Polygon D26 – Swamp Maple Mineral Deciduous Swamp (SWD3-3) This small (approximately 0.1 ha) maple swamp was located adjacent to a shallow cattail marsh (Polygon D27). Freeman’s maple was the dominant canopy species. Within the sub-canopy, it was co-dominant with European buckthorn, with green ash as an occasional associate. European buckthorn was also the dominant species within the understory, with alternate-leaved dogwood and Freeman’s maple occurring occasionally. The ground layer was relatively sparse, dominated by European buckthorn with yellow avens, blue violet, and sedges also present. Polygon D27 – Cattail Mineral Shallow Marsh (MAS2-1) This shallow marsh community (inset photo) was located on the downstream end of a culvert conveying storm water under Maple Grove Road. Hydrologic inputs also came from a ditch originating from the adjacent school property. Dominated by narrow-leaved cattail, reed canary grass and common reed (Phragmites australis) were common throughout the community. Other species present included cutleaved water-horehound, purple loosestrife, and devil’s beggar-ticks. White willow was found occasionally along the margins of the marsh.

2.7.3.2.1 Significant Vegetation Communities A list of the vegetation communities present within the detailed study area is shown in Appendix D. None of the vegetation communities within the detailed study area are globally or provincially significant according to the NHIC.

Page 153

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

3.7.4 WETLANDS AND WETLAND EVALUATIONS Wetlands are highly valuable features on the landscape that provide habitat for wildlife, stormwater attenuation, groundwater recharge, as well as educational and recreational value for humans. The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources is responsible for the evaluation of wetlands in Ontario. Wetlands in the general subwatershed study area are regulated by the Grand River Conservation Authority under Ontario Regulation 150/06. The Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES), defines wetlands as: “Lands that are seasonally or permanently flooded by shallow water as well as lands where the water table is close to the surface; in either case the presence of abundant water has caused the formation of hydric soils and has favoured the dominance of either hydrophytic or water tolerant plants.” (MNR, 1993) Furthermore, land which is under agricultural use and still retains the characteristics of a wetland as defined above is still considered a wetland. In cases where agricultural activity has destroyed wetland values or where wetlands have been converted to other uses, wetland areas are not considered wetlands unless the damaging activity has ceased and the wetland is no longer serving its alternative use function (MNR, 1994). Wetland complexes are defined as wetlands in the same subwatershed that are within 750 metres of each other, and may have similar or complementary biological, social, and/or hydrological functions (MNR, 1994). According to OWES, wetland evaluations are considered ‘open files’; wetland evaluation data is reflective of the site conditions at the time of the evaluation and wetland data can be added to the wetland data record at any time. As such, the wetland information contained in this study may be subsequently updated as new information becomes available and/or if relevant agencies deem it necessary. Wetland evaluations were performed on wetlands within the general subwatershed study area that either had not been mapped previously or had not been evaluated previously, provided that property access was granted. Two wetlands, ‘GRCA Wetland A’ and ‘GRCA Wetland B’, were added to the wetland mapping after the wetland evaluations had been completed. These wetlands were not evaluated using OWES, however they were included in an assessment of wetland status according to GRCA Policy 6.2.7.4 in Section 3.7.4.3. A map showing the location of all wetlands is shown in Figure 3.7.2.

Page 154

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

3.7.4.1 Methodology A preliminary scoping exercise involving review of the Grand River Conservation Authorityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (GRCA) wetland layer in combination with air photo interpretation and field reconnaissance was used to determine the location of wetlands within the study area. As per the requirements of the Grand River Conservation Authorityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Grand River Watershed Wetland Evaluation Protocol (GRCA, 20051), MNRcertified wetland evaluators from Aquafor Beech Limited and Dillon Consulting Limited evaluated and delineated the boundaries of wetlands within the general subwatershed study area using the protocols of the 3rd edition of the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System, Southern Manual (MNR, 1994).

Page 155

ST N TA IN FO U N

KO SS

U TH

EAST SIDE LAND MESP AND COMMUNITY PLAN

FREEPORT CREEK AND TRIBUTARY TO THE GRAND SUBWATERSHED STUDY R NK D RBA RIV E

RIVE RBA NK

CRE

Kitchener

FIGURE 3.7.2 WETLANDS

MIDDLE BLOCK RD

HIGHWAY MUNICIPAL ROADS REGIONAL ROADS LOCAL ROADS STAGE 1 STUDY AREA WEST OF FOUNTAIN STREET MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY

ST B

REGION OF WATERLOO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

DETAILED SUBWATERSHED STUDY AREA

WATER BODIES

AN D

WETLANDS

RD E

RE EK

Cam bridge SALTMAN DR.

Y HW

OR TC

EE P

IBU TA RY

AIL

UPPER FREEPORT CREEK WETLAND COMPLEX PSW FREEPORT ESKER ANSI WETLAND GRCA WETLAND "A" GRCA WETLAND "B" MAPLE GROVE WETLAND COMPLEX PSW LINEAR GRAND RIVER FLOODPLAIN WETLAND LOWER FREEPORT CREEK WETLAND COMPLEX

BE AN

ALLENDALE RD

TE K IN G S

WA LTE R

STREAMS

BANAT RD

RIV ER

YP AS S

125

250 Meters

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

The Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES) provides a standard system of wetland evaluation where results can be reviewed and shared between relevant agencies such as the MNR and Conservation Authorities. OWES divides wetland values into four components: Biological, Social, Hydrological, and Special Features. These four components are further subdivided into subcomponents, attributes and sub-attributes. Relevant wetland information is ascribed points according to predefined numerical values in the OWES manual. Thus, relevant wetland information is evaluated and scored on a numerical basis, allowing for a final relative score for each of the major components and for a final total score. The maximum number of points a wetland can receive in any one of the four main components is 250, and an individual wetland can score up to 1000 points. An evaluated wetland is considered to be a Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) if: 1. The wetland achieves a score of 200 points in either the Biological component or the Special Features component, or 2. The wetland achieves a total score of 600 points or more.

The MNR and the GRCA both set minimum size criteria for wetlands and wetland complexes to be evaluated under OWES. In general, wetlands or wetland complexes smaller than 2 ha in total are not evaluated (GRCA, 20051, GRCA, 20052; MNR, 1994), and individual wetlands less than 0.5 ha are not included in a wetland complex (GRCA, 20051). However in recognition of the relative rarity of wetlands on the Southern Ontario landscape and the value of smaller wetlands to local wildlife and hydrology, wetlands below the minimum size criteria can be evaluated granted that a rationale is provided by the wetland evaluator or a governing agency (MNR, 1994). At the time of the OWESâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s development, aerial photography was not to modern standards and as such the minimum size criteria of 0.5 is an artifact of poor aerial photography (pers. comm., Steve Varga, MNR). One wetland in the north east portion of the Study Area, a swamp contained within the Maple Grove Wetland Complex, had been recently evaluated as part of the Hespeler West Subwatershed Study (PEIL, 2004). Accordingly, this wetland was not evaluated as part of this study. Based on air photo interpretation, it does not appear that wetlands are present in areas where property access was not obtained (see Figure D6). For the purposes of this study, all previously unevaluated wetlands were evaluated.

Page 157

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

3.7.4.2 Results Within the general subwatershed study area a total of four (4) wetlands, including two (2) wetland complexes, were evaluated. Wetland field notes were completed on August 4th and 5th, 2011. In addition, all but one (the Linear Grand River Floodplain wetland) of the evaluated wetlands were visited in the spring, summer, and fall months in concert with other biological investigations including but not limited to botanical inventories, breeding bird studies, and amphibian surveys conducted by Aquafor Beech Limited and Dillon Consulting Limited staff. Two (2) wetland community types, marshes and swamps, were observed in the study area. Six (6) of the seven (7) wetlands evaluated during this study are deemed to be non-provincially significant wetlands. The Upper Freeport Creek Wetland complex, comprised of four wetlands, qualified for PSW status due to the presence of Special Features. The status of the wetland has been confirmed by the MNR. Further discussion about each wetland evaluated within the general subwatershed study area is found below. Linear Grand River Floodplain Wetland (ELC Polygon A3) This linear palustrine swamp feature contained abundant white willow (Salix alba), and also contained Black Walnut, Green Ash and Manitoba Maple. Herbaceous species most commonly occurring in the lower vegetation layers included ground cover species like Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), Stinging Nettle (Urtica dioica), Turtlehead (Chelone glabra), Cut-leaved Water-horehound (Lycopus americanus), Spotted Joe-pye-weed (Eupatorium maculatum), Spotted Touch-me-not, Wild Mint (Mentha arvensis). Reed Canary Grass was also present in the ground layer. One species of Special Concern, the Rusty Blackbird (Euphagus carolinus) and one regionally rare species, Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), were observed in this wetland. Other wildlife species observed included House Wren (Troglodytes aedon), White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus), Northern Leopard Frog (Rana pipiens) and American Toad (Bufo americanus). Immature American toads were observed in abundance indicating breeding for this species within or directly adjacent to the wetland unit. As this wetland provides habitat for a species at risk that favours edge habitats (Rusty Blackbird), no specific enhancement works/plantings are recommended at this time.

Page 158

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Lower Freeport Creek Wetland Complex (ELC Polygons B12, B14-23, 25, B27) Located in the floodplain of the Grand River south of the Walter Bean Trail and at the lower reaches of Freeport Creek, the Lower Freeport Creek Wetland complex is comprised of two wetlands. The largest of the two is a 3.39 ha palustrine wetland consisted of several wetland habitat types including swamp, marsh, and open water types. Hydrologic inputs consisted of overland flow and temporary inputs during flood events associated with the Grand River. The wetland discharged directly to the Grand River via the Walter Bean Trail Tributary. Regionally rare species found in this wetland included: • • • • •

One-seeded bur cucumber Carpenter's square Small white water lily Freshwater cordgrass Great blue heron

Further details regarding the above listed species are found in Section 3.7.2.2. The wetland provides fish habitat for most of the year. During spring flooding, the wetland likely functions as a spawning area for pike (Esox lucius) (Art Timmerman, pers. com 2012). During spring 2011, the majority of the wetland was flooded. By late summer, only two shallow open water pools containing numerous carp (Cyprinus carpio) remained (see inset photo). Several fur-bearers were observed in the wetland including muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), mink, and raccoon (Procyon lotor). Of note is the presence of an osprey (Pandion haliaetus) nest approximately 20m from the wetland. The nest was located atop a hydro tower, with a second nest located on a hydro tower across the Grand River in Schneider Park. At the time of field investigations, an osprey was observed feeding on fish from the Grand River. During flooded conditions, the possibility exists that osprey could also use the wetland as a feeding area. Habitat enhancement opportunities include garbage and debris removal from the willow swamp. Spring floodwaters have deposited a number of items such as old docks, solvent containers, plastic bottles, scrap metal, and miscellaneous trash in the willow swamp section of the wetland. Fish passage and wetland health would benefit greatly from such removals. In addition, woody plantings along the outer

Page 159

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 edges of ELC Polygons B12, B20, and B21 would increase the amount of woody cover on the periphery of the wetland and increase habitat value for wildlife. As mentioned above, opportunity to connect the wetland with other wooded areas nearby should be explored. At the time of fieldwork, construction activities were taking place near and under the Highway 8 Bridge over the Grand River. Replanting disturbed areas with woody vegetation will increase the linkage potential of this area, and could aid in linking the wetland with other habitat south of Highway 8, including Grandview Woods. The smaller wetland was originally planned to be evaluated under the assumption that it was part of a wetland unit located south of Highway 8 as mapped by the GRCA. Field investigations revealed that the wetland south of Highway 8 no longer exists; reed canary grass was the dominant vegetation type, and accessory vegetation consisted mostly of upland species such as common milkweed, trailing crown vetch (Coronilla varia), and Canada goldenrod. Thus, the total wetland area, located along the channel of Freeport Creek from the Grand River Garden Village to just before Highway 8, is 0.27 ha. At the time of the evaluation, the creek running through the wetland was dry save for select low-lying areas. The wetland was split into two community types: a Manitoba maple swamp and a reed canary grass meadow marsh. Amphibians were not observed in this wetland, though Aquafor Beech Limited staff did encounter red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) and mink (Mustela vison). The marshy section of this wetland would benefit from removal of fill deposited long ago and woody plantings. Currently, it appears that previously excavated material from the constructed channel was placed directly adjacent to the north side of the channel. Fill should be graded to a 5:1 slope outward from the channel. Woody plantings on both sides of the channel should aim to connect the swampy portion of the wetland with a cultural woodland south of the channel and the larger wetland to the north. Freeport Esker ANSI Wetland (ELC Polygon B7) Despite the wetlandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s small size (0.17 ha), Aquafor Beech Limited staff evaluated the Freeport Esker ANSI wetland due to its value on the landscape as the only wetland in a portion of the Freeport Esker Earth Science Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) isolated from other natural areas by roads and a railroad. The Freeport Esker ANSI consists of a single ridge esker (deposit of sand and gravel), that was deposited by meltwaters from ice moving out of the Lake Ontario basin (City of Kitchener, 2011).

Page 160

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Occupying low-lying areas and fed by surface water, the marshy section of this wetland was flooded to a maximum depth of approximately 45cm in the spring (inset photo) through to mid-summer, with the water table lowering to approximately 20 cm below ground level by September. Sections of swamp contained shallow turbid pools of water during the spring for a few weeks. Evidence of use by wildlife including direct observations, trails, tracks, nests, and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) scrapes were found during field visits. Due to the seasonal presence of water, the wetland does not contain fish habitat. Both green frog (Rana clamitans) and northern leopard frog (R. pipiens) were observed in this wetland; spring salamander survey results were negative. It is likely that amphibians living in the portion of the Freeport Esker ANSI that was contained within the detailed study area rely on the wetland and the ditch parallel to the CPR tracks. Mammals such as white-tailed deer and coyote (Canis latrans) that use the wetland are able to access other natural areas north of the railway track, though Maple Grove Road, King Street, and Highway 8 pose barriers to all terrestrial wildlife movement with the exception of avian species. As the wetland was surrounded by natural vegetation to the extent possible, no specific enhancements for this wetland are recommended. Upper Freeport Creek Wetland Complex (ELC Polygons D2, D6-D8a, D9, D11-D13, D15, D16, D18, D22, D26-D27) The Upper Freeport Creek Wetland Complex is comprised of five wetlands. At just over 18 hectares in size, this wetland complex is the largest wetland within the subwatershed study area. As mentioned above, the wetland is a PSW. The largest of the four wetlands found in the Upper Freeport Creek Wetland Complex (inset photo) is also a stormwater management (SWM) facility (Pond 130). In general, SWM facilities are not assessed as wetlands, but in light of the diversity of habitats within the wetland and its use by

Page 161

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 flora and fauna, the area was assessed using the criteria of the OWES. Prior to the areaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s use as a SWM facility, areas presently inundated once consisted of pasture, upland forest, meadow, swamp, and the Freeport Creek Channel (LGL, 2005; Howes-Jones, 2003; Walter-Fedy, 1999). Background information suggests that a portion of the land now contained within the wetlands was seasonally wet, allowing for the formation of a silver maple dominated vegetation community and excluding farming from 50 m from either side of the channel (LGL, 2005; Walter-Fedy, 1999). Historic air photos from 1951 and 1983 clearly indicate the presence of standing water and wetland vegetation types (Figure 3.7.3). In sum, some of the historical areas currently occupied by the wetland/SWM facility likely would have met the definition of wetland under OWES (e.g. silver maple swamp) while others may have not (e.g. upland forest). The area surrounding the channel of Freeport Creek, dependent on the amount of disturbance present and yearly conditions, have potential to have met the OWES criteria for designation as a wetland. Other areas, such as the previously extant silver maple dominated community (Polygon D18, refer to Appendix D), would likely have met the OWES criteria for designation as a wetland. Existing conditions observed by Aquafor Beech Limited corroborate evidence that silver maple was present in the same area described by LGL (2005). Areas such as the upland forest community, pasture land, and meadow likely did not meet the OWES criteria for designation as a wetland. It is the opinion of Aquafor Beech Limited that, provided that agricultural activities did not occur within these areas, the direction of stormwater to the area in question greatly increased the area occupied by wetland. Figure 3.7.3: Spring air photo from 1951 and 1983 showing wet areas (generally darker with different texture) in the area now occupied by the Upper Freeport Creek Wetland Complex.

This wetland facility received over 200 points in the Special Features category of the OWES for features such as rarity on the landscape, providing habitat for locally significant species, providing winter cover for wildlife, waterfowl breeding, and fish habitat.

Page 162

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Regionally rare species located within this wetland include: • Small yellow lady’s slipper • Cardinal flower • Columbia water meal • Yellow water buttercup • Pied-Billed Grebe (area sensitive)

• • • •

Sora (area sensitive) Swamp Sparrow (area sensitive) Common Moorhen (area sensitive) Great Blue Heron

Other rare species located within this wetland include: • •

Snapping turtle (ranked as Special Concern nationally and provincially) Western Chorus Frog (nationally Threatened)

Further details regarding the above listed species are found in Sections 3.7.2.2 and 3.7.5.5. Hydrological inputs come from overland flow, outflow from the adjacent SWM pond on the Waterloo Regional Operations Center property, stormwater from Challenger Motor Freight, the Camrock SWM pond, stormwater from the Region of Waterloo Emergency Medical Services property, and from a ditch located between the Challenger Motor Freight and the Regional Police Headquarters. Semi-permanent flow from upstream Freeport Creek also contributes water to the wetland/SWM facility. The wetland is physically divided into two sections by a 3 m high earthen berm that functions much as a beaver dam would. Water is impounded behind the berm and flows between the two wetland sections via culverts (one low-flow culvert and one overflow culvert) imbedded within the berm. In 2011 woody debris had collected at the largest overflow culvert, restricting downstream flows. At the downstream end of the culvert water flows across a concrete pad and through gabion baskets to the channel of Freeport Creek. Upstream of the aforementioned wetland, four distinct wetlands are located on the Père-René-DeGalinée Secondary School property. The first, located in the northwest corner of the property, was a shallow palustrine marsh dominated by reed canary grass. This 0.24 ha wetland receives hydrologic inputs from overland flow; no evidence of groundwater seepage was identified during field visits. Common species such as northern leopard frog and red-winged blackbird were observed using this wetland. The second wetland in the complex consisted of a cattail marsh and a Freeman’s maple swamp located northwest of Maple Grove Road. Hydrologic inputs to this wetland included a ditch from the parking lot of the school and inputs from the SWM ponds south east of Maple Grove Road. Species observed in the wetland included red-winged blackbird, northern leopard frog, brook stickleback (Culaea inconstans), gray catbird (Dumetella carolinensis), and song sparrow (Melospiza melodia). Given the adjacent natural and semi-natural vegetation, it is likely that terrestrial wildlife move between the two wetlands. When the palustrine marsh is flooded in the spring, it is possible that fish could travel between both wetlands via Freeport Creek. The third is a small shallow marsh functioning as the headwaters to a small tributary that meets up with the main branch of Freeport Creek. At the time of surveys, Northern Leopard Frog was observed in this wetland. Hydrologic inputs to this wetland include overland flow.

Page 163

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Lastly, a 1.02 ha wetland (inset photo) is located in a corner between the Waterloo Regional Operations Center and the CPR tracks. Hydrologic inputs to the wetland include overland flow from adjacent lands and seasonal flooding from the adjacent ditch to the west. Field observations in 2011 put the main entry point of overland flow at UTM E549087, N4807111. Several regionally rare species were observed in this wetland, including: • White spring cress • Rattlesnake manna grass • Small yellow lady’s slipper orchid • Eastern cottonwood • White spruce • American redstart

Further details regarding the above listed species are found in Section 3.7.2.2. Common amphibian species such as northern leopard frog and green frog were also observed in this wetland and are discussed further in Section 3.7.5. Due to the locations of existing development, enhancement areas are limited to the northern and western edge of the small wetland nearest the railroad. Buffer plantings, as discussed in Section 4.1.5, will connect the wetland to natural areas to the west in addition to enhancing the connection to the adjacent woodland. Of the two options, greater priority should be placed on enhancing the connection with the woodland. Staff noted that the woodland functions as a wildlife movement corridor between the Regional Operation Centre and Railroad Wetland and the larger Wetland/SWM facility to the north. Restoration works in the largest wetland within the complex should include the removal of the gabion basket channel bed to allow for fish passage. Buffer plantings along the channel of Freeport Creek downstream from the earthen berm are also recommended as these plantings will aid in cooling the water originating from the upstream marsh. Enhancement plantings along the western edge of wooded ELC Polygons D4 and D5 would strengthen the connection between the largest wetland in the Upper Freeport Creek Wetland Complex and the wetland and woodland areas to the south. Significant areas of this wetland are dominated by invasive species. The feasibility of removing aggressive invasive species, such as common reed (Phragmites australis), should be explored. This wetland complex provides habitat for a large amount of amphibians such as northern leopard frog, green frog, and Western chorus frog. Buffer plantings consisting of native evergreen trees, such as

Page 164

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Eastern white cedar (Thuja occidentalis) can be planted in a staggered fashion. The purpose of evergreen plantings is to block artificial light from entering the wetland and potentially altering the foraging and reproductive behavior of amphibians (Wise, 2007; Longcore & Rich, 2004). Specific buffer recommendations are found in Section 4.1.5. The wetland enhancement recommendations outlined above are summarized in Table 3.7.2, below.

Wetland

Table 3.7.2: Summary Table of Wetland Enhancement Recommendations Summary of Enhancement Recommendations

Linear Grand River Floodplain Wetland

•

None. Species at risk present in the wetland favor current habitat conditions.

•

Removal of garbage and debris

•

Woody plantings to increase linkage potential and habitat value

•

Fill removal and channel rehabilitation

•

Install plantings to connect two wetlands within the complex with each other and with the nearby cultural woodland

Freeport Esker ANSI Wetland

•

None. Wetland is surrounded by natural areas.

Upper Freeport Creek Wetland Complex

•

Enhance connection with adjacent linear woodland

•

Removal of fish barriers (gabion baskets)

•

Buffer plantings along exposed riparian areas

•

Invasive species removal

•

Amphibian-friendly buffer plantings

Lower Freeport Creek Wetland Complex

3.7.4.3 GRCA Wetland Policy The Grand River Conservation Authority’s Wetland Policy (GRCA, 2003) is based on four guiding principles: • Wetlands are critical to sustaining surface and groundwater quality and quantity and therefore, essential to the well-being of humans and all other forms of life in the Grand River watershed. • Wetlands are core components of the natural heritage system of the Grand River watershed. • Wetlands will be managed on a watershed and subwatershed basis. • Wetland loss will be avoided. All wetlands and their associated areas of interference are regulated by the Grand River Conservation Authority under the Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alteration to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation (Ontario Regulation 150/06). It is recognized in the document “Policies for the Administration for the Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation” (GRCA, 2009) that in limited circumstances, development may be permitted within certain wetlands. All wetlands within the Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study Area have been assessed using the criteria provided in Policies 8.4.4 and 8.4.5.The results of the analysis are detailed below in Table 3.7.4.3.

Page 165

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Table 3.7.4.3: Analysis of Wetlands Against Relevant Criteria in GRCA’s Wetland Policy (2009)

Size Wetland Name

Upper Freeport Creek Wetland Complex Lower Freeport Creek Wetland Complex Freeport Esker ANSI Wetland Maple Grove Wetland

Natural or Artificial

<0.5 ha

<2.0 ha

≥2.0 ha

Both

Natural

GRCA Wetland A

Natural

GRCA Wetland B

Natural

Part of a Designated Natural Heritage Feature, Significant Woodland, or Hazard Lands

* *

Fish Habitat

Habitat for Provincially or Regionally Significant Species

Part of an Ecological Corridor or Linkage

Groundwater Recharge or Discharge Area

Eligibility for Development under GRCA Policy

Grand River Valley

Possible

Likely not Significant

Bog or Fen

Natural

Linear Grand River Floodplain Wetland

PSW

Located in a Floodplain or Riparian Community

* * *

Likely

Grand River Valley

†

Likely not significant

Possible – subject to a site specific EIS

†The ecological functionality of the identified linkage in which the GRCA Wetland B in encompassed may be revisited and assessed, particularly in a post-development scenario. The presence of the wetland is a likely attractant to wildlife using the corridor, thus under the present scenario, the wetland should be considered a part of the east-west corridor along the rail tracks. A well-worn deer track (the path of which is likely aided by fencing) between the forested ANSI and the rail track runs parallel to Highway 8, swinging north towards GRCA Wetalnd B to the rail track. See Section 9.1 for further discussion.

Page 166

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

3.7.5 FAUNA (I.E. WILDLIFE INVENTORIES) Altogether a total of 78 wildlife species were recorded from the study area, including 9 amphibians, 4 reptiles, 82 birds, 13 mammals, 6 odonates, and 5 lepidopterans (Appendix D). Results of wildlife surveys are described in greater detail below. Incidental wildlife sightings were also recorded.

3.7.5.1 Amphibians Methodology Vernal Pool Surveys To assess the presence of Jefferson Salamander (Ambystoma jeffersonianum) Aquafor Beech Limited completed salamander surveys (i.e. trapping) at seven suitable breeding sites (primarily vernal pools) within the study area (Figure 3.7.4). The survey methodology was developed in consultation with the MNR prior to the commencement of surveys. Surveys were conducted over four nights during the first spring rains in April, 2011. Table 3.7.3 provides the dates and times of all salamander surveys. Depending on the size of the pond, between one and four square mesh traps were set in the afternoon or early evening at each site. Aquafor Beech Limited staff ensured that a portion of each trap remained above the waterline. Traps were checked the following morning and no trap was left in the water for more than 24 hours. In accordance with MNR requirements, Aquafor Beech Limited requested a Wildlife Scientific Collectorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Authorization to complete salamander surveys; Authorization 1062027 was issued on March 21, 2011. Salamander surveys were also authorized under Wildlife Animal Care Committee Protocol Number 11-243 and Permit GU-B-010-11 issued under Section 17(2)(b) of the Endangered Species Act (2007).

Page 167

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Table 3.7.3: Salamander surveys completed by Aquafor Beech Limited. Pond Number

Date/Time Traps Set

Date/Time Traps Checked

Overnight Temperature (Ë&#x161;C)

April 4, 2011; 15:41-15:48

April 5, 2011; 11:28-11:40

April 8, 2011; 12:15-12:20

April 9, 2011; 8:37-8:42

April 11, 2011; 12:58-13:05

April 12, 2011; 10:17-10:19

April 4, 2011; 15:56-16:02

April 5, 2011; 11:47-11:50

April 8, 2011; 12:31-12:40

April 9, 2011; 8:23-8:31

April 11, 2011; 13:13-13:25

April 12, 2011; 10:36-10:31

April 4, 2011; 16:04-16:09

April 5, 2011; 11:06-11:14

April 8, 2011; 12:52-12:58

April 9, 2011; 8:08-8:15

April 11, 2011; 13:32-13:41

April 12, 2011; 10:39-10:46

April 4, 2011; 17:27-17:36

April 5, 2011; 10:08-10:29

April 8, 2011; 13:30-13:40

April 9, 2011; 9:07-9:17

April 11, 2011; 14:11-14:27

April 12, 2011; 11:06-11:16

April 8, 2011; 14:20-14:30

April 9, 2011; 10:26-10:38

April 11, 2011; 15:03-15:19

April 12, 2011; 12:13-12:33

April 16, 2011; 16:50-15:59

April 17, 2011; 9:55-10:27

April 8, 2011; 15:50-16:23

April 9, 2011; 11:36-11:58

April 11, 2011; 16:24-16:39

April 12, 2011; 13:29-13:40

April 16, 2011: 17:25-17:33

April 17, 2011; 11:05-11:18

April 8, 2011; 16:36-16:55

April 9, 2011; 11:18-12:27

April 11, 2011; 15:51-16:13

April 12, 2011; 13:17-14:03

April 16, 2011; 17:05-17:15

April 17, 2011; 11:41-11:52

Page 168

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Calling Amphibian Surveys Aquafor Beech Limited staff selected seven monitoring locations for amphibian calling surveys (Table 3.7.4): Table 3.7.4 Amphibian Calling Survey Stations Station Name

Description

UTM Location

Small stormwater management pond behind Region of Waterloo building

549238E, 4807238 N

Stormwater management facility, ELC polygon D10

549362 E, 4807493 N

C D

Stormwater management facility, ELC polygon D10 Stormwater management facility, ELC polygon D15

549375 E, 4807527 N 549180 E, 4807833 N

ELC polygon C5/C6

549413 E, 4808930 N

F G

ELC polygon C5 ELC polygon B1

549450 E, 4808930 N 548697 E, 4806998 N

Figure 3.7.4 illustrates the location of monitoring locations A-G. Monitoring was conducted using the methods of the Marsh Monitoring Protocol (MMP) (Environment Canada, 2003). Three calling surveys were undertaken at all stations. Date selection and methodology followed the MMP. Night time air temperatures did not exceed 5Ë&#x161;C and survey dates were separated by at least 15 days. Surveys were conducted on still nights, typically during or immediately after rain. Parameters recorded during each survey include date, time, air temperature, wind speed, degree of cloud cover and level of precipitation. At each call survey station, the intensity and number of calling amphibians were measured and recorded using call level and abundance codes, as outlined in the MMP. Codes are as follows: Level 1: Calls are not simultaneous and calling individuals can be counted; Level 2: Some calls are simultaneous but individual calls are distinguishable; Level 3: Calls are continuous and overlapping.

Page 169

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Results Vernal Pool Surveys Over the collection period, one Spotted Salamander (Ambystoma maculatum, inset photo), four Green Frogs (Lithobates clamitans) and three Northern Leopard Frogs (Lithobates pipiens) were captured. All individuals were released at their location of capture unharmed. The results of the surveys are detailed in Table 3.7.5.

Calling Amphibian Surveys Aquafor Beech Limited staff completed three surveys at each of the 11 survey stations between April 28, 2011 and June 21, 2011. The results of the surveys are detailed in Table 3.7.6.

Page 170

D NK

Woolwich

IN ST N FOUNTA

E RIV

A RB

EAST SIDE LAND MESP AND COMMUNITY PLAN FREEPORT CREEK AND TRIBUTARY TO THE GRAND SUBWATERSHED STUDY

T H RD KOSSU

FIGURE 3.7.4 REPTILE AND AMPHIBIAN SURVEYS

RIV E

RI V

Kitchener

RO AD

SE GM EN TA

ROAD SEGME NT B

PA SS

MIDDLE BL OC K RD

HIGHWAY MUNICIPAL ROADS REGIONAL ROADS LOCAL ROADS STAGE 1 STUDY AREA WEST OF FOUNTAIN STREET

ALL

PRIME INDUSTRIAL STRATEGIC RESERVE (SERVICED)

[ ´ E ´ [ [F ´ [ ´

EE K

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY REGION OF WATERLOO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT WATER BODIES

D TR

ALLENDALE RD

IB U

TA R

[ ´ [ ´

Y HW

ROAD MORTALITY SURVEYS CALLING AMPHIBIAN SURVEYS VERNAL POOL SURVEYS

[ ´

[ ´ R

V O R G

Cambridge R

[ ´ [G ´

AD O R T EN M G SE

SALTMAN DR.

[ ´

[´ 1 C [´ [ ´ ´ 3 [ [ ´

A IL

BANAT

KING ST E

RIV E

STREAMS

250

500 Meters

Date: June 12, 2013

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Table 3.7.5: Species captured during Aquafor Beech Limited salamander surveys.

Species Captured

Date of Capture

Observer

Pond Number

Spotted Salamander

April 5, 2011

Chris Parent

UTM Location (NAD83) 549315E

Number of Individuals Captured 1

4807538N Green Frog

April 5, 2011

Chris Parent

549315E

4807538N Green Frog

April 5, 2011

Chris Parent

549224E

4807504N Green Frog

April 5, 2011

Chris Parent

548681E

4807007N Northern Leopard Frog

Green Frog

Northern Leopard Frog

April 12, 2011

Chris Lorenz Lori Knight

549293E

4807558N 548658E

4807034N 549067E

4807640N 548938E 4807632N

Page 172

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Survey Date

April 28, 2011

June 1, 2011

June 21, 2011

Table 3.7.6: Amphibian calling surveys conducted in 2011. Temperature Wind (Beaufort Survey Station Survey Time (Ë&#x161;C) Scale) A 21:21 11 1 B 00:31 11 1 C 24:23 11 1 D 22:46 11 1 E 23:36 11 1 F 23:40 11 1 G 20:45 11 1 A 00:15 17 1 B 23:39 17 1 C 23:49 17 1 D 23:03 17 1 E 22:25 17 1 F 22:30 17 1 G 21:40 17 1 A 21:35 10 4 B 21:19 10 4 C 21:25 10 4 D 20:55 10 4 E 21:45 10 4 F 00:16 10 4 G 00:45 10 4

Cloud Cover (%) 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Five species were detected from the seven amphibian call survey stations (Table 3.7.7). Species include Spring Peeper (Pseudacris crucifer), Western Chorus Frog (Pseudacris triseriata), Gray Treefrog (Hyla versicolor), Green Frog (Rana clamitans) and American Toad (Bufo americanus). All five species are considered to be common and secure in Ontario. However, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) recently designated the population of Western Chorus Frog that includes the study area (the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Canadian Shield population) as Threatened (COSEWIC 2010). Further information regarding Species at Risk can be found in Section 3.7.5.5.

Page 173

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Survey Date

April 28, 2011

June 1, 2011

June 21, 2011

Table 3.7.7: Species detected during 2011 calling surveys Survey Call Level Approximate Location of Calling Species Detected Station Code Amphibians Greater than 100 m west of Station A, likely A Spring Peeper 3 in ELC polygon D6 Greater than 100 m west of Station B, likely B Spring Peeper 3 in ELC polygon D6 Greater than 100 m northwest of Station C, C Spring Peeper 3 likely in ELC polygon D13 Greater than 100 m southeast of Station D, American Toad 1 likely in or near ELC polygon D15/D15a/D6 Gray Treefrog 1 ~50 m from Station D D Spring Peeper 2 ~40 m from Station D Western Chorus Frog 1 ~40 m from Station D E No calling amphibians Greater than 100 m southwest of Station F, American Toad 1 likely in ELC polygon C5 F Greater than 100 m southwest of Station F, Spring Peeper 3 likely in ELC polygon C5 G Spring Peeper 3 <20 m from Station G A No calling amphibians Gray Treefrog 1 ~75 m from Station B B Green Frog 2 ~ 30-75 m from Station B C Green Frog 2 ~30 m from Station C Greater than 100 m south to southwest of Gray Treefrog 1 Station D, likely in or near ELC polygon D D15/D15a/D6 Green Frog 1 ~20 m to ~75 m from Station D E No calling amphibians F No calling amphibians G No calling amphibians A No calling amphibians B Green Frog 1 ~5-25 m from Station B C Green Frog 1, 2 ~10-100 m from Station C Greater than 100 m from Station D, likely in D Gray Treefrog 1 or near ELC polygon D15/D15a/D6 E No calling amphibians F No calling amphibians G No calling amphibians -

Page 174

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

3.7.5.2 Reptiles Two complementary survey techniques were used to conduct surveys for reptiles within the general subwatershed study area: (i) road mortality surveys and (ii) visual surveys of suitable habitat. In accordance with MNR requirements, Aquafor Beech Limited requested a Wildlife Scientific Collectorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Authorization to complete the above surveys; Authorization 1062027 was issued on March 21, 2011. Methodology Road Mortality Surveys Aquafor Beech Limited staff selected three road segments for reptile road mortality surveys: (1) approximately 2.0 km of Riverbank Drive, from just south of the Fairway Road extension to Allendale Road (hereafter, Road Segment A) (2) approximately 1.5 km of Middle Block Road between Riverbank Drive and Fountain Street (hereafter, Road Segment B) (3) approximately 350 m of laneway extending from Sportsworld Drive to the Steed and Evans maintenance facility (hereafter, Road Segment C) Figure 3.7.4 illustrates the location of Road Segments A, B and C. Reptile Natural Cover Surveys Aquafor Beech Limited staff conducted preliminary reconnaissance-level surveys of the subwatershed study area to identify potential sites for the placement of artificial shelters (i.e. cover boards). Due to the abundance of natural and anthropogenic cover, Aquafor Beech Limited determined that cover boards were not necessary to conduct successful reptile surveys. Accordingly, Aquafor Beech Limited staff completed reptile surveys by visually searching areas of suitable habitat throughout the subwatershed study area between September 20, 2011 and October 4, 2011. For each search period, Aquafor Beech Limited staff recorded the date, start time and end time. The air temperature, wind speed and degree of cloud cover were also recorded at the beginning and end of each search period (Table 3.7.8).

Page 175

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Results Reptile Road Mortality Surveys Aquafor Beech Limited staff conducted visual searches for reptiles (mainly snakes) by walking along Road Segments A, B and C three times between October 6, 2011 and October 18, 2011. As reptile activity is strongly influenced by ambient temperatures, surveys were conducted only when air temperatures were above 10°C. For each search period, Aquafor Beech Limited staff recorded the date, start time and end time. The air temperature, wind speed and degree of cloud cover were recorded at the beginning and end of each search period (Table 3.7.9). Table 3.7.8: Reptile surveys conducted by Aquafor Beech Limited. Survey Date

Survey Period

Temperature

Wind Speed (Beaufort Scale)

Cloud Cover

September 20, 2011

12:00 pm – 6:30 pm

18°C - 23°C

1-2

10% - 40%

September 22, 2011

10:45 am – 5:15 pm

19°C - 22°C

1-2

40% - 60%

September 25, 2011

11:45 am – 4:45 pm

22°C

2-4

60% - 80%

September 29, 2011

2:00 pm – 3:00 pm

15°C - 20°C

2-4

70% - 100%

October 4, 2011

1:15 am – 6:15 pm

18°C - 20°C

0-2

Table 3.7.9: Reptile road mortality surveys conducted by Aquafor Beech Limited.

Survey Date

Survey Period

Temperature

Wind Speed (Beaufort Scale)

Cloud Cover

October 6, 2011

5:00 pm – 6:45 pm

18°C - 21°C

0-2

October 11, 2011

5:00 pm – 7:00 pm

20°C - 23°C

1-2

70% - 90%

October 18, 2011

1:30 pm – 3:30 pm

13°C - 14°C

1-3

100%

Page 176

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Aquafor Beech Limited staff observed eight reptiles (all snakes) including one Eastern Milk Snake (Lampropeltis triangulum), five Eastern Garter Snakes (Thamnophis sirtalis) and two individuals that could not be identified (Table 3.7.10). All eight snakes had been hit by vehicles and were found dead. Table 3.7.10: Snakes located during Aquafor Beech Limited road mortality surveys.

Species Observed

Date of Location

Eastern Milk Snake

October 6, 2011

Eastern Garter Snake

October 6, 2011

Eastern Garter Snake

October 6, 2011

Eastern Garter Snake

October 6, 2011

Indeterminate

October 6, 2011

Eastern Garter Snake

October 11, 2011

Eastern Garter Snake

October 11, 2011

Indeterminate

October 11, 2011

UTM Location (NAD83) 548507 E 4809911 N 548449 E 4809336 N 548544 E 4810074 N 548507 E 4808493 N 548512 E 4808441 N 548505 E 4808458 N 548436 E 4809226 N 548434 E 4809240 N

Age Class

Approximate Snout-Vent Length (cm)

Adult

Juvenile

Indeterminate

Juvenile

Indeterminate

Page 177

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Reptile Natural Cover Surveys Aquafor Beech Limited staff located 13 reptiles, including 11 Eastern Garter Snakes and two Snapping Turtles (Chelydra serpentina). Aquafor Beech Limited staff also recorded incidental observations of dozens of amphibians, including RedBacked Salamander (Plethodon cinerus, inset photo), Gray Treefrog (Hyla versicolor), American Toad (Anaxyrus americanus), Northern Leopard Frog, Wood Frog (Lithobates sylvaticus) and Green Frog (Appendix D). Locations of all observed herpetofauna are shown in Figure 3.7.5

Page 178

D NK

Woolwich

IN ST N FOUNTA

E RIV

A RB

EAST SIDE LAND MESP AND COMMUNITY PLAN FREEPORT CREEK AND TRIBUTARY TO THE GRAND SUBWATERSHED STUDY

T H RD KOSSU

[T FIGURE 3.7.5 LOCATIONS OF OBSERVED REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS

RI V

Kitchener

RIV E

MIDDLE BL OC K RD

HIGHWAY MUNICIPAL ROADS REGIONAL ROADS LOCAL ROADS

[T ALL

PA SS

FF [[

EE K

STAGE 1 STUDY AREA WEST OF FOUNTAIN STREET

[ F

PRIME INDUSTRIAL STRATEGIC RESERVE (SERVICED) MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY

[SF [F

REGION OF WATERLOO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT WATER BODIES

RI VE

STREAMS

RED-BACKED SALAMANDER SNAPPING TURTLE WOOD FROG

PAINTED TURTLE

SALTMAN DR.

[T ´ F [F [SF EEK [F [[ T F F [ [F [FF [F F T [ F[ [ [¶ FS S [ [F [F[ [TF [F [F [F [F [F F F [ [F [F[F [F [F [S [F [F [S [F ´ [F [F [F[F [F [ F [ ´ [ F [F [F F [ [ [F´ ¶ [F [F [F [F ¶ [ [FF [F [SS[F [F F [ [S¶ [ [SF [ F [ [F F [F [SF [T [ [F TF [SF [[ [F [F [F [F [F F [F [

LEOPARD FROG

GREEN FROG

Y HW

F [F [

GRAY TREEFROG

[ F

GARTER SNAKE

AMERICAN TOAD

TA R

IB U

[T [S [F [F [F ¶ [ ´ [ ¶ [ [F

F [ F [

A IL

OBSERVED REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS LOCATION

ALLENDALE RD

RA ND

[F [ [F¶ [ F

KING ST E

BANAT

Cambridge

250

500 Meters

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

3.7.5.3 Avifaunal Surveys In total, 82 species of avifauna were observed within the Study Area. In recognition of the ecological importance of the Study Area on the landscape, several types of avifaunal surveys were conducted to assess the use of the Study Area by a variety of species. The methodology and results for each survey type are discussed below. For a complete annotated list of species encountered during surveys, see Appendix D. Methodology Raptor Wintering and Nest Survey Raptor wintering and nest surveys were completed by Dillon Limited staff on March 7th, 21st and 22nd 2011 and involved area searches of agricultural and wooded habitats within the study area and recording the presence or absence of stick nests. Stick nests observed were marked using a GPS unit. Any early season nesting activity or presence of birds in association with nests was recorded. Woodlots surveyed for raptors were numbered according to salamander survey mapping received from Aquafor Beech Limited, and a survey route is provided Figure 3.7.6. Red-shouldered Hawk and Woodpecker Survey A late spring survey for Red-shouldered Hawk and Woodpecker species was carried out in larger woodlands within the study area. Surveys were completed by Dillon Limited staff. Survey protocols used were adapted from those outlined in the MNR document Wildlife Monitoring Programs and Inventory Techniques for Ontario (Konze 1997). The survey was conducted in early May and involved 8 minute point counts in suitable habitats using a playback of a Red-shouldered Hawk vocalization. Surveys were conducted at 7 point counts on May 9th and 10th, 2011 between approximately 6:30 and 9:00 am. Survey locations are demonstrated in Figure 3.7.7. Breeding Bird Surveys Breeding bird surveys were conducted by Dillon Limited staff during two survey events in the study area on June 3rd and 5th and on July 5th and 6th, 2011, with a total of 18 person-hours spent documenting the breeding bird community. Surveys combined point counts with area search methodology, which followed the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas Guide for Participants (OBBA 2001), to develop an overall species list for the study area. Fifteen ten-minute non-fixed radius point counts were used to establish quantitative estimates of bird abundance in major habitat types of the study area. Point counts were sufficiently spaced so they did not overlap (i.e. 250m apart in forested habitats and 500 m apart in open habitats). For all point count locations, a GPS coordinate in NAD 83 was documented. Area searches were conducted by visiting each major habitat type during the breeding season, primarily between dawn and 5 hours after sunrise. Breeding bird survey locations completed as part of the baseline information for the Subwatershed Study are shown in Figure 3.7.8. Additional avifaunal surveys completed in 2012 by Dillon Limited targeting Species at Risk are detailed in Appendix D.

Page 180

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Crepuscular Bird Survey Evening breeding season surveys conducted by Dillon Limited staff were completed in the study area for bird species most active during crepuscular time periods. Surveys consisted of point count methodology on May 13th and July 5th 2011 from approximately 9:00 pm to midnight. Surveys occurred at 10 point counts throughout the study area focusing on the preferred mix of open country and wooded habitats, as well as wetland habitats. Survey locations are shown in Figure 3.7.9. Fall Waterfowl Staging Survey A fall staging survey, completed by Dillon Limited staff, was conducted to determine use of the Grand River in the study area by migrating waterfowl. Area searches were conducted along accessible stretches of the Grand River during late afternoon and early evening. Three survey events occurred on October 30th, November 15th and 21st, 2011. Survey locations are demonstrated in Figure 3.7.10. Overwintering Bald Eagle Surveys Aquafor Beech Limited staff selected three survey points for Bald Eagle surveys: 1) House along Riverbank Drive, south of Middle Block Road. Survey was completed at the edge of the forest (548362 E, 4808790 N). 2) Schneider Park (King Street East) (547669 E, 4807893 N) 3) End of Zeller Drive (548416 E, 4810282 N) The location of Survey Points 1-4 are illustrated in Figure 3.7.6. Results Raptor Wintering and Nest Survey During roadside surveys to assess wintering raptors in the study area in early March, several red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) were observed. A total of three active red-tailed hawk nests were observed during late March nest surveys, as described below. The locations of Nests 1-3 are shown in Figure 3.7.6. Nest 1 Nest 1 was situated on a steel hydro tower within the Freeport Esker ANSI that runs parallel to Highway 8, within ELC Polygon B9 (inset photo taken in May with nest, left, and male hawk, right). A red-tailed hawk was observed on the nest and was agitated during the survey. In addition, two redtailed hawks were observed flying over this nest from a distance during a later part of the survey. The pair of hawks was observed in the same location by Aquafor Beech Limited staff during botanical, wetland, and other ecological surveys

Page 181

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 through 2011. Evidence suggests that these hawks are a breeding pair. Nest 2 Nest 2 was located in an ash tree in the deciduous riparian hedgerow, referred to as ELC Polygon C3. A single red-tailed hawk was present and agitated during the survey and was later observed on the nest. Nest 3 Nest 3 was located in a large ash in an open grove of deciduous trees found to the west of the École secondaire Père-René-de-Galinée at 450 Maple Grove Road (ELC Polygon D23). A single agitated redtailed hawk was present and observed on the nest during the survey. It is believed the same hawk was observed during wetland evaluations in August 2011. Other nests and raptor observations include: •

A smaller unoccupied stick nest, possibly a crow’s nest, was observed in a sugar maple in the same woodland as Nest 1 above.

•

An unoccupied possible crow’s nest was observed in a beech tree in the deciduous woodlot marked as salamander sampling station 7 (ELC Polygon C5 north).

•

In addition, a Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) was observed in Deer Yard 1, to the west of the north end of Winifred Street, Kitchener (Winifred Woods), though no nest was observed. A dead juvenile red-tailed hawk was observed in the east end of a coniferous plantation, no nest was observed.

Red-shouldered Hawk and Woodpecker Survey Red-shouldered Hawks were not detected during the early May survey event. Woodpecker species observed during this survey include: •

Downy Woodpecker (Picoides pubescens) observed between survey points 405 and 406 (1 individual); after survey point 407 (1 individual); at survey point 408 (1 individual); at survey point 410 (1 individual);

•

Hairy Woodpecker (Picoides villosus) observed at survey point 405 (1 individual);

•

Northern Flicker (Colaptes auratus) observed after survey point 406 (1 individual); observed at survey point 407 (1 individual); observed between survey points 408 and 409 (1 individual); observed at survey point 410 (1 individual); after survey point 411 (1 individual)

•

Red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus) observed between survey points 408 and 409 (1 individual); observed at survey point 409 (1 individual);

•

Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) observed at survey point 406 (fresh feeding evidence); observed after survey point 407 (1 individual). Survey locations are shown on Figure 3.7.7.

Page 182

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Crepuscular Bird Survey Only one bird species was observed during crepuscular surveys, with two individuals of American Woodcock (Scolopax minor) being observed on the May 12th survey, at crepuscular point count 1, Figure 3.7.9. Breeding Bird Survey A total of 70 bird species were observed during breeding season surveys in June and July including 3 Species at Risk. A summary list of all bird species encountered during breeding surveys has been compiled and is presented in Appendix D. Species at Risk are discussed in Section 3.7.5.4. Area Sensitive Birds Open country birds A total of 13 Area Sensitive Open County bird species were observed during breeding season surveys including: •

American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis) (total of 48 individuals observed, occurring in a variety of open habitats throughout the Study Area)

•

Bank swallow (Riparia riparia) (total of 5 individuals observed in association with open bird habitat 2, as well as agricultural land between breeding bird point counts 10 and 11)

•

Barn swallow (total of 35 individuals observed, locations of observations discussed above and mapped in Figure 3.7.12, associated with open bird habitats 1 and 2)

•

Brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) (total of 40 individuals observed, occurring in a variety of open habitats throughout the Study Area)

•

Bobolink (total of 3 individuals observed, locations of observations discussed above and mapped in Figure 3.7.12, associated with open bird habitat 1)

•

Cliff Swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota) (total of 40 individuals observed in a single feeding flock in agricultural land between breeding bird point counts 10 and 11)

•

Eastern Kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus) (total of 10 individuals observed, occurring in association with open bird habitats 1 and 2, as well as on the edge of agricultural land south west of forest bird habitats 2 and 3)

•

Eastern Meadowlark (total of 4 individuals observed, locations of observations discussed above and mapped in Figure 3.7.12, associated with open bird habitat 2)

•

Horned lark (Eremophila alpestris) (total of 10 individuals observed, this species was associated generally with agricultural land near point counts 4,5, 10 and 11)

•

Northern rough-winged swallow (Stelgidopteryx serripennis) (total of 12 individuals observed, with all but 2 being associated with open bird habitats 1 and 2; 2 birds were seen in agricultural land near point count 15)

•

Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis) (total of 21 individuals observed, this species occurred in open bird habitats 1 and 2, as well as in agricultural land near point counts 10, 11 and 15)

Page 183

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 •

Spotted Sandpiper (Actitis macularia) (total of 6 individuals observed, all in cropland south west of forest bird habitats 2 and 3)

•

Vesper Sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus) (total of 1 individuals observed in agricultural land between point counts 10 and 11)

In general, species diversity was similar between the two mapped open country bird habitats. In addition, several open country species occurred in agricultural cropland open country bird habitats are shown in Figure 3.7.11, active cropland was excluded as mapped open country bird habitat. Forest Birds A total of 8 Area Sensitive Forest bird species were observed during breeding season surveys including: •

American redstart (Setophaga ruticilla) (total of 13 individuals observed, this species was well distributed throughout the Study Area occurring in several woodlots of varying sizes)

•

Black-and-white warbler (Mniotilta varia) (total of 1 individual observed in forest bird habitat 6)

•

Brown Creeper (Certhia americana) (total of 1 individual observed in forest bird habitat 7)

•

Eastern Phoebe (Sayornis phoebe) (total of 3 individuals observed in edge habitat associated with forest bird habitats 1, and 2 with an individual also being observed removed from any forest habitat at point count 11)

•

Ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus) (total of 1 individual observed in forest bird habitat 2)

•

Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) (total of 3 individuals observed in forest bird habitats 1 and 7)

•

Red-breasted nuthatch (Sitta canadensis) (total of 1 individual observed in forest bird habitat 1)

•

Winter Wren (Troglodytes troglodytes) (total of 2 individuals observed in forest bird habitat 1)

Forest bird habitats are shown in Figure 3.7.11. The highest diversity of area sensitive forest birds was associated with forest bird habitat 1. Marsh Birds A total of 4 Area Sensitive Marsh bird species were observed during breeding season surveys including: •

Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) (total of 1 individual observed)

•

Pied-billed Grebe (Podilymbus podiceps) (total of 1 individuals observed)

•

Sora (Porzana carolina) (total of 5 individuals observed)

•

Swamp Sparrow (Melospiza georgiana) (total of 1 individual observed)

Marsh bird habitats are shown in Figure 3.7.11. Besides the osprey, which was observed along the Grand River downstream of the Highway 8 Bridge, all area sensitive marsh species were associated with the large wetland located adjacent to the Waterloo Region buildings and police headquarters. In addition, a total of 30 bird species considered Regional Conservation Priorities according to Couturier (1999) were observed during breeding surveys (see Appendix D).

Page 184

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Fall Waterfowl Staging Survey Waterfowl species observed during the fall staging survey include Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola), Common Merganser (Mergus merganser), Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) and Canada Goose (Branta canadensis). The most abundant species observed were Canada Goose (540 individuals observed over three surveys) and Mallard (162 individuals observed over three surveys). The other two waterfowl species were seen in low numbers with only 10 Bufflehead and 13 Common Merganser observed. Fall waterfowl staging and survey locations are illustrated in Figure 3.7.10. The reach of river between the King Street Bridge and Highway 8 Bridge had the most consistent occurrences of staging birds including groups of Canada Geese ranging from 20 to 80 individuals. Groups of Canada Geese of similar size were also observed on the reach of river found west of the River Bank Road - Middle Block Drive Junction. Groups of mallards were also observed at these locations but generally in smaller numbers with flocks up to 20 birds. Besides these two locations, small groups of ducks and geese (i.e. generally less than 10 individuals) were observed in various locations along the surveyed sections of river. Other species of note observed during fall waterfowl surveys include: •

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), a single adult was observed on November 21 flying over the Grand River approximately 500 m upstream of the King Street Bridge. Bald Eagle is listed as Special Concern under Ontario’s ESA.

•

Rusty Blackbird (Euphagus carolinus), five individuals were observed on October 30 in floodplain trees associated with the Linear Grand River Floodplain Wetland feature. Rusty Blackbird is listed as Special Concern under the Federal Species at Risk Act (SARA).

Locations of Bald Eagle and Rusty Blackbird sightings are shown in Figure 3.7.12.

Page 185

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Overwintering Bald Eagle Surveys Aquafor Beech Limited staff conducted three Bald Eagle surveys at each of the four Survey Points (Figure 3.7.6). Visual surveys for Bald Eagles (either in flight or perching) were completed early in the morning, in late February to mid-March (Table 3.7.11). The surveyors noted the presence/absence of ice cover on the Grand River. Aquafor Beech Limited did not observe any Bald Eagles (Table 3.7.12). Table 3.7.11: Bald Eagle Surveys Conducted by Aquafor Beech Limited. Wind Survey Temperature Cloud Cover Survey Date (Beaufort Precipitation Period (˚C) (%) Scale) February 25, 8:48 am – -1 1-3 100 Light snow 2011 10:56 am March 2, 7:32 am – -2 3-4 75-100 Light snow 2011 8:31 am March 13, 8:50 am – 0 1-3 95-100 None 2011 9:53 am

Table 3.7.12: Bald Eagle Survey, Observations Survey Bald Eagles Ice Cover on Survey Date Point Observed Grand River 1 No Partial February 25, 2011 2 No Partial 3 No Partial 1 No Partial March 2, 2011 2 No Partial 3 No Partial 1 No Partial March 13, 2011 2 No Open 3 No Open

Page 186

Woolwich

RIV

IN ST N FOUNTA

EAST SIDE LAND MESP AND COMMUNITY PLAN TH RD KOSSU

[ b

FREEPORT CREEK AND TRIBUTARY TO THE GRAND SUBWATERSHED STUDY

FIGURE 3.7.6 RAPTOR WINTERING AND NEST SURVEY

RIV E

RIV

RB A

NK DR

Kitchener

MIDDLE BLOC K RD

HIGHWAY MUNICIPAL ROADS REGIONAL ROADS LOCAL ROADS

[ b

STAGE 1 STUDY AREA WEST OF FOUNTAIN STREET PRIME INDUSTRIAL STRATEGIC RESERVE (SERVICED)

DA LE

RI VE TA R

BANAT

[ b

N [

FR EE P Y HW

RAPTOR WINTERING AND NEST SURVEY OVERWINTERING BALD EAGLE SURVEYS NEST

R O

R D

TC RE

NEST 1

SALTMAN DR.

IB U

NEST 2

ALLENDALE RD

[ b A IL

STREAMS

M AP

BA R

WATER BODIES

LT E

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY

NEST 3

REGION OF WATERLOO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

AL L

GR AN D

PA S

KING ST E

DR NK

BA ER

Cambridge

250

500 Meters

BA ER RIV

TA FOUN

IN ST

EAST SIDE LAND MESP AND COMMUNITY PLAN UT H

FREEPORT CREEK AND TRIBUTARY TO THE GRAND SUBWATERSHED STUDY

KOSS

FIGURE 3.7.7 RED-SHOLDERED HAWK AND WOOD PECKER SURVEY MAP

RIV ERB ANK

CRE EK RIV ERB ANK

Kitchener

MIDDLE BLOCK RD

[ b

408

HIGHWAY MUNICIPAL ROADS REGIONAL ROADS LOCAL ROADS

[ b

409

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY REGION OF WATERLOO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

STREAMS ALLENDALE RD

[ b RT C

RE E

SURVEY WALK PATH

[ b

410

[ b

Cambridge RD S RN E

[ b

405

[ b

407

SALTMAN DR.

406

SURVEYED LOCATION

FR EE

[ b

411 VE

IBU TA R

GR O

TR AIL

PRIME INDUSTRIAL STRATEGIC RESERVE (SERVICED)

MOHAWK RD

WATER BODIES

M AP

BE AN

STAGE 1 STUDY AREA WEST OF FOUNTAIN STREET

GR A

WA LTE R

SPEEDSVILLE RD

EEK

BANAT RD

PA S

LE CR

RIV ER

ALLEN DA

KING S

Woolwich

DR NK

250

500 Meters

BA ER RIV

TA FOUN

IN ST

EAST SIDE LAND MESP AND COMMUNITY PLAN UT H

FREEPORT CREEK AND TRIBUTARY TO THE GRAND SUBWATERSHED STUDY

KOSS

FIGURE 3.7.8 BREEDING BIRD SURVEY LOCATIONS

RIV ERB ANK

CRE EK RIV ERB ANK

Kitchener

MIDDLE BLOCK RD

[ b

HIGHWAY

[ b

MUNICIPAL ROADS REGIONAL ROADS

[ b

RIV E

BANAT RD

[ b FR EE

RT C

RE E

[ b

Cambridge

[ b

RD S

[ b

RN E

[ b

SALTMAN DR.

M AP

[ b

BREEDING BIRD SURVEY LOCATION SURVEY WALK PATH

[ b

IBU TA R

REGION OF WATERLOO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

GR O

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY

STREAMS

TR AIL

PRIME INDUSTRIAL STRATEGIC RESERVE (SERVICED)

MOHAWK RD

ALLENDALE RD

BE AN

STAGE 1 STUDY AREA WEST OF FOUNTAIN STREET

WATER BODIES

GR A

WA LTE R

PA S

CREE

ALLE NDAL E

SPEEDSVILLE RD

LOCAL ROADS

KING S

Woolwich

DR NK

[ b

[ b [ b

8 0

250

500 Meters

BA ER RIV

TA FOUN

IN ST

EAST SIDE LAND MESP AND COMMUNITY PLAN UT H

KOSS

FREEPORT CREEK AND TRIBUTARY TO THE GRAND SUBWATERSHED STUDY

DR RIV ERB ANK

CRE EK RIV ERB ANK

Kitchener

FIGURE 3.7.9 CREPUSCULAR SURVEY LOCATIONS MIDDLE BLOCK RD

[ b

408

HIGHWAY MUNICIPAL ROADS REGIONAL ROADS LOCAL ROADS

CR EE K

BANAT RD

PRIME INDUSTRIAL STRATEGIC RESERVE (SERVICED)

MOHAWK RD

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY REGION OF WATERLOO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

STREAMS

ALLENDALE RD

RE E

[ b

410

Cambridge

RN E

M AP

[ b

SALTMAN DR.

[ b RT C

CREPUSCULAR SURVEY LOCATION

406

[ b

411 VE

IBU TA R

GR O

FR EE

[ b

STAGE 1 STUDY AREA WEST OF FOUNTAIN STREET

WATER BODIES

TR AIL

SPEEDSVILLE RD

RIV ER BE AN

409

GR A

WA LTE R

[ b

PA S

AL LE ND AL E

KING S

Woolwich

DR NK

405

[ b

407

250

500 Meters

BA ER RIV

RIV ERB ANK

UT H

KOSS

FREEPORT CREEK AND TRIBUTARY TO THE GRAND SUBWATERSHED STUDY

Kitchener

FIGURE 3.7.10 FALL WATERFOWL STAGING SURVEY LOCATIONS

RIV ERB ANK

CRE EK

TA FOUN

IN ST

EAST SIDE LAND MESP AND COMMUNITY PLAN

MIDDLE BLOCK RD HIGHWAY MUNICIPAL ROADS REGIONAL ROADS

SPEEDSVILLE RD

RIV E

AL LE ND AL E

BANAT RD

CR EE K

IBU TA R

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY REGION OF WATERLOO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

Cambridge SALTMAN DR.

RE E

RT C

GR O

FR EE

FALL WATERFOWL STAGING SURVEY LOCATION

RN E

TR AIL

PRIME INDUSTRIAL STRATEGIC RESERVE (SERVICED)

ALLENDALE RD

M AP

BE AN

MOHAWK RD

STREAMS

GR AN

WA LTE R

STAGE 1 STUDY AREA WEST OF FOUNTAIN STREET

WATER BODIES

PA S

LOCAL ROADS

KING S

Woolwich

DR NK

250

500 Meters

BA ER RIV

TA FOUN

IN ST

EAST SIDE LAND MESP AND COMMUNITY PLAN UT H

KOSS

FREEPORT CREEK AND TRIBUTARY TO THE GRAND SUBWATERSHED STUDY

DR RIV ERB ANK

CRE EK RIV ERB ANK

Kitchener

FIGURE 3.7.11 BIRD HABITATS MIDDLE BLOCK RD HIGHWAY MUNICIPAL ROADS REGIONAL ROADS

LE CR

4 BANAT RD

ND Y

MARSH BIRD HABITAT

3 PO

RT C

FOREST BIRD HABITAT

RE E

Cambridge RD RN E

SALTMAN DR.

FR EE

OPEN COUNTRY BIRD HABITAT

IBU TA R

REGION OF WATERLOO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT WATER BODIES

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY

GR O

TR AIL

MOHAWK RD

ALLENDALE RD

M AP

BE AN

STAGE 1 STUDY AREA WEST OF FOUNTAIN STREET

STREAMS

GR A

WA LTE R

LOCAL ROADS

EEK

RIV E

PA S

5 SPEEDSVILLE RD

ALLEN DA

KING S

Woolwich

DR NK

250

500 Meters

BA ER RIV

TA FOUN

IN ST

EAST SIDE LAND MESP AND COMMUNITY PLAN UT H

FREEPORT CREEK AND TRIBUTARY TO THE GRAND SUBWATERSHED STUDY

KOSS

FIGURE 3.7.12 AVIAN SPECIES AT RISK OBSERVATION LOCATIONS

RIV ERB ANK

CRE EK RIV ERB ANK

Kitchener

MIDDLE BLOCK RD HIGHWAY MUNICIPAL ROADS REGIONAL ROADS

MOHAWK RD

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY WATER BODIES STREAMS

AVIAN SAR OBSERVATION LOCATION RD

BALD EAGLE FLIGHT PATH

RUSTY BLACK BIRD

SAR OBSERVATION LOCATION (BARN SWALLOW)

Cambridge

BOBOLINK EASTERN MEADOWLARK

SALTMAN DR.

RE E

RT C

GR O

FR EE

IBU TA R

RN E

AIL

BANAT RD

M AP

RB EA N

CR EE K

STAGE 1 STUDY AREA WEST OF FOUNTAIN STREET

ALLENDALE RD

GR A

WA LTE

RIV E

PA S

AL LE ND AL E

SPEEDSVILLE RD

LOCAL ROADS

KING S

Woolwich

DR NK

250

500 Meters

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

3.7.5.4 Mammals In order to characterize resource use by macrofauna, both deer yard surveys and deer movement surveys were conducted within and adjacent to the Study Area. Deer yards are sheltered areas where deer congregate during the winter months, often used year after year. Deer yards often consist of a core area of coniferous trees that provides shelter, ease of movement, protection from predators, and in some cases, food. It is important to identify and protect deer yards and the adjacent habitat so that deer populations can be maintained. As a habitat of seasonal concentration of animals, the MNR considers deer yards as a Significant Wildlife Habitat type. Further discussion on Significant Wildlife Habitat within the Study Area is found in Section 3.7.5.1. Deer movement surveys were conducted as a means to assess wildlife movement between the Grand River Valley corridor and the Study Area. The methodology and results of the deer yard and deer movement surveys are detailed below.

Methodology Deer Yard Survey Deer yard surveys, conducted by Dillon Limited, occurred on March 21st 2011 and involved wandering transects within woodlots identified by MNR as deer wintering area. Deer evidence, including tracks, pellet groups, browsing and direct observations were recorded. General forest composition was recorded for each potential wintering area and areas of apparent higher density were noted. Deer yards were numbered according to mapping received from Aquafor Beech Limited; the survey route and identified deer yards are provided in Figure 3.7.13. Assessment of Wildlife Movement from Grand River Valley In order to assess wildlife movement between the Grand River valley and the subwatershed study area, Aquafor Beech Limited staff selected three road segments for winter Deer Track/Trail surveys: 1) Riverbank Drive (King Street East to Middle Block Road) 2) Middle Block Road (Riverbank Drive to Fountain Street) 3) Allendale Road (Riverbank Drive to Fountain Street) Figure 3.7.13 illustrates the locations of road segments 1-3.

Page 194

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Results Deer Yard Survey Deer Yard 1 Deer Yard 1 was located in a woodlot containing hemlock-sugar maple mixed forest stands, with some conifer dominated stands. Other forest communities present included maple-ash swamp, cedar dominated stands and pine plantation. In total, 84 pellet groups were counted in the main portion of this woodlot, and an additional 17 pellet groups were counted in a small section of woodlot between Folleys Lane and the Kirksway. Deer tracks were noted in snow and mud. Two small groups of deer were observed during the survey, with both groups being comprised of three individuals. It is possible this was the same group observed twice. Moderate browsing evidence was noted in two small patches of beech and cherry saplings. Deer Yard 2 Deer Yard 2 was located in a woodlot containing sugar maple dominated stands, maple-oak-beech stands, maple swamp and mixed stands of spruce, pine, cherry and poplar. In total, 54 pellet groups were counted in this woodlot and tracks were present in mud and snow. Moderate browsing was also noted in 2 patches of cherry saplings. Deer Yard 3 Deer Yard 3 was located in a small coniferous plantation on cemetery grounds. A total of 30 pellet groups were counted. No browse was noted on shrubs present; common buckthorn was abundant in the shrub layer. General notes: Snow was absent from most of the ground, removing deer track evidence. In general, pellet groups and deer evidence was most abundant in sections of woodlot with higher conifer content. Assessment of Wildlife Movement from Grand River Valley Aquafor Beech Limited staff conducted visual surveys, along road segments 1-3, for deer tracks and trails to identify crossing locations and potential movement corridors. Surveys were completed late February to mid-March, 2011 (Table 3.7.13). UTM coordinates of tracks and road crossings were recorded, as well as notes on possible direction of travel (Table 3.7.13).

Page 195

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Table 3.7.13: Deer track/trail surveys conducted by Aquafor Beech Limited. Wind Survey Temperature Cloud Cover Survey Date (Beaufort Precipitation Period (˚C) (%) Scale) February 25, 11:15 am – None – very 0 1-2 75-100 2011 12:23 pm light snow March 2, 8:40 am – None – light -1 3-4 50-75 2011 10:39 am snow March 13, 8:50 am – 0 1-3 95-100 None 2011 9:53 am

Few deer tracks were observed by Aquafor Beech Limited. Tracks crossing Riverbank Drive from the subwatershed study area towards the Grand River valley were observed on two occasions. In addition, tracks were observed along the north side of Middleblock Road but tracks did not cross the road. Tracks were not observed in the survey segment on Allendale Rd.

Survey Date

February 25, 2011

March 2, 2011

March 13, 2011

Table 3.7.14: Deer track/trail survey locations Road UTM of Track/Trail Description Segment 1 None observed 2 None observed 3 None observed 1 None observed 2 549175 E, 4809411 N Possible track, does not cross road 3 None observed 548420 E, 4809272 N Crosses Riverbank Dr. near Middleblock Road, likely east to west 1 548485 E, 4809585 N Crosses Riverbank Dr., likely east to west. Landowner said deer often cross here. 2 548558 E, 4809239 N Tracks on south side of road 3 None observed -

Page 196

R KD AN RB RIV E

REEK RIVERBANK C

EAST SIDE LAND MESP AND COMMUNITY PLAN

MIDDLE BL OC K RD

A LL

YP AS S

ROUTE2

FREEPORT CREEK AND TRIBUTARY TO THE GRAND SUBWATERSHED STUDY

EE K

HIGHWAY

BANAT

A IL

MUNICIPAL ROADS

G RA TR

IB U

TA R

REGIONAL ROADS

ALLENDALE RD

ROUTE3

LOCAL ROADS STAGE 1 STUDY AREA WEST OF FOUNTAIN STREET

PRIME INDUSTRIAL STRATEGIC RESERVE (SERVICED)

ROUTE1

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY REGION OF WATERLOO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT WATER BODIES

STREAMS

Y HW

R O

AP L

DEER TRACK/TRAIL SURVEY ROUTE DEER YARD SURVEY ROUTE

DEER YARD LOCATION

ROUTE1

DEER YARD 1 DEER YARD 2 DEER YARD 3

SALTMAN DR.

Cambridge

KING ST E

RI VE

FIGURE 3.7.13 DEER SURVEY

E2 UT O R

250

500 Meters

ROUTE3

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

3.7.5.5 Species at Risk and Other Significant Fauna A total of two nationally Threatened species (not protected under the Endangered Species Act, 2007), three provincially Threatened species (protected under the Endangered Species Act, 2007), six species of Special Concern, and twenty two regionally significant species were found during wildlife surveys in the East Side Lands subwatershed. Management recommendations for applicable species are found in Section 7.3.6. Threatened Species Habitat for one nationally Threatened amphibian, one nationally Threatened bird, and three nationally and provincially Threatened bird species has been confirmed within the East Side Lands Subwatershed. Western Chorus Frog (Great Lakes/St. Lawrence - Canadian Shield Population) is a nationally Threatened species that requires both terrestrial and aquatic habitats in close proximity. Terrestrial habitat consists of humid prairie, moist woods, or meadows; aquatic habitat consists of seasonal ponds devoid of predators such as fish (COSEWIC, 20081). Western Chorus Frog calls were heard during breeding amphibian surveys at Survey Station D. Suitable habitat also exists in two other locations. The first, an offline pond/wetland west of ELC Polygon D20, was surveyed by Ecoplans Limited staff as part of a concurrent study. While Leopard Frog tadpoles were observed in this pond by Aquafor Beech Limited staff, the results of the Ecoplans Limited survey is currently unknown to the study team. This pond is currently within the floodplain associated with Freeport Creek, and is part of the Upper Freeport Creek Provincially Significant Wetland Complex. Suitable habitat is also present in ELC Polygon D7 and the surrounding area, though Western Chorus Frog calls were not heard by Aquafor Beech Limited staff during surveys at this location (Survey Station G). Worth mentioning are two man-made ponds near ELC Polygon D19. The ponds are stocked with Bass (Micropterus spp.) by the landowner and are therefore unsuitable for Western Chorus Frog. These ponds were also surveyed by Ecoplans Limited staff and survey results are unknown. Potential habitat for Western Chorus Frog surveyed by Aquafor Beech Limited is included within Core Environmental Features of the Greenlands Network. One nationally threatened bird, the Wood Thrush (Hylocichla mustelina) (1 individual) was found during breeding bird surveys on July 6th 2011 in suitable breeding habitat in ELC Polygon C6. Wood thrush nests in woodland habitats and is under threat from brood and nest parasitism from the cowbird (Molothrus ater), a species typical of open habitats, thickets, residential areas, and woodland edges. Potential habitat for wood thrush exists in wooded areas throughout the East Side Lands Subwatershed area and the Hespeler West Subwatershed area. Confirmed and potential Wood Thrush habitat within the East Side Lands Subwatershed study area is protected as part of the Greenlands Network. Wood thrush is protected under the Species at Risk Act and the Provincial Policy Statement.

Page 198

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Avian Species at Risk observed during June and July breeding bird surveys include: Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica) (35 individuals); Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) (3 individuals); and Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna) (4 individuals). All three of these species are listed as Threatened under Ontario’s Endangered Species Act (ESA). See Figure 3.7.12 for approximate locations of provincial avian species at risk. At the direction of the MNR, Dillon Limited conducted further surveys and reporting for avian Species at Risk during the 2012 season. The report can be found in Appendix D. Eastern Meadowlark, Barn Swallow, and Bobolink are species of open country habitats, and often utilize agricultural lands for foraging and nesting (COSEWIC, 20111; COSEWIC, 20112; COSEWIC 20101). Accordingly, potentially suitable habitat is present throughout the East Side Lands subwatershed. Eastern Meadowlark Eastern Meadowlark was observed in the riparian meadow along the Grand River south of Highway 8, covered by Point Count 14 on June 5th (3 individuals) and July 6th (1 individual). This habitat is outside of the detailed study area of the East Side Lands Subwatershed. It is therefore assumed that potential development within areas proposed for development will not affect this species. Barn Swallow Barn Swallow was observed in several agricultural and meadow habitat surrounding the large SWM/Wetland and in agricultural fields in Area C, including: •

June 3rd: Point Count 4 (1 individual); area search after Point Count 5 (10 individuals);

•

June 5th: Point Count 14 (1 individual);

•

July 5th: Point Count 2 (6 individuals); area search between Point Counts 3 and 4 (1 individual); area search between Point Counts 4 and 5 (2 individuals); area search after Point Count 5 (6 individuals);

•

July 6th: Point Count 14 (1 individual), between Point Counts 10 and 11 (2 individuals), and at Point Count 11 (5 individuals).

During 2011 surveys, Barn swallows were generally observed as flyovers, likely foraging over meadow and agricultural habitats. No nests were observed, however rural buildings are generally present in the study area that may provide nesting habitat. Rural buildings were not searched in 2011; upon the direction of the Agency Review team, additional surveys for Barn Swallow were conducted in 2012 (see paragraph below and Appendix D). Barns are located 200 m to the north of Point Count 4; old barns are located within approximately 100 m of Point Count 11; and Waterloo Region Operation Center buildings that include large storage sheds are located within 100 m to the east of Point Count 2. Though no buildings are present in the vicinity of Point Count 14, the Highway 8 Bridge may provide a suitable nesting substrate for this species.

Page 199

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

In 2012, buildings were checked as part of the surveys conducted by Dillon Limited (see Appendix D). A potential nesting site, since confirmed by the MNR as active, was located in the barns at survey site #2 (herein referred to as Barn #2). Removal of nesting habitat and/or the destruction of foraging habitat will result in the contravention of the Endangered Species Act (2007). While avoidance is the preferred option from an ecological standpoint, both of the two aforementioned impacts to Barn Swallow are covered by Ontario regulation 242/08 section 23.5, and consultation with the MNR is necessary. The inclusion of open habitats (e.g. ELC Polygons D6, D16, D23, and agricultural land in Area A) in the Greenlands Network provide protected suitable habitat for Barn Swallow foraging. However, it is the opinion of Aquafor Beech Limited that the development of existing agricultural land will result in a decrease in available foraging habitat for Barn Swallow. Bobolink The identification of Bobolink habitat for the purposes of the Endangered Species Act (2007) is not a simple matter. The potential for a given site to function as Bobolink habitat is determined by a variety of factors, including the site’s size, management regime and the structure and composition of its vegetation (COSEWIC, 20101). The regional setting in which the site is located also appears to play a role (e.g. Haire et al. 2000, Forman et al. 2002). The MNR is currently developing a Recovery Strategy and a species-specific habitat regulation for Bobolink (MNR 2011). In the opinion of Aquafor Beech Limited and Dillon Limited, lands within the East Side Lands subwatershed have limited potential to function as Bobolink habitat. This assessment is based on the following considerations: •

A breeding pair was not confirmed during targeted surveys completed by Dillon Limited in 2012.

•

The East Side Lands subwatershed consists of a mosaic of vegetation communities, the majority of which generally do not function as Bobolink habitat (e.g. corn fields, swamp, marsh, and deciduous forest).

•

The East Side Lands subwatershed includes several vegetation units that provide potentially suitable grassland habitat for Bobolink (e.g. meadow, meadow marsh); these vegetation units occur as disjunct blocks. The largest of these blocks occupies a total of approximately 4 ha, which is below the typical minimum habitat requirements of Bobolink. Aquafor Beech Limited staff note that the area of the hayfield Bobolink were recorded in is also below the typical minimum habitat requirements.

Page 200

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

â&#x20AC;˘

All vegetation blocks that provide potentially suitable grassland habitat for Bobolink are at least partly bordered by deciduous forest or hedgerows, the edges of which Bobolink typically avoid.

â&#x20AC;˘

Excluding the southern limits of the study area, the East Side Lands subwatershed is surrounded by residential, industrial, commercial and institutional land uses; Bobolink is not generally found in habitat surrounded by urban development.

Three Bobolinks (inset photo) were observed on Breeding Bird Point Count 4 on June 3 singing and performing display flights over a 7.4 ha block of forb dominated hayfield. This species was not observed during the second breeding bird survey. Further surveys in 2012 did not result in Bobolink observations on the property (see Appendix D for more information). The conclusions of the 2012 Dillon Limited report were accepted by the MNR. The survey methodology of the 2012 surveys would have detected breeding. Because a breeding pair was not confirmed on the property, it is assumed that potential development within areas proposed for development will not affect this species. The aforementioned conclusions of the 2012 Dillon Limited report were accepted by the MNR. Accordingly, Aquafor Beech Limited did not revise the preliminary NHS to incorporate the 7.4 ha block of forb dominated hayfield in which Bobolink was recorded by Dillon Limited staff.

Species of Special Concern Six species (Snapping Turtle, Rusty Blackbird, Eastern Wood Pewee, Bald Eagle, Eastern Milk Snake, and Monarch) of Special Concern were found within the subwatershed study area. The habitat of species designated Special Concern is not protected under the Endangered Species Act (2007). However, the habitat of species designated Special Concern is considered Significant Wildlife Habitat, thus qualifying such habitat as a Locally Significant Natural Area (LSNA) as established by the Region of Waterloo and City of Cambridge Official Plans (City of Cambridge, 2012; ROP, 2009). Discussion of Significant Wildlife Habitat is found below in Section 3.7.5.1. Each species of Special Concern documented within the Subwatershed Study Area by the study team are discussed below. Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina) Snapping Turtles are primarily aquatic and generally occur in habitats that provide slow-moving water, a soft mud bottom and dense aquatic vegetation such as ponds, sloughs, shallow bays and slow streams. Some individuals persist in heavily urbanized water bodies such as golf course ponds and irrigation

Page 201

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 canals. Females generally nest on sand and gravel banks along waterways, but may also use muskrat houses, abandoned beaver lodges and anthropogenic features such as road shoulders, railway embankments and gardens. Snapping turtles hibernate under water in lakes, marshes or small, continuously flowing streams (COSEWIC, 20082). The presence of Snapping Turtle (juvenile, inset photo) in the East Side Lands subwatershed has been assessed and confirmed by an Aquafor Beech herpetologist per MNR-specified protocols. Aquafor Beech Limited does not recommend additional surveys for this species because, if extant in areas differing from those confirmed by Aquafor Beech Limited, Snapping Turtles are likely to be largely restricted to watercourses and immediately adjacent riparian areas and these features will be incorporated in the recommended Greenlands Network as Core Environmental Features, Locally Significant Natural Features (e.g. permanent and intermittent streams; other wetlands), linkages or buffers. Rusty Blackbird (Euphagus carolinus) On its migration routes and wintering grounds, the Rusty Blackbird is generally associated with wetlands, such as flooded forests, scrub along the edges of lakes, rivers and streams and beaver ponds (COSEWIC, 2006). It also occurs to a lesser degree in human-made habitats, such as pastures, plowed fields, sewage treatment ponds, and small landfill sites (COSWIC, 2006). Rusty Blackbird was found in one location during field studies conducted by Dillon Limited in the Subwatershed Study Area. The narrow riparian treed swamp, represented by ELC Polygon A3, hosts this species. In the opinion of Aquafor Beech Limited, potential habitat for Rusty Blackbird is present along the Grand River Valley corridor, as well as along the edges of treed swamps and forests associated with the Upper Freeport Creek Wetland Complex. All of the abovementioned areas are contained within the Greenlands Network. Eastern Wood Pewee (Contopus virens) The Eastern Wood Pewee occurs throughout Southern Ontario, breeding most often in deciduous woods, and sometimes in more open habitats, with a preference for open habitats (such as open water, roadways, and clearings) adjacent to nesting sites (Peck and James, 1987). The MNR (2000) further describes the habitat of Eastern Wood Pewee as open, deciduous, mixed or coniferous forest; predominated by oak with little understory; forest clearings, edges; farm woodlots, and parks.

Page 202

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 The presence of Eastern Wood Pewee in the East Side Lands Subwatershed was assessed by a Dillon Limited biologist. The bird was found in larger blocks of woodland in Areas B, C, and D. Detailed location information is contained within Table 3.7.15. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Primarily piscivorous (Cadman et al., 2007), Bald Eagle typically nest and roost in tall trees adjacent to major lakes and rivers (OMNR, undated). Nests are generally conspicuous and easy to locate, with birds exhibiting strong nest site fidelity. Bald Eagle has a very large home range and often travels over many kilometers in search of food (Cadman et al., 2007). A single adult bird was observed flying over the Study Area in November 2011 (see Figure 3.7.12). Suitable nesting and roosting habitat for Bald Eagle is limited within the East Side Lands Subwatershed, though potentially suitable foraging habitat exists within the Grand River corridor and Bald Eagles have been known to nest in other sites along the Grand River. The results of Bald Eagle nesting surveys conducted along the Grand River by Aquafor Beech Limited were negative (see survey results in Table 3.7.11, and survey locations in Figure 3.7.6). In the opinion of Aquafor Beech Limited, the individual observed within the Study Area was neither nesting nor foraging, but passing overhead. Eastern Milksnake (Lampropeltis triangulum) The Eastern Milk Snake occurs throughout southern Ontario. The species uses a wide range of habitats, including suburban parks and gardens, hayfields, pastures, old fields, meadows, and deciduous, coniferous and mixed forests. In rural areas, the species is found in and around sheds, barns, abandoned buildings and anthropogenic debris (Cook 1984, Harding 1997, COSEWIC 2002). Little is known about the movement patterns of Eastern Milksnakes in Canada, but their activity range is estimated to encompass approximately 20 ha and it is assumed that individuals migrate to and from hibernation sites (COSEWIC, 2002). The presence of Eastern Milksnake in the East Side Lands subwatershed has been assessed by an Aquafor Beech herpetologist. Snake hibernacula were not found during surveys, though a single adult snake was found dead in the northern portion of the subwatershed on Riverbank Drive. Additional Eastern Milksnakes were not found during targeted surveys, though due the speciesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; secretive nature (COSEWIC, 2002) Aquafor Beech Limited staff cannot say with certainty that Eastern Milksnake is not within the study area. Accordingly, Aquafor Beech Limited recommends additional surveys of suitable habitat at subsequent planning stages to determine whether the species is extant.

Page 203

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Monarch (Danaus plexippus) Monarch butterfly habitat consists of open areas that support its larval host plant Milkweed (Asclepias spp.) and other wildflowers (COSEWIC, 20102). Such habitat is common in Southern Ontario and includes cultural meadows, gardens, roadsides, and other disturbed lands. Accordingly, the designation of Monarch (inset photos) as Special Concern mainly reflects its vulnerability to the loss of overwintering areas in Mexico rather than habitat-related concerns in Ontario (COSEWIC 2010). The majority of the Monarch habitat in the East Side Lands subwatershed consists mostly of foraging habitat. Significant quantities of milkweed species are not present within the study area. Rather, milkweeds occur sporadically throughout wetlands and meadows. Such habitats are included in the Greenlands Network. Roadsides and residential lands containing potential Monarch habitat have not been incorporated into the Greenlands Network.

Page 204

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Species to be Assessed by COSSARO in 2013 The Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO) meets several times yearly to assess and classify species at risk. Two (2) species documented in the Study Area and four (4) species that are known or suspected to occur in Waterloo Region (Agency Review Team, 2012) are scheduled to be assessed by COSSARO in 2013. The species scheduled to be assessed by COSSARO are discussed in Table 3.7.15 below. Currently, none of the seven (7) species in question have legal protection under the Endangered Species Act (2007). Three (3) of the bat species known or suspected to occur in the Waterloo Region, after an emergency assessment by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), have been determined to be Endangered in Canada. Furthermore, on November 15th 2012, COSEWIC designated wood thrush and Eastern wood-peewee as Threatened and of Special Concern, respectively, giving them protection under the Species at Risk Act (2002). Should any of the above species be afforded protection under the Endangered Species Act (2007) after assessment by COSSARO, future Environmental Impact Studies at the time of development should determine the habitat use of these species and assess any ESA implications. In addition, should any of the species listed below be assessed as a species at risk, subsequent Environmental Impact Studies should assess the habitat of these species against the definitions of Significant Wildlife Habitat as defined by the MNR.

Page 205

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Table 3.7.15: Select Species Scheduled to be Assessed by COSSARO in 2013 Species Common Name Scientific Name Species Documented Within the Study Area Eastern Wood Pewee

Wood Thrush

S Rank

COSEWIC Status*

S4B

Contopus virens

Hylocichla mustinela

S4B

THR

COSSARO Status

Habitat Requirements

Open, deciduous, mixed or coniferous forest; predominated by oak with little understory; forest clearings, edges; farm woodlots, parks (MNR, 2000). Undisturbed moist mature deciduous or mixed forest with deciduous sapling growth; near pond or swamp; hardwood forest edges; must have some trees higher than 12 m (MNR 2000).

Location of Species Record in the Study Area

ELC Polygons B1 (1 bird), C4 (3 birds), C6 (1 bird), D13 (1 bird), and D17 (1 bird). Four (4) birds were recorded in the wooded area east of Sportsworld Drive, west of the Preston Cemetery. ELC Polygon C6 (1 bird). It is safe to assume that the entire habitat block occupied by the Maple Grove Wetland Complex (ELC Polygons C5 north and C6) provide habitat for this species.

Species Known or Suspected to Occur in Waterloo Region Little Brown Bat

Myotis lucifugus

Eastern Small-footed Bat

Myotis leibii

Northern Long Eared Bat

Eastern Pipistrelle

Myotis septentrionalis

Perimyotis subflavus

END

S2S3

S3?

END

Roosting & Hibernating: Rock crevices, under tree bark, and especially in anthropogenic structures (buildings) (Agency Review Team, 2012; MNR, 1984). Roosting & Hibernating: Caves, mine shafts, crevices or buildings that are in or near woodland (MNR, 2000). Roosting & Hibernating: Hibernates in mines or caves; roosts in houses, uses manmade structures but prefers hollow trees or under loose bark (MNR, 2000). Roosting & Hibernating: Open woods near water; roosts in trees, cliff crevices, buildings or caves; hibernates in damp, draft-free, warm caves, mines or rock crevices (MNR, 2000).

Foraging: Forages over open water and over open treed areas (MNR 1984).

Unknown. Bat surveys were not completed as part of the SWS.

Foraging: Forages in woodland areas (MNR, 2000).

Unknown. Bat surveys were not completed as part of the SWS.

Foraging: Hunts within forests, below the canopy (MNR, 2000).

Unknown. Bat surveys were not completed as part of the SWS.

Foraging: Forages over watercourses, and sometimes over fields if large trees are nearby (MNR, 1984).

Unknown. Bat surveys were not completed as part of the SWS.

*Since the completion of the Subwatershed Study, the results of the COSEWIC assessments occurring in early 2013 have been released to the public. At the time of the completion of this report, the full results of the February 2013 COSSARO meeting had not been released. The Endangered status of Myotis lucifigus and M. septentrionalis is the result of an emergency assessment.

Page 206

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Little Brown Bat and Northern Long Eared Bat Both Little Brown and Northern long-eared bats are “threatened by a disease known as white nose syndrome, caused by a fungus which is believed to have been inadvertently brought from Europe to North America. The fungus grows in humid cold environments, such as the caves and mines where little brown bats hibernate. The syndrome affects bats by disrupting their hibernation cycle, so that they use up body fat supplies before the spring when they can once again find food sources. It is also thought that the fungus affects the wing membrane, which helps to maintain water balance in bats. Because of this, thirst may wake bats up from hibernation, which may be why those infected with white nose syndrome can be seen flying outside caves and mines during the winter. In Ontario, bat populations dropped by more than 90 percent in eight hibernation sites with more than two years’ exposure to white nose syndrome. Bats at more than three quarters of Ontario’s hibernation sites are at high risk of disappearing due to white nose syndrome. Mass die-offs mean that there are no individuals left to reproduce.” (OMNR, 2013). Little Brown Bat commonly roosts in anthropogenic structures including barns and attics, while Northern Long Eared Bat commonly roosts in trees. Hibernation sites for both species include caves and abandoned mines (OMNR, 2013); such habitat is not present in the subwatershed study area. However, potentially suitable roosting habitat is present. As stated in Table 3.7.15 above, surveys for bats were not completed as part of the subwatershed study. As such, roosting locations, if present, are unknown. Recovery strategies for both bat species have not yet been completed by the MNR.

3.7.5.1 Significant Wildlife Habitat Significant wildlife habitat is broadly categorized by the MNR as (i) seasonal concentration areas, (ii) rare vegetation communities or specialized habitats for wildlife, (iii) habitats of species of conservation concern, excluding the habitats of endangered and threatened species and (iv) animal movement corridors (MNR, 2000). Methodology Using the background information sources described in previous sections and the results of 2010, 2011 and 2012 fieldwork, Aquafor Beech Limited assessed the occurrence of 21 of these habitat types potentially present within the study area.

Page 207

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

3.7.5.2 Results The East Side lands were dominated by agricultural land use and culturally influenced vegetation communities. Most of the vegetation units defined by Aquafor Beech Limited contained elements of specialized wildlife habitat, but relatively few of those actually meet the criteria of significant wildlife habitat as defined by the MNR (Table 3.7.16). Areas determined to be Significant Wildlife Habitat are presented in Figure 3.7.14. As a result of the assessment of twenty one (21) significant wildlife habitat types, seventeen (17) significant wildlife habitat types were identified as either present (14 types), possible (2 types), or limited (1 type). Areas of Significant Wildlife Habitat determined to be confirmed/present, possible, or limited in scale are presented in Figure 3.7.14.

Two juvenile Turkey Vultures (one, to the left, is hidden by foliage) observed during surveys on August 5th, 2011.

Page 208

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Table 3.7.16: Assessment of Significant Wildlife Habitat within the East Side Lands. All habitat descriptions are from OMNR (2000) unless otherwise noted. Type of Significant Wildlife Habitat

Availability of Habitat Type

Seasonal Concentration Areas

Winter Deer Yards

Present. Deer yarding is less common in southern Ontario due to limited snow accumulations. Within the East Side Lands Subwatershed and adjacent lands, deer yards identified by the MNR were confirmed by Dillon Limited staff in March 2011. Core deer yard habitat (coniferous forest with canopy cover >60%) is present in Yards 1 and 3; deer yard habitat in mixed or deciduous forest (e.g. Yard 2) and agricultural fields may provide deer with winter foraging opportunities.

Colonial Bird Nesting Sites

Present. Colonial birds are a diverse group that includes several species of herons, gulls, terns and swallows. Certain grassland birds are also colonial. Barn Swallow was observed foraging in Areas C and D of the East Side Lands Subwatershed. In 2012, nesting sites were observed in Barn #2. Barn #2 has been confirmed by the MNR as an active nesting site.

Waterfowl Stopover and Staging Areas

Possible. Waterfowl typically use large wetlands as stopover and staging areas, especially those near large bodies of water. Some species such as Bufflehead prefer large rivers (e.g. Grand River) over marsh habitats. 725 individual waterfowl, consisting of Canada Goose, Mallard, Common Merganser, and Bufflehead; were observed by Dillon Limited staff during fall staging surveys along the Grand River with the greatest concentration of waterfowl occurring between the King Street and Highway 8 bridges. It is possible that the PSW behind the regional offices is an attractant to waterfowl. Correspondence with the agency review team (MNR, GRCA, Region of Waterloo) indicate that waterfowl stopover and staging areas are likely present within the Study Area due to the presence of the Grand River

Waterfowl Nesting

Possible. The most significant waterfowl nesting sites are usually relatively large, undisturbed upland areas with abundant ponds and wetlands. The upland areas provide nesting cover. Most species nest in grassy or shrubby fields adjacent to wetlands and most nests occur in relatively dense vegetation that is about 50 cm tall. Other species (e.g. Wood Duck) nest in cavities in trees located in swamps or on the shorelines of water bodies, and sometimes in adjacent upland woods. Sites with several small ponds may be significant for waterfowl nesting. Given the presence of the Grand River, and the adjacent provincially significant wetlands, stream and riverine bottomlands, and seasonally wet areas, it is possible that locally significant waterfowl nesting sites are present in the East Side Lands Subwatershed. Not Present. Open fields, including hayfields, pastures, and meadows that support

Raptor Winter Feeding and Roosting Areas

large and productive small mammal populations (mice, voles) are important to the winter survival of many birds of prey. Such fields usually have a diversity of herbaceous vegetation that provides food for mammals. Scattered trees and fence posts provide perches for hunting birds. Windswept fields in more open areas that

Page 209

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Type of Significant Wildlife Habitat

Availability of Habitat Type are not covered by deep snow are preferred by raptors because hunting prey is easier. Highway corridors appear to attract many hunting raptors throughout the year, because these areas are open and the vegetation is relatively low, making hunting easier. Protection of large areas of potentially suitable habitat will increase the probability of including significant raptor winter feeding within a Natural Heritage System.

Within the East Side Lands Subwatershed, ELC Polygons B2, B3, B9, B11, B30, C0, and D9a provide such habitat, though the largest of the above vegetation communities are relatively small (below 10 ha). Fields planted in hay may also be used, although their quality as foraging habitat is less than undisturbed old fields. Raptor roosting sites are generally found in relatively mature mixed or coniferous woodlands adjacent to feeding areas. Raptor winter roosting sites were not found within the East Side Lands Subwatershed during field surveys completed by Dillon Limited staff.

Wild Turkey Winter Range

Not Present. Turkeys prefer winter range areas of dense coniferous cover adjacent to stable, abundant and high quality food sources such as corn fields and Oak trees. The presence of groundwater seeps in forests enhances wild turkey habitat. Dense coniferous forest is not present within the East Side Lands Subwatershed, but the multiple agricultural fields and vegetation units throughout provide foraging opportunities.

Turkey Vulture Summer Roosting Areas

Present. Turkey Vultures like to roost on rocky cliff ledges and large, dead or partially dead trees, preferably in undisturbed areas, and often near water. Preferred day roosting areas appear to be open areas where the birds can easily take flight or sunbathe. Significant sites are those that are used consistently year after year. Turkey Vultures were observed in the south portion of ELC Polygon C6 and in ELC Polygon C5 north on multiple occasions throughout summer surveys in 2011. Previous natural heritage surveys in the area also noted Turkey Vultures in this wooded area (PIEL, 2004). Both juvenile (see photo above) and adult birds were observed roosting, and multiple adults were observed foraging above agricultural fields to the south. Adults were also observed roosting on top of the barn located on the homestead on Allendale Rd.

Reptile Hibernacula

Not Present. Reptile hibernacula are usually associated with animal burrows, rock crevices or other features that extend below the frost line (e.g. old building foundations, areas of karst). Based on field surveys conducted by an Aquafor Beech Limited herpetologist, it is unlikely that reptile hibernacula are in agricultural and cultural lands within the East Side Lands Subwatershed.

Page 210

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Type of Significant Wildlife Habitat

Availability of Habitat Type

Specialized Habitats for Wildlife

Habitat for AreaSensitive Species

Present. Area-sensitive mammal species include predators such as the Grey Wolf (Canis lupus) and Lynx (Lynx canadensis) that no longer occur in Southern Ontario. Twenty five species of area-sensitive birds have been recorded within the East Side Lands Subwatershed (see Section 3.7.5.3 for a list of species). Of these, thirteen are areas sensitive open country species, 8 are area sensitive forest species, and 4 are areas sensitive marsh species. Area sensitive open country species were found throughout the East Side Lands Subwatershed. Area sensitive forest species were also found throughout the East Side Lands Subwatershed (Bird Habitats 1, 2, 5 & 7), with most species occurring in Bird Habitat 1. All but one observation of area sensitive marsh species are located in the large SWM/Wetland in Area D. It is the opinion of Dillon Limited that these areas are locally significant.

Forest Providing a High Diversity of Habitats

Present. Forests with a variety of vegetation communities and dominant tree cover and complexes of upland and wetland habitats have the highest diversity of wildlife species. The presence of supercanopy trees, cavity trees and an abundance of ground structure such as fallen logs and leaf litter enhance wildlife diversity. Within the East Side Lands Subwatershed many forest units contain elements of specialized wildlife habitat such as snags and vernal pools. ELC Polygons D6 (wooded portions), D19, D10, D12, D13, D17 and D18 (collectively) provide a diversity of habitats.

Old Growth or Mature Forest Stands

Not Present. Old-growth or mature forest stands are characterized by having a large proportion of trees in older age classes, many of them over 120 years old. Such forest stands are not present within the East Side Lands Subwatershed. The majority of the mature and old growth trees within existing forests have been logged.

Foraging Areas with Abundant Mast

Present. Five of the eight species of mast producing trees and shrubs listed by MNR (2000) are found within the East Side Lands Subwatershed, including Red Oak, Common Apple (Malus pumila), Wild Black Cherry (Prunus serotina), Beech and Raspberry (Rubus sp.). Most forest and woodland vegetation units contain at least one of the five species. ELC Polygons C4 and D10 contain four of the five mast producing species found within the Study Area. Other mast-producing species such as bur oak, several cherry species (P. pennsylvanica, P. avium and P. virginiana), and pear (Pyrus communis) were also present throughout the Subwatershed.

Amphibian Woodland Breeding Ponds

Present. ELC Polygons B7, C5, C6, and D13 contain vernal pools, seasonally flooded swamp, or marsh habitats surrounded by woodland. Aquafor Beech Limited staff surveyed potential habitat in the above areas. Sites were identified in consultation with the MNR. Amphibian surveys in these locations resulted in egg mass records for Green Frog in ELC Polygons B7 and D13. Calling Spring Peepers were heard from ponds in ELC Polygons B7, C5 central and D5. Calling American Toads were also recorded in ELC Polygons C5 central and D5. Aquafor Beech Limited staff collected one Yellow-spotted Salamander from ponds in ELC

Page 211

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Type of Significant Wildlife Habitat

Availability of Habitat Type Polygon D13. No evidence (eggs, larvae or adults) of salamander breeding was observed in any of the vernal pools in ELC Polygons B7, C5 or C6. In the case of ELC Polygon B7, the surrounding wooded ELC Polygon B6 is included in the Specialized Habitat for Wildlife designation (Shown on Figure 3.7.14), as the value of ELC Polygon B7 is linked to the ecologic values provided by ELC Polygon B6.

Turtle Nesting Habitat

Present. Preferred turtle nesting habitat consists of sand or fine gravel substrates in open, sunny areas close to water. The best sites are located away from roads. Snapping turtle nests were observed on the sloped edges of agricultural lands adjacent to ELC Polygon D7 of the East Side Lands Subwatershed. These slopes are contained within the 30 m buffers to the Upper Freeport Creek Wetland Complex.

Specialized Raptor Nesting Habitat

Present. Osprey nests are almost always associated with large lakes or marshes and profitable foraging areas must be within 10 km of the nest. Most nests are along forested shorelines, on islands, or on structures over water. Nests are used year after year, sometimes for decades. Within the East Side Lands Subwatershed, Osprey nesting habitat is present on a hydro tower within ELC Polygon B10, and Aquafor Beech Limited and Dillon Limited staff observed a nesting Osprey pair at this location in 2011.

Seeps and Springs

Limited. One intermittent spring has been identified within the East Side Lands Subwatershed within and along the northern edge of ELC Polygon C3. This spring contributes to habitat within a fresh-moist deciduous forest community (ELC Polygon C3), and likely contributes to the occurrence and persistence of the regionally rare Canada Moonseed. Groundwater from this spring also contributes to flows in Allendale Creek.

Habitats of Species of Conservation Concern

Endangered and Threatened Species

Present. Habitat for one nationally Threatened amphibian species is present within the East Side Lands Subwatershed. Western Chorus Frog (Great Lakes/St. Lawrence - Canadian Shield Population) requires both terrestrial and aquatic habitats in close proximity. Terrestrial habitat requirements consist of mostly humid prairie, moist woods, or meadows. Aquatic habitat consists of seasonal ponds devoid of predators such as fish (COSEWIC, 20081). Western Chorus Frog calls were heard during breeding amphibian surveys in ELC Polygon D15. Suitable habitat also exists in ELC Polygon D7 and the surrounding area, though Western Chorus Frog calls were not heard during surveys. In addition, the nationally Threatened bird, the Wood Thrush, was located in ELC Polygon C6 during breeding bird surveys conducted by Dillon Limited. Habitat requirements of the Wood Thrush include mature deciduous forests (Sibley et al., 2001), undisturbed moist mature deciduous or mixed forest with deciduous sapling growth often near a pond or swamp; as well as hardwood forest edges; the forest must have some trees higher than 12 m. The best Wood Thrush habitat

candidate site in the Study Area is the Maple Grove Wetland Complex (ELC Polygons C5 and C6). To a lesser extent, forests around the Upper Freeport Creek wetland complex may provide suitable habitat.

Page 212

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Type of Significant Wildlife Habitat

Availability of Habitat Type Through targeted surveys completed in 2012 by Dillon Limited, it has been confirmed that two barns south of Allendale Road are active breeding sites for the nationally and provincially Threatened Barn Swallow. These barns have been included in Figure 3.7.14 as significant wildlife habitat.

Species of Special Concern

Present. Six faunal species of Special Concern have been observed within the East Side Lands Subwatershed. 1. Snapping turtles are typically found in slow-moving water bodies with a soft mud bottoms and dense vegetation (COSEWIC, 20082). Two individuals (one adult and one juvenile) were observed directly adjacent to the SWM/Wetland, as were two nests south of the aforementioned habitat. Suitable habitat for Snapping Turtle is also present in the Walter Bean Trail wetland and in manmade ponds in Areas A and D. 2. Eastern Milksnake occupies a variety of habitats including field, swamp, and open woodland; and are commonly found in rural areas (COSEWIC, 2002). One dead adult Eastern Milk Snake was observed during road mortality surveys along Riverbank Drive. Due to this snake’s generalist habitat requirements and secretive nature, it is likely that habitat is present throughout the East Side Lands Subwatershed. 3. Rusty Blackbirds use wetland habitats such as slow-moving streams, sedge meadows, peat bogs, marshes, swamps, beaver ponds and pasture edges. In winter, birds move to damp woodlands and agricultural fields (COSEWIC, 2006). Five individuals were observed in suitable habitat in Area A within the Grand River Floodplain Wetland. Suitable summer and winter habitat for this species is present along the Grand River Valley and within swamps and wet woods in Areas C and D. 4. Bald Eagle typically nest and roost in tall trees adjacent to major lakes and rivers (OMNR, undated). One adult bird was observed flying over the Study Area in November 2011. Suitable nesting and roosting habitat for Bald Eagle is limited within the East Side Lands Subwatershed, though suitable foraging habitat exists within the Grand River corridor. 5. Eastern Wood Pewee breeds most often in deciduous woods, and sometimes in more open habitats (Peck and James, 1987). The MNR (2000) further describes the habitat of Eastern Wood Pewee as open, deciduous, mixed or coniferous forest; predominated by oak with little understory; forest clearings, edges; farm woodlots, and parks. Within the Study Area, Eastern Wood Pewee was found in ELC Polygons B1, C4, C6, D10, and D17. All of the aforementioned areas are protected as part of the Greenlands Network. Potential, comparatively marginal, habitat for Eastern Wood Pewee is present throughout the study area, including treed open habitat near the École secondaire Père-René-de-Galinée and woodlands within the Grand River Valley. 6. Monarch Butterflies use sites where Milkweed (Asclepias spp.) grow (COSEWIC, 20102), including meadows, pastures, marshes and roadsides (Opler, 1994). Monarchs were observed foraging in meadow habitats throughout the Subwatershed and in ELC Polygon D13a, with particular abundance in ELC Polygon B26 and southern portions of D14. It is noted that

Page 213

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Type of Significant Wildlife Habitat

Availability of Habitat Type milkweed-dominated fields are not present within the East Side Lands Subwatershed.

Species Designated S1-S3

Present. The habitat requirements of S1-S3 species also designated Endangered or of Special Concern have previously been described (Bald Eagle, S1S2N, S4B; Monarch, S2N, S4B; Butternut, S3?; Eastern Milksnake, S3; and Snapping Turtle, S3).

Page 214

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Type of Significant Wildlife Habitat

Availability of Habitat Type

Animal Movement Corridors Limited. At a local scale (i.e. within the East Side Lands Subwatershed) select vegetation units that comprise the remaining areas of natural habitat in Area D are generally contiguous and function as habitat rather than as animal movement corridors per se. The majority of natural areas in the East Side Lands Subwatershed are fragmented by infrastructure and agriculture. A local animal movement corridor located in the open field from the natural Local Animal Movement Corridors

heritage features in the east of Area C to the natural heritage features along Allendale Creek in the west of Area C was documented during field work in 2011. Enhancement recommendations contained within this report aim to increase the ecological form and function of this extant corridor, with post-development conditions in mind. See Sections 4.1.3.4 and 4.1.3.5 for further details.

Hedgerow C3 (HR-C3) provides limited opportunities for movement between two wooded areas. However, in the opinion of Aquafor Beech Limited, this hedgerow is not a local animal movement corridor because it generally does not support the movement of less common species that are sensitive to human disturbance and/or have specialized habitat requirements.

Regional Animal Movement Corridors

Present. At a regional (landscape) scale there is one discrete area of natural and semi-natural vegetation within the East Side Lands Subwatershed allowing for animal movement at a regional scale. The Grand River Valley spans the Region of Waterloo and beyond, connecting a number of habitat types and allowing for animal movement opportunities. Within the Study Area, the Grand River Valley is characterized by wooded slopes in addition to natural, semi-natural, and agricultural areas within the floodplain. The majority of Area A and Area B west are included within the valley lands.

Page 215

IN S T N F O U N TA

R IV E

RE EK DR NK BA ER

MIDDLE BLOC K RD

FIGURE 3.7.14 SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT

HIGHWAY

BY PA SS

ALE

REGIONAL ROADS

CR EE

LOCAL ROADS STAGE 1 STUDY AREA WEST OF FOUNTAIN STREET

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY

RIB UT AR Y

B A NAT

WATER BODIES STREAMS

ALLENDALE RD

HABITAT FOR SPECIES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN

SEASONAL CONCENTRATION AREA

ANIMAL MOVEMENT CORRIDORS

SPECIALIZED HABITAT FOR WILDLIFE

SALTMAN DR.

D R ES N R

Y HW

FR EE PO RT CR EE K M

AIL T

MUNICIPAL ROADS

RA ND

EA N

RIV

ALL E

WA LT ER B

FREEPORT CREEK AND TRIBUTARY TO THE GRAND SUBWATERSHED STUDY

KING ST E

EAST SIDE LAND MESP AND COMMUNITY PLAN

T H RD

R IV

RIV E

Kitchener

KI NG

K O S SU

Cambridge

250

500 Meters

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

3.8 AQUATIC ECOLOGY Aquatic ecology is a science concerned with the study of aquatic ecosystems, including surface water quality, biodiversity, and aquatic habitat. Information concerning aquatic ecology within the study area including Surface Water Quality, Benthic Invertebrates, Aquatic Habitat and Fisheries are discussed in the following subsections.

3.8.1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION The aquatic ecology section focuses on the biological and ecological nature of the watercourses within the study area. A study was completed by GRCA entitled East Side Subwatershed Study Phase 1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Characterization of the Subwatershed Report (January 2012, v1) which detailed water quality sampling, temperature monitoring, fish sampling, and benthic macroinvertebrate sampling along Freeport Creek at various locations, from 2005-2010. As part of the East Side Lands Subwatershed Study: Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand, the GRCA continued the 2005-10 monitoring program in 2011 and 2012, adding new sampling sites along Freeport as well as new sites on Allendale Creek. The following sections detail surface water quality, benthic macroinvertebrates and aquatic habitat and fisheries assessments, results and conclusions based on the previously completed 2005-10 results along with the recently completed 2011 assessments. Limited field visits were conducted by Aquafor Beech staff in support of GRCA staff along with data analysis and reporting. All 2011 Aquatic Ecology sites can be found on Figure 3.8.1. Eight (8) monitoring sites were included the aquatic ecology monitoring as illustrated in the Figure 3.8.1. Five (5) sites were located on Freeport Creek, two (2) located on Allendale Creek, and one (1) on Riverbank Creek. The site names and locations are listed below in Table 3.8.0.

Page 217

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Table 3.8: Monitoring Station Locations Site Name

Watercourse

Description

FC0009

Freeport Creek

Downstream of the Grand River Garden Village

FC0004

Freeport Creek

Downstream of SWM pond (Pond 130)

FC0006

Freeport Creek

Upstream of SWM pond (Pond 130)

FC0010

Freeport Creek

Behind Challenger Motor Freight, downstream of FC0008, upstream of Pond 130

FC0008

Freeport Creek

Downstream of Maple Grove Rd

EW9042

Allendale Creek

Downstream of Riverbank Dr. between Allendale Rd. and Middle Block Rd.

NS9052

Allendale Creek

Upstream of Riverbank Dr. between Allendale Rd. and Middle Block Rd.

NS9044

Riverbank Creek

Mid reach on Riverbank creek

3.8.2 SURFACE WATER QUALITY The collection of water quality samples and associated field activities conducted as part of this study were undertaken by GRCA staff in accordance with approved methodologies to ensure consistency with previously collected and published data (GRCA, 2012). The relevant data analysis and interpretation was conducted by Aquafor Beech Limited staff. As part of the detailed study of the existing conditions, the GRCA initiated a field program to further understand the relationship between the biophysical features and functions of the subwatersheds and the existing and potential land uses in the Freeport Creek and tributary to Grand Subwatershed study area. Baseline data gathering in 2011 focused on the relative subwatersheds and associated creek systems to be directly influenced by the planned development area which included Freeport Creek and the Tributary to the Grand River subwatersheds. The 2011 data was used to fill data gaps of the Phase 1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Characterization of the Subwatersheds Report completed by the GRCA (January 2012) and provide verification of historical data and classification of the existing baseline conditions. This section characterizes the chemical, biological and physical surface water quality conditions present in Freeport Creek and Allendale Creek during the 2011 monitoring season. Monitoring results were compared to the 2005-2010 field assessment data evaluated during the Phase 1 Characterization Report to identify reoccurring trends and validate the existing water quality conditions of Freeport Creek and the Tributary to the Grand River subwatersheds.

Page 218

D NK

Woolwich

IN ST N FOUNTA

E RIV

A RB

EAST SIDE LAND MESP AND COMMUNITY PLAN T H RD KOSSU

FREEPORT CREEK AND TRIBUTARY TO THE GRAND SUBWATERSHED STUDY

Kitchener KD

NS9044

! (

RIVERBANK CR EE

RIV E

FIGURE 3.8.1 MONITORING LOCATION

MIDDLE BL OC K RD

HIGHWAY MUNICIPAL ROADS REGIONAL ROADS LOCAL ROADS

NS9052

STAGE 1 STUDY AREA WEST OF FOUNTAIN STREET

! (! (

PA SS

!ALL E N ( ( !

EW9042

GENERAL SUBWATERSHED STUDY AREA

PRIME INDUSTRIAL STRATEGIC RESERVE (SERVICED)

EE K

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY REGION OF WATERLOO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

DETAILED SUBWATERSHED STUDY AREA

RI VE TR

! (

IB U

FC0009 ! ( ( ! ! (

TA R

FC0010 ! (

Benthic Sampling

! (

Fish Sampling

( !

Temperature

! (

Water Quality

FC0004

( !

! (

D R E V O R G

Cambridge

250

500 Meters

Base data provided by the Ministry of Natural Resources: Produced by Dillon Consulting under Licence with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2011

SALTMAN DR.

FC0008

!FREE ( ! ( PO RT CR EE K FC0006

Y HW

( ! ! (

! (

ALLENDALE RD

A IL

STREAMS

GR A

BANAT

KING ST E

SWM POND WATER BODIES

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

3.8.2.1 Site Selection The Draft Phase I - Characterization Report (GRCA, 2012) included surface water quality monitoring results from 2005-2010 for thirteen (13) sites located across five (5) subwatersheds. Two (2) of the thirteen sites (13), FC0004 (FC_UKI) and FC0009 (FC_GVG) located in Freeport Creek were included in the 2011 water quality monitoring program. Table 3.8.1 demonstrates the water quality sampling events conducted by GRCA at FC0004 and FC0009 in the spring (March-May), summer (June-September) and fall (October-November) from 2006-2010. In addition, sampling was conducted in the Allendale Creek at site locations EW9042 and NS9052. Table 3.8.2 provides detailed site descriptions, GPS coordinates and relevant watercourses for the four monitoring sites included in the 2011 water quality monitoring program conducted for the East Side Lands Subwatershed Study: Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand. Site locations are presented in Figure 3.8.1 Table 3.8.1: Water quality sampling events conducted by GRCA at FC0004 and FC0009 in the spring (March May), summer (June-September) and fall (October-November) from 2006-2010.

FC0004

FC0009

Year: Total Spring Summer Fall Total Spring Summer Fall

2006 12 2 8 2

2007 13 4 7 2

2008 11 5 5 1

2009 12 9 3

2010 7 n/a 5 2 10 3 5 2

Total 7 n/a 5 2 58 14 34 10

Table 3.8.2: List of the Site Descriptions, GPS Coordinates and relevant watercourse for the four monitoring sites where water quality sampling was conducted in 2011 GPS Coordinates Easting

Northing

Relevant Watercourse

Downstream of SWM pond

548751

4807553

Freeport Creek

FC0009

Downstream of HWY 8

547579

4807509

Freeport Creek

EW9042

TG - Downstream of Riverbank Dr. between Allendale Rd. and Middle Block Rd.

548439

4808803

Allendale Creek

NS9052

TG - Upstream of Riverbank Dr. between Allendale Rd. and Middle Block Rd.

548142

4845821

Allendale Creek

Site

Location

FC0004

Page 220

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

3.8.2.2 Sampling Methodologies Water quality sampling included the collection of water quality grab samples during both wet and dry weather conditions for chemical analysis. The 2011 sampling dates and conditions for each of the four site sampled are summarized in Table 3.8.3. Sampling was not possible at Allendale Creek during all sampling dates listed in Table 3.8.3 as the creek had no flow (i.e. ‘dry’) during most of the year. Table 3.8.3: 2011 Water Quality Sampling Dates Dates

Freeport Creek FC0004

Allendale Creek

FC0009

EW9042

NS9052

Wet Weather Sampling Events 11-Mar-11 4-Apr-11

n/a √

√ √

26-Apr-11

√

18-May-11 25-Aug-11

√ √

√ Dry

20-Sep-11 20-Oct-11

√ √

Dry √

23-Nov-11

√

Dry

29-Nov-11

n/a

√

15-Jun-11

√

Dry Weather Sampling Events √

√

12-Jul-11 11-Oct-11 10-Nov-11

√ √ √

Dry Dry Dry

√

Grab samples were collected with the sample bottle facing upstream and filling the bottles with sufficient volume to eliminate air bubbles while being careful not to overfilled thereby resulting in the displacement of sample bottle preservatives (if present). Prior to sampling, the use of the “triple rinse” technique, a standard procedure, was used to neutralize the sample bottles. For sample bottles with preservative the triple rinse technique was not applied. In addition to grab samples, field measurements were conducted during sampling and included measurements for pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), temperature and conductivity using a handheld YSI data sonde. The 2011 water quality parameters sampled for are presented in Table 3.8.4.

Page 221

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Table 3.8.4: Water Quality Parameters Sampling & Sampling Procedure Parameters Sampling Procedure/Type Total Ammonia Grab Total Dissolved Solids Grab Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Grab Dissolved Orthophosphate Grab Chloride Grab Total Suspended Solids Grab Total Phosphorous Grab Nitrate Grab Nitrite Grab pH Field Measurements Dissolved Oxygen Field Measurements Conductivity Field Measurements Temperature Field Measurements The significance of these parameters is briefly described below: Temperature: Water temperature strongly influences the composition and function of aquatic communities. It indirectly influences the solubility of oxygen, nutrient availability, and the rate of decomposition of organic matter. As water temperature increases, oxygen and nutrient availability decrease, and decomposition rates increase. These processes influence the spatial and temporal distribution of aquatic species. (Bain et al, 1999) Dissolved Oxygen: Dissolved oxygen enters water from photosynthesis and the atmosphere. It is used during respiration and breakdown of organic materials. Aquatic organisms require specific concentrations to survive. If concentrations are too low, a watercourse may not be able to sustain certain fish species. (Bain et al, 1999) Nutrients: Nitrate, Nitrite and Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) (defined as the concentration of reduced forms of nitrogen including ammonium and amino forms of organic nitrogen), Sulphate, Phosphate and Total Phosphorus. Nutrients are important to aquatic plants and algal growth, but at high concentrations may lead to over-productivity (eg: algal blooms) which use up dissolved oxygen. Sources of nutrients include fertilizers, detergents, and organic waste. (Bain et al, 1999) Total Suspended Solids: Refers to the amount of organic or mineral solids suspended in water. High concentrations may indicate sedimentation, which may lead to degradation of aquatic habitat. Additionally, high concentrations may cause pollutants to settle into the sediment instead of being properly flushed out. (Bain et al, 1999)

Page 222

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Total Dissolved Solids: Refers to the concentration of dissolved substances (an indirect measure of ion concentration). TDS is high in regions of limestone, and lower in sand or granite regions. TDS relates to the conductivity of the water and is positively correlated with biological productivity. (Bain et al, 1999) Sampling results were compared to the most recent provincial water quality objectives (PWQO’s), federal environmental quality guidelines and other relevant criteria to evaluate the 2011 water quality monitoring results. The guidelines utilized to evaluate the water quality results are provided in Table 3.8.5 Table 3.8.5: Water quality Variables and Sources of Guidance (GRCA, 2012) Parameter Total Phosphorus

Water quality objective or criteria used 0.030 mg/L 0.020-0.035 (mesoeutrophic), 0.0350.100 (eutrophic)

Nitrate

13 mg/L (2.93 mg/L as N)

Nitrite

0.060 mg/L

Un-ionized Ammonia

0.020 mg/L (0.0165 mg/L as N) 120 mg/L (long term exposure)

Chloride pH Total Suspended Solids Dissolved Oxygen

640 mg/L (acute exposure) 6.5-8.5 25.0 mg/L

Guidance Type

Reference

PWQO

OMOE 1999

Trophic “trigger” range CWQG for protection of aquatic life (interim value) CWQC for protection of aquatic life PWQO

CCME 2004

Guideline for the protection of aquatic life in fresh water

CCME 2008 CCME 2008 OMEE 1999 CCME 2011

PWQO Review of observations of effects on fish

OMEE 1999

PWQO

OMEE 1999

4.0 mg/L (warmwater) 5.0 mg/L (coolwater)

DFO 2000

3.8.2.3 Water Quality Results The following section summarizes the 2011 water quality results for the parameters sampled in Freeport Creek and Allendale Creek. Table 3.8.6 summarizes the 2011 monitoring results for each site, water quality parameter and weather event sampled. Appendix E provides summary tables and figures for each constituent sampled and includes maximum and minimum values, annual averages, and standard deviations. All results have been compared with the applicable guidelines. The 2011 results collected at the two Freeport Creek monitoring sites (FC0004 and FC0005) have been compared with results collected from 2005 - 2010 to validate the 2012 characterization of the existing conditions of Freeport Creek. Mean values and standard deviations for site NS9052 could not be completed as the site was only visited once during the 2011 monitoring program.

Page 223

Table 3.8.6: Summary of the 2011 Water Quality Monitoring Results for Freeport Creek and Tributraies to the Grand River EW9042

FC0009

NS9052

Wet

Dry

Field Parameters

Units

Objective/ Criteria 11-Mar-11 4-Apr-11 26-Apr-11

18-May-11

Time

14:45

14:50

15:00

14:30

13:15

13:20

14:30

13:30

15:00

15:30

Water Temperature

(oC)

0.79

6.02

8.14

11.02

11.71

5.23

15.29

4.89

0.60

7.61

7.97

7.77

7.95

7.83

7.72

7.65

7.86

Conductivity

umho/cm

360

412

465

490

735

183

552

mg/L

4.0 mg/L (warmwater), 5.0 mg/L (coolwater)

12.92

16.85

12.91

10.90

10.4

14.93

Total Ammonia-N

mg/L

0.0165 mg/L as N

0.10

Total Dissolved Solids

mg/L

206

262

282

318

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)

mg/L

0.5

0.8

0.5

Orthophosphate (P)

mg/L

0.02

0.01

Total Phosphorus

mg/L

0.030 mg/L

0.094

Total Suspended Solids

mg/L

25.0 mg/L

Dissolved Sulphate (SO4)

mg/L

6.5-8.5

Dissolved Chloride (Cl)

mg/L

Nitrite (N)

mg/L

150 mg/L (long term exposure), 600 mg/L (acute exposure) 0.060 mg/L

Nitrate (N)

mg/L

2.9 mg/L as N

ND = Not detected Exceeds Objective/Guideline

20-Oct-11 29-Nov-11 15-Jun-11 29-Nov-11

FC0004

Wet

Wet 11-Mar-11 4-Apr-11 26-Apr-11

Dry 20-Oct-11 23-Nov-11

29-Nov-11 12-Jul-11 15-Jun-11 15-Aug-11

Wet

18-May-11

25-Aug-11

20-Sep-11

11-Oct-11 10-Nov-11 4-Apr-11 26-Apr-11

14:50

14:40

12:45

13:25

13:30

15:50

13:45

14:50

14:10

14:55

14:15

15:15

8.00

10.50

12.61

20.70

16.36

10.33

4.41

5.67

25.54

22.35

16.40

7.75

7.24

7.88

7.68

7.63

7.74

7.82

7.76

7.59

8.12

8.00

8.01

143

1300

1597

1077

913

1879

1633

791

942

620

1495

1254

1879

8.28

15.6

11.45

17.54

11.90

9.73

7.76

10.04

9.45

15.13

14.4

9.30

10.14

0.02

0.11

0.36

0.02

0.12

0.20

0.10

514

132

300

164

174

968

664

584

1280

1090

546

490

360

0.5

0.7

1.5

0.4

3.3

0.7

0.8

0.6

0.7

1.3

1.1

0.9

0.5

0.01

0.03

0.31

0.05

0.03

0.01

0.02

0.110

0.100

0.026

0.19

0.57

0.040

0.92

0.110

0.054

0.051

0.044

0.120

0.035

33.0

68.0

36.0

2.0

770.0

130.0

19.0

980.0

29.0

14.0

16.0

7.0

38.0

12.0

14.0

15.0

19.0

6.0

18.0

2.0

14.0

21.0

16.0

13.0

10.0

8.0

9.0

7.0

35.0

7.0

10.0

6.0

280.0

340.0

200.0

0.01

0.02

3.5

3.9

3.8

4.6

2.1

3.1

2.8

0.8

Dry

18-May-11

25-Aug-11

20-Sep-11

20-Oct-11 23-Nov-11

29-Nov-11 12-Jul-11 15-Jun-11 15-Aug-11

11-Oct-11 10-Nov-11

14:35

15:05

13:00

13:40

13:50

16:10

15:05

15:15

14:30

15:10

14:40

6.56

10.57

12.4

21.63

15.65

10.21

4.26

25.36

22.54

21.66

15.8

7.9

7.97

7.77

7.64

7.57

7.21

7.2

7.69

6.98

7.22

7.08

7.47

7.69

1231

786

1926

1175

913

1860

1549

767

947

1467

1164

1801

1129

679

8.50

11.90

10.68

19.23

10.75

9.01

6.65

3.58

6.22

15.57

1.45

1.01

1.35

6.12

8.11

0.03

0.07

0.38

0.03

0.01

0.04

0.12

0.16

0.17

0.27

0.14

882

662

1250

802

406

1190

696

582

1320

1010

520

502

944

624

1130

740

360

1.8

0.8

0.7

1.0

0.8

0.5

0.7

0.6

0.7

1.8

1.4

0.6

0.4

2.1

1.4

0.8

0.5

0.01

0.02

0.08

0.048

0.46

0.054

0.055

0.073

0.030

0.035

0.029

0.031

0.033

0.16

0.059

0.021

0.019

0.29

0.15

0.16

0.05

0.028

5.0

23.0

7.0

330.0

5.0

3.0

8.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

17.0

5.0

2.0

17.0

9.0

14.0

4.0

2.0

8.0

4.0

8.0

15.0

11.0

6.0

29.0

3.0

11.0

23.0

17.0

13.0

5.0

7.0

14.0

5.0

4.0

10.0

180.0

420.0

360.0

140.0

170.0

110.0

300.0

240.0

420.0

240.0

140.0

450.0

250.0

190.0

440.0

340.0

140.0

170.0

310.0

230.0

380.0

220.0

120.0

0.01

0.05

0.02

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.5

0.4

0.5

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Total Phosphorus According to the Phase I - Characterization Report total phosphorus for all sites sampled within the

entire East Side Lands Subwatershed Study ranged from 0.07 mg/L to 8.6mg/L. Freeport Creek sites were amongst the sites with the lowest range of concentrations. The 75th percentile of 2005-2010 concentrations for Freeport Creek sites ranged from 0.05mg/L to 0.2mg/L. The 2011 monitoring results measured mean concentrations of 0.09 mg/L ± 0.11 mg/L and 0.09 mg/L ± 0.09 mg/L, for Freeport Creek sites FC0009 and FC0004, respectively. The 2011 results for Freeport Creek correlate with data collected from 2005 – 2010 as concentrations were predominately above the set PWQO guideline concentration of 0.03 mg/L which prevents the harmful effects of excessive growth of aquatic vegetation in rivers and streams (OMEE 1994). Concentrations of total phosphorus in the Allendale Creek sites were relatively high; the average concentration of site EW9042 was 0.16mg/L ± 0.19 mg/L. Mean values and standard deviations for site NS9052 could not be completed as the site was only visited once during the 2011 monitoring program. The total phosphorus concentration of the sample collected at site NS9052 was 0.92 mg/L. Total phosphorus concentrations within Allendale Creek generally exceed PQWO guideline concentration of 0.03 mg/L. Orthophosphate The 2005-2010 water quality data demonstrated that the lowest orthophosphate concentrations were located in Freeport Creek ranging from undetectable (<0.01 mg/L) to 0.02 mg/L. Identical orthophosphate concentrations were observed in Freeport Creek during 2011 water quality monitoring. Measurements of orthophosphate for Freeport Creek ranged from undetectable (<0.01 mg/L) to 0.03 mg/L. The average orthophosphate concentration for Freeport Creek was 0.02mg/L ± 0.01 mg/L. There are no applicable guidelines for orthophosphate. Generally, concentrations of orthophosphate in the Allendale Creek sites ranged from undetectable (<0.01mg/L) to 0.05 mg/L with the exception of a single sampling event which was 0.31mg/L; greater than two standard deviations of the mean. The mean orthophosphate concentration within the tributary was 0.07mg/L ± 0.12 mg/L. Discarding the apparent outlier, the average orthophosphate concentration reduces to 0.02 mg/L ± 0.02 mg/L which is very similar to the characteristics of Freeport Creek. Nitrite From 2005-2010, the nitrite concentrations for Freeport Creek ranged from undetectable (<0.01 mg/L) to 0.09 mg/L. In 2011, the concentrations observed in Freeport Creek ranged from undetectable (<0.01 mg/L) to 0.02 mg/L. The average concentration from 2005-2010 was 0.01mg/L ± 0.02 mg/L, which correlates well with the 2011 average of 0.025 mg/L ± 0.01 mg/L. The CWQC for the protection of

Page 225

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 aquatic life recommends that nitrite concentrations not exceed 0.060 mg/L (CCME, 2008). All samples were below this guideline. Concentrations of nitrite in Allendale Creek ranged from undetectable (<0.01 mg/L) to 0.01 mg/L, and therefore were below the CWQC guideline. The nitrite concentration collected at site NS9052 was undetectable (<0.01 mg/L). The average concentration at EW9042 was 0.01 mg/L, which is similar to Freeport Creek. Nitrate For Freeport Creek, the 2005-2010 nitrate concentrations ranged from undetectable (<0.1 mg/L) to 1.8 mg/L. The 2011 nitrate concentrations for Freeport Creek ranged from undetectable (<0.1 mg/L) to 0.8 mg/L and averaged 0.465 mg/L ± 0.145 mg/L. The CCME for the protection of aquatic life recommends that nitrate concentrations not exceed 2.9 mg/L (2008). All samples collected in Freeport Creek were below this guideline. Generally, nitrate in Allendale Creek ranged from 3.1 mg/L to 4.6 mg/L, with the exception of a single sampling event which was 32 mg/L (greater than two standard deviations of the mean). The mean nitrate concentration for EW9042 was 7.6 mg/L ± 10.8 mg/L. The concentration collected at site NS9052 was 2.8 mg/L. Overall, nitrate concentrations in Allendale Creek were generally higher than Freeport Creek and exceeded the CCME guideline. Total Ammonia-N In 2005-2010, the total ammonia-N for Freeport Creek (FC0004 and FC0009) ranged from <0.02 mg/L to 0.4 mg/L and <0.06 mg/L to 13.0 mg/L and averaged 0.1 mg/L ± 0.1 mg/L and 2.4 mg/L ± 2.4 mg/L, respectively. In 2011, FC0004 total ammonia-N ranged from undetectable to 0.27 mg/L, with a mean concentration of 0.13 mg/L ± 0.09 mg/L. Ammonia-N concentrations at site FC0009 ranged from undetectable to 0.38 mg/L and averaged 0.13 mg/L ± 0.13 mg/L. The ammonia-N monitoring result collected during 2011 for Freeport Creek correlate well with the Draft Phase I - Characterization Report (GRCA, 2012) results. The data shows that Freeport Creek total ammonia-N concentrations often exceed the PWQO of 0.0165 mg/L. Total ammonia-N in Allendale Creek ranged from undetectable to 0.1 mg/L. Concentrations only exceeded the PWQO during two sampling events. Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) The TKN concentrations for Freeport Creek in 2005-2010 ranged from 0.2 mg/L to 1.4 mg/L. The mean concentration was 0.86 mg/L ± 0.25 mg/L. During 2011, Freeport Creek concentrations ranged from 0.4 mg/L to 2.1 mg/L, with a mean of concentration of 0.97 mg/L ± 0.48 mg/L. Therefore, concentrations were slightly higher in 2011 than 2005-2010. There are no regulatory guidelines for TKN.

Page 226

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

TKN concentrations for EW9042 ranged from 0.4 mg/L to 1.5 mg/L, with a mean of 0.70 mg/L ± 0.38 mg/L. The concentration for the single sampling event at NS9052 was 3.3 mg/L. This is higher than EW9042 and Freeport Creek sites. Total Suspended Solids TSS concentrations ranged from undetectable (<1.0 mg/L) to 330 mg/L for Freeport Creek. The lowest range of TSS concentrations was measured in upper sections of Freeport Creek at site FC0004 (downstream of the stormwater management facility). The 2011 TSS concentrations for site FC0004 correspond with the Draft Phase I - Characterization Report (GRCA, 2012) results as none of the samples exceeded the 25 mg/L CCME guideline. TSS concentrations at the FC0009 site had similar mean TSS concentrations compared to the 2005-2010 data when excluding the highest TSS concentration measurement of 330mg/L. According to the Draft Phase I - Characterization Report (GRCA, 2012) the lower section of Freeport Creek had a mean TSS concentration which was 11 mg/L ± 19 mg/L. By omitting the 330 mg/L measurement from the 2011 data set, the mean TSS concentration at FC0009 decreased from 35 mg/L ± 86 mg/L to 13 mg/L ± 11 mg/L. By excluding the single outlier, the Draft Phase I - Characterization Report (GRCA, 2012)and the 2011 TSS concentration results are similar for the lower sections of Freeport Creek. In summary, the upper reaches of Freeport Creek tend to be below CCME guideline concentrations while the TSS concentrations throughout the lower sections are elevated; fluctuating above and below the CCME guideline of 25mg/L (CCME 2002). Concentrations of total suspended solids for Allendale Creek were higher than Freeport Creek. TSS concentrations ranged from 2 mg/L to 990 mg/L. The mean concentration for the TSS was 255 mg/L ± 389 mg/L which exceeds CCME guidelines. TSS concentrations were below CCME guidelines for dry event and above CCME guideline for all wet event with the exception of one. It should be noted that only a single dry event was sampled during the 2011 monitoring season Chloride Chloride concentrations measured at the Freeport Creek sites ranges from 110 mg/L to 450mg/L and had a mean chloride concentration of 261 mg/L ± 106 mg/L. In general, the 2011 chloride concentrations were similar to concentrations reported in the Draft Phase I - Characterization Report (GRCA, 2012). The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) released new water quality guidelines for chloride concentrations within freshwater for the protection of aquatic life in 2011. The guideline states that for short term exposure chloride concentrations should not exceed 640mg/L and should not exceed 120mg/L for long term exposure. Chloride concentrations within Freeport Creek are generally above the CCME and aquatic life limits for long term exposure. Chloride concentrations measured at the Allendale Creek sites were much lower compared to Freeport Creek. Chloride concentrations ranged from 6 mg/L to 35 mg/L. The mean concentration for the

Page 227

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 dissolved chloride was 12.7 mg/L ± 11 mg/L. Levels of chloride concentration within Allendale Creek meet the CCME water quality guidelines for aquatic life protection in freshwater bodies. Total Dissolved Solids Total Dissolved Solid concentrations measured at the Freeport Creek sites averaged 726 mg/L ± 335 mg/L and 802 mg/L ± 309 mg/L for sites FC0009 and FC0004, respectively. Freeport Creek sites FC0009 and FC0004 had similar results compared to Total Dissolved Solid concentrations measured at sites FC_GVG and FC_UKI from 2005 to 2010. Average concentrations of Total Dissolved Solids for sites FC_GVG and FC_UKI from 2005 to 2010 were 881 mg/L ± 395 mg/L and 508 mg/L ± 113 mg/L, respectively. The Allendale Creek sites had Total Dissolved Solid concentrations which were much lower compared to Freeport Creek. Concentrations ranged from 132 mg/L to 514 mg/L and averaged 273 mg/L ± 118 mg/L. There are no guidelines for Total Dissolved Solids. Conductivity 2011 average conductivity values for Freeport Creek were similar to those measured from 2005-2010. The average conductivity measured in 2011 was 1260 μS/cm ± 412 μS/cm while measurements conducted from 2005-2010 averaged 1495 μS/cm ± 754 μS/cm and 805 μS/cm ± 181 μS/cm for sites FC_GVG and FC_UKI, respectively. It is clear that the average conductivity measured in 2011 was within range of the averages measured throughout Freeport Creek from 2005-2010. Conductivity measurements conducted within Allendale Creek were lower compared to Freeport Creek. Average conductivity within Allendale Creek was 418 μS/cm ± 193 μS/cm. pH pH values were compared to the PQWO guidelines which states that pH values shall range between 6.5 and 8.5. No pH measurement conducted at Freeport Creek or Allendale Creek sites fell outside of this range during the 2011 monitoring program. Similarly, all 2005-2010 pH measurements conducted at the corresponding Freeport Creek sites fell within the PWQO guidelines. Average pH values for Freeport Creek and Allendale Creek were 7.63 ± 0.32 and 7.8 ± 0.13, respectively. Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Similar to the Draft Phase I - Characterization Report (GRCA, 2012), DO concentrations were lowest in the summer when temperature was warmest and sampling was conducted during dry weather events. DO concentrations were compared to the PWQO which vary depending on temperature and stream classification (i.e. warm or cold water biota). A PWQO value of 4.0mg/L was applied which protects warm water biota in water greater than 20oC (OMOE 1999). In general, average DO concentrations within Freeport Creek seem to increase downstream. The upstream section of Freeport Creek below the

Page 228

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 SWM pond (sites FC0004 and FC_UKI) was the only monitored location to periodically fall below PWQO. During 2011, DO concentrations sampled during dry weather conditions reached as low as 1.01 mg/L. In 2010, DO concentrations at FC-UKI measured as low as 0.7 mg/L. From 2005 – 2011, DO concentrations did not fall below the PWQO guideline of 4.0 mg/L at sites FC0009 and FC_GVG. Average DO concentration at site FC0009 and FC_GVG were 11.3 mg/L ± 2.7 mg/L and 10.0 mg/L ± 2.3 mg/L during their respective sampling periods. Overall, average DO concentrations from 2005 – 2011 for Freeport Creek were above PQWO guidelines. DO concentrations measured at the Allendale Creek sites never fall below the PWQO guideline of 4.0 mg/L. DO concentrations were high ranging from 8.3 mg/L – 16.9mg Temperature A method developed by Stoneman and Jones (1996) and revised by Chu (2009) was utilized to classify the 2011 sites into coldwater, coolwater, or warmwater areas based on their maximum air and water temperatures during the summer. The methodology uses single measurements of daily maximum air temperature (>24.5oC) and water temperatures between 16:00 hrs and 18:00 hrs and July 1st and August 31st plotted on a nomogram to approximate the thermal classification of each site (Chu, 2009). Similar to the 2005-2010 results for Freeport Creek monitoring site (FC_MAP), monitoring site FC0008 located furthest upstream near Maple Grove Road demonstrated the coolest range of temperatures. The majority of data points for FC0008 on the thermogram (Figure 3.8.2) varied between coldwater and coolwater, but on occasion values were measured in the warmwater classification. Continuing downstream of the stormwater management facility, thermal regimes increased ranging from coolwater to warmwater classifications. Site FC0004 had a greater proportion of values within the warmwater classification versus coolwater. All site FC0009 values fell within the warmwater classification. These results are consistent with those measured from 2005 – 2010 as reported in the Draft Phase I Characterization Report (GRCA, 2012). In regards to Allendale Creek results (EW9042), the methodology as developed by Stoneman and Jones (1996) and revised by Chu (2009) as detailed above, could not be undertaken as water temperatures were not collected during the period of July 1st and August 31st as required, due to the lack of flow. However, air temperature exceeded 27 oC on June 15, 2011, meanwhile the stream remained well below 20 oC, recorded at 15.3 oC. Ths indicates that although previously assessed a warm-water stream, Allendale Creek possesses a coldwater potential due to the presence of groundwater-surface water interactions (groundwater discharges in the form of springs noted during field investigations).

Page 229

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Figure 3.8.2: Thermogram of Maximum Daily Air Temperature and Water Temperatures Collected Continuously at Monitoring Locations FC0004, FC0008, FC0009

3.8.2.4 Conclusions The following section outlines the general conclusions of the 2011 monitoring results for Freeport Creek and Allendale Creek. The monitoring results for Freeport Creek are greatly similar to monitoring result collected from 2005 – 2010. Conclusions for Freeport Creek correspond with conclusions made in the Phase 1 - Characterization Report, 2012. Freeport Creek Water quality conditions unchanged from 2005 – 2010 monitoring results: fair to good. • Monitoring of water quality indicated good conditions in regards to nutrients. Elevated levels of phosphorous (above CCME guidelines) and Ammonia-N (often exceeded PWQO) were recorded and likely attributed to the agricultural land use that surrounds the majority of the watercourse.

Page 230

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 •

Similar to the 2012 Characterization Report chloride concentrations were high. The 2012 Characterization Report concluded that chloride concentrations were very high below King Street during spring, summer and fall. 2011 results did not demonstrate similar trends as chloride concentration downstream of King Street were comparable to results obtained upstream. The mean chloride concentrations within Freeport Creek are above CCME guidelines and aquatic life limits for long term exposure (120mg/L). Elevated Chloride concentrations within Freeport creek can largely be attributed to its proximity to major roadways (Maple Grove Road, King Street, and Hwy 8) and the related application of deicers (NaCl and others) on the roadways themselves and within private parking facilities and internal roadways. To reduce chloride levels within Freeport Creek, general pollution prevention measures within the contributing and surrounding drainage areas should be encouraged to reduce chloride loadings. It is recommended that salt management plans be a requirement for future development and that private contractors responsible for winter maintenance, snow clearing and de-icer application should be accredited through the Region of Waterloo’s existing Smart About Salt™ program

•

Dissolved oxygen results complement 2005 - 2010 monitoring results which suggest that dissolved oxygen decreases periodically in Freeport Creek during summer months, particularly during dry sampling, which may cause harm to warm water biota at the monitoring location below the stormwater management facility – Pond 130 (FC0004 / FC_UK1). Within Pond 130, which currently functions as a wetland, vegetation encroachment and accumulation of decomposing vegetation were observed. This can have the effect of lowering observed dissolved oxygen within the impounded water. Ongoing regular maintenance of the outlet at Pond 130, specifically the low flow outlet 300mm outlet pipe which was identified as being largely nonfunctional (see Section 3.5.7.4) is recommended to return the facility to its original functional design which was intended to ensure the continuity of water movement through the system during dry events. In addition, general pollution prevention measures within the contributing and surrounding drainage areas should be encouraged to reduce contaminants loadings which may increase the biological oxygen demand within the impounded water.

•

Additional recommendations and management options for Pond 130 are discussed within the Master Drainage Plan (MDP) Appendix B2: o Sections 3.2.3 Specific Issues: The Freeport Creek Stormwater Management Facility (Pond 130) o Section 8.0 Additional Studies and Recommendations.

•

Water temperatures monitoring during the summer months indicate warmwater conditions exist in reaches on either side of King Street. Warmer temperatures were observed at monitoring site FC0009 downstream of King Street. Upstream of King Street, water temperatures ranged from coolwater to warmwater suggesting that localized groundwater

Page 231

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 input may exist downstream of the stormwater management facility. Within the reach upstream of the stormwater management facility near Maple Grove Road, thermal regimes were highly variable with conditions ranging from coldwater to warmwater. A positive correlation between 2011 monitoring results and the Draft Phase I - Characterization Report (GRCA, 2012) exists for the thermal regimes for Freeport Creek. •

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) were generally found to be below guidelines of 25mg/L in the upper reaches of Freeport Creek, specifically at the outlet of the stormwater management facility (Pond 130), indicating that the existing facility is providing a level of water quality treatment. The lower reaches of Freeport Creek exhibited higher TSS levels above the recommended 25mg/L.

Allendale Creek Water quality conditions: good •

Monitoring of water quality indicated fair conditions in regards to nutrients. Sampling results indicate that average total phosphorus and nitrate concentrations were consistently above PWQO and high compared to Freeport Creek. Elevated nutrient concentrations may be attributed to the agricultural land uses bordering the tributary which are known to release nutrient enriched runoff and seepage to watercourses.

•

Several TSS concentrations collected during wet events were high compared to others samples which were slightly above if not below CCME guidelines. As part of the geomorphic analysis Allendale Creek was classified as a watercourse which is in as ‘in adjustment’. Degradation and widening were the dominant processes identified and the high channel gradient, as well as the coarse and fine grained glaciogenic material that composed the bed and bank material, indicates that the channel is highly erosive. High TSS levels during wet events are consistent with these processes as the eroding stream bank provide the sediment source during higher flows.

•

In regards to Allendale Creek results (EW9042), the monitoring indicates that although previously assessed a warm-water stream, Allendale Creek possesses a coldwater potential due to the presence of groundwater-surface water interactions (groundwater discharges in the form of springs noted during field investigations). To protect the coldwater potential it is recommended that all identified groundwater discharge location/ springs within and adjacent to the woodland area associated with the Allendale Creek should be protected and that the aquatic buffer should be a minimum of 30 meters from each side of the channel.

•

Generally, all other parameters sampled were within their respective guidelines demonstrating good water quality given the extent of the monitoring undertaken.

Page 232

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

3.8.3 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES The Terms of Reference state that collection of benthic macroinvertebrates will take place as part of the Subwatershed Study Component (Step 6: Detailed Study of Existing Conditions), using accepted protocols, along Freeport Creek and Allendale Creek. Benthic macroinvertebrates are commonly used as to assess water quality, health and integrity of aquatic ecosystems. They are commonly used to assess water quality for many reasons, including: a) Benthic invertebrates are highly sensitive to environmental changes which make them excellent indicators of water quality; b) Benthic invertebrates are abundant in nearly all watercourses, living on or in the substrate; c) Benthic invertebrates can be easily and inexpensively collected and easily quantified; d) Benthic invertebrates are easily identified; and e) They have restricted mobility and specific habitat preferences, and therefore cannot simply move away from environmental stresses occurring at a site. (Griffiths, 1999) Water quality can be assessed using multiple indices, or metrics, which are easy to calculate and produce a single score. Multiple indices could relate to specific impacts, making it necessary to use many metrics to detect impacts (TRCA, 2000). As with the previous assessment of Water Quality (Section 3.8.2) field activities conducted as part of this study were undertaken by GRCA staff in accordance with approved methodologies to ensure consistency with previously collected and published data (GRCA, 2012). The relevant data analysis and interpretation was conducted by Aquafor Beech Limited staff.

3.8.3.1 Methodology 2005-10 Benthic Invertebrate Sampling As part of a past and ongoing initiative, the GRCA completed benthic macroinvertebrate sampling for one site (FC0009) from 2005 to 2010 (Figure 3.8.1). A summary of the sampling methodology utilized by the GRCA staff is provided below. Detailed sampling methodology can be found in the Draft East Side Subwatershed Study, Phase 1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Characterization of the Subwatersheds Report (GRCA, 2012). The GRCA conducted benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring at Site FC0009 (See Figure 3.8.1 for exact location) during the following years and seasons, as detailed in Table 3.8.7. Fall samples were collected between October 16th and November 5th. Spring samples were collected between May 4th and May 31st.

Page 233

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Table 3.8.7: Summary of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Conducted by GRCA from 2005-10 (GRCA, 2012) Site 2005 2006 2009 2010 FC0009 Fall Fall/Spring Fall Fall/Spring Samples were collected using the travelling kick and sweep method, following the Ontario Benthos Biomonitoring Network Protocol (OBBN) which is identical to the Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol (OSAP) Transect Travelling Kick and Sweep Survey. This method will be summarized in the next section. A representative number of individuals from each sample were identified to the lowest practical taxonomic level and evaluated based on the following metrics: •

Taxa Richness;

•

Shannon’s Diversity Index;

•

Evenness;

•

% EPT;

•

% Oligochaeta; and

• % Diptera. The details of these metrics and results will be described in subsequent sections.

2011 Benthic Invertebrate Sampling In 2011, as part of this study, the GRCA continued sampling of FC0009, as well as an additional site at FC0004. Samples were collected at both sites on May 10th, 2011, and again at FC0009 on November 2nd, 2011. See Figure 3.8.1 and the Table 3.8.8 for locations of the sites. Table 3.8.8: Locations of 2011 Benthic Invertebrate Sampling Site Name

Aggregated Site Name

Location ID

Watercourse

Easting

Northing

Location

FC0004

2410004

Freeport

548751

4807553

Downstream of SWM pond

FC0009

FV_GVG

2410009

Freeport

547579

4807509

Downstream of the Grand River Garden Village

Sampling was conducted in accordance with OBBN, using the travelling kick and sweep method. This method involves walking from one bank to the other for three minutes, while kicking the stream bed and holding a 500 µm D-net downstream to collect dislodged organisms. After three minutes the organisms are emptied from the net, placed in a jar and preserved in the field using isopropyl alcohol. This is completed at three sampling locations within a sampling reach (riffle-pool-riffle). If the travelling kick and sweep method was not possible due to increased sediment loads or ‘mucky’ conditions (i.e. some areas of FC0004), the jab sampling method was used.

Page 234

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Similar to previous years, samples were washed through three different sized sieves and sub-sampled using a ladle until at least 300 specimens were found. Specimens from each sample were identified to the lowest practical taxonomic level. The 2011 raw data and OBBN field sheets are presented in Appendix F. In addition to richness (e.g., total number of taxa) and composition metrics (e.g., % Diptera), macroinvertebrates can also be classified according to: â&#x20AC;˘ â&#x20AC;˘

Functional feeding groups (e.g., % Collector-Filterers, % Scrapers, % Shredders) Habit/behavior characteristics (e.g., % Clingers)

Functional feeding groups provide an indication of food web relationships. Habitat and behavior characteristics indicate the functionality of the organism (e.g., the way it moves or searches for food). (Barbour et al, 1999) The samples were analyzed using a multi-metric approach to summarize the condition of the watercourse, using the following indices: Taxa Richness:

Indicates diversity of taxa and is calculated as the number if unique taxa identified in samples from a single visit to site. The number of taxa increases with habitat quality and water quality. % EPT: Percent composition of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera (EPT). Reflects the composition of the benthic community within Families that are considered to be sensitive to water quality. # EPT Taxa: The number of EPT Taxa found in a sample. % Oligochaeta: Percent composition by aquatic worms (tolerant organisms). % Diptera: The percent composition by larvae of true flies. % Chironomidae: The percent composition by larval midges. % Dominants: The percent composition by the dominant taxa. % Collector-filterer: The percent composition by detrivores (feed on decomposing fine particulate organic matter) which filter feed or are suspension feeders. (Merritt et al, 2008) % Collector-Gatherer: The percent composition by detrivores which gather food or are deposit feeders. (Merritt et al, 2008) % Predator: The percent composition by organisms that feel on living animal tissue (not including parasitic organisms) by engulfing or piercing. (Merritt et al, 2008) % Scraper: The percent composition by organisms that feed on periphyton by grazing and scraping mineral and organic surfaces. (Merritt et al, 2008)

Page 235

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 % Shredder:

The percent composition by organisms that feed on living vascular aquatic plant tissue by chewing, detrivores that feed on decomposing vascular plant tissue (coarse particulate organic matter) by chewing, and/or organisms that feed on wood by gouging and excavating. (Merritt et al, 2008) The percent composition by organisms having fixed retreats or adaptations for attachment to surfaces in flowing water. (Barbour et al, 1999)

% Clinger:

Shannon’s Diversity Index: Shannon’s diversity index Is a measure of diversity within a sample and can be calculated using the following formula: = − ∑( )(

)

Where is the proportion of individuals in the “ith” taxon of the community. number and distribution of taxa (diversity) in a sample increases.

increases as the

Evenness: Evenness indicates how similar the abundances of different species are (ranges from 0 to 1). An evenness of 1 would indicate that the proportions of all subspecies are similar and can be calculated using the following formula: =

/( )

Where is Shannon’s Diversity Index, and is the proportion of individuals in the ith taxon of the community. Evenness ranges from 0 to 1. An evenness of 1 would indicate that the abundances of different taxa are equal.

Page 236

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Hilsenhoff’s Biotic Index: This index uses the pollution tolerances of organisms to determine the level of stream impairment. Each organism is assigned a tolerance value of 0 to 10, with a value of 0 indicating that the organism has a very low tolerance to pollution and a value of 10 indicating that the organism has a very high tolerance to pollution. The index is calculated using the following formula: = ∑( )( ) /

Where is the number of organisms in the ith taxon, is the tolerance value of the ith taxon, and is the total number of organisms in the sample. Interpretation of the Hilsenhoff’s Biotic Index (HBI) value is summarized in Table 3.8.9. Table 3.8.9: Hilsenhoff’s Biotic Index (HBI) value and Respective Interpretation Hilsenhoff Biotic Index

Water Quality

Degree of Organic Pollution

0.00-3.50

Excellent

No apparent organic pollution

3.51-4.50

Very Good

Possible slight organic pollution

4.51-5.50

Good

Some organic pollution

5.51-6.50

Fair

Fairly significant organic pollution

6.51-7.50

Fairly Poor

Significant organic pollution

7.51-8.50

Poor

Very significant organic pollution

8.51-10.00

Very Poor

Severe organic pollution

3.8.3.2 Results The following presents the results of the habitat assessment, benthic invertebrate community and metrics as well as overall conclusions of the benthic macroinvertebrates assessment performed as part of the this study in 2011. Habitat Assessment The following provided a summary of aquatic habitat conditions of the two (2) sites within Freeport Creek (FC004 and FC009) monitored in 2011. Sampling date, water temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, channel substrate as well as descriptions of instream and riparian habitats for each site is provided in Table 3.8.10. Photographs of each station are provided in Figures 3.8.3 to 3.8.14.

Page 237

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Table 3.8.10: 2011 Benthic Invertebrate Habitat Summary Site

FC0004

FC0009

Date Sampled

May 10, 2011

Nov. 2, 2011

Water Temp. (Ë&#x161;C)

15.72

14.21

9.38

Conductivity (Âľs/cm)

1267

1244

753

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)

Channel Substrate

Description of Instream Habitat

Description of Riparian Habitat

9.16

Silt/sand

Gabion upstream. Very mucky substrate. Woody debris and detritus present throughout site and abundant in some areas. Abundant emergent vegetation. Filamentous algae present.

Scrubland on both banks, transitioning to agricultural fields within 30 m. Little canopy cover.

10.28

Sand and gravel, some cobble

Culvert upstream. Little submergent vegetation or algae. Woody debris and detritus present.

Scrubland on both banks. Left bank: agriculture 30 m away. Right bank: deciduous forest 30 m away.

12.03

Silt and gravel, with some sand

Culvert upstream. Some submergent vegetation, algae, and watercress present. Woody debris and detritus present.

Scrubland on both banks. Left bank: agriculture 30 m away. Right bank: deciduous forest 30 m away.

Page 238

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Figure 3.8.3: FC0009 (May 10, 2011) downstream end facing upstream.

Figure 3.8.5: FC0009 (May 10, 2011) upstream end facing upstream.

Figure 3.8.4: FC0009 (May 10, 2011) downstream end facing downstream.

Figure 3.8.6: FC0009 (May 10, 2011) upstream end facing downstream.

Page 239

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Figure 3.8.7: FC0009 (Nov 2, 2011) downstream end facing upstream.

Figure 3.8.9: FC0009 (Nov 2, 2011) upstream end facing upstream.

Figure 3.8.8: FC0009 (Nov 2, 2011) downstream end facing downstream.

Figure 3.8.10: FC0009 (Nov 2, 2011) upstream end facing downstream.

Page 240

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Figure 3.8.11: FC0004 (May 10, 2011) downstream end facing upstream.

Figure 3.8.12: FC0004 (May 10, 2011) downstream end facing downstream.

Figure 3.8.13: FC0004 (May 10, 2011) upstream end facing upstream.

Figure 3.8.14: FC0004 (May 10, 2011) upstream end facing downstream.

Page 241

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Benthic Invertebrate Community Table 3.8.11 summarizes the results of 2005-2010 benthic invertebrate sampling at FC0009 per the GRCA, 2011. Table 3.8.11 lists the average count of benthic invertebrates which is defined as the number of each taxa, on average, found each year. Table 3.8.11: Summary of 2005 – 2010 Freeport Creek (FC009) Benthic Macroinvertebrate Average Count Data (GRCA, 2011) Fall Spring FC0009 Group 2005 2006 2009 2010 2006 2010 AMPHIPODA 0.5 0.3 2 0.3 Crustaceans ISOPODA 135 63.3 76.7 73.3 71.5 28.7 COLEOPTERA 22 30 101.7 164.6 9.5 59.3 DIPTERA 12 122.3 63.6 57.1 258 260.1 HEMIPTERA 0.3 Insects ODONATA 0.5 0.6 0.3 EPHEMEROPTERA 0.5 0.7 0.7 PLECOPTERA 2 75.7 1.3 0.3 0.5 TRICHOPTERA 16.5 1.3 19.7 9.3 3.5 12 BIVALVIA 0.5 25.3 3.7 4.7 3 1.3 Molluscs GASTROPODA 0.3 4.5 1.3 HIRUDINEA 0.5 0.3 Worms, NEMERTEA 0.3 0.3 leeches, OLIGOCHAETA 1.5 13 33.3 0.7 4 1.7 planarians TUBELLARIA 15 5 11 13 0.5 The tables below summarize the metrics of the organisms collected at the sample sites. Given that it is difficult to determine specific thresholds for the number, or percentage, of organisms for each metric that should be found in an unimpaired stream sample, the samples were compared to each other (Table 3.8.12), by season (Table 3.8.13). A comparison of 2011 Freeport Creek results to the data collected at FC0009 from 2005-2010 is provided in Table 3.8.14 located in subsequent conclusion sections (Tables 3.8.14 and 3.8.15). There are known differences in the way the indices respond to human disturbance/habitat degradation (Jones, 2007). For Taxa richness, % EPT, # EPT taxa, % Scraper, % Shredder, % Clinger, Shannon Index and Evenness, a larger value implies a healthy biological community and low values imply reduced health (Jones, 2007) (Barbour et al, 2009). For % Oligochaeta, % Chironomidae, % Dominants and HBI, a lower value implies a healthier community (Jones, 2007) (Barbour et al, 2009) (GRCA, 2012). However, there is no “target value” since there are no reference sites in this study. We can only determine which sites have higher or lower values.

Page 242

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

In the case of % Collector-filterer, % Collector-gatherer, % Predator and % Diptera, the normal range is unknown for this study since there are no reference sites (critical values lie at both extremes) (Jones, 2007) (Barbour et al, 2009). Therefore, these metrics were not used as an indication of better or worse water quality between sites. They are useful to note habitat differences and changes in habitat quality over time which suggests a change in water quality. Table 3.8.12: Freeport Creek: Results of Spring 2011 Biotic Indices, Compared by Site 2011: Spring Parameter Average Number of Organisms Total Number of Organisms Taxa Richness % Oligochaeta % Diptera % Chironomidae % EPT # EPT % Dominants % Collector-Filterer % Collector-Gatherer % Predator % Scraper % Shredder % Clinger Shannon-Weiner Diversity Evenness HBI Indicates better relative water quality

FC0004

FC0009

291.67 876 28 5.37 57.03 55.09 0.11 1 55.09 28.46 61.14 10.63 0.11 0.46 2.74 2.04 0.61 6.46

343.33 1030 29 0.58 62.82 60.39 0.19 2 60.39 7.57 70.19 3.20 20.10 1.46 24.56 1.55 0.46 5.77

Page 243

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Table 3.8.13: Results of 2011 biotic indices for FC0009, compared by season FC0009 (2011) Parameter

Spring

Fall

Average Number of Organisms 343.33 320.33 Total Number of Organisms 1030 961 Taxa Richness 29 19 % Oligochaeta 0.58 0.21 % Diptera 62.82 6.35 % Chironomidae 60.39 0.10 % EPT 0.19 0.10 # EPT 2 1 % Dominants 60.39 48.70 % Collector-Filterer 7.57 19.35 % Collector-Gatherer 70.19 52.86 % Predator 3.20 0.10 % Scraper 20.10 26.12 % Shredder 1.46 0.94 % Clinger 24.56 36.63 Shannon-Weiner Diversity 1.55 1.57 Evenness 0.46 0.53 FBI 5.77 6.44 Indicates better water quality at FC0009 (by season)

Freeport Creek (FC0004) Analytical results indicate that the benthic community of FC0004 (downstream of the stormwater management facility â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Pond 130) was the most impaired out of the two stations sampled in 2011. The site had the best value for only two indices: Shannon Index and Evenness. This indicated that this site was more diverse than FC0009, and the taxa were more evenly distributed. % Oligochaeta and % Chironomidae (the dominant taxa) were very high for this site, indicating some degree of impairment because these are tolerant organisms. There was also an abundance of the bivalve Musculium sp. Overall, the majority of the taxa at FC0004 were pollution tolerant, with the exception of a very small number of Tipulidae (0.23% of the sample). Therefore, the HBI was calculated as 6.46, indicating fair water quality (fairly significant organic pollution). However, the presence of the caddisfly Cheumatopsyche sp. may indicate that there exists some suitable habitat for some sensitive species. As a result of the high number of chironomids and bivalves at FC0004, the main functional feeding group at this station was collector-gatherers, followed by collector-filterers. This is due to the fine substrate at this site, and accumulation of detritus. The high % collector-filter indicates fine suspended organic sediment (fine particulate organic matter). This site scored low in all metrics for specialized feeding

Page 244

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 groups and habits (scrapers, shredders, clingers) which again suggests low habitat quality and impaired water quality. The low % scrapers and % shredders suggests very little algae or living/decomposing plant material in the spring season (coarse particulate organic matter). Freeport Creek (FC0009) During spring sampling, FC0009 (downstream of King Street) scored better than FC0004 in Taxa Richness, % Oligochaeta, % EPT, # EPT, % Scraper, % Shredder, % Clinger and FBI. However, in terms of % EPT and # EPT, these values were not significantly better than FC0004. Shannon’s Index indicates that this site is less diverse, and the taxa are not as evenly distributed. This site was strongly dominated by Chironomidae, specifically Orthocladius sp., a tolerant genus. An abundance of the riffle beetle, Optioservus sp., caused FC0009 to have a lower HBI score. Riffle beetles require good quality, constantly flowing water, little sediment and moderate oxygen. (Merritt et al, 2008). However, the HBI value still lies within the same category as FC0004 (fairly significant organic pollution). As a result of the high number of Chironomids, the main functional feeding group at FC0009 was Collector-Gatherers. The next most abundant were % Clinger and % Scraper, which were both represented by Optioservus sp. (riffle beetles). The presence of Optioservus sp., and Hydropsyche sp. (a genus of caddisfly) show at least some good quality habitat may exist, however the summary indices suggest otherwise. When comparing spring and fall sampling at FC0009 (Table 3.8.13), the fall scored better in % Oligochaeta, % Chironomidae, % Dominants, % Scraper, % Clinger, Shannon Index and Evenness. The % Dipera was much lower, which was a result of the low number of Chironomidae. The fall sample contained many more Isopoda and much less Diptera than the spring sample. % Scraper was also higher, which may be a result of more decomposing plant material than in the spring.

3.8.3.3 Conclusions Although measures of biodiversity such as taxa richness, Shannon’s Diversity Index and evenness “can be influenced by factors other than water quality, a comparison of values over time or among sites that are similar in other respects may be informative about water quality conditions” (GRCA, 2012). Overall, the 2011 benthic invertebrate samples suggest that habitat quality for benthic invertebrates in Freeport Creek was poor. Aquatic habitat quality does appear to marginally increase moving downstream from FC0004 to FC0009, which could be a combination of both habitat differences and

Page 245

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 proximity of FC0004 to the on-line stormwater management facility. Ongoing benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring at these two locations would aid in confirm these assumptions. When the 2011 results for FC0009 were compared to previous years of monitoring (2005-2010), the results were generally similar (Table 3.8.14). Taxa richness, Shannonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Diversity Index and Evenness were slightly worse than the average of previous years (especially in the fall), but % Oligochaeta and % Diptera were slightly better. % EPT was much lower than previous years. This could be a seasonal fluctuation which would be confirmed by continued monitoring. The presence of species that are known to be intolerant of low dissolved oxygen (Pisidium, Optioservus) were present in most FC0009 samples from 2005-2010 (GRCA, 2012) as well as 2011. This suggests anoxic conditions are unlikely in this reach. Table 3.8.14: Comparison of 2005-2010 Freeport Creek Averages vs. 2011 Results FC0009 Parameter

Spring 20052010*

Fall 2011

Taxa Richness 31 29 Shannon's Diversity Index 1.7 1.55 Evenness 0.5 0.46 % EPT 2.3 0.19 % Oligochaeta 0.8 0.58 % Diptera 71.9 62.82 *Spring: 2006, 2010 **Fall: 2005, 2006, 2009, 2010 Indicates better water quality than 2005-2010 average

20052010** 29 1.9 0.56 10.5 3.9 20

2011 19 1.57 0.53 0.1 0.21 6.35

In the 2011 FC0009 fall samples, there were a greater number of Isopoda and Bivalvia than most previous years (Table 3.8.15). There were less Diptera, Trochoptera and Plecoptera than most years. For the spring samples there were slightly more Coleoptera and Bivalvia, but slightly less Trichoptera. For FC0009, the dominant taxa for the fall samples varied from year to year, but remained consistent for the spring samples. Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling results reflect water quality sampling results for Freeport Creek as detailed in previous sections of this report. Both indicate that water quality is marginal. Conditions may improve moving downstream from the stormwater management facility, but results were variable. The low dissolved oxygen measured immediately downstream of the stormwater pond is reflected in the tolerant benthic community. Further downstream, species intolerant of low dissolved oxygen were collected, suggesting dissolved oxygen improves further downstream of the stormwater facility.

Page 246

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Table 3.8.15: Overall Summary of Freeport Creek Benthic Data (2005-2011) Fall Spring FC0009 Group 2005 2006 2009 2010 2011 2006 2010 2011 AMPHIPODA 0.5 0.3 2 0.67 0.3 0.67 Crustaceans ISOPODA 135 63.3 76.7 73.3 156 71.5 28.7 22.7 COLEOPTERA 22 30 102 165 96.7 9.5 59.3 77.3 DIPTERA 12 122 63.6 57.1 21.3 258 260 216 HEMIPTERA 0.3 ODONATA 0.5 0.6 0.33 0.3 Insects EPHEMEROPTERA 0.5 0.7 0.7 PLECOPTERA 2 75.7 1.3 0.3 0.5 TRICHOPTERA 16.5 1.3 19.7 9.3 0.33 3.5 12 0.67 BIVALVIA 0.5 25.3 3.7 4.7 41.7 3 1.3 23.3 Molluscs GASTROPODA 0.3 4.5 1.3 0.67 HIRUDINEA 0.5 0.3 Worms, NEMERTEA 0.3 0.3 leeches, OLIGOCHAETA 1.5 13 33.3 0.7 0.67 4 1.7 2 planarians TUBELLARIA 15 5 11 13 2.67 0.5

Page 247

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

3.8.4 AQUATIC HABITAT AND FISHERIES As stated in the Terms of Reference, fisheries habitat assessments and electrofishing surveys will take place as part of the Subwatershed Study Component (Step 6: Detailed Study of Existing Conditions), using accepted protocols, at representative points along the relevant watercourses: •

Freeport Creek; and

•

Tributaries to the Grand (Riverbank Creek & Allendale Creek)

The following section describes the fisheries and aquatic habitat of Freeport Creek and the two tributaries of the Grand River (Riverbank Creek and Allendale Creek) within the East Side Lands subwatershed study area. As with the previous assessments of Water Quality (Section 3.8.2) and Benthic Macroinvertebrates (Section 3.8.3), field activities conducted as part of this study were conducted by GRCA staff in accordance with approved methodologies to ensure consistency with previously collected and published data (GRCA, 2012). The relevant data analysis and interpretation was conducted by Aquafor Beech Limited staff.

3.8.4.1 Methodology The following section summarizes the relevant sampling and collection methodologies utilized by GRCA in accordance with the East Side Subwatershed Study Phase 1 –Characterization of the Subwatershed Report (GRCA, 2012). Aquatic Habitat GRCA biologists conducted electrofishing and benthic surveys on Freeport Creek as well as Riverbank Creek and Allendale Creek on May 10th, June 1st, June 21st, June 28th, June 30th, and November 2nd, 2011, at which time general aquatic habitat observations were made, including information on substrate composition, in-stream cover, stream shading and vegetation. Fisheries Inventory Between 2005 and 2011, fish communities within Freeport Creek and the Tributaries to the Grand River (Riverbank Creek and Allendale Creek) were surveyed in accordance with Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol (OSAP) fish community sampling procedures. In 2011, Aquafor Beech Limited biologists accompanied the GRCA while conducting fish community surveys at stations FC0004 and EW9042 (Figure 3.8.1). Surveys were conducted using a Halltech HT2000B Electrofisher, involved a standard single pass sampling technique, and 1 or 2 netters depending on stream width. The standard pulse was set to 60Hz every 2ms with an output voltage dependant on the conductivity at the site. An attempt was made to standardize sampling effort along a specified distance of approximately 50m at each site. This distance was not met at all sites due to property boundaries or safety concerns.

Page 248

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

3.8.4.2 Results Aquatic Habitat A summary of aquatic habitat conditions on Freeport Creek and as well as Riverbank Creek and Allendale Creek is provided below. Photographs of each electrofishing station are provided in Figures 3.8.153.8.23. Freeport Creek Previous work has characterized Freeport Creek as largely an intermittent watercourse supporting â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;low qualityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; warmwater fish habitat (Howes-Jones, 2003). More recent work has found Freeport Creek have intermittent portions within its headwater reaches (upstream of the stormwater management facility) but to be a permanent feature downstream. Fish sampling conducted in 2011 is consistent with previous GRCA sampling performed between 2005 and 2011 and largely consistent with the 2003 study. The presence of multiple cool water species may indicate low-to-medium habitat quality, however the presence of Brook Stickleback and Creek Chub although listed as cool water species, is not indicative of good quality habitat as they can be found in low quality warm water streams throughout Ontario. The 2011 sampling further confirmed that the reach closest to the Grand River (FC0009) provides better habitat conditions than further upstream (FC0004). Fisheries assessments have been conducted along the following three (3) reaches of Freeport Creek: 1. The upstream fisheries assessment was conducted near the headwaters of Freeport Creek, next to the Challenger Motor Freight and truck storage facility (FC00010); 2. Located directly downstream of the on-line stormwater management facility (FC0006); and 3. Downstream of the Grand River Garden Village marks the location of the third and final fish sampling site on Freeport Creek (FC0009). The following describes each of the three (3) fisheries assessment sites along Freeport Creek with accompanying field photos.

Page 249

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Freeport Reach 1 The upstream fisheries assessment was conducted near the headwaters of Freeport Creek, next to the Challenger Motor Freight Inc and truck storage facility (FC00010 - Figure 3.8.1). Site photographs can be seen in Figures 3.8.15-3.8.18. The site exhibited a defined channel which became ill-defined as it approached the SWM Pond/wetland downstream. The extensively vegetated nature of the channel in the reach provided considerable in-stream cover, and is also indicative of silt accumulation in the creek due to past agricultural activities (Howes-Jones, 2003). Rubble, boulders and organic debris also provided areas of in-stream cover. The reach was well shaded by cattails and riparian grasses as well as large mature trees.

Figure 3.8.15: FC0010 downstream end facing downstream

Figure 3.8.17: FC0010 upstream end facing downstream

Figure 3.8.16: FC0010 downstream end facing upstream

Figure 3.8.18: FC0010 upstream facing upstream

Page 250

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Freeport Reach 2 The second fish sampling site on Freeport Creek was located directly downstream of the stormwater management detention area (FC0006 - Figure 3.8.1). Site photographs can be seen in Figures 3.8.193.8.21. The reach consisted mainly of wetland habitat dominated by cattails and other wetland vegetation and no defined channel. With the absence of mature trees, cattails and grasses provided much of the stream shading throughout the site. The abundance of in-stream vegetation (submergent, floating and emergent) provided excellent in-stream cover. Woody debris, detritus and filamentous was present throughout the site and was abundant in some areas. The mucky substrate consisted mainly of silt and sand. Downstream of this wetland habitat, the stream regained more definition as it flows through rear residential lots. In some places, in-stream and riparian vegetation provide excellent in-stream cover. In other places, the grass was manicured right up to the bank of the stream, providing little riparian cover and shading. Substrate consisted mainly of silt as well as areas containing gravel, cobble and boulders. The reach also contained perched culverts that act as barriers to fish migration. Further downstream, Freeport Creek passes beneath the CPR railway line, King Street East and through the Grand River Garden Village. The reach through the Grand River Garden Village resembled a grassy swale with little to no stream shading. In-stream cover was provided mainly by in-stream vegetation and terrestrial grasses. Substrate through the reach was dominated by terrestrial grasses and silt. .

Page 251

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Figure 3.8.19: FC0006 downstream facing downstream

Figure 3.8.20: FC0006 downstream end facing upstream

Figure 3.8.21: FC0006 upstream facing downstream (L) and Upstream (R)

Page 252

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Freeport Reach 3 Downstream of the Grand River Garden Village marks the location of the third and final fish sampling site on Freeport Creek (FC0009 - Figure 3.8.1). Site photographs can be seen in Figures 3.8.22 and 3.8.23. In this reach, Freeport Creek takes a more natural form with a clearly defined channel. Instream cover was provided by an abundance of boulders and woody and organic debris. Little submergent vegetation or algae was present. Substrate was dominated by silt and gravel, with some sand and cobble present. Upstream the creek flows through a meadow where in-stream shading was dominated by overhanging riparian grasses and shrubs.

Figure 3.8.22: Upstream end of site facing upstream (to the left), and facing downstream (to the right) view of Freeport Creek fish community survey location downstream of King St. E. (FC0009)

Figure 3.8.23: Downstream end of site facing upstream (to the left) and facing downstream (to the right), view of Freeport Creek fish community survey location downstream of King St. E. (FC0009)

Page 253

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Riverbank Creek and Allendale Creek Fish population assessments were conducted on both Riverbank Creek and Allendale Creek by the GRCA in June 2011. There was one sampling site on each branch (EW9042 and NS9044 - Figure 3.8.1). The sampling site on Allendale Creek was approximately 209 m in length starting from approximately 10 m upstream of Riverbank Drive and ran through a riparian woodlot. The woodlot provides excellent stream shading. Site photographs can be seen in Figures 3.8.24 and 3.8.25. There was ample in-stream cover located throughout the site, including boulders, cobble, organic and woody debris, overhanging vegetation and undercut banks. Anthropogenic material such as old tires, wire fencing and freezers were scattered throughout the reach. An overall lack of riparian vegetation has helped contribute to steep, eroded banks. The sampling site on Riverbank Creek was approximately 22 m in length and contained an abundance of algae. Site photographs can be seen in Figures 3.8.24 and 3.8.25. At the bottom of the site a culvert was used to convey flow under the driveway connecting the residential property on the east side of the tributary to the agricultural field on the west. A very deep pool just downstream of the culvert provides refuge habitat. The stream was well shaded with large poplars and willows. In the upstream section of the sampling site the substrate was fairly firm and became softer downstream towards the culvert. The substrate just upstream of the culvert was mucky and composed mainly of silt and sand.

Page 254

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Figure 3.8.24: Allendale Creek EW9042 facing upstream (left) and downstream (right)

Figure 3.8.25. Riverbank Creek NS9044 facing upstream (left) and downstream (right)

Fisheries Inventory Fish community surveys were completed at a total of 5 sites. Figure 3.8.1 illustrates the fish community survey locations between 2005 and 2011. A summary of the presence/absence of fish species and a complete list of species found at each location per year is provided in Table 3.8.16 and 3.8.17 respectively:

Page 255

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Table 3.8.16: Presence/absence of fish species within Freeport Creek and Tributaries to the Grand River (Riverbank Creek and Allendale Creek) between 2005 and 2011

Species Name

Common Name

Grand River Tribs

Freeport Creek

Habitat Preference 2005

2008

2009

2010

2011

Umbra limi

Central Mudminnow

Cool water

Catostomus commersonii

White Sucker

Cool water

Luxilus cornutus frontalis

Common Shiner

Cool water

Pimephales promelas

Fathead Minnow

Warm water

Semotilus atromaculatus atromaculatus

Creek Chub

Cool water

Culaea inconstans

Brook Stickleback

Cool water

Ambloplites rupestris

Rock Bass

Cool water

Lepomis gibbosus

Pumpkinseed

Warm water

Etheostoma nigrum nigrum

Johnny Darter

Cool water

Campostoma anomalum

Central Stoneroller

Cool water

Total No. Species

Page 256

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Table 3.8.17: Fish Community Survey Results from Freeport Creek and Tributaries to the Grand River, 2005-2011 Freeport Creek Sp. Code

Scientific Name

Species

Thermal Regime

141

Umbra limi

163

Catostomus commersonii Luxilus cornutus frontalis Pimephales promelas Semotilus atromaculatus atromaculatus

198 209 212 281

Culaea inconstans

311

Ambloplites rupestris Lepomis gibbosus Etheostoma nigrum nigrum Campostoma anomalum

313 341 216

u/s King St below pond (FC0004)

GVGV property (FC0009) 2005

Central Mudminnow

Cool water

White Sucker

Cool water

Common Shiner Fathead Minnow

Cool water

2009

2010

Grand River Tributaries

2011

2008

2010

2011

Challenger Motor Freight (FC0010)

Riverbank Creek (NS9044)

Allendale Creek (EW9042)

2011

Warm water

Creek Chub

Cool water

Brook Stickleback

Cool water

253

Rock Bass

Cool water

Pumpkinseed

Warm water

Johnny Darter

Cool water

Central Stoneroller

Cool water

uk â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Unknown x â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Indicates species presence

Total:

267

No. Species:

Electrofish seconds:

439

1112

733

1130

1707

337

1104

869

1143

Length of Station (m):

20.0

32.1

50.0

55.0

50.0

58.0

22.0

209.0

Air Temp ( C): o

Water Temp( C):

6.0

23.0

24.5

27.0

16.0

18.5

24.0

23.0

8.0

18.0

21.5

22.8

15.0

18.5

21.7

16.0

15.0

Page 257

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 A total number of 10 species representing 10 genera were recorded in Freeport Creek and Riverbank Creek between 2005 and 2011 (see Table 3.8.17). No fish were recorded in Allendale Creek. Most species recorded (8 out of 10) prefer cool water. Fathead minnow and pumpkinseed, which prefer warm water, were also recorded. On average, brook stickleback, a cool water species, was found to be most abundant, followed by creek chub and white sucker, also cool water species (see Table 3.8.17). Only one game species, rock bass, was recorded. All species collected are considered to be common and widespread in Ontario and typical of cool water streams within the Grand River watershed.

3.8.4.3 Conclusions Increased species richness at the Freeport Creek (FC 0009 - GVG) site suggests that the reach closest to the Grand River does provide better fish habitat than further upstream, as stated in Howes-Jones, 2003. The majority of the warm water species were captured downstream of the stormwater management detention area, upstream of King Street, which again suggests superior habitat conditions exist further downstream. The lack of species captured at the upstream Challenger Motor Freight site is most likely due to the intermittent nature of Freeport Creek, as well as multiple barriers to fish migration within the watercourse, especially the outflow structure at the downstream end of the stormwater management detention facility (Pond 130). It is likely that these fish migrated upstream during flood conditions only. The presence of multiple cool water species may indicate low-to-medium habitat quality; however the presence of Brook Stickleback and Creek Chub although listed as cool water species, is not indicative of good quality habitat as they can be found in low quality warm water streams throughout Ontario. The reduced species diversity within Riverbank Creek suggests that this reach provides lower quality fish habitat than that of the lower reach of Freeport Creek. However, the abundance of brook stickleback suggests clear, cool densely vegetated water. The absence of fish within Allendale Creek is most likely a consequence of the steep gradient from the Grand River to the sampling site and the intermittent flow within the reach. Fish and Aquatic Invertebrate Species at Risk There are no fish or aquatic invertebrate species at risk or other significant fish or aquatic invertebrate species located within the detailed study area.

Page 258

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

4.0 OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS TO DEVELOPMENT 4.1 CONSTRAINTS TO DEVELOPMENT Constraints to development include features, functions and or policy designations that preclude, limit or shape the development of an area. The level of constraint can vary from prohibition of development to a requirement of a specific management practice(s) or remediation measures to be undertaken during implementation. At the lowest level of constraint, the application of appropriate management practices may be sufficient to allow development to proceed. The following section outlines the potential constraints to development in regard to hazard lands (steep slopes, meander belt and floodplain), groundwater, Greenlands Network, Greenspace Plan, buffers and setbacks. Opportunities for development are outlined in Section 4.2

4.1.1 HAZARD LANDS 4.1.1.1 Meander Belt Width A meander belt is defined as the area that a channel currently occupies, or which it may be expected to occupy in the future. The degree to which a channel will meander depends upon the channel’s environment and the collection of processes which are expected to occur. In terms of slope conditions, true meandering channels tend to occur on slopes less than 1%, and in most cases exhibit slopes less than 0.5% (Knighton, 1998). Although active meandering may not occur on all watercourses, channels will exhibit some degree of lateral expression within a geomorphically active corridor. Further, previously straightened channels may have ultimate lateral migration zones which can be partially or fully re-attained if given enough time (i.e., natural channels are rarely straight). As such, it is preferable that expected bank erosion processes are preserved within an appropriate erodible corridor (Piégay et al. 2005). Meander belt delineation approaches (i.e., mapping and empirical) are the most accepted methods for defining a channel’s erodible corridor width. A common study approach used to define the meander belt values within the GTA is based on mapping procedures outlined in the TRCA meander belt delineation protocol (TRCA, 2001). Given historic and recent modifications to the subject tributaries, many reaches in the study area do not exhibit natural features and thus cannot be realistically mapped under the TRCA mapping protocol.

Page 259

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Where mapping procedures are considered inadequate, the Aquafor Beech Limited preferred approach is to consider multiple empirical models, each with their own strengths and weakness. As outlined below, three empirical models are considered viable for this study, and the results of each model are weighted equally to arrive at an average preliminary meander belt width for each study reach. Erosion allowances are added to the preliminary values based on a historic assessment of erosion rates using aerial photography. Preliminary meander belt width estimates and 100 year erosion allowances are then used to make a final geomorphic hazard recommendation for each of the watercourses, including determination of an erosion access allowance (minimum 6m). In some cases where the meandering classification is completely inadequate and/or the channel gradient is well outside the range for meandering channels, other methods of delineating the geomorphic hazards will need to be considered (e.g. Allendale Creek, Section 3.6.4.1). Freeport Creek The delineation of appropriate meander belt widths to determine development limits was calculated for Freeport Creek. Historical analysis of aerial photographs from 1966, 1982, and 2009 showed that Freeport Creek had been straightened in a number of locations prior to 1951 (see Section 3.6) and a stormwater management facility had been built in the upstream portion of the watercourse. Reach FC-6 was the only reach where no obvious indicators of channel alterations were identified. A 100 year erosion rate was calculated along this reach by overlaying channel positions from all image years and conducting measurements at channel bend locations to identify areas with the most significant lateral change. This method of analysis resulted in an estimated erosion rate of 0.09 m/year. Three empirical equations were considered viable for the purpose of this meander belt assessment: •

Annable (1996): Empirical relationship for watercourse across southern Ontario, including the study area. The model provides an appropriate regional context and is based on a practical predictor of meander belt width, but has a weak physical basis. Equation 1: Mb = 16.3 QBF0.88 r2 = 0.61 [Note: Rosgen E-Type Classification] Where Mb is the meander belt width (m); QBF is the bankfull discharge (m3/s, estimated by Q2 discharge); and 16.3 and 0.88 are the empirical coefficient and exponent of calibration, respectively.

•

TRCA (2001): Empirical relationship developed for watercourses within TRCA jurisdiction. The model provides an appropriate regional context and is based on practical predictors of meander belt widths, but it has a weak physical basis. Equation 2:

Mb = -14.827 + 8.319 ln (Ω x Ad) r2 = 0.74

[Note: Ω = γQ2S]

Where Mb is the meander belt width (m); Ω is stream power (W/m); Ad is drainage area (km2); γ is the specific weight of water (9792.3 kg m-2 s-2 at 20 °C), Q2 is 2 year discharge (m3/s), S is the longitudinal channel slope, and -14.827 and 8.319 are empirical coefficients of calibration.

Page 260

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 •

ABL Equation: Physically-based multi-variant empirical relationship with the data set based on stream environments within the Greater Toronto Area and Region. The model is based on a strong theoretical and physical basis, but has more parameters which are less practical to evaluate (e.g., for small systems sediment mass rate must be extrapolated based empirical relationships from larger watercourses). Equation 3: M =k φ b

  k k 4 -k 5 2   QBFL   QS   k     gφ503   Q BFL    Sk 6  

       

r2 = 0.70

Where Mb is meander belt width (m); QBFL is bank full discharge (m3/s), Φ50 is the 50% particle size fraction (mm), Qs is the sediment mass rate (kg/s), S is the longitudinal channel slope, and k1 to k6 are coefficients of calibration. Based on the results presented in Table 4.1.1 it is recommended that a meander belt width of 37m is appropriate for all reaches in Freeport Creek to protect channel functions and processes (Figure 4.1.1). This includes a 9m buffer to allow for future channel migration for a 100 year period. Table 4.1.1: Meander Belt Width Results for Freeport Creek

Method

Defining Parameters Eq#

TRCA (2001) Mapping Protocol

Channel Planform

Mb – Preliminary Meander Belt Width (m) Reach FC-1

Reach FC-2

Reach FC-3

Reach FC-4

Reach FC-5

Reach FC-6

Reach FC-9

N/A

Empirical Equations Annable (1996) Rosgen E-Type

QBFL

Ad, Ω

QBLF, Qs, S, Φ50

Average of Empirical Equations Addition of 100 year erosion rate

26 35

20 29

22 31

20 29

28 37

TRCA (2001) ABL Equation

Page 261

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 It should be noted that the TRCA (2001) empirical model calculations for meander belt width in the Aquafor Beech Limited analysis has not included the addition of 1 or 2 standard errors (SE) for the model (SE = 8.63 m), as this factor of safety procedure is considered to be redundant with adding 100 year erosion allowances to the preliminary meander belt width values, and the TRCA model is only one of three models considered in the analysis. Allendale Creek Allendale creek is an incised, high gradient, gully-type channel that is confined and entrenched within a valley (limiting meander development and lateral migration). As described in Section 3.6, meander belt procedures are not appropriate for delineating the geomorphic hazard and erosion setbacks for development on such systems. This includes the fact that the channel gradient for this watercourse is well outside the data sets used to derive most (if not all) empirical meander belt equations for southern Ontario (i.e., inappropriate extrapolation). The closest approximation to an appropriate erodible corridor width from the Aquafor Beech Limited equation is in the range of 10 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 15 m (valley bottom, excluding gully side slopes), but this is not a final recommendation. As such, a detailed geotechnical investigation will be required to complete a full geomorphic hazard assessment of this system. This study will require a suitable number of borehole logs adjacent to the gully feature to determine a geotechnical stable slope for each stratigraphic layer between the upland surface and the elevation of the Grand River valley floodplain. Geomorphic estimates of lateral and vertical erosion rates would then be assessed based on the boreholes and additional field data collection, with recommendations also referenced to the Provincial Natural Hazards Technical Guides (OMNR, 2003). Final fluvial geomorphic hazards for this watercourse would be based on a 100 year lateral and vertical erosion allowance, with future geotechnical stable slopes forecast on each side of the gully until they â&#x20AC;&#x153;daylightâ&#x20AC;? at the upland surface plus the necessary 6m minimum erosion access allowance setback per the City of Cambridge OP Policy 3.B.6.1.3.6. This stable slope analysis would then be used to delineate the planimetric geomorphic hazard area for development constraints adjacent to the watercourse.

Page 262

ST N IN FOUNTA

KOSSU

TH R D

EAST SIDE LAND MESP AND COMMUNITY PLAN FREEPORT CREEK AND TRIBUTARY TO THE GRAND SUBWATERSHED STUDY

RIV E

R IV

KD R

Kitchener

MIDDLE BL OC K RD

FIGURE 4.1.1 MEANDER BELT WIDTH

A LL

BY PA SS

HIGHWAY

MUNICIPAL ROADS

REGIONAL ROADS

EE K

LOCAL ROADS STAGE 1 STUDY AREA WEST OF FOUNTAIN STREET

PRIME INDUSTRIAL STRATEGIC RESERVE (SERVICED)

RI VE TR

IB U

TA R

STREAMS

MEANDER BELT (37m BUFFER)

D R

SALTMAN DR.

K E

O V

Y HW

AI L

WATER BODIES

ALLENDALE RD

BA R

LT E

REGION OF WATERLOO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

DETAILED SUBWATERSHED STUDY AREA

GR AN D

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY

BANAT

KING ST E

Cambridge

0.5

1 km

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

4.1.1.2 Floodplain Mapping As part of the East Side Lands Master Environmental Servicing Plan Study, hydraulic modeling and floodplain mapping have been developed for Freeport Creek. The modeling and floodplain mapping were undertaken in two (2) phases. •

Phase #1 - Complete floodplain mapping for Freeport Creek upstream of the CPR railway tracks. The modeling and mapping for this phase used 2009 topographic base mapping supplied by GRCA. The resultant floodlines have been included within Figure 4.2 – Opportunities & Constraints to Development; and

•

Phase #2 - Complete floodplain mapping for Freeport Creek downstream of the CPR railway tracks including the Honda site, King Street and the Grand River Garden Village. The 2009 topographic base mapping used in Phase 1 does not reflect the recent construction of the Honda site and the driveway structure at this location. Therefore, a number of other sources of information were used to develop “composite” topographic mapping for this area. This information was used to extend the hydraulic model downstream of the CPR railway.

For further information on hydraulic modeling and floodplain mapping refer to Section 3.5.7.3. Full reports for Phases 1 and 2 are provided in Appendix G.

4.1.1.3 Steep Slopes Slope failures cause devastating damages to private property, infrastructure and the environment. Almost any modification increases the risk of slope movement. Slope failures can be triggered by (MNR, 2001): • • • • •

atmospheric processes, (heavy rainfall); geologic processes (earth tremors; freeze-thaw soil action); human modification, or typically; or a combination of all of the above.

“Therefore, slope failures occur nearly everywhere that slopes exist. Human activities and modifications of slopes almost always increase the risk of slope failure, especially in areas already susceptible to these natural hazards” (MNR, 2001). The general study area includes two areas of identified steep slope hazards: • •

Along the Grand River and Allendale Creek

Development should not be permitted on or on top of valley walls of the aforementioned features because the long-term stability of the slope, and public health and safety, cannot be guaranteed. The steep slopes of the Grand River are outside the limits of the Stage 1 lands. The limits of the steep slope hazard for the Grand River have been previously identified and the limits mapped. Contact GRCA for further information. Additional geotechnical studies are required for Allendale Creek to determine the limit of the steep slope hazard, see Section 4.1.1.1 and Section 9.1.

Page 264

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

4.1.2 GROUNDWATER The Region of Waterloo has been implementing a Water Resources Protection Strategy (WRPS) since 1993 in order to minimize the risk of historic, existing and future land uses on municipal water supplies. From 2000 to 2007, the Region delineated vulnerable areas including Well Head Protection Areas (WHPAs) around the Region’s supply wells, the Intake Protection Zone (IPZ) for the Hidden Valley water intake and a threat assessment for potential contaminated sites. In 2008, the Region of Waterloo issued “Water Resources Protection Master Plan” which is intended guide source protection activities for the Region from 2007 through 2016. The implementation of the Master Plan is in two phases: activities and programs in the interim period up to 2012 and prior to completion of the watershed-based Source Protection Plan (SPP) required under the Clean Water Act; and those following integration of this Master Plan with the SPP. The Master Plan details the Region’s Water approaches to protect drinking water sources including areas to protect and the activities to be managed. With regard to future development, the Master Plan updated the mandate of the 1993 Water Resources Protection Strategy (WRPS) to minimize the risks to water quality and quantity from future land uses and activities. This is primarily focused to areas that are intrinsically vulnerable, characterized by permeable sandy soils, a shallow water table, groundwater recharge and areas lying within WHPAs and IPZs. At the August 16, 2012 meeting of the Region of Waterloo Planning and Works Committee, a draft Source Protection Plan was submitted, which was reproduced in draft form as Volume II of the Grand River Source Protection Plan, issued for public comment. On December 6, 2012, the Region Source Protection Committee released proposed revisions to the Grand River Source Protection Plan, again for public comment until January 16, 2013. Following approval, which is anticipated in mid-2014, the Region will work with others to implement the policies. Region staff are currently developing the process and content of risk management plans, a new implementation tool enabled by the Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act 2006 mandates the development and implementation of local, watershed-based source protection plans (SPP). The key objectives of the SPP are to identify activities and risks to municipal drinking water sources, and to develop local policies to protect current and future sources of drinking water. Volume I of the Proposed Grand River Source Protection Plan provided the context for the overall Plan and a description of the watershed/source protection area. This volume also includes a description of plan components, key steps in the planning process, public consultation, interaction with other Source

Page 265

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Protection Regions, source water threats, guidance on how to read the plan, and details on plan implementation and enforcement.

Section 15 (2) of the Clean Water Act requires that an assessment report do the following: • • • •

identify surface water intake protection zones and wellhead protection zones for existing and future municipal drinking water systems; Identify significant groundwater recharge areas and highly vulnerable aquifers; set out a water budget; describe the drinking water issues relating to the quality and quantity of water in each of the vulnerable areas, including significant drinking water threats.

The Clean Water Act sets out the requirements for a Source Protection Plan (SPP): •

•

• • •

A list of activities that are designated by the source protection plan as activities to which section 57 should apply and, for each designated activity, the areas that are designated by the plan as areas within which section 57 should apply to the activity A list of activities that are designated by the source protection plan as activities to which section 58 should apply and, for each designated activity, the areas that are designated by the plan as areas within which section 58 should apply to the activity. A list of land uses that are designated by the source protection plan as land uses to which section 59 should apply. Develop policies governing the content of risk management plans established under Section 58. A list of land uses that are designated by the source protection plan as land uses to which section 59 should apply and, for each designated land use, the areas that are designated by the plan as areas within which section 59 should apply to the land use.

Ontario Regulation 287/07 provides definitions of highly vulnerable aquifers, significant groundwater and the prescribed activities that represent drinking water threats. The Grand River Source Protection Plan, as proposed by the Region of Waterloo (December 6, 2012) lists prescribed drinking water threats as follows, along with prescribed instruments and policies : 1. Establishment, operation or maintenance of a waste disposal site; 2. Establishment, operation or maintenance of a system that collects, stores, transmits, treats or disposes of sewage; 3. Discharge of stormwater from a stormwater management facility within a vulnerable area 4. The application or storage of agricultural source material; 5. The application, storage or handling of non-agricultural source material; 6. The application, storage or handling of commercial fertilizer; 7. The application, storage or handling of pesticides;

Page 266

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

The application, storage or handling of road salt; The storage of snow; The handling or storage of fuel; The handling or storage of dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPL); The handling or storage of organic solvent; The management and runoff of aircraft deicing chemicals; The use of land for livestock grazing, pasturing land or outdoor animal confinement

The majority of the East Side Lands are classified as having a low Intrinsic Susceptibility Index (ISI) due to the thickness of the overburden (30 metres) overlying the Deep Aquifer (Grand River Source Protection Area, Approved Assessment Report, 2012, Map 9-137). The subwatershed study area contains the Wellhead Protection Sensitivity Areas (WPSA) for Well P16, the WPSA for Wells K80, K81 and K82 on the western bank of the Grand River and the intake Protection Zone (IPZ-2) for the Hidden Valley Water Supply Intake, which extends from the Grand River to Fountain Street. The headwaters of Freeport Creek and the Randall Drain lie within IPZ-2 for the Hidden Valley surface water intake (IPZ-2 represents 2 hours flow time that is the contributing area upstream of the water intake). The groundwater and surface water vulnerable areas including the WPSA1/WHPA-A for the new Maple Grove well (FSTP1-10) are illustrated in Figure 4.1.3.

Page 267

K81 K80 # % [ # ##% [## #

# ##

# ## ## # # #

# # # ## # # # #

RB AN K

RIV E

# ##

TH KOSSU

# # FIGURE 4.1.3 MUNICIPAL WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREA AND INTAKE PROTECTION ZONE

# # #

# Y

MW4

MIDDLE BLOC

####

K RD

ER RI V

# #

S EA R

D R VE

G RO LE

SALTMAN DR.

D R ES

# ## # ##

% [

# # #

WPSA ZONE 7 WPSA ZONE 8

FSTP1 -10 WPSA1/WHPA-A

# # # # # #

# # #

# ## #

Additional data sources and mapping provided by the RMOW, the City of Cambridge, and the GRCA.

## #

## ## # # # #

## # ## #

500 Meters

Base data provided by the Ministry of Natural Resources: Produced by Dillon Consulting under Licence with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2011

## ##

250

# #

## # # # # #

# #

ES W

WPSA ZONE 6

# #

WPSA ZONE 5

# #

WPSA ZONE 4

Cambridge

WPSA ZONE 3

# # # ####

K EE

P16

MOE DATABASE WELL

WPSA ZONE 2

# # #

POTENTIAL FUTURE MUNICIPAL WELLHEAD

WPSA ZONE 1

MTE WELL

# # ###

# ## # # # # ## # ### # # ## # ## # # # # ## # # ## # # # # # # # # ## # # ## # ## ### ## # # ### ## # ## # # # ### # # # # ## ## # # # ## ## # ## # # # ### # #

# Y

MUNICIPAL WELLHEAD

WELLHEAD PROTECTION SENSITIVITY AREAS

FSTW1-10

# #

# Y # Y

# MW2

GROUNDWATER UNDER DIRECT INFLUENCE (GUDI)

INTAKE PROTECTION ZONE (EAST OF THE GRAND)

# # E RE

## Y ## Y FSTP1-10 FSTW1-06 Y

## ## # #

[ % [ %

MOHAWK RD

# #

## # # # # ## # #

## # Y

STREAMS

MW3

ALLENDALE RD

## # #

# # # ## # ## # #

PO RT CR #EE

# #

# # # ##### # ## # # ## ## ### # ## # # # # # # ## # # # ##### # # # ### #

BANAT

FR EE

# #

# # # ##

WATER BODIES

## # # # # ### # # # # ## # # # ## ### # # ### # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # MW1 Y #

# # #

# #

TR IBU TA # #RY

SWM POND

STAGE 1 STUDY AREA MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY

BE AN TR AIL

EEK

## #

RA ND

LOCAL ROADS

ID M

# # # # # ## #

WA LT ER

REGIONAL ROADS

DA LE

MUNICIPAL ROADS

# #

HIGHWAY

# ALL EN

BA RN

BY PA SS # #

FREEPORT CREEK AND TRIBUTARY TO THE GRAND SUBWATERSHED STUDY

# #

# ##

# #

# # #

# ## DR

# #

# Kitchener

RIV ER BA NK

Woolwich #

RIV

EAST SIDE LAND MESP AND COMMUNITY PLAN

SPEEDSVILLE

# # ##

CR EE K

# ## #

# #

# ## # #### # # # # # # DR NK # A B # ER

# #

ST N

% [

### #

ich RD COBER

IN FOUNTA

# #

K82 # # # ###

olw # Wo #

## ##

# #

KING ST E

# ## # #

File Location: C:\Projects\65107-EastSideLands\GIS\MXD\Final-June12-2013\ Figure-4.1.3-WellheadProtection.mxd Date: June 12, 2013

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

4.1.2.1 Groundwater Constraints to Development Proposals There are six (6) potential groundwater constraints to the development proposals for municipal infrastructure listed in Table 4.1.2. Table 4.1.2: Potential Groundwater constraints to Development Proposals Constraints to Development Proposals 1. The headwaters of Freeport Creek appears to collect and store water in the wetland that is mounded on underlying till plain. The groundwater level in the shallow monitor well (MW1-C) near the stormwater management pond exhibits almost no seasonal fluctuation and almost no response to rainfall events. The headwaters provide baseflow to Freeport Creek during much of the year; 2. Three shallow monitor wells exhibit significant responses to rainfall events, indicating that infiltration of precipitation should be maintained. 3. There is little evidence that the Shallow Aquifer is hydraulically connected to the Deep Aquifer through the thick sequence of till; and, 4. Freeport Creek, Allendale Creek and Riverbank Creek lie within the Hidden Valley IPZ-2;, 5. Portions of the study area lie within the established WHPA for well P16 on Fountain Street and may lie within a future WHPA for the proposed municipal well FSTP-1-10 on Maple Grove Road, should it be brought into production by the Region of Waterloo. 6. The quality of the shallow groundwater within the East Side Lands is susceptible to chloride impacts from road salt on large parking lots (defined as having more than 80 parking spaces or with a paved area greater than 2000 m2). In keeping with the Regionsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Official Plan, a Salt Impact Assessment may be required for plans of subdivision and zoning by-laws proposing new employment land uses and multiple-unit residential development. The Regionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s SPP lists existing and proposed policies (RW-CW-15 through RW-CW-20) dealing with stormwater management, particularly where issues relating to nitrate, chloride and/or sodium have been identified. Policies dealing with application, storage or handling of road salt (RW-CW-34 through RW-CW40).

Page 269

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

4.1.3 GREENLANDS NETWORK Section 2.1.2 of the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) states that the diversity and connectivity of natural features in an area, and the long-term ecological function and biodiversity of natural heritage systems, should be maintained, restored or, where possible, improved, recognizing linkages between and among natural heritage features and areas, surface water features and groundwater features (MMAH, 2005). Accordingly, a key objective of the East Side Lands Subwatershed Study is to provide a framework to guide the development of lands so that the ecological processes, functions and significant natural features are protected, maintained and enhanced. The Province of Ontario provides technical guidance to implement the natural heritage policies of the PPS through the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (NHRM). The first edition of the NHRM, issued by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) in 1999, recognizes the development of a natural heritage system as a comprehensive approach to defining and protecting natural heritage features and areas. The most recent edition of the NHRM, issued in 2010, places greater emphasis on planning for natural heritage systems and providing connectivity among natural heritage features and areas (MNR, 2010). The 2005 PPS defines a Natural Heritage System (NHS) as a system made up of natural heritage features and areas, linked by natural corridors which are necessary to maintain biological and geological diversity, natural functions, viable populations of indigenous species and ecosystems. These systems can include lands that have been restored and areas with the potential to be restored to a natural state (MMAH, 2005). The NHS approach is a useful method for the protection of natural heritage features and areas because it reinforces an understanding that the elements of the system have strong ecological ties to each other, as well as to other physical features and areas in the overall landscape. The NHS approach also addresses a number of important land use planning concerns, including biodiversity decline, landscape fragmentation and the maintenance of ecosystem health. The NHRM describes these planning concerns in greater detail and outlines the potential benefits of a NHS (MNR, 2010). The Greenlands Network is a nested approach to natural heritage planning that affords differing levels of protection to environmental features based on environmental significance. The Greenlands network is comprised of Landscape Level Systems, Core Environmental Features, Supporting Environmental Features, and the linkages among these elements (City of Cambridge, 2012; ROP, 20091). Also included within the natural heritage system are â&#x20AC;&#x153;lands that may be suitable or required for restorationâ&#x20AC;? (City of Cambridge, 2012). Aquafor Beech Limited identified the Greenlands Network for the study area using the definitions provided in the Regional Official Plan (ROP, 2009) and accompanying Greenlands Implementation Guideline (RMW, 20112), as well as the Natural Heritage and Environment Management Policies of the Cambridge Official Plan (2012). The general subwatershed study areaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Greenlands Network is illustrated at the end of Section 4.1.3 in Figure 4.1.8.

Page 270

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

4.1.3.1 Landscape Level Systems Landscape Level Systems are the highest level in the Greenlands Network’s hierarchy of environmental features. The identification of Landscape Level Systems allows for a systems approach to protecting macro-scale or concentrations of environmental features that significantly contribute to the ecological functioning of Waterloo Region’s landscape. These features include: • Environmentally Sensitive Landscapes; • Significant Valleys; • Regional Recharge Areas; and • Provincial Greenbelt Natural Heritage System and are discussed in subsequent Sections below.

Environmentally Sensitive Landscapes Environmentally Sensitive Landscapes are defined as: A geographically and ecologically definable landscape that is distinguishable from the surrounding areas by the concentration, proximity, and/or overlap of: a) Designated natural features (such as Environmentally Sensitive Policy Areas, Provincially Significant Wetlands, Significant Woodlands, and Environmentally Significant Valley Features), b) Associated natural features (such as stream valleys and specialized habitats), and c) Ecological functions (such as groundwater recharge areas and ecological corridors or linkages) which together constitute a heterogeneous landscape mosaic that contributes significantly to Regional biodiversity conservation (RMW, 2011).

The Waterloo Region Official Plan (ROP, 20091) further defines criteria for Environmentally Sensitive Landscapes in Section 7.B.5: To qualify for designation as an Environmentally Sensitive Landscape, an area will: (a) fulfill all of the following: i) be a geographically and ecologically definable landscape; ii) contain natural features that are contiguous, linked or sufficiently close to allow for movement of flora or fauna through the area; iii) not be bisected by major highways; and iv) be located primarily outside areas designated for fully serviced urban development and/or established Rural Settlement Areas; and (b) contain any two of the following designated natural features:

Page 271

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 i) Significant Habitat of Endangered or Threatened Species; ii) Environmentally Sensitive Policy Area; iii) Provincially Significant Wetland; iv) Regionally significant Earth Science Area of Natural and Scientific Interest; v) Significant Valleys; or vi) Significant Woodlands; and (c) contain any two of the following associated natural features: i) rivers, major stream valleys, floodplains and associated hazard lands; ii) woodlands greater than four hectares in extent; iii) forest interior habitat; iv) other wetlands; v) significant landforms such as moraines, kettle lakes, kames, eskers and drumlins; vi) significant wildlife habitat such as: winter habitat for deer or wild turkeys; colonial bird nesting areas; raptor roosting, feeding and nesting areas; hibernaculae or herpetofauna breeding areas; and significant migratory stop over areas; or vii) specialized habitats such as but not limited to: savannas; tallgrass prairies; rare woodland types; cliffs; alvars; sand barrens; marl seeps; bogs; and fens; and (d) sustain any two of the following ecological functions: i) provide significant groundwater storage, recharge or discharge; ii) sustain a fishery resource; iii) provide diverse natural habitats; iv) provide habitat for provincially or regionally significant species; or v) serve as a linkage. As stated in the Waterloo Region Official Plan (ROP, 2009), in order for an area to qualify as an Environmentally Sensitive Landscape, it must â&#x20AC;&#x153;contain natural features that are contiguous, linked or sufficiently close to allow for movement of flora or fauna through the areaâ&#x20AC;? (Section 7.B.5 (a)). Land use within the study area is predominantly agricultural/rural. As a result of the landsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; agricultural history, natural and semi-natural areas within the study area are generally disjunct with the exception of remnant natural features within the Grand River Valley. Without active rehabilitation measures, at a landscape scale wildlife movement in the study area is limited to the Grand River Valley corridor. Opportunities to connect some of the natural features in the north portion of the study area with the Grand River Valley and the Hespeler West Provincially Significant Wetland Complex exist, with current residential and commercial land uses restricting landscape connectivity in the southern portion of the subwatershed. In sum, the natural and semi-natural features within the general subwatershed study area have the potential to be reconnected to the larger natural landscape through rehabilitation initiatives, but linkage

Page 272

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 opportunities are limited by existing adjacent development. Notwithstanding the recommended enhancements to the Natural Heritage System discussed in Section 3.1.3.5 of this report, all of the four sub criteria under 7.B.5 (a) of the Waterloo Region Official Plan must be satisfied in order for lands to qualify for designation as an Environmentally Sensitive Landscape. Furthermore, a significant portion of the study area is zoned as Prime Industrial Strategic Reserve, thus disqualifying the lands from satisfying criteria a) iv) above. Consequently, lands within the general subwatershed study area do not meet the requirements of Environmentally Sensitive Landscapes.

Significant Valleys The Waterloo Regional Official Plan (ROP, 2009) defines Significant Valleys as: Valleys of the Grand River, Conestogo River, Nith River and Speed River, which are together nationally recognized as a Canadian Heritage River. Significant Valleys comprise the entire river channel within the region and run up to the point where the slope of the valley begins to grade into the surrounding upland. Significant Valleys are mapped as Landscape Level Features on Map 4 of the Regional Official Plan (ROP, 2009). Within the East Side Lands subwatershed, Area A and the westernmost section of Area B are contained within the valley of the Grand River. Landscape Level Features in Map 4 of the Regional Official Plan (ROP, 2009) have been included in Figure 4.1.11 (Greenlands Network) and related figures. Provincial Greenbelt Natural Heritage System The Provincial Greenbelt Natural Heritage System is a protected area primarily within the Greater Golden Horseshoe that is comprised of 1.8 million ha of farmland and greenspace (The Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation, 2012). A small portion of Waterloo Region falls under the Greenbelt designation of Protected Countryside. This area is well outside of the general subwatershed study area.

Page 273

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

4.1.3.2 Core Environmental Features Core Environmental Features is the next level after Landscape Level Features in the hierarchy of environmental features comprising the Greenlands Network. Core Environmental Features are provincially or regionally significant features that contribute to the maintenance, protection, and enhancement of biodiversity and ecological function in Waterloo Region (ROP, 20091). They include the following: •

Significant Habitat of Threatened or Endangered Species;

•

Provincially Significant Wetlands;

•

Environmentally Sensitive Policy Areas;

•

Regionally Significant Woodlands; or

•

Environmentally Significant Valley Features. (RMW, 2011)

Additional natural heritage features not meeting the definitions for the Core Environmental Features listed above were evaluated using the Guidelines for Delineating Environmental Features in The Region of Waterloo Greenlands Network Implementation Guideline (RMW, 20112). Under these guidelines, several natural heritage features were added to the Greenlands Network as Core Environmental Features. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 4.1.6. Individual components of the Core Environmental Features of the general subwatershed study area are discussed in subsequent sections.

Significant Habitat of Threatened or Endangered Species One Endangered and four Threatened species were found during surveys in the subwatershed study area. Due to the uncertainty of the habitat regulations for these species, Significant Habitat cannot be defined at this time (see Sections 3.7.2.2 and 3.7.5.5 for further discussion). Once these habitats are defined by the Province, they will be considered Core Environmental Features pursuant to the Regional Official Plan (ROP, 2009). The habitat of all Threatened and Endangered species within the subwatershed study area, with the exception of western chorus frog, are protected under the Endangered Species Act (2007) under the general definition of habitat. The habitat of Butternut, Eastern Meadowlark, and Western Chorus Frog are contained within Core Environmental Features under separate criteria. It has been confirmed that breeding habitat for Bobolink is not present in the study area. Barn Swallows have been confirmed as breeding within the barns located in Area D. Defining Barn Swallow foraging habitat in the context of the subwatershed study area is complex and requires agency consultation with the MNR.

Page 274

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Provincially Significant Wetlands Provincially Significant Wetlands are wetlands that have been evaluated by an MNR certified wetland evaluator according to the methods in the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System. An evaluated wetland is considered to be a Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) if: 1. The wetland achieves a score of 200 points or more in either the Biological component or the Special Features component, or 2. The wetland achieves a total score of 600 points or more. Of the seven wetlands within the Primary Study Area, two qualify for provincial significance. The PSW status of all evaluated wetlands within the Primary Study Area was confirmed by the MNR. The two PSWs in the study area are the “Upper Freeport Creek Wetland Complex” (in Area D) and the “Maple Grove Wetland Complex” (in Area C). These wetlands are discussed further in Section 3.7.4.

Page 275

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Environmentally Sensitive Policy Areas Environmentally Sensitive Policy Areas (ESPAs) are Regionally significant natural areas. First designated in the 1976 Regional Official Policies Plan, ESPAs have long formed the core of what is now the Region’s Greenlands Network. To qualify as an ESPA, a natural area must fulfill sufficient criteria in Policy 7.C.5 of the Waterloo Region Official Plan (ROP, 2009): a) Provincially significant Life Science Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest, regionally significant Life Science Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest, or provincially significant Earth Science Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest; or, b) At least two of the following criteria: i) comprise ecological communities deemed unusual, of outstanding quality or particularly representative regionally, provincially or nationally; ii) contain critical habitats which are uncommon or remnants of once extensive habitats such as old growth forest, forest interior habitat, Carolinian forest, prairie-savanna, alvars, cliffs, bogs, fens, marl meadows, and cold water streams; iii) provide a large area of natural habitat of at least 20 hectares which affords habitat to species intolerant of human intrusion; or iv) provide habitat for organisms native to the region recognized as regionally, provincially or nationally significant; or c) Fulfill one of the criteria in Policy 7.C.5(b) and any two of the following: i) contain an unusual diversity of native life forms due to varied topography, microclimates, soils and/or drainage regimes; ii) perform a vital ecological function such as maintaining the hydrological balance over a widespread area by acting as a natural water storage, discharge or recharge area; iii) provide a linking system of relatively undisturbed forest or other natural habitat for the movement of wildlife over a considerable distance; iv) serve as major migratory stop-over or significant over-wintering habitat; or v) contain landforms deemed unusual or particularly representative at the regional scale. Candidate ESPAs must be reviewed and confirmed by the Region’s Environmental Advisory Committee before inclusion into the Greenlands Network. Accordingly, three areas described below as meeting the criteria for ESPAs under Policy 7.C.5 as detailed above are referred to as “candidate ESPAs”. For many years, watershed studies have been the primary means of identifying potential new ESPAs. This is one of the defined areas of Regional interest in such studies. Based on fieldwork conducted for the Freeport Creek and Tributaries to the Grand Sub-watershed Study, the three areas described below were assessed to determine whether they fulfill sufficient criteria under Policy 7.C.5 to warrant consideration as candidate new ESPAs. Candidate ESPAs described herein are illustrated in Figure 4.1.4.

Page 276

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Candidate ESPA #1 The larger of the two wetlands in the Lower Freeport Creek Wetland Complex (Area B) is located within the Grand River Valley, a regionally significant wildlife movement corridor containing migratory waterfowl stopover areas, deer wintering yards, and habitat for significant species. This wetland supports several Regionally significant species including carpenterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s square, small white water-lily, freshwater cord grass, and one-seeded bur cucumber and thus fulfills criterion (b)[iv] of ROP policy 7.C.5. The wetland is a natural water storage area that discharges into the adjacent Grand River, and may also fulfill criterion (c)[ii]. Lastly, the wetland is located within the Grand River Valley corridor, north of Grandview Woods ESPA. The Grand River Valley is a regionally significant wildlife movement corridor containing migratory waterfowl stopover areas, deer wintering yards, and habitat for significant species. Features for inclusion within Candidate ESPA #1 were determined based on an analysis of which portions of the natural area significantly contribute, either directly or indirectly, to satisfying the above criteria under Policy 7.C.5. As such, it is suggested that the largest portion of the Lower Freeport Creek Wetland Complex be included in Candidate ESPA #2. The area does not fulfill sufficient criteria to warrant designation as a stand-alone ESPA. Nevertheless, its location within the Grand River Valley corridor immediately north of Grandview Woods (ESPA 73) warrants its inclusion in that ESPA. While it is located north of Highway 8, there is a physical connection beneath the bridge allowing passage of wildlife as well as pedestrians using the Walter Bean Trail.

Page 277

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Candidate ESPA #2 Candidate ESPA #2 is located north of the rail line and west of the properties at 100 (Regional Municipality of Waterloo), 120, 150, 200 and 300 Maple Grove Road (herein collectively referred to as the Maple Grove Road properties). This area is a mix of upland and wetland habitats. As mentioned previously in this report, the provincially significant wetland west of the Maple Grove Road properties was significantly expanded for stormwater management purposes. Also known as SWM Pond 130, the wetland receives storm water from a relatively large area (209 ha, see Section 3.5.7.4). In its early years of operation, the stormwater management facility resulted in the drowning of a substantial number of trees in a former deciduous swamp. The wetland has since developed into an extensive marsh sustaining diverse plants and waterfowl. Although not entirely natural in origin, the wetland/Pond 130 is acting as a natural water storage and discharge area for Freeport Creek, thus satisfying criterion (c)[ii] under POlicy 7.C.5. A number of Regionally significant species have been observed in the area, fulfilling criterion (b)[iv]. Wetland habitat in ELC Polygons D11 and D13 supports one of only two known populations of the regionally rare cardinal flower in Waterloo Region. Accordingly, criteria (b)[i] and (b)[iv] are simultaneously satisfied. Further satisfying criterion under section 7.C.5 (b)[iv], several other Regionally significant species in addition to cardinal flower are present in the wetland, meadow, and forested habitats west of the Maple Grove Road properties. Regionally significant plants include: Columbia water meal, eastern cottonwood, hackberry, hairy wood sedge, Lindleyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s aster, prickly ash, purple tinged sedge, rattlesnake manna grass, small yellow ladyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s slipper, white spring cress, white spruce, and yellow water buttercup. Regionally rare avifauna observed include: American redstart, common moorhen, great blue heron, hairy woodpecker, ovenbird, pied-billed grebe, pileated woodpecker, sora, swamp sparrow, and turkey vulture. The nationally and provincially Threatened barn swallow was observed foraging above, and in fields adjacent to, marsh areas in the Upper Freeport Creek Wetland complex (Pond 130) west of the Maple Grove Road properties, and the nationally threatened wood pewee was observed in ELC Polygons D10 and D17. In addition, the nests of the snapping turtle, a species of national and provincial Special Concern, were observed along exposed slopes adjacent to the southern edge of ELC Polygon D7. It is likely that the species occupies the large wetland/Pond 130. Lastly, the nationally threatened Western chorus frog was recorded in the wetland west of Challenger Motor Freight (300 Maple Grove Road). The majority of Regionally significant species documented during the subwatershed study were concentrated within the natural areas west of the Maple Grove Road properties (see Figure 3.7.1).

Page 278

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Candidate ESPA #2 contains a variety of upland and wetland habitats, a diversity that sustains a variety of species. Such habitat diversity contributes to fulfilling criterion c(1). Features recommended for inclusion within Candidate ESPA #2 were determined based on an analysis of which portions of the natural area west of the Maple Grove Road properties significantly contribute, either directly or indirectly, to satisfying the Policy 7.C.5 criteria. As such, it is recommended that the wetland, adjacent upland wooded and select meadow areas be included in Candidate ESPA #2. Accordingly, the following areas should be considered for inclusion: • The large wetland/Pond 130 behind the Regional Operations Yard and regional police headquarters (ELC Polygons D6-D8a, D9, D11-D13, D15, and D18); • Wooded areas adjacent to the large wetland/Pond 130 (ELC Polygons D4-D5, D10, D13a, and D17); • Meadows containing regionally rare species or those significantly contributing to the ecological function of the aforementioned wetland and woodlands (main portion of ELC Polygon D14 and all of D16); and • The smaller wetland near the rail line containing regionally rare species (ELC Polygon D2) and adjacent wooded areas (ELC Polygons D1, D3, and D4). Candidate ESPA #3 A large block of contiguous forest and swamp in Area C, referred to as ELC Polygon C6 and the northern portion of Polygon C5, warrants consideration for an ESPA designation. Containing approximately 3.19 ha of forest interior habitat, as measured 100 metres in from the dripline of the habitat unit (MNR, 2010), this natural heritage feature fulfills criterion 5 (b)[ii] under policy 7.C.5. In addition, this area also supports the regionally rare brown creeper, pileated woodpecker, turkey vulture, white spring cress, and rattlesnake manna grass. In addition two national species at risk, the Wood Thrush and Eastern Wood Pewee, are present in this habitat block. Having currently satisfied two criteria under Section 7.C.5 (b), this habitat unit would qualify as a candidate ESPA under the definition provided in the Waterloo Region Official Plan. An additional criterion under Section 7.C.5 (b)[iii] will be satisfied once appropriate buffers and restoration areas are planted to re-connect the abovementioned habitat area with the woodland to the south, resulting in a single habitat area of over 20 ha consisting of ELC Polygons C4, C5 (all sections), and C6. It is the opinion of Aquafor Beech Limited that although ELC Polygons C4, C5, and C6 are physically connected by a relatively short hedgerow (HR-C3), the physical distance between ELC Polygons C6 and the northern portion of C5 and ELC Polygons C5 (remaining sections) and C4 is small enough that the entire area (ELC Polygons 4-6) functions as one habitat block. As such the entire area is recommended as a candidate ESPA.

Page 279

IN ST N FOUNTA

T H RD KOSSU

FREEPORT CREEK AND TRIBUTARY TO THE GRAND SUBWATERSHED STUDY

RIV E

R IV

Kitchener

EAST SIDE LAND MESP AND COMMUNITY PLAN

FIGURE 4.1.4 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE POLICY AREAS

MIDDLE BL OC K RD

HIGHWAY MUNICIPAL ROADS

ALL

3 LE

REGIONAL ROADS LOCAL ROADS

EE K

STAGE 1 STUDY AREA WEST OF FOUNTAIN STREET PRIME INDUSTRIAL STRATEGIC RESERVE (SERVICED)

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY

RI V ER

WATER BODIES

STREAMS

BANAT

IB U

TA R

ALLENDALE RD

KING ST E

A IL

GR AN

REGION OF WATERLOO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE POLICY AREA

Y HW

8 D VE AP

R O

POTENTIAL ESPAS MUST BE REVIEWED BY WATERLOO REGION’S ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE BEFORE INCLUSION INTO GREENLANDS NETWORK AS ESPAS SALTMAN DR.

GRANDVIEW WOODS ESPA

NOTE:

Cambridge

250

500 Meters

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Significant Woodlands Under Section 7.C.6 the Waterloo Region Official Plan, Significant Woodlands are areas that meet all of the following criteria: (a) greater than four hectares in size, excluding any adjoining hedgerows; (b) consisting primarily of native species of trees; and (c) meets the criteria of a woodland in accordance with the provisions of the Regional Woodland Conservation By-law (ROP, 20091). Under Regional By-law 08-026, â&#x20AC;&#x153;woodlandâ&#x20AC;? means land that is located within the boundaries of The Regional Municipality of Waterloo that is at least one hectare or more in area with at least: (i) 1,000 trees, of any size, per hectare; (ii) 750 trees, measuring over five centimetres in diameter, per hectare; (iii) 500 trees, measuring over 12 centimetres in diameter, per hectare; or (iv) 250 trees, measuring over 20 centimetres in diameter, per hectare; but does not include a cultivated fruit or nut orchard or a plantation established for the purpose of producing Christmas trees (RMW, 2008).

Page 281

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 The following table (Table 4.1.3) provides a summary of Aquafor Beech Limitedâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s analysis of the woodlands in the study area. Rather than providing unique names for each woodland, woodlands are represented by the ELC polygons of which they are comprised, organized by Study Area. Table 4.1.3: Significant Woodland Analysis for the General Subwatershed Study Area Wooded ELC Polygon(s)

Criteria under Section 7.C.6 of Regional OP

Status

Size (>4 ha)

Native Species

By-law 18-026

A1 & A2*

yes

Significant

A3 & A4

yes

Significant

A6 & A7

yes

Significant

B1 east*

yes

Significant

B1, B3, B4, B5, B6, & B8

yes

Significant

B10

B12, B13

yes

Area A

Area B

B20 & B21

yes

B22

yes

B28 north

yes

B28 central

yes

B28 south

yes

C2 & C3

yes

Area C

C4 & C5 south

yes

Significant

C5 north & C6

yes

Significant

D1, D2, D3, D4, & D5

yes

Significant

D3a

yes

D9, D10, D11, D12, & D13

yes

Significant

D17 & D18

yes

Significant

D19 east

yes

D19 west

yes

D20

D24

yes

D26

yes

Area D

* ELC Polygons are part of a larger contiguous woodland area, and thus qualify as significant woodland.

Page 282

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 A total of ten Significant Woodlands are contained within the general subwatershed study area. These woodlands are mapped on Figure 4.1.5. In the above table, wooded ELC Polygons D1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; D5 and D9 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; D13 were treated as meeting the size criteria due to their functional connection with the adjacent Polygon D6. MNR woodland mapping also recognizes this connection. Within Polygon D6, wooded areas consisting of snags and young woody understory, as identified in MNR woodland mapping, were included in the overall size calculation for the woodland, and resulted in the functional grouping of the two aforementioned groups of wooded Polygons.

Page 283

IN ST N FOUNTA

T H RD KOSSU

FREEPORT CREEK AND TRIBUTARY TO THE GRAND SUBWATERSHED STUDY

RIV E

R IV

Kitchener

EAST SIDE LAND MESP AND COMMUNITY PLAN

FIGURE 4.1.5 SIGNIFICANT WOODLANDS

MIDDLE BL OC K RD

HIGHWAY MUNICIPAL ROADS

ALL

REGIONAL ROADS

LOCAL ROADS

EE K

STAGE 1 STUDY AREA WEST OF FOUNTAIN STREET MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY REGION OF WATERLOO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

WATER BODIES

STREAMS

D TR

IB U

TA R

ALLENDALE RD

Y SIGNIFICANT WOODLAND

Y HW

R O

8 LE

SALTMAN DR.

Cambridge N

A IL

GR AN

BANAT

KING ST E

RI V

DETAILED SUBWATERSHED STUDY AREA

250

500 Meters

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Environmentally Significant Valley Features Significant Valleylands, as defined by the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) (MMAH, 2005), are: A natural area that occurs in a valley or other landform depression that has water flowing through or standing for some period of the year, that are, ecologically important in terms of features, functions, representation or amount, and contributing to the quality and diversity of an identifiable geographic areas or natural heritage system. In following with the above definition, the Regional Official Plan defines Environmentally Significant Valley Features as distinct environmental features within and immediately contiguous to a Significant Valley (see Section 4.1.3.1). In Section 7.C.7 of the Official Plan, the Region of Waterloo defines Environmentally Significant Valley Features as consisting of: (a) at least one of the following: i) river channel; or ii) Environmentally Significant Discharge Areas or Environmentally Significant Recharge Areas; or (b) both of the following ecological features: i) habitat of regionally significant species of flora or fauna; ii) natural area, such as a woodland of one to four hectares in extent, floodplain meadow or wetland, which consists primarily of native species; or; (c) any one of Policy 7.C.7(b) above plus any one of the following Earth Science features: i) river terrace; ii) esker; iii) cliff or steep slopes; iv) oxbow; v) confluence with significant watercourse draining a watershed greater than five square kilometres; vi) regionally significant Earth Science Area of Natural and Scientific Interest; or vii) fossil bed (ROP, 20091)

Page 285

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 As mentioned in Section 4.1.3.1, the Grand River valley is a Significant Valley. Within this valley, Aquafor Beech Limited staff analyzed the features for compliance with the definitions provided in Section 7.C.7 of the Official Plan. The results of this analysis are presented below in Table 4.1.4: Table 4.1.4: Significant Valley Features within the General Subwatershed Study Area Significant Valley Feature Criteria Feature

1 2 3 4 5

Grand River

River channel

Criteria under OP Section 7.C.7 (a)[i]

Polygon A3

Regionally significant species; wetland.

(b)[i] & (b)[ii]

Sections of Polygons A6 & A7

Woodland; steep slopes.

(b)[ii] & (c)[iii]

Polygon B20

Regionally significant species; wetland and woodland.

(b)[i] & (b)[ii]

Polygon B28

Regionally significant species; woodland

(b)[i] & (b)[ii]

Description

As shown in the above table, five (5) features within the study area have been identified as meeting the criteria for Significant Valley Features. The first, the channel of the Grand River, is self-explanatory. The second, ELC Polygon A3, is a swamp with a regionally significant species (Hackberry) growing on its margins and consequently satisfies criteria (b)[i] & (b)[ii] of Section 7.C.7 of the Regional Official Plan. Hackberry is also found in the adjacent hedgerow to the west; hedgerows are not considered part of woodlands under the Regional Official Plan and thus are not included as a Significant Valley Feature. The third Significant Valley Feature is the wooded slopes of ELC Polygons A6 and A7 which satisfy criteria (b)(ii) and (c)(iii) of Section 7.C.7 of the Regional Official Plan. Wooded tableland portions of these ELC polygons do not meet criteria (c)[iii] of Section 7.C.7, and accordingly are not considered Significant Valley Features. ELC Polygon B20 contains several significant species (carpenterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s square and one-seeded bur cucumber) and contains wetland habitat comprised of predominantly native species. As such, this natural area satisfies criteria (b)(i) and (b)(ii) of Section 7.C.7 of the Regional Official Plan and, accordingly, is considered a Significant Valley Feature. Though a portion of Polygon B20 is within the limits of the Walter Bean Trail Wetland, the entire Walter Bean Trail Wetland is dominated by non-native species and consequently cannot be considered a Significant Valley Feature under the definition provided in the Regional Official Plan. However, it is noted that the entire Walter Bean Trail Wetland and the adjacent natural lands are shown as a Regionally Significant Valley the Regional Official Plan Map 4. The Walter Bean Trail Wetland has been evaluated according to OWES; it has been determined that the wetland complex does not qualify as a Provincially Significant Wetland. Lastly, ELC Polygon B28 provides habitat for significant species and contains wetland habitat comprised of predominantly native species. As such, this natural area satisfies criteria (b)(i) and (b)(ii) of Section 7.C.7 of the Regional Official Plan and, accordingly, is considered a Significant Valley Feature.

Page 286

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

4.1.3.3 Supporting Environmental Features Referred to in the City of Cambridge Official Plan as Locally Significant Natural Areas (LSNAs), Supporting Environmental Features are natural or semi-natural features that do not meet the criteria for provincial or regional significance but still play an important role in maintaining the ecological functions provided by the Greenlands Network (City of Cambridge, 2012; ROP, 20091). The City of Cambridge defines Locally Significant Natural Areas as a natural feature that qualifies as: a) A wetland which is regulated by the GRCA but which does not qualify as a Core Environmental Feature; b) A wooded area identified by the Ministry of Natural Resources but which does not qualify as a Core Environmental Feature; c) Significant wildlife habitat generally consisting of one or more of the following: i) Seasonal concentration areas; ii) Rare vegetation communities or specialized habitats for wildlife; iii) Habitats of species of conservation concern; or iv) Wildlife movement corridors; d) Perennial or Intermittent Watercourse(s); e) Environmentally Significant Groundwater Discharge and Recharge Areas. (City of Cambridge, 2011) Aquafor Beech Limited analyzed natural features within the study area that did not qualify as Core Environmental Features to evaluate their status as Supporting Environmental Features (SEFs). In addition to criteria a) through e) above, the Guidelines for Delineating Environmental Features in the Region of Waterloo Greenlands Network Implementation Guideline (RMW, 20112) were used to determine SEF, and in some cases Core, status. As the most restrictive designation applies to natural features (Section 7.A.11, ROP, 2009), analysis past the highest designation was not conducted. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 4.1.6.

Page 287

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Fish Habitat Fish Habitat, as defined within the City of Cambridge Official Plan (2012), consists of the spawning ground and nursery, rearing, food supply, and migration areas on which fish depend directly or indirectly in order to carry out their life processes. Per Section 3.A.7 of the City of Cambridge Official Plan (2012), development or site alteration will not be permitted within fish habitat, except in accordance with Provincial and Federal requirements to the satisfaction of the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Fish were captured in the upstream reaches of both Freeport Creek and Riverbank Creek, indicating that the entire length of these watercourses act as potential direct fish habitat. Fish community sampling within Allendale Creek yielded no fish; however, the watercourse is contributing habitat indirectly to fish communities downstream within the Grand River. Fish sampling was not conducted in the Walter Bean Trail Tributary. Incidental fish observations during wetland fieldwork suggest that this reach acts as direct habitat to fish populations. As all watercourses within the study area function as either direct or indirect fish habitat, all are considered fish habitat by definition within City of Cambridge Official Plan (2012). Background information, fish community sampling and incidental observations suggest that Freeport Creek, Riverbank Creek and Walter Bean Trail Tributary provide warm-to-cool water fish habitat, while Allendale Creek contributes to fish habitat further downstream. Aquafor Beech Limited has classified these watercourses as Type 2 fish habitat using the Fish Habitat Protection Guidelines for Developing Areas (MNR 1994). Type 2 fish habitat is considered important to the fish population, however, it is not considered a limiting factor for the productive capacity in downstream reaches. Type 2 habitat requires a â&#x20AC;&#x153;moderate level of protectionâ&#x20AC;? (MNR 1994). While not listed as a fish habitat water feature, riparian areas are transitional areas between aquatic and upland habitats and as such can provide natural features, functions and conditions that support fish life processes and protect fish habitat as defined by the Fisheries Act (NHRM 2010). To avoid potential negative impacts of development on fish habitat, it is recommended that a naturally vegetated buffer is maintained and set aside for no development or site alteration. The recommended distance of these buffers will depend on the site-specific conditions for each watercourse.

Page 288

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Recommended fish habitat buffers can be found in Table 4.1.5. Buffer recommendations resulted from collaborative discussions between Aquafor Beech Limited, MNR, GRCA, the Region of Waterloo and the City of Cambridge and address site-specific conditions for each watercourse. A brief summary of the buffer rationale for each watercourse is as follows: • A 30m buffer has been recommended along the length of Freeport Creek to protect fish habitat within the Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW); •

The MNR has indicated that the floodplain of the Walter Bean Trail Tributary potentially functions as northern pike spawning habitat during the early spring. To protect this potential spawning habitat, Aquafor Beech Limited has recommended a 30m buffer along the entire length of the Walter Bean Trail Tributary;

•

A 30m buffer has also been recommended along the length of Allendale Creek to protect its cold water potential, as discussed in Section 3.8.2.3: Temperature; and

•

Finally, given the intermittent nature of the watercourse, environmental tolerance of identified fish species present within the watercourse, and the habitat requirements (moist woodland edges with adjacent open area for foraging) a 15m buffer has been recommended for Riverbank Creek.

Aquatic buffers are included in Table 4.1.5 below.

Page 289

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Table 4.1.5: Watercourse Classifications within the General Subwatershed Study Area

Flow Regime

Fish Habitat

Level of Constraint to Development

Buffer (m)*

Warmwater

Permanent

Type 2 Direct

Moderate

30 m

Freeport Creek – 100 m upstream to King Street East

Warmwater

Intermittent

Type 2 Direct

Moderate

30 m***

Freeport Creek – King Street East to SWM detention area

Coolwater

Permanent

Type 2 Direct

Moderate

30 m

Freeport Creek – Upstream of SWM detention area

Coolwater

Intermittent

Type 2 Direct

Moderate

30 m

Riverbank Creek – Grand River to Confluence

Unknown

Permanent

Type 2 Direct

Moderate

15 m**

Riverbank Creek – Upstream of Confluence

Unknown

Intermittent

Type 2 Direct

Moderate

15 m**

Likely cool due to groundwater inputs

Intermittent

Type 2 Indirect

Moderate

30 m

Walter Bean Trail Tributary – Grand River to 125 m upstream

Unknown

Permanent

Type 2 Direct

Moderate

30 m

Walter Bean Trail Tributary – 125 m from Grand River to upstream Reach

Unknown

Intermittent

Type 2 Direct

Moderate

30 m

Watercourse and Reach

Thermal Regime

Freeport Creek – Grand River to 100 m upstream

Allendale Creek – Upstream of Confluence

*Buffers are to be measured from the top of bank, not the centre line of the creek. ** See Table 4.1.5, Area A:Significant Woodlands for further explanation of buffer widths along Riverbank Creek.

*** See Section 4.1.3.5 Opportunities for Enhancement & Restoration, Table 4.1.9 and Section 9.1 Future Studies

Page 290

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

4.1.3.4 Linkages Linkages are important components of the natural heritage system, especially in anthropogenically altered landscapes with fragmented natural heritage features. Linkages allow for plant and wildlife movement among environmental features, support hydrological and nutrient cycling, and contribute to the overall integrity and connectivity of the Natural Heritage System (City of Cambridge, 2012; ROP, 20091). The Region of Waterloo further describes Linkages as: Areas that connect environmental features along which plants and animals can propagate, genetic interchange can occur, populations can move in response to environmental changes and life-cycle requirements, and species can be replenished from other environmental features. Linkages can also include those areas currently performing, or with the potential to perform, through restoration, linkage functions. Although linkages help to maintain and improve environmental features, they can also serve as important environmental features in their own right. (ROP, 20091) Using the above definition, Aquafor Beech Limited staff analyzed environmental features that did not qualify as Core Environmental Features or Supporting Environmental Features for qualification as a Linkage. Hedgerows, regardless of their Environmental Feature status, were also assessed. In accordance with the Guidelines for Delineating Environmental Features in The Region of Waterloo Greenlands Network Implementation Guideline (RMW, 20112), some natural heritage features having linkage functions were categorized as Core Environmental Features or Supporting Environmental Features based on their proximity to the aforementioned features and the ecological function of the Linkage. The results of these analyses are summarized in Tables 4.1.6, 4.1.7 and 4.1.8. Once identified by a subwatershed study, Linkages are to be maintained, enhanced, and where feasible, restored (City of Cambridge, 2011; ROP, 2009). In a fragmented landscape such as the general subwatershed area and the surrounding lands, natural features are separated from each other by development and road networks. Linkages are mapped in Figures 4.1.8 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 4.1.12 and 4.1.13 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 4.1.16.

Page 291

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Table 4.1.6: Status of Supporting Environmental Features in the East Side Lands Subwatershed Location

Feature

Ecological Function(s)

Core

SEF

Linkage

Area A Polygon A5

Wetland

Hedgerow A1

Hedgerow

Hedgerow A2

Hedgerow

Hedgerow A3

Hedgerow

Riverbank Creek

Watercourse

Agricultural land

Wetland <2.0 ha within a significant valley and the Grand River floodplain; part of an Animal Movement Corridor. Identified as Woodland by the MNR.

* *

Connects ELC Polygons A1 and A3 (CEFs); within a significant valley; part of an Animal Movement Corridor. Identified as Woodland by the MNR; within a significant valley; part of an Animal Movement Corridor. Watercourse encompassed within Core Environmental Area. Potential foraging habitat for Rusty Blackbird; located within a significant valley; part of an Animal Movement Corridor.

* * * *

Area B Polygon B1, central

Two isolated forest blocks

West block is an "island" <1 ha within a Supporting Environmental Feature and is consequently included. The east block is excluded from the NHS.

Polygon B2

Cultural Meadow

Flanked by Core Environmental Areas; wildlife foraging area.

Polygon B3

Cultural Meadow

Adjacent to a Core Environmental Area; wildlife foraging area; habitat for a regionally significant species.

Polygon B7

Wetland

Polygon B9 (west)

Cultural Meadow

Polygon B9 (east)

Cultural Meadow

Polygon B10

Cultural Woodland

Located within a significant valley; part of an Animal Movement Corridor.

Polygon B11

Woodland

Located within a significant valley; part of an Animal Movement Corridor.

Polygon B23

Wetland Cultural Woodland

Wetland located within a significant valley.

Located within a significant valley; part of an Animal Movement Corridor.

Located within a significant valley; contributes to the function of the adjacent wetland and watercourses (E.g. Walter Bean Trail Tributary and the Grand River); contains temporary wet pocket; part of an Animal Movement Corridor.

Polygon B24

Wetland. Partially developed since the completion of the Study. Limited ecological function. Adjacent to a Core Environmental Area; wildlife movement, foraging area for wildlife; contributes to the function of GRCA Wetland B.

* * * *

Polygon B26

Cultural Meadow

Polygon B29

Cultural Meadow

GRCA Wetland B

Wetland

Located within a significant valley; contributes to the function of the adjacent wetland and watercourses (E.g. Walter Bean Trail Tributary and the Grand River); part of an Animal Movement Corridor. Wetland functions presently unknown. Does not qualify as a CEF.

Freeport Creek

Watercourse

Watercourse; partially encompassed within a Core Environmental Area.

Walter Bean Trail Trib.

Watercourse Construction Zone

Watercourse; already encompassed within a Core Environmental Area. It is assumed that the construction zone will be converted to cultural meadow after construction is finished; located within an Animal Movement Corridor.

Polygon C0-a

Cultural Meadow

Provides a linkage function between natural areas north and south of Middle Block Road (ELC Polygon C7 and C1-3, respectively). The ecological function of Polygons C0-a and C7 should be investigated as part of an EIS.

Polygon C0-b

Cultural Meadow

Polygon C0-c

Cultural Meadow

* * * *

Area C

Contributes to linkage value of Polygons C1 & C2, between which this Polygon is located. Limited ecological function; does not provide a linkage function on the

* * -

Page 292

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Location

Feature

Ecological Function(s) landscape. Does not meet the requirements for inclusion in the NHS.

Core

SEF

Polygon C1

Cultural Woodland

Polygons C2 & C3

Woodland

Polygon C7

Cultural Thicket

Hedgerow C1

Hedgerow

Hedgerow C4

Hedgerow

Hedgerow C5

Hedgerow

Hedgerow C7

Hedgerow

North of Polygon C3

Groundwater discharge area

Environmentally Significant Groundwater Discharge Area.

Allendale Creek

Watercourse

Watercourse is within a Supporting Environmental Feature (woodland) and is partially fed by groundwater.

Polygon D3a

Woodland

Woodland as identified by the MNR.

Polygon D3b

Cultural Meadow

Adjacent to a Supporting Environmental Feature.

Polygon D8b

Cultural Meadow

Adjacent to a Core Environmental Feature (PSW); provides foraging habitat for amphibians.

Polygon D9a

Cultural Meadow

Polygon D14

Cultural Meadow

Polygon D16

Cultural Meadow

Polygon D19

Plantation

Polygon D20 (in part)

Cultural Woodland

Polygon D21 west

Cultural Meadow

Polygon D21 east

Cultural Meadow

Polygon D23

Contributes to linkage value of Polygons C2 & C3. Woodland as identified by the MNR; functions as a wildlife corridor and habitat for regionally significant species. Polygon C3 is influenced by groundwater upwelling. Polygon C7 was not visited as part of the SWS, but could potentially function as habitat for Milksnake, a species of conservation concern (See Table 3.7.10). The ecological function of Polygons C7 should be investigated as part of an EIS. Identified as Woodland by the MNR. The ecological function of this hedgerow should be investigated as part of an EIS. Identified as Woodland by the MNR. Was removed prior to the completion of the SWS. Identified as Woodland by the MNR. Was removed prior to the completion of the SWS. Identified as Woodland by the MNR. The ecological function of this hedgerow should be investigated as part of an EIS.

* * * * *

Area D

Limited ecological function. Manicured lawn. Surrounded by Core Environmental Features (PSW and significant woodland); provides foraging habitat for amphibians; contains regionally significant species.

Adjacent to a Core Environmental Feature. These areas of the plantation have been identified, in part, by the MNR as Woodland. The portion of woodland that was not identified as such in the MNR mapping was likely excluded due to the timing of the mapping exercise. Polygon D19 east functions as a corridor for wildlife movement. The portion of the ELC Polygon spanning an east-west direction is adjacent to a Core Environmental Feature. The lower quality portions of the Polygon, which run north-south, are not included in the NHS. Note that in Figure 4.1.15, the Polygon is covered by aquatic buffers to Freeport Creek.

Cultural Meadow

Surrounded by Core Environmental Features. Adjacent to a Core Environmental Feature (PSW); provides foraging habitat for amphibians. Located between Core Environmental Features (PSWs).

Polygon D24

Woodland

Located between Core Environmental Features (PSWs).

Polygon D25

Cultural Thicket

Located between Core Environmental Features (PSWs); provides foraging habitat for amphibians.

Freeport Creek

Watercourse

Watercourse; partially encompassed within a Core Environmental Area.

* *

Page 293

Linkage

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Table 4.1.7: Linkage Assessment of Hedgerow Function on the Landscape Unit

Size and Continuity

HR-A1

180 m long; single tree width; discontinuous canopy

HR-A2

215 m long; 2-3 trees in width, continuous canopy

HR-A3 HR-C1

121 metres; discontinuous tree canopy with significant meadow component 110 m long; width varies from 1 to 2 trees in width; continuous canopy

Ecological Function Minor Medium Medium Minor

Does not function as a linkage between two natural features. Functions as a linkage between two core areas (ELC Polygons A1 and A3) within a significant valley. Functions as a linkage between a core area (ELC Polygon A3) and a supporting environmental feature (ELC Polygon A5) within a significant valley. Limited connection to semi-natural areas north of Allendale Road. Can be partially incorporated into PSW buffers. Qualifies as a Supporting Environmental Feature.

HR-C2

151 m; single tree width; tree cover sparse

Minor

HR-C3

104 m long; avg 7.35 m wide; continuous canopy

Medium

HR-C4

173 m long; single tree width; canopy mostly continuous

Minor

HR-C5

119 m long; single tree width; continuous canopy

Minor

HR-C6

381 m long; single tree width; discontinuous canopy

Minor

Does not function as a Linkage between natural features.

HR-C7

120 m long; single tree width; discontinuous canopy with few trees

Minor

Very limited function as a linkage between Polygon C6 and the remainder of the Maple Grove Wetland Complex to the east of Fountain Street. Can be partially incorporated into PSW buffers. Qualifies as a Supporting Environmental Feature.

HR-D1

361 m long; single tree width on east side, 2-tree width on west side; discontinuous canopy on east side

Minor

Does not function as a linkage between natural features.

HR-D2

378 m long; single tree width; discontinuous canopy with substantial gaps

Minor

Limited function as a linkage between Polygons D8b and D17, though the function is replicated by the Wetland/SWM facility and adjacent natural areas. Can be partially incorporated into wetland buffers.

HR-D3

337 m long; avg 23 m wide; scattered trees, mostly meadow

Minor

Does not function as a linkage between natural features.

HR-D4

172 m long; single tree width; major canopy gaps

Minor

Does not function as a linkage between natural features.

HR-D5

231 x 20 m; trees absent

Minor

Exotic meadow community. Does not function as a linkage between natural features.

HR-D6

170 m long; single tree width; discontinuous canopy

Minor

Does not function as a linkage between natural features.

HR-D7

107 m long; single tree width; discontinuous canopy

Minor

Isolated; does not function as a linkage between natural features.

Does not function as a linkage between two natural features. Functions as a linkage between Polygons C5 and C6. Can be entirely incorporated into PSW buffers. Does not function as a linkage between natural features. Can be partially incorporated into PSW buffers. Qualifies as a Supporting Environmental Feature. *note: hedgerow was removed during completion of the study Does not function as a linkage between natural features. Can be partially incorporated into woodland buffers. Qualifies as a Supporting Environmental Feature.*note: hedgerow was removed during completion of the study

Page 294

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Table 4.1.8: Summary of Other Linkages in the Study Area Location

Feature

Polygon B9 (east)

Cultural Meadow

Polygon C0-a

Cultural Meadow

Wildlife Movement Corridors* Agricultural land 1. Allendale (current); recommended Wildlife enhancement measures Movement include vegetating the Corridor corridor 2. Freeport Creek Wildlife Freeport Creek and Movement associated riparian areas Corridor 3.

East-West Animal Movement Corridor North-South Animal Movement Corridor

Ecological Function(s) Adjacent to a Core Environmental Area; wildlife movement, foraging area for wildlife; contributes to the function of GRCA Wetland B. Provides a linkage function between natural areas north and south of Middle Block Road (ELC Polygon C7 and C1-3, respectively). The ecological function of Polygons C0-a and C7 should be investigated as part of an EIS.

Importance Medium (local) TBD (local)

Terrestrial linkage connects natural heritage features in Area C (including the Maple Grove Wetland Complex and Significant Woodlands) with each other and the Grand River Valley.

Very High (local & landscape-level)

Provides movement for aquatic and terrestrial organisms between the Upper Freeport Creek Wetland Complex and the Grand River and grand River Valley.

Very High (local & landscape-level)

Canadian National Railway Tracks

This anthropogenic feature functions as a terrestrial linkage between natural heritage features in the Freeport Esker ANSI and the Upper Freeport Creek Wetland Complex, with ELC Polygon D19 and Freeport Creek. The corridor is primarily used by mammals.

Medium â&#x20AC;&#x201C;High (local)

Woodland between two wetlands in a PSW complex

Terrestrial linkage between a wetland abutting the CNR tracks and the largest wetland in the Upper Freeport Creek PSW complex.

High (local)

*Further details on Wildlife Movement Corridors outlined in this table are found below

Page 295

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 It may not be desirable to enhance some Linkages in order to avoid funneling wildlife on to high-traffic roads without adequate infrastructure (e.g. eco-passages), such as Fountain Street. With this premise in mind, it is the opinion of Aquafor Beech Limited that primary aim of Linkages within the study area should be to connect natural features within the East Side Lands subwatershed to the Grand River valley system to the west. At present Riverbank Drive is a two-lane residential road that, in comparison to Fountain Street, does not experience significant vehicle traffic. Existing forest cover on the valley slope (ELC Polygon A6) west of Riverbank Drive and the wooded Allendale Creek valley represents a viable wildlife crossing area connecting Area C of the East Side Lands subwatershed to the Grand River valley.

1. Allendale Wildlife Movement Corridor Currently, wildlife species, such as coyote (Canis latrans) and white-tailed deer, are moving from the wetland and woodlands in the east of Area C across the sod fields to the aforementioned wooded Allendale Creek valley. During fieldwork in 2011, wildlife and wildlife tracks were observed along this open country Linkage (Figure 4.1.6) as well as within and along the margins of ELC Polygons C2 and C3. It is recommended that this east â&#x20AC;&#x201C; west Linkage be enhanced in order to provide greater benefit to fauna and flora within Area C and the Grand River valley. This east- west Linkage was also identified as a Local Linkage Opportunity in the Hespeler West Subwatershed Study (Figure C 1.2.1, PIEL, 2004). Enhancement opportunities are further discussed in Section 4.1.3.5 below.

2. Freeport Creek Wildlife Movement Corridor The Freeport Creek Wildlife Movement Corridor provides opportunities for movement between important natural heritage features in Area D (i.e. the Upper Freeport Creek Wetland Complex, significant woodlands, significant wildlife habitat, etc) and features within the Grand River Valley, including the Grand River, for both aquatic and terrestrial organisms. Wildlife observations during field work confirm the corridorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s use by wildlife. At present, several barriers to wildlife movement exist Figure 4.1.6: Three sets of Whitetailed deer tracks spanning between natural features in the east and west of Area C. Arrows show the direction of travel for each set of prints.

along this corridor, including roads (i.e. King Street and Highway 8), commercial development, and improperly maintained culverts. Select enhancement recommendations in Table 4.1.9 address barriers to fish passage.

Page 296

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 3. East-West Wildlife Movement Corridor The East-West Wildlife Movement Corridor is an existing wildlife movement corridor on the CN rail tracks spanning from Maple Grove Road to the confluence with Freeport Creek (inset photo). Based on field observations, the Corridor is an oft-used local terrestrial corridor for mammals, particularly coyote and white-tail deer, in the East Side Lands Subwatershed Study Area. The Corridor links natural heritage features in the Freeport Esker ANSI and the Upper Freeport Creek Wetland Complex, with ELC Polygon D19 and Freeport Creek. Well-worn wildlife trails in the eastern portion of ELC Polygon B9 (this portion of the Polygon is considered a Linkage) run parallel to Highway 8 from the significant woodland on the Freeport Esker ANSI to the rail tracks. Several other wildlife paths lead from woodland features directly adjacent to the rail tracks (i.e. ELC Polygons B2 and B6). More daring species (e.g. coyote) may also use the rail tracks to travel from lands east of Maple Grove Road to those west of Maple Grove Road (i.e. ELC Polygon B1 east and adjacent lands), though due to safety concerns this was not confirmed in the field. This Corridor is anthropogenic in nature and is likely to persist. It is also used by relatively urbantolerant wildlife. As such no specific enhancements are recommended.

4. North-South Corridor Wildlife also uses ELC Polygons D4 and D5 to travel between two natural areas (Provincially Significant Wetlands). Well-worn wildlife trails were observed along this North â&#x20AC;&#x201C; South Corridor during field investigations in 2011. It is recommended that enhancements consist of the vegetated buffers required for this Significant Woodland. See Section 4.1.5 for more information on required buffers.

Page 297

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

4.1.3.5

Opportunities for Enhancement and Restoration

The recommended Greenlands Network was reviewed to identify opportunities to enhance the attributes of constituent Landscape Level Systems, Core Environmental Features, Supporting Environmental Features, and Linkages by restoring/creating natural cover (e.g. tree planting). Attributes of Environmental Features considered for enhancement include size, completeness, shape and potential for connectivity. Attributes of Linkages considered for enhancement include ecological function, scale, and crossing opportunities. A partial list of the attributes of the Greenlands Network and Linkages considered for enhancement is provided by Tables 3-2 and 3-3 of the Natural Heritage Reference Manual, respectively (MNR, 2010). Remaining targets were provided by the Grand River Conservation Authority Watershed Forest Plan (GRCA, 2004). Targets The primary targets of the enhancement recommendations below are to: •

Naturalize hazard lands (e.g. floodplains) to benefit wildlife and improve adjacent natural heritage features

•

Diversify habitat types within the East Side Lands subwatershed

•

Decrease the perimeter-to-interior ratio of natural areas and especially of forest blocks, with an emphasis on enhancing interior forest habitat

•

Protect existing Environmental Features

•

Increase stream health, with approximately 95% of streams buffered by natural vegetation and 75% of stream buffers forested

•

No net loss of forested or wetland habitat

•

Facilitate and enhance wildlife movement

•

Reduce invasion opportunities for invasive species

The Greenlands Network, along with some recommended amendments, consists of multiple environmental features that will provide habitat for the majority of the species of conservation concern found within the watershed. Specific restoration measures for target species are discussed briefly below. Further studies assessing the feasibility of creating habitat for specific target species are encouraged where applicable. Terrestrial and aquatic enhancement opportunities are illustrated in Figure 4.1.6. Enhancement recommendations are discussed below. Terrestrial Enhancement Opportunities Area C 1) Well-worn wildlife trails were observed along the divide between ELC Polygons C2 and C0 south. Deer crossings were also observed along Riverbank Drive at this point. Accordingly, it is recommended that edge enhancement plantings fill in gaps along the north and south edges of ELC Polygons C2 and C3 as a means to increase the habitat value of the woodland while increasing its value as a wildlife Linkage. An increase in naturalized area may also allow for the Page 298

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 proliferation of a population of a regionally rare species, Canada moonseed, to increase in size. Common edge effects such as adverse microclimate conditions due to wind and sunlight, and infiltration of exotic species would also be locally minimized. Enhancements along the northern limit of Polygon C3 will also protect an Environmentally Significant Groundwater Discharge Area. In addition, it is recommended that the cultural meadow community in Polygon C0 south be rehabilitated to woodland or thicket to create cover for wildlife. The widening of wooded area west of Riverbank Drive is intended to allow for greater options for wildlife crossing Riverbank Drive between the Grand River valley and Area C of the East Side Lands subwatershed. It is recommended that enhancements in this area be coordinated with future geotechnical analyses for the valley slopes in ELC Polygon C2, if applicable. (Target species: terrestrial fauna such as white-tailed deer, coyote, various avian species; and the regionally rare vine, Canada moonseed.) 2) As discussed in Section 4.1.3.4, a wildlife linkage is present between natural areas in the east and west of Area C. Woodland (ELC Polygons C2 and C3) in the west consist of a stream corridor and small valley stretching from Riverbank Drive to approximately 525 m to the east. In the east of Area C, natural areas (ELC Polygons C4, C5, and C6) consist of two adjacent blocks of swamp and forest. The habitat value of the above natural areas will be increased once they are connected via a wooded corridor, especially in a post-development environment. The location of the corridor is illustrated on Figure 4.1.7, and reflects current wildlife movement patterns observed in the area. Consistent with the wildlife linkage widths in the Hespeler West Subwatershed Study (PIEL, 2004), it is recommended that the corridor be a minimum of 50 m wide and consist of indigenous woody and herbaceous species that to the extent possible mirror native species present in the East Side Lands subwatershed landscape. In order to attract wildlife to the corridor the corridor should contain a high proportion of fruit- and nut-bearing shrubs, woody debris, as well as water features such as permanent and semi-permanent pools should be incorporated into the design. The wildlife linkage is planned to be bisected by a transportation corridor. As a minimum, it shall be required that the road alignment as it relates to this linkage be carefully considered and that significantly reduced speeds (e.g. 50km/h maximum) and other traffic calming measures such as speed bumps, in combination with wildlife crossing/caution signs be incorporated into future road design. Active management strategies such as reduced variable speed limits which correspond to high wildlife activity periods and illuminated signage should also be considered. Alternatively, a suggested mitigation option includes a grade-separated ‘eco-passage’ with appropriate openness ratios, fencing, and landscaping. This option is to be considered during future design activities. Guidance as it relates to this ‘eco-passage’ is outlined below:

Page 299

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 The openness ratio is calculated as: (culvert height * culvert width)/culvert length. The preferred openness ratio for deer is 0.90, though ratios of 0.75 have been tolerated. In order for the underpass to be used by deer, underpass height should be a minimum of 2.5 metres (Chasez et al., 2007). In order to be attractive to wildlife, the surface of the underpass should contain native soils and, if possible, shade tolerant native plantings. The intent of including fencing in the corridor design is to funnel wildlife from natural areas to the crossing structure. Fencing should be sized appropriately for the largest animal anticipated to use the corridor. In this case, fencing should be at least 2.4m in height (Chasez et al., 2007). In this case, Aquafor Beech Limited suggests using chain link fencing as it sturdy enough to contain larger animals, but contains openings that are large enough for rodents to pass through. As a design optimization, the use of ‘one-way gates’ allowing opportunities for animals stuck outside of the fencing to enter into the corridor and naturalized areas, should be investigated at the design stage. Fencing should also extend past the limit of suitable habitat and contain no openings (aside for one-way gates) so as to prevent animals from “end running” (Chasez et al., 2007). Hybrid approaches such as the traffic calming measures as detailed above and ‘eco-passages’ for medium sized wildlife (i.e. coyotes) should also be considered. The minimum openness ratio for such an eco-passage is 0.4 with a preferred of 0.5. 3) Additional enhancement opportunities include connecting wooded areas in the west of Area C and filling in select edges of the Maple Grove Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) (ELC Polygon C6) and forest (ELC Polygon C5). The aim is to create a larger, block-like wooded habitat unit by ‘eliminating’ the extant wooded peninsula though afforesting extant open/farmed areas. These enhancements will increase the amount in interior forest habitat in the northern woodland and swamp (which would benefit the nationally Threatened bird Wood Thrush), and provide a strong ecological connection between two relatively substantial natural areas. 4) Light and noise from future land uses have the potential to disrupt the breeding and foraging patterns of amphibian and avifauna species present in the Maple Grove PSW. To enhance the edge habitat and attenuate light and noise from future land uses, Aquafor Beech Limited recommends that native evergreen trees such as Eastern White Cedar (Thuja occidentalis) be planted in parallel offset rows approximately three-four trees deep as a component of a vegetated buffer to this Core Environmental Feature. 5) As identified in the Hespeler West Subwatershed Study (PEIL, 2004), a 50 m wide corridor should be created as a linkage to connect the natural heritage features within the East Side Lands Subwatershed to the greater Grand River Valley. In turn, this corridor will serve to reconnect significant blocks of natural heritage features on the landscape to the greater Grand River Valley. See above specifications under 2) for further design details. Page 300

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Area D 6) While the SWM/Wetland in Area D is an approved stormwater management facility, ecologically it is functioning as a wetland. The wetland evaluation for this area scored as a Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW). As a means to increasing habitat value and decreasing water temperature, it is recommended that woody plantings be installed along the edges of the SWM/Wetland between the berm and the sugar maple forest (ELC Polygon D17) and the berm and the middle of Hedgerow D6. 7) The understory and ground layer of the northern portion of ELC Polygon D17 is significantly disturbed. In order to increase the health of this woodland in the near and long term, it is recommended that woody plantings be installed with the intent of rehabilitating the sub-canopy and understory layers of the woodland. One of the goals of the restoration should be to attract insects to the woodland so as to increase the food source for the Eastern Wood Pewee (species of Special Concern nationally). In keeping with the goal of enhancing habitat for the Eastern Wood Pewee, woody plantings should be predominantly deciduous. Soil rehabilitation (if applicable) and ground layer vegetation plantings are also recommended. The removal of invasive species will be a key component of the rehabilitation. 8) Light and noise from future land uses have the potential to disrupt the breeding and foraging patterns of amphibian and avifauna species present in the Upper Freeport Creek Wetland Complex. To enhance the edge habitat and attenuate light and noise from future land uses, Aquafor Beech Limited recommends that native evergreen trees such as Eastern White Cedar (Thuja occidentalis) be planted in parallel offset rows approximately three-four trees deep as a component of a vegetated buffer to this Core Environmental Feature. 9) It is recommended that unforested areas adjacent to and within ELC Polygon D19 be subject to a woodland planting plan that will increase forest cover, increase tree species diversity, and enhance the wildlife movement corridor in this area. It would also be useful to encourage residents to plant trees in the understory of the coniferous plantation so that forest cover will be present in the long term. Aquatic Enhancement Opportunities Consistent with the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (MNR, 2010) and the Grand River Conservation Authority Watershed Forest Plan (GRCA, 2004), recommended enhancements and restoration of aquatic habitat will focus on increasing stream health and include enhancements to riparian areas to help achieve the targets of 95% natural riparian buffers and 75% forested riparian buffers (GRCA, 2004). Aquafor Beech Limited has made a number of recommendations for the overall improvement of aquatic habitat and stream health within the East Side Lands MESP & CP study area that are consistent with these targets. These opportunities are outlined in Table 4.1.9 and illustrated in Figure 4.1.7.

Page 301

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Table 4.1.9: Opportunities for Aquatic Enhancement and Restoration

Watercourse

Area for enhancement and/or restoration

Rationale

Freeport Creek

Culvert at the gravel road downstream of ELC Polygon B23

This damaged culvert supports a gravel laneway and should be replaced before posing a major barrier to fish movement.

Freeport Creek

Culvert immediately downstream of the Grand River Garden Village

This culvert supports a foot-bridge and acts as a potential barrier to fish movement to upstream reaches. To remove the potential barrier to fish movement and improve general aquatic habitat conditions, this culvert could be replaced with a pedestrian bridge that does not require a culvert. The riparian habitat through this section consists only of lawn. Riparian plantings of native grasses and shrubs would help improve aquatic habitat by reducing stream temperature through increased stream shading as well as by providing cover for fish residing within the reach.

Freeport Creek

Grassy swale between Grand River Garden Village and parking lot

Freeport Creek

Culvert at CPR rail Line upstream of King Street East

The overall objective for the lower portion of Freeport Creek within the City of Kitchener is to establish a functional creek corridor. In addition to stewardship efforts, if redevelopment is proposed, in particular at 3763 King Street East in the City of Kitchener, a comprehensive creek rehabilitation plan will be required as part of a scoped EIS to the satisfaction of the City of Kitchener, Region of Waterloo and GRCA. The functional corridor for the creek shall be designed in accordance with the principles of natural channel design and include a suitable meander belt width. The objective of the rehabilitation plan is to restore the lower portion of Freeport Creek to an enhanced ecological state. This will include the establishment of a creek buffer under a re-developed condition as per the City of Kitchener Official Plan taking into consideration the type and scale of the future development, enhancement of the established creek corridor, improved flow conveyance through the site and improved stormwater management. The plan is anticipated to involve channel works and ultimately may result in a revision to the floodline through the property. If a comprehensive rehabilitation plan is not pursued, the recommendations for this reach as detailed within previous sections of this Subwatershed Study will be implemented through a future development approval on this property. See Section 4.1.3.5 & Section 9.1 This culvert is currently in major disrepair and represents a potential barrier to fish movement. To remove the potential barrier to fish movement and improve general aquatic habitat conditions, this culvert should be replaced preferably with an open-bottom design.

Page 302

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Freeport Creek

Rear Lots upstream of CPR rail line

Barrier to fish movement at SWM detention area. Increase woody riparian vegetation

There are many places along this stretch of Freeport Creek where residents mow their lawn right up to the edge of the creek. Aquatic habitat would benefit from riparian plantings of native grasses, shrubs and trees throughout this area, up to the recommended watercourse buffer of 30 m. This would help protect the creek banks from erosion, provide shading to reduce stream temperature, and also provide in-stream cover for resident fish communities. Residents should be encouraged to participate in environmental stewardship as well as leave a necessary buffer next to the creek when mowing their lawns. The outflow structure at the stormwater management detention area is a significant barrier to fish movement. At present, the outflow flows over a concrete pad and through a gabion basket before continuing downstream. These structures represent a barrier to fish movement and should be mitigated during development. Also, the average flow through the highflow pipe does not provide enough depth to allow for the passage of fish during average flow conditions, making water depth and additional barrier to fish movement. At present, it is believed fish can only move upstream during flood conditions. There are also opportunities to increase woody vegetation within the riparian area directly downstream of the outflow structure. Aquafor Beech Limited recommends tree plantings within the riparian areas throughout this reach. There are a number of enhancement measures that would benefit aquatic habitat upstream of Riverbank Drive, including:

Allendale Creek

Habitat enhancements upstream of Riverbank Drive

Riverbank Creek

Riparian plantings upstream of confluence with Allendale Creek

â&#x20AC;˘

Clean-up of anthropogenic material within the stream, including discarded freezers, tires and fencing. These materials contribute to stream pollution, alter natural stream flow and create barriers to fish movement. â&#x20AC;˘ Riparian plantings of native shrubs throughout the valley for the purpose of erosion control. These plantings would help combat bank erosion that currently occurs through the reach and also provide cover for future fish populations.

Approximately 200 m upstream of the confluence with Allendale Creek there is a stretch of Riverbank Creek that has a minimal riparian buffer and agricultural fields extending up to both stream banks. Aquafor Beech Limited recommends that the riparian buffer throughout this reach be increased to a minimum of 15 m and that the riparian area is planted with native grasses, shrubs and trees.

Page 303

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 General Enhancement Recommendations Hazard lands (e.g. floodplains) are prime candidates for restoration and enhancements plantings due to the limited development opportunities in such lands. It is recommended that hazard lands be either actively or passively restored as a means to improving the ecological function of the Greenlands Network. Research has shown that the greatest benefit to invertebrate, fish, and bird species exists in floodplains 10 times the width of the stream channel (Power et al., 1995). Accordingly, it is recommended that restoration efforts focus in this critical function zone to the extent possible. Enhancement plantings should consider adjacent land use, natural features and processes (including pests such as the Emerald Ash Borer, Agrilus planipennis), and the life history of local flora and fauna. Increased tree and shrub cover in the Camrock SWM facility (Pond #105) upstream of Maple Grove Road and along the channel of Freeport Creek will decrease the temperature of the water entering the easternmost wetland and improve the habitat value for fish. Accordingly, it is recommended that the Camrock SWM facility, located to the east of Maple Grove Road, also be subject to targeted enhancements. Phasing Enhancement planting recommendations may be implemented through stewardship activities or as part of works required for development applications. Protection, preservation, and restoration of vegetative cover is a priority for the City of Cambridge, accordingly the City views development and public works projects as opportunities to increase vegetative cover and biodiversity in the municipality (City of Cambridge, 2011). In cases where enhancements plantings are to take place in conjunction with development, in order to provide the greatest amount of positive results it is recommended that enhancement works be completed prior to, or in conjunction with, urban development plans. For example, enhancement recommendations can be incorporated into potential industrial development mitigation measures in order to coordinate efforts and minimize overall costs. It is not recommended that enhancements plantings be installed during the hot, dry summer months. Rather, spring and autumn are ideal. Planting survivorship monitoring should commence one year after the plantings have been installed. The extent of the monitoring will be dependent on a number of factors including funding, capacity of stewardship staff, agency requirements, etc. Further phasing considerations include biological timing windows for warm and cool water fisheries and, if vegetation removal is required, timing windows specified by the Migratory Birds Convention Act (1994). Approvals Enhancement activities occurring within areas regulated by the Grand River Conservation Authority will require approval from the Conservation Authority, with input from the Region of Waterloo and the City of Cambridge. Similarly, enhancement activities within and/or adjacent to the Greenlands Network will be reviewed by the Region of Waterloo, the City of Cambridge and the Grand River Conservation Authority. It is recommended that consultation with relevant agencies commence at the planning stage.

Page 304

Woolwich

IN ST N FOUNTA

ER RIV

EAST SIDE LAND MESP AND COMMUNITY PLAN TH RD

KOSSU

RI V E

Kitchener

FREEPORT CREEK AND TRIBUTARY TO THE GRAND SUBWATERSHED STUDY

RIV

FIGURE 4.1.7 RESTORATION & ENHANCEMENT OPPORTUNITIES MIDDLE BLOC K RD HIGHWAY MUNICIPAL ROADS REGIONAL ROADS

D ALE C R EEK 5 1 5

LOCAL ROADS

STAGE 1 STUDY AREA WEST OF FOUNTAIN STREET

PRIME INDUSTRIAL STRATEGIC RESERVE (SERVICED)

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY

A IL

IB U

1 2 3

TA R

ALLE NDAL E RD

Y AQUATIC RESTORATION/REHABILITATION AREA TERRESTRIAL RESTORATION/REHABILITATION AREA

45 9

FR 9

LINKAGE RESTORATION/REHABILITATION AREA

Y 8

CR 6E 6 EK 8

Cambridge

8 SALTMAN DR.

STREAMS

R D

G R O VE

LT E

WATER BODIES

BANAT

M AP LE

REGION OF WATERLOO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

BA R N ES

PA S

VE R

ALL EN

G RA ND

KIN G ST E

KI N

250

500 Meters

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

4.1.4 GREENSPACE PLAN The Greenspace Plan for the subwatershed study area is comprised of the previously identified Greenlands Network as identified in Map 4 of the Regional Official Plan (ROP, 2009), newly-identified Environmental Features, Linkages, as well as select restoration and enhancement areas. Changes to the Greenlands Network identified in the report will require amendments to Map 4 pursuant to Regional Official Plan policy 7.F.6. General enhancement areas in hazard lands, as discussed above, are not shown as stable slope analysis has not yet been completed for Allendale Creek. The primary goal of the Greenspace Plan is to preserve existing terrestrial and aquatic resources, while accommodating wildlife habitat and movement corridors in a post-development landscape within the subwatershed study area, and between the subwatershed study area and the greater landscape. The Greenspace Plan maps are shown below in Figures 4.1.8 to 4.1.12. Buffers to components of the Greenspace Plan are discussed in Section 4.1.5. The effective buffer zone will be the greater of the recommended buffer widths from woodlands, wetlands, or watercourses. The GRCA Regulated Area is shown on the Greenspace Plan maps for reference. Please note that revisions to the Regulated Area are recommended based on the information from this study. Furthermore, the GRCAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Regulation applies to all areas described by the Regulation, whether mapped or not.

Page 307

R C OB E R AN

EAST SIDE LAND MESP AND COMMUNITY PLAN

Woolwich

F O U N TA

IN S T N

R IV

B ER

K O SS U

FREEPORT CREEK AND TRIBUTARY TO THE GRAND SUBWATERSHED STUDY

TH RD

A2 A1

NK R IV

R IV

FIGURE 4.1.8 GREENLANDS NETWORK

Kitchener

HR-A1

HR-A2

HIGHWAY

HR-A3

MIDDLE BLOC K RD

MUNICIPAL ROADS REGIONAL ROADS

HR-C1

LOCAL ROADS

C0a

STAGE 1 STUDY AREA

ALC1L

C0b

DA C2

C0c

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY

REGION OF WATERLOO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

KC3

DETAILED SUBWATERSHED STUDY AREA

RI VE

SPEEDSVILLE

LINKAGE

D22

D20

LINKAGE/WILDLIFE MOVEMENT CORRIDOR

D14

HR-D2

Y HW

D8a

D24

D8b

Berm

HR-D3 B9

†

D17

D13 D6

D11

D13a

D12

D10

HR-D4 D9

Ag HR-D7 D5

D9a

SWMP

B6 B7 B7 B2 B4

D3b D3a

D1 B1 B1

*THE CORE ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES SHOWN ON THIS MAP ARE COMPRISED OF A COMBINATION OF CORE ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES OBTAINED FROM THE REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN, AND NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURE INVESTIGATIONS COMPLETED BY AQUAFOR BEECH LIMITED.

D27

D18

D25 D26

D15 D15a

HR-D6

HR-D5

D16

D17

SALTMAN DR.

D8b

D23

D19 D19

D21

B24

SUPPORTING ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE D21

B23

CORE ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES*

B30

HR-D1

B21

TA R

SIGNIFICANT VALLEY

B19

ECOLOGICAL LAND CLASSIFICATION

GREENLANDS NETWORK

B28 B26

B20

B18

B28

ALLENDALE RD

B25

B AN AT

HR-C6

B29

†

HR-C2

B27

A NB26 TR B14 B13 A IL B15 B12 T RB10 B22 I B11 B U B17 B16

HR-C5

STREAMS

† FEATURES HAVE BEEN REMOVED SINCE THE COMPLETION OF THE NATURAL FEATURES INVENTORY.

BE B28

WATER BODIES

†

GR A ND

LT E

KING ST E

HR-C7

HR-C4

C5 HR-C3 C4

Cambridge

250

500 Meters

Base data provided by the Ministry of Natural Resources: Produced by Dillon Consulting under Licence with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2011 B1

EAST SIDE LAND MESP AND COMMUNITY PLAN

A2 A1

FREEPORT CREEK AND TRIBUTARY TO THE GRAND SUBWATERSHED STUDY

HR-A1

HR-A2

Kitchener

EE R IV

RIV ER B

FIGURE 4.1.9 GREENSPACE PLAN AREA "A"

HIGHWAY MUNICIPAL ROADS REGIONAL ROADS LOCAL ROADS STAGE 1 STUDY AREA WEST OF FOUNTAIN STREET

HR-A3

MIDDLE BLOC KR

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY

DETAILED SUBWATERSHED STUDY AREA WATER BODIES

STREAMS

AQUATIC RESTORATION/REHABILITATION AREA ECOLOGICAL LAND CLASSIFICATION TERRESTRIAL RESTORATION/REHABILITATION AREA

ALL

LINKAGE RESTORATION/REHABILITATION AREA

BUFFER

GRCA REGULATED AREA

EE K

GREENLANDS NETWORK SIGNIFICANT VALLEY

CORE ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE SUPPORTING ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE LINKAGE

† FEATURES HAVE BEEN REMOVED SINCE THE COMPLETION OF THE NATURAL FEATURES INVENTORY.

† RI V

†

GR AN D

ER B E AN TR AIL T

ALLENDALE R D A7

R IBU T AR Y

250

G ST E

W ALT

Date: June 12, 2013

500 Meters

B TER T RAIL

B18 B16 B20 B19 RIBU

B12

B17

Y TAR

B21 B30 B23

B24

B10

B11

KING ST E

B22

T EAN

B29

EAST SIDE LAND MESP AND COMMUNITY PLAN FREEPORT CREEK AND TRIBUTARY TO THE GRAND SUBWATERSHED STUDY

FIGURE 4.1.10 GREENSPACE PLAN AREA "B"

Y HW

HIGHWAY MUNICIPAL ROADS REGIONAL ROADS LOCAL ROADS STAGE 1 STUDY AREA WEST OF FOUNTAIN STREET

FRE E

P OR TC

†

PRIME INDUSTRIAL STRATEGIC RESERVE (SERVICED)

REE K

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY DETAILED SUBWATERSHED STUDY AREA WATER BODIES STREAMS

AQUATIC RESTORATION/REHABILITATION AREA ECOLOGICAL LAND CLASSIFICATION TERRESTRIAL RESTORATION/REHABILITATION AREA LINKAGE RESTORATION/REHABILITATION AREA BUFFER GRCA REGULATED AREA

GREENLANDS NETWORK SIGNIFICANT VALLEY CORE ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE SUPPORTING ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE LINKAGE

B6 B7 B8 †

B7 † FEATURES HAVE BEEN REMOVED SINCE THE COMPLETION OF THE NATURAL FEATURES INVENTORY.

B2 B5

B4 0

125

Base data provided by the Ministry of Natural Resources: Produced by Dillon Consulting under Licence with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2011

B1 B1

Date: June 12, 2013

250 Meters

R RIVERBANK D

MIDD

OC L B LE

EAST SIDE LAND MESP AND COMMUNITY PLAN

K RD

FREEPORT CREEK AND TRIBUTARY TO THE GRAND SUBWATERSHED STUDY

HR-C1

FIGURE 4.1.11 GREENSPACE PLAN AREA "C"

HIGHWAY MUNICIPAL ROADS

REGIONAL ROADS LOCAL ROADS STAGE 1 STUDY AREA WEST OF FOUNTAIN STREET

HR-C7 C0a

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY DETAILED SUBWATERSHED STUDY AREA WATER BODIES

STREAMS

HR-C3 C5 HR-C4

C1 C0b C2

ALLENDALE CR EE

†

D BANAT R

AQUATIC RESTORATION/REHABILITATION AREA ECOLOGICAL LAND CLASSIFICATION TERRESTRIAL RESTORATION/REHABILITATION AREA LINKAGE RESTORATION/REHABILITATION AREA BUFFER

C0c

HR-C5

†

GRCA REGULATED AREA

GREENLANDS NETWORK SIGNIFICANT VALLEY CORE ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE SUPPORTING ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE LINKAGE

HR-C6

† FEATURES HAVE BEEN REMOVED SINCE THE COMPLETION OF THE NATURAL FEATURES INVENTORY.

GRAND RIVER

HR-C2

ALLE

RD E L ND A

125

250 Meters

RI VE R

EAST SIDE LAND MESP AND COMMUNITY PLAN

ALLENDALE RD

GR AN

FREEPORT CREEK AND TRIBUTARY TO THE GRAND SUBWATERSHED STUDY

HR-D1 FIGURE 4.1.12 GREENSPACE PLAN AREA "D"

D21 D22

HIGHWAY

D20 Ag

MUNICIPAL ROADS

D23

D21

REGIONAL ROADS LOCAL ROADS

D24

STAGE 1 STUDY AREA WEST OF FOUNTAIN STREET MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY

D25

DETAILED SUBWATERSHED STUDY AREA

D26 D27

HR-D2 D8b

D16

D17

D15 D14

D15a Berm

D10 D18

D17

POR T CR

HR-D6

FRE E

D13

EEK D11

D13a D12

ECOLOGICAL LAND CLASSIFICATION TERRESTRIAL RESTORATION/REHABILITATION AREA LINKAGE RESTORATION/REHABILITATION AREA GRCA REGULATED AREA BUFFER

GREENLANDS NETWORK

†

AP L

HR-D5 D7

SIGNIFICANT VALLEY CORE ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE SUPPORTING ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE

D9 HR-D4

LINKAGE

† FEATURES HAVE BEEN REMOVED SINCE THE COMPLETION OF THE NATURAL FEATURES INVENTORY.

D9a HR-D7

SWMP

NE S

D4 D3b D3a D3

BA R

AQUATIC RESTORATION/REHABILITATION AREA

HR-D3

D8b

D8a

D19

WATER BODIES STREAMS

125

250 Meters

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

4.1.5 BUFFERS AND SETBACKS Buffers and setbacks are often necessary to mitigate adverse environmental impacts to natural features and habitats. Buffers are vegetated physical separations between natural features and development areas intended to preserve the ecological integrity of natural features and their associated processes (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 2010). The Grand River Conservation Authority further defines buffers and setbacks from wetlands, adding that buffers are “planned and managed strips of naturally vegetated land”, while setbacks refers to a naturally vegetated physical separation between a natural feature, such as a “wetland, and the proposed development site or structure” (GRCA, 2005). As consistent with the Greenlands Implementation Guideline (RMW, 2011), context-sensitive buffer recommendations for Many species, including Wood Core Environmental Features are discussed below to the extent Frog (Rana sylvatica, pictured possible in the absence of a final land use plan for the area. The above), rely on different habitat buffer recommendations below assume large-lot industrial and types throughout the year. Buffer commercial development will occur within the developable recommendations should be lands in the East Side Lands subwatershed. The minimum context-sensitive and address the buffers recommended in this plan are considered final. No habitat requirements of flora and fauna within the Greenlands development, including but not limited to SWM facilities and Network. grading, should occur within buffers. Buffers are to be imposed only where new development is to occur but will not affect lands which are within the study area not being proposed for development. Buffers described in this plan are not intended to limit existing agricultural uses or existing development (e.g. existing parking lots, etc.).

Page 312

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

The Region of Waterloo Official Plan and the City of Cambridge Official Plan (2012) requires a minimum 10 m wide buffer for Core Environmental Features (ROP, 2009), though it is noted in the Cambridge Official Plan that a 30 m buffer to Provincially Significant Wetlands is suggested. For ease of reference, the minimum buffer widths required by the City of Cambridge are summarized in the table below: Core Environmental Feature Significant Habitat Threatened Species

Endangered

Provincially Significant Wetlands Environmentally Sensitive Policy Areas Significant Woodlands Environmentally Significant Valley Features * As measured from the dripline

Minimum Buffer Width or

Species specific 10 metres (30 metres is suggested) 10 metres 10 metres* 10 metres

The City of Cambridge recognizes that the above minimum buffer widths may not be appropriate in every situation. Natural features and their associated ecological functions vary in sensitivity. For example, wetlands provide several valuable functions such as flood control, groundwater infiltration, and water and air quality improvement, in addition to providing wildlife habitat. Potential impacts to natural heritage features vary based on the type and intensity of development on adjacent lands, the intended function of the buffer, and site physiography (City of Cambridge, 2012). In some cases, fixed buffer widths may provide too little or too much protection (Castelle at al., 1994). Accordingly, buffer widths and treatments contained within this document consider site-specific conditions, and in some cases, modification to the above listed minimum buffer widths is required to protect natural heritage features. Buffer widths for watercourses, with the exception of the portion of Allendale Creek that is contained within a valley (see below for an explanation of how to determine buffer widths for this feature), should be measured from each side of the bankfull width of the channel, not the centre line of the watercourse. Buffers from other features should be measured from the outer edge of that feature (e.g. for wooded features, buffers from edge of the dripline). Buffers are not intended to restrict existing uses (i.e. roads, parking lots) within the buffer limits. The majority of Allendale Creek is part of a confined valley feature. Therefore, in the absence of a meander belt, ordinary high water mark, or wetland limit, the top-of-bank is a reasonable alternative for the purpose of delineating the watercourse feature. The valley will be subject to slope stability setbacks once the appropriate geotechnical studies have been completed. It is likely that the slope stability setback will differ from the watercourse setback. It is recommended that the greater of the two setbacks/ecological buffer widths be adopted (GRCA, pers. comm. 2013).

Page 313

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Buffer Planting Prescriptions It is recommended that buffers be planted according to a graduated, or banded, planting scheme in order to mimic natural patterns of succession, protect natural features, and provide a variety of habitat for wildlife. As illustrated in the figure below, a band of trees and shrubs should be planted immediately adjacent to the natural heritage feature with a density of approximately 5 trees/100sqm. Outward from the band of planted trees and shrubs should be a band of shrubs. Outward from the shrub band, and filling the remainder of the buffer area, should be a ground cover of planted/seeded forbs and grasses. Forbs and grasses should also be planted/seeded amongst the aforementioned two woody plant layers. Wildlife habitat features such as rock and woody debris/logs should be incorporated into the buffer design wherever possible.

Page 314

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Table 4.1.10 outlines the potential impacts to environmental features as a result of large lot industrial/commercial development in adjacent developable lands. As such, with the exception of watercourses, specific buffer recommendations are not provided for lands within the western portion of Area B of the subwatershed study area, as it is assumed that floodplain and natural heritage designations in these areas preclude development. Tables 4.1.11 and 4.1.12 provide an overview of the rationale for recommended site-specific buffers and/or setbacks. The contents of Tables 4.1.11 and 4.1.12 may be subject to refinement once the land use plan is finalized. Buffer widths corresponding to Areas A to D are presented in Figures 4.1.13 to 4.1.16, respectively.

Number

Table 4.1.10: Potential Impacts to Natural Heritage Resources List of Potential Impacts

Light and noise

Invasive species

Dumping and rubbish

Changes in hydrologic regime

5 6 7 8 9

Changes in soil or water chemistry Nutrient loading Sediment deposition and/or erosion Changes in forest microclimate Increase in pedestrian access resulting in disturbance

Alteration of natural topography

11 12

Soil compaction or trampling Fragmentation or size reduction of the Greenlands Network

Disruption of corridors and linkages to other elements of the Greenlands Network

Disruption of ecological relationships among significant or representative species Alteration of the structure, functions, or ecological interrelationships of a natural habitat which sustain representative community associations or populations of significant species Reductions in the populations or fecundity of significant species

15 16

Page 315

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Table 4.1.11: Recommended Buffers and Setbacks for Core Environmental Features within the Detailed Study Area Core Environmental Feature Area A Provincially Significant Wetlands Environmentally Sensitive Policy Areas

Significant Woodlands

Impacts

Buffer/Setback Parameters

(Table 4.1.10)

Minimum Width

•

Provincially Significant Wetlands are not present in Area A.

•

Environmentally Sensitive Policy Areas are not present in Area A.

•

ELC Polygon A3 is a riparian deciduous swamp located within the lowlands of the Grand River valley. This swamp provides habitat for the Rusty Blackbird, a species of Special Concern. As an edge species often favoring wooded riparian areas, significantly increasing the forested width of ELC Polygon A3 would not benefit Rusty Blackbird (COSEWIC, 2006; Haag, 2002; Peck and James, 1983). However, there is a need to have sufficient buffers to protect the functions of the wetland from potential development-related impacts. Accordingly, Aquafor Beech Limited recommends that extensive tree planting in this buffer is not warranted. Rather, a mixture of herbaceous and shrub plantings would be more appropriate. Hackberry, a regionally significant tree, is found scattered along the outer edges of ELC Polygon A3. Buffers should protect the tree from potential adverse impacts and to create opportunity for a local increase in potential habitat for the species. Taking the above factors into account, the recommended buffer width for ELC Polygon A3 is 15 m. ELC Polygons A1, A2, A3 and A4 all constitute a single block of significant woodland. Due to ELC Polygons A1, A2, and A4’s proximity to the abovementioned Rusty Blackbird habitat (ELC Polygon A3), it is recommended that the 15m buffer width apply to the entire woodland. Aquafor Beech Limited notes that it is possible for the Rusty Blackbird to use the edges of the woodland as habitat. ELC Polygons A6 and A7 form a contiguous woodland along a section of slope of the Grand River valley stretching from Riverbank Drive to the banks of the Grand River. The northernmost edge of this woodland (ELC Polygon A6) contains Riverbank Creek and is bounded by agricultural field. Given the presence of the Rusty Blackbird in the area, and the similar habitat structure of the northern edge of ELC Polygon A6 to ELC Polygon A3, buffer prescriptions and recommendations are the same (15 m).

1 - 16

15 m

Considerations

• •

Environmentally Significant Valley Features Significant Habitat of Endangered or Threatened Species Area B Provincially Significant Wetlands Environmentally Sensitive Policy Areas

As above

•

Significant Valley Features within Area A are Significant Woodlands. See above for further details.

Species Specific*

•

Presently not applicable.

•

Provincially Significant Wetlands are not present in Area B.

1 - 16

30 m

•

The largest (3.39 ha) of the two wetlands within the Lower Freeport Creek Wetland Complex qualifies as an ESPA due to its function on the landscape, hydrologic contributions, and provision of habitat for regionally significant species. The eastern edge of the wetland abuts a (approximate) 2:1 vegetated slope, making the area potentially sensitive to siltation should the adjacent lands be disturbed. The wetland also contains potential Pike spawning habitat, and the Walter Bean Tributary. For the above reasons, a 30 m buffer is recommended for the wetland. The eastern boundary of the woodland in Area B (within the Freeport Esker ANSI) occurs on elevated ground and is therefore not subject to impacts 4 – 7. The western boundary of the woodland is located on flat ground, and thus is subject to those impacts in addition to impacts of increased light and noise from adjacent development and a potential new roadway. Buffer widths along the east and west boundaries of the woodland should be subject to the minimum buffer width of 10 m. This minimum width should encompass tree fall zones, protect the root zones of woodland edges, and filter potential contaminants (it is noted that soils in this area have high infiltration rates) (MNR, 2010; Lee et al., 2003). It is further recommended that salttolerant evergreen trees, such as red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) and poplar (Populus spp.), be planted along roadsides to mitigate the effects of salt spray from potential roads. The northern limit of the woodland is bounded by the railroad tracks. Though the railroad is partially functioning as a buffer and setback, potential impacts from light and noise are still relevant, especially given that a wetland is present within the woodland. Directional lighting may aid in reducing light-related impacts to fauna in this area. Existing infrastructure bounding the north (railroad) and south (Hwy. 8) of this woodland preclude buffer recommendations. Impacts from invasive species have already been facilitated by the adjacent transportation infrastructure, and are unlikely to significantly increase as a result of adjacent development. ESVFs within Area B consist of ELC Polygons B20 and B28. Both polygons provide habitat for regionally significant species (One-seeded bur cucumber, carpenter’s square, and Canada moonseed). ELC Polygon B20 is contained within the Lower Freeport Creek Wetland Complex, and is subject to the 30 m buffer described above. The section of ELC Polygon B28 containing regionally significant plant species (west edge) is protected by the 30 m buffer to the Walter Bean Trail Tributary (in part) and the 30m buffer to the Lower Freeport Creek Wetland Complex. As the remaining landward section of ELC Polygon B28 is adjacent to a meadow, and the two significant species within the Polygon require part- to full-sun conditions, a 10 m buffer is recommended.

•

Significant Woodlands

Environmentally Significant Valley Features

1 - 16

10 m*

• 1 - 16

10 – 30 m

Page 316

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 • Significant Habitat of Endangered or Threatened Species

3, 9, 14 -16

Species Specific* Butternut: 25 m

•

Based on Aquafor Beech Limited's experience with the requirements of the MNR, development within 25 m of a Butternut has the potential to impact trees. The habitat of the single Butternut on site is contained within a Core Area that will likely not be disturbed. Should the Butternut tree be assessed by a Certified Butternut Health Assessor as retainable, due consideration should be given to the location of trails (if any). Eastern Meadowlark has been recorded in ELC Polygon B30, and the meadowlands south of there. As the land south of Highway 8 is contained within the Grand View Woods North ESPA, it was agreed with the Agency Review Team that development would not occur in this area. Accordingly, there are no buffer recommendations for lands south of Highway 8 or the Eastern Meadowlark habitat contained therein.

Area C •

Provincially Significant Wetlands

1 - 16

30 m

• • • Environmentally Sensitive Policy Areas

1 - 16

30 m

• •

Significant Woodlands

1 - 16

30 m

•

Environmentally Significant Valley Features

•

Noise and light alter wildlife behavior, particularly in amphibians and birds (Bayne et al., 2008; Slabbekoorn and Ripmeester, 2008; Baker and Richardson, 2006; Longcore and Rich, 2004). One nationally threatened bird species (Wood Thrush), one species of national special concern (Eastern Wood Pewee), three regionally rare bird species (two of which are area sensitive), and two species of anurans are present in this wetland. As such, buffer design requirements account for noise and light attenuation. Evidence shows that buffer vegetation composition and width, respectively, are important factors in reducing light and noise impacts. Harris (1986) concluded that a mature treed evergreen buffer of approximately 6 m would reduce noise from adjacent infrastructure by 4 – 6 decibels (db) per metre. Without evergreen trees, the distance between the noise source and the area of concern would have to be tripled (Harris, 1986). Adjacent to commercial areas, heavily forested buffers of 32 m are required to significantly reduce noise levels (Groffman et al., 1990). Typical street traffic noise is 70 db, whereas a whisper is 20 db (http://www.scribd.com/doc/33535946/Decibel-Level-Comparison-Chart). It is the opinion of Aquafor Beech Limited that noise at a whisper level will not negatively impact wildlife. Assuming an average 5 db reduction per metre, is recommended that 10 m wide dense plantings of native evergreen trees, such as Eastern White Cedar (Thuja occidentalis), be incorporated into wetland buffers. Dense evergreen plantings within the buffers will greatly aid in preserving the site’s functions for breeding birds (Marzluff and Ewing, 2001). Dense evergreen plantings will also reduce the possibility of exotic plant species entering natural areas (it is noted that two regionally rare plant species are present in the wetland, one of which is located within 15m of the edge of the wetland, as detailed in Figure 3.7.1) Buffers with woody vegetation are more effective in reducing sedimentation and nutrient loading to wetlands than those without woody vegetation, though the slope of the adjacent lands factors in to buffer effectiveness (Castelle et al, 1994; Lynch et al., 1985). On steep slopes, buffers of 61 m are needed to effectively control sedimentation (Horner and Mar (1982) and Broderson (1973) in Castelle et al., 1994), however, lands adjacent to the Provincially Significant Wetland in Area C are flat and do not warrant additional buffer width due to slope. Accordingly, buffers to the Hespeler West Provincially Significant Wetland in Area C should be a minimum of 30 m wide (consistent with the recommendations of the Hespeler West Subwatershed Study) and should be heavily vegetated with native trees and shrubs. Enhancement activities are recommended for this wetland (see Section 4.1.3.6). An upland forest (ELC Polygon C5 north) and the Hespeler West Provincially Significant Wetland (ELC Polygon C6) is part of the single Environmentally Sensitive Policy Area (ESPA) in Area C. Six regionally significant species were found in this ESPA, including three bird species, two of which are area sensitive. In addition, one nationally Threatened bird, Wood Thrush, and one avian species of Special Concern (nationally), the Eastern Wood Pewee, have been recently documented within the Hespeler West Provincially Significant Wetland. As such, noise and light impacts on these birds are a concern. The area immediately west of the upland forest is recommended for several enhancements (see Section 4.1.3.6), which may impact buffer requirements for this area (see row above). Recognizing that enhancement plantings will occur in the future, it is recommended that the City of Cambridge’s minimum buffer requirement of 10 m be employed until the time that rehabilitation works are completed. Buffer widths for the wetland portion of this feature should be a minimum of 30 m. Both woodland and wetland buffers should include a minimum 10 m strip of densely planted evergreens as a component of the total buffer, as described immediately above. To account for east – west wildlife movement (see Section 4.1.3.6), fencing is not recommended in the south west corner of this ESPA unless live fencing techniques are used. Two significant woodlands are present within Area C. The larger of the two will not be subject to significant woodland buffers as it qualifies for buffer recommendations for Provincially Significant Wetlands and ESPAs (see above). One avian species of Special Concern nationally (Eastern Wood Pewee), one regionally rare bird species (Red-bellied Woodpecker) and one regionally rare flora (Yellow Ladies Slipper) occur in the woodland occupied by ELC Polygons C4 and C5. Red-bellied woodpecker can be found in urban environments, so it is assumed that light and noise impacts will not significantly impact this species. These birds are cavity nesters, therefore it is recommended that buffer widths be in accordance with the height of trees on the edge of the forest (“tree-fall” zone) plus 1 m, so that snags/hazard trees that have the potential to function as habitat for the red-bellied woodpecker do not have to be removed from the woodland. In areas where the tree-fall zone is less than 10 m wide, the minimum buffer requirement of the City of Cambridge shall apply except in areas described below (i.e. ELC Polygon C5). Eastern Wood-Pewee, a species that forages in the middle canopy layers of deciduous forests, nests primarily in deciduous forest habitats but can also be found in comparatively open habitats such as orchards, hedgerows, and parks (Peck and James, 1983). Due to the species’ tolerance to suburban conditions, it is assumed that noise and light impacts on this species may not be significant. However, as a precautionary measure, it is recommended that the 6 m wide evergreen tree buffer as described above in this table under Provincially Significant Wetlands for Area C be incorporated into the buffer for ELC Polygons C4 and C5 as a means of reducing the impacts of noise and light from adjacent future development. Within this woodland, both sections of ELC Polygon C5 contain vernal pool habitats. Field surveys indicate that American toad and spring peeper are using these pools as breeding habitat, and one species of regional significance (Yellow Ladies Slipper) depends on the hydrology of the site for survival. In recognition of the potential impacts of light, noise, and sedimentation as well as the protection of the hydrology of the site, it is recommended that buffer requirements adjacent to ELC Polygon C5 follow the recommendations described above in this table under Provincially Significant Wetlands for Area C, and be a minimum width of 30m. ESVFs are not present in Area C.

Page 317

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Significant Habitat of Endangered or Threatened Species Area D

Species Specific*

•

Presently not applicable. The significant habitat of Wood Thrush has not been defined by the Federal government. The habitat of Wood Thrush is contained within the PSW discussed above, and it is the opinion of Aquafor Beech Limited that the prescriptions outlined above will adequately address the habitat needs of the species.

•

There is one Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) complex present in Area D. The function of the Upper Freeport Creek Wetland Complex was assessed according to OWES, and it was found that, due to the ecological significance of the wetland, the area qualifies as a PSW. This designation was confirmed by the MNR. The majority of the SWM/Wetland is surrounded by Core Environmental Features that function as buffers. In recognition the ecological importance of the Upper Freeport Creek Wetland Complex, the variability of the water level, and the anticipated floodplain it is recommended that minimum buffer widths of 30 m from the limit of the wetland edge be employed when the floodplain hazard is less than 30 m from the edge of the SWM/Wetland boundary. In either case (e.g. floodplain hazard being outside the buffer or inside the buffer), it is recommended that native vegetation surround exposed wetland margins in order to account for the impacts of sedimentation, nutrient loading, and potential human disturbance. The main/largest wetland in the Upper Freeport Creek Wetland complex provides habitat for marsh birds such as Sora and Common Moorhen, as well as thirteen (13) regionally significant species. As such, buffer quality should be enhanced through dense woody plantings incorporated in the prescribed buffer width. Furthermore, buffers around the Upper Freeport Creek Wetland Complex should account for the critical function zone of the wetland, including areas for amphibian foraging, and should be constructed according to the prescriptions in the first point under Provincially Significant Wetlands for Area C, as detailed above. Similar to the PSW in Area C, all wetlands within the Upper Freeport Creek Wetland Complex function, or have the potential to function, as amphibian breeding habitat. Evidence has shown that pond breeding amphibians, (includes all amphibian species observed in all wetlands within the wetland complex aside from American toad), require 25-35m buffers around their habitat in order to mitigate the effects of adjacent land use (Demaynadier and Hunter 1998). In the opinion of Aquafor Beech Limited, breeding areas for the most sensitive anurans (e.g. yellowspotted salamander and wood frog) found in the PSW are surrounded by core natural heritage features, while breeding habitat for other relatively less sensitive species (e.g. green frog and leopard frog) are, as is the case for ELC Polygons D2 (in part), D22, D27 and the “Hoffstetter Pond” (part of D15), not surrounded by extant woody buffers. In consideration of the above, Aquafor Beech Limited recommends that a buffer width of 30m be applied to the Upper Freeport Creek Wetland Complex.

• Provincially Significant Wetlands

1 - 16

30 m •

Environmentally Sensitive Policy Areas

•

ESPAs are not present in Area D.

•

ELC Polygons D1, D2, D3, D4 and D5 comprise a single significant woodland located behind the Regional Operations Yard. Polygons D2 and D3 are subject to the PSW buffer prescriptions described above. Portions of Polygons D1 and D4 are protected by overlapping from the aforementioned 30 m wetland buffer. ELC Polygons D9, D10, D11, D12, and D13 comprise a significant woodland. Present within this woodland is the Eastern Wood Pewee (of Special Concern nationally). Some of these polygons (i.e. Polygons D11, D12 and D13) are contained within protected natural heritage areas, and accordingly will not have specific buffer widths attributed to them. Others, as in the case of Polygon D9, are subject to the 30m PSW buffer. With the aforementioned points (species at risk and buffers) in mind, the outer edge of this significant woodland not already encompassed within other buffers (sections of ELC Polygon D10) should be subject to a buffer of 15 m. ELC Polygons D17 and D18 comprise a significant woodland. This woodland provides habitat to a number of regionally significant species including hackberry, Lindley’s aster, and hairy wood sedge. The nationally significant eastern wood pewee has also been documented in this woodland. It is also noted that the western and eastern edges of the woodland are on lands sloping southward. In order to mitigate the effects of development, including siltation and other potential effects of development, it is recommended that the woodland be subject to a 15 m buffer. The adjacent meadow, ELC Polygon D16, provides habitat for amphibians and represents a “bay” between several Core Natural Heritage Features, the aforementioned significant woodland to the west and the Upper Freeport Creek Wetland Complex to the south and west. In following with the recommendations of the Greenlands Network Implementation Guidelines (RMW, 2011), this meadow has been included in the Greenlands Network as a Core Natural Heritage Feature. In consultation with the agency review team, it was determined that for ease of compatibility with future planning, the 15 m buffer ascribed to the adjacent woodland should extend across the northern edge of ELC Polygon D16. The 15 m buffer will aid in mitigating the effects of light on the foraging and breeding habits of amphibians documented in the area. Furthermore, it is recommended that meadow buffers should include a minimum 10 m strip of densely planted evergreens as a component of the total buffer, as described under Area C: Provincially Significant Wetlands, above.

•

Significant Woodlands

1 - 16

15 m

•

Environmentally Significant Valley • ESVFs are not present in Area D. Features Significant Habitat of Endangered or Species specific* • Presently not applicable. The habitat of Barn Swallow is discussed in Appendix D. Threatened Species * Minimum buffer widths as prescribed by the Waterloo Region Official Plan (ROP, 2009) and reflected by the City of Cambridge Official Plan (2012).

Page 318

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Table 4.1.12: Recommended Buffers and Setbacks for Locally Significant Natural Areas within the Detailed Study Area

Area A Permanent & Intermittent Watercourses

Buffer/Setback Parameters

Impacts

Locally Significant Natural Area

Minimum Width

15 m

Wetlands

1 - 16

15 m

Woodlands

1 - 16

15 m

Considerations

•

See Section 4.1.3.3 for site-specific recommendations.

•

One wetland in Area A (ELC Polygon A3) is contained within a significant woodland and is therefore considered a Core Environmental Feature. Accordingly, buffer recommendations for this wetland are outlined in Table 4.1.11, above. The GRCA Wetland A (ELC Polygon A5) is located on a flat floodplain adjacent to the Grand River. The wetland was not studied in detail due to land access issues. As such, a 15 m buffer, consistent with the buffer widths for adjacent natural heritage features, is recommended until such time that the wetland is studied in detail during an EIS (see section 9.1 for further details). All woodlands within Area A are significant woodlands. Accordingly, buffer recommendations for woodlands are outlined above under Core Environmental Features. See Table 4.1.11 for further details. Significant Wildlife Habitat within Area A is contained within Core Environmental Features. Habitat for Species of Conservation Concern (Rusty Blackbird, SC) is contained within ELC Polygon A3. It is recommended that ELC Polygon A3 be subject to the buffer recommendations outlined in Table 4.1.11, section A, under Significant Woodlands with the added provision that development proposals on adjacent lands (defined as 120 m from the edge of the wetland) undertake an EIS to determine the potential effects on the Rusty Blackbird. See Section 9.1 for further details.

•

• • •

Significant Wildlife Habitat

Environmentally Significant Groundwater Discharge and Recharge Areas Area B Permanent & Intermittent Watercourses

1, 2, 4, 12 - 16

Feature Specific

30 m

•

None present

•

See Section 4.1.3.3 for information on watercourses in Area B west (Walter Bean Trail Tributary). See Section 4.1.3.5 (Table 4.1.9) and Section 9.1 - Future Studies, for specific information on lower Freeport Creek. The Freeport Esker ANSI Wetland is contained within a Significant Woodland and is bounded to the north by a railroad. Therefore, specific buffer recommendations are not applicable. The smaller wetland within the Lower Freeport Creek Wetland complex, as shown by ELC Polygon B23, is mostly encompassed within the 30 m watercourse buffer associated with Freeport Creek. This small wetland contributes to water quality in Freeport Creek.

• •

Wetlands

1 - 12

10 m

•

Page 319

Locally Significant Natural Area

Impacts

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Buffer/Setback Parameters Minimum Width

Considerations •

Woodlands

1 - 16

10 m*

• •

Significant Wildlife Habitat

1 - 16

Feature Specific •

Environmentally Significant Groundwater Discharge and Recharge Areas Area C Permanent Watercourses

Wetlands

1 -7, 9, 12, & 13 -

Woodlands

1 - 16

Intermittent Watercourses

30 m -

Woodlands in Area B that do not qualify as Core Environmental Features include ELC Polygons B1 (in part), B10 and B24. These woodlands do not contain regionally significant species, but their location contributes to the ecological function of adjacent natural features such as wetlands, meadows, and woodlands. Buffers to woodland breeding ponds have already been addressed under Core Environmental Features (Table 4.1.11). Three area-sensitive bird species in were observed in Area B (see Section 3.7.5.3). Noise impacts from future development will not likely impact these species more than Highway 8 and the railroad already has. Thus, specific buffers based on the presence of areasensitive species are not recommended. Rather, to guard from human encroachment while accounting for wildlife movement, it is recommended that living fences comprised of native woody vegetation with spines (e.g. Crataegus spp., Rubus spp., and/or Zanthoxylem americanum) be planted in strategic locations to deter pedestrian and off-road vehicle access. Animal Movement Corridors in Area B are contained mostly within Core Environmental Features, and partially in Supporting Environmental Features. Additionally, the Animal Movement Corridor is wholly contained within a significant valley. A buffer width of 10 m is recommended for areas within the Animal Movement Corridor that have not been ascribed more restrictive buffer widths under other natural heritage designations.

•

None present.

•

Permanent watercourses are not present in Area C.

•

See Section 4.1.3.3 for site-specific recommendations.

• •

Not applicable. The woodland in Area C provide habitat for three regionally significant flora (see Section 3.7.2) and partially contains a spring. Buffer design should take into account the light requirements of Hackberry, Canada Moonseed, and White Spring Cress; and should not cause these species detriment through shading. To account for the future retention of snags and woody debris, buffer widths should be a minimum of 10 m wide, or the width of the tree fall zone plus 1 m. Hedgerows HR-C1, HR-C4, HR-C5, and HR-C7 have been identified as woodlands by the MNR, hence they are included in woodlands

10 m, varies •

Page 320

Locally Significant Natural Area

Impacts

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Buffer/Setback Parameters Minimum Width

Considerations

• •

Significant Wildlife Habitat

1 - 16

Feature Specific

•

Environmentally Significant Groundwater Discharge and Recharge Areas Area D Permanent and Intermittent Watercourses Wetlands

• 4, 8, 14-16

10 m

1 -7, 9, 12, 13.

30 m

1 - 16

•

See Section 4.1.3.3.

•

Wetlands within Area D are part of the Upper Freeport Creek Provincially Significant Wetland Complex, and are therefore subject to the buffer recommendations for PSWs as outlined in Table 4.1.11, above. ELC Polygon D19 is highly disturbed and root impacts on the south side of this woodland have already occurred due to agricultural practices. At the direction of the Agency Review team, buffers to this woodland are not required. Woodland ELC Polygon D3a is bordered by meadow (ELC Polygon D3b) that functions as a buffer. Accordingly, provided the meadow is

30 m •

Woodlands

1 - 16

Feature Specific

mapping. Since the completion of the study, hedgerows HR-C4 and HR-C5 were cut down. It is recommended that hedgerows HR-C1 and HR-C7 be retained pending the results of an EIS. As such, specific buffers widths are not recommended at this time. It is advisable to direct development and site alteration away from the root zone of hedgerows; this will be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Buffers to woodland breeding ponds have already been addressed under Core Environmental Features (Table 4.1.11). Turkey vulture roosting areas will be protected by minimum 30 m modified buffers required for the Hespeler West Provincially Significant Wetland and enhancement plantings along the contiguous upland forest portion of this habitat type. It is further recommended that permanent fencing be incorporated into buffers along the southern and eastern edge of turkey vulture roosting areas in order to deter pedestrian traffic. The habitat needs of area sensitive birds have already been addressed through buffer recommendations for the Hespeler West Provincially Significant Wetland and adjacent upland forest; and through restoration and enhancement recommendations (see Section 4.1.3.6). The minimum buffer width for the southern edge of Hedgerow C3 should encompass the tree fall zone plus 1 m. The minimal corridor functions provided by Hedgerow C3 do not warrant further buffer recommendations; it is noted that the hedgerow will be partially encompassed within the buffers of adjacent features. The single spring in Area C is encompassed within ELC Polygon C3 and enhancement areas. Nonetheless, the recommended buffer width for the spring is 10 m. One area of groundwater upwelling contributes to the ecological function of the adjacent woodland and watercourse (Allendale Creek), and will be encompassed within a Restoration and Enhancement Area. Nonetheless, the recommended buffer width for the spring is 10 m.

•

Page 321

Locally Significant Natural Area

Impacts

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Buffer/Setback Parameters Minimum Width

Considerations •

Significant Wildlife Habitat

1 - 16

Feature Specific

•

preserved, buffer recommendations are not warranted. The woodland on the École Père-René-De-Galinée School property is bordered by meadow and thicket habitats and it is not anticipated that development within the Subwatershed Study Area will significantly affect this woodland. In order to protect the roots of trees in the woodland, it is recommended that a 10 m buffer width be employed. For mapping/planning purposes, adjacent thicket and meadow habitats are subject to the same. The required buffers for Significant Wildlife Habitat are accounted for thought buffers to Core Environmental Features (see Table 4.1.11).

* Minimum buffer widths as prescribed by the City of Cambridge (2011)

Page 322

R KD N BA ER V I R

Woolwich

ST N

EAST SIDE LAND MESP AND COMMUNITY PLAN

IN FO UNTA

FREEPORT CREEK AND TRIBUTARY TO THE GRAND SUBWATERSHED STUDY

A1 Ag HR-A2

HR-A1

FIGURE 4.1.13 BUFFER WIDTH AREA "A"

Ag HIGHWAY

RIV ER BA NK

MUNICIPAL ROADS REGIONAL ROADS LOCAL ROADS STAGE 1 STUDY AREA WEST OF FOUNTAIN STREET MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY

HR-A3

MIDDLE BLOC K

DETAILED SUBWATERSHED STUDY AREA

WATER BODIES

RIV E R

BA N K

CREE

STREAMS

ECOLOGICAL LAND CLASSIFICATION

BUFFER WIDTH

AQUATIC BUFFER (30 METRES) AQUATIC BUFFER (15 METRES)

ALL

30 METRE BUFFER

15 METRE BUFFER

10 METRE BUFFER

GREENLANDS NETWORK SIGNIFICANT VALLEY CORE ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES* SUPPORTING ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE LINKAGE

NOTES: † FEATURES HAVE BEEN REMOVED SINCE THE COMPLETION OF THE NATURAL FEATURES INVENTORY.

RI VE

†

BA NAT

*CORE ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES IN AREA A, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ELC POLYGON A3, WERE NOT VISITED AS PART OF THIS STUDY. EXACT BUFFER WIDTHS WILL HAVE TO BE DETERMINED THROUGH AN EIS.

D RB

GR AN

LT E

IB U

TA R

ALLENDALE R D

Y 0

KING ST E

†

250

500 Meters

HW Y 8

†

File Location: C:\Projects\65107-EastSideLands\GIS\MXD\Final-June12-2013\ Figure-4.1.12-GreenlandsNetwork.mxd

Date: June 12, 2013

EAST SIDE LAND MESP AND COMMUNITY PLAN

B27 R B EAN TRA B14 B13 IL T RIB UTARY B15 B12 B29 B25 B10 B22 B17 B16 B11 CZ B18 B20 B28 B19 B21 B28 B26 B30 B23 B24

AN D

FREEPORT CREEK AND TRIBUTARY TO THE GRAND SUBWATERSHED STUDY

ALLENDALE RD RIV

FIGURE 4.1.14 BUFFER WIDTH AREA "B"

HIGHWAY MUNICIPAL ROADS REGIONAL ROADS LOCAL ROADS

STAGE 1 STUDY AREA WEST OF FOUNTAIN STREET MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY

REE

8 †

DETAILED SUBWATERSHED STUDY AREA

EP O RT C

FRE

WATER BODIES STREAMS

ECOLOGICAL LAND CLASSIFICATION

BUFFER WIDTH BUTTERNUT BUFFER 25 METRES

AQUATIC BUFFER (30 METRES) AQUATIC BUFFER (15 METRES) 30 METRE BUFFER 10 METRE BUFFER

GREENLANDS NETWORK

B2 B1 B4

15 METRE BUFFER

B6 B7 B7

WALTE

KING ST E

B28

B26

B1 B1

SIGNIFICANT VALLEY CORE ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES* SUPPORTING ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE LINKAGE

† FEATURES HAVE BEEN REMOVED SINCE THE COMPLETION OF THE NATURAL FEATURES INVENTORY.

B3 B1

125

250 Meters

DR RIVERBANK

EAST SIDE LAND MESP AND COMMUNITY PLAN

L MIDD

R K C O BL

FREEPORT CREEK AND TRIBUTARY TO THE GRAND SUBWATERSHED STUDY

HR-C1

FIGURE 4.1.15 BUFFER WIDTH AREA "C"

C7 HIGHWAY MUNICIPAL ROADS REGIONAL ROADS LOCAL ROADS

STAGE 1 STUDY AREA WEST OF FOUNTAIN STREET MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY DETAILED SUBWATERSHED STUDY AREA

HR-C7 C0a

WATER BODIES STREAMS

C5 ECOLOGICAL LAND CLASSIFICATION

HR-C3

BUFFER WIDTH AQUATIC BUFFER (30 METRES)

AQUATIC BUFFER (15 METRES) 30 METRE BUFFER

HR-C4 †

C1 C0b C2

ALLENDALE CREEK

10 METRE BUFFER

D BANAT R

15 METRE BUFFER

GREENLANDS NETWORK SIGNIFICANT VALLEY CORE ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES SUPPORTING ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE LINKAGE

C0c

HR-C5

† † FEATURES HAVE BEEN REMOVED SINCE THE COMPLETION OF THE NATURAL FEATURES INVENTORY.

HR-C6

125

Base data provided by the Ministry of Natural Resources: Produced by Dillon Consulting under Licence with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2011

HR-C2

AL L E

RD E L ND A

250 Meters

†

BANAT RD

RI VE R

†

EAST SIDE LAND MESP AND COMMUNITY PLAN FREEPORT CREEK AND TRIBUTARY TO THE GRAND SUBWATERSHED STUDY

GR A

ALLENDALE RD

FIGURE 4.1.16 BUFFER WIDTH AREA "D"

Ag HR-D1 D21

HIGHWAY

D22

MUNICIPAL ROADS REGIONAL ROADS

D20

LOCAL ROADS

D23

D21

STAGE 1 STUDY AREA WEST OF FOUNTAIN STREET MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY

D24

D16

D17

D15a

D8b

D10

Berm D18

D17

D13 HR-D6

D11

D13a

D12

30 METRE BUFFER 15 METRE BUFFER 10 METRE BUFFER

D9 HR-D4 Ag

GREENLANDS NETWORK

M AP

SIGNIFICANT VALLEY CORE ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES SUPPORTING ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE

D9a

HR-D7

LINKAGE

D5 SWMP

† FEATURES HAVE BEEN REMOVED SINCE THE COMPLETION OF THE NATURAL FEATURES INVENTORY.

D3b D3a

BUTTERNUT BUFFER 25 METRES AQUATIC BUFFER (15 METRES)

HR-D5

ECOLOGICAL LAND CLASSIFICATION

BUFFER WIDTH AQUATIC BUFFER (30 METRES)

†

STREAMS

HR-D3

WATER BODIES

D14

GR OV

D19

D26

D15

D8b D8a

DETAILED SUBWATERSHED STUDY AREA

D27

HR-D2 D19

D25

125

250 Meters

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

4.2 OPPORTUNITIES FOR DEVELOPMENT Through the process of identifying the Greenlands Network for the subwatershed study area as per the definitions and guidelines provided in the Region of Waterloo Official Plan (2009), the City of Cambridge Official Plan (2012), the Greenlands Network Implementation Guideline (2011), and the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (1999), Aquafor Beech Limited has identified areas within the subwatershed study area available to development. The Greenlands Network is a hierarchal assemblage of environmental features comprised of Landscape Level Systems, Core Environmental Features, and Supporting Environmental Features/Locally Significant Natural Areas (including Linkages). In order to preserve the ecological integrity of the Greenlands Network, development opportunities and constraints are identified. Opportunities and constraints mapping, as shown in Figure 4.2 can be broken down as follows: Lands east of Fountain Street Figure 4.2 illustrates the opportunities and constraints to development east of Fountain Street. Constraints mapping shown within the Hespeler West Subwatershed Study (HWSS) area consist of Floodplain, Significant Natural Heritage Features, GRCA Wetlands, and 30 (thirty) metre buffers recommended in the HWSS Summary Report (supported by MNR, GRCA and the Region of Waterloo) but not adopted by Cambridge Council in its decision on February 28, 2005 which re-confirmed wetland buffers north of Maple Grove Road of fifteen (15) meters adjacent to the boundary of a provincially significant or locally significant wetland. The mapping does not show enhancement areas from that Study’s Greenspace Management Strategy. Refer to Figure C3.3.1 – Greenspace Management Strategy of the Hespeler West Summary Report which illustrates the enhancement areas. Completion of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) for lands east of Fountain Street will be required in order to confirm buffer requirements. The completion of said EISs will not resolve the conflict that currently exists between Council’s decision and the recommendations of the HWSS and decisions of Regional Council, GRCA and MNR. Lands west of Fountain Street Developed as part of the East Side Lands Subwatershed Study and Master Environmental Servicing Plan, Figure 4.2 illustrates the opportunities and constraints to development west of Fountain Street. The constraints to development consist of Floodplains, Core Environmental Features and Supporting Environmental Features with their associated buffers as well as linkages. Supporting Environmental Features are designated as “constraints to be confirmed through an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)”.

Page 327

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 The total developable areas, defined as the area within the PISR lands (477 ha) that do not possess identified environmental constraints, not including the lands regulated by the GRCA through Generic Regulations, is 308 ha (net developable). Identified constraints have been quantified as follows: • Environmental constraints east of Fountain: 113 hectares • Environmental constraints west of Fountain: 50.5 hectares • Additional land removed from road ROW: 5.8 hectares (Note: developable PISR land area east of Fountain Street may be subject to change based on ability to provide access and services) Environmental Impact Statements Developable lands contiguous to the Greenlands Network will be subject to scoped Environmental Impact Statements (EISs). The requirements of scoped EISs will be dependent on the nature of the development proposal and will be at the direction of planning authorities. It is recommended that all scoped EISs confirm the boundaries of natural features. According to the Waterloo Region Official Plan: An Environmental Impact Statement may be required to identify and evaluate the potential effects of a proposed development or site alteration on elements of the Greenlands Network, and recommend means of preventing, minimizing or mitigating these impacts, as well as enhancing or restoring the quality and connectivity of elements of the Greenlands Network. An Environmental Impact Statement may also be used to identify and evaluate elements of the Greenlands Network and interpret the boundaries of these elements. The Province, Region, Area Municipalities and the Grand River Conservation Authority will coordinate the requirements for the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements (ROP, 2009). It is recommended that this Subwatershed document be used as a reference to assist in scoping subsequent EISs within the subwatershed study area. Additional detail with respect to EIS requirements is provided in Section 9.1. Several site-specific EIS recommendations are contained in Section 9.1 of this report. The recommendations are a result of identified gaps in this report (i.e., areas where property access was not granted), and the identification of features requiring further in-depth study (e.g. areas with vernal pools, Species at Risk, etc).

Page 328

R C OB E R AN

EAST SIDE LAND MESP AND COMMUNITY PLAN

Woolwich

F O U N TA

IN S T N

R IV

B ER

TH RD

K O SS U

FREEPORT CREEK AND TRIBUTARY TO THE GRAND SUBWATERSHED STUDY

FIGURE 4.2 OPPORTUNITIES & CONSTRAINTS TO DEVELOPMENT

R IV

Kitchener

R IV

HIGHWAY MUNICIPAL ROADS

MIDDLE BLOC K RD

REGIONAL ROADS LOCAL ROADS STAGE 1 STUDY AREA

ALL

SEE NOTE

REGION OF WATERLOO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

DETAILED SUBWATERSHED STUDY AREA

WATER BODIES

S EA

* *

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY

STREAMS

CONSTRAINTS TO BE CONFIRMED THROUGH AN EIS GRCA GENERIC REGULATIONS

NOTES: *FURTHER GEOTECHNICAL WORK IS NEEDED ALONG ALLENDALE CREEK TO DETERMINE APPROPRIATE SETBACKS.

D R VE O R

SALTMAN DR.

D R

Y HW

AREAS SHOWN IN ORANGE ARE PART OF THE NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM UNTIL OTHERWISE REVIEWED THROUGH AN EIS.

CONSTRAINTS

CONSTRAINTS MAPPING SHOWN WITHIN THE HESPELER WEST SUBWATERSHEDS STUDY (HWSS) AREA CONSISTS OF FLOODPLAIN, SIGNIFICANT NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES, GRCA WETLANDS, AND 30 (THIRTY) METRE BUFFERS RECOMMENDED IN THE HWSS SUMMARY REPORT (SUPPORTED BY MNR, GRCA AND RMW) BUT NOT ADOPTED BY CAMBRIDGE COUNCIL IN ITS DECISION ON FEBRUARY 28, 2005 WHICH RE-CONFIRMED WETLAND NORTH OF MAPLE GROVE ROAD OF FIFTEEN (15) METRES BUFFERS ADJACENT TO THE BOUNDARY OF A PROVINCIALLY OR LOCALLY SIGNIFICANT WETLAND. IT DOES NOT SHOW ENHANCEMENT AREAS FROM THAT STUDY'S GREENSPACE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY. SEE FIGURE C3.3.1 GREENSPACE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY OF THE HESPELER WEST SUMMERY REPORT.

TA R

I BU

SPEEDSVILLE

RI D TR

A IL

GR AN

ALLENDALE RD

E RE

KING ST E

K EE

VE R

B AN AT

LT E

D ID M

Cambridge

250

500 Meters

Base data provided by the Ministry of Natural Resources: Produced by Dillon Consulting under Licence with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2011

W ES

Additional data sources and mapping provided by the RMOW, the City of Cambridge, and the GRCA.

T C R EE K

File Location: C:\Projects\65107-EastSideLands\GIS\MXD\Final-June12-2013\ Figure-4.2-OpportunitiesConstraints.mxd Date: June 12, 2013

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

5.0

PROPOSED LAND USE

As noted in Section 2.1, the Regional Official Plan (ROP, 2009) designates the East Side (Stage 1) Lands as designated Prime Industrial Strategic Reserve (PISR) with the main purpose of ensuring adequate supply of industrial land is available within the region for new large-lot manufacturing or business park land uses. Lands within the Stage 1 PISR lands are to be developed for fully serviced employment and ancillary land uses. Unless otherwise determined by design limitations associated with environmental features, property configurations, and/or the provision of new local roads or existing development, the lands should be developed as parcels greater than eight (8) hectares in size, however in addition to this, where supply and demand analysis demonstrates the need, the Municipality, through amendment to its Official Plan, can permit smaller parcels (i.e. < 8 ha). Table 5.1 summarizes the assumed proposed various land uses by category. Section 3.5.6 provides additional detail with respect to the land use breakdown and hydrologic modelling of the proposed future development. Table 5.1: Proposed Land Use Breakdown by Category Subwatershed

Land use (%)

Subccatch. Identifier

Industrial

Institutional

Agricultural

Residential

Roads/ Other

PISR

Open Space/ Environment

FP01

0.02

FP02

FP15

FP16

FP17 Freeport Creek

FP18

FP24

FP25

2 14

FP31 FP32

FP36

Trib. to Grand

FP39

TG3

TG4

TG5

The studies completed as part of the subwatershed study are intended to identify design limitations associated with environmental features. These limitations are detailed in Section 4.0 and illustrated in Figure 4.2, and have formed the basis of the environmental evaluation of various alternatives that have been proposed as part of the MESP process (including transportation, water and waste-water options). Environmental impacts with respect to the various alternatives proposed as part of the MESP process have been documented within the MESP document and are not duplicated within this report.

Page 330

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

6.0

POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED LAND USE

The proposed land uses identified in Section 5.0 have the potential to impact the natural heritage features within and adjacent to the general subwatershed study area. Impacts may result from direct activities (e.g. construction activities such as clearing grading, infrastructure such as road, water and waste water servicing) or indirect activities (e.g. occupancy issues such as dumping of waste material, creation of indiscriminate trails etc). The following section outlines the potential impacts associated with the development of the study area with respect to the following environmental categories: - Terrestrial Ecology; - Surface Water and the Aquatic Environment; - Groundwater Resources; - Natural Hazard Areas; and - Wetlands; The potential impacts as described below for each of the general categories (listed above) associated with the proposed development of new large-lot manufacturing or business park land uses serviced by a municipal drinking-water supply system and a municipal wastewater system including transportation linkages (roads) within the subwatershed study area. As part of the overall MESP team, Aquafor Beech Limited staff has provided ongoing input in regards to environmental constraints, and have participated in the evaluation of preliminary servicing options including water/wastewater and transportation based on the findings of this subwatershed study. This input can be found within the Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) and Community Plan document. The following section will be updated and refined as the proposed land use and servicing options evolve and are finalized through the Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) and Community Plan.

Page 331

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

6.1 POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY The following potential impacts relate largely to the impacts associated with road infrastructure and land use changes associated with development.

6.1.1 CORRIDORS AND LINKAGES Four (4) main wildlife corridors/ linkages have been identified (see Section 4.1.3.3, Figure 4.1.18, and Table 4.1.8): 1. An east-west wildlife movement corridor/linkage between the Maple Grove Wetland Complex west of Fountain St, natural heritage features associated with Allendale Creek, and the Grand River valley identified in the Hespeler West Subwatershed Study has been confirmed through field studies completed as part of this study. If linear road infrastructure and or building structures which bisect this migration corridor cannot be avoided, the effects of bisection (i.e. decreasing the functionality of the corridor) should be mitigated. 2. A north-south wildlife connection between two components of the Upper Freeport Creek Provincially Significant Wetland Complex via the RMW Core Environmental Feature has been identified. If linear road infrastructure and or building structures which bisect this migration corridor cannot be avoided, the effects of bisection (i.e. decreasing the functionality of the corridor) should be mitigated. 3. An east-west corridor along Freeport Creek between the largest wetland in the Upper Freeport Creek Provincially Significant Wetland Complex to the Grand River. If linear road infrastructure and or building structures which bisect this migration corridor cannot be avoided, the effects of bisection (i.e. decreasing the functionality of the corridor) should be mitigated. 4. A wildlife corridor/Linkage along the CPR rail-line/Highway 8 to the west end of Freeport Creek, upstream of King St has been identified. If linear road infrastructure and or building structures which bisect this migration corridor cannot be avoided, the effects of bisection (i.e. decreasing the functionality of the corridor) should be mitigated.

6.1.2 ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES One (1) Endangered tree, three (3) provincially Threatened birds, one (1) nationally threatened bird, and one (1) nationally Threatened amphibian have been identified through the subwatershed study. See Figure 3.7.1 for the butternut tree location and Figure 3.7.12 for bird observation locations. Impacts to Endangered and Threatened species are associated with infrastructure, development and land use change within and adjacent to identified Endangered and Threatened species (potential) habitat and foraging areas. Discussion regarding species habitat and the applicable legislation under the Endangered Species Act (2007) is found in Sections 3.7.2.2 (flora) and 3.7.5.5 (fauna).

Page 332

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Potential impacts include, but may not be limited to: o Habitat alteration; o Light and noise impacts; o Road mortality; o Human encroachment, including pedestrian access; and o Invasive species.

6.1.3 SIGNIFICANT SPECIES OF CONCERN Significant species of concern includes species of Special Concern and S-Ranked species (species having sub national ranks of S1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; S3). Impacts to these species are associated with infrastructure, development and land use change within and adjacent to identified habitat and foraging areas for species of provincial concern. Potential impacts include, but may not be limited to: o Habitat alteration; o Light and noise impacts; o Road mortality; o Water pollution; o Increased persecution by humans; o Human encroachment, including pedestrian access; and o Invasive species. All S-ranked species have joint designations as Special Concern, except in the case of butternut, which is Endangered. Species of special of Special Concern provincially within the study area include: one (1) butterfly species, two (2) reptiles, and three (3) bird species. There is one avian species of Special Concern nationally recorded in the Study Area. These species are discussed in Section 3.7.5.4.

6.1.4 REGIONALLY SIGNIFICANT SPECIES Twenty two (22) Regionally Rare flora species have been identified through the subwatershed study (see Section 3.7.2.2 and Figure 3.7.1). All observed Regionally Rare flora are within or directly adjacent to the Greenlands Network. Twenty three (23) Regionally Rare bird species, including seven (7) Area Sensitive forest birds and four (4) Area Sensitive marsh birds have been identified through the subwatershed study (see Section 3.7.5.5).

Page 333

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Impacts are associated with infrastructure, development and land use change within and adjacent to identified areas. Potential impacts to Regionally Rare species include, but may not be limited to: o Habitat alteration; o Light and noise impacts; o Road mortality; o Water pollution; o Changes in hydrologic regime; o Increased nutrient loading; o Salt contamination; o Silt deposition; o Changes in forest microclimate; o Dumping and rubbish; o Human encroachment, including pedestrian access; and o Invasive species.

6.1.5 SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT Within the detailed subwatershed study area, Aquafor Beech Limited assessed the occurrence of twenty one (21) significant wildlife habitat types under four (4) broad categories (see Section 3.7.5.1). As a result of the assessment, seventeen (17) significant wildlife habitat types were identified as either present (14 types), possible (2 types), or limited (1 type). Impacts are associated with infrastructure, development and land use change within and adjacent to identified areas. Potential impacts to significant wildlife habitat include, but may not be limited to: o Habitat alteration; o Light and noise impacts; o Road mortality; o Water pollution; o Changes in hydrologic regime; o Edge effects; o Increased nutrient loading; o Salt contamination; o Silt deposition; o Changes in forest microclimate; o Dumping and rubbish; o Vandalism; o Predation by domestic and/or wild animals attracted to the area as a result of development; o Human encroachment, including unauthorized trails and pedestrian access; and o Invasive species.

Page 334

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

6.1.6 SIGNIFICANT WOODLANDS A total of ten (10) Regionally Significant Woodlands are contained within the general subwatershed study area. These woodlands are mapped on Figure 4.1.5. Impacts are associated with infrastructure, development and land use change within and adjacent to identified areas. Potential impacts to Regionally Significant Woodlands include, but may not be limited to: o Changes in hydrologic regime; o Edge effects; o Increased nutrient loading; o Salt contamination; o Silt deposition; o Changes in forest microclimate; o Dumping and rubbish; o Vandalism; o Human encroachment, including unauthorized trails and pedestrian access; and o Invasive species.

6.1.7 AREAS OF NATURAL AND SCIENTIFIC INTEREST The Freeport Esker Regional Earth Science ANSI is located west of Maple Grove Road between the CN rail tracks and Highway 8 (inset map from the City of Kitchener 2012, ANSI represented by orange colour). The ANSI contains numerous natural heritage features including wetlands, significant woodlands, candidate significant wildlife habitat, and habitat for species of conservation concern. However, the ANSI was designated based upon earth science attributes/significance, not the aforementioned life science attributes. Accordingly, the potential impacts are limited to changes to the geomorphic attributes of the ANSI (i.e. earth moving and erosion). Due to the protection afforded to the ANSI as a result of the natural heritage features located on the Freeport Esker, it is unlikely that earth moving would occur within the ANSI.

Page 335

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

6.1.8 SIGNIFICANT VALLEYLANDS Within the Subwatershed Study Area, significant valleylands are limited to the Grand River Valley corridor. Five features within the study area have been identified as meeting the Regional criteria for Significant Valley Features, or, to use nomenclature under the PPS, Significant Valleylands. Significant valleylands within the subwatershed study area consist of geomorphologic attributes such as steep slopes and the Grand River channel, and natural heritage features such as the habitat of species of conservation concern, wetlands, and woodlands. Potential impacts (geomorphic and natural heritage attributes) to Regionally Significant Valleylands include, but may not be limited to: o Earth moving; o Erosion; o Changes in hydrologic regime; o Habitat alteration; o Light and noise impacts; o Edge effects; o Increased nutrient loading; o Salt contamination; o Silt deposition; o Changes in forest microclimate; o Dumping and rubbish; o Vandalism; o Human encroachment, including unauthorized trails and pedestrian access; and o Invasive species.

6.2 POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO SURFACE WATER AND AQUATIC

ENVIRONMENT In general potential impacts on surface water and aquatic environments are associated with both long-term and short-term impacts from proposed land use changes, roads, watercourse crossings (bridges and culverts, surface and subsurface infrastructure) as well as general construction activities. Potential impacts may include, but are not limited to: â&#x20AC;˘

Water quality impacts resulting from non-point source pollution associated with runoff discharges from impervious surfaces. As the runoff moves on impervious areas, it entrains natural and man-made pollutants, finally depositing them into receiving rivers, wetlands. Urban stormwater runoff can include elevated levels of suspended solids; heavy metals, bacteria and nutrients (from livestock, pet wastes); excess fertilizers; and herbicides and insecticides from commercial, agricultural lands and residential areas. Stormwater runoff can also include hydrocarbons (PAHs) as well as toxic chemicals and chloride from road salt applications;

Page 336

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 •

• •

•

Reductions in watercourse channel length resulting from culvert and bridge type crossings and the potential impacts to fish migration through the creation of fish barriers (impacts can vary based on proposed structure - open span bridge vs. culvert); Short term disruption or long term loss of riparian habitat from construction activities and watercourse crossings; Reduction in annual infiltration volumes of rainwater and therefore a reduction of stream baseflow to Freeport Creek and Tributaries to the Grand (particularly within the headwaters) due to land use change from agricultural to industrial/ commercial; Sediment releases and thermal impacts during construction activities such as general land clearing and grading, construction of infrastructure such as road, water and waste water servicing; and Increased runoff volumes and flows resulting in increased erosion and potential for flooding.

6.3 POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO GROUNDWATER RESOURCES Impacts to groundwater resources within the Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand subwatersheds can be attributed to threats to groundwater quality and quantity. Section 4.1.2 reviewed the Region of Waterloo prescribed drinking water threats from various land use activities and policy instruments targeted to address these. Groundwater quality - increased surface chloride loading from road salt applications on future roads, large parking lots (i.e. with more than 80 parking spaces or with a paved area greater than 2,000 square metres) or medium parking lots (between 8 and 80 parking spaces or with a paved area between 200 and 2000 square metres) within identified wellhead protection areas (WHPAs) for production wells P-16 and future production well FSTP-1-10. Freeport Creek Headwaters: Groundwater near the headwaters of Freeport Creek and the existing stormwater management pond were commented on in Section 4.1.2 Groundwater. Chloride is elevated at the stormwater management pond outlet and in Freeport Creek near its confluence with the Grand River at King Street (see Section 3.8.2 and Map 3.8.1). It is suggested that the headwater wetlands act like a sponge, storing surface water and releasing it to Freeport Creek. Shallow groundwater is mounded on the underlying till plain and recharge to the Deep Aquifer will be slow. This is consistent with the observation that the Deep Aquifer tested by well FSTP1-10 is non-GUDI (MTE, 2013, Section 6.4.1), such that travel time from surface to the Deep Aquifer is in excess of 50 days. Due to the elevated chloride in the Freeport Creek area, the application of road salt is designated as a significant threat under Sections 57 and 58 of the Clean Water Act 2006 and Region of Waterloo Policies RW-CW-34 and RW-CW-35 would apply.

Page 337

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Groundwater quantity â&#x20AC;&#x201C; it was shown that infiltration of precipitation to the Shallow Aquifer occurs and is in direct proportion to the depth of rainfall during significant events (>20 mm on a daily basis). Soils within the Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand subwatersheds can be generally classified as permeable to depths up to 6 metres (predominantly sand and gravel, see Figure 3.2.1). Decreases in annual groundwater recharge volumes resulting from an increase of impermeable surfaces during development should be compensated by over-infiltration in permeable areas.

Page 338

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

6.4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO NATURAL HAZARD AREAS General impacts to valley slopes, meander belts, steep slopes and general watercourse erosion areas are anticipated to be minimal provided associated feature set backs are utilized and appropriate SWM controls are implemented. Major watercourse crossing structures across Freeport creek may result in alteration of floodlines, however mitigation measures will be required at the analysis and detailed design stage of such projects. Should upgrades to Riverbank Drive be proposed, impacts to the Grand River valley should also be assessed prior to initiation of works.

6.5 POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON WETLANDS Impacts to wetlands, including Provincially Significant Wetlands, are associated with infrastructure, development and land use change within and adjacent to identified areas. Potential impacts to wetlands, with consideration to both abiotic and biotic processes, include but may not be limited to: o Habitat alteration; o Light and noise impacts; o Road mortality; o Water pollution; o Changes in hydrologic regime; o Increased nutrient loading; o Salt contamination; o Silt deposition; o Dumping and rubbish; o Human encroachment, including pedestrian access; and o Invasive species.

Page 339

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

7.0

MITIGATION MEASURES

The following sections describe the management and mitigation measures associated with the Surface Water Management Plan, the Groundwater Management plan and the Greenspace Management Plan.

7.1 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN The Surface Water Management Plan provides direction/guidance on the water resources and environmental criteria to be met within the Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand subwatersheds and associated features. These criteria address the following: •

Protection and maintenance of stream corridors to address flood control and fish habitat regulatory requirements;

•

Flow requirements designed to prevent increases in flooding and erosion within and downstream of the study area;

•

Water balance criteria to protect groundwater infiltration requirements and local groundwater supplies; and

•

Runoff reduction requirements to address water quality requirements necessary to meet provincial water quality objectives for receiving waters consistent with level one treatment per the MOE 2003 guidelines.

The following section provides the general elements of the proposed surface water management plan for Freeport Creek and the Tributary to the Grand subwatersheds. The surface water management plan provides direction with respect to: •

Stormwater Management – General approach; o Water Quantity – General approach, watercourse crossing, flood risk areas; o Water Quality; o Erosion - General approach and critical discharges; o Water Balance (infiltration) – General approach;

•

Opportunities for Watercourse Enhancement;

•

Infrastructure deficiencies; and

•

Development of a Master Drainage Plan.

Page 340

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

7.1.1 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT The stormwater management strategy for the Stage 1 lands shall recognize the importance of maintaining the pre-development water budget and the hydrologic cycle. In addition, the strategy shall ensure the suitability of groundwater resources and the maintenance of linkages between surface hydrology and groundwater resources. Key findings and considerations as they relate to stormwater management in the Stage 1 lands include: • The presence of highly permeable soils throughout the Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand subwatersheds and a relatively high proportion of infiltration within the annual water budget, 2936% and 34% respectively; • The presence of six (6) evaluated wetland complexes including one (1) Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW); • The presence of cool water fish species within Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand watercourses; • Water quality within Freeport Creek can be characterized as having water quality which ranges from ‘poor to good’ and generally improves as one moves downstream; • Water quality within Allendale Creek can be generally characterized as having ‘good’ water quality; • Elevated chlorides levels within Freeport Creek; • Elevated nutrients (mainly phosphorus) within both Freeport and Allendale Creek; • Headwater systems (largely first and second order streams) lie within identified groundwater recharge/discharge areas. Groundwater discharge may contribute a significant portion of the stream flow through baseflow contributions. Groundwater discharges were observed and mapped within and adjacent to the natural areas surrounding Allendale Creek; • The stormwater management pond (Pond 130) on Freeport Creek acts like a groundwater discharge area (i.e. stores stormwater and precipitation); • Four piezometers revealed that the headwaters of Freeport Creek are “gaining” (characterized by groundwater discharge). Downstream, the piezometers demonstrate that Freeport Creek is “losing” (surface water is recharging groundwater); • Freeport Creek, Allendale Creek and Riverbank Creek lie within the Hidden Valley Intake Protection Zone; and •

Portions of the study area lie within the established WHPAs for well P16 on Fountain Street and may be subject to the future WHPA for FSTP-1-10 on Maple Grove Road, should it be brought into production by the Region of Waterloo.

The stormwater management strategy shall further recognize that ‘traditional’ end-of-pipe stormwater management strategies alone are resulting in longer periods of elevated flow and erosion rates in surface water features, thermal enrichment of surface water bodies and increased pollutant loadings. As such, there is a growing body of evidence that suggests that a greater emphasis on, and implementation of, Low Impact Development (LID) techniques, that employ infiltration, detention and filtration as the primary mechanisms is required to meet the broader environmental targets for stormwater management controls.

Page 341

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 The stormwater management strategy shall be developed in conformance with the:

• • • •

City of Cambridge Stormwater Management Master Plan (2011); City of Cambridge Stormwater Management Policies and Guidelines (2011); Stormwater Planning and Design Guide (MOE, 2003); and Other Provincial, Regional and Municipal Policies.

Development of a Master Drainage Plan & Environmental Requirements This study focuses on the environmental analysis and study of the Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand subwatersheds. This subwatershed study has been completed in parallel with other technical studies in a fully integrated MESP process, which has allowed for a more holistic and comprehensive study of the environmental features in the context of future development and servicing. Within this overall process, the Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study and Master Drainage Plan (MDP) process has been broken down into three (3) separate but linked phases. They are: •

Phase 1 – Background Report and Technical Work Plan;

•

Phase 2 – Completion of the Subwatershed Study; and

•

Phase 3 – Subwatershed Study Finalization and Development of Master Drainage Plan

The Master Drainage Plan (Phase 3) is a critical component of the overall implementation plan, specifically in regard to stormwater management, as it aims to identify, protect and enhance natural features, ecological function, biophysical integrity, appropriately manage risks through the establishment of environmental targets for water quality, water quantity, erosion, infiltration (water budget) and guidance with respect to the protection of natural features. Provided below are the specific recommendations for the development of the MDP and stormwater management presented within the individual environmental categories of: 1. Water Quantity; 2. Water quality; 3. Erosion; and 4. Water Budget (Infiltration); 1. Water Quantity Water Quantity control shall ensure that post-development peak storm runoff will not exceed the predevelopment runoff for the Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed and the Freeport Creek Subwatershed. See Table 3.5.8 for a comparison between estimated (this study) and previously reported peak flows (AMEC 2010) for Pond 130. See Table 3.5.20 for the peak flows associated with the original functional design per CRA (April 1990). The water quantity controls must ensure that post-development runoff does not exceed the capacity of the receiving stream and associated wetlands.

Page 342

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Flood Risk Areas Multiple property owners along the west side of Riverbank Drive within Subcatchment FP39 have notified the Grand River Conservation Authority, and the City of Cambridge that spring flooding has affected their properties in recent years. These impacts are largely as a result of surface runoff from agricultural lands north of Allendale Road and east of Riverbank Drive. This may be exacerbated by groundwater discharges from the large sand and gravel deposits along the headwaters of Freeport Creek. These properties are currently receiving runoff from lands that have the potential to be developed. Floodplain Floodplain hydraulics and hydraulic capacity issues along Freeport Creek have been assessed and mapped within this document see Section 3.5.7 and Section 4.1.1.1. The floodlines as mapped will be considered approximate for GRCA Regulatory purposes. GRCA Regulation Limit as it relates to the floodplain will consist of a 15 metres allowance (offset) from the mapped floodline. The exact location of the Regulatory Floodline will be based on surveyed information provided in support of future development applications Regional and return period flood flows at the CPR railway (Section 3.5.4.2, Table 3.5.8 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Hydrologic Flow Reference Station 3) shall be maintained to existing conditions per the EPA-SWMM model results developed as part of the Freeport Creek and Tributary to The Grand Subwatershed Study to mitigate against flood damage to identified flood susceptible lands. The future design of all end-ofâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;pipe facilities upstream of the CPR tracks shall comply with the design flows as presented in Table 5.2 of the East Side Lands Master Drainage Plan (Appendix B2). It is further required, that all redevelopment of lands downstream of CPR railway (Hydrologic Flow Reference Station 3) shall apply culvert and channel sizing such that 17.2 m3/s can be convey down Freeport Creek to the Grand River. In addition all redevelopment of lands downstream of CPR railway shall be required to establish a riparian corridor along Freeport Creek. The recommended aquatic buffer width of a minimum of 30m from each side of the channel shall be required per Section 7.1.2. Note: For more detailed information on Water quantity control and floodplain hydraulics, refer to East Side Lands Master Drainage Plan (Appendix B2). 2. Water Quality Control Water quality control shall attenuate pollutant loadings in accordance with the 2003 Ontario Ministry of the Environment Stormwater Planning and Design Manual (or most recent version at the time of land development). All facilities shall provide an enhanced level 1 protection as defined in the 2003 MOE Manual thereby reducing the average long term annual load of suspended sediment by 80% or better. This level of water quality control is based on the preservation and enhancement of existing surface water quality, potential development within and adjacent to the Intake Protection Zones (IPZ) for the Hidden Valley water intake, habitat requirements, and hydrologic connections to local natural features. Low Impact

Page 343

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Development source and conveyance control techniques have the potential to provide enhanced water quality control. Where SWM ponds are designed, sediment forebays shall be incorporated. Contaminant management plans are recommended for all land uses within and adjacent to the Intake Protection Zones (IPZ) Zone 2 for the Hidden Valley water intake. In addition, salt management plans are recommended for all developments within WHPA and IPZ per the requirements of the Region of Waterloo or the City of Cambridge. The placement and use of end-of-pipe facilities (stormwater ponds) within the IPZ Zone 2, and Wellhead Protection Sensitivity Areas (WPSA) 2-8 must address ROP Policy 8.A.12 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 8.A.22 and the City of Cambridge Official Plan (2012), Stormwater management ponds (or other ponds) may be permitted subject to further study in accordance with ROP Policy 8.A.4: Where required, one or more studies to be submitted in support of a development application, such studies will be completed in accordance with the Regional Implementation Guideline for Source Water Protection Studies to the satisfaction of the Region. The studies requested will vary based on the location of the development application relative to the sensitivity of the Source Water Protection Area and its proximity to a municipal drinking-water supply well or surface water intake. Studies submitted by the owner/applicant will demonstrate that the proposed use will not negatively impact the quantity and/or quality of drinkingwater resources in Source Water Protection Areas for the development application to receive approval. The exception to the above, being ROP Policy 8.A.11 which prohibits stormwater management ponds (or other ponds) within WPSA 1. In all stormwater quality controls should consider winter stormwater flows when selecting, planning, designing and constructing of new parking areas and roadways, including the use of curb and gutter and traditional stormwater controls (i.e. collection basins and storm sewers), as it relates to high chloride loadings and particularly within 100m of municipal supply wells (WPSA 1). 3. Erosion Control Erosion control shall be provided for all developed lands in accordance with current MOE guidelines: runoff volumes generated by a 25mm event or greater shall be captured, and released to the outlet over 24 hour period such that the frequency and duration of site outflows will not increase the in-stream index of erosion potential (e.g. multi-year erosive impulse). The release of captured runoff shall be governed by the critical discharges determined for Freeport Creek and Allendale Creek as part of this study (Section 3.6.4.1) and summarized below.

Page 344

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Critical Discharge • Geomorphic analysis recommended the adoption of the critical discharge value of 0.25m3/s for Freeport Creek, in conformity with recommendations of the GRCA (2012). • Geomorphic analysis recommended a critical discharge value of 0.25m3/s for Allendale Creek. However, given that this channel is ‘in-adjustment’ and the general erodiblity of the channel no one critical discharge recommendation is expected to alleviate future erosion hazards. As such stormwater erosion targets which mimic or reduce pre-development runoff volumes and peak flow durations are recommended. Management of existing and future erosion hazards for Allendale Creek require appropriate geomorphological and geotechnical erosion setbacks (see Section 9.1). Erosion control shall include the management of sediment during all phases of construction per: • City of Cambridge Stormwater Management Polices and Guidelines (2011) - Policy 5

• •

Guidelines on Erosion and Sediment Control for Urban Construction Sites", May, 1987 Greater Golden Horseshoe Area Conservation Authorities “Erosion and Sediment Control Guideline for Urban Construction, December, 2006.

For additional information and a summary list of erosion control measures, see Section 7.4 Development Best Management Practices. Water Balance (Infiltration) The general goal is to ensure recharge to municipal water supply aquifers and to maintain linkages between surface hydrology and groundwater resources. A water budget approach is recommended to maintain or enhance the existing hydrologic cycle in future developed areas. Annual infiltration volumes of 230 mm and 240 mm for Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand subwatersheds respectively were calculated using continuous modeling for existing conditions (Section 3.5.5.3 and Table 3.5.9). These values shall serve as the post-development infiltration target. Because most of the study area contains permeable soils and accordingly is suitable for infiltration, innovative source and conveyance control measures are feasible and should be implemented on all developed lands consistent with ROP Policy 8.A.11 and the City of Cambridge Official Plan (2012) which prohibit the direct infiltration of stormwater run-off without pre-treatment within WPSA 1.

Additional Surface Water Management Actions In addition to the above, the following actions are recommended: •

As pre-development nutrient and chloride concentrations are elevated in Freeport Creek and Allendale Creek, the reduction in the use of road salt and elimination of lawn fertilization applications are recommended so as not to exacerbate baseline water quality conditions; and

Page 345

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 •

Continuation of current road maintenance best management practices by the City of Cambridge including street sweeping and catch basin clean-out will help reduce contaminant laden, total suspended solid concentrations within runoff. Reduction in TSS within runoff will prevent clogging of the implemented SWM structures; reduce future maintenance costs associated with clean-outs; and ultimately decrease TSS inputs to Freeport Creek and the tributaries to the Grand River

7.1.2 OPPORTUNITIES FOR WATERCOURSE ENHANCEMENT As detailed in Sections 4.1.3.4 and 4.1.5; Table 4.1.12; and Figures 4.1.13 to 4.1.16, aquatic buffers have been recommended for Freeport, Allendale and Riverbank Creek. They are as follows: • 30m aquatic buffer for Freeport Creek, Tributary to the Grand, and Allendale Creek; and • 15m aquatic buffer for Riverbank Creek; As detailed in Section 4.1.3.4, eight (8) aquatic restoration and enhancement opportunities have been identified and are illustrated in Figure 4.1.7. Six (6) sites are located long Freeport Creek downstream of the SWM facility and one (1) each located on Allendale Creek and Riverbank Creek. Additional detail regarding the goals, areas, and methods of the recommended restoration plans can be found in Section 4.1.4.4, Table 4.1.9.

7.1.3 INFRASTRUCTURE DEFICIENCIES As a component of the surface water management plan, per the TOR, infrastructure deficiencies are presented below. In general, they are limited to: • In-stream structures (culverts etc); and • Existing municipal major and minor systems.

7.1.3.1 In-Stream Structures Road crossings and culverts were visually assessed during the Rapid Geomorphic Assessment procedure. Key observations for malfunctioning/undersized culverts revealed the following: Water Bean Trail Tributary •

Crossing at Walter Bean Trail: between the Grand River and Hwy 8 (700mm X 480mm CSPA), debris has accumulated on the upstream side of the culvert;

Freeport Creek •

Canadian Pacific Railway Crossing (Twin 900 mm CSP): identified as being severely degraded and in need of repair/ replacement. Sediment deposition is occurring at the upstream end of the culvert due to flow obstructions in front of the culvert. Canadian Pacific Railway representatives were notified of the issues and sent appropriate documentation. In general the replacement of any other of the crossings along Freeport Creek has been categorized as ‘not a priority’ (Cambridge, 2011);

Page 346

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 •

On-line pond between Canadian Pacific Railway and SWM facility (Pond 130) (twin 450 mm CSP): is undersized and overtopped during the Regional event and is currently acting as fish barrier. This crossing has been identified as a possible area of restoration; and

•

Laneway/Farm road culvert, downstream of Pond 130, (600 mm CSP): appears to be undersized and causes the channel to become backwatered and undefined within reeds and grasses.

Allendale Creek •

CSP Crossing at Riverbank Drive: debris jams were identified during field investigations and recent City repairs were noted. Prior to development, upstream contributing areas must confirm that adequate capacity can be maintained post development. Upgrades shall be a requirement of development if adequate capacity cannot be maintained.

7.1.4 DEVELOPMENT OF A MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN From the recommendations of the subwatershed study (Surface Water management, Groundwater Management and Greenspace Plans) a Master Drainage Plan (MDP) has been developed in accordance to the overall stormwater management strategy for the Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand subwatersheds (see Appendix B2). The MDP has been completed in accordance with the Environmental Assessment Act as outlined by the Municipal Engineer’s Association Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA), June 2000 as amended October 2007. The Municipal Class EA process is a five phase planning process. The MDP shall satisfy the Phase 1 and Phase 2 requirements for all identified projects. The Master Drainage Plan (Phase 3) is a critical component of the overall implementation plan, specifically in regard to stormwater management, and has been developed with the goals to identify, protect and enhance natural features, ecological function, biophysical integrity, and appropriately manage risks. The MDP is consistent with: •

City of Cambridge Stormwater Management Polices and Guidelines ( 2011);

•

Ministry of the Environment SWM Planning and Design Manual (2003);

•

Low Impact Development Stormwater Management Planning and Design (TRCA/CVC 2010); and

•

The policies and regulations of the GRCA, RMOW and the MNR.

Major recommendations from the Master Drainage Plan (MDP) as it relates to the Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed include (see Appendix B2): 1. A preferred SWM strategy that utilizes a combination of source, conveyance and end-of-pipe controls, consistent with the Ministry of the Environment’s treatment train approach to stormwater management. A combination of traditional and Low Impact Development (LID) source and conveyance controls provide aquatic habitat protection, water quality, erosion, and water balance control, while end-of-pipe controls provide flood protection. Stream restoration provides the

Page 347

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 additional benefits of improved stream corridor functions, moderating stream temperatures, and improving aquatic and terrestrial habitat conditions. 2. Seven (7) stream restoration opportunities identified within the subwatershed study have been carried forward to the MDP for Freeport Creek, Allendale Creek and Riverbank Creek. 3. Environmental targets for Water Quality, Water Quantity, Erosion, and Infiltration have been developed. Table 5.6 of Appendix B2 summarizes the recommended environmental targets. Flood Control •

Hydrologic modeling work is detailed in Section 4.2 of Appendix B2, which includes post to pre peak flow controls for all end-of–pipe within the Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed (discharging to Allendale and Riverbank Creek) and Freeport Creek Subwatershed (discharging to Freeport Creek).

•

Appendix B2, Section 4.2, Tables 4.1 and 4.2 provides flood control targets for the Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatersheds respectively.

•

Potential locations for end-of-pipe controls are illustrated in Figure 3.4 of Appendix B2.

•

Note: New stormwater management ponds within 100 m of the Fountain Street and new Maple Grove wells shall be prohibited (i.e. within the WPSA1/WHPA-A) and the IPZ-1

Water Quality •

Water quality strategies shall control pollutant loadings in accordance with current MOE guidelines to ‘Enhanced Level 1’ protection as defined in the 2003 Stormwater Management Planning & Design manual and in accordance with the recommendations of the Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study.

•

Enhanced protection shall reduce the average long term annual load of suspended sediment by 80% or better.

•

Per the MOE guide “any stormwater management practice that can be demonstrated to approval agencies to meet the required long-term suspended solids removal for the selected levels under the conditions of the site is acceptable for water quality objectives.” All proposed LID controls shall demonstrate the ability to reduce the average long term annual load of suspended sediment by 80% or better. The target water quality volume for LID controls shall be the 25mm event.

Erosion Control •

Geomorphic analysis recommended the adoption of the critical discharge value of 0.25m3/s for Freeport Creek, in conformance with recommendations of the GRCA (2012).

Page 348

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 •

Geomorphic analysis recommended a critical discharge value of 0.25m3/s for Allendale Creek. However, given that this channel is ‘in-adjustment’ and the general erodiblity of the channel no one critical discharge recommendation is expected to alleviate future erosion hazards. As such stormwater erosion targets which mimic or reduce pre-development runoff volumes and peak flow durations are recommended.

Infiltration (Water Budget) •

Pre and post development water budgets have been characterized with the intent to provide planners, designers and other practitioners with catchment based pre-development water balances from which to plan and design LID source and conveyance controls with the goal of re-establishing/matching pre-development infiltration after development has been completed.

•

Per the policies of the ROP and Cambridge OP, in regards to source water protection, the following prohibition have been noted: i. Employment uses that would direct infiltration of stormwater run-off without pretreatment through the use of dry wells or artificial/enhanced recharge will not be permitted (ROP 8.A.5); ii. ROP 8.A.11 provides a description of each of WPSAs (1 to 8) and the limitations associated with development, of relevance to infiltration objectives – within a 100 metre radius of each municipal drinking-water supply well (WPSA 1), direct infiltration of stormwater run-off without pre-treatment will not be permitted; and new impermeable surfaces of any kind will be restricted or minimized to the greatest extent possible.

•

Appendix B2, Section 4.3.1.3, Tables 4.8 provides LID infiltration capture targets under future conditions for Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatersheds per the relevant soil types found within the study area. These targets maintain pre-development infiltration rates to ensure protection of groundwater resources, hydrologic connection to sensitive features (wetlands, woodlots) and the preservation of baseflow to local watercourses.

4. The protection of natural features such as existing wetlands, woodlands, and streams are integral components of the natural landscape that can be impacted following urban development. To ensure hydrologic impacts are minimized to the features identified within the respective Natural Heritage Systems (NHS), a water budget approach is required in order to demonstrate that flow regimes and volumes will be maintained in the post-development scenario. The four step procedure outlined ensures natural features are protected. •

Needs Establishment (Step 1),

•

Baseline Conditions Establishment (Step 2),

•

Pre-development Site Characterization (Step 3) and

Page 349

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 •

Pre-development vs. Post-development Comparison (Step 4).

Steps 1 and 2 have been completed and are detailed within this Subwatershed study methodologies and results. The proponent has been directed to complete Steps 3 and 4 as an integral component of the SWM approvals process for the features listed in the table below (reproduced from Table 5.2 of Appendix B2). Identified Wetlands Wetland Name

PSW Status

In PISR Lands

In Detailed Study Area

ELC Polygons within the Wetland (see Section 3.7.4 & Figure 3.7.2, Figures 4.1.12-4.1.15)

Lower Freeport Creek Wetland Complex

B12-B22, B25, & B27.

Upper Freeport Creek Wetland Complex

yes

D2, D6, D7, D8a, D9, D11, D12, D13, D15, D15A, D18, D22, D26, & D27.

ANSI Wetland

yes

Maple Grove Wetland Complex

yes

Linear Grand River Floodplain Wetland

GRCA Wetland A

GRCA Wetland B

yes

enclosed within B9, no polygon given due to small size

5. Implementation considerations are detailed in Section 7.0 of Appendix B2. They generally include: • The requirement for all new development to prepare SWM plans per Policy 8b of the City of Cambridge SWM Policies and Guidelines and in compliance with Policy 4.3.2d Infiltration facilities and LID which promote infiltration • In order to not exclude the use of permeable pavements (which can be operated and maintained without chemical de-icers), it is recommended that the City of Cambridge permit infiltration practices accepting runoff from low use parking areas (i.e. employee parking) and internal site access roads provided they meet the requirements of “low risk land uses” listed in Tables 3.12 and 3.13 of Appendix B2. Permeable pavement may be permitted in certain well head protection areas subject to a study to assess impact and mitigation measures in accordance with the Regional Implementation Guideline for Source Water Protection Studies to the satisfaction of the Region. Permeable pavement is prohibited in areas where the groundwater vulnerability is 10 or within 100 m of a municipal water supply well (WPSA 1). • The preparation and submission of a salt management plan to the City of Cambridge for review and approval as a requirement of approval of the SWM plan • As a condition of approval, the salt management plan must specify that all property maintenance contractors and or staff responsible for the snow removal and or the application of de-icers shall be certified per the Region of Waterloo’s Smart About Salt ProgramTM.

Page 350

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 •

A report will be required to accompany the design of infiltration facilities to ensure adequate soil permeability and depth to the seasonally high water table. This report is to include: i. Borehole information, including soil stratigraphy, composition, grain-size and chemical analysis (additional testing may be required for individual LID techniques per the requirement of the Low Impact Development Stormwater Management Planning and Design Guide, Version 1.0 (TRCA/CVC - 2010); ii. In-situ infiltration testing per using the Guelph Permeameter test (as specified in the Low Impact Development Stormwater Management Planning and Design Guide, Version 1.0 (TRCA/CVC - 2010) or approved equivalent to confirm site specific design infiltration rates and design specifications. T-test, slug or other tests shall not be accepted for design purposes; iii. Seasonally high groundwater elevation information through the Installation of standpipes in accordance with Ontario Regulation 389/09; iv. The design shall incorporate an overflow connection to the storm sewer (or suitable surface outlet); v. All information shall be submitted within a design brief completed by a Professional Engineer and shall furnish details for the facility owner with respect to ongoing operation and maintenance activities, frequency, responsibility and reporting requirements to the City of Cambridge. vi. The proponent shall provide the City with the right-to enter and inspect the facility (see Policy 7l)

6. Additional recommended studies including potential scope and study requirements are summarized in Section 8.0 of Appendix B2. They include: •

Class EA, Schedule B for Pond 130: A separate Class Environmental Assessment (EA), Schedule B be undertaken to investigate alternative means to provide Regional flood control for the Freeport Creek subwatershed. Final end-of-pipe pond requirements and characteristics for Freeport Creek will be subject to refinement based on the Class EA process. As the timing of this Class EA has not been defined, development may proceed in advance of the completion of the process provided prescribed water quantity control targets as detailed within the East Side Lands Stormwater Master Plan (Appendix B2) are met. Lands within the Freeport Creek subwatershed with the potential to be affected by the Class EA process include the lands adjacent to Allendale Road and north of Pond 130 (FP 14-18) and south of Freeport Creek FP2425).

•

Assessment of Erosion Hazard for Allendale Creek: The assessment of the riverine erosion hazard along the entire length of Allendale Creek will be required by the development proponent in accordance with Section 8.2 of the GRCA Policies for the Administration of the

Page 351

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Development Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation 150/06, 2009. â&#x20AC;˘

Allendale Creek CSP Crossing at Riverbank Drive â&#x20AC;&#x201C; debris jams were identified during field investigations and recent City repairs were noted. The aforementioned recommendation has been carried forward.

Page 352

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

7.2 GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN The groundwater management plan focuses on the protection of drinking water quantity and quality, in conformity with the Provincial Policy Statement, the Region of Waterloo Official Plan, Region’s Water Resources Protection Master Plan, the recent Grand River Source Water Protection Assessment Report and the Region of Waterloo Proposed Source Protection Plan (January 25, 2013). The groundwater management plan has the following components: •

To delineate sensitive source areas related to existing (and future) Well Head Protection Areas (WHPA) and Intake Protection Zones (IPZ);

•

To sustain long-term water quantity by preserving or enhancing groundwater recharge functions;

•

To assess and rank threats to groundwater resources and to prioritize risk-reduction measures; and

•

To protect and enhance groundwater – surface water interactions and their linkage to ecological functions, particularly within the headwaters of Freeport Creek.

Key findings and considerations include: •

All new Stormwater management ponds and new roads within 100 m of the Fountain Street and new Maple Grove (FSTP1-10) supply wells shall be prohibited where the groundwater vulnerability is equal to 10 (i.e. within the WPSA1/WHPA-A) and the IPZ-1.

•

Risk Management Plans for the application of salt will be required for all new roads and mediumsized parking lots where the vulnerability is equal to 10.

•

The unadjusted and adjusted intrinsic vulnerability (i.e. the intrinsic susceptibility Index or ISI) of groundwater over most of the East Side Land, particularly in the vicinity of the municipal Supply well P16 and the potential supply well FSTP1-10 are low, as illustrated in Figure 7.1, taken from the Grand River Source Protection Area Assessment Report (2012).

•

Sensitive areas include one WHPA (Well P16 on Fountain Street) and an IPZ-2 (for the Hidden Valley Intake), the latter encompassing the entire lengths of Freeport Creek, and the tributaries to the Grand (Allendale Creek and Riverbank Creek);

•

The vulnerability of the P16 WHPA has been documented in the Grand River Source Protection Plan (2012) and existing and future development will conform to the Region of Waterloo source protection policies in the draft Grand River Source Protection Plan, made under the Clean Water Act, 2006

Page 353

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 •

A second protection area WPSA1/WHPA-A is shown on Figure 4.1.3 for the new Maple Grove well (FSTP1-10)

•

There are two aquifers in the East Side Lands, namely a Shallow Aquifer (generally at depths <6 metres below ground surface) and a deep Aquifer 3 some 30-40 metres below ground surface. It was demonstrated that the Shallow Aquifer is not hydraulically-connected to the Deep Aquifer.

•

The Shallow Aquifer sands are relatively permeable with hydraulic conductivity approaching 10-5 metre/second. Precipitation at surface infiltrates to depths of the order of 6 metres and the water table rises are proportional to rainfall depths. It will be important to retain the water balance and preserve or enhance infiltration with future development, primarily through Low-Impact Development;

•

The water table in the Shallow Aquifer lies within 2 metres of ground surface throughout 3 seasons and an upward gradient within the Freeport Creek headwaters. This demonstrates that that the headwaters act as a reservoir and discharge zone to Freeport Creek. Development with the upper Freeport Creek lands, is subject to Policy 3.B.6.1.4 of the City of Cambridge Official Plan (2012) pertaining to development within areas of high water table.

Page 354

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Figure 7.1: Unadjusted Intrinsic Vulnerability (Intrinsic Susceptibility Index or ISI) of the Deep Overburden Aquifer for Wells P16, and the southernmost extent of Wells K80, K-81 and K82.

Page 355

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Source Water Protection With regard to the Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand subwatershed, source water protection policies within the Regional Official Plan (Appendix A) provide specific consideration and guidance with respect to: •

Wellhead Protection Areas (WHPAs); o categories of land uses that may pose a risk to drinking-water; o Wellhead Protection Sensitivity Area (WPSA);

•

GUDI Wells and High Microbial Risk Management Zones; and,

•

Intake Protection Zones (IPZ). The following sections outline such considerations.

Wellhead Protection Areas (WHPA) and Wellhead Protection Sensitivity Area (WPSA) The Regional OP (ROP) designates Wellhead Protection Sensitivity Areas (WPSA) around each municipal drinking water supply well. Wellhead Protection Areas (WHPA) are lands which contribute water to a municipal drinking-water supply well. Within each Wellhead Protection Area, one or more Wellhead Protection Sensitivity Areas (WPSA) are delineated and classified at 1 (high sensitivity) to 8 (low sensitivity). This classification allows for varying degrees of management relative to the vulnerability of the underlying groundwater to contamination, the importance of the well to the capacity of the municipal drinking-water supply systems, as well as the timeof-travel for groundwater within the WPSA before it reaches the municipal drinking-water supply intake. WPSAs are shown on Figure 4.1.3 per the designations of the ROP. The purpose of these designations is to prevent land uses associated with hazardous substances, diseasecausing organisms and land uses that increase the vulnerability of municipal drinking-water wells. Within the Freeport Creek and the Tributary to the Grand subwatershed the following WHPA and related WPSAs have been identified (See Figure 4.1.3): •

one (1) existing WHPA for production well P-16 (WPSA 1, 5, 7 and 8);

•

one (1) existing WHPA for wells K80, K81 and K82 (WPSA 2, 7 and 8);

•

Three (3) GUDI wells K80, K81 and K82 located on the western bank of the Grand River. WPSA 8 and 7 extend within the PISR Lands; and

•

One (1) IPZ (zone 2) has been identified and has relevance to lands adjacent to Freeport Creek and Allendale Creek and Riverbank Creek; and,

•

A future WHPA for a future production well FSTP-1-10. No WPSA have been developed at this time.

The descriptions of the WPSA categories present within the Freeport Creek and the Tributary to the Grand subwatershed are summarized in Table 7.1.

Page 356

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Table 7.1: Wellhead Protection Sensitivity Area Limitations WPSA

Limitations (A, B, C & D correspond to Land-use Categories listed in Schedule B of the ROP and Cambridge OP)

Description Delineates areas within a 100 metre radius of each municipal drinkingwater supply well. It represents the highest sensitivity area with respect to the potential movement of disease-causing organisms and groundwater infiltration;

Delineates high sensitivity areas found within the two year time of travel to a municipal drinking-water supply well

Delineates medium sensitivity areas found outside of the two year, but within the ten year time of travel to a municipal drinking-water supply well;

Delineates low sensitivity areas found outside of the two year, but within the ten year time of travel to a municipal drinking-water supply well; and

Delineates the area outside of the ten year time of travel to the limit of the total land area contributing water to a municipal drinking-water supply well.

•

A, B, C and D uses will not be permitted;

•

New individual wastewater treatment systems, private wells, pipelines, sewers, stormwater management ponds (or other ponds) and the direct infiltration of stormwater run-off without pre-treatment will not be permitted; and

•

New impermeable surfaces of any kind will be restricted or minimized to the greatest extent possible.

•

A uses, geothermal wells, mineral aggregate operations and wayside pits and quarries will not be permitted*;

•

Category B and C uses and underground parking garages will not be permitted outside of the Built-Up area as shown on Map 1 (unless already permitted and subject to further study);

•

Individual wastewater treatment systems, private wells, pipelines, sewers, stormwater management ponds (or other ponds) and plans of subdivision or vacant land condominiums may be permitted subject to further study in accordance with ROP Policy 8.A.4.

•

A uses will not be permitted

•

B and C uses will not be permitted outside of the Built-Up Area (unless already permitted and subject to further study);

•

D uses and plans of subdivision or vacant land condominiums may be permitted subject to further study in accordance with ROP Policy 8.A.4.

•

A uses will not be permitted;

•

B and C uses will not be permitted outside of the Built-Up Area (unless already permitted and subject to further study);

•

D uses and plans of subdivision or vacant land condominiums may be permitted subject to further study in accordance with ROP Policy 8.A.4.

•

A uses will not be permitted; and

•

Geothermal wells, mineral aggregate operations and wayside pits and quarries may be permitted subject to further study in accordance with ROP Policy 8.A.4.

* Until such time as the Regional Official Plan is amended to incorporate approved Source Protection Plans under the Clean Water Act, 2006

Policies of the ROP addressing source water protection in the Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand subwatershed study prescribe the following prohibitions: •

employment uses that would direct infiltration of stormwater run-off without pre-treatment through the use of dry wells or artificial/enhanced recharge will not be permitted (ROP 8.A.5);

Page 357

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 •

•

• •

•

employment uses that would require new water taking for industrial/commercial purposes and/or for irrigation purposes, except for water taking associated with mineral aggregate operations will not be permitted (ROP 8.A.5); ROP 8.A.8 outlines implementation considerations for source water protection. In that regard, four (4) categories of land uses that may pose a risk to drinking-water have been identified and are listed within Schedule “B” of the ROP and Cambridge OP. The four land-use categories are: o Category A (Very High Risk Uses); o Category B (High Risk Uses); o Category C (Moderate Risk Uses); and, o Category D (represents preferential pathways or other land uses that involve soil excavation and/or the creation of subsurface facilities that contribute to the risk to municipal drinking water supplies by increasing vulnerability); ROP 8.A.11 provides a description of each of WPSAs (1 to 8) and the limitations associated with development, including in relation to the four categories of land uses (A, B, C and D); ROP 8.A.19 designates municipal drinking-water supply wells supplied by Groundwater Under the Direct Influence of Surface Water (GUDI) are shown on ROP Map 6f. Development applications proposing individual wastewater treatment systems and/or private wells are not permitted within the High Microbial Risk Management Zone surrounding the GUDI wells. Outside the Freeport Creek and the Tributary to the Grand subwatershed, but impacting portions of the Stage 1 lands, three (3) GUDI wells K80, K81 and K82 are located on the western bank of the Grand River (See Figure 4.1.3); and, ROP 8.B.1 through 8.B.3 may require a Salt Management Plan to be submitted for certain types of development applications, including plans of subdivision and zoning by-laws proposing new employment land. The purpose is to encourage sound salt management practices and urban design to reduce the need for salt application to sidewalks, parking lots and roads.

Proposed Source Protection Plan The final planning step to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act, 2006 is the development of a Source Protection Plan (SPP). The proposed plan was submitted on January 16, 2013 to the Province, describing the prescribed drinking water threats (described in Section 4.1.2). Following approval, which is anticipated in mid-2014, the Region will work with others to implement the policies. Region staff are currently developing the process and content of risk management plans, a new implementation tool enabled by the Clean Water Act. This document makes reference to Wellhead Protection Areas A, B, C and E. Areas A, B and C are shown in Figure 7.2.

Page 358

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

il Figure 7.2: Significant Drinking Water Threat Policy Application Map (Cambridge and North Dumphries Area), from Schedule F of the Region of Waterloo Proposed Source Protection Plan (January 25, 2013) Within the study area employment lands, the relevant policies include the following drinking water threats in the Proposed SPP: 2. Sewage System Works â&#x20AC;&#x201C; discharge of stormwater from a stormwater management facility; 12. The application of road salt; 13. The handling and storage of salt; and, 14. The storage of snow. The Proposed policies are presented as Figures 7.3 through Figure 7.11

Page 359

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Figure 7.3: Proposed Source Protection Policies RW-CW-15 and -16 Related to Stormwater

Page 360

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Figure 7.4: Proposed Source Protection Policies RW-CW-17 and -18 Related to Stormwater

Page 361

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Figure 7.5: Proposed Source Protection Policies RW-CW-19 and -20 Related to Stormwater

Page 362

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Figure 7.6: Proposed Source Protection Policy RW-CW-34 Related to Road Salt

Page 363

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Figure 7.7: Proposed Source Protection Policy RW-CW-35 Related to Road Salt

Page 364

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Figure 7.8: Proposed Source Protection Policy RW-CW-36 and -37 Related to Road Salt

Page 365

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Figure 7.9: Proposed Source Protection Policy RW-CW-38 and -39 Related to Road Salt

Page 366

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Figure 7.10: Proposed Source Protection Policy RW-CW-40 Related to Road Salt and Policies RW-CW 41 and -42 Related to Storage of Snow

Page 367

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Figure 7.11: Proposed Source Protection Policies RW-CW 43 and -44 Related to Storage of Snow

Page 368

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

7.3 GREENSPACE MANAGEMENT PLAN

7.3.1 VEGETATION PROTECTION It is recommended that vegetation outside the boundaries of the Greenlands Network be protected and incorporated into development/lot design where possible. The City of Cambridgeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Tree Management Policies and Guidelines for New Developments (2002) should be consulted during the site plan stage to guide the identification and preservation measures for trees on site. Compensation plantings in appropriate locations to account for natural features that cannot be retained is encouraged at a minimum ratio of 3:1. That is, compensations plantings should account for three times the amount of the natural feature(s) lost. It is anticipated that some tree loss will occur in order to accommodate development. That is, treed areas not included as part of the Greenlands Network (e.g. hedgerows) may be removed to accommodate the proposed large-lot industrial/commercial development parcels. As many hedgerows are located along lot lines, it is probable that hedgerows can be retained post-development. For example, hedgerows HR-C1 and HR-C7 could easily be incorporated into the back or side end of a development lot. Retention of these hedgerows will likely benefit wildlife, and will also benefit development by providing shade to buildings, employee picnic areas, and/or parking lots. While it is the opinion of the Study Team that the preservation of trees is favourable, it is not recommended that invasive species within hedgerows be retained. Exotic invasive species such as European buckthorn (present throughout), tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) (present in HR-D6) should be removed so that the threat of these species spreading to valuable retained natural areas within the Greenlands Network is greatly reduced.

7.3.2 WOODLAND EDGE MANAGEMENT Woodland edge management plans are often required when development or site alteration is required near or within an existing woodland edge. The majority of woodlands within the subwatershed study area are included within the Greenlands Network and are protected by buffers. The Regional Official Plan (ROP, 2009) does not permit development or site alteration within woodlands identified as Core Environmental Features (Significant Woodland and ESPA). City of Cambridge policy does allow for limited encroachments to Locally Significant Natural Areas (Supporting Environmental Features) within the Greenlands network provided the encroachment is supported by an EIS that demonstrates that there will be no adverse environmental impacts to the ecological function of the feature. Typical impacts to remaining forest communities may include, but are not limited to:

Page 369

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 •

Direct loss of floral and faunal habitat;

•

Trees along the ‘new’ edge may be susceptible to windthrow (provided future EISs supports intrusion into a woodland/woodland edge);

•

Reduced species richness and abundance;

•

Reduced stability of landforms composed of unconsolidated material;

•

Loss of canopy cover/shade, resulting in an increase in sunlight penetration;

•

Some trees with thinner bark (e.g. Beech) can be susceptible to sunscald and frost cracking due to changes in light penetration. This can weaken the tree's defences, particularly to pathogens.

•

Changes in microclimates (increased temperatures, decreased soil moisture) resulting in dessication;

•

Site may be more susceptible to invasion by non-native species, pathogens, etc.;

•

Soil compaction resulting from unauthorized vehicle operations (e.g. ATVs); and,

•

Loss of native seed bank. (TRCA, 2004).

The potential impacts listed above can be avoided in part or entirely through adherence to the buffer guidelines in this document (see Section 4.1.5). A selection of possible mitigation measures are listed below: •

Direct development activities away from significant and/or sensitive natural heritage features;

•

Prevent or reduce construction staging areas adjacent to natural heritage features;

•

Install sturdy, well-marked tree protection fencing at an appropriate distance past the dripline of retainable trees and include provisions for tree protection on design drawings;

•

Retain native shrubs and groundcover wherever possible;

•

Replanting of removed vegetation at a minimum 3:1 ratio in appropriate locations which serve to enhance the configuration or linkage of existing natural areas;

•

Retain stumps within 5 m of the new edge to allow for vegetative regeneration from the existing seed bank;

•

Plant salt-tolerant species along the edges of parking lots, roads, etc to mitigate the effects of salt spray and runoff on existing natural vegetation, with a preference towards native species;

•

Restrict grading activities to areas outside of a 3 m buffer from the dripline of trees;

•

Retain natural drainage patterns;

•

Retention of dead or dying trees for wildlife benefit, providing there is no potential for property damage or threats to human safety;

• •

Removal of problem exotics such as European buckthorn and garlic mustard; Identify and delineate natural heritage features that are to be preserved or restored along with their buffers prior to final development approval, and protect them with robust construction fencing prior to the commencement of construction activity;

•

Prevent the discharge of surface runoff and sediment into natural features; Minimise grading in buffer areas (prior to buffer planting installation); Prepare and implement landscaping plans for buffer areas;

• •

Page 370

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 • •

Plant early-successional species along woodland edges to provide protection to woodland edges; and, Monitoring of edge plantings to ensure effectiveness and survivorship. (selections adapted from TRCA, 2004)

As mentioned above, woodlands (significant or otherwise) within the areas proposed for development are not subject to planned direct modification (i.e. subject to cutting) under the MESP. That is, linear infrastructure and servicing has been placed outside of existing woodland boundaries. Additionally, all woodlands have buffer widths ascribed to them as a means of protection. Proposed future commercial/industrial development should not occur within buffers.

7.3.3 TRAILS Conceptual trail networks have been identified within Schedule 4 of the City of Cambridge Official Plan (2012). There are no proposed new trails within the subwatershed study area. However, it is anticipated that the conceptual trail system identified in the Official Plan will be refined by the City of Cambridge in consultation with the Region of Waterloo based on subsequent studies. To guide the future trail identification process within the study area (if necessary), Aquafor Beech Limited recommends the following: •

In general, trails should avoid Core Environmental Features of the Greenlands Network. There may be some cases (e.g. extant logging trails in ELC Polygon D17, boardwalks through wetlands) where trails may be permitted within Core Environmental Features provided that it is supported by an EIS;

•

Final trail locations should be based on local hydrology and the potential for flooding and erosion. Trails should avoid groundwater discharge areas and wetlands (unless boardwalks are permitted within wetlands, as stated above). Consideration may be given to having portions of trails along creeks if not frequently flooded;

•

Per Section 3.A.3.10 of the City of Cambridge Official Plan (2012), where recreational trails are proposed within the Greenlands Network, they should be located in buffer areas to the extent possible;

•

Development proponents should survey existing informal trails in and adjacent to the Greenlands Network as part of site-specific EISs. Existing informal trails, such as those in the Freeport Esker ANSI, should generally be closed. Those in the vicinity of formal trails should be actively restored; others should be allowed to naturalize through passive regeneration;

•

If they are located in ecologically suitable locations the continued use of existing informal trail links should be encouraged;

Page 371

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 •

Final trail locations should be based on field assessments that consider habitat sensitivity, potential habitat for species at risk and locally rare species, and connections to existing trails;

•

The trail construction footprint should be kept to a minimum. Standard construction best management practices should be employed and the timing of trail construction should consider sensitive wildlife activities;

•

Waste disposal bins should be provided in the vicinity of the trail; and,

•

Interpretive signage (i.e. stay on marked trail, no dumping of waste, educational signs outlining the sensitivity of natural resources) should be used to encourage the public to protect the natural environment.

It is not recommended that trails be located next to the south edge of the Maple Grove Wetland Complex due to the potential disruption pedestrian and domestic animal traffic can have to roosting juvenile and adult turkey vultures.

7.3.4 FENCING Permanent rear lot/development fencing is required to prevent uncontrolled access and encroachment into adjacent natural areas. Hard barriers should be considered between commercial/industrial areas and the Greenlands Network. Opportunities for wildlife passage should be considered at appropriate locations when incorporating hard barriers adjacent to natural areas, and live fencing should be encouraged where feasible. It is recommended that species selection for live fencing include woody species with thorns (e.g Crataegus spp, Rubus spp, Rosa spp, Zanthoxylum americanum) to discourage encroachment into natural areas. The final recommendations regarding the type of fencing and potential offsetting of the fence onto public lands to preclude fence alterations/gate installation should be developed during subsequent planning stages.

7.3.5 ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP MEASURES Aquafor Beech Limited recommends that the Region of Waterloo, City of Cambridge, GRCA and MNR (Endangered and Threatened Species) should jointly develop educational materials (brochures) to encourage local stewardship of the Greenlands Network. In particular, Aquafor Beech Limited recommends that the Region of Waterloo prepare an educational brochure to distribute to residents within the Stage 1 study area. Such brochures should: •

Emphasize the importance of conserving and restoring natural areas in urbanizing areas;

•

Provide an overview of the features and functions of the Greenlands System;

Page 372

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 •

Provide specific recommendations to promote environmental stewardship. Topics to be addressed could include (i) the proper means to dispose of organic and hazardous waste; (ii) recommended measures to avoid recreational impacts (e.g. stay on designated trails), (iii) examples of encroachment and their potential impact on retained natural areas and local wildlife, (iv) responsible salt and snow storage, (v) encourage the use of outdoor directional lighting and nighttime energy saving, and (vi) the benefits of using native species rather than invasive exotics in landscaping;

•

Encourage the use of the Bird-Friendly Development Guidelines (City of Toronto, 2007) in building design at the site plan stage;

•

Discourage chemical fertilizer and pesticide use, especially in areas draining to natural areas or groundwater recharge areas;

•

Encourage drought tolerant turf, turf alternatives, and landscape plantings in order to conserve water while encouraging targeted night-time irrigation practices;

•

Outline the environmental responsibilities of the Region of Waterloo, City of Cambridge, developers, industries and local residents;

•

Promote opportunities for community participation in the management and restoration of retained natural areas; and,

•

Provide contact information for sources of additional information and support for stewardship efforts.

To reduce potential occupancy related impacts (e.g. dumping of waste material, creation of informal trails, disturbance of wildlife etc.), it is recommended that environmental stewardship measures include signage at trail access points and along the development limit/natural area interfaces. In areas of passive restoration, signs reading “Natural Regeneration Area, please keep off” could be installed at a low cost. The participation of local environmental organizations (e.g. Cambridge City Green, the Waterloo Stewardship Network, and Kitchener-Waterloo Field Naturalists) should be encouraged to educate property owners, tenants, and others regarding the importance of the environmental features within the Region of Waterloo.

Opportunities for community engagement should be actively encouraged by public agencies such as the GRCA, the City of Cambridge, and the Region of Waterloo. For example, engaging students and staff from the École Secondaire Père-René-de-Galinée and the Regional Operations Center in activities such as creek adoption, invasive species removal, and/or tree planting would not only provide hands-on environmental learning for participants, but also provide an overall benefit to the Greenlands Network.

Page 373

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

7.3.6 SPECIES AT RISK Section 3.7.5.5 details the presence of Species at Risk in the detailed Subwatershed Study Area. Two species detailed in the aforementioned section require future management practices, as detailed below. Barn Swallow Barn Swallow nests have been confirmed in barns in Area D. Removal of nesting habitat and/or the destruction of foraging habitat will result in the contravention of the Endangered Species Act (2007). While avoidance is the preferred option from an ecological standpoint, both of the two aforementioned impacts to Barn Swallow are covered by Ontario regulation 242/08 section 23.5, and consultation with the MNR is necessary. The inclusion of open habitats (e.g. ELC Polygons D6, D16, D23, and agricultural land in Area A) in the Greenlands Network provide protected suitable habitat for Barn Swallow foraging. However, it is the opinion of Aquafor Beech Limited that the development of existing agricultural land will result in a decrease in available foraging habitat for Barn Swallow. Bobolink Surveys undertaken in 2012 did not detect a breeding pair, it is therefore assumed that potential development within areas proposed for development will not affect this species. In the future, should the MNR confirm lands within the detailed Subwatershed Study Area are Bobolink habitat for the purposes of the Endangered Species Act (2007), Aquafor Beech Limited recommends that the NHS be revised to incorporate these lands as a Core Environmental Feature as per the definition provided in the Region of Waterloo and City of Cambridge Official Plan documents (City of Cambridge, 2012; ROP, 2009). It is noted that future habitat considerations should take post-development conditions into account. Little Brown Bat and Northern Long Eared Bat Little brown bat and long eared bat were listed as Species at Risk in January 2013. Accordingly, bat surveys were not completed as part of species at risk investigations in the subwatershed study. In addition, no incidental occurrences were recorded. It is therefore recommended that surveys for bats and their roosting sites be completed at subsequent planning stages (e.g. as part of an EIS). Residents and business owners should be encouraged to report bat sightings to the MNR.

7.3.7 OTHER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Improvements can be made in addition to the recommendations outlined above. For instance, a potential significant threat to the environment from development within the East Side Lands study area is the release of road salt into the natural environment. Snow and ice conditions on road systems, parking lots and sidewalks have a dramatic impact on public safety, road capacity, travel times and economic costs. Winter maintenance operations strive to reduce the effects of the accumulated snow and ice while maintaining user safety. Although there is ongoing research into the use of alternatives to road salt in winter

Page 374

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 maintenance operations, salt continues to be a cost-effective de-icer. However, due to the adverse effects that salt has on the environment many operations now strive to minimize the amount of salt entering the environment. The operators reduce salt use by adopting best management practices and using new technologies to ensure the most effective use of salt. For instance, the Region of Waterloo offers the Smart About SaltTM Winter Salt Management Program to contractors, facilities, businesses and residents to help them achieve their environmental goals. Businesses benefit from participation in this program through numerous incentives, including insurance premium considerations, promotion on the Regionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s website and access to weather information. The Region of Waterloo should encourage private owners within the study area to participate in this program to help protect the natural features within the Greenlands System while receiving the many benefits this program has to offer. It is strongly recommended that snow storage areas be located away from the Greenlands Network. Aquafor Beech Limited also recommends the use of salt-tolerant vegetation such as Eastern Red Cedar (Juniperus virginiana) along roads and bordering parking lots to help mitigate the effects of road salt on vegetation within the study area. Aquafor Beech Limited recommends minimizing artificial light penetrating into natural areas at night. Artificial light at night can have negative effects on wildlife, in particular amphibians and reptiles in urban environments. The alteration of the natural variation in diurnal and nocturnal light intensities and spectral properties of lights has the potential to disrupt the physiology, behavior and ecology of reptiles and amphibians (Buchanan et al. 2008). Research has also shown that artificial night lighting may enhance the invasive potential of some species (Perry et al. 2008). To further protect the Greenlands System from urban development, Aquafor Beech Limited recommends using low mast lighting directed downward and/or shielded to minimize light projection into the natural area and up into the sky (often referred to as directional lighting systems) â&#x20AC;&#x201C; see Regional Official Plan Policies 3.D.7 and 3.D.8.

Page 375

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

7.4 DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Environmental Considerations In order to appropriately protect the environmental resources of the Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand subwatershed lands, the following principles are recommended for adoption during construction activities including: •

The preservation of groundwater quality, quantity including direction of flow;

•

Baseflow, where present, must be maintained and enhanced where possible to sustain downstream and on-site habitats including area PSWs, wetlands, streams and other sensitive environmental features;

•

Maintenance of wetland hydrology, including discharge and recharge functions and hydroperiod;

•

Surface water temperature should be maintained or, if possible decreased in the discharge of stormwater and the shading of stormwater management facilities and watercourses;

•

The preservation and enhancement of identified wildlife corridors;

•

The prevention, minimization and mitigation of impacts to identified Greenlands Network in that order of precedence;

•

The minimization of impacts to wildlife habitat, foraging and breeding area through noise, light and pollution abatement techniques;

•

Reduction in the amount of removals of vegetative cover that occurs during development including per the City of Cambridge Tree Management Policies and Guidelines for New Development;

•

The preservation and enhancement of surface water quality during construction through the implementation of appropriate erosion and sediment controls; and,

•

The optimization of construction phasing in a manner in which all impacts can be mitigated.

Stormwater Management In order to maintain the aquatic resources of the Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand subwatershed lands and areas downstream, and to address potential Fisheries Act concerns, the following management principles will be adopted during construction activities: •

Baseflow, where present, must be maintained and enhanced where possible to sustain downstream and on-site habitats which support fish;

•

Interim storm flows must be managed to prevent channel adjustments beyond what would typically occur in a healthy watercourse both on-site and downstream;

•

Water temperature should not be increased;

•

No barriers to fish passage should be created or exacerbated where fish are present, and, if feasible, barriers should be removed in the design of infrastructure

Page 376

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 •

All developments shall include temporary settling basins (located outside of the footprint of the permanent facility)and permanent stormwater management facilities, as well as other interim and permanent Erosion and Sediment Controls (ESC) measures as determined by the GRCA, the Region and the City;

•

Interim storm water quality, quantity and erosion treatment must meet the requirements for treatment that are specified in the City of Cambridge Stormwater Management Polices and Guidelines (2011) to the satisfaction of the Grand River Conservation Authority as required; including frequent and regular maintenance of SWM facilities; and

•

Erosion and sediment controls shall be in conformance with Policy 5 – “Developers of new plans of subdivision and industrial, commercial, institutional and multi-residential site plans shall implement erosion and sediment control measure” of the City of Cambridge Stormwater Management Polices and Guidelines (2011) and the Erosion & Sediment Control Guidelines for Urban Construction (GGHA CAs, 2006) endorsed by the GRCA.

Construction Phasing In many urban areas, new development does not always proceed in a sequence that is entirely consistent with the ideal timing and need for major infrastructure elements. Different landowners within a subwatershed may want to advance their projects at different times and this may require that certain infrastructure elements be built across lands that may not be developed for some time. Such major out of phase infrastructure investments should only be considered where all impacts can be mitigated. The following Phasing Principles should be applied to the development of the Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand subwatershed lands: •

To the extent possible, development will be phased by local catchment area. There may be a significant benefit to grouping several phases of development based on the ultimate drainage pattern;

•

All developments regardless of timing will require stormwater management facilities. SWM facility construction should be completed in conjunction with development to meet storm water quality and quantity targets;

•

Downstream to upstream staging is preferred but not required provided all potential impacts can be addressed to the satisfaction of the approval agencies;

•

Drainage conveyance systems must be designed to ultimate capacity;

•

Infrastructure and construction phasing shall be completed in compliance with the appropriate fisheries windows - identified as July 1 to March 15, per MNR guidelines. In addition, Operational Statements developed by Fisheries and Oceans Canada should be followed in order to avoid contravention of the Federal Fisheries Act. The Operational Statements describe the conditions and the measures to be incorporated into your project in order to avoid negative impacts to fish and fish habitat. (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/regions/central/habitat/os-eo/provinces-territoriesterritoires/on/os-eo20-eng.htm)

Page 377

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 •

Timing windows identified by other wildlife agencies (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Ministry of the Environment) should be considered to avoid contravention of provincial and federal legislation protecting wildlife.

Erosion and Sediment Control Sediment loading to streams is typically highest during the construction period. The construction of SWM facilities and the redirection of surface flow to temporary SWM facilities prior to the stripping of land allows the SWM facilities to be used as sedimentation basins during the grading phase which minimizes sediment loading to streams during construction. Maintenance (clean out) of the SWM facilities will be required following the construction phase. Erosion and sediment controls shall be in conformance with Policy 5 – “Developers of new plans of subdivision and industrial, commercial, institutional and multi-residential site plans shall implement erosion and sediment control measure” of the City of Cambridge Stormwater Management Polices and Guidelines (2011) which states: Erosion and sediment control shall be carried out for all major land disturbing activities such as land clearing, excavating, filling or stockpiling of earth materials. The City of Cambridge requires the developer to submit a proposed erosion and sediment control plan as part of the stormwater management concept plan. The erosion and sediment control plan must be prepared and certified by a qualified professional engineer. The plan shall assess the proposed construction scheduling of the subdivision and indicate the mitigative measures to be implemented. Guidance should be sought from the provincial "Guidelines on Erosion and Sediment Control for Urban Construction Sites", May, 1987, and the Greater Golden Horseshoe Area Conservation Authorities “Erosion and Sediment Control Guideline for Urban Construction, December, 2006. The plan should incorporate any number or combination of erosion and sediment control practices that will optimize coordination with construction activities. Some of the erosion and sediment control measures that should be implemented are: •

Silt fence;

•

Sediment traps or temporary retention and sedimentation ponds/ basins. Note: All temporary retention and sedimentation ponds/ basins shall be located outside of the permanent facility footprint;

•

Seeding of topsoil stock piles;

•

Isolated and controlled stripping of development lands;

•

Vegetation screens;

•

Interceptor swales;

•

Filtering mediums at inlets or strategic locations;

•

Street cleaning programs during housing construction;

•

Schedule of maintenance programs; and,

Page 378

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 •

Dust suppressants for wind erosion

Through the abatement of erosion and soil loss within a development, negative environmental effects and concern are drastically reduced both on-site and downstream of the development. The final detailed control measures chosen by the developer shall be shown on the erosion and sediment control plan and will form part of the detailed engineering design drawings. Per the City of Cambridge Stormwater Management Polices and Guidelines (2011), “the developer is responsible to ensure that sediment and erosion control measures are in place and functioning as designed from the start of site development for a period of three years after the date of approval for maintenance.” Reduction of Vegetative Cover Removals Reduction of vegetative cover during development and construction shall be achieved through the use of the City of Cambridge Tree Management Policies and Guidelines for New Development (April, 1999 – revised February 2002). All developers of subdivisions and site plans shall be required to consider opportunities to maintain and enhance on-site vegetation in conjunction with site development through the implementation of the policies, fulfillment of requirements and obtaining approvals as stated therein. Appendix C of the City of Cambridge Tree Management Policies and Guidelines for New Development (April, 1999 – revised February 2002), describes the planning process and requirements in a process flow chart and should be consulted early in the development process. Note that there are vegetative cover removal prohibitions and restrictions within the study area; the majority of natural and semi-natural vegetative cover is contained within the Greenlands Network. Select hedgerows are excluded from the Greenlands Network; though, as stated above, hedgerow retention is generally encouraged.

Page 379

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

8.0 MONITORING PROGRAM The following sections outline the proposed groundwater, surface water, stream morphology, terrestrial and aquatic ecology monitoring programs.

8.1 GROUNDWATER MONITORING A groundwater monitoring program is proposed to include any of the four (4) existing monitoring wells, namely MW-1, -2, -3 and -4, particularly the “C” (shallow) and “B” (Intermediate) wells that are within 500 metres of an approved or on-going development. Other site-specific shallow monitor wells that are made available during future geotechnical studies should also be included. The purpose of long-term water level monitoring is to ascertain that the shallow water table water does not diminish beyond the ranges observed between January 2011 and January 2013, as reported in Section 3.4.3. There is evidence that groundwater infiltration at surface is transmitted into, and through, the underlying till to replenish the deep sand & gravel Aquifer 3 at depth. It is proposed that monitoring will accomplish two purposes: 1. Water level monitoring will document that the water balance is being maintained as the area of imperviousness increases within 500 metres of development; and, 2. Water level and water quality monitoring will document that surrounding properties on private wells are not being affected by on-going development. Recommended monitoring frequency in suitable monitor wells are as follows: •

Pre-construction baseline (minimum of 1 year): continuous water level measurements and three water quality sampling events in spring (March to May), late summer (August to September) and late fall (October to November);

•

During construction: continuous water level measurements and three (3) water quality sampling events annually spring (March to May), late summer (August to September) and late fall (October to November); and

•

Post construction (minimum 2 years): Two semi-annual water level and water quality events spring (March to May), and late fall (October to November);

Field water quality parameters are to include temperature, Laboratory parameters are to include major anions and cations total dissolved solids (TDS), phosphorus (as total phosphorus sampling event shall have a suitable number of duplicates monitoring program is summarized in Table 8.1.

pH, conductivity and dissolved oxygen. (including nitrogen species and chloride), and soluble reactive phosphorus). Each for QA/QC purposes. The groundwater

Page 380

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Table 8.1: Groundwater Monitoring Monitoring Parameter

Pre-Construction Monitoring

During Construction Monitoring

Post-Construction Monitoring

Responsible Party

•

Includes any of the four (4) existing monitoring wells, namely MW-1, -2, -3 and -4, particularly the “C” (shallow) and “B” (Intermediate) wells that are within 500 metres of an approved or on-going development.

•

The purpose of long-term water level monitoring is to ascertain that the shallow water table water does not diminish beyond the ranges observed between January 2011 and January 2013, as reported in Section 3.4.5.

• • • •

Groundwater Monitoring

Baseline (minimum of 1 year) Continuous water level measurements three (3) water quality sampling events (in spring, late summer and late fall); Water quality parameters include: o Laboratory parameters - major anions and cations (including nitrogen species and chloride), total dissolved solids (TDS), phosphorus (as total phosphorus and soluble reactive phosphorus) o Field parameters temperature, pH, conductivity and dissolved oxygen

• •

•

Continuous water level measurements three (3) water quality sampling events annually (spring, late summer and late fall)

•

Water quality parameters • include: o Laboratory parameters major anions and cations (including nitrogen species and chloride), total dissolved solids (TDS), phosphorus (as total phosphorus and soluble reactive phosphorus) o Field parameters temperature, pH, conductivity and dissolved oxygen

(minimum 2 years): Two semiannual water level and water quality events (spring and late fall) Water quality parameters include: o Laboratory parameters major anions and cations (including nitrogen species and chloride), total dissolved solids (TDS), phosphorus (as total phosphorus and soluble reactive phosphorus) o Field parameters temperature, pH, conductivity and dissolved oxygen

Page 381

Developer

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

8.2 SURFACE WATER MONITORING As the lands within the Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand are scheduled for development, the following recommendations have been made to monitor the potential impacts of development on water quality conditions. Recommendations made as part of the Phase 1 - Characterization Report (2012) were considered during the compilation of the following monitoring recommendations for Freeport Creek and Allendale Creek. Refer to Figure 3.8.1 for monitoring locations. Table 8.2.2 summarizes the recommended monitoring program for each monitoring parameter as part of pre-construction, during construction and post-construction activities as well as the responsible party. 1. Per the Phase I - Characterization Report (GRCA, 2012), the characterization of Freeport Creek would benefit from more detailed investigations including monitoring in reaches upstream from King Street. The monitoring in the reach below King Street indicates that Freeport Creek is an impacted watercourse, although it is unclear how far upstream the impacts extend. A water quality monitoring site should be initiated within the reach upstream of the stormwater management facility preferably in the location where temperature monitoring is currently undertaken (FC_MAP/FC0008). 2. Water quality monitoring of the Allendale Creek should continue to increase the understanding of the tributary’s baseline conditions. 3. High chloride levels found in Freeport Creek could be investigated further with additional monitoring conducted upstream of the stormwater management facility near FC0008 temperature monitoring location to understand the mechanisms responsible for the elevated levels. 4. Continuous temperature monitoring: • Allendale Creek should be conducted to characterize the thermal regime and fisheries classification which would provide further understanding of the fish and benthic community existing within the reaches. • Freeport Creek at three (3) locations (upstream and downstream of Pond 130) • Riverbank Creek upstream of the confluence with Allendale Creek 5. Continuous flow monitoring of Freeport Creek would provide detailed information about the hydrologic conditions during water quality sampling and confirm the stormwater management facility function. Flow monitoring should be paired with ongoing water quality monitoring efforts. 6. Future monitoring shall consist of five (5) wet weather sampling events, five (5) dry weather sampling events. The inclusion of winter sampling which is typically eliminated from monitoring programs, would provide information regarding water quality conditions of the Freeport Creek and Allendale Creek during a melt event when contaminant concentrations are potentially at their greatest. Per the standard sampling protocols, wet samples shall be collected within 1 hour following the commencement of a significant storm event (typically greater than 10mm) and dry sampling shall be limited to days without rain events and shall not be conducted within 48 hours of a significant storm event.

Page 382

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 7. Future sampling of baseline conditions shall be conducted by the GRCA (subject to funding) to ensure that consistent sampling protocols and methodologies are maintained and shall continue until such time as an approved development plan is developed. One-year prior to site development, the developer shall be responsible for the continuation of the monitoring of Freeport Creek and the Allendale Creek. The developer should conduct pre-construction monitoring prior to development and continue the monitoring program throughout the development process until assumption by the City. The performance of implemented stormwater management strategies including source, conveyance, and end-of-pipe (stormwater management pond) controls should be monitored following construction by the developer before any capital works are assumed by the municipality. 8. To ensure that the results collected for the baseline conditions are complete and consistent and that potential trends may be established, sampling parameters for pre- and post-construction monitoring shall remain unchanged from the 2005 - 2011 monitoring programs. Table 8.2.1 below lists the parameters to be sampled during future monitoring of Freeport Creek and Allendale Creek. Table 8.2.1: 2012 Surface Water Quality Parameters Sampling & Sampling Procedure Parameters

Sampling Procedure/Type

Chloride Grab Nitrite Grab Nitrate Grab Phosphate Grab Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Grab Total Ammonia Grab Total Phosphorous Grab Turbidity Continuous Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Grab Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) Grab Heavy Metals - copper, zinc, lead and cadmium Grab Additional Water Quality Parameters Sampled pH Field Measurement Temperature Field Measurement Dissolved Oxygen Field Measurement Conductivity Field Measurement

9. Following development, the developer shall be responsible for obtaining annual influent and effluent samples from the various stormwater management facilities to ensure that required performance levels are achieved for a period of 3-years (to coincide with the Chapter 7 requirements of the City of Cambridge SWM Policies, 2011). This includes source and conveyance controls implemented on individual, commercial, and industrial properties as well as end-of-pipe controls.

Page 383

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 The monitoring of source and conveyance controls implemented as part of development will provide information regarding the runoff water quality and volumes reductions at the site level and indication of the level of water quality sourcing Freeport Creek and Allendale Creek. LID source and conveyance controls should consider monitoring requirements during detailed design per the LID Planning and Design Manual (TRCA/CVC, 2010). Monitoring of the stormwater management (SWM) ponds should include influent and effluent sample obtained at the inlet(s) and outlet. The minimum performance target of SWM ponds should be 80% total suspended solid removal as per the Ministry of Environment Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual, 2003. 10. Sampling parameters analyzed during post-construction monitoring of the individual stormwater management controls should incorporate heavy metal parameters including copper, zinc, lead and cadmium (hardness as CaCO3), in addition to the parameters collected during baseline conditions for Freeport Creek and the tributary to the Grand River.

Page 384

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Table 8.2.2: Surface Water Monitoring (Refer to Figure 3.8.1 for Monitoring Locations) Monitoring Parameter • •

Temperature

• •

• Water Quality

During Construction Monitoring

Pre-Construction Monitoring

• •

Continuous monitoring (minimum of 1 year) Allendale locations EW905 Freeport locations FC0008, FC0004 and FC009 Riverbank locations – upstream of the confluence with Allendale Creek

• •

Baseline (minimum of 1 year) Four season sampling (spring, summer, winter and fall) - 5 wet events and 5 Dry events (see Bullet 6) Freeport location - FC0008, FC0004 & FC0009 Allendale location -EW9052 Parameters and Procedure per Table 8.2.1

•

• •

Post-Construction Monitoring

Continuous monitoring Allendale locations EW905 Freeport locations FC0008, FC0004 and FC009 Riverbank locations – upstream of the confluence with Allendale Creek

•

Four season sampling (spring, summer, winter and fall) - 5 wet events and 5 Dry events (see Bullet 6 under Section 8.2) Freeport location FC0008, FC0004 & FC0009 Allendale location EW9052 Parameters and Procedure per Table 8.2.1

•

• • •

• • • •

Continuous monitoring (minimum of 2 years) Allendale locations EW905 Freeport locations FC0008, FC0004 and FC009 Riverbank locations – upstream of the confluence with Allendale Creek minimum 2 years: Four season sampling (spring, summer, winter and fall) - 5 wet events and 5 Dry events (see Bullet 6 under Section 8.2) Freeport location - FC0008, FC0004 & FC0009 Allendale location -EW9052 Parameters and Procedure per Table 8.2.1 Obtain annual influent and effluent samples from the various stormwater management strategies to ensure that required Page 385

Responsible Party

GRCA (subject to funding) – Currently & up to 1 yr prior to development Developer – from 1 yr prior to development until post-construction

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Monitoring Parameter

During Construction Monitoring

Pre-Construction Monitoring

Post-Construction Monitoring

Responsible Party

performance levels are achieved for a period of 3years (to coincide with the Chapter 7 requirements of the City of Cambridge SWM Polices, 2011) and ECA requirements.

• Flow

•

Continuous monitoring (minimum of 1 year) Freeport location - FC0009 (downstream of King Street)

•

Continuous monitoring Freeport location FC0009 (downstream of King Street)

• •

Continuous monitoring (minimum of 2 years) Freeport location - FC0009 (downstream of King Street)

Page 386

GRCA (subject to funding) – Currently & up to 1 yr prior to development Developer – from 1 yr prior to development until post-construction

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

8.3 STREAM GEOMORPHOLOGY MONITORING As development progresses and land use changes within the watershed, fluvial geomorphological monitoring can evaluate changes and/or issues along the watercourses potentially caused by development. With anticipated changes to flow as a result of future development within the detailed subwatershed study area, it is recommended that monitoring of channel morphology occur. Monitoring is to be completed at four (4) sites in total: two (2) sites within the development subject lands on both Freeport Creek and two (2) sites of Allendale Creek. Monitoring opportunities in the Study Area are outlined below in Table 8.3. Monitoring Locations The location of monitoring sites is dependent on reach sensitivity and locations where erosion through downcutting or lateral adjustment may occur. Allendale Creek is a steep gradient, gully-type channel that will be sensitive to changes in flow hydraulics. Two (2) sites will be established along Allendale Creek: one site immediately downstream of a proposed stormwater management pond (for information on SWM ponds, see Section 7.1 of this report and the Master Drainage Plan under separate cover), and a second site further downstream from the aforementioned site. The second site monitoring should be established near Riverbank Drive due to the steep channel gradient that exists close to the roadway. This second site is located within private property and therefore, monitoring will be contingent on property access. Monitoring sites will also be established along Freeport Creek in areas sensitive to change in flows. One monitoring site will be established immediately downstream of a proposed stormwater management pond, close to the outfall. A second monitoring site should be established further downstream of site one, preferably in Reach FC-5 where a steep channel gradient exists. The exact locations of the sites should be determined in the field by a qualified fluvial geomorphologist. Phasing and Methodology Once sites are established, monitoring will occur during the pre-construction, construction, and postconstruction periods for the areas in which development is occurring. Pre-construction monitoring should be conducted at least one year prior to site development in order to establish a baseline for monitoring conditions. The detailed monitoring plan will survey six (6) monumented cross-sections (three riffles and three pools as applicable), and the longitudinal profile along the channel thalweg from the downstream-most cross-section to the upstream-most cross-section. Both parameters are to be surveyed twice annually. Pebble counts to determine substrate composition and particle size distribution will be conducted once annually along the riffles. Lateral migration of the watercourse will also be monitored to determine the rate of adjustment and to determine if excessive erosion is occurring. However, in systems where natural migration is expected, multi-year erosion threshold targets are recommended (i.e. monitored annually but target thresholds based on cumulative erosion will be assessed over 3 and/or 5 years).

Page 387

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Photographs are to be collected twice annually to confirm changes to the channel overtime. The photographs shall document the following standard vantage points at each cross-section: • • • • •

Upstream; Downstream; Left bank; Right bank; and, Bed.

It is expected that the following changes to selected parameters will not be exceeded. However, baseline data analyzed by a qualified fluvial geomorphologist shall be used to confirm and/or modify the proposed thresholds: •

Site-averaged cross-sectional area should not increase or decrease in excess of 20%;

•

Site-averaged inter-pool gradients should not differ in excess of 20% between successive surveys;

•

Site-averaged riffle gradients should not increase or decrease in slope by more than 20% between successive surveys;

•

Site-averaged cross-sectional mean bed elevation should not vary within 20% of the average bankfull depth at each site;

•

Lateral Migration target thresholds should be scaled to channel size as a percentage of the average bankfull width at each site, based on classifications of bed material and expected lateral migration activity, and assessed over multiple monitoring years (results of annual surveys compared over the entirety of the monitoring program);

•

No lateral Migration – no assessment of lateral migration;

•

Engineered Channels – causes of bank erosion to be qualitatively assessed in the context of existing engineering works; and

•

Limited and Active Lateral Migration - between 10 – 50 % of the bankfull width assessed cumulatively over 3 – 5 years, depending on expectations for natural erosion rates.

Should the above thresholds (or those revised following the baseline monitoring) be exceeded, the results should be analysed by a qualified fluvial geomorphologist. Significant adjustments identified by the geomorphologist will be further investigated to determine the cause and areas of concern will be noted. Consultation with stakeholders is recommended to determine if mitigative actions are required. Post-construction monitoring will occur within the established sites during years 1, 2, and 5 post construction, with pebble counts occurring once during each of these three monitoring years.

Page 388

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Table 8.3: Geomorphic Monitoring Monitoring Parameter

Pre-Construction Monitoring

•

Geomorphic

Freeport Creek - the upstream site will be established immediately downstream of a proposed stormwater management pond and a second site should be established further downstream preferably in Reach FC-5 where a steep channel gradient exists. Allendale Creek - Two sites will be established along the watercourse, one site immediately downstream of a proposed stormwater management pond, and a second one further downstream. The second site monitoring should be established near Riverbank Drive due to the steep channel gradient close to the roadway.

•

The exact locations of the sites should be determined in the field by a qualified fluvial geomorphologist.

•

Pre-construction monitoring should be conducted at least one year prior to site development in order to establish a baseline for monitoring conditions.

During Construction Monitoring

•

Monitoring will occur within the four (4) sites established during pre-construction.

•

Detailed monitoring will consist of surveying six (6) monumented cross sections (three riffles and three pools) twice annually, as well as the longitudinal profile along the channel thalweg from the downstream –most-cross section to the upstream-mostcross section.

•

Pebble counts to determine substrate composition and particle size distribution will be conducted once annually along the riffles.

•

Lateral migration of the watercourse will be monitored to determine the rate of adjustment and ensure that excessive erosion is not occurring. However, where natural migration is expected, multi-year erosion threshold targets are recommended.

Post-Construction Monitoring

•

Monitoring will occur within the four (4) sites established during preconstruction.

•

“Post-construction monitoring” will follow the detailed monitoring plan established in the “during construction” phase.

•

Monitoring will occur twice annually during years 1, 2, and 5 post construction with pebble counts occurring once during each of these years.

Page 389

Responsible Party

•

The developer will be responsible for ensuring that monitoring and reporting occurs. Reports should be submitted to the City, Region and GRCA.

•

Where multiple developers are involved, monitoring costs and responsibilities shall be shared and apportioned based on discussions with the City and GRCA as part of site plan approvals. Shared monitoring will only be considered for developments which occur in the same time periods corresponding to pre, during and postconstruction. If monitoring is continuous, overlap of monitoring periods will be

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Monitoring Parameter

Pre-Construction Monitoring

During Construction Monitoring

•

Photographs will be collected twice annually to confirm changes to the channel overtime.

•

Baseline data analyzed by a qualified fluvial geomorphologist shall be used to confirm and/or modify the proposed thresholds. Should thresholds (or those revised following the baseline monitoring) be exceeded, the results should be analysed by a qualified fluvial geomorphologist.

Post-Construction Monitoring

Responsible Party considered between developments i.e. postconstruction monitoring of one development may be considered and preconstruction for a subsequent second development.

•

Page 390

Reports will include interpretations of results and management recommendations.

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

8.4 TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY MONITORING This section presents a preliminary monitoring framework for the terrestrial resources of Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand subwatersheds (Table 8.4). Monitoring locations are to be determined as land use planning is finalized. It is recommended that monitoring locations include habitats sensitive in hydrological regime, serious infestations of invasive non-indigenous species targeted for control and the locations of conservative or sensitive species, as these species may act as bioindicators. Monitoring should be completed annually during pre-construction, semi-annually during construction; and annually in years 1, 3 and 10 post-construction.

Page 391

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Table 8.4: Terrestrial Ecology Monitoring Monitoring Parameter

Vegetation Monitoring

Pre-Construction Monitoring

During Construction Monitoring

Post-Construction Monitoring

Subwatersheds

Responsible Party

• Vegetation monitoring comprised of quantitative monitoring at permanent plots, as well as qualitative monitoring of occupancy-related effects along buffers and within natural areas. Locations will be finalized when the preferred land use us established. Surveys are to be completed during the growing season (June – August) • Quantitative Monitoring: Permanently marked transects will be established in natural areas (buffers, wetlands, riparian corridors and forests). Quadrats will be established along the transect and inventoried for plant species and photographed. Additional measurements/observations along the transect will be made including dominant trees/shrubs/herbaceous vegetation, depth and location of standing water, community health, site disturbance. Inventoried plant species will be characterized by CC and CW. • Qualitative Monitoring: Items to be monitored include encroachment into natural areas and buffers (fence removal, dumping of leaf litter, grass clippings, soil and garbage and construction debris), creation of pedestrian or vehicular trails, vandalism, etc. Locations of impacts will be recorded and photographed. Could include Floristic Quality Analysis. Encroachments should be reported to the landowner, the City of Cambridge, the Region of Waterloo and the GRCA.

• During construction monitoring commences with the onset of any development activities in any subwatershed. • Continue monitoring at stations established during Pre-construction Monitoring, to be completed during the growing season (late May/Early June – late August)

• Continue monitoring at stations established during Pre-construction Monitoring, to be completed during the growing season (late May/Early June – late August) • Monitoring is to take place during years 1, 3 and 10 post-construction.

• Pre, During, and Post construction monitoring occurs within all subwatersheds.

Development community

Page 392

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Monitoring Parameter

Amphibian Calling Surveys

Salamander Surveys

Pre-Construction Monitoring

• Breeding amphibians in the study area will be monitored using calling surveys conducted at locations throughout the Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand subwatersheds. • Date selection, survey methodology and data recording will follow the Marsh Monitoring Protocol(MMP) (3 visits per year) • Amphibian calling survey locations will be decided when the preferred land use is established, using air photos and previous monitoring results. They may be located in previously monitored plots as outlined in Section 3.5.7.1.

• Salamanders are bioindicators, that is, they are sensitive to degraded environmental quality. Known locations of breeding pools should be monitored in spring using standard MNR protocols. • There is a known salamander pool in the Upper Freeport Creek Wetland Complex (see Section 3.7.5.1).

During Construction Monitoring

• During construction monitoring commences with the onset of any development activities in any subwatershed. • Continue amphibian calling surveys at stations established during Preconstruction Monitoring, per MMP (3 times per year) • During construction monitoring commences with the onset of any development activities in any subwatershed. • Continue salamander surveys at stations established during Pre-construction Monitoring

Post-Construction Monitoring

Subwatersheds

Responsible Party

• Continue amphibian calling surveys at stations established during Pre-construction Monitoring, per MMP (3 times per year) • Monitoring is to take place during years 1, 3 and 10 post-construction

• Pre, During, and Post construction monitoring occurs within all subwatersheds.

Development community

• Continue salamander surveys at stations established during Pre-construction Monitoring • Monitoring is to take place during years 1, 3 and 10 post-construction

• Pre, During, and Post construction monitoring occurs within all subwatersheds.

Development community

Page 393

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Monitoring Parameter

Road Mortality Surveys

Breeding Bird Surveys

Pre-Construction Monitoring

• These surveys will focus on resident reptile (e.g. snake and turtle) species in the study area, but other taxa will also be recorded. Monitoring should include Riverbank Drive and Middle Block Road, however the road segments will be finalized when the preferred land use is decided upon. • Any new roads should be considered for road mortality surveys, depending on their proximity to possible hibernacula. • Surveys should be carried out three times in the spring and three times in the summer.

• Breeding bird surveys will be completed using OBBA protocols during appropriate times of year (June – July) • Survey locations will be finalized when the preferred land use is established. • Includes marsh bird surveys.

During Construction Monitoring

• During construction monitoring commences with the onset of any development activities in any subwatershed. • Continue surveys established during Pre-construction Monitoring (three times in the spring and three times in the summer) • During construction monitoring commences with the onset of any development activities in any subwatershed. • Continue surveys established during Pre-construction Monitoring, in June and July

Post-Construction Monitoring

Subwatersheds

Responsible Party

• Continue surveys established during Pre-construction Monitoring (three times in the spring and three times in the summer) • Monitoring is to take place during years 1, 3 and 10 post-construction

• Pre, During, and Post construction monitoring occurs within all subwatersheds.

Development community

• Continue surveys established during Pre-construction Monitoring, in June and July • Monitoring is to take place during years 1, 3 and 10 post-construction

• Pre, During, and Post construction monitoring occurs within all subwatersheds.

Development community

Page 394

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

8.5 AQUATIC ECOLOGY MONITORING This section presents a monitoring framework for the aquatic resources of Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand subwatersheds (Table 8.5). In order to collect comparable data, it is recommended that monitoring continue at previously established GRCA monitoring sites. Monitoring locations are provided on Figure 3.8.1 (see Section 3.8). Additional monitoring sites may be added when land use plans are finalized. Monitoring should be completed annually in the spring (pre-construction, during construction and 2 years post-construction).

Page 395

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Table 8.5: Aquatic Ecology Monitoring Framework Monitoring Parameter

Pre-Construction Monitoring

During Construction Monitoring

Fish Community

• Continue monitoring of sites FC0004, FC0009, FC0010, EW9042 and NS9044 (Figure 3.8.1 of Section 3.8) once every five years. Must include monitoring 1 year prior to the initiation of construction. • Monitor once every five years, in the spring. • Additional sites may be added when preferred land use is established.

• During construction monitoring commences with the onset of any development activities within each subwatershed. • Continue annual monitoring (in spring) of sites FC0004, FC0009, FC0010, EW9042, NS9044 and any sites that were added during PreConstruction Monitoring.

Benthic Invertebrates

• Continue annual monitoring of sites FC0004 and FC0009 (Figure 3.8.1 of Section 3.8). • Additionally, benthic invertebrate monitoring will be completed at FC0010 to better understand the effects of the Stormwater Management Pond. • Benthic invertebrate monitoring will also be completed at EW9042 to obtain baseline conditions for Allendale Creek • Previous fall sampling (2005-2010) has shown extremely variable results (GRCA 2012) and the analysis has not been useful. Spring sampling has shown consistent, comparable results. Therefore, annual monitoring should be conducted in the spring. • Additional sites may be added when preferred land use is established.

• During construction monitoring commences with the onset of any development activities within each subwatershed. • Continue annual monitoring (in spring) of sites FC0004, FC0009, FC0010, EW9042 and any sites that were added during PreConstruction Monitoring.

Post-Construction Monitoring

Subwatersheds

Responsible Party

• Continue monitoring of sites FC0004, FC0009, FC0010, EW9042, NS9044 and any sites that were added during Pre-Construction Monitoring. • Monitor annually (in spring) for 2 years postconstruction.

• Preconstruction monitoring occurs within all subwatersheds (Freeport Creek and Tributaries to the Grand River). • During construction monitoring occurs in the subwatersheds affected by construction. • Post construction monitoring occurs within all subwatersheds.

Development community

• Continue monitoring of sites FC0004, FC0009, FC0010, EW9042 and any sites that were added during PreConstruction Monitoring. • Monitor annually (in spring) for 2 years postconstruction.

Development community

Page 396

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Aquatic Habitat Monitoring

• Detailed aquatic habitat data has not been collected from Freeport Creek or Tributaries to the Grand. OSAP Section 4: Modules 2 and 3 will be used to assess features including general morphology, depth, hydraulic head, instream cover and type, substrate, bank morphology, and riparian vegetation. • Monitoring will be completed during the spring on Freeport Creek and Allendale Creek at previously established GRCA sites shown on Figure 3.8.1 of Section 3.8 (EW9042, FC0004, FC0009, FC0010), to help understand the causes of possible changes in the fish and/or benthic communities as a result of construction. • Additional sites may be added when the preferred land use is established.

• During construction monitoring commences with the onset of any development activities within each subwatershed. • Continue annual monitoring (in spring) of sites FC0004, FC0009, FC0010, EW9042 and any sites that were added during PreConstruction Monitoring.

• Continue monitoring of sites FC0004, FC0009, FC0010, EW9042 and any sites that were added during PreConstruction Monitoring. • Monitor annually (in spring) for 2 years postconstruction.

Development community

Page 397

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

9.0

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

The implementation plan will be established as proposed land use patterns are developed as part of parallel studies and once reviewers comments have been received and reviewed.

9.1 FUTURE STUDIES Future study recommendations for the Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand subwatersheds are provided below: Environmental Assessments Given the relatively rich biodiversity that has been documented in Area D, it is recommended that the wetland water level should be addressed through the recommended future Environmental Assessment for Pond 130. Management options for Pond 130, which is Part of the Upper Freeport Creek Wetland Complex PSW, should take into account the potential short-and long-term ecological impacts of management and maintenance options for Pond 130. See Appendix B2 Section 8.0 Additional Studies and Recommendations. Geotechnical Studies As described previously, meander belt procedures are not appropriate for delineating the geomorphic hazard and erosion setbacks for development on the Allendale Creek. The high channel gradient is also well outside the datasets used to derive most (if not all) empirical meander belt equations for southern Ontario (i.e., inappropriate extrapolation). As a result, in order to complete a full geomorphic hazard assessment for this system, a detailed geotechnical investigation will be required. The geotechnical investigation will involve an appropriate number of borehole logs adjacent to the gully to determine a geotechnical stable slope for each stratigraphic layer between the upland surface and the elevation of the Grand River valley floodplain. This information, as well as additional field data collection, along with recommendations referenced to the Provincial Natural Hazards Technical Guides (OMNR, 2003), will provide geomorphic estimates of lateral and vertical erosion rates. Final fluvial geomorphic hazards for Allendale Creek would be based on a 100-year lateral and vertical erosion allowance, with future geotechnical stable slopes forecast on each side of the gully until they â&#x20AC;&#x153;daylightâ&#x20AC;? at the upland surface. The planimetric geomorphic hazard area for development constraints adjacent to this watercourse will be delineated by this stable slope analysis. The assessment of the riverine erosion hazard along the entire length of Allendale Creek will be required by the development proponent in accordance with Section 8.2 of the GRCA Policies for the Administration of

Page 398

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 the Development Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation 150/06, 2009. The analysis/ assessment will at a minimum, consider the following: •

Identify the stable top of slope, taking into account the susceptibility of the slope to toe erosion;

•

Determination of an erosion access allowance (minimum set back is 6m per the City of Cambridge OP Policy 3.B.6.1.3.6 to accommodate an erosion access allowance);

•

Stable top of slope is based on a stable slope angle related to the existing soils and site conditions and will include a toe erosion setback (if determined to be susceptible to toe erosion); and

•

If determined to be susceptible to toe erosion, a fluvial geomorphic analysis may be required as a component of the overall slope stability analysis to estimate the appropriate toe erosion setbacks,

Upon finalization of the assessment, the GRCA regulation limit will be fifteen (15) metres from the stable top of slope. Should development be proposed within the GRCA regulation limit, the analysis shall include, but is not limited to, assessment of the proposed development and recommend suitable setbacks for the type of development (i.e. grading, building, parking, storage etc) in accordance with the aforementioned polices. The proponent is instructed to contact GRCA for specific requirements. In addition, Cambridge Official Plan policy 3.B.6.1.3.6 requires a minimum setback from stable top of bank of 6m to accommodate an erosion access allowance. Chloride Impact Studies Development shall be required to complete a chloride impact study per the Regional Implementation Guidelines for Source Water Protection Studies detailed within the ROP. Environmental Impact Statements Depending on the nature of the development proposal, some developable lands may be subject to scoped Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) at the direction of planning authorities. Development proposed within lands adjacent to any significant natural heritage feature identified within the Stage 1 Study Area will be subject to an EIS in accordance with the policies set out by the province, local municipality, and the GRCA. According to the Waterloo Region Official Plan: An Environmental Impact Statement may be required to identify and evaluate the potential effects of a proposed development or site alteration on elements of the Greenlands Network, and recommend means of preventing, minimizing or mitigating these impacts, as well as enhancing or restoring the quality and connectivity of elements of the Greenlands Network. An Environmental Impact Statement may also be used to identify and evaluate elements of the Greenlands Network and interpret the boundaries of these elements. The Province, Region, Area Municipalities and the Grand River Conservation Authority will coordinate the requirements for the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements (ROP, 2009).

Page 399

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 It is recommended that this subwatershed document be used as a reference area to provide context for subsequent Environmental Impact Statements (EISs). The Subwatershed Study will considerably reduce the list of requirements even for a scoped EIS. It is expected that in most cases, EISs will generally be limited to: • Confirmation of the boundary of Core Environmental Features and Supporting Environmental Features; • Delineation and design of buffers; • Detailed ecological enhancement plan (where required); • Surveys for newly-listed species at risk, including little brown bat and northern long eared bat, where applicable; • Stormwater management plan (as it affects the feature) and as it relates to placement of the facility itself. SWM Facilities proposed within the IPZ Zone 2, and Wellhead Protection Sensitivity Areas (WPSA) 2-8 must address ROP Policy 8.A.12 – 8.A.22 and the City of Cambridge Official Plan (2012) – see Section 7.1.1; • Completion of a contaminant management plan for all lands within and adjacent to the Intake protection Zone (IPZ) Zone 2 for the Hidden Valley water intake; • Chloride impact study per the Regional Implementation Guidelines for Source Water Protection Studies detailed within the ROP; • Salt management plan for developments within identified WHPA and IPZ per the requirements of the Region of Waterloo and the City of Cambridge; • Allendale Creek - upstream contributing areas must confirm that adequate capacity can be maintained post development. Upgrades to the existing road crossing shall be a requirement of development if adequate capacity cannot be maintained; • Mitigation measures for potential human encroachment into both natural areas and buffers; and • Erosion and sedimentation control plan development in conformance with Policy 5 of the City of Cambridge Stormwater Management Polices and Guidelines (2011) – See Section 7.4. Notwithstanding the above, the terms of reference for future EISs (both scoped and comprehensive) will be negotiated with relevant review agencies. The recommendations below do not exclude the requirements for an EIS under the ROP or GRCA policies. It is also recommended that the risk to fish and fish habitat be assessed in accordance with the Risk Management Framework developed by Fisheries and Oceans Canada where development has the potential to impact aquatic resources. Recommendations for Site-Specific Environmental Impact Statements It is recommended that any area not investigated as part of the SWS due to land access issues be subject to an Environmental Impact Statement(s). On such properties, items in addition to those listed below may be required and will be negotiated with relevant review agencies. Consistent with long-established Regional practice, full environmental impact statementsmay not be required on these properties provided no encroachment is proposed into a natural feature as provided by applicable Regional, City, and GRCA policy.

Page 400

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 The following list details locations within the Subwatershed Study Area where EISs are recommended. The recommendations below do not exclude the requirements for an EIS under the ROP or GRCA policies. Area A •

Rusty Blackbird habitat: Should development be proposed within or adjacent to the habitat of the Rusty Blackbird (SC), ELC Polygon A3, an EIS should include an assessment of the potential impacts of the development of the habitat of this species.

•

Areas not visited during the SWS: Includes all lands within Area A, including GRCA Wetland A. While ELC Polygon A3 was visited, comprehensive botanical and avian inventories were not conducted.

Area B •

GRCA Wetland B: The ecological function of the identified linkage in which the GRCA Wetland B in encompassed may be revisited and assessed through an EIS. Should the wetland be found to contribute to the ecological function of the adjacent linkage, under the GRCA’s wetland policy the wetland would not be eligible for alteration. It is recommended that an assessment of wildlife’s use of the wetland be included in the EIS.

•

ELC Polygon B3: ELC Polygon B3 was once a part of the Freeport Esker ANSI, and has since been altered by the Ministry of Transportation during the construction of Maple Grove Road. Development within some areas of ELC Polygon B3 may not have negative effects on the ecologic function of the adjacent woodlands on the ANSI. Should development be proposed within ELC Polygon B3 or the small ‘island’ of woodland within (ELC Polygon B1), and EIS should be conducted to determine the potential effects of the development on the form and function of the adjacent lands, including the potential loss of foraging habitat for the nesting raptors within the ANSI.

•

It is recommended that development adjacent to or within the area designated as Significant Wildlife Habitat: Animal Movement Corridor be subject to an EIS which investigates the use of the corridor by wildlife, and the potential impacts to wildlife movement as a result of the proposal development.

•

Lower Freeport Creek The overall objective for the lower portion of Freeport Creek within the City of Kitchener is to establish a functional creek corridor. In addition to stewardship efforts, if redevelopment is proposed, in particular at 3763 King Street East in the City of Kitchener, a comprehensive creek rehabilitation plan will be required as part of a scoped EIS to the satisfaction of the City of Kitchener, Region of Waterloo and GRCA. The functional corridor for the creek shall be designed in accordance with the principles of natural channel design and include a suitable meander belt width. The objective of the rehabilitation plan is to restore the lower portion of Freeport Creek to an

Page 401

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 enhanced ecological state. This will include the establishment of a creek buffer under a redeveloped condition as per the City of Kitchener Official Plan taking into consideration the type and scale of the future development, enhancement of the established creek corridor, improved flow conveyance through the site and improved stormwater management. The plan is anticipated to involve channel works and ultimately may result in a revision to the floodline through the property. If a comprehensive rehabilitation plan is not pursued, the recommendations for this reach as detailed within previous sections of this Subwatershed Study will be implemented through a future development approval on this property. Area C •

ELC Polygons C0a and C7: ELC Polygons C0a and C7 are successional communities located on a slope. As per the definitions provided in the Regional Official Plan, these communities qualify as a linkage and supporting environmental feature, respectively. However, the ecological function of this linkage should be assessed in an EIS. Factors to consider include, but are not limited to: the use of the feature as a visual aid to birds flying along the parallel Grand River Valley, usage by land-bound terrestrial wildlife, potential usage by species at risk such as Eastern Milksnake (note that a single snake was found on the road at the northern portion of Riverbank Drive).

•

Maple Grove Wetland: The eastern half of the Maple Grove Wetland was not visited during the Subwatershed Study due to lack of permission for land access. Consequently, the ecological function of the wetland both on the eastern side and as a whole was not wholly assessed. Accordingly, future development adjacent to the wetland should complete an EIS to assess the potential impacts of the proposed activity (e.g. development) on the wetland. It is noted that the Maple Grove Wetland and adjacent upland forest constitutes the largest forest block in the East Side Land Subwatershed. In addition, the area is a PSW, contains habitat for species at risk and regionally significant species, qualifies as significant wildlife habitat, is a Regionally Significant Woodland, and qualifies as an ESPA.

•

Vernal Pools: Vernal pools supporting amphibian breeding are present in ELC Polygons C5 south and C5 central. Development proposals within the catchment of these pools should complete an EIS to assess the potential hydrologic and ecological impacts to the form and function of the pools.

•

Hedgerows HR-C1 and HR-C7: These hedgerows qualify as Supporting Environmental Features because they had been mapped as woodland by the MNR. It is the opinion of Aquafor Beech Limited that these hedgerows could likely be incorporated into development design by virtue of their location along existing lot lines. Should retention of these hedgerows not be possible and/or desirable, it is recommended that their ecological function be investigated as part of an EIS which includes compensation planting plans. In addition, the linkage potential of hedgerow HR-C1 to lands north of Middle Block Road should be investigated as part of any study examining the hedgerow.

Page 402

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Area D •

Due to its proximity to a drainage ditch, the vegetation community classification of ELC Polygon D13a should be reinvestigated during an EIS should development be proposed within or adjacent to the Polygon.

•

ELC Polygon D19: Upon the direction of the agency review team, it is recommended that the ecological function of the plantation south of Freeport Creek (ELC Polygon D19) be assessed to determine if the area contributes to the identified wildlife movement corridor (see Figure 4.1.11). Factors to consider in the EIS include, but are not limited to, the plantation’s contribution to adjacent fish habitat, use by terrestrial wildlife (e.g. owls, snakes, and coyotes), buffer function, as well as the potential social benefit to the adjacent landowners. Included in the EIS should be an investigation of the features and biota not visited as part of the Subwatershed Study.

General Recommendations for Environmental Impact Statements for Lands West of Fountain Street •

• • •

•

Given that the period for reptile surveys was relatively short (i.e. September-October), it is recommended that additional surveys in the East Side Lands Subwatershed detailed Study Area be conducted so as to record reptiles during their active period (late April to mid – late October). Best management practices for fencing adjacent to natural areas (if applicable). Woodland edge management plans (if applicable). Species at Risk surveys, including those for: o Butternut o Eastern Milksnake o Species listed during the preparation of this report (i.e. Wood Thrush, Eastern Wood Pewee, Northern Long-eared Bat, and Little Brown Bat) o Newly listed species at the time of the development application (note: will affect assessment of Significant Wildlife Habitat) It is recommended that future studies assess the feasibility of creating habitat for target species (included but not limited to species of conservation concern)

Recommendations for Scoped Environmental Impact Statements for Lands East of Fountain Street Environmental field work conducted for the Hespeler West Subwatershed Study took place nearly 10 years ago. While the site characterization information within the report is still useful, it is outdated. Accordingly, development proposals east of Fountain Street should be subject to scoped EISs, with investigations including but not limited to: • • • • • •

Wildlife inventories; Botanical inventories; Species at Risk assessments; Investigation of Significant Wildlife Habitat; Delineation of natural features boundaries (i.e. wetlands and woodlands); and Best management practices and mitigation measures.

Page 403

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Buffer determination Figure 4.2 illustrates the opportunities and constraints to development east of Fountain Street. Constraints mapping shown within the Hespeler West Subwatershed Study (HWSS) area consist of Floodplain, Significant Natural Heritage Features, GRCA Wetlands, and 30 (thirty) metre buffers recommended in the HWSS Summary Report (supported by MNR, GRCA and the Region of Waterloo) but not adopted by Cambridge Council in its decision on February 28, 2005 which re-confirmed wetland buffers north of Maple Grove Road of fifteen (15) meters adjacent to the boundary of a provincially significant or locally significant wetland. The mapping does not show enhancement areas from that Study’s Greenspace Management Strategy. As mentioned above, completion of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for lands east of Fountain Street will be required in order to confirm buffer requirements. Recommendations for Scoped Environmental Impact Statements – Properties where Access was Denied Figure 9.1 details the landowner contact record and identified locations within the detailed study area (i.e. lands west of Fountain Street) where: 1. Property access was denied; 2. Landowners could not be contacted, not listed or did not respond; and/or 3. Not contacted. This record is provided, such that agencies can require scoped environmental impact statements (EIS) or other appropriate studies when development applications are submitted at a future date. In general, properties where access was denied shall be the primary area of focus, with specific emphasis the properties located within the Stage 1 PISR lands boundary. This includes the land parcel located: • on the south west corner of Middle Block Road and Fountain Street Other the land parcels outside the Stage 1 PISR lands boundary where access was denied includes the parcel located: • North-east corner of Riverbank Drive and Middle Block road;

•

Two (2) properties west of Riverbank Drive and south of the Middle block road alignment.

Species at Risk (SAR) As species become uplisted or added to the Federal and/or Provincial lists of species at risk, it will be necessary to investigate both the presence of these species and their habitat requirements. EISs should also investigate the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed development on species and their habitat. Environmental Impact Statements should use available background information, and as a preliminary exercise, consult with the MNR. As mentioned above, the Hespeler West Subwatershed Study (PEIL, 2004) was completed almost 10 years ago. It is possible that species documented within the Hespeler West Subwatershed Study Area and species that have colonized the area since the completion of the study, under the PPS, ESA (2007), and/or SARA (2002).

Page 404

IN ST N

EAST SIDE LAND MESP AND COMMUNITY PLAN

FOUNTA

H RD

T KOSSU

Kitchener

R IV

RIV ER BA NK

FREEPORT CREEK AND TRIBUTARY TO THE GRAND SUBWATERSHED STUDY

MIDDLE BLOCK

FIGURE 9.1 LANDOWNER CONTACT RECORD

HIGHWAY MUNICIPAL ROADS

ALL

PA S

REGIONAL ROADS

LOCAL ROADS

EE K

STAGE 1 STUDY AREA WEST OF FOUNTAIN STREET SUBWATERSHED STUDY AREA

I VE R

PRIME INDUSTRIAL STRATEGIC RESERVE (SERVICED)

TA R

STREAMS

DID NOT CONTACT NO PERMISSION NOT LISTED / COULD NOT CONTACT OR NO RESPONSE LOT PARCEL

8 R D

Cambridge SALTMAN DR.

IL T

WATER BODIES

SWM POND

ALLENDALE RD

BA R N

DETAILED STUDY AREA - PRIMARY ZONE

M AP L

LT E

REGION OF WATERLOO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

BANAT RD

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY

GR AN

KING ST E

0.25

0.5 km

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

10.0

SUMMARY - CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

The following table (Table 10.0) provides a summary of where the main conclusions and recommendations of the Subwatershed Study are found in the body of the report, organized by discipline. Table 10.0: Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations

Summary

Discipline

Main Conclusions

Recommendations

Hydrogeology

• • • •

Overview of surface watercourses, Section 2.3 Geology, Section 3.3 Baseline data, field studies, and conclusions; Section 3.4 and Appendix A Potential impacts to groundwater resources, Section 6.3

• • •

Opportunities and constraints, Section 4.1.2 Groundwater management plan, Section 7.2 Monitoring, Section 8.1

Hydrology

• • • •

Overview of surface watercourses, Section 2.3 Baseline data, field studies, and conclusions; Section 3.5 and Appendix B Water quality data, Appendix E Freeport Creek floodplain mapping, Appendix G

• • • •

Surface water management plan, Section 7.1 Best management practices, Section 7.3 Monitoring, Section 8.2 Recommendations for further study, Section 9.1

• •

Overview of surface watercourses, Section 2.3 Baseline data, field studies, and conclusions; Section 3.6 and Appendix C

• • •

Surface water management plan, Section 7.1 Monitoring, Section 8.3 Recommendations for further study, Section 9.1

• • • • • •

Methods and results of field studies, Section 3.7 and Appendix D Greenlands Network, Section 4.1.3 Greenspace Plan, Section 4.1.4 Buffers, Section 4.1.5 Potential impacts to terrestrial resources, Section 6.1 Potential impacts to wetlands, Section 6.5

•

Greenlands Network, Section 4.1.3 o Aquatic, terrestrial, and general enhancements, Section 4.1.3.5 and Tables 4.1.9-4.1.12 Greenspace Plan, Section 4.1.4 Buffers, Section 4.1.5, also, o Section 3.7.2.2, Hackberry and Lindley’s Aster Greenspace Management Plan, Section 7.3 o Invasive species removal in hedgerows, Section 7.3.1 o Use of salt tolerant vegetation and directional lighting considerations, Section 7.3.7 o Wetlands, Table 3.7.2 Monitoring, Section 8.4, also, o Section 3.7.3.2, ELC Polygon C4 Recommendations for further study, Section 9.1

Geomorphology

Terrestrial Ecology

• • •

• •

Page 406

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Aquatic Ecology

• • • • •

• • • • • •

Methods and results of field studies, Section 3.8 and Appendix F Greenlands Network, Section 4.1.3 Greenspace Plan, Section 4.1.4 Buffers, Section 4.1.5 Potential impacts to aquatic resources, Section 6.2

Page 407

Greenlands Network, Section 4.1.3 Greenspace Plan, Section 4.1.4 Opportunities for watercourse enhancement, Section 7.1.2 Removal of in-stream structures, Section 7.1.3.1 Greenspace Management Plan, Section 7.3 Monitoring, Section 8.5

Page 407

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

11.0

REFERENCES

Annable, W.K. 1996. Morphologic Relationships of Rural Watercourses in Southern Ontario and Selected Field Methods in Fluvial Geomorphology. Queenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Printer for Ontario. Baker, B.J.; Richardson, J.M.L.. 2006. The effect of artificial light on male breeding-season behaviour in green frogs, Rana clamitans melanota. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 84(10), pp. 1528-1532(5). Bain, M.B., Stevenson, N.J., editors. 199. Aquatic habitat assessment: common methods. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. Bajc, A.F. and M.J. Newton, 2007. Mapping the Subsurface of Waterloo Region, Ontario, Canada; An Improved Framework of Quaternary Geology for Hydrogeological Applications. Journal of Maps, 2007, 219-230. Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water; Washington, D.C. Bayne, E.M., L. Habib, and S. Boutin. 2008. Impacts of chronic anthropogenic noise from energy-sector activity on abundance of songbirds in the boreal forest. Conservation Biology. 22(5): 1186-1193. Buchanan, Perry, G.,, B.W., Fisher, R.N., Salmon, M. and S.E. Wise. 2008. Effects of artificial night lighting on amphibians and reptiles in urban environments. Urban Herpetology. Society for the study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Salt Lake City, UT. Castelle, A.J., A.W. Johnson and C. Conelly. 1994. Wetland and stream buffer size requirements: a review. Journal of Environmental Quality 23(5): 878-882. CCME [Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment]. 2004. Canadian water quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life. Phosphorus: Canadian guidance framework for the management of freshwater systems. In: Canadian environmental quality guidelines, 2004, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Winnipeg CCME [Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment]. 2008. Canadian water quality guidelines for the protection of agricultural water uses. Summary table. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Winnipeg Accessed online from http://ceqg-rcqe.ccme.ca/. Chasez, Heather R., Tom Roberts, Ray Emmett (EMS Scientists, Engineers, Planners, Inc). August 2007. Wildlife Crossing Literature Review. Prepared for the Florida Department of Transportation. .

Page 408

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 City of Cambridge. 2012 Natural Heritage and Environment Management Policies of the Cambridge Official Plan City of Cambridge. August 2011. Stormwater Management Policies and Guidelines. City of Cambridge. August 2011. Stormwater Management Master Plan. City of Kitchener. May 2012. Natural Heritage System Background Report. City of Toronto. March 2007. City of Toronto Development Standard: Bird-Friendly Development Guidelines. http://www.toronto.ca/lightsout/guidelines.htm. COSEWIC. 20111. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xi + 37 pp. COSEWIC. 20112. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. x + 40 pp. COSEWIC. 20101. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 42 pp. COSEWIC. 20102. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Monarch Danaus plexippus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 42 pp. COSEWIC. 20081. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Western Chorus Frog Pseudacris triseriata Carolinian Population and Great Lakes/St. Lawrence â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Canadian Shield Population in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 47 pp. COSEWIC. 20082. 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. 2006. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 28 pp. COSEWIC. 2002. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Milksnake Lampropeltis triangulum in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 29 pp. Couturier, A. 1999. Conservation Priorities for the Birds of Southern Ontario. 14pp + 38pp Technical Appendices, and Priority Species Lists. Conestoga-Rovers & Associates (CRA) April 1990. City of Cambridge Business Park Stormwater Management Works.

Page 409

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Demaynadier, Phillip G., and Malcom J. Hunter, Jr. "Effects of Silviculture Edges on the Distribution and Abundance of Amphibians in Maine." Conservation Biology 12.2 (1998): 340-52. Print. DFO [Department of Fisheries and Oceans]. 2000. Effects of sediment on fish and their habitat. DFO Pacific Region Habitat Status Report 2000/01. ISSN 1480-4913. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, Nanaimo, BC. 9p. Department of Fisheries and Oceans. September 1993. Land Development Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Habitat. Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for Urban Construction. December 2006. Environment Canada. 2010. Recovery Strategy for the Butternut (Juglans cinerea) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa vii + 24 pp. Environment Canada. 2004. How much habitat is enough?. Second Edition. Minister of Public Works in Canada. Forman, R.T.T., B. Reineking and A.M. Hersperger. 2002. Road traffic and nearby grassland bird patterns in a suburbanizing landscape. Environmental Management. 29(6):782-800. Golder Associates, 2009b. IUS Groundwater Supply Optimization and Expansion Project – Task C3 – Assessment of Well P16 and the Fountain Street Aquifer. Report prepared for the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, February 24, 2009. Gordon, N.D.; McMahon, T.A.; Finlayson, B.L.; Gippel, C.J.; and Nathan, R.J. 2004. Stream Hydrology, An Introduction for Ecologists Second Edition. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd. Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA). 2013. Email communication between Beth Brown and Anthony Zammit. Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA). Water Quality on the East Side Subwatershed: Hopewell, Chilligo and Freeport Creeks, and Breslau (2005-2010), January 15, 2011. Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA). January 2012 (V. 1). East Side Subwatersheds: Hopewell, Chilligo and Freeport Creeks, and Breslau and Randell Drains. Phase 1 – Characterization of the Subwatersheds Report. Grand River Conservation Authority, 2011. Grand River Source Protection Area. Draft Amended Report Chapter 9: Region of Waterloo. April 14, 2011. Grand River Conservation Authority. 2005. Grand River Conservation Authority Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines and Submission Standards for Wetlands.

Page 410

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Griffiths, R.W. 1999.BloMAP: Bioassessment of Water Quality. Published by Niagara College, Niagara-on-theLake, ON. Groffman, P.M., A.J. Gold, T.P. Husband, R.C. Simmons, and W.R. Eddleman. 1990. An investigation into multiple uses of vegetated buffer strips. Publ. NBP-90-44. Department of Natural Resource Sciences, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI. Haag, Devon A. "Effects of Riparian Buffer Width on Songbirds and Forest Structure in the Southern Interior of British Columbia." Thesis. University of British Columbia, 2002. Print. Harding, J.H. 1997. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Great Lakes Region. The University of Michigan Press. Ann Arbor, Michigan. 378 p. Harris, R.A. 1986. Vegetative barriers: An alternative highway noise abatement measure. Engineering. 27: 2 - 9.

Noise Control

Haire, S.L., C.E. Bock, B.S. Cade and B.C. Bennett. 2000. The role of landscape and habitat characteristics in limiting abundance of grassland nesting songbirds in an urban open space. Landscape and Urban Planning 48: 65-82. Howes-Jones & Associates, 2003. Scoped Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Zone Change Application and Official Plan Amendment. Report prepared for Challenger Motor Freight, June 2003 Jones, C., Craig, B., Dmytrow, N. 2007. The Ontario Benthos Biomonitoring Network. Knighton, D. 1998. Fluvial Forms and Processes. London: Arnold. Lamb, M. P.; Dietrich, W.E,; and Venditti, J.G. 2008. Is the Critical Shields Stress for Incipient Sediment Motion Dependent on Channel-bed Slope? Journal of Geophysical Research, 113: 1-20. Lee, H.T., W.D. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig and S. McMurray. 1998. Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: First Approximation and Its Application. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Southcentral Science Section, Science Development and Transfer Branch. SCSS Field Guide FG-02. Lee, K. H., T. M. Isenhart, and R. C. Schultz. 2003. "Sediment and Nutrient Removal in an Established Multispecies Riparian Buffer." Jouranal of Soil and Water Conservation 58.1: 1-11. Longcore, Travis, and Catherine Rich. "Ecological Light Pollution." Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2.4 (2004): 191-98.

Page 411

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Lynch, J. A., Corbett, E. S., and Mussallem, K. 1985. Best management practices for controlling nonpoint-source pollution on forested watersheds,â&#x20AC;? Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 40, 164-67. Mandaville, S.M., 2002. Benthic Macroinvertebrates in Freshwaters- Taxa Tolerance Values, Metrics, and Protocols. http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/ccn/info/Science/SWCS/H-1/tolerance.pdf. Accessed February 11, 2012. Marzluff, John M., and Kern Ewing. "Restoration of Fragmented Landscapes for the Conservation of Birds: A General Framework and Specific Recommendations for Urbanizing Landscapes." Restoration Ecology 9.3 (2001): 280-92. Print. McCormic Rankin Corporation. 2004. Sportsworld Drive Drive/Maple Grove Road Municipal Class EA. Merritt, R.W., Cummins, K.W., Berg, M.B., 2008. An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America. MTE Consultants Inc. 2012. Fountain Street North and Maple Grove Road Area Water Supply Class Environmental Assessment Study, Public Information Centre #2 Poster Boards, March 1, 2012. MTO, 1997. Drainage Management Manual, Ronin House Publishing, under contract from Ministry of Transportation of Ontario, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Nagpal, N.K., Levy, D.A., and D.D. Macdonald. 2003. Ambient water quality guidelines for chloride. Government of British Columbia, Ministry of the Environment (http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/BCguidelines/chloride/chloride.html). Newmaster, S.G., Lehela, A., Oldham, M.J., Uhlig, P.W.C. and McMuray. 1998. Ontario Plant List. Ontario Forest Research Institute, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Forest Research Information Paper No. 123. 650 pp. + appendices. OMEE [Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy]. 1999. Water management policies, 174 guidelines, provincial water quality objectives of the Ministry of Environment and Energy. Reprinted February 1999. PIBS 3303E. Queenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Printer for Ontario, Toronto, Ontario. OMOE [Ontario Ministry of the Environment]. 2003. Water Sampling and Data Analysis Manual for Partners in the Ontario Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Undated. Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Fact Sheet. Print. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2000. Significant wildlife habitat technical guide. 151p. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2003. Natural Hazards Technical Guides: River and Stream Systems Erosion Hazard Limit Technical Guide.

Page 412

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1994. Ontario Wetland Evaluation System Southern Manual covering Hill’s Site Regions 6 and 7. 3rd Edition. Revised 1994. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. March 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. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, policy division. 16 July 2013. "Northern Long-eared Bat." and “Little Brown Bat.” Web. Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. 2005. Provincial Policy Statement. 37 pp. Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE). 1999. Revised Stormwater Management Guidelines. Draft Report. Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Opler, Paul A., and Paul A. Opler. 1994. Peterson First Guide to Butterflies and Moths. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Print. Peck, George K., and Ross D. James. Breeding Birds of Ontario: Nidiology and Distribution. Vol. 2. Toronto: ROM, 1983. Print. Peckarsky, B.L., Fraissinet, P.R., Penton, M.A., Conklin, D.J. Jr., 1990. Northeastern North America.

Freshwater Macroinvertebrates of

Perry, G., B. W. Buchanan, R. N., Fisher, M. Salmon, and S.E. Wise. 2008. Effects of artificial night lighting on amphibians and reptiles in urban environments. Pages 239–256 in J. C. Mitchell, R. E. Jung Brown, and B. Bartholomew, editors. Urban Herpetology. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Salt Lake City, UT. Herpetological Conservation Number Three. Piégay, H., Darby, S.E., Mosselman, E., and Surian, N. 2005. A review of techniques available for delimiting the erodible river corridor: a sustainable approach to managing bank erosion. River Research and Applications, 21: 773-789. Power, M. 1995. "How Does Floodplain Width Affect Floodplain River Ecology? A Preliminary Exploration Using Simulations." Geomorphology 13.1-4: 301-17. Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Undated. Significant Bird Species List. Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 1999. Significant Plant Species List: Native Vascular Plants. Planning and Culture Committee. Regional Municipality of Waterloo. June 2008. By-law number 08-026 of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo: A By-law Respecting the Conservation of Trees in Woodlands.

Page 413

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 2009. Regional Official Plan.

Regional Municipality of Waterloo. February 2011. Region of Waterloo Greenlands Network Implementation Guideline: Second Draft. Region of Waterloo, 2006. Urban Threat Inventory Database (TID) – Final Report. December 21, 2006.

Region of Waterloo. 2008. Water Resources Protection Master Plan, January 2009. Sibley, David, Chris Elphick, and John B. Dunning. The Sibley Guide to Bird Life & Behavior. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2001. Print. Slabbekoorn, Hans and Erwin Ripmeester. 2008. Birdsong and anthropogenic noise: implications and applications for conservation. Molecular Ecology. 17, 72–83. Stantec Consulting Limited, 2005. Microbial Contamination Control Plan, Production Wells K80, K81 and K82, Woolner Well Field. Report prepared for the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, September 2005. Stantec Consulting Limited, 2010. Intake Protection Zone Delineation Study – Grand River Hidden Valley Intake, City of Kitchener. Report prepared for the Region of Waterloo, July 2010. The Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation. "Ontario's Greenbelt: Home." Greenbelt: Possibility grows here. The Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation, 2012. Web. 27 Feb 2012. <http://greenbelt.ca/>. Timmerman, Art. MNR Biologist. Personal communication. January 2012. TRCA/CVC 2010. Low Impact Development Planning and Design Guide, V1. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). 2001. Belt Width Delineation Procedures. Report prepared by Parish Geomorphic Ltd and submitted to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 2004. Forest Edge Management Plan Guidelines. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), 2009. Aquatic Habitat and Species Monitoring: A Discussion Paper in Support of the Development of A Regional Watershed Monitoring Network. http://www.trca.on.ca/dotAsset/114187.pdf. Accessed February 12, 2012. Varga, Steve. MNR Biologist. Personal communication. June 2011.

Page 414

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013 Wise, Sharon. "Studying the Ecological Impacts of Light Pollution on Wildlife: Amphibians as Models." Proc. of International Conference in Defence of the Quality of the Night Sky and the Right to Observe the Stars, La Palma. 19-20 Apr. 2007. Web. 1 Feb. 2012. Yen, B.C., and V.T. Chow (1980), Design hyetographs for small drainage structures, ASCE Journal of the hydraulics division, 106 (HY6), 1055-1076

Page 415

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

APPENDICES A – F APPENDIX A HYDROGEOLOGY (on CD) •

Borehole logs

APPENDIX B HYDROLOGY (on CD) •

IDF TABLES

•

REGIONAL FLOW HYETOGRAPH

•

EVENT-BASED MODEL INPUT AND OUTPUT

•

CONTNIOUS MODEL INPUT AND OUTPUT

APPENDIX C STREAM GEOMORPHOLOGY (on CD) •

RAPID GEOMORPHIC ASSESSMENT FORM

•

SITE PHOTOS

APPENDIX D TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY (within this report & on CD) •

FLORA INVENTORIES

•

FAUNA INVENTORIES

•

REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS LOCATED DURING SURVEYS

•

ECOLOGICAL LAND CLASSIFICATIONS (end of this document)

APPENDIX E WATER QUALITY (on CD) •

WATER QUALITY DATA

•

WATER TEMPERATURE DATA

APPENDIX F AQUATIC ECOLOGY (on CD) •

BENTHICS FIELD SHEETS

•

ELECTROFISHING FIELD SHEETS

APPENDIX G FLOODPLAIN MAPPING (on CD) •

PHASE 1 AND PHASE 2

Page 416

East Side Lands (Stage 1) Freeport Creek and Tributary to the Grand Subwatershed Study November 2013

APPENDIX D TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY –ELC MAPPING (AREAS A – D)

Page 417

EAST SIDE LAND MESP AND COMMUNITY PLAN

A2 A1

FREEPORT CREEK AND TRIBUTARY TO THE GRAND SUBWATERSHED STUDY

HR-A1

HR-A2

Kitchener

EE R IV

RIV ER B

FIGURE D2 ECOLOGICAL LAND CLASSIFICATION AREA "A"

HIGHWAY MUNICIPAL ROADS REGIONAL ROADS LOCAL ROADS STAGE 1 STUDY AREA WEST OF FOUNTAIN STREET

HR-A3

MIDDLE BLOC KR

PRIME INDUSTRIAL STRATEGIC RESERVE (SERVICED)

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY DETAILED STUDY AREA - PRIMARY ZONE

WATER BODIES

STREAMS ECOLOGICAL LAND CLASSIFICATION

ALL

EE K

† FEATURES HAVE BEEN REMOVED SINCE THE COMPLETION OF THE NATURAL FEATURES INVENTORY.

GR AN D

RI VE

†

ER B E AN TR AIL T

ALLENDALE R D A7

R IBU T AR Y

250

G ST E

W ALT

†

Date: June 12, 2013

500 Meters

ALLENDALE RD

B28

B29

B14 B13 IBU TAB12 B15 RY

RA IL T R

B25

B22

B17 B16 CZ B28 B28 B26

B21 B30

B11

B20 B19

B18

B23 B24

EAST SIDE LAND MESP AND COMMUNITY PLAN

GRAND RIV ER

B10

FREEPORT CREEK AND TRIBUTARY TO THE GRAND SUBWATERSHED STUDY

KING ST E

B26 WALT E R BEA B27 NT

FIGURE D3 ECOLOGICAL LAND CLASSIFICATION AREA "B"

HIGHWAY MUNICIPAL ROADS REGIONAL ROADS

Y HW

LOCAL ROADS STAGE 1 STUDY AREA WEST OF FOUNTAIN STREET PRIME INDUSTRIAL STRATEGIC RESERVE (SERVICED)

FRE E

POR

†

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY

REE

DETAILED STUDY AREA - PRIMARY ZONE

WATER BODIES STREAMS ECOLOGICAL LAND CLASSIFICATION

B6 B7 B7 B2 B5

B1 B4

† FEATURES HAVE BEEN REMOVED SINCE THE COMPLETION OF THE NATURAL FEATURES INVENTORY.

B3 0

125

Date: June 12, 2013

250 Meters

Base data provided by the Ministry of Natural Resources: Produced by Dillon Consulting under Licence with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2011

R RIVERBANK D

MIDD

OC L B LE

EAST SIDE LAND MESP AND COMMUNITY PLAN

K RD

FREEPORT CREEK AND TRIBUTARY TO THE GRAND SUBWATERSHED STUDY

HR-C1

FIGURE D4 ECOLOGICAL LAND CLASSIFICATION AREA "C"

HIGHWAY MUNICIPAL ROADS

REGIONAL ROADS LOCAL ROADS STAGE 1 STUDY AREA WEST OF FOUNTAIN STREET

HR-C7 C0a

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY DETAILED STUDY AREA - PRIMARY ZONE

WATER BODIES STREAMS

HR-C3

ECOLOGICAL LAND CLASSIFICATION

C5 HR-C4

C1 C0b C2

ALLENDALE CREEK

†

C0c

D BANAT R

HR-C5

†

HR-C6

GRAND RIVER

PRIME INDUSTRIAL STRATEGIC RESERVE (SERVICED)

† FEATURES HAVE BEEN REMOVED SINCE THE COMPLETION OF THE NATURAL FEATURES INVENTORY.

HR-C2

ALLE

RD E L ND A

125

Base data provided by the Ministry of Natural Resources: Produced by Dillon Consulting under Licence with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2011 Additional data sources and mapping provided by the RMOW, the City of Cambridge, and the GRCA. File Location: C:\Projects\65107-EastSideLands\GIS\MXD\Final-June12-2013\ AppendixD4-ELCClassification.mxd Date: June 12, 2013

250 Meters

†

BANAT RD

RI VE R

†

EAST SIDE LAND MESP AND COMMUNITY PLAN FREEPORT CREEK AND TRIBUTARY TO THE GRAND SUBWATERSHED STUDY

GR AN

ALLENDALE RD

FIGURE D5 ECOLOGICAL LAND CLASSIFICATION AREA "D"

Ag HR-D1 D21

HIGHWAY

D22

MUNICIPAL ROADS REGIONAL ROADS

D20

LOCAL ROADS

D23

D21

STAGE 1 STUDY AREA WEST OF FOUNTAIN STREET PRIME INDUSTRIAL STRATEGIC RESERVE (SERVICED)

D24

D16

D17

D15 D15a

D8b

D10

HR-D6

D18 FRE EPO D17 RT C REE K

D13 D11

D13a

D12

M AP L

HR-D5 D7 D9 HR-D4 Ag

D9a

HR-D7

D5 † FEATURES HAVE BEEN REMOVED SINCE THE COMPLETION OF THE NATURAL FEATURES INVENTORY.

D3b D3a D2

SALTMAN DR.

SWMP

†

ECOLOGICAL LAND CLASSIFICATION

D14

Berm

HR-D3

WATER BODIES STREAMS

GR OV

D8a

D26

D8b

D19

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY DETAILED STUDY AREA - PRIMARY ZONE

D27

HR-D2 D19

D25

125

250 Meters

Base data provided by the Ministry of Natural Resources: Produced by Dillon Consulting under Licence with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2011 Additional data sources and mapping provided by the RMOW, the City of Cambridge, and the GRCA. File Location: C:\Projects\65107-EastSideLands\GIS\MXD\Final-June12-2013\ AppendixD5-ELCClassification.mxd Date: June 12, 2013