407 East Environmental Assessment 2009 - Toronto Zoo

Natural Environment (Terrestrial) Impact 

Assessment of the Recommended Design

Natural Environment (Terrestrial) Impact Assessment 

of the Recommended Design 

Table of Contents 

Page 

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

1.1 Study Overview .............................................................................................................. 1 

1.2 Report Overview............................................................................................................. 1 

1.3 Natural Environment Study Team .................................................................................. 3 

2. Study Area ....................................................................................................... 5 

3. Methodology .................................................................................................... 7 

4. Additional Field Investigations .................................................................... 12 

4.1 Vegetation .................................................................................................................... 12 

4.2 Wildlife.......................................................................................................................... 14 

4.2.1 Winter Resident and Spring Migrant Birds........................................................ 14 

4.2.2 Blanding’s Turtle Habitat Investigations............................................................ 14 

4.2.3 Wildlife Passage Analysis................................................................................. 15 

4.2.4 Habitat Sensitivity ............................................................................................. 16 

5. Detailed Description of the Environment Potentially Affected ................. 18 

5.1 East Duffins Creek Watershed (Refer to Figure 1 in Appendix A)................................ 19 

5.1.1 Vegetation......................................................................................................... 19 

5.1.1.1 General Overview .................................................................................................19 

5.1.1.2 Flora......................................................................................................................20 

5.1.1.3 Rare Species.........................................................................................................20 

5.1.2 Wildlife .............................................................................................................. 22 


5.1.2.2 Wildlife Habitat ......................................................................................................23 

5.1.2.3 Breeding Birds.......................................................................................................24 

5.1.2.4 Amphibians ...........................................................................................................25 

5.1.2.5 Rare Species.........................................................................................................26 

5.1.2.6 Landscape Connectivity ........................................................................................28 

5.2 Carruthers Creek Watershed (Refer to Figure 2 in Appendix A) .................................. 28 

5.2.1 Vegetation......................................................................................................... 28 


5.2.1.2 Flora......................................................................................................................29 

5.2.1.3 Rare Species.........................................................................................................29 

5.2.2 Wildlife .............................................................................................................. 30 




5.2.2.4 Amphibians ...........................................................................................................32 

5.2.2.5 Rare Species.........................................................................................................32 


May, 2009 

i 

Gartner Lee Limited 

Ecoplans Limited



5.3 Lynde Creek Watershed............................................................................................... 33 

5.3.1 Vegetation......................................................................................................... 33 

5.3.1.1 Lynde Creek – Mainline (Refer to Figures 2 and 6 in Appendix A) .....................33 

5.3.1.2 Lynde Creek – West Durham Link (Refer to Figures 3, 4 and 5 in 

Appendix A).........................................................................................................35 

5.3.2 Wildlife .............................................................................................................. 37 

5.3.2.1 Lynde Creek – Mainline ........................................................................................37 



5.3.2.4 Amphibians ...........................................................................................................40 

5.3.2.5 Rare Species.........................................................................................................41 


5.3.2.7 Lynde Creek – West Durham Link ........................................................................42 


5.3.2.9 Amphibians ...........................................................................................................46 

5.3.2.10 Rare Species.........................................................................................................46 


5.4 Oshawa Creek Watershed (Refer to Figures 6, 7, and 8 in Appendix A) ..................... 48 

5.4.1 Vegetation......................................................................................................... 48 


5.4.1.2 Flora......................................................................................................................49 

5.4.1.3 Rare Species.........................................................................................................49 

5.4.2 Wildlife .............................................................................................................. 50 




5.4.2.4 Amphibians ...........................................................................................................52 

5.4.2.5 Rare Species.........................................................................................................52 


5.5 Harmony Creek Watershed (Refer to Figure 8 in Appendix A) .................................... 53 

5.5.1 Vegetation......................................................................................................... 53 


5.5.1.2 Flora......................................................................................................................54 

5.5.1.3 Rare Species.........................................................................................................54 

5.5.2 Wildlife .............................................................................................................. 54 




5.5.2.4 Amphibians ...........................................................................................................56 

5.5.2.5 Rare Species.........................................................................................................56 


5.6 East Mainline – Farewell Creek, Black Creek, Bowmanville Creek, Soper Creek 

and Wilmot Creek Watersheds..................................................................................... 57 

5.6.1 Central Lake Ontario Conservation (CLOCA) (Refer to Figures 9, 13 and 

14 in Appendix A) ............................................................................................. 57 

5.6.1.1 Vegetation .............................................................................................................57 

5.6.1.2 Wildlife...................................................................................................................59 


ii 


Ecoplans Limited



5.6.2 Ganaraska Region Conservation (GRCA) (Refer to Figures 14 & 15 in 

Appendix A) ...................................................................................................... 62 

5.6.2.1 Vegetation .............................................................................................................62 

5.6.2.2 Wildlife...................................................................................................................64 

5.7 East Durham Link – Black Creek, Tooley Creek and Darlington Creek 

Watersheds (Refer to Figures 9, 10, 11 and 12 in Appendix A) ................................... 67 

5.7.1 Vegetation......................................................................................................... 67 


5.7.1.2 Flora......................................................................................................................68 

5.7.1.3 Rare Species.........................................................................................................68 

5.7.2 Wildlife .............................................................................................................. 69 




5.7.2.4 Amphibians ...........................................................................................................71 

5.7.2.5 Rare Species.........................................................................................................71 


6. Potential Effects and Mitigation................................................................... 73 

6.1 Overview....................................................................................................................... 73 

6.1.1 Construction Effects.......................................................................................... 74 

6.1.1.1 Vegetation .............................................................................................................74 

6.1.1.2 Wildlife...................................................................................................................75 

6.1.2 Operation and Maintenance Effects ................................................................. 77 

6.1.2.1 Vegetation .............................................................................................................77 

6.1.2.2 Wildlife...................................................................................................................78 

6.1.3 Standard Mitigation Applied Across the Study Area ......................................... 79 

6.1.3.1 Mitigation During Planning and Design .................................................................79 

6.1.3.2 Construction Mitigation..........................................................................................80 

6.1.4 Site Specific Mitigation and Enhancement ....................................................... 84 

6.1.4.1 Edge Management Strategies...............................................................................84 

6.1.4.2 Butternut Mitigation Strategy.................................................................................85 

6.1.4.3 Invasive Plant Species Management Strategies...................................................86 

6.1.4.4 Vegetation Salvage Opportunities.........................................................................86 

6.1.4.5 Valley and Forest Restoration Plans.....................................................................87 

6.1.4.6 Wildlife Passage Structures ..................................................................................90 

6.1.4.7 Wildlife Passage Structure Design Criteria and Considerations ...........................91 

6.1.4.8 Restoration//Creation/Enhancement .....................................................................94 

6.1.5 Operation and Maintenance Mitigation ............................................................. 97 

6.2 East Duffins Creek Watershed ..................................................................................... 98 

6.2.1 Vegetation......................................................................................................... 98 

6.2.2 Wildlife ............................................................................................................ 102 

6.3 Carruthers Creek Watershed...................................................................................... 108 

6.3.1 Vegetation....................................................................................................... 108 

6.3.2 Wildlife ............................................................................................................ 111 

6.4 Lynde Creek Watershed............................................................................................. 115 


iii 


Ecoplans Limited



6.4.1 Vegetation....................................................................................................... 115 

6.4.1.1 Lynde Creek - Mainline .......................................................................................115 

6.4.1.2 Lynde Creek – West Durham Link ......................................................................118 

6.4.2 Wildlife ............................................................................................................ 122 

6.4.2.1 Lynde Creek - Mainline .......................................................................................122 

6.4.2.2 Lynde Creek – West Durham Link ......................................................................126 

6.6 Oshawa Creek Watershed ......................................................................................... 130 

6.6.1 Vegetation....................................................................................................... 130 

6.6.2 Wildlife ............................................................................................................ 135 

6.7 Harmony Creek Watershed ........................................................................................ 139 

6.7.1 Vegetation....................................................................................................... 139 

6.7.2 Wildlife ............................................................................................................ 142 

6.8 East Mainline – Farewell Creek, Black Creek, Bowmanville Creek, Soper Creek 

and Wilmot Creek Watersheds................................................................................... 145 

6.8.1 Central Lake Ontario Conservation (CLOCA)................................................. 145 

6.8.1.1 Vegetation ...........................................................................................................145 

6.8.1.2 Wildlife.................................................................................................................148 

6.8.2 Ganaraska Region Conservation (GRCA)...................................................... 151 

6.8.2.1 Vegetation ...........................................................................................................151 

6.8.2.2 Wildlife.................................................................................................................153 


Watersheds ................................................................................................................ 156 

6.9.1 Vegetation....................................................................................................... 156 

6.9.2 Wildlife ............................................................................................................ 158 

6.10 Summary of Anticipated Effects and Residual Effects ............................................... 161 

7. Monitoring and Commitments for the Undertaking ................................. 163 

7.1 Environmental Effects Monitoring............................................................................... 163 

7.1.1 Species at Risk ............................................................................................... 163 

7.1.1.1 Butternut..............................................................................................................163 

7.1.2 Vegetation....................................................................................................... 163 

7.1.3 Groundwater Inputs to Wetlands .................................................................... 164 

7.1.4 Wildlife Passage ............................................................................................. 164 

7.2 Commitments ............................................................................................................. 164 

8. Terrestrial Approvals Required for the Undertaking ............................... 168 

8.1 Endangered Species Act – Ministry of Natural Resources......................................... 168 

9. Summary ...................................................................................................... 169 

9.1 Species at Risk........................................................................................................... 170 

9.1.1 Butternut ......................................................................................................... 170 

9.1.2 Blanding’s Turtle and Golden-winged Warbler ............................................... 170 

9.2 Vegetation .................................................................................................................. 170 

9.2.1 Wildlife ............................................................................................................ 172 

10. References ................................................................................................... 175 


iv 


Ecoplans Limited



11. Glossary ....................................................................................................... 181 

List of Figures 

Figure A. Transportation Corridor Footprint/Sections...................................................................... 4 

Figure B. Roadmap ......................................................................................................................... 8 

List of Tables 

Table 1. Regionally Rare Flora in the Study Area of the East Duffins Creek Watershed ............ 21 

Table 2. Locally Rare Flora in the Study Area of the East Duffins Creek Watershed.................. 21 

Table 3. Summary of Specialized and Sensitive Wildlife Habitat (SSWH) Areas Within or 

Adjacent to the Transportation Corridor – East Duffins Creek Watershed .................... 23 

Table 4. Forest Area-sensitive Species in the Study Area of the East Duffins Creek 

Watershed ..................................................................................................................... 25 

Table 5. Rare Bird Species in the Study Area of the East Duffins Creek Watershed.................. 26 

Table 6. Locally Rare Flora in the Study Area of the Carruthers Creek Watershed .................... 30 

Table 7. Forest Area-sensitive Bird Species in the Study Area of the Carruthers Creek 

Watershed ..................................................................................................................... 31 

Table 8. Rare Bird Species in the Study Area of the Carruthers Creek Watershed ................... 32 

Table 9. Regionally Rare Plant Species in the Study Area of the Lynde Creek Watershed 

(Mainline)....................................................................................................................... 35 

Table 10. Regionally Rare Plant Species in the Study Area of the Lynde Creek Watershed 

(West Durham Link)....................................................................................................... 37 

Table 11. Summary of Specialized and Sensitive Wildlife Habitat Areas Within or Adjacent 

to the Transportation Corridor........................................................................................ 39 

Table 12. Forest Area-sensitive Species in the Study Area of the Lynde Creek Watershed 

(Mainline)....................................................................................................................... 40 

Table 13. Rare Bird Species in the Study Area of the Lynde Creek Watershed (Mainline)........... 41 



Table 15. Forest Area-sensitive Species in the Study Area of the Lynde Creek Watershed 

(West Durham Link)....................................................................................................... 45 

Table 16. Rare Bird Species in the Study Area of the Lynde Creek Watershed (West 

Durham Link) ................................................................................................................. 47 

Table 17. Regionally Rare Flora in the Study Area of the Oshawa Creek Watershed .................. 50 



Table 19. Forest Area-sensitive Species in the Study Area of the Oshawa Creek 

Watershed ..................................................................................................................... 52 


v 


Ecoplans Limited



Table 20. Forest Area-sensitive Species in the Study Area of the Harmony Creek 

Watershed ..................................................................................................................... 55 

Table 21. Regionally Rare Flora in the Study Area of the Farwell Creek, Black Creek, 

Bowmanville Creek and Soper Creek Watersheds (East Mainline)............................... 59 


Adjacent to the Transportation Corridor......................................................................... 60 

Table 23. Forest Area Sensitive Species in the Study Area of the Farwell Creek, Black 

Creek, Bowmanville Creek and Soper Creek Watersheds............................................ 61 

Table 24. Rare Bird Species in the Study Area of the Farwell Creek, Black Creek, 

Bowmanville Creek and Soper Creek Watersheds........................................................ 62 

Table 25. Regionally Rare Flora in the Study Area of the Wilmot Creek Watershed .................... 63 



Table 27. Forest Area-sensitive Species in the Study Area of the Wilmot Creek Watershed ....... 65 

Table 28. Rare Bird Species in the Study Area of the Wilmot Creek Watershed .......................... 67 

Table 29. Regionally Rare Flora in the Study Area of the Black Creek, Tooley Creek and 

Darlington Creek Watersheds........................................................................................ 69 



Table 31. Forest Area-sensitive Species in the Study Area of the Black Creek, Tooley 

Creek and Darlington Creek Watersheds...................................................................... 71 

Table 32. Rare Bird Species of the Study Area of the Black Creek, Tooley Creek and 

Darlington Creek Watersheds........................................................................................ 72 

Table 33. Summary of Vegetation Removals .............................................................................. 161 

Table 34. Interior Forest Habitat Removed.................................................................................. 162 

Table 35. Summary of EA Commitments .................................................................................... 166 

Appendices 

A. Natural Environment Impact Assessment Tables and Mapping 

B. Plant Species Lists 

C. Butternut Health Assessment 

D. Bird Species Lists 

E. Amphibian Species Lists 

F. Wildlife Passage Analysis 

G. Recommended Design Plans 


vi 


Ecoplans Limited



1. Introduction 

1.1 Study Overview 

The Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) in consultation with the Region of Durham, its 

constituents and surrounding municipalities, is undertaking an Individual Environmental 

Assessment (EA) Study to address the long-term transportation needs in the Region of Durham 

and surrounding area. The study supports the transportation objectives of the provincial Growth 

Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe by providing for the efficient movement of people and 

goods within the study area. A proposed extension of the 407 transportation corridor, consisting of 

a highway and transitway, has been recommended as part of a number of transportation 

improvements, as defined in an earlier phase of the Individual EA. 

A technically preferred route (TPR) for the transportation corridor was presented in June 2008. 

The preferred route extends from the current terminus at Brock Road in Pickering to Highway 

35/115 in Clarington and includes two north-south links connecting Highway 401 to the proposed 

extension of the 407 corridor, one in West Durham (Whitby) and the other in East Durham 

(Clarington). 

Since the release of the TPR, further analysis and preliminary design work has been undertaken to 

define the transportation corridor in greater detail, including additional route refinements and the 

location / size of support facilities for the corridor. In addition, ongoing studies and analysis have 

been undertaken to determine potential environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures 

and strategies. The Recommended Design for the proposed transportation corridor, including the 

two north-south links, was presented in January / February 2009. 

1.2 Report Overview 

In Summary, this report documents the Terrestrial Impact Assessment of the Recommended 

Design associated with the 407 East Environmental Assessment (EA). Readers are encouraged to 

view this report in its entirety. Similarly, it is recommended that all Impact Assessment Reports 

(discussed further below) are to be read in tandem with this report, to gain a full understanding of 

the discipline specific impact assessment work undertaken for the Recommended Design and the 

proposed mitigation and compensation measures. 

In the preceding Alternative Methods phase of the Study, a comparative evaluation of the shortlisted 

routes was carried out to determine a Technically Recommended Route (TRR) 1 . To 

determine the TRR, the potential environmental effects, mitigation or compensation measures to 

address the negative potential environmental effects, and the remaining net effects were identified. 

1. Ministry of Transportation, Final Draft, 407 East Environmental Assessment, Alternative Methods Report, August 2007. 

May, 2009 1 


Ecoplans Limited



Based on stakeholder input, further analysis and preliminary design work to define the preferred 

route in greater detail, including the location/size of support facilities for the corridor and to further 

avoid or mitigate environmental effects, the TRR was refined in a number of locations as part of 

determining the Technically Preferred Route (TPR). The footprint of the Recommended Design for 

the transportation corridor, including support facilities such as transitway stations, maintenance 

facilities and stormwater management ponds is illustrated in Figure A. 

The approved 407 East EA Terms of Reference (ToR) proposed that a concept design (including 

plan and profile) of the Recommended Design would be prepared so that the potential 

environmental effects and mitigation or compensation measures previously identified during the 

Alternative Methods phase, could be more accurately defined and include enhancement 

opportunities and approval requirements 2 . However, the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) has 

enhanced the design effort from Concept Design to Preliminary Design in order to further increase 

the level of detail for the Recommended Design and advance the overall project delivery schedule. 

The discipline specific work plans developed earlier in the 407 East EA, outlining how impacts 

associated with the Recommended Design would be assessed, were carried out within the context 

of Preliminary Design rather than Concept Design. The results from assessing the impacts are 

documented in the following 11 stand alone Impact Assessment Reports: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Terrestrial 

Fisheries 

Hydrogeology 

Landscape Composition 

Socio-Economic (including Land Use) 

Noise 

 

 

 

 

 

Air Quality 

Agricultural 

Waste Management and Contamination 

Archaeology 

Cultural Heritage 

Not withstanding the fact that the Impact Assessment Reports are individual, stand alone 

documents, there are interrelationships between the reports with information discussed overlaps 

with related disciplines. Examples of this include the following: 

2. Ministry of Transportation, 407 East Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference, As amended November 29, 2004. 



Ecoplans Limited



 

 

 

Terrestrial, Fisheries, and Hydrogeology 

Socio-Economic (including Land Use), Agricultural 

Hydrogeology and Waste Management and Contamination 

A Landscape Composition Impact Assessment Report has also been developed which utilizes and 

builds on the mitigation and compensation measures outlined within this report and within those 

reports prepared by other disciplines. The landscape composition report and plans have combined 

the mitigation recommendations of all disciplines to generate a landscape composition plan for the 

entire transportation corridor, please refer to that report for those plans. 

1.3 Natural Environment Study Team 

A Study Team consisting of Gartner Lee Limited and Ecoplans Limited staff undertook the natural 

environment impact assessment. The team members and their roles are identified below: 

Michael Roy ............... Senior Ecologist – Natural Environment Lead and Fisheries Advisor 

Dale Leadbeater ........ Senior Ecologist – Terrestrial Advisor and Quality Control 

Steve Usher ............... Senior Hydrogeologist – Hydrogeology Lead 

James Kamstra.......... Senior Terrestrial Ecologist 

Jennifer Paterson....... Biogeographer - Natural Environment Co-ordinator 

Jason Cole................. Hydrogeologist 

Dan Gibson................ Fisheries Assessment Specialist 

Rosalind Chaundy...... Terrestrial Ecologist 

Anne MacMillan ......... Senior Fisheries Biologist and Advisor 

Geoff Gartshore ......... Senior Ecologist 

Gillian Thompson....... Environmental Planner - Natural Environment Co-ordinator 

Jeff Gross................... Senior Ecologist - Terrestrial Advisor and Quality Control 

Kim LeBrun ............... Fisheries Biologist 

Rebecca Hay ............. Botanist 

Holly Anderson........... Avian Biologist 

Stephen Dinka ........... Terrestrial Ecologist 

Stacey Litwiller........... Fisheries Biologist 



Ecoplans Limited



Figure A. 

Transportation Corridor Footprint/Sections 



Ecoplans Limited



2. Study Area 

As illustrated in Figure A, the study area associated with the Recommended Design is composed 

of seven sections; five sections for the mainline and one section each for the West and East links. 

These seven sections reflect how the TRR was subdivided during the Alternative Methods phase. 

A description of the transportation corridor for each of these sections is provided below. 

Transitway stations are proposed at all interchange locations with the exception of Thickson Road 

on the mainline. 

West Mainline – Section 1 (Brock Road to Audley Road) 

The transportation corridor commences at Brock Road in Pickering and continues easterly to 

Audley Road crossing Highway 7 at Sideline 16 . It is compatible with the proposed Brock Road 

realignment east of the Village of Brougham and the proposed Westney Road realignment east of 

the Hamlet of Greenwood. Interchanges are located at Brock Road By-Pass, Westney Road and 

Salem Road, with a realignment of Highway 7 required in the vicinity of Sideline 16 to 

accommodate the Brock Road Interchange. A highway maintenance facility and a Commercial 

Vehicle Inspection Facility (CVIF) are also proposed at Salem Road. 

West Mainline – Section 2 (Audley Road to Ashburn Road) 

Continuing easterly from Audley Road, the transportation corridor crosses to the south of Highway 

7 between Cochrane Street and Ashburn Road in Whitby. The corridor remains to the south of 

Brooklin and continues east past Baldwin Street. Interchanges are proposed at Lake Ridge Road 

and Baldwin Street and a freeway to freeway interchange is proposed just east of Lake Ridge 

Road to accommodate moves between the mainline and the West Durham Link. A transitway 

maintenance facility is also proposed at Lake Ridge Road. 

Central Mainline – Section 3 (Ashburn Road to Simcoe Street) 

From the Baldwin Street interchange, the transportation corridor heads directly east to Thickson 

Road and then northeast crossing Winchester Road in the vicinity of Thornton Road in Oshawa . 

Interchanges are proposed at Baldwin Street, Thickson Road and Simcoe Street. 

Central Mainline – Section 4 (Simcoe Street to Enfield Road) 

From Simcoe Street, the route continues easterly paralleling the hydro corridor north of Winchester 

Road. East of Harmony Road, the transportation corridor crosses the hydro corridor and heads in a 

southeasterly direction to Enfield Road in Clarington. Interchanges are proposed at Simcoe Street, 

Harmony Road, and Enfield Road within this section. A transitway maintenance facility is also 

proposed at Simcoe Street. 

East Mainline – Section 5 (Enfield Road to Highway 35/115) 

From Enfield Road, the transportation corridor continues to the east, remaining south of 

Winchester Road until Nixon Road, at which point the corridor heads north to connect with 



Ecoplans Limited



Highway 35/115. Local road realignments will be required for Winchester Road at Regional Road 

57 as well as Winchester Road at Darlington-Clarke Townline Road. Interchanges are proposed at 

Regional Road 57, Darlington-Clarke Townline Road and Highway 35/115. A freeway to freeway 

interchange is proposed just east of Solina Road to accommodate moves between the mainline 

and the East Durham Link. A highway maintenance facility is proposed at Regional Road 57 and a 

CVIF is proposed at Bethesda Road. 

West Durham Link – Section 6 

Commencing at Highway 401, the West Durham Link runs north east of Lake Ridge Road in 

Whitby. A realignment of Coronation Road is proposed from Dundas Street to Taunton Road. Full 

interchanges are proposed at Rossland Road and Taunton Road. Partial interchanges are 

proposed at Dundas Street and Highway 7. A freeway to freeway interchange is proposed to 

accommodate moves between Highway 401 and the West Durham Link, just east of Lake Ridge 

Road. Two CVIF lay-bys are also proposed north of Taunton Road. 

East Durham Link – Section 7 

Commencing at Highway 401, the East Durham Link runs to the west of Solina Road to Nash Road 

in Clarington, where it then crosses Solina Road, running parallel to Rundle Road on the west 

sideError! Reference source not found.. Realignments of Hancock Road at Highway 2 and of 

Rundle Road just south of Taunton Road are required. A full interchange is proposed Highway 2 

and a partial interchange is proposed at Taunton Road. A freeway to freeway interchange is 

proposed to accommodate moves between Highway 401 and the East Durham Link east of 

Courtice Road. A CVIF lay-by is also proposed just north of Bloor Street. 

The Recommended Design Plans for the seven sections are provided in Appendix G. 

While the Study Area is defined broadly as the Recommended Design (as described above), 

discipline-specific study areas were defined in accordance with the Ministry of Transportation 

Environmental Reference (ERD) for Highway Design (October 2006). Section 3.2.1 of the ERD 

defines the Study Area for the purposes of investigating the potential impacts of the project on all 

terrestrial ecosystems as within the proposed ROW and adjacent lands for 120 m unless a 

sensitive receptor greater than the distance of 120 m is likely to be adversely affected. 

The Study Area for the landscape connectivity and wildlife linkage analysis extends beyond the 

Recommended Design and the 120 m adjacent lands, to enable a regional assessment of habitat 

nodes and key linkages within southern Durham. 



Ecoplans Limited



3. Methodology 

The methodology chapter provides an overview of the approach taken to advance from the route 

planning/evaluation (Alternative Methods) to the assessment of impacts associated with the 

Preliminary Design of the transportation corridor (highway, transitway and ancillary facilities). 

Specific technical methodology associated with the field investigations and analyses are provided 

in Chapter 4. 

During the route planning/evaluation (Alternative Methods) stage, the overall objective of the 

terrestrial ecosystems planning work was to ensure that terrestrial features, and particularly 

significant and sensitive features, were comprehensively identified and integrated during 

development and evaluation of alternatives to select the TRR. The terrestrial ecosystem-related 

objective during the generation of alternatives was to ensure that alternatives avoided or minimized 

impacts to terrestrial features, and particularly sensitive and high quality features, to the extent 

possible while still meeting the technical planning design objectives and requirements. 

The evaluation of routes (Alternative Methods) and the preliminary determination of net effects 

associated with the various route alternatives is documented in the Alternative Methods Technical 

Report (Natural Environment, August 2007). The natural environmental background and field 

information that supported route planning/evaluation (Alternative Methods) is documented in the 

407 East Environmental Assessment Natural Environment Field Investigations Report (March 

2008) (Figure B). 

Once the TRR was selected, the key objective of the terrestrial ecosystem work during Preliminary 

Design (including developing and evaluating design refinements and alternatives) was to augment 

the existing information base along the Recommended Design to a level of detail so that a 

comprehensive impact assessment and appropriate preliminary mitigation measures could be 

developed. 

Prior to conducting 2008 field surveys; the existing terrestrial ecosystems background information, 

previous field surveys and analysis compiled during route planning/evaluation (Alternative 

Methods) and summarized 407 East Environmental Assessment Natural Environment Field 

Investigations Report (March 2008) were reviewed with MTO and agency staff to identify 

sensitivities, issues and key areas of concern along the Recommended Design of the 

transportation corridor. The database was updated with new agency input. 

Field investigations were completed to ensure the database was sufficiently detailed to finalize the 

sensitivities analysis and support the Preliminary Design process, impact assessment and 

development of mitigation measures. An appropriate area of field investigation was identified 

along the transportation corridor and field surveys were conducted. The field data collection 

incorporated terrestrial ecosystem parameters outlined in the Environmental Reference for 

Highway Design (ERD), (MTO, 2006) as well as any additional site specific parameters of 



Ecoplans Limited



Figure B. 

Roadmap 

EA Schedule / Phase 

Previously Prepared Reports 



Ecoplans Limited



interest, scoped in accordance with the available database and understanding of existing terrestrial 

ecosystem conditions. As noted above, in Chapter 2, the area of investigation for terrestrial 

surveys encompassed the ROW for the Recommended Design and adjacent lands for 120 m 

unless a sensitive receptor greater than the distance of 120 m is likely to be adversely affected. 

The Study Area for the landscape connectivity and wildlife linkage analysis extends beyond the 

transportation corridor and the 120 m adjacent lands, to enable a regional assessment of habitat 

nodes and key linkages within southern Durham Region. 

Any specific concerns and potential issues raised by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), 

Toronto Region Conservation (TRCA), Central Lake Ontario Region Conservation (CLOCA), 

Ganaraska Region Conservation (GRCA), Environment Canada (EC) and Fisheries and Oceans 

Canada (DFO) staff and other interested reviewers were also considered and incorporated into the 

field surveys where feasible. Furthermore, all relevant watershed management plans and fisheries 

management plans/resource studies continued to be used to inform the impact assessment and 

particularly the identification of enhancement opportunities. Specifically, the following CA/MNR 

plans were employed: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Watershed Plan for Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek. Toronto and Region 

Conservation 2003. 

Fisheries Management Plan for Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek. Toronto and 

Region Conservation 2004. 

Lynde Creek Aquatic Resource Management Plan. Central Lake Ontario Conservation 

Authority 2006. 

Lynde Creek Watershed Existing Conditions Report – Draft. Central Lake Ontario 

Conservation Authority 2007. 

Oshawa Creek Watershed Aquatic Resource Management Plan. Central Lake Ontario 

Conservation Authority 2002a. 

Oshawa Creek Watershed Management Plan. Central Lake Ontario Conservation 

Authority 2002b. 

Harmony Creek Subwatershed Plan Study: Final Report. Aquafor Beech Limited 2001. 

 

 

 

Central Lake Ontario Fisheries Management Plan. Draft July 2007. Central Lake 

Ontario Conservation, Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Ontario Ministry of 

Natural Resources 

Bowmanville/Soper Creek Watershed Aquatic Resource Management Plan. Central 

Lake Ontario Conservation Authority, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 

Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 2000 

Wilmot Creek Fisheries Management Plan. Draft January 2007. Ganaraska Region 

Conservation, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Department of Fisheries and 

Oceans 



Ecoplans Limited



The route planning/evaluation stage placed a priority on avoidance of the highest quality 

vegetation/habitat areas based on a characterization of woodland, wetland and other vegetation 

and wildlife habitat features. In the local and regional setting, updated terrestrial ecosystem 

information was collected along/near the TRR during the Preliminary Design stage with a view to 

assessing potential impacts of the construction and operation of the transportation corridor and all 

associated works. Implications of the specific siting and alignment of the various valley crossings, 

as well as the interchange footprints, all associated highway facilities, and associated 

municipal/regional road works (realignments, decommissioning) were specifically considered in 

relation to the vegetation and habitat present along/near the transportation corridor. 

All of the field information was analyzed to refine the identified sensitivities, significance and 

potential issues, constraints and opportunities of terrestrial habitat features along the transportation 

corridor. Functional sensitivities such as wildlife movement in relation to anticipated valley 

crossings was an important component of the analysis of sensitivities, as was the presence or 

potential for critical habitat, sensitive species or Species at Risk near the transportation corridor. A 

key part of this process was integrating the sensitivities analysis with the groundwater specialists, 

as well as with the aquatic biologists and design engineers to ensure a comprehensive 

understanding of the inter-relationships and dependencies critical to supporting key terrestrial 

habitat elements. 

A complete understanding of the sensitivities and inter-relationships was essential to developing 

appropriate design and construction measures to mitigate potential impacts. Hydrologic, 

hydrogeologic/groundwater and geotechnical (organics, sandy, silty soils) conditions influence 

terrestrial habitat features and functions. This information was integrated into the terrestrial 

inventory and analysis to ensure potential sensitivities such as groundwater discharge, organics 

and potentially erodible soils or unstable slopes were understood in relation to wetland, riparian 

and upland habitat functions, as well as potential impacts. Potential impacts identified in the 

Hydrogeology Impact Assessment of the Recommended Design (May 2009) were also reviewed 

and considered in the context of potential associated effects on groundwater dependant and 

sensitive vegetation communities and habitats. 

The terrestrial habitat analysis refined the specific attribute and functional sensitivities and relative 

ranking developed during the route planning/evaluation (Alternative Methods) stage. The analysis, 

outlined in Chapter 4.2.4, continues to consider the significance of the attributes of vegetation 

features and sensitivity of the habitat functions. An overview of the key terrestrial ecosystem 

elements potentially affected by the Recommended Design are summarized in Chapter 5. 

The project biologists worked closely with the engineers to ensure an understanding of terrestrial 

ecosystem features and function was integrated into the Preliminary Design. For example, during 

the valley crossing siting and design phase, ecologists identified wildlife movement 

opportunities/corridors to ensure that ecological restoration and wildlife passage was provided at 

required locations such as rivers, creeks, valleys. 



Ecoplans Limited



The specific impacts of the proposed transportation corridor construction and associated activities 

were assessed in accordance with the ERD and considered all potentially relevant condition 

changes in relation to the transportation corridor construction and all associated works (Chapter 

6). The magnitude and duration of the impacts, as well as the ability to mitigate potential impacts 

of the transportation corridor project was assessed in specific consideration of the significance and 

sensitivity of the feature/habitat. 

The full range of direct/footprint impacts, as well as potential indirect impacts, was assessed. The 

range of impacts built upon the criteria developed to evaluate the relative impacts of the alternative 

routes during the route planning/evaluation (Alternative Methods) phase. A key part of the work 

was to identify terrestrial functions that may be affected by site access, staging, transportation 

corridor construction, any decommissioning work, and highway maintenance. Following this, 

ecologists identified the nature of anticipated terrestrial effects such as fragmentation, area 

removal, hydrological, loss or change of key functions, etc. 

The nature of anticipated woodland/forest effects such as fragmentation, area removal, loss of 

interior habitat, hydrogeological, loss or change of key functions (e.g., breeding, migratory staging), 

edge effects and corridor interruption, was initially assessed based on the detailed information 

gathered during the planning phase. This information was supplemented by the 2008 field review 

of vegetation features affected or potentially affected by the Recommended Design. 

The process of developing and integrating mitigation measures was conducted in a progressive 

and iterative manner as the project proceeded through route planning and Preliminary Design. All 

reasonable opportunities to avoid or minimize impacts to terrestrial features were identified and 

incorporated as feasible and appropriate, based on the character and sensitivities of the potentially 

affected features and associated habitat. 

A full suite of standard vegetation, wetland and wildlife mitigation measures are outlined in Chapter 

6.1.3. Site specific and more ‘tailored’ measures have been identified for aspects such as forest 

and wetland edge management, wetland and topsoil seedbank salvage, restoration/enhancement 

opportunities, salvage of significant plants (where warranted), wildlife passage, salt spray 

mitigation, and Butternut management (Chapter 6.1.4). 

Following this confirmation exercise, monitoring associated with the identified net effects was 

identified (see Chapter 7) as were any additional approvals required as part of implementing the 

Recommended Design (see Chapter 8). 



Ecoplans Limited



4. Additional Field Investigations 

This chapter outlines the specific field investigations and analyses undertaken in 2007 and 2008 to 

augment the information gathered previously during the planning phase and reported in the 407 

East Environmental Assessment Natural Environment Field Investigations Report (March 2008) for 

the 407 East Preliminary Design. 

4.1 Vegetation 

Field investigations were conducted in August and November 2007 and May, July to August, and 

October 2008 to augment and refine the vegetation field data collected in 2003 and 2006 which is 

presented in the 407 East Environmental Assessment Natural Environment Field Investigations 

Report (March 2008). The purpose of the 2007/2008 field season was to revisit vegetation units 

within 120m of the TRR where landowner permission was granted in order to collect additional 

information to assess the potential effects of the 407 transportation corridor on these features. The 

scope of the field work and analysis included the following activities: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Verifying previous classifications for vegetation communities, using the Ecological Land 

Classification (ELC) System for Southern Ontario (Lee et al. 1998). (ELC data sheets 

are on file at Gartner Lee and Ecoplans). 

Evaluating the sensitivity and significance of vegetation communities, using the Natural 

Heritage Resources of Ontario: Vegetation Communities of Southern Ontario 

(Bakowsky 1996; NHIC 2006). 

Evaluating significance and sensitivity of flora recorded during field surveys at three 

scales: regional (Durham), provincial and national. The NHIC website (2006) was used 

for provincial and national significance, and Varga et al. (2000) was used for regional 

significance. Locations of Plant Species At Risk were noted during field surveys. 

Augmenting the vascular plant species list presented in the 407 East Environmental 

Assessment Natural Environment Field Investigations Report (March 2008). 

Verifying the units identified as high quality in the 407 East Environmental Assessment 

Natural Environment Field Investigations Report (March 2008) based on woodlot 

maturity (mature and old growth), level of disturbance (relatively little anthropogenic 

disturbance) and uniqueness of community. 

Assessing the sensitivity to potential indirect impacts in vegetation features to be 

retained adjacent to the ROW by noting the proximity of sensitive features to ROW and 

potential for mitigation. Examples of sensitive features include high quality valley 

habitat at new crossing locations, rare species, groundwater seepage areas, wetlands. 

Completing a Butternut Health Assessment of all Butternuts within approximately 120 m 

of the TRR. This assessment followed the approach outlined in Butternut Health 

Assessment in Ontario: Finding Retainable Trees (Forest Gene Conservation 



Ecoplans Limited



Association 2008) and in Butternut – Strategies for Managing a Threatened Tree (Ostry 

et al. 1994). Where health assessments were completed, the data was analyzed to 

identify which Butternut trees would be considered ‘retainable’ using the “70-20-50” rule 

provided in Butternut – Strategies for Managing a Threatened Tree (Ostry et al. 1994) 

which is excerpted here: 

 

 

“Retain all trees with more that 70 percent live crown and less than 20 percent of the 

combined circumference of the bole and root flares affected by cankers. 

Retain all trees with at least 50 percent live crown and no cankers on the bole or 

root flares.” 

The “70-20-50 rule” (also referred to as the “Ostry guideline”) is the accepted assessment 

protocol of the Ministry of Natural Resources (pers comm. Bohdan Kowalyk, Ministry of 

Natural Resources, 2008). Due to the recent changes to Ontario’s Endangered Species 

Act (ESA) and a subsequent regulation (O. Reg. 242/08) which identifies exemptions to the 

ESA that apply to specific species including Butternut, the assessment of Butternut health 

as it pertains to the ESA is relatively new and MNR direction and guidelines are still under 

development. There is currently some uncertainty on how to apply the Ostry guideline; 

specifically, how to interpret “less than 20 percent of the combined circumference of the 

bole and root flares affected by cankers”. The Study Team interpreted this statement as 

follows: 

Add the widths of all cankers on the bole and root flare and divide that total by the 

circumference of the tree at breast height. This approach was confirmed with Michael Ostry 

of the United States Department of Agriculture who is one of the authors of the 70-20-50 

Rule (pers comm. 2009). However, only the cankers on the bole were included in the 

analysis, because cankers on the root flare can be due to diseases other than Butternut 

Canker and this analysis was based on the information originally requested by the MNR 

(i.e., percent canker of bole circumference). 

Due to the evolving nature of the application of health assessment in Ontario, it is 

anticipated that the conclusions made in this Impact Assessment Report regarding which 

Butternuts are considered retainable will change during subsequent design stages. This is 

a result of anticipated clarification on how to apply the “70-20-50 rule” for the purposes of 

the ESA and field confirmation of the assessments by the MNR. 

 

Taking representative site photographs (on file at Ecoplans and Gartner Lee). 

Vegetation community polygons, delineated by Study Team, are shown on Figures 1-15 in 

Appendix A. 



Ecoplans Limited



4.2 Wildlife 

4.2.1 Winter Resident and Spring Migrant Birds 

Winter resident and spring migrant bird surveys were conducted within the Study Area and 

immediately surrounding lands in winter and spring of 2008 to augment information gathered 

during previous breeding bird surveys conducted in 2003, 2006 and 2007. 

Vegetation units to be surveyed were selected by a review of aerial photos in combination with 

information collected during previous field surveys based on habitat attributes and representation 

(i.e., vegetation community health, interior forest, rare species presence, potential wildlife corridor 

etc.). These surveys were conducted by qualified, experienced staff under appropriate conditions. 

Incidental wildlife observations were recorded during these surveys. 

Wildlife species status was evaluated using TRCA (2004) (L-rank) (used only in the Duffins and 

Carruthers Watersheds); and Durham Region (Henshaw 1993) for regional significance; the 

Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC 2009) website for Provincial significance; and the 

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC 2009) website for Federal 

(National) significance. Species of Conservation Concern include federally G-ranked species (G1- 

G3), provincially S-ranked species (S1-S3) and/or species designated by COSEWIC or the 

Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO) or species considered of 

conservation concern in Toronto or Durham Region (TRCA, 2004; Henshaw 1993). Area-sensitive 

birds were identified based on the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) Significant Wildlife Habitat 

Technical Guide (SWHTG) (MNR 2000). 

4.2.2 Blanding’s Turtle Habitat Investigations 

A record of Blanding’s Turtle, a Species at Risk (SAR) was reported by a local resident and 

included in the 407 East Environmental Assessment Natural Environment Field Investigations 

Report (March 2008). Since the completion and release of the Field Investigations Report, followup 

field-visits were conducted to the property where the Blanding’s Turtle was reported. 

A terrestrial ecologist and fisheries assessment specialists from the Natural Environment Study 

Team visited the property on September 25, 2008 to assess the habitat within and surrounding the 

pond. This field visit included vegetation surveys (Ecological Land Classification), pond depth 

measurements and description of habitat characteristics. A subsequent site visit was conducted 

November 7, 2008, attended by a Study Team herpetologist and an Ecologist from MNR (Aurora 

District) to further assess the suitability of the property as Blanding’s Turtle habitat. 



Ecoplans Limited



4.2.3 Wildlife Passage Analysis 

During the 407 East EA Route Planning Phase, a landscape connectivity and wildlife linkage 

analysis was undertaken. As reported in the Natural Environment Field Investigations Report 

(March 2008), this initial analysis was based on the following: 

 

 

 

 

 

Gartner Lee Limited and Ecoplans Limited wildlife, habitat and vegetation field surveys 

(2003, 2006 and 2007); 

A review of applicable subwatershed studies and other background natural heritage 

studies (including TRCA’s Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy); 

Review of municipal land use mapping to determine anticipated build out areas (for 

example, existing and future subdivisions) and to identify natural resource features that 

are anticipated to be retained and protected over the long term (such as Open Space 

Areas, Greenbelt areas, other designated natural areas); 

Review of current aerial photography; and 

Input provided by agency staff, the public and the Toronto Zoo Ontario Road Ecology 

Group during the course of the study. 

The wildlife movement and linkage analysis undertaken by the Study Team as part of the 

Preliminary Design process builds on the previous landscape level assessment and examines, in 

more detail, regional and local linkages. This analysis was also conducted in parallel with the 

drainage design process and culvert/structure assessment, with the objective of providing specific 

recommendations for the watercourse crossings and associated transportation corridor design to 

address specific wildlife movement functions, as warranted. 

The analysis also considers the following key principles in designing for highway permeability 

based on discussions with other researchers, attendance at international and local (Toronto Zoo) 

symposia, review of the literature (including those listed in Appendix F and EMS Inc. 2007; 

Doddet al. 2004; Mata et al. 2005; Clevenger and Waltho 2005; Gagnon et al. 2005; 

Massachusetts River and Stream Crossing Standards 2006; Donaldson 2006; Little et al. 2002; 

Bissonette and Hammer 2000), remote camera monitoring (Ecoplans Limited 2006a; 2007), and 

professional judgement. 

The potential for north-south wildlife movement along the 407 transportation corridor mainline, and 

east-west movement along the West Durham Link and the East Durham Link was assessed. 

Opportunities to maintain existing linkages were identified based on the following key factors: 

 

The specific nature and potential connectivity of terrestrial and aquatic habitats on either 

side of the transportation corridor (considering patch size, vegetation communities, 

anthropogenic or other disturbance, habitat quality and wildlife abundance/diversity 

based on breeding bird/amphibian surveys). All of these factors have been described in 

the 407 East Environmental Assessment Natural Environment Field Investigations 

Report (March 2008); 



Ecoplans Limited



 

 

 

 

 

The landscape character and potential existing wildlife movement patterns, including 

assessment of areas where discrete or linear habitats such as defined watercourses or 

wetlands, or defined topographic features cross the transportation corridor and provide 

potential linkages to larger habitat nodes beyond the transportation corridor ROW; 

Observations/records of Species at Risk (SAR) or species of conservation concern, or, 

taking into account the generally limited database, presence of high potential habitat for 

SAR; 

Known or potential areas of specialized wildlife habitat such as potential deer winter 

habitat areas, amphibian/reptile breeding ponds, forest areas with interior habitat and/or 

seepage habitats that were associated with or likely areas for wildlife movement across 

the landscape; 

Any other features that might restrict or discourage movement of wildlife, including 

urban development or other cultural landscape changes or features that might 

otherwise funnel or direct animal movement; and 

Greenbelt Plan and land use designations from municipal/regional Official Plans to 

confirm future urban growth areas and green space to determine where existing 

linkages are expected to persist over the long term or may be impacted by future land 

use changes. 

As a separate exercise, the Ontario Road Ecology Group developed an independent GIS-based 

model to indicate potential herpetofauna mortality hotspots along the 407 transportation corridor. 

This model prioritized drainage sites that connect natural wetland-forest habitat on either side of 

the transportation corridor. The model output was shared with the 407 Study Team and served to 

support and corroborate the Study Team’s analysis and ecopassage system recommendations. 

4.2.4 Habitat Sensitivity 

The findings of the 2007 and 2008 faunal and floral inventories were integrated with the work 

carried out during route planning/evaluation (Alternative Methods) and used to refine our 

understanding of the habitat quality present along the transportation corridor, relative to the other 

units in the Study Area. As outlined in the 407 East Environmental Assessment Natural 

Environment Field Investigations Report (March 2008), the habitat quality descriptions are a 

qualitative assessment developed by the Study Team based on consideration of the following 

factors; some of which are based on the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) Significant Wildlife 

Habitat Technical Guide (SWHTG) (MNR 2000): 

 

 

 

 

 

breeding bird species richness / diversity; 

habitat diversity; 

species of conservation concern; 

significant habitat types; 

presence of specialized wildlife habitat (e.g., groundwater seepage, sedge meadows, 

open water, alvar, etc.); 



Ecoplans Limited



 

 

 

 

 

amphibian breeding habitat; 

level of anthropogenic disturbance; 

community maturity; 

habitat block size (including potential for forest ‘interior’ species); and 

habitat continuity and/or proximity to other natural areas. 

These factors were used to better describe and assess habitat including specialized or sensitive 

wildlife habitat (SSWH). Within the Detailed Descriptions of the Environment Potentially Affected 

(Chapter 5), tables have been prepared for each watershed/route section that describe the 

specialized or sensitive wildlife habitat features, referencing the Vegetation Unit where they were 

identified. 



Ecoplans Limited



5. Detailed Description of the Environment Potentially 

Affected 

This chapter provides an overview of the key terrestrial ecosystem (vegetation and wildlife) 

elements potentially affected by the Recommended Design of the transportation corridor. This 

chapter should be read in conjunction with the impact assessment tables and mapping provided in 

Appendix A that have been prepared to support this chapter and Chapter 6 (Potential Effects and 

Mitigation) and are referenced throughout these chapters. A glossary of terms is provided in 

Chapter 11. 

Impact Assessment Mapping 

The 15 figures in Appendix A cover the transportation corridor from west (Brock Road) to east 

(Highway 35/115), including the West Durham Link and East Durham Link. Each figure depicts 

three windows of information, each covering the same geographic extent. The topmost window 

shows the surficial geology, the existing topographic profile and the proposed transportation 

corridor profile (shown as a red line). 

The middle window displays orthophotography and the transportation corridor preliminary design 

plans, overlaid with the results of the vegetation community assessment [Ecological Land 

Classification (ELC)]. In order to spatially reference the vegetation units referenced throughout this 

chapter, vegetation units are labelled with a Vegetation Unit identification code. 

The bottom window depicts the results of the forest habitat analysis, locations of rare species (flora 

and fauna), and any designated areas [Environmentally Significant/Sensitive Areas (ESA)] overlaid 

with the orthophotography and the transportation corridor preliminary design plans. Watercourse 

crossings have been labelled with identification codes that are referenced throughout this report 

and the Aquatic Impact Assessment of the Recommended Design. 

Impact Assessment Tables 

The impact assessment tables have been prepared to provide a detailed description of the 

environment potentially affected, anticipated effects and mitigation measures. This information is 

reported by Vegetation Unit, which can be cross-referenced with the mapping described above. 

The first four columns provide an overview of existing conditions of natural areas within or adjacent 

to the transportation corridor. The remaining columns, referenced primarily in Chapter 6, describe 

information and considerations specific to the transportation corridor. 



Ecoplans Limited



5.1 East Duffins Creek Watershed (Refer to Figure 1 in Appendix A) 

5.1.1 Vegetation 

5.1.1.1 General Overview 

This section of the transportation corridor crosses approximately 5.9 km of the East Duffins Creek 

Watershed (Figure 1 in Appendix A). The majority of the vegetation features delineated by the 

Study Team in this watershed are found along watercourses and on valley slopes that generally 

extend in a north to south direction. Groundwater seepage was more common along the 

transportation corridor in this watershed than in any other watershed along the west half of the 

transportation corridor. The tablelands between these watercourses have largely been converted 

to agriculture with scattered rural residential development. There are 2 natural area designations 

within the vicinity of the transportation corridor and both are along portions of the East Duffins 

Creek Valley. The Byer-Saddler Area Environmentally 

Significant Area (ESA) is north of the transportation 

corridor and encompasses the East Duffins Creek valley 

from Seventh Concession to approximately 200 m north of 

the transportation corridor. The Duffins Creek Valley 

Regional Life Science ANSI is along the valley from 

Highway 7 north to 8 th Concession (approximately 3 km 

north of the transportation corridor) and is crossed by the 

transportation corridor. All vegetation communities within 

120 m of the transportation corridor are provincially 

common (Bakowsky 1996). 

Black Ash Swamp (WPAD-1b) in the East 

Duffins Creek Valley (Ecoplans) 

High quality units were determined on the basis of woodlot maturity (mature and old growth), level of 

disturbance (relatively little anthropogenic disturbance) and uniqueness of community. There are 2 

units within this section that were identified as high quality (These units are mapped on Figure 1): 

 

 

Units WPAD-1 and WPAD-2 comprise the forested valley along East Duffins Creek 

(north of Highway 7 and east of Paddock Road). This valley is this highest quality 

feature crossed by the transportation corridor in the west half of the Study Area. It 

includes a mosaic of upland and wetland units with some very high quality areas. 

Portions of this unit have a mature tree component, large well-rotted woody debris, 

abundant groundwater seepage (especially north of the transportation corridor in 

WPAD-2d), interior forest, and invasive and non-native species are primarily limited to 

the forest edge and areas south of the transportation corridor where the valley is more 

disturbed. 

Unit C5S16-1 is a large coniferous forest unit south of Highway 7 and east of Sideline 

16. It contains a high quality groundwater seepage area (C5S16-1b) with a high 

diversity of obligate wetland species and contains a cluster of approximately 20 mature 

Red Oak (~50 cm dbh) in the south half of C5S16-1c. This forest is also large enough 

to support interior habitat. 



Ecoplans Limited



Other units of note include those that were ranked as moderate to high quality: 

 

 

 

 

Unit C5BR-2 (north of Highway 7 and east of Brock Road) which is a small (1.1 ha) 

deciduous forest surrounded by agriculture and has relatively low flora diversity but 

contains a high proportion of Butternut trees (Endangered species). 

Unit WS16-1 (north of Highway 7 and east of Sideline 16) is a small (1.5 ha) coniferous 

swamp with abundant groundwater seepage. It is of similar floral composition to the 

coniferous swamp to the south of Highway 7 (C5S16-1b) but is smaller and more 

disturbed along its northern edge due to movement of fill. 

Unit WS14-9b (north of Highway 7 and east of Sideline 14) contains abundant 

groundwater seepage on a slope along the west edge of this unit. This area is 

dominated by a diversity of wetland dependent flora. 

Unit WS14-5 (north of Highway 7 and west of Paddock Road) is a mid-aged to mature 

coniferous forest with abundant groundwater seepage along the base of a steep slope. 

The remaining vegetation communities range from low to 

moderate quality due to human disturbance. 

5.1.1.2 Flora 

During field investigations, 224 plant species were identified 

within the Study Area of the East Duffins Creek watershed 

and 18 additional plants were identified to genus. Of these 

species, 59 are non-native (26%). The relatively high 

percentage of invasive species is typical of disturbed habitats. 

The vascular plant list is provided in Appendix B. 

5.1.1.3 Rare Species 

Species at Risk 

26 Butternuts (including saplings) were recorded within the 

East Duffins Creek Watershed, within or adjacent to the 

transportation corridor (C5BR-2, C5BR-6a, C5S16-1c, and 

WS14-5). This tree species is designated provincially and 

nationally as Endangered and is protected under Ontario’s 

Endangered Species Act. The trees range in size from 4 to 

Butternut tree with Butternut Canker (dark 

patches) on the trunk and root flare 

(Ecoplans) 

80 cm dbh. The majority of Butternuts showed signs of Butternut Canker to varying degrees. 6 

Butternuts were considered ‘retainable’ (per Ostry 70-20-50 guideline). The results of the Butternut 

Health Assessment are provided in Appendix C. 

Provincially Rare 

Field investigations in support of the impact assessment identified 1 provincially rare flora species. 

Provincially rare species are those ranked as S1-S3 according to the Natural Heritage Information 



Ecoplans Limited



Centre (NHIC). Butternut is ranked “S3?” meaning that it is considered “vulnerable”, however the 

“?” indicates the rank is uncertain. Butternut is discussed further above. 

Regionally Rare 

There were 5 regionally rare species identified within the Study Area of the East Duffins Creek 

Watershed and are listed in Table 1 below. Regionally rare species are those designated as “Rare” 

by Varga (2000). 

Table 1. 

Regionally Rare Flora in the Study Area of the East Duffins Creek 

Watershed 

Common Name Scientific Name Location 

Flora 

Canada Horse-balm Collinsonia canadensis Recorded in WPAD-2 

Shining Ladies’-tresses Spiranthes lucida Recorded in C5S16-1 

Virginia Stickseed Hackelia virginiana Recorded in WPAD-2 

Pale Jewel-weed Impatiens pallida Recorded in WPAD-1 

Wild Geranium Geranium maculatum Recorded in WS16-2 

Locally Rare 

There were 29 locally rare plant species within the Study Area of the East Duffins Creek 

Watershed and are listed in Table 2 below. Locally rare species are those ranked as L1, L2 and 

L3 by TRCA. 

Table 2. 

Locally Rare Flora in the Study Area of the East Duffins Creek 

Watershed 

Flora 

Common Name Scientific Name LRank Location 

Red Pine Pinus resinosa L1 Recorded in WPAD-2, WWES-1 and 

WWES-2 This species was planted in 

all of these locations. 

Shining Ladies’-tresses Spiranthes lucida L1 Recorded in C5S16-1 

Blue Cohosh Caulophyllum thalictroides L2 Recorded in WPAD-1 and WPAD-2 

Canada Horse-balm Collinsonia canadensis L2 Recorded in WPAD-2 

Goldthread Coptis trifolia ssp groenlandica L2 Recorded in WPAD-2 

Purple Avens Geum rivale L2 Recorded in WS14-9 

Cinnamon Fern Osmunda cinnamomea L2 Recorded in WPAD-2 

Royal Fern Osmunda regalis var spectabilis L2 Recorded in WS14-5 

Highbush Cranberry Viburnum trilobum L2 Recorded in C5BR-3 WPAD-2 and 

WS14-9 

Balsam Fir Abies balsamea L3 Recorded in WS14-5 

Wild Leek Allium tricoccum L3 Recorded in WPAD-2 

American Spikenard Aralia racemosa ssp racemosa L3 Recorded in C5S16-1 and WS14-5 

Bulb-bearing Water-hemlock Cicuta bulbifera L3 Recorded in WS14-8 



Ecoplans Limited



Table 2. 

Locally Rare Flora in the Study Area of the East Duffins Creek 

Watershed 

Flora 


Crested Wood Fern Dryopteris cristata L3 Recorded in C5S16-1, WPAD-1 and 

WS14-5 

Meadow Horsetail Equisetum pratense L3 Recorded in WS14-9 

Dwarf Scouring Rush Equisetum scirpoides L3 Recorded in C5BR-3, C5S16-3 and 

WPAD-2 

Oak Fern Gymnocarpium dryopteris L3 Recorded in C5S16-1 and WS16-1 

American Water-pennywort Hydrocotyle americana L3 Recorded in C5S16-1 

Blueflag Iris versicolor L3 Recorded in WS14-8 

Butternut Juglans cinerea L3 Recorded in C5BR-2, C5BR-6a, 

C5S16-1c, and WS14-5 

American Larch Larix laricina L3 Recorded in WPAD-2 and WS14-5 

Great Blue Lobelia Lobelia siphilitica L3 Recorded in C5BR-1 C5BR-3, C5S16- 

1, WPAD-2, WS14-9 and WS16-1 

Naked Bishop’s-cap Mitella nuda L3 Recorded in WS14-5 

White Spruce Picea glauca L3 Recorded in C5BR-1, C5BR-6, WPAD- 

2, WS14-1, WS14-8 and WWES-3 

Downy Solomon’s Seal Polygonatum pubescens L3 Recorded in WPAD-1 and WS16-2 

Meadow Willow Salix petiolaris L3 Recorded in WPAD-2, WS14-5 and 

WS16-1 

Canadian Yew Taxus canadensis L3 Recorded in WPAD-2 

White Trillium Trillium grandiflorum L3 Recorded in C5S16-1 and WPAD-2 

Marsh Blue Violet Viola cucullata L3 Recorded in C5S16-1 

5.1.2 Wildlife 


The transportation corridor crosses a portion of the East Duffins Creek watershed that includes the 

hamlets of Brougham and Greenwood and surrounding rural residential, commercial, and 

agricultural land uses. As such, much of the natural vegetation cover was historically cleared for 

agriculture. 

The most prominent remaining natural habitat features along the transportation corridor are: 

 

The forested valley along East Duffins Creek (WPAD-1 and WPAD-2) that is comprised 

of a mosaic of upland and wetland units with some very high quality areas and a mature 

tree component. This large valley supports a greater number of wildlife species or 

more specialized habitat given the higher wildlife habitat quality and diversity associated 

with the terrain features. 



Ecoplans Limited



 

 

A larger coniferous forest (C5S16-1) abutting the south side of the transportation 

corridor east of the realigned Brock Road along a Brougham Creek tributary. This unit 

contains a high quality groundwater seepage area (especially in the northwest corner of 

C5S16-1b) with a high diversity of obligate wetland species. 

The broad valley of Spring Creek and its associated cultural meadow, meadow marsh 

and thicket riparian vegetation. 

These features serve as important habitat nodes and linkages to other habitat in a portion of the 

East Duffins Creek watershed that is generally transitioning from rural to urban land use. 

In general, the open agricultural fields, cultural / marsh meadows, thicket and forest areas that 

occupy the remaining portions of the transportation corridor and adjacent lands provide habitat for 

a suite of common, generalist species that are tolerant of semi-urban and rural/agricultural 

conditions. 

It should be noted that more extensive areas of natural features within the East Duffins Creek 

watershed are found beyond the transportation corridor; north of Regional Road 5 (Concession 9) 

on the Oak Ridges Moraine and south of Highway 7 along the Lake Iroquois Shoreline. 

5.1.2.2 Wildlife Habitat 

There is 1 known provincially rare terrestrial wildlife species (Carolina Wren) adjacent to the 

transportation corridor (within 120 m) crossing of the East Duffins Creek watershed. This is 

discussed below in Chapter 5.1.2.5. 

The transportation corridor crosses or is adjacent to several habitat units containing sensitive and 

specialized wildlife habitat (SSWH) as summarized in Table 3 below. 

Table 3. 

Summary of Specialized and Sensitive Wildlife Habitat (SSWH) 

Areas Within or Adjacent to the Transportation Corridor – East 

Duffins Creek Watershed 

Summary of SSWH Features in the Study Area 

Potential Deer Winter Habitat 

Habitats that could potentially support deer winter use are found within and 

adjacent to the transportation corridor, namely in the East Duffins Creek valley 

through the crossing location and further north, and in the wetland south of Highway 

7 and east of Sideline 16(C5S16-1). These units are dominated by a variety of 

vegetation community types including cedar swamp, cedar forest, mixed forest and 

deciduous forests. C5S16-1 is dominated by cedar community types whereas the 

WPAD units are dominated by deciduous and mixed forest types. C5S16-1 and the 

East Duffins Creek valley offer shelter and forage for a variety of mammals and are 

typical of preferred winter habitat for deer. The valley corridor provides a linkage to 

larger habitat blocks further north. 

Unit Identification 

C5S16-1A 

WPAD 1B 

WPAD-2B 

WPAD-3 

WPAD-5 



Ecoplans Limited



Table 3. 

Summary of Specialized and Sensitive Wildlife Habitat (SSWH) 

Areas Within or Adjacent to the Transportation Corridor – East 

Duffins Creek Watershed 


Groundwater Seepage 

The groundwater discharge areas found within several units provide the necessary 

hydrological input to support the swamp communities, wetland dependant flora, and 

vernal pool habitat for amphibian species. The East Duffins Creek valley and unit 

C5S16-1 were noted as having prominent groundwater discharge areas within the 

west portion of the transportation corridor. These areas would be particularly 

sensitive to interruption of groundwater flows. 

Mature Trees 

This unit has some very high quality areas, a mature tree component and generally 

has low disturbance. There are frequent snags and abundant downfall logs with 

groundwater seepage along the east valley slope. Mature trees provide habitat for a 

variety of wildlife species including cavity nesting birds and denning mammals as 

well as food source for woodpeckers, nuthatches and Brown Creepers. Mature nut 

trees provide food source for a variety of forest wildlife species. Over mature and 

declining trees provide nutrients to the soil and additional habitat and food sources 

as downed woody debris. 

Interior Forest Habitat 

Interior forest habitat (that which is 100 m from forest edge) is present in two areas 

in the East Duffins Creek watershed, within or adjacent (within 120 m) to the 

transportation corridor. These areas often coincide with those SSWH that contain 

area-sensitive bird species. There is no deep interior forest habitat (that which is 

200 m from forest edge) within this section. 

High Abundance of Breeding Birds 

Highest bird richness was recorded during field surveys in the East Duffins Creek 

valley relative to other units in this watershed and other units across the 

transportation corridor. The valley offers a diverse array of habitats including mixed 

forest, deciduous forest, coniferous swamp and cultural woodland. There were four 

forest area-sensitive species present: Pileated Woodpecker, Hairy Woodpecker, 

Veery and Chestnut sided Warbler. These are discussed below. 


C5BR-1B 

C5S16-1A 

WS14-5 

WS14-9B 

WS16-1 

WPAD-1B 

WPAD-2B 

WPAD-2B 

C5S16-1 

WPAD-1B 

WPAD-2B 

WPAD-2B 

Herpetofauna habitat is present generally along the watercourses and associated riparian areas, in 

local wetland habitats and in dug agricultural ponds. These areas provide habitat for localized 

breeding and movement of common amphibian species. East Duffins Creek has potential habitat 

for a variety of common turtle species. 

5.1.2.3 Breeding Birds 

A total of 60 breeding bird species (Appendix D) were recorded in 19 natural vegetation units in 

and adjacent to the transportation corridor (within 120m). The majority (98%) of the bird species 

observed are common, habitat generalist species that utilize a variety of habitats (such as 

agricultural fields, thickets, scattered forests, and meadows) that are common in this culturally 

influenced landscape (agriculture and suburban/urban development). The most abundantly 

recorded bird species in this area were Song Sparrow, Red-winged Blackbird, and American 

Goldfinch. These species are typical of a range of habitats including forest edges and openings, 

open fields, agricultural zones and wet areas. 



Ecoplans Limited



There were 4 forest area-sensitive bird species recorded in 6 of the 19 vegetation units in and 

adjacent to the transportation corridor (within 120 m). These are listed in Table 4 below. 

Table 4. Forest Area-sensitive Species in the Study Area of the East Duffins Creek 

Watershed 

Common Name Scientific Name Number Recorded 

Forest Area-Sensitive 

Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus 1 

Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus 3 

Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus 2 

Veery Catharus fuscescens 7 

Hairy Woodpeckers utilize a wide variety of trees and habitat for forage and nesting, this species 

was recorded in WPAD-1 (deciduous swamp). They are less sensitive to disturbance than other 

species and can be found in habitat ranging from forests, woodlands and thickets to residential 

backyards and urban centers. 

The Least Flycatcher prefers to use edge habitats of forests and riparian habitats along creeks for 

foraging, while nesting in forest cover. This species was observed in units C5BR-3, WS14-8 and 

WS14-9. These units are comprised of lowland deciduous forest, upland deciduous forest, 

deciduous swamp, cultural woodland and meadow habitats. 

The Pileated Woodpecker requires large expanses of forest for foraging and nesting, with ample 

dead standing trees and rotting logs. This species was observed in C5S16-1 (a mosaic of cedar 

dominated forest types), and WPAD-1 (deciduous swamp). 

The Veery nests on the ground in forests with dense understorey and groundcover (ferns), making 

them more sensitive to encroachment and pet predators. This species was recorded in the large 

forest units WPAD-1 and WPAD-2 (comprised of deciduous swamp, mixed swamp, mixed forest 

and cultural plantation). 

5.1.2.4 Amphibians 

Amphibian calling surveys were conducted in this 

section in 2003 and 2006. This included 3 units within 

and adjacent to the transportation corridor (WPAD-2 

(a,b,d,n), WS14-8, and WWES-1). 5 amphibian 

species; American Toad, Green Frog, Gray Treefrog, 

Spring Peeper, and Wood Frog were recorded. 

These species are common, expected for site 

conditions and typically abundant within Durham 

Region generally. They are often observed by the 

Green Frog (Ecoplans) 



Ecoplans Limited



Study Team wherever suitable habitat is present. This can include dug ponds, ditches, natural and 

man-made wetlands. Amphibian data by watershed and vegetation unit are provided in Appendix 

E. 


There are no known federally (COSEWIC) or provincially (COSSARO) designated wildlife species 

at risk within or adjacent to the transportation corridor. 

The provincially rare species Carolina Wren was observed in the East Duffins Creek valley 

(WPAD-1). It is ranked as S3S4 (NHIC 2009). This species can be found in a wide variety of 

habitats including forests, swamps, and urban areas. Their nests are cup shaped with a side 

entrance and are often placed in vine tangles, broken branch ends, and dense shrubs. No other 

provincially rare species (S1-S3) have been recorded. 

Regionally rare bird species are species designated L1-L3 by TRCA (2004 - L-rank 3 ) and 

recognized as regionally rare (in Durham Region) by Henshaw (1993). 

Rare bird species are listed in Table 5 below. 

Table 5. 

Rare Bird Species in the Study Area of the East Duffins Creek 

Watershed 



Carolina Wren Thryothorus ludovicianus 1 

Regionally Rare and Forest Area-Sensitive 





American Woodcock Scolopax minor 4 

Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus 3 

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus 4 

Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum 1 

Chestnut-sided Warbler Dendroica pensylvanica 1 

Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla 2 

Wood Thrush Hylocicla mustelina 1 

3. L-rank (Local Rank) is the rank assigned by the TRCA to a species, vegetation community, or habitat patch which describes its status 

in the TRCA Region. Species of conservation concern, according to the TRCA methodology are any species with a local rank of L1 

to L3, and those L4 species found within the Urban (built-up area). Generally species which are disappearing in the regional 

landscape are primarily a result of land use changes. L1 – regional concern; L2 – regional concern; L3 – regional concern; L4 – 

urban concern. 



Ecoplans Limited



These species, which are highlighted below, are often common in rural settings and large forest 

blocks: 

As noted above, Carolina Wren was observed in the East Duffins Creek valley (WPAD-1). This 

species can be found in a wide variety of habitats from forests, to swamps to urban areas. This 

species is sensitive to cold and is at the northern limit of its range in southern Ontario. There is 

suitable habitat for this species both north and south of the transportation corridor. 

The Pileated Woodpecker was observed in the East Duffins Creek valley and in the large swamp 

south of the transportation corridor, immediately east of Brock Road (C5S16-1). This species 

requires large forest areas for foraging and nesting, with ample dead standing trees and rotting 

logs. They feed on insects, such as carpenter ant larvae, that are far beneath the bark, hammering 

large rectangular holes in trees. Often many woodlands are visited within the foraging area. 

The Veery and American Woodcock are ground nesting species. They nest in forests of varying 

composition with abundant groundcover (e.g., deciduous, mixed, coniferous forest stands). Their 

nesting habits make them more sensitive to urban development due to the influx of predators, 

parasitic bird species and anthropogenic influences (e.g., dumping, noise, and recreational trails). 

As noted above, Veery was observed in WPAD-1 and WPAD-2 and the American Woodcock was 

observed in WS14-1, WS14-8, and WWES-1/WWES-2 

As noted above the Hairy Woodpecker was observed in 

WPAD-1. This species utilizes a wide variety of trees 

and habitat for forage and nesting. They are less 

sensitive to disturbance than other species and can be 

found in habitat ranging from forests, woodlands and 

thickets to residential backyards and urban centers. 

Chestnut-sided Warblers and Least Flycatchers are 

common birds of the scrubby secondary growth 

Woodpecker Nest Cavity (Ecoplans) 

deciduous forests but are also common in dense 

thickets and forests with abundant understorey growth, and thick riparian habitats. The Least 

Flycatcher was observed in 3 units (C5BR-3, WS14-8 and WS14-9). The Chestnut-sided Warbler 

was observed in WPAD-2. 

Black-billed Cuckoos are quite secretive, often heard and not seen. This species was recorded in 

units C5BR-6, C5S16-3, and WPAD-3. They prefer to nest in small forests, groves of trees, forest 

edges, and thickets, and are often associated with water. They feed almost solely on caterpillars and 

will wait motionless for long periods of time for their prey to alert them to their position. 

Brown Thrashers, Bobolink and Field Sparrow are dependant on meadows, thickets and shrubby 

regenerating areas, habitats that are abundant in a rural setting. These species rely on these 

habitat types for nesting and foraging, making these species more sensitive to urban development 

since these vegetation communities are often comprised of common, disturbance tolerant plant 



Ecoplans Limited



species and therefore may be considered lower quality from a botanical perspective. The Brown 

Thrasher was observed in unit WWES-1/WWES-2; Bobolink in units WS14-11, WS14-8 and 

WS14-9; and Field Sparrow in unit C5S16-3. 

Wood Thrush nest in habitats with abundant Sugar Maple regeneration, as they prefer the lush 

sapling growth. They are considered to be an indicator species in terms of encroachment on 

forested habitat as they are a semi-colonial nesting species that appears to be sensitive to urban 

growth. This species was recorded in unit C5BR-3 (comprised of lowland deciduous and mixed 

forest). 

5.1.2.6 Landscape Connectivity 

The 407 transportation corridor crosses 6 valleys within the East Duffins Creek watershed. Of these, East 

Duffins Creek is that largest valley (refer to Crossing 9 on Figure 1) and serves important regional 

landscape corridor functions. This valley connects large habitat areas on the Oak Ridges Moraine with 

natural areas along the Lake Iroquois Shoreline and the Lake Ontario shoreline. 

The valleys of Brougham Creek and Spring Creek (refer to Crossings 3 and 8 on Figure 1) also 

provide opportunities for wildlife use and movement; and although these systems are more limited 

in terms of width, natural vegetation cover, habitat diversity and wildlife habitat elements they 

should continue to provide opportunity for localized wildlife movement. 

The smaller valleys of the tributaries of Brougham Creek (refer to Crossings 4 and 7 on Figure 1) 

and the tributary to East Duffins Creek (refer to Crossing 10 on Figure 1) provide more limited and 

localized wildlife movement opportunities due to discontinuous natural cover in the valley within 

and north of the transportation corridor and the limited presence of habitat nodes to the north. 

These valleys tend to have increased natural vegetation cover and habitat diversity in areas south 

of the transportation corridor. Again, the potential for localized wildlife movement opportunity is 

recognized. 

Refer to Appendix F for a detailed review of the wildlife mitigation strategy, recommended 

ecopassages, and associated mapping for the entire 407 transportation corridor. 

5.2 Carruthers Creek Watershed (Refer to Figure 2 in Appendix A) 



This section of the transportation corridor crosses approximately 2.6 km ha of the upper portion of 

the Carruthers Creek Watershed (Figure 2 in Appendix A). This area is primarily agricultural with 

scattered rural residential development. There are no designated natural areas and all vegetation 

communities within 120 m of the transportation corridor are provincially common. Vegetation 

communities are limited to linear features along watercourses with a single upland deciduous 



Ecoplans Limited



forest and a cultural mosaic of deciduous plantation, thicket and meadow. All vegetation units are 

adjacent to agricultural land. 

High quality units were determined on the basis of woodlot maturity (mature and old growth), level 

of disturbance (relatively little anthropogenic disturbance) and uniqueness of community. One unit 

within this section was identified as high quality (This unit is mapped on Figure 2): 

 

Unit WS8-1 (north of Highway 7 west of Salem Road): This Sugar Maple deciduous 

forest is mid-aged to mature with frequent trees over 50 cm dbh. This habitat type is 

uncommon in the local area because of its size, maturity and presence of native upland 

forest flora. 

The remaining vegetation communities are of low to moderate quality resulting from past and 

present cultural influences of vegetation clearing, invasive species encroachment, high 

susceptibility to edge effects due to patch shape and adjacent land use. 

5.2.1.2 Flora 

During field investigations, 143 plant species were identified within the Study Area of the 

Carruthers Creek watershed and 7 additional plants were identified to genus. Of these species, 39 

are non-native (27%). This high percentage of invasive species is typical of disturbed habitats. 




Field investigations in support of the impact assessment did not identify any Species at Risk flora. 

Species at Risk are those designated by COSEWIC or COSSARO as “Extirpated”, “Endangered”, 

“Threatened” or “Special Concern”. 


Field investigations in support of the impact assessment did not identify any provincially rare flora 

species. Provincially rare species are those ranked as S1-S3 according to the Natural Heritage 

Information Centre (NHIC). 


1 regionally rare species was identified within the Study Area of the Carruthers Creek Watershed. 

Regionally rare species are those ranked as “Rare” by Varga (2000). Marsh Bellflower 

(Campanula aparinoides) was observed in Unit WS8-2. 

Locally Rare 

12 locally rare plant species were identified within the Study Area of the Carruthers Creek 

Watershed and are listed in Table 6 below. Locally rare species are those ranked as L1, L2 and 

L3 by TRCA. 



Ecoplans Limited



Table 6. 

Locally Rare Flora in the Study Area of the Carruthers Creek Watershed 


Flora 

Marsh Bellflower Campanula aparinoides L2 Recorded in WS8-2 

Blue Cohosh Caulophyllum thalictroides L2 Recorded in WS8-1 

Highbush Cranberry Viburnum trilobum L2 Recorded in WS4-4a and WSAL-1 

Wild Leek Allium tricoccum L3 Recorded in WS8-1 

Yellow Sedge Carex flava L3 Recorded in WSAL-4 

Bristly-stalk Sedge Carex leptalea ssp. leptalea L3 Recorded in WS8-1 

Michigan Lily Lilium michiganense L3 Recorded in WS8-1 

White Spruce Picea glauca L3 Recorded in WSAL-4 

Downy Solomon’s Seal Polygonatum pubescens L3 Recorded in WS8-1. WSAL-2 and WSAL-4 

Meadow Willow Salix petiolaris L3 Recorded in WS8-2 

Red Trillium Trillium erectum L3 Recorded in WS8-1 

White Trillium Trillium grandiflorum L3 Recorded in WS8-1 



The transportation corridor crosses a portion of Carruthers Creek watershed that is dominated by 

agricultural land use. As such, most of the natural vegetation was historically cleared for 

agriculture and remaining natural habitat features along the transportation corridor are limited to a 

single remnant forest block and 4 small tributary valleys and other small pockets of meadow marsh 

that are too wet for agricultural production. 


occupy the transportation corridor and adjacent lands provide habitat for a suite of common, 

generalist species that are tolerant of semi-urban and rural/agricultural conditions. 


There are no known terrestrial wildlife Species at Risk or known habitat for terrestrial wildlife 

Species at Risk within the transportation corridor crossing of the Carruthers Creek watershed. 

No areas of specialized or sensitive wildlife habitat features such as potential deer wintering 

habitat, vernal pools, seasonal concentration areas or habitats of rare species etc. have been 

identified within or directly adjacent to the transportation corridor. 

There is no forest ‘interior’ habitat (i.e., core forest areas greater that 100 m from edges) present 

within 500 m of the transportation corridor. 

The largest habitat node present in this area is a high quality deciduous forest block (WS8-1) 

located immediately south of the transportation corridor just west of Salem Road. This unit 

supports forest bird species including Great Crested Flycatcher, Red-eyed Vireo, Wood Thrush 



Ecoplans Limited



and a number of forest area-sensitive species (refer to Table 7). This forest also provides habitat to 

White-tailed deer as well as a variety of common small mammals (Grey Squirrel, Woodchuck, 

Raccoon, Eastern Cottontail, and Striped Skunk). 

Although the vegetation communities along the Carruthers Creek and its tributaries are considered 

low to moderate quality from a botanical perspective, the mosaic of riparian meadow marsh, thicket 

and cultural meadow communities found along the tributaries had a relatively high bird abundance. 

While most of these are habitat generalist, disturbance tolerant, urban-adapted species such as 

American Robin, European Starling, Red-winged Blackbird, Common Grackle and Song Sparrow, 

a number of forest area-sensitive and/or regionally rare bird species were also observed (see 

Table 7 below). 

Table 7. 

Forest Area-sensitive Bird Species in the Study Area of the 

Carruthers Creek Watershed 



American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla 4 

Broad-winged Hawk Buteo platypterus 1 



Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus 1 

White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis 2 

Herpetofauna habitat is present generally, along the watercourses and associated riparian areas, 

in local wetland habitats and in dug agricultural ponds. These areas provide habitat for localized 

breeding and movement of common amphibian species. 


A total of 47 breeding bird species (Appendix D) were recorded in 8 natural vegetation units in and 

adjacent to the transportation corridor (within 120m). Many of the bird species (90%) observed are 

common, habitat generalist species that utilize a variety of habitats (such as agricultural fields, 

thickets, forests, and meadows) that are common of an anthropogenically (agriculture and 

suburban/urban development) influenced landscape which is present throughout Durham Region. 

The most abundantly recorded bird species in this area were Brown-headed Cowbird, Red-winged 

Blackbird, and European Starling. These species are typical of a range of habitats including forest 

edges and openings, open fields, agricultural zones and wet areas. 


adjacent to the transportation corridor (within 120m). These are listed in Table 7. 



Ecoplans Limited



Northern Harriers need large areas of open field habitats for nesting (nest on the ground) and 

foraging. Broad-winged Hawks utilize large expanses of forests and forested riparian areas for 

hunting and breeding. As a result, these 2 species are more sensitive to urban development. The 

remainder of the area-sensitive species may require large amounts of habitat to support their 

populations; however, they are more tolerant of disturbance than the Northern Harrier and Broadwinged 

Hawk. They are found within a variety of habitats including forests, thickets, backyard 

birdfeeders, hydro corridors; habitats and features readily available in other parts of the Study Area 

and in Durham Region, generally. 


Amphibian calling surveys were conducted in this section in 2003 and 2006, this included 5 units 

within the transportation corridor. 4 amphibian species were recorded in 3 units (WS8-2, WSAL-1 

and WSAL-2): American Toad, Green Frog, Northern Leopard Frog and Spring Peeper. All 3 of 

these units are associated with riparian habitat along the Carruthers Creek tributaries and WSAL-2 

is near a dug irrigation pond. 

These species are common, expected for site conditions and typically abundant within Durham 

Region generally. They are often observed by the Study Team wherever suitable habitat is 

present. This can include dug ponds, ditches, natural and man-made wetlands, etc. Amphibian 

data by watershed and vegetation unit are provided in Appendix E. 


No provincially rare species (S1-S3), federally (COSEWIC) or provincially (COSSARO) designated 

wildlife species at risk were recorded. Regionally rare bird species are species designated L1-L3 

by TRCA (2004) (L-rank 4 ) and recognized as regionally rare (in Durham Region) by Henshaw 

(1993). Rare bird species are listed in Table 8 below. 

Table 8. 

Rare Bird Species in the Study Area of the Carruthers Creek Watershed 









Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus 4 

Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla 4 

4. L-rank (Local Rank) is the rank assigned by the TRCA to a species, vegetation community, or habitat patch which describes its status 

in the TRCA Region. Species of conservation concern, according to the TRCA methodology are any species with a local rank of L1 

to L3, and those L4 species found within the Urban (built-up area). Generally species which are disappearing in the regional 

landscape are primarily a result of land use changes. L1 – regional concern; L2 – regional concern; L3 – regional concern; L4 – 

urban concern. 



Ecoplans Limited



Bobolink and Field Sparrow are meadow habitat dependant species, a habitat that is abundant in a 

rural setting. These species rely on regenerating meadow habitat for nesting and foraging, making 

these species more sensitive to urban development since this vegetation community is often 

comprised of common, disturbance tolerant plant species and therefore may be considered lower 

quality from a botanical perspective. 


There are 4 Carruthers Creek tributaries that are crossed by 407 transportation corridor mainline, 

east and west of Salem Road. These tributary valleys provide local opportunities for wildlife usage 

and movement however, these systems are limited in terms of width, natural vegetation cover, 

habitat diversity and wildlife habitat elements. 

Recognizing the local linkage function, and specific aspects such as the limited presence of habitat 

nodes in this portion of the watershed generally, as well as the nature of these valleys (wide, 

shallow with associated thicket and meadow riparian communities), it is important that these 

features continue to provide opportunity for localized wildlife movement. 

Refer to Appendix F for a the complete set of wildlife passages recommended and achieved as 

well as overall ecopassage mapping for the entire 407 transportation corridor. 

5.3 Lynde Creek Watershed 


5.3.1.1 Lynde Creek – Mainline (Refer to Figures 2 and 6 in Appendix A) 

General Overview 

This chapter of the report addresses the mainline of the transportation corridor (north of 

Winchester Road) within the Lynde Creek Watershed. This section of the transportation corridor 

crosses approximately 8.2 km of Lynde Creek Watershed (north of Highway 7/Winchester Road). 

Similar to other watersheds along the transportation corridor, the majority of the vegetation 

features delineated by the Study Team in the mainline section of this watershed are found along 

watercourses and on valley slopes. The tablelands between these watercourses have largely 

been converted to agriculture with scattered rural residential development and some urban 

development (community of Brooklin). All vegetation communities within 120 m of the 

transportation corridor are provincially common (Bakowsky 1996). There are 2 natural area 

designations within the vicinity of the transportation corridor. Both are ESAs along valley features. 

The West Lynde Creek Valley (Till Plain) ESA extends along the valley of West Lynde Creek from 

an area north of the transportation corridor to Winchester Road. It is considered highly sensitive 

(Gartner Lee 1978). The Upper Lynde Creek to Chalk Lake ESA extends along Lynde Creek from 

Winchester Road south beyond the transportation corridor. It is also considered highly sensitive 

(Gartner Lee 1978). 



Ecoplans Limited




of disturbance (relatively little anthropogenic disturbance) and uniqueness of community. One unit 

within this section was identified as high quality (this unit is mapped on Figures 2 and 6): 

 

Unit WCOR-1 is a forested valley along 

West Lynde Creek and east of Coronation 

Road. This valley includes White Cedar 

dominated forest (WCOR-1a), Sugar Maple 

– Oak forest (WCOR-1b) and a coniferous 

plantation (WCOR-1c). This unit is large 

enough to support some interior habitat 

(north of the transportation corridor), has a 

mature tree component, some areas of 

groundwater seepage along slopes, and a 

moderate diversity of typical upland forest 

flora in b. 

Sugar Maple – Oak forest (WCOR-1b) along the 

West Lynde Creek valley. View is north of the ROW 

of the Transportation Corridor (Ecoplans) 

Other units of note: 

 

Units CGA-1, CGA-2 and CGA-4 are along a highly meandering section of Lynde 

Creek, near Brooklin (Figure 6). They are composed of common and tolerant 

vegetation community types (cultural meadow, cultural thicket, cultural woodland and 

meadow marsh) and flora, however meadow/thicket habitat of this size (30 ha) is not 

common in the Study Area and is the largest unit of this type in the west half of the 

Study Area. 

The remaining vegetation communities range from low to moderate quality and include small 

deciduous forests, cultural meadows, thickets and woodlands, and meadow marsh along 

watercourses traversing agricultural fields. 

Flora 

During field investigations, 212 plant species were identified within the Study Area of the Lynde 

Creek Watershed- Mainline and 26 additional plants were identified to genus. Of these species, 59 

are non-native (28%). This high percentage of invasive species is typical of disturbed habitats. 


Rare Species 


32 Butternut trees and 10 saplings were recorded within the Lynde Creek Watershed- Mainline, 

within or adjacent to the transportation corridor (WHAL-1, WHAL-2, and WS4-1). This tree species 

is designated provincially and nationally as Endangered and is protected under Ontario’s 

Endangered Species Act. The trees range in size from 1 to 53 cm dbh. The majority of the 

Butternut trees, except the saplings, showed some signs of Butternut Canker. 23 Butternuts 



Ecoplans Limited



(including saplings) are considered retainable (per Ostry 70-20-50 guideline). The results of the 

Butternut Health Assessment are provided in Appendix C. 







There were 7 regionally rare species identified within vegetation units crossed by the transportation 

corridor in the Lynde Creek Watershed-Mainline and are listed in Table 9 below. Regionally rare 

species are those designated as “Rare” by Varga (2000). 

Table 9. 

Regionally Rare Plant Species in the Study Area of the Lynde Creek 

Watershed (Mainline) 


Flora 

Horse Gentian Triosteum aurantiacum Recorded in WS4-1 

Gray Dogwood Cornus foemina ssp racemosa Recorded in WCOR-1 

Little Bluestem Schizachyrium scoparium Recorded in CAN-3 (planted along edge of SWM facility) 

Black Maple Acer saccharum ssp nigrum Recorded in WCOR-1 

Swamp Rose Rosa palustris Recorded in WHAL-1 

Black Willow Salix nigra Recorded in C5COC-1 

Pale Jewel-weed Impatiens pallida Recorded in CGA-1 

5.3.1.2 Lynde Creek – West Durham Link (Refer to Figures 3, 4 and 5 in Appendix A) 


This West Durham Link portion of the transportation corridor crosses approximately 9.4 km of the 

Lynde Creek Watershed (south of Winchester Road). Vegetation features are primarily located 

along watercourses or scattered across the tablelands within a matrix of agricultural land and rural 

residential development. This portion of the transportation corridor is between the urban areas of 

Whitby to the east and Ajax to the west. There are 4 natural area designations within the vicinity of 

the West Durham Link including 3 ESAs and 1 Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW). The Lynde 

Valley – Iroquois Beach ESA includes Lynde Creek and tributaries of Lynde Creek as well as 

wetlands and forests of the Heber Down area. It is considered highly sensitive (Gartner Lee 1978). 

The Lynde Creek Valley ESA encompasses the forested valley along West Lynde Creek from just 

south of 5th Concession to Highway 401. It is also considered highly sensitive (Gartner Lee 1978). 

The Westerly Creek Valleys ESA is considered low to moderate sensitivity (Gartner Lee 1978). It 

includes the narrow vegetated areas along several watercourses west of Lynde Creek. The Lynde 

Creek Coastal Provincially Significant Wetland Complex includes two areas adjacent to the 



Ecoplans Limited



transportation corridor near Highway 401. All vegetation communities within 120 m of the 

transportation corridor are provincially common (Bakowsky 1996). 


of disturbance (relatively little anthropogenic disturbance) and uniqueness of community. Three 

units within 120 m of the transportation corridor in this section were identified as high quality (these 

units are mapped on Figures 3 and 4): 

 

 

 

Unit C5HAL-1e (north of Taunton Road and east of Halls Road) is a forb dominated 

groundwater seepage dependent shallow marsh within a large coniferous plantation unit. 

This seepage area supports a diversity of wetland flora with limited non-native species. 

Unit C5HAL-1f (north of Taunton Road and east of Halls Road) is a large mixed forest 

community that supports some interior forest habitat. It is composed of a Hardwood – 

Hemlock community with some disturbed areas along the east and north edge where 

cultural thicket is present. 

Units RLAK-1a and RLAK-1d (north of Rossland Road and west of Coronation Road) 

are part of a diverse assemblage of community types. RLAK-1a is a mid-aged maple 

swamp with occasional deadfall logs and high botanical quality. Several large vernal 

pools occur in series over the entire length of the unit. RLAK-1d is an upland Sugar 

Maple forest with moderate diversity and few non-native species. 

The remaining vegetation communities range from low to moderate quality due to human 

disturbance. 

Flora 

During field investigations, 221 plant species were identified within the Study Area of the Lynde 

Creek Watershed- West Durham Link and 36 additional plants were identified to genus. Of these 

species, 52 are non-native (24%). This relatively high percentage of invasive species is typical of 

disturbed habitats. The vascular plant list is provided in Appendix B. 

Rare Species 


20 Butternuts were recorded within the Lynde Creek Watershed- West Durham Link, within or 

adjacent to the transportation corridor (Units 401HAR-1, RLAK-1f, THAL-2a, TLAK-3). This tree 

species is designated provincially and nationally as Endangered and is protected under Ontario’s 

Endangered Species Act. The trees range in size from 10 to 52 cm dbh. There was 1 Butternut 

located in RLAK-1f but was not assessed as retainable (per Ostry 70-20-50 guideline). Five of the 

6 Butternuts observed in Unit 401HAR-1 are suspected to be planted because they were found in a 

row along with Black Walnut and all 6 Butternuts in Unit 401HAR-1 were assessed as not 

retainable due to Butternut Canker. Of the 12 Butternuts located in Unit THAL-2a, 1 was assessed 

as not retainable, 2 were assessed as retainable and the remaining 9 could not be assessed due 

to a lack of permission to enter this property. Additionally, a health assessment was not 



Ecoplans Limited



completed on the Butternut located in Unit TLAK-3 as the design did not directly impact this unit at 

the time when in-season health assessment surveys were undertaken. Subsequent changes to 

the Recommended Design resulted in direct impacts to Units TLAK-3. As such additional field work 

will need to be undertaken in subsequent design phases to locate and assess the Butternuts in 

Units THAL-2a and TLAK-3. The results of the Butternut Health Assessment are provided in 

Appendix C. 







9 regionally rare species were identified in vegetation units crossed by the transportation corridor 

within the West Durham Link portion of the Lynde Creek Watershed and are listed in Table 10 

below. Regionally rare species are those designated as “Rare” by Varga (2000). 

Table 10. 

Regionally Rare Plant Species in the Study Area of the Lynde Creek 

Watershed (West Durham Link) 

Common Name Common Name Common Name 

Flora 

Long-fruited Anemone Anemone cylindrica Recorded in RLAK-1a 

Showy Lady’s-slipper Cypripedium reginae Recorded in RLAK-1a 

Round-lobed Hepatica Anemone americana Recorded in 401HAR-1d 

Gray Dogwood Cornus foemina ssp racemosa Recorded in 401LAK-11b and 401LAK-5a 

Bottle-brush Grass Elymus hystrix Recorded in RLAK-4 

Black Maple Acer saccharum ssp nigrum Recorded in RLAK-1f 

Virginia Stickseed Hackelia virginiana Recorded in 401LAK-3a, 401LAK-5a and KHAL-2 

White Rattlesnake-root Prenanthes alba Recorded in 401HAR-1d 

Canada Waterleaf Hydrophyllum canadense Recorded in THAL-2b 


5.3.2.1 Lynde Creek – Mainline 


The transportation corridor mainline crosses a portion of the Lynde Creek watershed that is 

dominated by urban uses (community of Brooklin), rural residential, commercial and agricultural 

land use. As such, most of the natural vegetation was historically cleared for agriculture and more 

recently for urban development. 



Ecoplans Limited



The most prominent remaining natural habitat features along the 407 transportation corridor 

mainline are: 

 

 

 

The West Lynde Creek valley with a large, high quality forest block (WCOR-1) 

comprised of a mosaic of cedar forest, mixed forest, and cultural meadow, located north 

and south of the transportation corridor along West Lynde Creek. This valley contains 

specialized and sensitive wildlife habitat including: interior forest, potential deer winter 

habitat, mature trees, and groundwater seepage. 

The Lynde Creek valley dominated by extensive cultural meadow and cultural thicket 

riparian communities with smaller woodland patches scattered along the valley. 

Although this type of habitat may be considered lower quality from a botanical 

perspective, it offers habitat to a variety of common meadow and forest edge wildlife 

species. 

Several small tributary valleys and their associated riparian vegetation communities 

(comprised of coniferous forest, deciduous forest, cultural woodland, cultural 

plantations, and meadow marsh) that offer habitat to a variety of common meadow and 

forest edge wildlife species. 

These features serve as important habitat nodes and linkages to other habitat in a portion of the 

Lynde Creek watershed that is generally transitioning from rural to urban land use. 


occupy the remaining portions of the transportation corridor and adjacent lands provide habitat for 

a suite of common, generalist species that are tolerant of semi-urban and rural/agricultural 

conditions and are considered low to moderate quality. 



wildlife species at risk were recorded within the transportation corridor mainline crossing of the 

Lynde Creek watershed. 

The transportation corridor mainline crosses or is adjacent to several habitat units containing 

sensitive and specialized wildlife habitat (SSWH). These are summarized in Table 11 below and 

units are illustrated on Figures 2, 3 and 6. 

Herpetofauna habitat is generally present in the Study Area along the watercourses and 

associated riparian areas, in the local wetland habitats and in dug agricultural ponds. These areas 

provide habitat for localized breeding and movement of common amphibian species. 



Ecoplans Limited



Table 11. 

Summary of Specialized and Sensitive Wildlife Habitat Areas 

Within or Adjacent to the Transportation Corridor 


Potential Winter Deer Habitat 

Potential Deer Winter Habitat is present in the West Lynde Creek valley, north and south of 

the 407 transportation corridor. This valley is dominated by a variety of vegetation 

community types including cedar forest, mixed upland forest, and conifer plantations. This 

unit offers shelter and forage for a variety of mammals and provides conditions typical of 

preferred winter habitat for deer. The valley corridor provides a linkage to larger habitat 

blocks further north. 


The seepage areas found within the West Lynde Creek valley provide the necessary 

hydrological input to support the moisture regimes for specialized vegetation communities, 

water dependant flora, and vernal pool habitat for amphibian species. 

Mature Trees 

The West Lynde Creek valley contains very high quality vegetation and a mature tree 

component and generally has low disturbance. WCOR-1 is a large, mid-aged to mature 

forest with primarily Cedar forest in the valley and mixed upland forest along the top of the 

slope. On the east side of the slope large mature Hemlocks were frequent. There are 

frequent snags and abundant downfall logs with groundwater seepage along the slopes. 

Mature trees provide habitat for a variety of wildlife species including cavity nesting birds 

and denning mammals as well as food source for woodpeckers, nuthatches and Brown 

Creepers. Mature nut trees provide food source for a variety of forest wildlife species. Over 

mature and declining trees provide nutrients to the soil and additional habitat and food 

sources as downed woody debris. 


Interior forest habitat (that which is 100 m from forest edge) is provided in the large 

forested portion of the West Lynde Creek valley, approximately 200 – 250 m north of the 

transportation corridor. The interior habitat is associated with the West Lynde conifer forest 

valley slopes and adjacent upland deciduous and conifer forests. WCOR-1 is a large, midaged 

to mature forest with primarily cedar forest in the valley and mixed upland forest along 

the top of the slope. These areas often coincide with those SSWH that contain Area- 

Sensitive bird species (Broad-winged Hawk). There is no deep interior forest habitat (that 

which is 200 m from forest edge) within this section. 


The Lynde Creek valley, just south of Brooklin, had the highest bird species abundance 

recorded during field surveys relative to other units in this watershed. The valley offers a 

diverse array of habitats dominated by cultural meadow and cultural thicket with elements 

of mixed forest, deciduous forest, coniferous swamp and cultural woodland. The majority of 

bird species recorded are common and habitat generalists. 


WCOR-1 

WCOR-1 

WCOR-1 

WCOR-1 

WAU-2, WHAL-1 

and 2 



and adjacent to the transportation corridor (within 120m). All of the bird species (100%) observed 

are habitat generalist species that utilize a variety of habitats (such as agricultural fields, thickets, 

forests, and meadows) that are common of the culturally influenced (agriculture and 

suburban/urban development) landscape which is present throughout Durham Region. The most 

abundantly recorded bird species along the transportation corridor mainline through the Lynde 



Ecoplans Limited



Creek watershed were Song Sparrow, Red-winged Blackbird, and American Goldfinch. These 

species are typical of a range of habitats including forest edges and openings, open fields, 

agricultural zones and wet areas. 


adjacent to the transportation corridor (within 120m). These are listed in Table 12 below. 

Table 12. 

Forest Area-sensitive Species in the Study Area of the Lynde Creek 

Watershed (Mainline) 







A summary of where these birds were observed and their habitat characteristics is provided below: 

American Redstart was observed in unit WAU-2, a mosaic of cultural meadow, thicket, meadow 

marsh and lowland deciduous forest. This species typically forages in the understorey of deciduous 

forests, gleaning insects from the leaves. 

Broad-winged Hawk was observed in conifer forested valley land associated with West Lynde 

Creek (WCOR). Broad-winged Hawks utilize large expanses of forests and forested riparian areas 

for hunting and breeding, making these species more sensitive to urban development. 

Least Flycatcher was observed in narrow deciduous riparian forest associated with a tributary of 

Lynde Creek (WHAL-2). Least Flycatcher prefers to use edge habitats of forests and riparian 

habitats along creeks for foraging, while nesting in forest cover. 

White-breasted Nuthatch was observed in WHAL-1 (upland and lowland deciduous forest and 

cultural thicket) and WLAK-1 (upland deciduous forest). This species will utilize a wide variety of 

trees and habitat for forage and nesting. They are less sensitive to disturbance than other forest 

bird species and can be found in habitat ranging from forests, woodlands and thickets to residential 



Amphibian calling surveys were conducted in this section in 2003 and 2006. There were 3 

amphibian species in 4 of the 6 units surveyed within or adjacent to the transportation corridor 

(CGA-4, WCOR-1, WHAL-1 and WS4-1) including: American Toad, Spring Peeper, and Eastern 

Grey Treefrog. 



Ecoplans Limited





present. This can include dug ponds, ditches, as well as natural and man-made wetlands. 

Amphibian data by watershed and vegetation unit are provided in Appendix E. 


There are no known provincially rare species (S1-S3), federally (COSEWIC) or provincially 

(COSSARO) designated wildlife species at risk within or adjacent to the transportation corridor 

(within 120 m). Rare bird species are listed in Table 13 below. 

Regionally rare bird species are designated by Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority 

(CLOCA) (Henshaw 1993). There was 1 regionally rare bird, Broad-winged Hawk, recorded within 

or adjacent to (within 120 m) of the transportation corridor (Table 13 below). 

Table 13. 

Rare Bird Species in the Study Area of the Lynde Creek Watershed 

(Mainline) 




As noted above, Broad-winged Hawk was observed in conifer forested valley land associated with 

West Lynde Creek. Broad-winged Hawks utilize large expanses of forests and forested riparian 

areas for hunting and breeding, making these species more sensitive to urban development. This 

bird is considered regionally rare because this species typically breeds in northern and central 

Ontario. 


The 407 mainline crosses 7 valleys within the Lynde Creek watershed. Of these, 2 are large valley 

systems that serve important landscape corridor functions; along the West Lynde Creek and Lynde 

Creek (refer to Crossings 19 and 24 on Figure 6). 

The West Lynde Creek valley is considered to be a high quality linkage as it connects large habitat 

areas north and south of the transportation corridor including a wide forested portion of the West 

Lynde Creek valley that is large enough to provide interior forest habitat, north of the transportation 

corridor, and the large habitat mosaic associated with Heber Down, west of the transportation 

corridor. Lynde Creek is considered to be of lower quality given the discontinuous nature of the 

vegetative cover and the limited connectivity to natural areas north due to the presence of the 

community of Brooklin. These valleys should continue to provide regional wildlife linkages. 



Ecoplans Limited



The remaining smaller tributary valleys (refer to Crossings 16, 17, 18, 20, and 21 on Figures 2 and 6) 

provide some local linkage opportunities for wildlife use and movement; and although these systems 

are more limited in terms of width, natural vegetation cover, habitat diversity and wildlife habitat 

elements they should continue to provide opportunity for localized wildlife movement. 


ecopassages, and associated mapping for the entire Highway 407 transportation corridor. 

5.3.2.7 Lynde Creek – West Durham Link 


The Recommended Design of the West Durham Link (WDL) crosses a portion of the Lynde Creek 

watershed that is transitioning from agricultural to urban land use, particularly in the areas east of 

Lakeridge Road in the Town of Whitby. As such, most of the natural vegetation was historically 

cleared for agriculture and more recently for urban development. 

The most prominent remaining natural habitat features along the Recommended Design of the 

WDL are: 

 

 

 

A large forest block is located along the east side of the transportation corridor just west of 

Coronation Road (C5HAL-1a, e, and f). Within this forest block, the highest quality area is 

in C5HAL-1f which is comprised of Hardwood-Hemlock Mixed Forest with moderate 

diversity and few non-native species, and C5HAL-1e which is a Forb Organic Shallow 

Marsh fed by groundwater seepage, whereas, C5HAL-1a is a mid-aged Coniferous 

Plantation. These units (along with the adjacent C5HAL-1b, c, and d) had the highest avian 

species richness of all the units surveyed in the Lynde Creek watershed. This unit contains 

some potential interior forest and 3 area-sensitive species were observed within this unit 

during field surveys (American Redstart, Ovenbird and Veery). 

2 linear forest bands cross the transportation corridor connecting the large habitat patch 

of C5HAL-1 with other large habitat blocks to the west, including interior and deep 

interior forest habitat (C5AU). These habitat blocks are part of the mosaic of habitats 

that are generally oriented east-west along the Lake Iroquois Shoreline and form an 

important regional corridor and wildlife movement linkage that connects large habitat 

areas such as Heber Down in the Lynde Creek watershed with other natural areas in 

the Duffins and Carruthers Creek watersheds, and further west to the Rouge River 

watershed. 

The RLAK-1 unit located along the east side of the transportation corridor just south of 

the CPR rail line. This patch is divided into several units with various quality ranks. 

There was 1 area-sensitive bird species observed in this group (Brown Creeper). The 

highest quality areas are found in RLAK-1d and RLAK-1a. RLAK-1d is a small unit 

composed of mature Sugar Maple – Beech Forest with moderate diversity and few nonnative 

species. RLAK-1a is a Maple Mineral Deciduous Swamp. There are also large 

vernal pools in a series along the length of the unit. 



Ecoplans Limited



Other habitat patches along the Recommended Design of the WDL include: 

 

 

 

401LAK-11 – a mosaic of open water (shallow aquatic), cattail marsh, cultural thicket, 

and cultural meadow that includes a portion of the Lynde Creek Coastal Wetland 

Complex Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW). Despite the PSW designation, this 

area is considered to be of low to moderate habitat quality given the low abundance of 

breeding bird species and low habitat diversity and proximity to Highway 401. 

401HAR-1 – a small upland deciduous 

forest patch located adjacent to existing 

Highway 401. Vernal pools were noted 

along the west edge of this unit. Proximity 

to Highway 401 reduces the habitat quality 

in this unit. 

401LAK-1, 2 and 3 – a mosaic of culturally 

influenced deciduous forest and meadow 

habitat. Given the proximity to the 

residential settlement of Almond Village 

and the high level of cultural disturbance 

(trails, dumping etc.) this area is 

considered to be of lower quality. 

In general, the open agricultural fields, cultural / marsh 

meadows, thicket and forest areas that occupy the 

remaining portions of the transportation corridor and 

adjacent lands provide habitat for a suite of common, generalist species that are tolerant of semiurban 

and rural/agricultural conditions. 

Wildlife Habitat 

Cultural Meadow and Meadow Marsh mosaic 

(401LAK-1) along Lynde Creek at Highway 401 with 

a Willow Swamp (401LAK-2) in the background 

(Ecoplans) 

There are 2 provincially rare terrestrial wildlife species (Rough-legged Hawk and Bohemian 

Waxwing) recorded within the transportation corridor (WDL) crossing of the Lynde Creek 

watershed. Neither of these species are considered to be breeding within the watershed. This is 

discussed below in Chapter 5.3.2.10 


specialized wildlife habitat (SSWH). These are summarized in Table 14 below and units are 

illustrated on Figures 3, 4 and 5. 



breeding and movement of common amphibian species. The larger valley systems have potential 

habitat for a variety of common turtle species. 



Ecoplans Limited



Table 14. 

Summary of Specialized and Sensitive Wildlife Habitat Areas Within or 

Adjacent to the Transportation Corridor 



Potential Deer Winter Habitat is present in unit C5HAL-1, the large forested block located 

along the east side of the transportation corridor (WDL). This unit is dominated by a variety 

of vegetation community types including hardwood-hemlock mixed forest, coniferous 

plantation, and cultural meadow. This type of habitat offers shelter and forage for a variety 

of mammals and is typical of preferred winter habitat for deer. Vegetated linkages provide 

opportunities for wildlife movement to areas further east (Heber Down) and further west 

(C5AU) from this block. 


Minor pockets of seepage were found in this unit and locally support dependant vegetation 

communities, water dependant flora, and vernal pool habitat for amphibian species. 

Vernal Pools 

Vernal pools were observed within the west portion of unit 401HAR-1A (a small deciduous 

forest located west of Lakeridge Road and abutting Highway 401. and RLAK-1a (a small 

deciduous swamp located east of the transportation corridor (WDL) and south of the CPR 

rail line). Vernal pools are forest pools that retain water for a short time in the spring and 

early summer and provide breeding habitat for amphibian species including salamanders, 

frogs and toads. Certain types of amphibians (e.g., Yellow-spotted Salamander) depend 

solely on these short-lived forest ponds to breed, relying on them to retain water long 

enough to have the eggs hatch and turn into salamanders before they dry up. 


Interior forest habitat (that which is 100 m from forest edge) is present in unit C5HAL-1, the 

large forested block located along the east side of the Transportation corridor (WDL). 

These areas often coincide with those SSWH that contain area-sensitive species. There is 

no deep interior forest habitat (that which is 200 m from forest edge) within this section. 


The Lynde Creek tributary valleys and adjacent habitats along the West Durham Link have 

relatively high bird species abundance. These valleys offer a mosaic of habitat types 

dominated by cultural meadow and cultural thicket with elements of mixed forest, 

deciduous forest, coniferous swamp and cultural woodland. The majority of bird species 

recorded are common and habitat generalists. 

Unit 

Identification 

C5HAL-1 

THAL-1 

 

401HAR-1a 

RLAK-1a 

C5HAL-1a 

C5HAL-1, CGA- 

1a, 401LAK-1, 2, 

and 5a, and 

KHAL-2 



and adjacent to the transportation corridor (within 120m). All of the bird species (100%) observed 

are common, habitat generalist species that utilize a variety of habitats (such as agricultural fields, 



The most abundantly recorded bird species in this area were Song Sparrow, Red-winged 

Blackbird, and American Goldfinch. These species are typical of a range of habitats including 

forest edges and openings, open fields, agricultural zones and wet areas. 





Ecoplans Limited



Table 15. 

Forest Area-sensitive Species in the Study Area of the Lynde Creek 

Watershed (West Durham Link) 




Brown Creeper Certhia americana 2 

Cooper’s Hawk Accipiter cooperi 1 



Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus 2 


Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis 1 

Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus 1 



A summary of where these birds were observed and their habitat characteristics is provided below: 

 

 

 

 

 

American Redstart was observed at 3 sites (TLAK-6, 401LAK-2 and C5HAL-1), in 

communities dominated by cultural meadow/deciduous forest, deciduous swamp and 

swamp thicket. American Redstarts typically forage in the understorey of deciduous 

forests, gleaning insects from the leaves. They are common in forests with dense 

understorey vegetation and riparian thickets. 

Hairy Woodpecker was observed at 1 site (RLAK-4), in a community dominated by 

deciduous forest located within the transportation corridor just north of Rossland Road. 

Hairy Woodpeckers utilize a wide variety of trees and habitat for forage and nesting. 

They are less sensitive to disturbance than other species and can be found in habitat 

ranging from forests, woodlands and thickets to residential backyards and urban 

centers. 

Pileated Woodpecker was observed in THAL-3, a Moist Hemlock Coniferous Forest that 

is not directly impacted by the transportation corridor (WDL) but is mentioned because 

this species is considered more sensitive to cultural disturbance. 

Ovenbird and Veery were observed in C5HAL-1 and Veery was also observed in TLAK- 

3. These units are comprised of deciduous forest and cultural meadow. Ovenbird and 

Veery nest on the ground in forests with dense understorey and groundcover (ferns, 

grasses, and herbaceous vegetation). Their nesting habits make them more sensitive to 

urban development due to the influx of predators, parasitic bird species and 

anthropogenic influences (e.g., dumping, noise, and recreational trails) 

White-breasted Nuthatch was observed at 401LAK-5a, located east of the WDL and 

401 interchange in an area dominated by deciduous swamp and cultural woodland. This 

unit is associated with the Lynde Creek valley. White-breasted Nuthatch utilize a wide 

variety of trees and habitat for forage and nesting, creeping down trees gleaning insects 



Ecoplans Limited



from under the loose bark. They are less sensitive to disturbance than other species 

and can be found in habitat ranging from forests, woodlands and thickets to residential 


 

 

 

Brown Creeper was observed at 2 sites (RLAK-1 and RLAK-2), in deciduous forests. 

Brown Creepers function much like a nuthatch but instead of creeping down trees they 

creep up gleaning insects from under the loose bark. They nest under the loose bark of 

trees that are often damaged or decaying - these types of trees are considered 

aesthetically unpleasing and dangerous in urban settings and are often removed. 

Northern Harrier was observed in THAL-6, a narrow, linear riparian meadow community 

along a Lynde Creek tributary, located just west of the transportation corridor (WDL). 

These birds need large areas of open field and marsh habitats for nesting and foraging. 

These vegetation communities are often comprised of common, disturbance tolerant 

plant species and may be considered lower quality from a botanical perspective. 

Sharp-shinned Hawk was observed at 1 site (401 LAK-1), in meadow marsh associated 

with the tributary of Lynde Creek located just west of the WDL and 401 interchange. 

Cooper’s Hawk was observed at 1 site (THAL-2). THAL-2 is comprised of a linear 

riparian cultural meadow and deciduous forest patches along a tributary to Lynde 

Creek, located within the transportation corridor (WDL). They are both forest birds that 

specialize on feeding on smaller birds and rodents. They often visit bird feeders and 

urban areas during the winter as these are easy sources of food. 


Amphibian calling surveys were conducted in this section in 2003 and 2006. 3 amphibian species 

were recorded in 11 of the 15 units surveyed in and adjacent to the transportation corridor (within 

120 m) including: American Toad, Spring Peeper, and Grey Treefrog. 1 salamander species, Redbacked 

Salamander (Plethodon cinereus), was observed in Unit 401LAK-1. 



present. This can include dug ponds, ditches, as well as natural and man-made wetlands. 

Amphibian data by watershed and vegetation unit are provided in Appendix E. 


During the 2008 winter resident bird surveys, 2 provincially rare species were observed: Roughlegged 

Hawk (designated S1B/SZN) was observed in 401HAR-1; and Bohemian Waxwing 

(designated as S2S3B/SZN) was observed in RLAK-1. The large numbers (35) of Bohemian 

Waxwing observed (and in consultation with other avian specialists) has lead to the conclusion that 

the presence of this species is likely a ‘southern interruption’; this is where northern resident birds 

infiltrate into southern habitats during particularly harsh winters in the north. Neither of these 

species are considered to be breeding within the watershed. 



Ecoplans Limited



No other provincially rare species (S1-S3), federally (COSEWIC) or provincially (COSSARO) 

designated wildlife species at risk were recorded within or adjacent to the transportation corridor 

(within 120 m). 

There were 2 regionally rare species in units within or adjacent to the transportation corridor (within 

120 m). Regionally rare bird species are designated by Central Lake Ontario Conservation 

Authority (CLOCA) (Henshaw 1993). Rare bird species are listed in Table 16 below. 

Table 16. 

Rare Bird Species in the Study Area of the Lynde Creek Watershed 

(West Durham Link) 



Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus 1 

Bohemian Waxwing Bombycilla garrulus 35 



Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus 7 

These species and their observation locations are described in the chapters above. 


The most prominent landscape linkage feature in this portion of the transportation corridor 

corresponds generally to the Lake Iroquois Shoreline. In the vicinity of the WDL, this feature is 

located approximately between Taunton Road and Highway 7 and is comprised of a relatively 

contiguous mosaic of natural vegetation (including cultural meadow, thicket, plantation, upland and 

lowland forest and wetlands). The importance of the corridor is associated with the fact that it 

forms a natural linkage between the Lynde Creek watershed and Duffins and Carruthers 

watersheds and further west to the Rouge River. Several prominent core habitat areas and natural 

areas are associated with this feature including Heber Down and Greenwood Conservation Areas. 

Watercourse crossing 43 is associated with a tributary of Lynde Creek that crosses the WDL on the 

Lake Iroquois Shoreline. Maintaining key wildlife linkage functions along the Lake Iroquois 

Shoreline will be important. 

Within the WDL portion of the transportation corridor, there are no north-south linkages that would 

be considered significant at a landscape level. South of the Lake Iroquois Shoreline, the 

transportation corridor (WDL) crosses 2 Lynde Creek tributaries, one of which is crossed several 

times (Figures 3 and 4). 



Ecoplans Limited



These smaller drainage systems provide local opportunities for wildlife use and movement, 

however these systems are limited in terms of width, natural vegetation cover, habitat diversity and 

wildlife habitat elements. These valleys function more on a local linkage scale and should continue 

to provide opportunity for localized wildlife movement. Adjacent agricultural practices (cattle 

grazing) reduces the quality of these linkages in some locations. 

An existing Highway 401 crossing of Lynde Creek will be replaced/upgraded and will continue to 

provide an important linkage to the Lynde Marsh and Lake Ontario shoreline, south of the 401. 

However, the CN/GO Transit crossing will not be replaced, as it is not under MTO jurisdiction to do 

so. 


ecopassages, and associated mapping for the entire transportation corridor. 

5.4 Oshawa Creek Watershed (Refer to Figures 6, 7, and 8 in Appendix A) 



This section of the transportation corridor crosses approximately 7.1 km of the Oshawa Creek 

Watershed. This is 1 of the larger watersheds in the Study Area. For the purposes of this report, 

the Pringle Creek subwatershed is included in the discussion of Oshawa Creek watershed; this 

follows the Oshawa Creek Watershed Management Plan (OCWMP) which also includes Pringle 

Creek in its content. Within this section of the Study Area, the transportation corridor crosses 2 

Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs): West Branch of Oshawa Creek and East Branch of 

Oshawa Creek. Both ESAs generally encompass valley and associated upland vegetation along 

these watercourses and are considered highly sensitive within the Study Area according to 

CLOCA’s Environmental Sensitivity Mapping Project (Gartner Lee Limited 1978). Although not 

crossed by the transportation corridor at this location, the Oak Ridges Moraine (Countryside Area) 

is approximately 8 m from the transportation corridor, near the Harmony Road interchange. 

Similar to most of the Study Area, this section of the transportation corridor is primarily agricultural 

with rural residential development. Natural areas are primarily within the ESAs along the branches 

of Oshawa Creek with smaller isolated features scattered on the tablelands between these valleys. 


of disturbance (relatively little anthropogenic disturbance) and uniqueness of community. Three 

units within this section were identified as high quality. These units area mapped on Figures 7 and 

8 and are discussed below: 



Ecoplans Limited



 

 

 

Unit WHAR-3 is an upland Sugar Maple forest (FOD5-1) located north of Winchester 

Road and west of Grandview Street. Although this unit had limited diversity of 

woodland flora, mid-aged to mature 

deciduous forests of this size (7 ha) 

are uncommon in this region. 

Unit CTHO-5 is a forested valley 

along Oshawa Creek West (east of 

Thornton Road). It has limited 

disturbance and mature conditions 

(large diameter trees, few invasive 

and non-native species, frequent 

snags and downed logs). It is also 

large enough to support a small area 

(0.6 ha) of interior forest (based on 

100 m from the edge). 

Cultural Meadow with Meadow Marsh inclusions (WRIT- 

9) along Oshawa Creek East transitioning to White Cedar 

Forest (WRIT-10) in the background (Ecoplans) 

Unit WRIT-10 is a Cedar dominated 

forest patch along the East Branch of 

Oshawa Creek (north of Winchester Road). The northern half is the highest quality 

portion of the unit with mature trees and low disturbance. 

Also of interest is the valley along a tributary of Oshawa Creek East (east of Wilson Road and 

north of Winchester Road). Several small areas within this valley demonstrated notable features; 

however, they were often in close proximity to areas of high past disturbance (cultural meadow, 

cultural thicket, abundant invasive species (Common Buckthorn)). Features of note include the 

finding of 3 Leatherwood shrubs with a trunk diameter of approximately 10 cm in Unit WWA-5 

(Steyermark (1972) notes that Leatherwood of 5 cm diameter may be more that 100 years old), 

highly diverse riparian zone along (WWA-5), and pockets of mature trees. 

5.4.1.2 Flora 

During field investigations, 165 plant species were identified within the Study Area of the Oshawa 

Creek watershed and an additional 31 plants were identified to genus. Of these species, 46 are 

non-native (28%). This high percentage reflected the disturbed nature of many of the units within 

this watershed. The vascular plant list is provided in Appendix B. 



5 Butternut trees and 1 sapling were recorded within the Oshawa Creek Watershed, within or 

adjacent to the transportation corridor (WRIT-10, WWA-2c, WWA-4, WWA-5). This tree species is 

designated provincially and nationally as Endangered and is protected under Ontario’s 

Endangered Species Act. The trees range in size from 2 to 57 cm dbh. All of the Butternut trees, 

except the sapling showed signs of Butternut Canker. 2 of the Butternuts were considered 

‘retainable’ (per Ostry 70-20-50 guideline). The results of the Butternut Health Assessment are 

provided in Appendix C. 



Ecoplans Limited









4 regionally rare species were identified within the Study Area of the Oshawa Creek Watershed 

and are listed in Table 17 below. Regionally rare species are those designated as “Rare” by Varga 

(2000). 

Table 17. 

Regionally Rare Flora in the Study Area of the Oshawa Creek 

Watershed 


Flora 

Virginia Stickseed Hackelia virginiana Recorded in WWA-2c 

Canada Moonseed Menispermum canadense Recorded in CTHI-1a 

Black Willow Salix nigra Recorded in WRIT-9 

Rock Elm Ulmus thomasii Recorded in WWA-5 



The transportation corridor crosses a portion of the Oshawa Creek watershed that is dominated by 

urban (community of Brooklin) and rural residential, agricultural and recreational (golf course) land 

uses. As such, most of the natural vegetation was historically cleared for agriculture and more 

recently for urban development. Remaining natural habitat features along the transportation 

corridor are limited to 3 large valley systems (Oshawa Creek West, East and a large tributary of 

Oshawa Creek East, near Harmony Road) and 4 small tributary valleys and their associated 

riparian vegetation communities (comprised of lowland deciduous forest, meadow marsh and 

cultural thicket). 




The large forested valley systems are the most prominent habitat features in the Oshawa Creek 

watershed portion of the transportation corridor. These large valleys support a greater number of 

wildlife species or more specialized habitat given the higher wildlife habitat quality and diversity. 

These valleys serve as important regional linkages to habitat nodes further north on the Oak 

Ridges Moraine and provide wildlife refuge in a landscape that is transitioning from rural to urban. 



Ecoplans Limited





Species at Risk within the transportation corridor crossing of the Oshawa Creek watershed. 


specialized wildlife habitat (SSWH). These are summarized in Table 18 below and units are 

illustrated on Figure 7. 

Table 18. 

Summary of Specialized and Sensitive Wildlife Habitat Areas 


Summary of SSWH features 


Present in the forest valley of Oshawa Creek East, north of the transportation 

corridor. This portion of the valley has high quality Hardwood-Hemlock Mixed forest 

that consists of mature trees that are frequently greater than 50 cm dbh with low 

anthropogenic disturbance. This large valley offers shelter and forage for a variety 

of mammals and is typical of preferred winter habitat for deer. The valley corridor 

provides a linkage to larger habitat blocks further north (including interior forest 

habitat approximately 1 km from the transportation corridor) 


Present in Oshawa Creek West valley north and south of Winchester Road, 

including areas adjacent to the golf course. The valley offers a diverse array of 

habitats. CGAR-2 and 6 have valley slopes that are dominated by cedar-hardwood 

forest, whereas the bottomland is a mosaic of Aspen forest and patches of cultural 

meadow and meadow marsh. CGAR-5 and 9 are located in the bottomland along 

the confluence of Oshawa Creek West and a tributary of Oshawa Creek West. The 

vegetation is primarily cultural meadow with inclusions of meadow marsh, cedar 

forest and willow lowland. These units can be described as early successional 

communities with moderate diversity and frequent non-native species. The majority 

of bird species recorded are common and habitat generalists. 

Unit 


WRIT-10 

CGAR-2/6 

CGAR-5/9 





breeding and movement of common amphibian species. The larger valley systems have potential 

habitat for a variety of common turtle species. 



and adjacent to the transportation corridor (within 120m). Many of the bird species (90%) 



Ecoplans Limited



observed are common, habitat generalist species that utilize a variety of habitats (such as 

agricultural fields, thickets, forests, and meadows) that are common of an anthropogenically 

(agriculture and suburban/urban development) influenced landscape which is present throughout 

Durham Region. The most abundantly recorded bird species in this area were Song Sparrow, Redwinged 

Blackbird, and American Goldfinch. These species are typical of a range of habitats 

including forest edges and openings, open fields, agricultural zones and wet areas. 



Table 19. 

Forest Area-sensitive Species in the Study Area of the Oshawa Creek 

Watershed 




Black-and-white Warbler Mniotilta varia 1 


American Redstarts typically forage in the understorey of deciduous forests, gleaning insects off the 

leaves whereas Black-and-white Warblers function much like a nuthatch, foraging along branches and 

tree trunks. They are common in forests with dense understorey vegetation and riparian thickets such 

as unit WRIT-10 (dominated by cedar forest). The Pileated Woodpecker requires large expanses of 

forest for foraging and nesting, with ample dead standing trees and rotting logs. 


Amphibian calling surveys were conducted in this section in 2003 and 2006, this included 5 units 

within the transportation corridor. 1 amphibian species, Spring Peeper, was recorded in unit WRIT- 

10; the valleyland of Oshawa Creek East. This species are common, expected for site conditions 

and typically abundant within Durham Region generally. They are often observed by the Study 

Team wherever suitable habitat is present. This can include dug ponds, ditches, natural and manmade 

wetlands, etc. Amphibian data by watershed and vegetation unit are provided in Appendix 

E. 



wildlife species at risk were recorded. 

No regionally rare bird species were recorded. Regionally rare bird species are designated by 

Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA) (Henshaw 1993). 



Ecoplans Limited




In general, conclusions of the Study Team’s analysis of landscape connectivity and wildlife 

movement opportunities within the portion of the Oshawa Creek watershed crossed by the 407 are 

consistent with the Oshawa Creek Watershed Management Plan. 

The 407 transportation corridor crosses 7 valleys within the Oshawa Creek watershed (including 1 

tributary of Pringle Creek). Of these, 2 are large valley systems, East and West branches of 

Oshawa Creek (refer to Crossings 28 and 35 on Figure 7), that serve important regional landscape 

corridor functions. These corridors connect large habitat areas in the northern portion of the 

watershed (near the communities of Mount Carmel and Raglan) with natural areas near Taunton 

Road. A third valley crossing of an eastern tributary of Oshawa Creek East (associated with 

Crossing 38, Figure 7) is also considered to be an important regional wildlife linkage, although it is 

a smaller valley system. 

The remaining smaller tributary valleys (refer to Crossings 27, 32, 34, 36 on Figures 6 and 7) 

provide some local linkage opportunities for wildlife use and movement; and although these 

systems are more limited in terms of width, natural vegetation cover, habitat diversity and wildlife 

habitat elements they should continue to provide opportunity for localized wildlife movement. 


ecopassages, and associated mapping for the entire 407 transportation corridor. 

5.5 Harmony Creek Watershed (Refer to Figure 8 in Appendix A) 



The transportation corridor crosses approximately 3.0 km of the upper portion of the Harmony 

Creek watershed. This is a small section of the transportation corridor that is almost exclusively 

agricultural with scattered rural residential development. As a result, there are few natural 

vegetation communities within this section of the Study Area. There are no designated natural 

areas and all vegetation communities within 120 m of the transportation corridor are provincially 

common (Bakowsky 1996). Natural areas consist of small (2.5 - 4 ha), isolated deciduous forests, 

cultural plantations, cultural woodlands, a cultural thicket and a meadow marsh community. 

There were 2 units within this section that were identified as high quality. High quality units were 

determined on the basis of woodlot maturity (mature or old growth), level of disturbance (relatively 

little anthropogenic disturbance) and uniqueness of community. These units are mapped on 

Figure 8 and are discussed below: 



Ecoplans Limited



 

Unit TLAN-3 and TLAN-4: Although relatively small in size, these Sugar Maple- 

American Beech-White Ash forests (FOD5-1) are mature units with large diameter trees 

(>50 cm dbh) and an abundance of course woody debris (combination of snags and 

downed wood). Mature deciduous woodlots of this quality are uncommon in this region. 

5.5.1.2 Flora 

During field investigations, 61 plant species were identified in vegetation units within or adjacent to 

the transportation corridor footprint of the Harmony Creek watershed and an additional 9 plants 

were identified to genus. Of these species, 16 are non-native (26%). This relatively high 

percentage reflects the disturbed nature of this section of the route. The vascular plant list is 

provided in Appendix B. 




Species at Risk are those designated by COSEWIC or COSSARO as “Extirpated”, “Endangered”, 



Field investigations in support of the impact assessment did not identify any provincially rare flora 




1 regionally rare species was identified within the Study Area of the Harmony Creek Watershed. 

Regionally rare species are those ranked as “Rare” by Varga (2000). Black Willow (Salix nigra) 

was observed in Unit CHAR-4. 



The transportation corridor crosses a portion of Harmony Creek watershed that is dominated by 

agricultural land use. As such, most of the natural vegetation was historically cleared for agriculture 

and remaining natural habitat features along the transportation corridor are generally limited to 

small, scattered remnant upland forest blocks and 2 small tributary valleys and their associated 

riparian vegetation communities (comprised of lowland deciduous forest, meadow marsh and 

cultural thicket) and other small pockets of meadow marsh vegetation that are too wet for 

agricultural production. There is 1 high quality upland deciduous forest patch (TLAN-3) located 

east of Langmaid Road and south of Concession 6. 



Ecoplans Limited








Species at Risk within the transportation corridor crossing of the Harmony Creek watershed. 

No areas of specialized or sensitive wildlife habitat features such as potential deer wintering 

habitat, vernal pools, seasonal concentration areas or habitats of rare species etc. have been 

identified within or directly adjacent to the transportation corridor. 



The largest habitat node present in this area is a high quality upland deciduous forest block (TLAN- 

3) located immediately south and west of the transportation corridor, abutting the transitway station 

block near Enfield Road. This unit supports forest bird species including Great Crested Flycatcher, 

Red-eyed Vireo, Indigo Bunting (Appendix D). This forest also provides habitat to White-tailed deer 

as well as a variety of common small mammals (Grey Squirrel, Woodchuck, Raccoon, Eastern 

Cottontail, and Striped Skunk). 

The vegetation communities along the Harmony Creek and its tributaries are considered low to 

moderate quality from a botanical perspective and had relatively low bird abundance. Most of 

these are habitat generalist, disturbance tolerant, urban-adapted species such as American, 

European Starling, Red-winged Blackbird, Common Grackle and Song Sparrow. 1 area-sensitive 

bird species was observed (see Table 20 below). 

Table 20. 

Forest Area-sensitive Species in the Study Area of the Harmony Creek 

Watershed 




Herpetofauna habitat may be present generally, along the watercourses and associated riparian 

areas, in local wetland habitats and in dug agricultural ponds. These areas may provide habitat for 

localized breeding and movement of common amphibian species. 


A total of 18 breeding bird species (Appendix D) were recorded in 3 natural vegetation units in and 

adjacent to the transportation corridor (within 120m). Many of the bird species (90%) observed are 

common, habitat generalist species that utilize a variety of habitats (such as agricultural fields, 




Ecoplans Limited




The most abundantly recorded bird species within area were Black-capped Chickadee, European 

Starling, and Song Sparrow. These species are typical of a range of habitats including forest edges 

and openings, open fields, agricultural zones and wet areas. 

There is 1 forest area-sensitive species recorded in the natural vegetation units in and adjacent to 

the Study Area. This is listed in Table 20. American Redstarts typically forage in the understorey 

of deciduous forests, gleaning insects off the leaves. They are common in forests with dense 

understorey vegetation and riparian thickets such as unit CHAR-3 (lowland deciduous forest) 

where it was observed. 


No amphibian calling surveys were conducted in the Harmony Creek portion of the transportation 

corridor due to limited amphibian habitat present (vernal pool habitat and open water). Amphibian 

data by watershed and vegetation unit are provided in Appendix E. 

Amphibian potential of some of the very small, isolated wet pockets in the transportation corridor is 

not known, but would be governed by factors such as water depth and duration. 



wildlife species at risk were recorded. 

No regionally rare bird species were observed. Regionally rare bird species are designated by 

Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA) (Henshaw 1993). 


In general, conclusions of the Study Team’s analysis of landscape connectivity and wildlife 

movement opportunities within the portion of the Harmony Creek watershed crossed by the 407 

are consistent with the Harmony Creek Subwatershed Plan. Within the Study Area, there are no 

linkages that would be considered significant at a landscape level. 

The 2 Harmony Creek tributaries that are crossed by 407 transportation corridor are characterized 

as ‘weak’ linkages because natural vegetation cover along the creeks is sparse, discontinuous and 

highly disturbed by agricultural activities (refer to Crossings 54 and 56 on Figure 8). These 

drainage systems provide some local opportunities for wildlife use and movement. However, these 

systems are limited in terms of width, natural vegetation cover, habitat diversity and wildlife habitat 

elements. They are not considered significant ‘movement corridors’; instead, they function more on 

a local linkage scale and should continue to provide opportunity for localized wildlife movement. 


ecopassages, and associated mapping for the entire Highway 407 transportation corridor. 



Ecoplans Limited



5.6 East Mainline – Farewell Creek, Black Creek, Bowmanville Creek, Soper 

Creek and Wilmot Creek Watersheds 

5.6.1 Central Lake Ontario Conservation (CLOCA) (Refer to Figures 9, 13 and 14 in 

Appendix A) 

5.6.1.1 Vegetation 


This section of the transportation corridor crosses an evaluated wetland (a part of the Harmony- 

Farwell Iroquois Beach Wetland Complex) and it is immediately north of Solina Wetland. It also 

crosses the following 7 large, linear Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) oriented in a northsouth 

direction: Solina Bog, Solina Woods, Upper Black Creek, Bowmanville Creek (East 

Branches), Bowmanville Creek (West Branches), Mackie Creek Valley, Upper Soper Creek. 

The natural vegetation throughout this section is primarily characterized by large, contiguous 

forested valleylands. The tablelands between watercourses have largely been converted to 

agriculture. Cedar-dominated forests are the most common forest type along the transportation 

corridor in this area, with smaller areas of mixed and deciduous forest and plantation communities. 

The largest unevaluated wetland, a White Cedar – Conifer Organic Swamp was delineated along 

West Bowmanville Creek. 


of disturbance (relatively little anthropogenic disturbance) and uniqueness of community. 4 units 

within this section were identified as high quality. These units area mapped on Figures 9, 13 and 

14 and are discussed below: 

 

 

 

Unit TWAS-4: A tributary of Black Creek runs through this large woodlot. A mature, 

high quality Hemlock vegetation community (FOC3-1) is found along the valley slope. It 

has large diameter trees (>50 cm dbh), high structural diversity and a species 

composition indicative of low disturbance environments. A mature Sugar Maple- 

American Beech community (FOD5-2) is also found within this unit. High quality 

indicators such as large diameter trees, a diversity of age classes and structural layers 

are present within this unit. 

Unit TOS-2 2 vegetation communities (FOM7-2 and FOC4-1) within this unit have high 

quality indicators such as mature, large diameter trees (> 50 cm dbh), an abundance of 

coarse woody debris and few non-native species. They are part of a large, contiguous 

forested area that exist along the west branch of Bowmanville Creek. 

Unit TCOL-1: A tributary of Soper Creek flows through this large woodlot. A very unique 

groundwater-fed fen-like meadow marsh (MAM5-1) vegetation community is present 



Ecoplans Limited



 

TDCT-5: 2 mature Sugar Maple-White Ash- 

Black Cherry vegetation communities (FOD5- 

7 and FOD5-8) are found along the ravine in 

this unit. High quality indicators such as large 

diameter trees (> 50 cm dbh) and a welldeveloped 

layer of course woody debris 

(snags and downed wood) are present. 

Mature, undisturbed deciduous communities 

like this area uncommon in southern Durham. 

Flora 

Fen Meadow Marsh Community in TCOL-1 (GLL) 

During field investigations, 275 plant species were identified within the Study Area of the Farewell 

Creek, Black Creek, Bowmanville Creek and Soper Creek watersheds. Of these species, 67 are 

non-native (24%). Non-native species are most abundant in terms of cover and species richness 

in the cultural and woodland communities throughout this section. The list of vascular plants 

indentified in this section is provided in Appendix B. 

Rare Species 


8 Butternut trees and 1 seedling were recorded in this section, within or directly adjacent to the 

transportation corridor. This tree species is designated provincially and nationally as Endangered 

and is listed on Schedule 1 of the provincial Species at Risk Act. Butternut trees were recorded in 

Vegetation Units TOS-2, TDCT-5 and TDCT-7. There was 1 Butternut tree noted in each of 

Vegetation Units TOS-2 and TDCT-5. Both of these trees displayed signs of Butternut canker. 6 

Butternut trees were recorded in Unit TDCT-7. The trees within TDCT-7 range in size from 25 – 60 

cm dbh and all but 1 tree exhibited signs of the Butternut canker. A Butternut seedling was 

identified in Unit TCOL-2. The results of the Butternut Health Assessment are provided in 

Appendix C. 


Field investigations conducted as part of the impact assessment identified 1 provincially rare flora 

species. Provincially rare species are those designated as S1-S3 according to the Natural 

Heritage Information Centre (NHIC). Butternut is ranked “S3?” meaning that it is considered 

“vulnerable”, however the “?” indicates the rank is uncertain. Butternut is discussed further above. 


12 regionally rare species were identified within this section and are listed in Table 21 below. 

Regional significance was based on rarity rankings assigned by Varga et al. (2000). 



Ecoplans Limited



Table 21. Regionally Rare Flora in the Study Area of the Farwell Creek, Black 

Creek, Bowmanville Creek and Soper Creek Watersheds (East Mainline) 


Flora 

Pale Jewelweed Impatiens pallida Recorded in TWAS-4 

Recorded in TOS-2 

Recorded in TCED-1 

Wooly Sedge Carex lanuginosa Michx Recorded in TCED-1 

Tall Blue Lettuce Lactuca biennis (Moench) Fern Recorded in TCED-1 

Closed Gentian Gentiana andrewsii Griseb Recorded in TCED-1 

Fringed Gentian Gentiana crinita Froel Recorded in TCED-1 

Foxglove Beard-tongue Penstemon digitalis Nutt Recorded in TCED-1 

Recorded in TMID-1 

Muhly Grass Muhlenbergia glomerata Recorded in TCED-1 

Recorded in TCOL-1 

Common Juniper Juniperus communis L Recorded in TMID-1 

Slender Gerardia Agalinus tenuifolia (Vahl) Raf. Recorded in TMID-1 

Wood-sorrel Oxalis acetosella Recorded in TMID-1 

Nodding Ladies’ Tresses Spiranthes cernua 

Recorded in TMID-1 

Long-leaved Starwort Stellaria longifolia Recorded in TR-14-2 

5.6.1.2 Wildlife 


A wide variety of species occur within the Study Area, on account of the aerial extent of the project 

and the wide variety of habitats crossed. Natural habitats are primarily forest, thickets and field 

and as a result, terrestrial (upland) fauna is the dominant form. For instance, the bird list does not 

include many wetland species with the exception of some swamp species. The mostm commonly 

found southern Ontario frog species occur within the Study Area (with the exception of Chorus 

Frog), however breeding populations appear to be generally fairly small. Many mammal species 

that are common in southern Ontario occur here. 


The transportation corridor crosses or is adjacent to several habitat areas containing specialized or 

sensitive wildlife habitat as illustrated on Figures 9, 13, and 14 and summarized in Table 22 

below. 

Interior forest habitat (that which is 100 m from edge) is provided in 6 areas (10 Vegetation Units), 

within or adjacent (within 120 m) to the transportation corridor. Interior forest is present within the 

forested valleys of Farewell Creek, Bowmanville Creek (east and west branches), Mackie Creek 

and Soper Creek. These areas often coincide with those SSWH that contain area-sensitive 

species. There is no deep interior forest habitat (that which is 200 m from edge) within this section. 



Ecoplans Limited



Table 22. 

Summary of Specialized and Sensitive Wildlife Habitat (SSWH) Areas 



Mature Trees 

This unit has some very high quality areas, a mature tree component and generally 

has low disturbance. Mature trees provide habitat for a variety of wildlife species 

including cavity nesting birds and denning mammals as well as food source for 

woodpeckers, nuthatches and Brown Creepers. Mature nut trees provide food 

source for a variety of forest wildlife species. Mature and declining trees provide 

nutrients to the soil and additional habitat and food sources as downed woody 

debris. 

High Abundance of Area- sensitive Bird Species 

The highest numbers of area-sensitive bird species were recorded in the 

Bowmanville Creek East and West Branches, Mackie Creek Valley and Soper 

Creek Valley, which offer a variety of habitat types and large areas of forest habitat. 

Productive/diverse Amphibian Breeding Habitat 

Potential productive/diverse amphibian breeding habitat was identified to the north of 

the transportation corridor in the mosaic of mixed forest, thicket swamp and open 

pond communities associated with a tributary of Bowmanville Creek. A small pond 

located along Darlington-Clarke Townline was identified as specialized and sensitive 

wildlife habitat based on the number of breeding amphibian species recorded. 


TOS-2 

TOS-2 

TR57-2 

TCED-1 

TR14-1 

TCOL-1 

C6R57-1 

C6R57-1 

TCOL-2 

C6LA-2 

TTRU-4 

Breeding Birds 

A total of 66 avian species were recorded within the natural vegetation units in and adjacent to the 

Study Area of the Farewell, Bowmanville and Soper Creek watersheds. The list of breeding birds 

by vegetation unit is provided in Appendix D. The majority (over 90%) of these species likely 

occur within the transportation corridor and adjacent areas (within 120 m). 

The most abundantly recorded birds within this portion of the Study Area include species such as 

American Robin, Song Sparrow, Red-winged Blackbird and Black-capped Chickadee, as well as 

others which are abundant southern Ontario species and found in a relatively wide range of 

habitats. The more specialized Black-and White Warbler and Black-throated Green Warbler were 

also amongst the most abundant species. Their presence reflects the prevalence of conifer 

dominated forests – a preferred habitat - along this portion of the corridor. These species are also 

area-sensitive as noted below. 

High numbers of forest area-sensitive species were recorded in the Study Area of the Farewell, 

Bowmanville and Soper Creek watersheds. There are 11 area-sensitive species recorded in the 

natural vegetation units in and adjacent to the transportation corridor. These are listed in Table 23 

below. The forest area-sensitive species inhabit a variety of forest types, however the most 

abundant species (Black-throated Green Warbler and Black and White Warbler) most often occur 

in coniferous or mixed forests as noted above. Ovenbird is found in mixed or deciduous forests. 



Ecoplans Limited



Table 23. 

Forest Area Sensitive Species in the Study Area of the Farwell Creek, Black 

Creek, Bowmanville Creek and Soper Creek Watersheds 





Black-throated Green Warbler Dendroica virens 19 




Pine Warbler Dendroica pinus 1 


Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea 1 



Amphibians 

There are 7 productive amphibian sites within or up to 120 m from the transportation corridor. Low 

numbers of 1 or 2 species of calling amphibians were recorded at these sites, with the exception of 

Units TTRU-4 (Solina Wetland) and TCOL-4. 5 species were recorded at Unit TTRU-4, including a 

chorus of Eastern Gray Treefrogs. At Unit TCOL-4, a pond located on the west side of Darlington 

Clarke Townline, moderate to high numbers of 4 species were recorded. 

Amphibians recorded along this section of the transportation corridor include American Toad (Bufo 

americanus), Northern Leopard Frog, Wood Frog, Green Frog, Spring Peeper, and Eastern Grey 

Treefrog. Amphibian data by watershed and vegetation unit are provided in Appendix E. 

Rare Species 

This chapter provides a discussion of Species at Risk and Provincially and Regionally Rare 

species. There was 1 Golden-winged Warbler recorded approximately 150 m north of the 

transportation corridor, east of Liberty Road (Figure 13). This thicket species has recently (May 

2006) been designated as Threatened in Canada and Special Concern provincially, due to 

competition and hybridization with the closely related Blue-winged Warbler. Field investigations in 

support of the impact assessment did not identify any provincially rare fauna species. Provincially 

rare species are those designated as S1-S3 according to the Natural Heritage Information Centre 

(NHIC). Rare bird species are listed in Table 24 below. Regionally rare species are those 

designated as “Rare” or “Very Rare” in The Durham Region Natural History Report 1993 (Bain and 

Henshaw 1994). Blackburnian Warbler, considered regionally rare and forest area-sensitive, was 

recorded in 1 location. 



Ecoplans Limited



Table 24. 

Rare Bird Species in the Study Area of the Farwell Creek, Black Creek, 

Bowmanville Creek and Soper Creek Watersheds 



Golden-winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera 1 


Blackburnian Warbler Dendroica fusca 1 

Landscape Connectivity 

There are numerous, strong north-south areas of natural habitat, with much weaker connections in 

an east-west direction as a result of the intervening agricultural use. The Bowmanville Creek 

watershed in particular has several north-south oriented valleylands and tablelands (refer to 

Crossing 61, 64, 67 and 69 on Figure 13). With the exception of the main Farewell Creek valley 

(Crossing 58 on Figure 9), the area to the west of Holt Road is less well connected due to higher 

agricultural use. The large and fairly contiguous forest block along Mackie Creek and its tributaries 

(Crossings 71 and 72 on Figure 13) provides connections to a large habitat area south of the 

transportation corridor and along Mackie Creek to habitat areas in the northern portion of the 

watershed. 


well as overall ecopassage mapping for the entire 407. 

5.6.2 Ganaraska Region Conservation (GRCA) (Refer to Figures 14 & 15 in Appendix A) 



A portion (79 ha) of the transportation corridor encroaches into the Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM). 

The ORM is an ecologically important geological landform. The ecologically diverse moraine is the 

water source for many headwater streams flowing south into Lake Ontario and north into rivers 

draining into Georgian Bay and Lake Simcoe. The moraine has a unique concentration of 

environmental, geological and hydrological features. The wetlands, woodlands, watercourses, 

kettle lakes and bogs provide an environment suitable for significant flora and fauna communities 

to develop and thrive. 

The natural vegetation in the Wilmot Creek watershed is primarily characterized by the 2 forested 

valleys associated with Orono and Wilmot Creeks. The tablelands between these watercourses 

have largely been converted to agriculture. 

The Orono Creek valley, located to the east of Brown Road and north of Concession Road 7, is 

characterized as a fairly well-connected system of White Cedar forest and White Cedar swamp 



Ecoplans Limited



communities (Vegetation Unit C7DCT-1 on Figure 14). The Wilmot Creek Valley is a large and well 

connected valley system. The forested valley to the south of a hydro corridor (Vegetation Unit 

C7DCT-4), is composed of White Cedar and planted pine communities. There is a large, manmade 

pond within this unit. White Cedar forest and White Cedar Mineral swamp communities 

characterize the valley north of the hydro corridor (Vegetation Unit C7DCT-5). Small pockets of 

Mineral Meadow Marsh, Cattail Shallow Marsh and organic White Cedar swamp were delineated 

along the eastern tributary of Wilmot Creek. A large area (~ 40 ha) of thicket and meadow 

communities is located north of Concession Road 7 and west of Best Road. 

Flora 

During field investigations, 228 plant species were identified within the Study Area of the Wilmot 

Creek watershed. Of these species, 82 are non-native (36%). Non-native species are most 

abundant in terms of cover and species richness in the cultural and woodland communities 

throughout this section. The list of vascular plants identified in this section is provided in Appendix 

B. 

Rare Species 



Species at Risk are those designated by COSEWIC or COSSARO as “Extripated”, “Endangered”, 



Field Investigations in support of the impact assessment did not identify any provincially rare flora 




There were 2 regionally rare species identified within the Study Area of the Wilmot Creek 

watershed and are listed in Table 25 below. Regional significance was based on rarity rankings 

assigned by Varga et al. (2000). 

Table 25. 

Regionally Rare Flora in the Study Area of the Wilmot Creek Watershed 


Flora 

Chair-maker’s Rush Scripus pungens. Recorded in C7DCT-1 

Clearweed Pilea Fontana (Lunell) Recorded in C7BES-5 



Ecoplans Limited





Natural habitat features along the transportation corridor are predominately within the Wilmot 

Creek valley and to a lesser extent, the Orono Creek valley. Natural cover declines in the eastern 

portion of the watershed where agricultural uses are dominant. 

The large forested Wilmot Creek (C7DCT-5, C7DCT-4 and C7LES-3 on Figure 14) valley supports 

a diversity of habitat types and high numbers of area-sensitive species. The Wilmot Creek valley 

has been identified as core wildlife habitat that provides interior forest habitat. 

In general, the open agricultural fields, plantations, meadow marsh, thicket and woodland 

communities within and adjacent to the transportation corridor provide habitat for a suite of 

common, generalist species that are tolerant of rural/agricultural conditions. 


The transportation corridor crosses several habitat areas containing specialized or sensitive wildlife 

habitat as illustrated on Figure 14 and summarized in Table 26 below. 

Table 26. 





The diverse array of habitat types within the Wilmot Creek Valley and in the large, 

contiguous forest associated with Orono Creek (south of the transportation corridor) 

support high numbers of area-sensitive bird species. 

Unit 


C7DCT-4 

C7DCT-5 

TDCT-6 

Interior forest habitat (that which is 100 m from edge) is provided in two areas (3 vegetation units) 

within or adjacent (within 120 m) to the transportation corridor. Interior forest is present within the 

forested valley of Wilmot Creek. These areas often coincide with those SSWH that contain areasensitive 

species. There is no deep interior forest habitat (that which is 200 m from edge) within 

this section. 

Breeding Birds 

A total of 56 avian species were recorded within the natural vegetation units in and adjacent to the 

Study Area of the Wilmot Creek Watershed. The list of breeding birds by vegetation unit is 

provided in Appendix D. The majority (over 90%) of these species likely occur within the 

transportation corridor and adjacent areas (within 120 m). 



Ecoplans Limited



The most abundantly recorded birds within this portion of 

the Study Area include species such as American Robin 

and Song Sparrow as well as others which are abundant 

southern Ontario species and found in a relatively wide 

range of habitats. The more specialized Black-and White 

Warbler and Black-throated Green Warbler were also 

amongst the most abundant species. Their presence 

reflects the prevalence of conifer dominated forests – a 

preferred habitat - along this section of the transportation 

corridor. These species are also area-sensitive as noted 

below. 

American Robin chick begging for food 

(Ecoplans) 

There are 8 area-sensitive species recorded in the natural vegetation units in and adjacent to the 

Study Area. These are listed in Table 27 below. The forest area-sensitive species inhabit a 

variety of forest types, however the most abundant species (Black-throated Green Warbler and 

Black and White Warbler) most often occur in coniferous or mixed forests as noted above. 

Ovenbird is found in mixed or deciduous forests. Also present are grassland area-sensitive 

species including Upland Sandpiper, Bobolink and Grasshopper Sparrow. Both the Upland 

Sandpiper and Grasshopper Sparrow were recorded in a large area of upland thicket and meadow 

near Highway 35. Note that all Upland Sandpipers were recorded in 2003 and none were recorded 

in 2007. 

Table 27. 

Forest Area-sensitive Species in the Study Area of the Wilmot Creek 

Watershed 










Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata 1 

Amphibians 

Amphibian calling surveys were conducted in the Wilmot Creek watershed in 2003 and 2006. No 

calling amphibian sites were recorded within or up to 120 m from the transportation corridor, 

however Green Frog were identified in CTDCT-4 during the day. 

4 productive amphibian sites were identified in areas between 400 m and 600 m from the 

transportation corridor. Amphibian data by watershed and vegetation unit are provided for these 

sites in Appendix E. 



Ecoplans Limited



Rare Species 

This chapter provides a discussion of Species at Risk and provincially and regionally rare species. 

As described in Chapter 4.2.2, Blanding’s Turtle has been recorded within the Study Area. 

Blanding’s Turtle is designated federally and 

provincially as Threatened. The Blanding’s Turtle was 

observed within the vicinity of the Wilmot Creek valley 

Figure 14). 

Blanding’s Turtle typically occur in large shallow 

waterbodies and wetlands (COSEWIC 2005). There 

is a dug pond within the Wilmot Creek valley that is off 

line with Creek. Some water from the creek is 

diverted from the creek through the pond at the north 

end. There is also an overflow outlet to the creek at 

the south end of the pond. The shoreline of the pond 

Blanding’s Turtle (GLL) 

is steep sided and consequently there is minimal 

emergent wetland vegetation along the shoreline. The shoreline areas are mowed and manicured 

amongst many trees. Dense White Cedar coniferous forest (FOC2-2) with very low diversity of 

plant species borders the east side of the pond berm and extends along the creek. Lawn and a 

senescing Scots Pine plantation with deciduous regeneration occur on the west side. The 

maximum pond depth is approximately 5 m, and the clear waters indicate there is likely 

groundwater input. The pond bottom is dominated by an 

almost continuous cover of stonewort (Chara sp.) with 

some occurrences of Sago Pondweed (Potamogeton 

pectinatus) 

The pond does not appear to provide good habitat for the 

Threatened Blanding’s Turtle since it has a steep sloping 

shoreline with minimal emergent marsh along the 

shoreline. Blanding’s typically occurs in shallow ponds 

with abundant emergent cover. The surrounding cedar 

forest and woodland is also not optimal habitat for the 

Common Snapping Turtle (Ecoplans) species. Both Snapping and Painted Turtles, which were 

observed using the pond, are more adaptable to a 

broader range of conditions and their presence is not an indication that Blanding’s Turtle is also 

likely to be present. Snapping Turtle has recently (November 2008) been designated as Special 

Concern by COSEWIC. 

Regionally rare bird species are those designated as “Rare” or “Very Rare” in The Durham Region 

Natural History Report 1993 (Bain and Henshaw 1994). Rare bird species are listed in Table 28 

below. 



Ecoplans Limited



Table 28. 

Rare Bird Species in the Study Area of the Wilmot Creek Watershed 



Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus 1 


Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda 3 


A very strong north-south habitat corridor extends through the middle portion of the watershed 

along the Wilmot Creek valley (refer to Crossing 79 on Figure 14). Across the Study Area, the 

forested corridor along Wilmot Creek represents one of the largest blocks of contiguous habitat 

along the transportation corridor. It provides connectivity to natural areas for many kilometres to 

the north and south. The Orono Creek valley is considered to be a high quality linkage as a result 

of its connections to the Wilmot Creek Valley to the north and south of the transportation corridor. 

The eastern portion of the watershed (Wilmot Creek tributaries - Crossings 82 and 83 on Figure 

15) is considered to be lower quality with respect to connectivity, given the discontinuous nature of 

the vegetative cover and limited connections to natural areas as a result of the dominance of 

agricultural land uses in this area. These drainage features provide some local opportunities for 

wildlife use and movements. However, these systems are limited in terms of width and natural 

vegetation cover. 


ecopassages and associated mapping for the entire 407 transportation corridor. 


Watersheds (Refer to Figures 9, 10, 11 and 12 in Appendix A) 



This section of the transportation corridor crosses the Harmony-Farewell Iroquois Beach Wetland 

and Maple Grove Wetland Complexes in 3 locations. It also crosses the following five 

Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs): Upper Black Creek, Courtice Wetlands, Farewell Creek 

Valley Through Beach, Black Creek Valley and Tooley Creek Valley. 

The East Durham Link (within and adjacent to the transportation corridor) is characterized 

predominately by agricultural land use, interspersed with large natural areas through its centre 

section, typically associated with the wetland complexes listed above. Natural areas in the 

southern section (south of Highway 2) are generally smaller, more fragmented and more highly 

disturbed than the area between Highway 2 to north of Taunton Road. A high diversity of wetland 



Ecoplans Limited



community types are represented along the East Durham Link including coniferous, mixed and 

deciduous swamp, thicket swamp, shallow and meadow marsh communities. There are notably 

smaller amounts of the latter two communities. Other natural areas in the East Durham Link Study 

Area consist of a fairly equal mix of common upland communities including coniferous, mixed and 

deciduous forest and cultural communities including cultural meadow, thicket and woodland 

communities and units of plantation. 


of disturbance (relatively little anthropogenic disturbance) and uniqueness of community. There 

were 2 units within this section identified as high quality. These units area mapped on Figures 9 

and 10 and are discussed below: 

Blueberry Thicket in Vegetation Unit NCOU-9 (GLL) 

 

 

Unit TSOL-1: 2 mature, high quality vegetation communities were identified within this 

unit. Both the White Cedar community (FOC4-1) and the Sugar Maple-Hemlock mixed 

forest (FOM3-2) have large diameter trees, a well-developed coarse woody debris layer 

and structural diversity. 

Unit TSOL-2: This unit supports a diversity of high quality of high quality vegetation 

communities. A White Cedar community (FOC4-1), a hardwood-Hemlock mixed forest 

(FOM3-1) and a White Cedar-Hemlock community (FOC4-2) are high quality, mature 

communities with large diameter trees, a well developed layer of coarse woody debris 

and structural diversity. 

5.7.1.2 Flora 

During field investigations 166 plant species were identified within the East Durham Link Study 

Area. Of these species, 52 are non-native (31%). Introduced species are most abundant in terms 

of cover and species richness in the cultural communities throughout the Study Area. The vascular 

plant list is provided in Appendix B. 



There was 1 butternut tree and 3 seedlings were recorded in the East Durham Link Study Area, 

within or directly adjacent to the transportation corridor. This tree species is designated provincially 

and nationally as Endangered and is listed on Schedule 1 of the provincial Species at Risk Act. A 

Butternut tree was recorded in Vegetation Unit BHAN-11. This tree (15 cm dbh) shows signs of the 

Canker, but appeared healthy at the time of the health assessment (October 2008). Butternut 

seedlings were identified in Units NCOU-2 and BHAN-3. The results of the Butternut Health 

Assessment are provided in Appendix C. 



Ecoplans Limited





Provincially rare species are those designated as S1-S3 according to the Natural Heritage 

Information Centre (NHIC). Butternut is ranked “S3?” meaning that it is considered “vulnerable”, 

however the “?” indicates the rank is uncertain. Butternut is discussed further above. 


There were 9 regionally rare species within the East Durham Link Study Area and are listed in 

Table 29 below. Regional significance was based on rarity rankings assigned by Varga et al. 

(2000). 

Table 29. 

Regionally Rare Flora in the Study Area of the Black Creek, Tooley 

Creek and Darlington Creek Watersheds 


Tall Blue Lettuce Lactuca Biennis Recorded in NCOU-1 

Grey Dogwood Cornus foemina Recorded in NCOU-1 

False Loosestrife Ludwigia palustris Recorded in NCOU-1 

Fragrant Cudweed Gnaphalium obtusifolium Recorded in NCOU-9 

Slender Gerardia Agalinus tenuifolia Recorded in BHAN-11 

Recorded in BHAN-9 

Recorded in NSOL-4 

Swamp Dewberry Rubus hispidus Recorded in BHAN-9 

Recorded in BHAN-11 

Bog Goldenrod Solidago uliginosa Recorded in BHAN-9 

Mild Waterpepper Polygonum hydropiperoides Recorded in BHAN-9 

Closed Gentian Gentiana andrewsii Recorded in NSOL-4. 



A wide variety of species occur within the East Durham Link Study Area, on account of the aerial 

extent of the project and the wide variety of habitats crossed. Natural habitats are primarily forest, 

thickets and field and as a result, terrestrial fauna are dominant. The bird list does not include 

many open wetland species. In the south end of this section at Highway 401, there are numerous 

young, early-successional communities which support disturbance tolerance species. Frog 

species recorded within the Study Area are amongst the most commonly found in southern Ontario 

with the exception of Chorus Frog, however breeding populations of all recorded species appear to 

be generally small. As expected, many mammal species that are common in southern Ontario 

occur across the East Durham Link Study Area. 

The forest/swamp Units NCOU-1, NSOL-2 and NSOL-4, which all occur in the central portion of 

this section, contain the greatest diversity of wildlife species in the East Durham Link Study Area. 



Ecoplans Limited



Two of these areas are large diverse areas of habitat while the relatively small NCOU-1 unit 

contained a relatively high diversity of bird species (32 species). 


The transportation corridor crosses or is adjacent to several habitat areas containing specialized 

and sensitive wildlife habitat (SSWH) as illustrated on Figures 10 and 11 and summarized in 

Table 30 below. 

Table 30. 





The highest numbers of area-sensitive bird species were recorded in two large 

units that are part of the Harmony-Farewell Iroquois Beach Wetland Complex. 

These units are composed of a mosaic of wetland and upland vegetation 

communities. 

Productive/diverse Amphibian Breeding Habitat 

Potential productive/diverse amphibian breeding habitat was identified in the 

mosaic of pond and wetland communities associated with a former gravel pit 

(NCOU-2). A large unit located south of Pebblest1 Road, part of the provincially 

significant Harmony-Farewell Iroquois Beach Wetland complex was identified as 

specialized and sensitive wildlife habitat based on the number of breeding 

amphibian species recorded. 


NSOL-4 

NCOU-1 

NSOL-4 

NCOU-2 

Interior forest habitat (that which is 100 m from the edge) is provided in 6 areas, within or adjacent 

(within 120 m) to the transportation corridor in the East Durham Link Study Area. Interior forest is 

present in vegetation units which are complexed as part of the Harmony Farewell- Iroquois Beach 

and Maple Grove Wetland complexes. These areas often coincide with those SSWH that contain 

area-sensitive species. There is no deep interior forest habitat (that which is 200 m from edge) 

within this section. 


A total of 68 species were recorded within the natural vegetation units in and adjacent to the Study 

Area in the East Durham Link. The list of observed breeding birds within each vegetation unit is 

provided in Appendix D. The majority (over 90%) of these species likely occur within the 

transportation corridor and adjacent areas (within 120 m). 

The most abundantly recorded birds within this portion of the Study Area include species such as 

American Robin, Song Sparrow, Black-capped Chickadee and Red-winged Blackbird as well as 

others which are abundant southern Ontario species and found in a relatively wide range of 

habitats. 



Ecoplans Limited



There are 11 area-sensitive species recorded in the natural vegetation units in and adjacent to the 

Study Area. These are listed in Table 31 below. The forest area-sensitive species inhabit a variety 

of forest types; however the most abundant species most often occur in occur in coniferous or 

mixed forests (Black and White Warbler) and in mixed or deciduous forests (Ovenbird). Veery is 

found in moist, mixed and deciduous young or disturbed large forest units. 

Table 31. 

Forest Area-sensitive Species in the Study Area of the Black Creek, 

Tooley Creek and Darlington Creek Watersheds 











Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea 1 




There are 7 productive amphibian sites in or adjacent to (within 120 m) the transportation corridor 

in the East Durham Link. Low numbers of 1 to 2 species of calling amphibians were recorded at 

these sites, with the exception of sites PSOL-1 and NSOL-4. There were 2 species recorded at 

Unit PSOL-1 (Figure 10), including a chorus of Spring Peeper. At Unit NSOL-4, 3 species were 

recorded, including a chorus of Wood Frogs. 

Amphibians recorded along the East Durham Link transportation corridor include American Toad, 

Northern Leopard Frog, Wood Frog, Green Frog, Spring Peeper and Eastern Grey Treefrog. 

Amphibian data recorded by watershed and vegetation unit are provided in Appendix E. 


Provincially rare species are those designated as S1-S3 according to the Natural Heritage 

Information Centre (NHIC). Regionally rare species are those designated as “Rare” or “Very Rare” 

in The Durham Region Natural History Report 1993 (Bain and Henshaw 1994). 

4 regionally rare forest bird species were recorded along the East Durham Link transportation 

corridor including Blackburnian Warbler, Cooper’s Hawk, Blue-gray Gnatcatcher and Yellow-billed 

Cuckoo (Table 32). These species inhabit deciduous or mixed forests (Blue-gray Gnatcatcher), 

large thickets or open woodlands (Yellow-billed Cuckoo), primarily coniferous forest (Blackburnian 



Ecoplans Limited



Warbler) and a variety of forests types including plantations (Cooper’s Hawk). Field investigations 

performed as part of the impact assessment did not identify any provincially rare fauna species. 

Table 32. 

Rare Bird Species of the Study Area of the Black Creek, Tooley Creek 

and Darlington Creek Watersheds 



Blackburnian Warbler Dendroica fusca 1 



Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea 1 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus 1 

No provincially rare species or federally or provincially designated amphibian species at risk were 

recorded. 


Habitat connectivity within the north third of the East Durham Link is relatively poor with only 

narrow linear areas running north-south that are generally unconnected in an east-west direction 

as a result of agricultural land use. The central portion of the Link contains the large natural areas 

associated with the Harmony-Farewell Iroquois Beach Wetland and Maple Grove Wetland 

Complexes which provide east-west connectivity, as well as connectivity to areas to the north. 

There are also effective connections along the main Black Creek valley that connect a variety of 

habitat types. The connection is weaker at Nash Road. Within the south third of the route (mainly 

Tooley Creek and Darlington Creek watersheds) landscape connectivity is again generally poor. 

These areas are dominated by agricultural land use and remnant habitat areas. 


well as overall ecopassage mapping for the entire 407. 



Ecoplans Limited



6. Potential Effects and Mitigation 

6.1 Overview 

This chapter has been prepared in accordance with the Ministry of Transportation Environmental 

Reference for Highway Design (October 2006). The requirements outlined in Section 3.2.5 

(Assessment of Impacts) and Section 3.2.6 (Environmental Protection/Mitigation) of the ERD have 

been incorporated into the assessment of impacts and development of appropriate mitigation 

measures. 

This chapter is structured as follows: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 6.1.1 presents an overview of the general anticipated ‘Construction Effects’ to 

the terrestrial ecosystem, 

Chapter 6.1.2 provides an overview of the general anticipated ‘Operation and 

Maintenance Effects’ to the terrestrial ecosystem, 

Chapter 6.1.3 describes standard mitigation measures that have been applied during 

design or are recommended during construction and operation/maintenance along the 

transportation corridor, 

Chapter 6.1.4 highlights mitigation measures that are recommended in site-specific 

locations along the transportation corridor, 

Chapter 6.1.5 highlights mitigation measures that are recommended during operation 

and maintenance of the facility, 

Chapters 6.2 to 6.8 are summaries of the detailed Impact Assessments Tables 

provided in Appendix A. A summary of the anticipated effects, environmental 

protection and residual effects are reported as follows: 

Chapter 6.2 Duffins Creek Watershed 

Chapter 6.3 Carruthers Creek Watershed 

Chapter 6.4 Lynde Creek Watershed 

Chapter 6.5 Oshawa Creek Watershed 

Chapter 6.6 Harmony Creek Watershed 

Chapter 6.7 East Mainline (Farewell Creek, Black Creek, Bowmanville Creek, 

Soper Creek and Wilmot Creek Watersheds 

Chapter 6.8 East Durham Link (Black Creek, Tooley Creek and Darlington Creek 

Watersheds) 



Ecoplans Limited



The detailed account of anticipated effects, mitigation measures and residual effects is reported in 

the Terrestrial Impact Assessment Tables provided in Appendix A. The Anticipated Effects and 

Additional Mitigation and Enhancements columns of the Terrestrial Impact Assessment Tables 

(Appendix A) include detailed information on the adverse effects that are anticipated and the 

mitigation measures that are recommended for terrestrial features affected by the transportation 

corridor. Anticipated Effects are discussed under construction and Operation and Maintenance. 

The Residual Effects column identifies any residual effects that are expected after the 

implementation of the mitigation measures. 

Vegetation removals were calculated based on the Preliminary Design plans (February 2009). The 

vegetation removals reported in the “Anticipated Effects” and Residual Effects” columns of the 

Impact Assessment tables (Appendix A), have been separated to reflect removals required for the 

construction of the corridor (110 m ROW) and all associated facilities and future removals required 

for the future transitway (60 m ROW). Stormwater management facilities, maintenance yards and 

transitway station footprints have been included with the transportation corridor footprint on the 

basis that these facilities will be constructed during or soon after the construction of the corridor. 

A detailed impact assessment of the transitway facility itself will be a future and separate 

undertaking, completed at the time of the transitway design. The scope of the current Impact 

Assessment is limited to an overview of direct footprint impacts associated with the 60 m transitway 

ROW. 

6.1.1 Construction Effects 

This chapter outlines the transportation project-related impacts on vegetation communities (e.g., 

forest and wetland communities) and wildlife considered to be typical of construction works and is 

based on MTO’s Environmental Standards and Practices User Guides for Terrestrial Ecosystems 

for Woodlands, Wetlands and Wildlife Habitats and Movements (December 2006). 


Vegetation clearing (and associated habitat removal) required to accommodate the corridor and all 

associated facilities is the primary direct effect related to construction of the transportation corridor. 

This includes vegetation removals to accommodate interchanges, vertical/horizontal alignment, 

grading, drainage design, temporary road access, bridges, culverts and channel realignments, 

traffic and noise barriers, utility relocation and general construction activities. 

The direct removal of forest vegetation often has the secondary effect of creating new forest edges 

that expose the retained vegetation to the effects of increased light, noise, wind, sun and salt 

spray. While the creation of the edge is a direct construction effect, the edge effects that influence 

the retained vegetation are considered indirect effects that will occur following construction and are 

discussed below in Chapter 6.1.2.1 



Ecoplans Limited



In addition to the effects described above, the construction of the corridor may result in the 

following adverse effects: 

 

 

 

Vegetation clearing/damage beyond the working area. 

Release of construction-generated sediment to adjacent vegetation areas. 

Spills of contaminants, fuels and other materials that may reach natural areas. 

While these are noted as possible adverse effects that may occur during construction, they can 

largely be avoided and/or mitigated through the standard mitigation measures outlined below. The 

vegetation clearing required to accommodate the transportation corridor (and transitway) footprint 

is a permanent vegetation removal. 


Road construction can have a number of direct effects on wildlife. For example, the construction of 

a new road may displace individuals and/or their habitat, or obstruct their movement. These 

construction effects can have secondary effects by fragmenting habitat and isolating populations. 

Direct construction effects are generally associated with: 

1. habitat loss or modification including interference with noteworthy species and 

habitats including Species at Risk; 

2. wildlife injury or mortality; and 

3. effects on animal movement. 

Habitat Loss or Modification 

Loss of wildlife habitat may result in loss of species including Species At Risk, fragmentation 

of habitat and of wildlife populations, reduction of wildlife habitat quality, and loss of active 

nests of migratory birds, by: 

 

 

removal of vegetation or features used for shelter, feeding and/or breeding; 

and/or 

physical destruction and/or severing of habitat areas. 

As described in more detail further below in this Chapter, the construction of the alignment will 

result in the direct removal of terrestrial forest habitat and wetland habitat. The significance of 

these communities as wildlife habitat varies and is described in detail in the Impact 

Assessment tables (Appendix A). The implications of the habitat removal are reviewed in 

the Impact Assessment tables, primarily in the context of potential adverse effects to 

elements of specialized or sensitive wildlife habitat known or likely to be present in the Study 

Area. 

Wildlife Mortality or Injury 



Ecoplans Limited



Road construction typically involves the clearing of existing vegetation, the removal of 

overburden (grubbing) and the blasting of bedrock (where encountered). All activities require 

the operation of heavy machinery. These activities have some potential for wildlife injury or 

mortality within the construction zone. 

Wildlife species vary in their vulnerability to construction-related mortality. Three factors 

largely determine the potential for wildlife to be affected: 

 

 

 

wildlife sensitivity to human disturbance; 

wildlife vagility (i.e., an individual’s inherent power of movement – see Carr and 

Fahrig 2001); and/or 

the timing of construction activities. 

Species that are sensitive to disturbance and are capable of departing areas of increased 

human activity (i.e., most mammals and birds) are less likely to be affected by road 

construction. Species that avoid humans through mechanisms other than flight (e.g., crypsis) 

and/or move too slowly to flee disturbance (such as small mammals and some herpetofauna) 

are at some risk from construction activity. 

Timing also determines the vulnerability of wildlife to construction-related mortality. The 

greatest potential for adverse effects is during the spring and summer, when migratory birds 

are present in the Study Area, when most species (particularly mammals and birds) are 

rearing young in nests, burrows or dens, and when all species are most active, thus 

increasing their potential to enter into the construction zone. 

Wildlife vulnerability to construction is reduced during the fall and winter because migratory 

birds have left the Study Area, young-of-the-year have dispersed from nests, burrows and 

dens, and remaining species are generally less active and thus less likely to move into the 

construction zone. 

Effects on Animal Movement 

Terrestrial wildlife species will vary in their response to crossing the construction zone. Most 

tolerant species will continue to cross, but will likely adapt their movements to nonconstruction 

periods. Less mobile species may be deterred at some locations, and may seek 

other routes. Adjustments and changes can be anticipated during the construction period. 



Ecoplans Limited



6.1.2 Operation and Maintenance Effects 


In addition to the direct construction effects outlined above and detailed in the Impact Assessment 

Tables in Appendix A, the operation and maintenance of the corridor may also result in secondary 

effects to the adjacent vegetation features that are retained. The potential secondary effects to 

wetland, forest and other adjacent vegetation that may occur during the operation and 

maintenance of the transportation corridor are outlined below: 

 

 

 

 

 


Damage from excessive or improper application of herbicides and pesticides for ROW 

maintenance requirements. 

Damage to adjacent natural vegetation from transportation corridor maintenance 

activities such as salting and sanding, structure/culvert repairs, ditch cleanout. Salt 

runoff and salt spray into vegetated areas may cause loss of vegetation vigour and in 

extreme cases, vegetation dieback, and spread of salt tolerant flora (halophytes). 

Increased light, noise, wind and sun exposure within the newly created edges of 

adjacent forest communities. These effects often lead to vegetation dieback, changes 

in the ground flora composition, windthrow, and/or spread of invasive species. 

Changes in drainage patterns (groundwater and/or surface runoff flow) that can affect 

dependant vegetation/wetland areas located either upgradient or downgradient of the 

ROW. Specifically: 

 

 

 

Blocking of existing surface/subsurface drainage patterns can result in 

upstream and downstream vegetation dieback/condition changes. An increase 

in downstream runoff can result in erosion effects on receiving vegetation. 

Potential for other temporary or permanent changes in vegetation community 

composition may occur as a result of temporary or permanent changes in 

groundwater levels, usually associated with localized dewatering during 

construction and with earth cuts that may intercept groundwater causing a 

permanent lowering of groundwater conditions. The extent and magnitude of 

the effect is related to soil type, depth of groundwater, topography and variable 

depth of the cut itself. 

Groundwater drawdown has the potential to shift vegetation species 

composition as a result of a change in moisture regime. At most locations, 

there are no impacts to terrestrial communities (forests, thickets, meadows) 

from permanent groundwater drawdown. This is because groundwater is at 

depth, and the infiltration of surface water is a more important source of water 

than is the influence of the groundwater table or the “capillary fringe” above. In 

a small number of locations, where the water table is currently at or near the 



Ecoplans Limited



surface, shifts in vegetation may occur, and might be followed by plant and 

tree die-off. These plants would later be naturally replaced with other plant 

species tolerant of drier conditions. Areas potentially or expected to be affected 

by permanent groundwater drawdown have been noted in the Impact 

Assessment Tables (Appendix A). 

These potential effects to vegetation and habitat features resulting from the operation and 

maintenance of the corridor can be managed through implementation of standard and site-specific 

mitigation measures, as outlined in Chapter 6.1.3 to 6.1.5. However, some of these effects may 

be unavoidable and can only be partially mitigated (e.g., loss of vegetation vigour and spread of 

salt-tolerant flora due to salt-spray). 


Transportation corridor effects on wildlife have been discussed in a number of papers and reviews 

(see for example Aresco 2005; Carr and Fahrig 2001; Clevenger et al. 2003; Ecoplans Limited 

2006b; Forman and Deblinger 2000; Gibbs and Shriver 2002; Hels and Buchwald 2001; Oxley et 

al. 1974; Swihart et al. 1984; Trombulak and Frissell 2000;). Forman et al. (2003) have provided a 

comprehensive review of the science and solutions. 

The main effects that are condensed from these (and other) review are habitat loss, changes in 

habitat quality, wildlife mortality, and reduced connectivity resulting from: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the creation of edge habitat that can affect off-site breeding, feeding, shelter quality, 

and/or movement opportunities for sensitive species; 

introduction of invasive species (disturbance/increased light/creation of movement 

passage along transportation facility); 

introduction of light and noise pollution to a habitat area; 

severing of woodlands (including woodlots) may result in residual sizes that are too 

small to support ‘area- sensitive’ wildlife species; 

fragmenting wildlife populations that may cause further endangerment of an already 

sensitive and rare species; and 

vehicular traffic collisions. 

Site-specific habitat loss and changes in habitat quality are specifically discussed in the Impact 

Assessment Tables, and a number of mitigation measures have been recommended (Chapter 

6.1.3.) 

Noise implications have been gaining increasing interest in the research community, although 

definitive studies are still limited and conclusions about the nature and extent of effects are variable 

(see recent review by the Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] 2004). There is a paucity of 

information on the response of many wildlife groups to noise. While birds have been more heavily 



Ecoplans Limited



studied, the nature and extent of noise effects is still not clear. Some species appear to be 

negatively affected by the presence of roads, others appear to be neutral, and a number of species 

directly benefit from the creation of roadside habitat (FHWA 2004). Noise effects and sensitivity to 

noise appear to vary considerably among bird species. This continues to be an active focus of 

research which may someday provide guidance concerning new mitigation approaches. 

Wildlife mortality and reduced connectivity at key areas in the landscape can be addressed by 

increasing transportation corridor permeability for wildlife through the provision of wildlife structures and 

funnel fencing. This is discussed further in the Impact Assessment tables (Appendix A and Appendix 

F). 

6.1.3 Standard Mitigation Applied Across the Study Area 

6.1.3.1 Mitigation During Planning and Design 

Environmental protection in transportation planning involves different strategies at different stages 

in the planning and design process. Protection of the terrestrial ecosystems on MTO projects is 

guided by MTO’s Terrestrial Ecosystems Environmental Protection Requirements for 

Transportation Planning and Highway Design, Construction, Operation and Maintenance (October 

2006) which identifies key requirements and associated policy/legislation. 

During the route planning/evaluation (Alternative Methods) stage, the focus of the terrestrial 

ecosystems work was to ensure that terrestrial features, and particularly significant and sensitive 

features, were comprehensively identified and integrated during the development and evaluation of 

alternatives to select the Recommended Design. The terrestrial ecosystem-related objective 

during the generation of alternatives was to ensure that alternatives avoided or minimized impacts 

to terrestrial features, and particularly sensitive and high quality features, to the extent possible 

while still meeting the technical planning design objectives and requirements. As an example of 

this, the Technically Recommended Route was selected to minimize intrusion into provincially 

significant wetlands (PSWs), which are the larger and more extensive habitat blocks, to the extent 

possible. 

During preliminary design, environmental protection may be further achieved through minor 

alignment shifts, modification of interchange design, refinement of valley, river, and wetland 

crossings and drainage design. During the 407 Preliminary Design process, implications of the 

specific siting and alignment of the various valley crossings, as well as the interchange footprint, all 

associated highway facilities, and associated municipal/regional road works (realignments, 

decommissioning) were specifically considered in relation to the vegetation and habitat present 

along and adjacent to the transportation corridor. 



Ecoplans Limited



Site-specific design considerations are noted in the Impact Assessment tables (Appendix A). For 

example, site-specific drainage and structural design to protect wetlands and large valley systems 

were specifically incorporated into the design including: 

 

 

 

 

Providing a 300 m long multi-span bridge along the East Durham Link to elevated a 

portion of the corridor across a section of PSW. 

Providing large multi-span bridges over the major valley systems including East Duffins 

Creek, West Lynde Creek, Oshawa Creeks East and West, Farewell Creek, Black 

Creek, Bowmanville Creek East and West Branches and Wilmot Creek. 

The commitment to explore the use of permeable sub-base material for the corridor 

through sensitive wetland areas such as the Harmony-Farewell Iroquois Beach Wetland 

and Maple Grove Wetland Complexes. 

Siting of stormwater management facilities outside of sensitive features and the 

provision to use liner treatments in both the facilities and their collection/discharge 

channels in areas associated with a high water table such as along the East Durham 

Link. 

Where impacts to terrestrial ecosystem features cannot be avoided through planning or design, 

additional mitigation measures applied during construction and operation/ maintenance are applied to 

further minimize negative effects. In situations where appropriate mitigation measures are not available, 

or significant net adverse effects will remain following the application of mitigation, compensation may 

be applied to offset the negative effect through replacement of the feature/function elsewhere. 

Opportunities for compensation are identified with MNR and the Conservation Authorities and may be 

focused on lands that are (or will be) under public ownership. Wherever possible, the opportunity 

should be taken to enhance the positive environmental effects associated with implementation rather 

than merely mitigating and/or compensating. 

6.1.3.2 Construction Mitigation 

During construction, environmental protection and mitigation involves: implementation of standard 

construction practices; conformance with commitments made during the environmental 

assessment process; and recognition of additional control measures that may be identified through 

good construction environmental practice. 

This chapter outlines a suite of mitigation measures that are recommended for incorporation in the 

subsequent design phases and future contract documents. These mitigation measures range from 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) to site specific strategies, which may be superseded by 

refined measures or techniques as time passes. Current measures and Best Management 

Practices available at the time of construction should be implemented. 

These measures are provided at this stage to reflect the expectation of the types of mitigation 

measures that should be incorporated to reduce the residual effects across the Study Area. It is 

recommended that an Environmental Management and Operations Plan be prepared during 



Ecoplans Limited



subsequent design phases to ensure that environmental protection measures are employed, 

inspected and maintained as intended. 

1. Clearing and Grubbing 

Mitigation measures will be applied during clearing and grubbing activities to minimize 

removal of native vegetation; minimize impact to retained features, maintain water balance 

and avoid native soil disturbance. Examples of measures that should be applied where 

applicable include: 

a) Limit clearing within the right-of-way (ROW) in areas not required for transportation 

corridor construction, such as the Transitway ROW. Specific areas where this 

applies have been identified in the Impact Assessment tables. 

b) Vegetated areas bordering the working area will be protected with temporary tree 

protection and sediment fencing as determined in the final grading plan. 

Equipment, storage of materials, and other construction activities will not be 

permitted in these zones. 

c) Tree removal will be restricted to the working area. Vegetation removals associated 

with clearing, site access and staging will occur outside the key breeding bird period 

identified by Environment Canada for migratory birds (typically April 21 – July 31 for 

this area) to ensure compliance with the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 

(MBCA) and Migratory Bird Regulations (MBR). 

d) If works must be conducted during the breeding bird season, a nest survey will 

be conducted by a qualified avian biologist prior to commencement of works to 

identify and locate active nests of species covered by the MBCA. This will 

include the development of a mitigation plan to address any potential impacts on 

migratory birds and their active nests. 

e) Tree grubbing will be restricted to the required construction activity zone. Where 

possible, tree stumps will be cut flush to the ground and grubbing avoided to 

minimize soil disturbance, particularly in erosion prone areas. 

f) Trees will be felled into ROW to avoid damaging other standing vegetation and 

trees will be felled away from any watercourse where it is safe to do so. 

g) Cut and grubbed material will be disposed of through chipping. Where possible, 

cut material may be piled and re-used for wildlife habitat. Wood chip material may 

also be used in the edge plantings (at the identified edge management and 

landscape areas along the ROW). This material will help retain soil moisture, 

promote colonization of native species and prevent weed spread. 

h) Forest topsoil that can be re-spread within 6 months of initial storage will be used 

wherever practical and feasible at forest edge planting sites, stormwater 

management facility margins, and within the footprint of interchanges. This will 

be a practical measure to re-cycle substrates, maintain soil moisture, and provide 

a good growing medium for plantings. 



Ecoplans Limited



i) After clearing, the edges of the cleared area shall be checked and any trees 

damaged will be repaired or removed. An arborist is to inspect damage to trees. 

j) Relevant Ontario Provincial Standards Specifications (OPSS) – OPSS 201 

(Clearing and Grubbing), OPSS 503 (Site Preparation), OPSS 565 (Tree 

Protection), OPSS 182 (Environmental Protection for Construction in 

Waterbodies and on Waterbody Banks) will be followed. 

k) Adhere to permits, acts, guidelines: Permit to Burn (if required), Migratory Birds 

Convention Act and Regulations. 

2. Sediment and Erosion Control 

Mitigation measures will be used for erosion and sediment control to prohibit sediment from 

entering adjacent water bodies, wetlands and forested areas. The primary principles 

associated with erosion and sediment control (ESC) protection measures are to a) minimize 

soil mobilization; b) minimize the duration of soil exposure; c) retain existing vegetation where 

feasible; d) keep runoff velocities low; and, e) trap sediment as close to the source as 

possible. 

It is recommended that ESC measures developed during subsequent design phases follow the 

most current standard industry practices available. For example, the Greater Golden Horseshoe 

Area Conservation Authorities’ Erosion and Sediment Inspection Guide (2008) provides 

comprehensive direction for selection, deployment and inspection of ESC techniques. The 

following list summarizes the basic principles and performance guidelines that will be employed 

during the development of detailed design and contract documents and drawings. 

a) Erosion and sediment control measures will be installed prior to construction and 

maintained within their effective limits throughout the construction and until the 

restoration of disturbed vegetation, rock revetments or similar are successfully 

completed. 

b) Erosion and sediment control structures will be designed, installed, maintained, 

and removed according to Ontario Guidelines on Erosion and Sediment Control 

for Urban Construction Sites (1987), OPSS Guidelines, and/or established MTO 

procedures. 

c) Exposed soil areas will be temporarily stabilized as soon as possible (or covered 

with tarps, erosion control blankets, etc.) to control sediment transport and 

erosion. In addition, natural vegetation cover will be retained wherever possible 

(and root grubbing minimized where possible) to provide natural erosion control. 

d) Earth stockpiles shall be enclosed with appropriate sediment and erosion control 

fencing. 

e) Runoff from material stockpiles or site de-watering will be filtered through an 

appropriate device (temporary settling facility, filter bag, etc.) before release. 



Ecoplans Limited



3. Grading 

f) Sediment control structures will be regularly inspected, and checked after storms 

and repaired as required. The structures will be cleaned out when accumulated 

sediment reaches half the design height. 

g) Re-stabilize and re-vegetate exposed surfaces as soon as possible, using native 

vegetation seed mixes and plantings or other appropriate cover, in consultation 

with agencies. 

h) Adhere to permits, acts, guidelines: Canadian Environmental Protection Act; 

Ontario Water Resources Act, Federal Fisheries Act. 

Mitigation measures will be used during grading to minimize the overall grading footprint and 

keep gradients low. The primary principles associated with grading mitigation measures are 

similar to those described above for clearing/grubbing and sediment and erosion control. 

a) The design completed in subsequent design phases will ensure that drainage 

from any unstabilized surface is captured and adequately filtered prior to 

discharge to natural areas, including receiving drainage features. 

b) Erosion and sediment control measures will be designed and then installed on 

site prior to any grading. 

c) In dust sensitive areas, dust suppression methods (water, calcium chloride or other as 

appropriate) will be used as required to control off-site migration of particulates. 

d) Relevant Ontario Provincial Standards Specifications (OPSS) – OPSS 577 

(Erosion and Sediment Control Measures), OPSS 503 (Site Preparation), OPSS 

206 (Grading), OPSS 506 (Dust Control) will be followed. 

e) Adhere to permits, acts, guidelines: Dust suppressant license required from MOE 

for use of registered dust suppressants other than water. 

4. Equipment Maintenance and Materials Management and Disposal 

Mitigation measures will be used during equipment maintenance activities and material 

management to avoid release of chemicals and other materials from construction equipment 

and construction areas into natural areas and watercourses. These are outlined in greater 

detail in the Waste/Contaminated Property Impact Assessment Report (Ecoplans 2009) and 

include: 

a) Refueling will not be permitted within 30 m of any woodland, wetland or 

watercourse, or the top of bank areas. 

b) Adhere to permits, acts guidelines: Fuels and hazardous materials shall be stored 

and handled in compliance with Ontario Regulation 347 of the EPA, the Gasoline 

Handling Act, Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, and any license to 

operate a temporary explosives magazine (if blasting is required). 



Ecoplans Limited



6.1.4 Site Specific Mitigation and Enhancement 

In addition to the standard mitigation measures identified above, there are additional mitigation and 

enhancement measures identified for specific areas. The recommended locations for these efforts 

are identified in the Impact Assessment table (Appendix A) and the expanded descriptions are 

provided below. 

As noted under the standard mitigation measures, the following mitigation measures are 

recommended for incorporation during subsequent design phase and future contract documents. 

These measures may be superseded by refined measures or techniques. The most current 

measures and BMPs available at the time of construction should be implemented. These 

measures are provided at this stage to reflect our expectation of the types of mitigation measures 

that should be incorporated to reduce the net effects. 

6.1.4.1 Edge Management Strategies 

Edge management measures will be implemented to protect newly created forest edges where the 

adjacent retained habitat is large enough to warrant this measure. These measures will mitigate 

effects of increased sun, wind and change in humidity and shade at new vegetation edge. 

Measures will include retaining a narrow zone where no root grubbing will occur (in order to 

stimulate suckering of cut trees), removing hazard trees and installing edge plantings using 

appropriate native and salt-tolerant species. The final edge management design will be reviewed 

with appropriate agency staff (e.g., MNR) during subsequent design phases and will be finalized at 

that time when grading limits are identified in the field. 

Key edge management principles that will be developed further during subsequent design phases 

are as follows: 

1. Temporary vegetation protection fencing will be installed at the edge of the clearing 

limits where the edge of a forest community is removed. This fencing will delineate 

the clearing limits and prevent further intrusion into the adjacent forested habitat. 

2. Tree removal will be restricted to the working area. Wherever possible, vegetation will 

be retained in areas not requiring grading or other works. Grading requirements will be 

reviewed during subsequent design phases to facilitate that objective. 

3. Trees along the newly created edge will be flush cut (not grubbed) to stimulate 

suckering regeneration. 

4. Wood chip material will be applied in the edge plantings (at the identified edge 

management areas) that will be developed during subsequent design phases. This 

material will help retain soil moisture and prevent weed spread. 

5. Hazard tree management will be undertaken along the new edge as required. 

6. Buffer plantings will be installed to help increase shade, reduce wind in retained 

vegetation, particularly wetland vegetation and other sensitive natural areas and from 

the effects of the adjacent corridor (e.g., salt spray and contaminants). Spruce trees 



Ecoplans Limited



should be planted to seal the edges of new cuts on the north side only, where noted 

in the tables. 

7. Pre-stressing of forest edges will be implemented in selected areas as soon as 

possible. Pre-stressing involves advanced thinning of the future forest edge, prior to 

construction, to promote dense young shrub and tree growth in the understorey. 

This dense growth will help buffer the retained vegetation from the effects of the 

adjacent corridor. Incorporate pit and mound topography (to hold water) in areas 

where grade is to be reconstructed and planted. 

6.1.4.2 Butternut Mitigation Strategy 

A permit under the Ontario Endangered Species Act will be required for the removal of retainable 

Butternut trees. Measures will be implemented to mitigate effects of Butternut removal, recognizing 

its status under the ESA, and develop appropriate approaches in consultation with MNR and the 

Forest Gene Conservation Association (FGCA). Since a Recovery Strategy for Butternut, and 

Butternut related policies to support the implementation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

(2007) have not yet been finalized, the following draft mitigation strategy is recommended. It is 

expected that the Butternut mitigation strategy will continue to evolve through subsequent design 

phases, once MNR has had an opportunity to complete their field review and the ESA permitting 

process is underway. In the meantime, several approaches are recommended for consideration to 

mitigate for the removal of Butternut depending on the results of the health assessment, the size of 

the tree and its location. 

1. Transplant retainable trees of a suitable size. This work should be carried out under 

the supervision of an experienced forester or arborist. 

2. If a ‘retainable’ Butternut is within the grading limits, reproductive material (i.e., nuts 

and/or cuttings) could be collected for propagation instead of transplanting, because 

transplant success generally decreases as tree size increases. Cuttings must be 

dormant and be conducted no later than March 1, following current methodology and 

delivered promptly to nursery for grafting. The replacement ratio for removed trees will 

be confirmed in consultation with the MNR. The propagation methods should be 

confirmed with MNR to determine appropriate timelines for collection and resources 

required (e.g., nursery location, skilled staff). 

3. Plant Butternut nursery stock in ratios to be determined through additional 

consultation with MNR and the ESA permitting process. Suitable nursery stock 

sources will be selected in consultation with the MNR/FGCA. 

4. Monitoring of the success of the transplants and /or grafts should be completed for a 

period of time (e.g., 5 years) to ensure survival of the trees. The timeline will be 

specified in the ESA permit issued by MNR. Where transplants and/or grafts are not 

successful, a suitable response / action will be identified (e.g., replacement 

plantings). Again, a replacement plan for failing stock will be part of the ESA permit 

requirements. 



Ecoplans Limited



5. Additional actions may be required to achieve overall benefit to the species. These 

could include removing competing species around Butternut trees that are retained in 

situ, and/or providing the cut logs to the MNR to sell with the proceeds going to the 

Butternut Recovery Fund. 

6. If Butternut planting sites are required, MTO lands which are surplus to transportation 

needs within the 407 transportation corridor or lands managed/owned by MNR, 

Durham Region, TRCA and CLOCA should be reviewed for suitability to receive 

Butternut plantings (i.e., canopy, soils etc). The sites should be carefully selected to 

ensure the success of the plantings. If the Butternut trees are planted as a requirement 

of a permit under the Endangered Species Act, these Butternut trees will then be 

protected by the Act from future removal. 

7. The FGCA/MNR will be provided with the data collected on retainable trees as per 

the FGCA’s Butternut Health Assessment in Ontario (2008) methods. The 

FGCA/MNR will also be provided with the opportunity to access these trees prior to 

removal, in order to collect additional genetic material from these trees for recovery 

efforts. 

6.1.4.3 Invasive Plant Species Management Strategies 

Specific areas within the 407 transportation corridor Study Area have been identified for invasive 

species management due to the abundance of an aggressive invasive species (Dog Strangling 

Vine) in proximity to a sensitive natural area. These areas are identified in Appendix A. To 

prevent the spread of invasive species from these locations during construction the following 

actions should be taken: 

1. The extent of the target invasive species will be indicated on contract drawings and 

in the field by a biologist. 

2. Prior to construction, the site will be treated with an herbicide application to reduce 

the size of the population (3 applications, 3 weeks apart). 

3. Equipment working in the identified invasive species location should be thoroughly 

cleaned prior to moving from the site. 

4. Soil from this site should not be removed unless it is placed in an area that will be 

actively managed (e.g., mowed park) or buried below an impervious surface (e.g., 

road). 

6.1.4.4 Vegetation Salvage Opportunities 

MTO does not have the mandate to secure and manage lands for vegetation salvage and 

relocation opportunities. However, salvage/relocation opportunities will be explored on MTO lands 

which are surplus to transportation needs within the 407 transportation corridor project limits and/or 

properties managed/owned by MNR, Durham Region, TRCA and CLOCA where feasible and 

economically practical. 



Ecoplans Limited



1. A salvage plan should be developed as part of subsequent design phases, with 

agency input, prior to the construction program. 

2. Where regionally rare plants are the target species, a botanist should first locate and 

flag the relevant material. These locations are noted in the impact assessment 

tables. 

3. A salvage plan could include seedbank salvage of wetland substrates and/or soils at 

the location of annual target species which are to be re-located to a similar suitable 

habitat, ideally in the general area. Perennial species would be individually moved. 

4. Invasive plant species zones should be identified within the working area. Such 

material should not be used in the salvage/restoration work, but should be properly 

disposed of in consultation with agency staff. This would include regionally rare 

species that are intermixed with invasive species to transplant without transplanting 

the invasive species. 

5. In addition, MTO will provide opportunities for Durham Region, MNR, TRCA and 

CLOCA to access properties in advance of construction, when property ownership is 

secure, so that they can salvage any vegetation material that may be beneficial for 

their projects. 

6.1.4.5 Valley and Forest Restoration Plans 

Restoration plans at the major valley crossings and major forest blocks along 407 transportation 

corridor will be guided by the following mitigation principles and design elements. 

1. Upstream/Downstream Valley and Forest Vegetation Retention Zone 

These measures are recommended to protect and maintain valley vegetation of larger 

contiguous forested areas: 

a) Tree protection fencing and erosion control fencing should meet the most 

current and applicable OPSS and/or MTO standards available at the time of 

construction (and also for watercourse protection prior to and throughout 

construction). 

b) Implement and maintain measures prior to and throughout construction. 

c) Limit zone of construction impacts (i.e., vegetation removal, soil compaction) 

to the extent possible (e.g., keep staging areas outside of the forested valley, 

keep construction and maintenance access roads under or close to the 

centreline of proposed bridge structures). 

d) Construction and maintenance access should be provided under the bridge 

centreline wherever feasible. However if not possible, access is generally 

preferred along the north side of the structures (for structures located along 

the mainline). This is because the north side will be shaded by the structures 

and vegetation growth will be less vigorous and plantings less successful 



Ecoplans Limited



than on the south side. Additionally, some site specific recommendations 

regarding preferred valley access (east side vs. west side) are provided in 

Appendix A to avoid sensitive valley slopes, vegetation communities and / or 

species. 

e) The widths of access roads should at a maximum be 5 m and ideally 3 m 

within forests and wetlands. 

f) Retain and stockpile some of the woody debris removed from the unit – to be 

placed in the valley, particularly under the bridge, for habitat cover and to 

restore organic matter to soil. 

g) Where practical, leave cut stumps in situ to reduce erosion and retain organic 

matter. 

2. Maximize Tree Retention Near Bridges 

These measures are recommended to maximize retention of trees in ROW (as 

mentioned previously) particularly in areas adjacent to or within valleys. Reduce width of 

canopy “gap” across the road and facilitate valley passage by birds: 

a) Detailed tree assessment and working area requirements to identify feasible 

tree protection zones and measures. 

b) Tree protection fencing and erosion control fencing should meet applicable 

standards (see above). 

c) In order to maintain moisture regimes under bridges and maximize tree and 

other vegetation retention, runoff should be directed to these areas, with 

appropriate consideration of erosion protection at outfalls. 

d) Implement and maintain above measures prior to and throughout 

construction. 

3. Restoration of Areas Disturbed by Construction 

These measures are recommended to restore areas disturbed by construction, provide 

additional vegetation cover for habitat and to help funnel wildlife to wildlife passages. 

The first four points are based on the Highway 407 Expansion (East Partial and West 

Extensions) Valley Corridor Natural Area Restoration Monitoring (Conclusions and 

Management Recommendations section of Arthur and Associates and SNC-Lavalin 

Engineers and Constructors Inc. Annual Report – Dec 2006). Recommendations are 

appropriate for this section of the transportation corridor as well. Additional detailed 

recommendations (pp 46- 60 in the above document) on soil preparation, seeding and 

sourcing of seeds and woody species, management of weeds, monitoring etc should be 

referred to during subsequent design phases. 

a) Model restoration plans after natural reference habitat, based on site-specific 

conditions, with the overall objective of restoring/maintaining key ecological 



Ecoplans Limited



features and functions. Possible native shrub species suitable for cover, 

funnelling, and food sources are: Highbush Cranberry, Nannyberry, Redosier 

Dogwood, Staghorn Sumac, Grey Dogwood, Northern Prickly-Ash, and 

shrub willows. 

b) Use appropriate local genetic stock and species as an ecological restorations 

priority. 

c) Use a variety of seeding and planting methods, multiple species and 

relatively high planting densities for woody species to build natural 

redundancy into the restoration plans. 

d) Conduct a 5-year monitoring program as an integral tool for determining 

success of restoration works, and to identify and manage problems, and 

implement follow-up measures, as required, to meet the restoration 

objectives of the project. 

e) Balance construction site restoration objectives with minimizing the fill 

footprint associated with bridge embankments (i.e., recognize that softening 

fill embankment slopes to accommodate plantings may actually increase fill 

footprint in the valley and may be at odds with the objective to minimize the 

overall fill footprint). 

f) Prepare planting and restoration plan as a component of the final bridge 

design and final sediment/erosion control plan (developed during subsequent 

design phases with agency review and input). 

g) Replant temporary construction access roads with native trees and shrubs 

(may also require measures to address compacted soil). 

h) Use soil restoration (possibly reducing soil compaction and increasing 

organic matter) to facilitate the success of vegetation plantings (considering 

that described in Arthur and Associates and SNC-Lavalin Engineers and 

Constructors Inc. 2006). 

4. Highway Lighting 

Roadway lighting outside of the planned development areas, most notably through the 

Greenbelt in Clarington, is limited to interchange locations, except in the vicinity of the 

freeway to freeway interchanges. During subsequent design phases, it is recommended 

that lighting design consider means to minimize effects to wildlife (e.g., interference with 

migration, disorientation, disruption of hunting/food seeking, breeding and other key 

activities) and limit intrusion into sensitive habitats adjacent to the corridor. This may be 

achieved through the use of special shielding devices which prevent excessive light from 

infringing into areas beyond the transportation right of way and reduce sky glow which 

will help to preserve the dark night environment. 



Ecoplans Limited



6.1.4.6 Wildlife Passage Structures 

As noted in Chapter 3, details on the principles, analysis, and literature basis for the wildlife 

passage design and mitigation recommendations are in Appendix F. Specific design principles 

and mitigation aspects are summarized here however, the reader is directed to Appendix F for the 

complete discussion. 

As detailed in Appendix F, the following principles guided the design of the wildlife passage 

system: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

provide structures suitable for target species as well as structures capable of facilitating 

movement by a broad range of wildlife species/sizes (multi-species use); 

provide a mixed size array of structures that may assist in reducing predation risk while 

also providing diverse opportunities for wildlife passage; 

locate and space structures to take advantage of existing linkage features present in the 

landscape while also considering target wildlife species ability to travel along the ROW 

and find suitable structures for passage; 

wherever possible ensure that entrance and exits to the structures are reasonably level 

(no major grade changes) to provide an unimpeded view through the structure (and 

habitat beyond); 

ensure that wildlife structures are located where existing natural linkages are 

anticipated to be retained and protected over the long term, and not at locations where 

future urban build-out is likely or planned; 

provide suitable cover elements adjacent to the passage structure (either retained or 

planted vegetation) that can facilitate wildlife use of the structures (cover/shelter on 

route to structure) while not blocking the structure entrance or blocking movement along 

funnel walls; 

ensure natural substrates (native soil materials) are used inside the structures so they 

are more conducive to wildlife use. In addition, provide under-bridge cover elements for 

larger structures to facilitate wildlife passage through what might otherwise be a 

relatively open environment with limited or no vegetation cover (for example, boulder 

material, logs/stumps and other woody debris that can provide a continuous 

cover/shelter zone under the bridge structure for a variety of wildlife species); 

provide funnel fencing that can guide wildlife to the structures while also restricting the 

ability of wildlife to access the ROW; 

provide escape structures at suitable locations/intervals to enable wildlife trapped within 

the ROW to have an opportunity to safely exit to nearby cover and habitat; and 

final design details for the crossings will be prepared during subsequent design phases, 

with agency review and input. This will be included as part of the restoration and 

landscape plan. 



Ecoplans Limited



6.1.4.7 Wildlife Passage Structure Design Criteria and Considerations 

The following criteria were 

used to guide the 

Highway 

development of the wildlife 

Surface 

passage design. The 

cornerstone of wildlife 

passage design is the concept 

of Openness Ratio. Wildlife 

Height 

species are more likely to 

enter a culvert if they can see 

the light at the other end. 

Length 

Increasing the span of the 

Width 

culvert increases the amount 

of light that enters the culvert, 

Height (H) x Width (W) Divided by Length (L) = Openness Ratio 

thereby reducing the tunnel 

For example, if H = 4 metres, W = 7 metres, L = 30 metres: 

effect. Openness Ratio (OR), 

Openness Ratio = 28 / 30 = 0.9 

which is the cross-sectional 

area of a structure (square 

metres) divided by the distance wildlife must travel through (or under – metres), is a measure of the 

tunnel effect of a structure that may influence use by various wildlife species. As detailed in 

Appendix F, an understanding of wildlife OR requirements is gradually developing through 

research and monitoring. Openness Ratio criteria for various target species groups were 

developed by the Study Team, based on the growing body of Road Ecology literature. 

It is important to note that the size targets are minimum criteria. Actual Openness Ratios achieved 

for structures are in many cases much larger as the structure design is advanced to accommodate 

wildlife requirements, drainage requirements (fluviogeomorphology), and valley crossing 

topography. 

1. Wildlife Passage Design Elements 

a) A minimum target OR of 0.05 is to be achieved for crossings that will provide 

movement opportunities for smaller wildlife species that are adapted to nocturnal 

and/or tunnel like conditions in their life history (typically a variety of small to 

mid-size mammals and common amphibians). 

b) A minimum target OR of 0.1 is to be achieved for crossings that will provide 

movement opportunities for a range of common reptiles and amphibians, 

especially in areas with damp conditions that may be associated with hydro 

corridors, local linear drainage features, and other locations where suitable 

habitat conditions exist and will persist on either side of the transportation 

corridor over the long term. 

c) A minimum target OR of 0.25 is to be achieved for crossings that will provide 

movement opportunities for turtles and SAR herpetiles species such as 



Ecoplans Limited



Blanding’s Turtle and where such habitat conditions will persist on either side of 

the corridor over the long term. 

d) A minimum clearance height of 3 m for crossings that will provide movement 

opportunities for larger mammals such as deer. A corresponding minimum target 

OR of 0.6 is also recommended. 

e) Provide stable natural substrates with surface layer consisting of fine material for 

wildlife footing and minimum 200-300 mm in depth within or under the structure. 

f) Consider headwalls/wingwalls or open median to shorten culvert length. 

g) Wherever possible utilize root wads, tree trunks, and other woody debris 

obtained from the clearing zone to re-cycle this material for the underbridge 

elements. After vegetation is cleared, stock pile and retain some of the woody 

debris to be used for this purpose. 

h) Where practical, leave cut stumps in situ to reduce erosion, retain organic matter 

and provide under bridge cover elements for wildlife. 

i) Ensure that cover materials are suitably sized and secured to withstand periodic 

flood events. 

j) Ensure that any riprap stabilization areas contain a mix of interbedded fine 

materials to provide as smooth a travel area as possible. 

2. Other Wildlife Mitigation Design Elements 

a) Funnelling Measures 

Small Wildlife Species 

Where funnel fencing for smaller target wildlife species is required (small mammals, 

amphibians, reptiles) the following design guidelines are provided: 

 

 

 

Fencing for smaller wildlife species should be at least 0.6 to 0.9 m high 

and able to act as a barrier to small mammals, amphibians, turtles and 

snakes (see Forman et al. 2003; Ecoplans Limited 2006b; EMS Inc. 

2007). This can be achieved by installing an additional impermeable 

layer to the bottom of the standard fencing, or ungulate fencing, in 

sections where the target wildlife species are to be funnelled. Possible 

materials could consist of very fine wire mesh fencing or aluminum 

flashing. Other suitable materials available at the time of construction 

should also be considered. 

Length of fencing away from passageway will be determined on a sitespecific 

basis (see Appendix F), but generally extend about 25 m 

beyond the edge of the natural habitat area surrounding the passage. 

This supplementary fencing should be installed in a trench to reduce 

digging by smaller terrestrial species. 



Ecoplans Limited



Large Wildlife Species 

Where funnel fencing for large animals species is provided the following design 

guidelines should be considered: 

 

 

 

General 

 

 

 

Fence height should be 2.4 m with the mesh attached to the outside 

(habitat side) of the fence posts to resist pressure loading on the fencing 

from ungulates pushing on it and testing it for weakness (see Ecoplans 

Limited 2006b; EMS Inc. 2007). 

The higher fencing should typically extend beyond the prime habitat 

zone, and, where ungulate movement zones are relatively clear or 

known, fencing is typically installed extending from 400 m to 1600 m on 

either side of the wildlife structure (see for example, van Manen et al. 

2001; Gagnon et al. 2005; Ecoplans Limited 2006b) (Appendix F). 

Fencing should be installed either flush with the ground, or buried to 

reduce wildlife entry by digging (see EMS Inc. 2007; Clevenger et al. 

2001). 

Funnel fencing should be angled to tie into structure entrances, with no gap 

between the fencing and the structure, to ensure that wildlife is guided to the 

structure with limited opportunity to access the ROW. 

Where wildlife structures extend into an open highway median, the funnel fencing 

should be continued as two parallel sections across the median to ensure that 

wildlife are restricted from entering the ROW via the open median. 

All wildlife funnel fencing will require maintenance. 

b) Wildlife Escape Measures 

Wildlife researchers are increasingly 

recommending provision of escape 

measures to enable wildlife, 

particularly ungulates trapped within 

the ROW to safely exit the ROW (see 

Forman et al. 2003, Ecoplans Limited 

2006b; Bissonette and Hammer 2000; 

as well as Ecoplans Limited field 

observations of escape ramps in 

Arizona in 2005). Current findings are 

that earthen escape ramps are costeffective 

and 8 to 11 times more effective than one-way ungulate gates in providing 

opportunities for wildlife to exit the ROW (see Bissonette and Hammer 2000; Hardy 

et al. 2006; EMS Inc. 2007). 



Ecoplans Limited



Design guidelines for earthen escape ramps include: 

 

 

 

 

 

ramps constructed of earth materials, seeded and vegetated, with a 

gradual 3:1 slope, and vertical support at the exit (various suitable 

materials possible); 

escape ramps should be placed adjacent to the ROW fencing and ideally 

near natural cover; 

ramps should be located near the wildlife structure, on both sides of the 

ROW, with subsequent ramp spacing at 400 to 800 m intervals, within 

the ungulate fencing sections, depending on site and adjacent habitat 

conditions; 

ramp height at the exit should be between 1.8 and 2.4 m, with soft 

natural substrates (soil – not rock or boulder) present at the landing site, 

to enable safe exit of trapped wildlife while restricting possible entry to 

the ROW from the habitat side. 

ramp embankments should be stabilized with a typical (non-invasive) 

cover grass mixture but with no additional shrub or tree plantings. The 

intent is to make these zones relatively unattractive to wildlife and 

visually clear for drivers to reduce wildlife mortality risk in the approach 

areas. 

6.1.4.8 Restoration//Creation/Enhancement 

The transportation corridor will result in the permanent removal of natural vegetation communities 

and associated habitat (approximately 355 ha). As shown in Table 33, 50% of the vegetation 

removed is culturally influenced communities (meadow, thicket, cultural woodland, plantation – 

total approximately 175 ha). Wetland removal totals approximately 17% (62 ha) and comprises 

deciduous, conifer and mixed and thicket swamp, shallow and meadow marsh and shallow water 

wetland. The remaining 33% of removals is associated with upland deciduous, conifer and mixed 

forest vegetation (118 ha). 

However, the opportunity to offset vegetation removals through restoration/creation and/or 

enhancement has been identified by the Project Team during the preparation of the EA and 

opportunities will continue to be explored by MTO and plans developed, as appropriate and 

feasible, in subsequent design phases. 

Restoration/creation/enhancement of terrestrial vegetation may also be used to meet legislated 

compensation requirements associated with mitigating the loss of ‘retainable’ Butternut trees under 

the Ontario Endangered Species Act (ESA) as well as to compensate for harmful alteration, 

disruption and destruction (HADD) of fish habitat under the Federal Fisheries Act. MTO may also 

explore other means with regulatory agencies to offset impacts to vegetation communities, as well 

as compensation for Butternut removal and HADD. 



Ecoplans Limited



The term restoration refers to the return of habitat to a former condition (for systems that have 

been altered), for example, restoration of a wetland by dismantling agricultural tile drainage 

systems and returning hydrology, vegetation community and habitat to approximate original 

wetland conditions. 

The term creation refers to establishment of a new habitat condition where it did not previously 

exist. 

The term enhancement refers to activities intended to rehabilitate or improve an existing and 

degraded system where specific functions and/or values are enhanced beyond the existing 

condition. Enhancement may involve providing additional plantings within or adjacent to existing 

habitat to enhance the overall quality of the feature. However, enhancement may also be achieved 

through other means such as invasive vegetation species management and removal. 

MTO does not have a mandate to secure and manage lands for the purposes of terrestrial habitat 

restoration/creation/enhancement. However, MTO owned parcels and potential future surplus 

lands may be considered as candidate areas. In the short term, MTO will explore enhancement 

opportunities on MTO lands which are surplus to transportation needs within or adjacent to the 407 

transportation corridor. 

Once the EA is approved and MTO completes the property acquisition process, surplus portions of 

other properties will be identified /confirmed. These parcels will then be reviewed by the Project 

Team, including ecologists and landscape architects, to further identify/refine 

locations/opportunities that are feasible and economically practical for mitigating/offsetting the 

removal of forest/wetland vegetation within the transportation corridor. These opportunities would 

be reviewed and plans developed in consultation with MNR, TRCA, CLOCA and GRCA. Similarly, 

in consultation with the agencies, surplus properties identified for restoration/creation/enhancement 

may be turned over by MTO to MNR or a Conservation Authority for long term management. 

In some cases, agencies have identified other lands (public lands elsewhere in the watershed) that 

may be ideal candidates for focused restoration/enhancement effort. MTO will also continue to 

explore opportunities on properties managed/owned by MNR, Durham Region and TRCA, CLOCA 

and GRCA. Confirmation of these opportunities and detailed plans should be developed in 

consultation with the agencies during subsequent design phases. 

Given the confidential and sensitive nature of advanced willing seller/willing buyer negotiations and 

future property acquisition by MTO (once the EA is approved), and recognizing that there are other 

land interests and pressures (e.g., agricultural production or urban development), there is a high 

level of uncertainty about ‘how much’ land could be allocated to habitat 

restoration/creation/enhancement. However, the Project Team has identified ‘suggested’ areas for 

potential future consideration and this will form the basis of developing 

restoration/creation/enhancement plans during subsequent design phases. 



Ecoplans Limited



Based on this preliminary analysis, MTO has determined that it should be possible to offset 

permanent natural forest and wetland vegetation removals/habitat loss at a 1:1 ratio as MTO 

continues to secure lands for the transportation corridor. This represents approximately 174 ha 

(based on 170 m ROW and the assumption that all vegetation in the ROW will be removed) of land 

area and includes lands where Butternut would be planted to meet the requirements of the ESA. 

Some of this area would be allocated to compensate for HADD. Vegetation removal calculations 

are conservative as we expect that in some areas vegetation will be retained within the 170m. The 

final area of removal is associated with the highway that determines the 1:1 ratio will be confirmed 

during subsequent design phases. Final removals associated with the transitway will be clarified 

during the Preliminary Design and Detailed Design phases for that facility in the future and 

implementation of the 1:1 ratio for replacement will be based on final removal calculation 

determined at these phases. It should be noted however, this ratio does not necessarily imply “like 

for like” replacement. Restoration/creation/enhancement are tools by which removal of 

forest/wetland vegetation/habitat may be offset, although in many cases over a period of many 

years to account for vegetation establishment and maturation. Re-creating biologically complex 

forests and wetlands is not realistically feasible. However, habitat creation can embody a number 

of design principles targeted at initiating forest (or other habitat) development through a 

combination of terrain preparation, nodal plantings, seedbank salvage, natural seeding from 

nearby sources, quick cover initiation, and protection from herbivores. In addition, restoration, 

creation or enhancement at a new site can restore or create new functions and values which are 

equal to or exceed, overall, those at the original site. However, this does not mean that the original 

landscape functions are replaced at the new site. 

Guiding principles that will be used in the selection and planning of restoration/enhancement 

candidate sites will include the following, recognizing that these will continue to evolve through 

subsequent design phases, in consultation with the agencies: 

 

 

 

 

 

Proximity to or continuity with designated natural features including PSWs, ANSIs, 

ESAs, Greenbelt Plan areas, Oak Ridges Moraine Plan area and municipally 

designated land uses such as Greenlands and Environmental Protection Areas. 

Proximity to or continuity with Conservation Areas and Provincial Parks. 

Proximity to or continuity with existing and targeted natural heritage systems as 

applicable (e.g, TRCA’s Natural Heritage System Strategy) and consistency with the 

goals/recommendation of Natural Heritage System Strategies. 

Consistency with the goals/recommendations and management targets identified in the 

various Fisheries Management Plans and Watershed Plans. These can be discussed 

and prioritized in consultation with the agencies. 

Restoration/enhancement plans should be developed with consideration of appropriate 

goals for each site. Some examples include: 

 

 

riparian tree and shrub plantings to enhance coldwater fish habitat 

conditions; 

increasing the vegetated width of valleys (including adjacent tablelands); 



Ecoplans Limited



 

 

 

 

 

adding vegetated areas between valleys and other natural areas, and 

improving wildlife movement corridors; 

increasing forest size and interior forest potential by planting adjacent lands 

or gaps with compatible species; and 

improving existing habitat quality through invasive species management. 

Including 1 or more vegetation community types in a restoration plan may be 

encouraged at certain locations to complement the variety of site conditions (including 

drainage conditions) present and to create more diversity in habitat. 

Restoration ‘modes’ will be discussed with the agencies to determine the most practical 

and appropriate techniques to be applied at each site (or portions thereof). For 

example, criteria may be developed and applied to determine what sites will be 

passively (natural succession) or actively restored (plantings and managed succession), 

and where combinations of these approaches are warranted. 

In conclusion, MTO has committed to a restoration/creation/enhancement strategy to offset 

removals of natural forest and wetland along the transportation corridor (including HADD 

compensation and Butternut compensation) that will be developed co-operatively with the 

agencies, developed through detail design, and implemented through the construction phase. 

6.1.5 Operation and Maintenance Mitigation 

Many of the mitigation measures outlined in the previous sections will also work towards 

minimizing the Operation and Maintenance effects. For example, edge management measures 

and buffer plantings will reduce the effects to the retained adjacent habitats caused by the 

operation and maintenance of the transportation corridor. 

The corridor drainage system will incorporate a variety of environmental management measures 

(examples may include embankment filter strips, flat-bottom ditches, catch basins and stormwater 

management facilities). These measures, and any additional measures available at the time of 

construction, will be developed in more detail with agency consultation during subsequent design 

phases. This strategy will maximize runoff water quality for the protection of downstream resources. 

Details of the corridor drainage and mitigation strategies are provided in the 407 Waste Management 

and Contamination Impact Assessment Report (Ecoplans 2009). 

MTO salt management policy related to salt application, storage and stockpiling of salt-laden snow 

should be implemented, as well as any new salt management initiatives in place at the time of 

construction. These measures will reduce salt use and wastage with benefits to the natural 

environment. Additional information with respect to mitigating effects of salt are provided in the 

407 Waste/Contaminated Property Impact Assessment Report (Ecoplans 2009). 



Ecoplans Limited



6.2 East Duffins Creek Watershed 


Construction Effects 

There are 26 vegetation units intercepted by the transportation corridor right-of-way within the East 

Duffins Creek watershed. The construction of the transportation corridor in this section will have a 

direct effect of removing 8.7 ha of terrestrial vegetation and 17.4 ha of wetland habitat within the 

transportation corridor footprint (see Chapter 6.1.1 for general effects related to construction). This 

includes removals across a range of community types including 3 upland deciduous forest types, 2 

upland coniferous forest types, 7 wetland types and 4 culturally influenced community types. 

However, none of these community types are provincially rare. The dominant vegetation types 

crossed by the transportation corridor in this watershed are listed below: 

 

 

 

 

Upland Deciduous Forest Types - Fresh - Moist Aspen Deciduous Forest Type 

(FOD8-1), Fresh-Moist Ash Lowland Deciduous Forest Type (FOD7-2), Fresh-Moist 

Lowland Deciduous Forest Type (FOD7). 

Upland Coniferous Forest Types - Fresh-Moist White Cedar Coniferous Forest Type 

(FOC4-1), Dry - Fresh White Cedar Coniferous Forest Type (FOC2-2). 

Wetland Types - Willow Mineral Deciduous Swamp Type (SWD4-1), Black Ash Mineral 

Deciduous Swamp Type (SWD2-1), White Cedar-Harwood Mineral Mixed Swamp Type 

(SWM1-1), White Cedar Mineral Coniferous Swamp Type (SWC1-1), White Cedar Organic 

Coniferous Swamp (SWC3-1), Reed-canary Grass Mineral Meadow Marsh Type (MAM2- 

2), Narrow-leaved Sedge Mineral Meadow Marsh (MAM2-5). 

Culturally Influenced Community Types –Dry - Moist Old Field Meadow Type 

(CUM1-1), Mineral Cultural Woodland (CUW1), Scotch Pine Coniferous Plantation Type 

(CUP3-3), Red Pine Coniferous Plantation Type (CUP3-1). 

West of Sideline 16 and south of Highway 7, the vegetation removals associated with the 

transportation corridor are primarily limited to edge removals since the transportation corridor 

follows the existing section of Highway 407 to Highway 7. This includes edge removals to some 

moderate to high, and high quality vegetation units (i.e., C5S16-1 and C5BR-2). Removals to Unit 

C5S16-1 are limited to the northwest corner of the unit which includes a groundwater seepage 

area with diverse wetland dependent flora. Efforts were made to limit encroachment into this unit 

by shifting the Brock Road ramp closer to the 407 mainline and there may be opportunity for the 

two portions of transportation corridor to share 1 structure. The future transitway alignment was 

also shifted adjacent to the mainline and ramp to further reduce vegetation encroachment. Unit 

C5BR-2 has low diversity, but is considered moderate to high quality due to the high proportion of 

Butternut trees in the canopy. Approximately half of this unit will be removed for the transportation 

corridor; however recommendations are made to retain as many Butternuts as possible. 



Ecoplans Limited



Just north of Highway 7 the transportation corridor crosses a relatively small coniferous swamp unit 

(WS16-1). Nearly all of this unit will be removed. Although this unit has some high quality 

features, impact to this unit was traded off by greater protection of Unit C5S16-1, a conifer forest 

south of Highway 7 that has areas with similar botanical composition to WS16-1, but is much larger 

and of higher quality. 

Between Sideline 14 and Paddock Road is a broad shallow valley feature along Spring Creek. 

Although human disturbance is evident in this area (e.g., cultural woodlands and plantation, 

abundant disturbance tolerant species), there are pockets of groundwater seepage near Sideline 

16 in Unit WS14-9b that are dominated by a diversity of wetland dependent flora. The southern 

portion of this seepage area will be removed by the transportation corridor. 

On the west side of Paddock Road is a coniferous swamp unit that is considered moderate to high 

quality. It also has abundant groundwater seepage along the lower slopes of this unit. The 

majority of this unit will be removed by the transportation corridor. 

The East Duffins Creek valley (WPAD-1 and WPAD-2) is a wide (approximately 400 m) forested 

valley on the east side of Paddock Road. This is the highest quality unit in the west half of the 

Study Area. It will be crossed by the transportation corridor with a large (270 m) multi-span bridge. 

A large bridge was proposed in order to maintain valley linkage function and minimize impacts to 

the valley features. However, as a result of the ultimate width of this structure, it will be difficult to 

maintain existing natural vegetation under the bridge due to the indirect effects of shading and rain 

shadow. Although the transportation corridor removes features in this unit such as mature trees 

and wetland communities with groundwater seepage, the alignment still avoids even more 

sensitive features north of the transportation corridor (WPAD-2d) where there are forested 

groundwater seepage slopes with a diversity of wetland dependent flora. 

Other natural vegetation units include small drainage features within agricultural fields, small, 

isolated forest units (less than 3 ha), cultural meadow, cultural plantation or cultural woodland. 

These community types are generally common and composed of tolerant flora that will continue to 

thrive in retained habitats. 

Regionally rare vascular plant species have been identified within vegetation units affected by the 

transportation corridor (Virginia Stickseed, Canada Horse-balm, Wild Geranium, Pale Jewel-weed, 

and Shining Ladies’-tresses). Recommendations to salvage these species if impacted by the 

transportation corridor are provided in Appendix A). The need for and feasibility of salvage of 

these species will be confirmed during subsequent design stages. Additionally, 23 species ranked 

by TRCA as L1 – L3 were recorded within 12 vegetation units affected by the transportation 

corridor within Duffins Creek Watershed. No site specific mitigation is recommended at this stage 

with the exception of some species that are also considered Regionally or Provincially rare. This 

does not preclude potential future opportunities for salvage of L1–L3 plant species. The Impact 

Assessment tables (Appendix A) note a recommendation to provide TRCA with access to 

properties prior to construction (once MTO ownership is secure) to salvage any vegetation material 

that may be beneficial to their projects. This recommendation is also extended to other CAs, MNR 

and Durham Region. Butternut was recorded in 4 units (C5BR-2, C5BR-6a, C5S16-1c, and WS14- 

5) adjacent to the transportation corridor and included 14 trees within the ROW. Of those 14 trees, 



Ecoplans Limited



4 are considered retainable (per Ostry 70-20-50 guideline). There may be opportunities to retain 

several of these trees in situ at the edge of the ROW. A tree survey to determine the location of 

each tree with respect to the final location of the ROW boundaries and to finalize documentation of 

the effects will be undertaken during subsequent design stages. 

In addition to the direct impacts discussed above, the construction and operation and maintenance 

of the transportation corridor may also result in indirect impacts to the adjacent vegetation features 

that are retained. Chapters 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 identify indirect effects to vegetation that may occur 

during and following the construction period. The retained vegetation along the East Duffins Creek 

valley (WPAD-1 and WPAD-2) and C5S16-1 will be the most susceptible to indirect effects due to 

the creation of new forest edges along sensitive features. 

Dewatering required during construction of bridge footings may impact adjacent vegetation 

features (e.g., dependent wetland and/or riparian vegetation) due to temporary lowering of 

groundwater. These effects are expected to be temporary in nature and reversible once 

construction is complete. 

Environmental Protection 

During Preliminary Design, refinements to the Technically Recommended Route (TRR) were made 

in key areas to minimize impacts to natural features. Route refinements were made based on input 

and consultation from Study Team specialists and upon external consultation with Review 

Agencies. 

At the Brock Road interchange, direct encroachment into the high quality cedar swamp wetland 

(C5S16-1) was minimized by combining the Brock Road ramp and mainline 407 structures and 

shifting the transitway to run immediately adjacent to 407 and Brock Road ramp. There was also a 

larger bridge (270 m span) designed for the crossing of East Duffins Creek in order to minimize 

valley encroachment and maximize valley openness following construction. 

Standard mitigation measures (Chapters 6.1.3 and 6.1.5) will be applied all vegetation units. 

Additional site-specific mitigation measures are recommended along sensitive features (e.g., 

WPAD-1, WPAD-2, C5S16-1, and Butternuts). Additional mitigation measures include, 

implementing valley restoration/enhancement plans, edge management along exposed 

forested/wetland edges, keeping staging areas outside of valleys, locating and transplanting 

regionally rare perennial plants or salvaging soils (annual species), locating construction access in 

less sensitive areas, limiting the size of the construction footprint, invasive species control, 

maximizing retention of vegetation to the extent possible, and protecting retained Butternuts during 

construction (i.e., tree hoarding). 

Details regarding restoration, enhancement and compensation principles for ecological restoration 

and enhancement will be developed through ongoing consultation with review agencies (MNR, 

TRCA, CLOCA, GRCA and DFO). 



Ecoplans Limited



Residual Effects 

The following summarizes the residual effects: 

Magnitude: 

In total 8.7 ha of terrestrial habitat and 17.4 ha of wetland habitat are removed by the 

transportation corridor within the East Duffins Creek watershed. On a landscape scale (East 

Duffins Creek watershed) these construction related impacts (i.e., removals) are very small 

(approximately 0.7%). in relation to the total wooded cover present in the watershed 

(approximately 3701 ha). Half of the wetland removals (8.0 ha) occur within the East Duffins Creek 

Valley (WPAD-1 and WPAD-2). Since this is the highest quality feature crossed by the 

transportation corridor in the west half of the route, efforts were taken to increase the size of the 

bridge across this valley. Further mitigation is also recommended to reduce the amount of 

encroachment into this feature. There are 14 Butternut (including 4 considered retainable) within 

the ROW and 5 regionally rare species were noted within units crossed by the transportation 

corridor. Mitigation is recommended to salvage these species wherever feasible and a 

compensation plan will be developed for removal of all retainable Butternuts. Vegetation removals 

will also be reduced through the implementation of a restoration plan, as discussed above. 

Operation and maintenance of the transportation corridor will have effects on retained adjacent 

vegetation, primarily through the influence of salt-spray and contaminants, particularity along the 

valleys and the adjacent deciduous forest. Therefore, edge management efforts are 

recommended to reduce this effect on these areas. 

Extent: 

Construction impacts (associated with vegetation removals) will be limited to within the ROW of the 

transportation corridor. Standard and site-specific vegetation protection measures detailed in 

Chapters 6.1.3, 6.1.4 and 6.1.5 will be utilized to protect 

the edges of the retained habitats. 

Operation and maintenance effects such as the 

influence of salt spray and other contaminants from the 

transportation corridor will primarily be limited to the 

ROW and vegetation immediately adjacent to the ROW. 

Stormwater management facilities will catch and treat 

highway runoff prior to release to natural areas beyond 

the ROW (e.g., C5S16-1, WPAD-5, WS14-8) and buffer 

plantings will alleviate salt spray drift to the sensitive 

forest units (e.g., C5S16-1, C5BR-2, WS14-9b, WPAD- 

1, WPAD-2). 

Willow Swamp in Vegetation Unit C5BR-1 along 

Brougham Creek (Ecoplans) 

Frequency: 



Ecoplans Limited



Construction effects are confined to the project construction period (approximately 2-3 years) and 

are not a recurring activity. Effects associated with operation and maintenance will occur as long 

as the corridor is in use. 

Duration: 

Vegetation removal is permanent. Clearing and grubbing will be limited to the construction period. 

Contract provisions are identified to minimize the duration soils are exposed. Other standard 

mitigation measures that will limit the duration of disturbance or define the timing of construction 

are found in Chapter 6.1.3. 

Operation and maintenance activities occur during the lifetime of the facility. Effects associated 

with operation and maintenance are addressed through implementation of the MTO standard 

maintenance practices as set out in their Maintenance Manuals addressing road maintenance 

activities, including snow and ice control (Chapter 6.1.5). 

Reversibility: 

Effects associated with the construction of the corridor are not reversible. However, vegetative features 

will naturally grow back or be replanted after construction, in areas where clearing was required to 

facilitate construction but are not required for operation of the transportation corridor (e.g., construction 

access roads, clearing and grubbing of ROW and around SWM facilities). Restoration and 

enhancement opportunities as discussed earlier can help “reverse” some of the required vegetation 

removals. 

Localized effects from salt and contaminant drift are not reversible, but can be managed with 

implementation of the most current management and mitigation measures in place at the time of 

corridor construction and operation (Chapter 6.1.5). 



Road construction can have a number of direct effects on wildlife (Chapter 6.1.1). For example, the 

construction of a new transportation corridor may displace individuals and/or their habitat, or obstruct 

their movement. These construction effects can have secondary effects by fragmenting habitat and 

isolating wildlife populations. These are discussed further in Chapter 6.1.1.2. 

Secondary effects resulting from the operation and maintenance of the highway are discussed in 

the Operation and Maintenance Effects chapter (Chapter 6.1.2.2). These are mainly related to 

changes in habitat quality in areas adjacent to the transportation corridor. 



Ecoplans Limited



As described in Chapter 6.2.1 above, the construction of the transportation corridor will result in 

the direct removal of approximately 8.7 ha of terrestrial habitat and 17.4 ha of wetland of wetland 

habitat. This comprises a very small proportion (approximately 0.7%) of the total wooded cover 

present in the watershed (approximately 3701 ha). 

No SAR wildlife or habitats were recorded within or adjacent to the transportation corridor. 

While the majority of vegetation units impacted along the transportation corridor are considered, 

from a terrestrial perspective, to be largely of low to moderate quality, several high quality units that 

provide elements of specialized and sensitive wildlife habitat will be impacted. 

The main impacts to specialized and sensitive wildlife habitat are associated with the crossing of the 

East Duffins Creek valley. The transportation corridor fragments a large core habitat patch (unit 

WPAD) located north of Highway 7 and east of Paddock Road. There are 2 patches of interior forest 

within this potation of the valley. The transportation corridor crosses the southern patch of interior 

forest, maintaining the northern patch in it entirety. Forest interior within the southern patch is reduced 

by 4.8 ha (96 %), with approximately 0.22 ha of interior forest that will remain, south of the 

transportation corridor. The transportation corridor will also result in the removal of mature 

forest/habitat elements that include frequent snags and abundant downfall logs and areas of valley 

slope forest with abundant groundwater seepage. Deer winter habitat identified in the WPAD units of 

the East Duffins Creek valley will be removed within the transportation corridor. Other areas of 

potential deer winter habitat are present in the East Duffins Creek immediately north and south of the 

transportation corridor providing alternative areas for deer winter use. 

The portion of East Duffins Creek valley that is crossed provides habitat for 1 provincially rare bird 

species, Carolina Wren, and a number of area-sensitive and/or regionally rare bird species: American 

Woodcock, Black-billed Cuckoo, Bobolink, Brown Thrasher, Chestnut-sided Warbler, Field Sparrow, 

Hairy Woodpecker, Least Flycatcher, Pileated Woodpecker, Veery, and Wood Thrush. With the reduction 

of the forested and meadow habitat available, there will be a removal of area-sensitive and 

provincially/regionally rare breeding bird habitat within the transportation corridor. 

Birds are highly mobile and these species were found throughout the Study Area. Species that use 

the vegetation communities present will lose habitat to varying degrees as a result of the 

transportation corridor alignment. However, the habitat types (agricultural lands, forest and 

meadow) found within the transportation corridor occur within the broader watershed and Durham 

Region generally, providing similar habitat for displaced bird species. The restoration and 

enhancement work that will be developed further at subsequent design stages will also provide 

habitat enhancement opportunities that may benefit some of these species. In addition the bridge 

design and valley management components proposed for the crossing of the East Duffins Creek 

valley are intended to facilitate wildlife passage (under bridge design elements) and reduce the gap 

effect (to the extent possible) for birds by maximizing tree and shrub retention adjacent to the 

structure within the valley. 

During the route planning/evaluation (Alternative Methods) stage, only one route option was 

presented in this portion of the Study Area. However, in examining potential for developing routes 



Ecoplans Limited



north and south of the current transportation corridor, the Study Team concluded that effects to 

terrestrial ecosystems would be greater with both a more northerly and a more southerly route. A 

more northerly route would require crossings of 2 branches of East Duffins Creek in valley 

segments that are equally if not more sensitive. A more southerly crossing of East Duffins Creek 

would shift the route into the broad habitat mosaic that stretches across the Lake Iroquois 

Shoreline and forms a regional east-west connection between the Rough River and Lynde Creek 

watersheds. 

Although clearly there are permanent effects to specialized and sensitive wildlife habitat associated 

with the crossing of East Duffins Creek, the transportation corridor crossing in this location 

minimizes the impacts to the East Duffins Creek system, when viewed on a broader 

scale/watershed basis. 

As noted above, the East Duffins Creek valley in the vicinity of the crossing is approximately 400 m 

wide and will be crossed with a 270 m multi-span bridge. While a 210 m bridge met all the 

technical (hydrotechnical, geomorphological, fisheries and wildlife passage) requirements, a larger 

bridge was proposed in order to maintainvalley linkage function and minimize impacts to the valley 

features given the size of the valley and habitat sensitivity. 

The presence of common amphibian species recorded during field investigations was noted in 

units WPAD-2, WS14-8 and WWES-1. While the productivity of these units may decrease as a 

result of the indirect effects associated with the 

transportation corridor, habitat for these common 

species is represented in areas beyond the 

transportation corridor. Appropriate design and 

mitigation in this area for the transitway will be 

developed as part of a separate undertaking (i.e., as part 

of the transitway design). 

As a result of the direct removal of terrestrial and 

wetland habitat within the transportation corridor, there 

will be fragmentation of habitat areas for wildlife use and 

Spring Peeper (Ecoplans) 

movement, most notably within the East Duffins Creek 

Valley. In the smaller, already fragmented tableland 

habitat areas, it is anticipated that vegetation removals will have less of an effect on wildlife habitat. 

The provision of wildlife crossing structures with funnel fencing will minimize habitat fragmentation 

effects, encourage wildlife passage and help to reduce wildlife conflicts with motorists. This is 

discussed further under Environmental Protection below. In addition, the East Duffins Creek valley 

crossing design will provide a very large structure to maintain valley openness, as well as 

extensive under bridge habitat cover elements (such as boulders, woody debris, logs, stumps) to 

help re-connect the valley under the bridge structure. 

The transportation corridor encroaches slightly into unit C5S16-1 (south of the transportation 

corridor and east of Brock Road). The main portion of this unit has similar specialized and sensitive 

habitat elements to those of East Duffins Creek: mature swamp/habitat that includes frequent 



Ecoplans Limited



snags and abundant downfall logs and areas of valley slope forest with abundant groundwater 

discharge as well as potential deer winter habitat. 

Design modifications were made during the Preliminary Design process to reduce the 

transportation corridor footprint to the extent possible at this location. The Brock Road ramp was 

shifted closer to the 407 mainline and there may be opportunity for the two portions of 

transportation corridor to share one structure. The future transitway alignment was also shifted 

closer to the mainline and ramp to further reduce habitat encroachment. These design changes 

were successful in minimizing the direct footprint impacts to this sensitive feature. Additional 

measures to reduce the footprint should be explored during subsequent design phases. 

In addition to the direct impacts discussed above, the construction and operation/maintenance of 

the transportation corridor may also result in indirect impacts to adjacent habitat that is retained. 

Chapter 6.1.2 lists indirect effects to wildlife that may occur during and following the construction 

period including the creation of edge effects along newly exposed forest edges and noise impacts 

to remaining habitat adjacent to the alignment. These effects that may occur during and following 

the construction period include but are not limited to: 

 

 

 

 

edge effects 

lowered habitat quality (transportation corridor proximity) 

highway runoff/salt spray 

light effects 


Any construction project has some potential for wildlife injury or mortality. This can be mitigated 

through Contractor awareness briefings, implementation of a wildlife encounter protocol, and 

scheduling of vegetation removals outside breeding periods (wherever possible and feasible). 

The standard and site-specific mitigation measures described in Chapters 6.1.3, 6.1.4 and 6.1.5 

and Appendix F will minimize effects to wildlife within and adjacent to the transportation corridor. 

The 407 corridor crosses 6 valleys within the East Duffins Creek watershed. Of these, East Duffins 

Creek is that largest valley (Crossing 9) and serves important regional landscape corridor 

functions. This valley connects large habitat areas on the Oak Ridges Moraine with natural areas 

along the Lake Iroquois Shoreline and the Lake Ontario shoreline. Passage for large animals, such 

as deer, was recommended at this valley crossings (minimum OR of 0.6 and a minimum clearance 

height of 3 m). East Duffins Creek is being crossed by a 270 m multi-span bridges that greatly 

exceed the minimum OR requirements (OR of 28 or greater). As such, and with implementation of 

under-bridge cover elements, this valley should continue to provide a regional wildlife linkage 

function. 

The valleys of Brougham Creek and Spring Creek (Crossings 3 and 8) also provide opportunities 

for wildlife use and movement; although these systems are more limited in terms of width, natural 

vegetation cover, habitat diversity and wildlife habitat elements. Passage for large animals, such 



Ecoplans Limited



as deer, was recommended at these valley crossings (minimum OR of 0.6 and a minimum 

clearance height of 3 m). Currently, based on the drainage design, the recommendation for deer 

passage will be achieved (the minimum OR met or exceeded) at these valleys. 

The remaining smaller tributary valleys (Crossings 4, 7 and 10) provide some local linkage 

opportunities for wildlife use and movement. However, these systems are more limited in terms of 

width, natural vegetation cover, habitat diversity and wildlife habitat elements and particularly 

connection to habitat features to the north. Passage for small animals (minimum OR of 0.05) was 

recommended at 2 of the 3 tributaries. Currently, based on the drainage design, small animal 

passage will be achieved (the minimum OR met or exceeded) at all 3 tributary crossings. 

Additional details regarding restoration, enhancement and compensation principles for ecological 

restoration and enhancement will be developed through ongoing consultation with review agencies 

(MNR, TRCA, CLOCA, GRCA and DFO) as property ownership and potential restoration sites are 

identified in subsequent design phases. 



Magnitude: 


transportation corridor. These numbers will be reduced through the implementation of a restoration 

plan, as discussed above. Any construction project has some potential for wildlife injury or 

mortality. This can be mitigated through Contractor awareness briefings, implementation of a 

wildlife encounter protocol, and scheduling of vegetation removals outside breeding periods 

(wherever possible and feasible). Habitat removal is recognized, but is a very small proportion 

(approximately 0.7%) of the total vegetation cover in the East Duffins Creek Watershed 

(approximately 3701 ha wooded of cover). Additionally, the removals of interior forest (loss of 4.8 

ha) is also a relatively small proportion (approximately 1%) of the 500 ha of interior forest present 

in the East Duffins Creek Watershed (based on GIS analysis of the NRVIS Wooded layer, 2006). 

Extent: 

Wildlife species within the area of impact will either be temporarily or permanently displaced due to 

the removal of terrestrial and wetland habitat. Habitat removals will be limited to the 170 m ROW. 

Some lowering of habitat quality can be anticipated within adjacent habitats bordering the 

transportation corridor, typically due to transportation corridor proximity (additional noise, possibly 

lighting, runoff/contaminant generation etc.). Buffer plantings and edge management, and lighting 

design can help minimize effects. 

Operation and maintenance effects such as the influence of salt spray and other contaminants 

from the corridor will primarily be limited to the ROW and vegetation immediately adjacent to the 

ROW. SWM facilities will catch and treat highway runoff prior to release to natural areas beyond 



Ecoplans Limited



the ROW (e.g., WPAD-5) and buffer plantings will alleviate salt spray drift to the adjacent natural 

areas. Standard and site-specific wildlife protection measures discussed above will be utilized to 

protect retained habitats adjacent to the alignment. 

Frequency: 

Construction effects are confined to the project construction period (not recurring) (approximately 

2-3 years). Highway operation is a long term and recurring activity. Effects associated with 

operation and maintenance will be recurring as long as the highway is in use (recurring). The 

wildlife structures will provide improved connectivity and will help reduce wildlife mortality during 

the operational period. 

Duration: 

Habitat removal is permanent; clearing work will be limited to the ROW during the construction 

period (approximately 2-3 years). Right-of-way management and runoff controls will maximize 

runoff quality. Wildlife structures will be long term mitigation measures to help maintain 

connectivity. Operation and maintenance activities occur during the lifetime of the facility. Effects 

associated with operation and maintenance are addressed through implementation of the MTO 

standard maintenance practices as set out in their Maintenance Manuals addressing road 

maintenance activities, including snow and ice control. 


Habitat removal is not reversible, although restoration and enhancement work can help offset 

some effects. However, many of the affected habitat types are themselves a rural product of a 

landscape (past clearing) and are not limited only to the transportation corridor location. Removal 

of habitat at the East Duffins Creek valley crossing is not reversible. However, this is a high priority 

area for both bridge design, valley restoration (disturbed areas), and under bridge habitat elements 

to help re-connect the valley. Other restoration and enhancement initiatives to be developed (as 

noted above) can also help improve habitat either locally or elsewhere in the watershed. Localized 

effects from salt and contaminant drift are not reversible, but can be managed with implementation 

of the most current Best Management Practices and mitigation measures in place at the time of 

transportation corridor construction and operation. 

The design and mitigation elements that are discussed in this report and will be developed by MTO 

with agency consultation (detail design) are intended to improve wildlife habitat connectivity at key 

locations to reduce and manage wildlife conflicts. 



Ecoplans Limited



6.3 Carruthers Creek Watershed 



There are 8 vegetation units intercepted by the transportation corridor right-of-way within the 

Carruthers Creek watershed. The construction of the transportation corridor in this watershed will 

have a direct effect of removing 9.4 ha of terrestrial vegetation (See Chapter 6.1.1 for general 

effects related to construction). This includes removals of several community types including 1 

deciduous forest type, and 3 culturally influenced community types. The dominant vegetation 

types crossed by the Highway ROW in this section are listed below: 

 

 

Upland Deciduous Forest Types - Dry - Fresh Sugar Maple - Beech Deciduous 

Forest Type (FOD5-2) 

Culturally Influenced Community Types – Dry - Moist Old Field Meadow Type 

(CUM1-1), Mineral Cultural Woodland (CUW1), Deciduous Plantation (CUP1) 

Although all the dominant vegetation units identified above are upland community types, several of 

these units have inclusions of wetland habitat including Reed-canary Grass Mineral Meadow 

Marsh and Willow Mineral Thicket Swamp along riparian zones. Other inclusions include Fresh- 

Moist White Elm Lowland Deciduous Forest and Fresh-Moist Willow Lowland Deciduous Forest. 

Of the 8 vegetation units crossed, none are considered provincially rare community types (Bakowsky 

1996). Human disturbance is evident in 7 of the 8 units with abundant non-native species, pioneer or 

young to mid-aged communities, and are dominated by disturbance tolerant flora that are common in 

the surrounding area and will continue to thrive in retained habitats. 

The most notable unit intercepted by the transportation corridor within this watershed, is a 

deciduous forest primarily composed of Sugar Maple (WS8-1). The transportation corridor footprint 

removes the northwest projection of this unit which is a more disturbed area relative to the rest of 

the unit. The retained portion of the unit will be susceptible to indirect effects due to the proximity 

of the transportation corridor footprint (including the transportation corridor and transitway to the 

north and the transitway facilities to the east). 

There was 1 regionally rare vascular plant species (Marsh Bellflower) within vegetation units 

affected by the transportation corridor (WS8-2). The exact location of the plant is unknown. Since 

only 13% of this unit is within the ROW this plant may or may not be directly affected by vegetation 

removals. It is recommended that this species be located and if it occurs within the vegetation 

removal zone, it should be transplanted to another similar and appropriate location. Additionally, 

12 species ranked by TRCA as L1 – L2 were recorded within 6 vegetation units affected by the 

Transportation in the Carruthers Creek Watersheds. No site specific mitigation is recommended at 

this stage with the exception of some species that are also considered Regionally or Provincially 

rare. This does not preclude potential future opportunities for salvage of L1–L3 plant species. The 



Ecoplans Limited



Impact Assessment tables (Appendix A) note a recommendation to provide TRCA with access to 

properties prior to construction (once MTO ownership is secure) to salvage any vegetation material 

that may be beneficial to their projects. This recommendation is also extended to other CAs, MNR 

and Durham Region. 

In addition to the direct impacts discussed above, indirect effects to retained features are 

anticipated as a result of the construction and operation and maintenance of the transportation 

corridor. Chapter 6.2.1 lists indirect effects to vegetation that may occur during and following the 

construction period. Generally, indirect effects are expected to be limited in this section of the 

transportation corridor because retained vegetation is of low to moderate ecological quality. 

However as noted above indirect effects to the Sugar Maple forest (WS8-1) are of consideration 

due to the quality of this feature and the proximity of the proposed route. 


Standard mitigation measures (Chapter 6.1.3) will be applied across all vegetation units. 

Additional site-specific mitigation measures are recommended for the upland deciduous forest 

(WS8-1) described above and include: edge management along exposed forested edges (buffer 

plantings), locating and transplanting regionally rare perennial plants, limiting construction zone 

size and maximizing retention of vegetation to the extent possible. 

Although the vegetation communities along Carruthers Creek and its tributaries are considered low 

to moderate quality from a terrestrial perspective, it is recognized that the riparian zones along 

these watercourses are important for Redside Dace habitat. Therefore, recommendations are also 

made to identify opportunities to enhance riparian cover either upstream or downstream in 

recognition of the importance of riparian vegetation to this rare species. 



TRCA, CLOCA, GRCA and DFO) as property ownership and opportunity lands become known. 



Magnitude: 

In total 9.4 ha of terrestrial vegetation communities will be removed by the transportation corridor 

within the Carruthers Creek watershed. On a landscape scale (Carruthers watershed) these 

construction related impacts (i.e., removals) are very small (approximately 2%) in relation to the 

total wooded cover present in the watershed (approximately 441 ha). The majority of the 

vegetation units impacted are of low to moderate quality with only 1 high quality unit (upland 

deciduous forest) affected by edge removals. The plant species affected are also present in 

abundance outside of the Study Area (only 1 regionally rare species noted within a unit crossed by 



Ecoplans Limited



the transportation corridor). Vegetation removals will be reduced through the implementation of a 

restoration plan, as discussed above. 

Operation and maintenance of the transportation corridor will have limited adverse effects on 

retained adjacent vegetation, primarily through the influence of salt-spray and contaminants. This 

is due to the limited natural vegetation present and its low to moderate quality. These indirect 

impacts are anticipated to be greater on the upland deciduous forest (WS8-1), therefore, edge 

management efforts are recommended to reduce this effect on this high quality area. 

Extent: 



Chapters 6.1.3, 6.1.4 and 6.1.5 will be utilized to protect the edges of the retained habitats. 


from the transportation corridor will primarily be limited to the ROW and vegetation immediately 

adjacent to the ROW. SWM facilities will catch and treat highway runoff prior to release to natural 

areas beyond the ROW (e.g., WS8-1 and WS4-4) and buffer plantings will alleviate salt spray drift 

to the upland deciduous forest (WS8-1). 

Frequency: 


are not a recurring activity. 

Effects associated with operation and maintenance will occur as long as the transportation corridor 

is in use. 

Duration: 

Vegetation removal is permanent, but as noted above is limited in extent to features of low to 

moderate quality with the exception of edge removal of a deciduous forest. Clearing and grubbing 

will be limited to the construction period. Contract provisions are identified to minimize the duration 

soils are exposed. Other standard mitigation measures that will limit the duration of disturbance or 

define the timing of construction are found in Chapter 6.1.3. 







Ecoplans Limited




Effects associated with the construction of the transportation corridor are not reversible. However, 

vegetative features will naturally grow back or be replanted after construction, in areas where 

clearing was required to facilitate construction but are not required for operation of the corridor 

(e.g., construction access roads, clearing and grubbing of ROW and around SWM facilities). 

Restoration and enhancement opportunities as discussed earlier can help “reverse” some of the 

required vegetation removals. 



transportation corridor construction and operation (Chapter 6.1.5). 



Road construction can have a number of direct effects (Chapter 6.1.1) on wildlife. For example, 

the construction of a new road may displace individuals and/or their habitat, or obstruct their 

movement. These construction effects can have secondary effects by fragmenting habitat and 


Secondary effects resulting from the operation and maintenance of the transportation corridor are 

discussed in the Operation and Maintenance Effects chapter (Chapter 6.1.2). These are mainly 

related to changes in habitat quality in areas adjacent to the transportation corridor.. 


the direct removal of approximately 9.4 ha of terrestrial habitat. These habitats are generally low to 

moderate quality riparian communities (cultural meadow, meadow marsh and shrub thicket) that 

are common and abundant in this type of rural landscape, throughout Durham Region. 

No SAR wildlife or habitats were recorded in the Carruthers Creek Watershed. 

No areas specialized or sensitive wildlife habitat features have been identified within or directly 

adjacent to the transportation corridor (e.g., forest interior habitat, deer wintering habitat). Linkages 

to surrounding habitat nodes and corridors (large forested patches or valley systems) are present 

but are generally weak. A large, high quality deciduous forest block (WS8-1) located south of the 

transportation corridor was largely avoided during the route planning stage. Effects to this unit are 

limited along the north edge (along a farm lane) and the east edge where a stormwater 

management facility will be located. 

Although the vegetation communities along the Carruthers Creek and its tributaries are considered 

low to moderate quality from a terrestrial perspective, they do provide habitat for a number of areasensitive 

and/or regionally rare bird species. With the reduction of the forested and meadow habitat 



Ecoplans Limited



available, there will be a removal of area-sensitive and regionally rare breeding bird habitat within 

the transportation corridor. 

Species considered area-sensitive and/or regionally rare within the Carruthers Creek Watershed 

Study Area include: American Redstart, Broad-winged Hawk, Least Flycatcher, Northern Harrier, 

White-breasted Nuthatch, Bobolink and Field Sparrow. Birds are highly mobile and these species 

were found throughout the Study Area. Species that use vegetation communities present will lose 

habitat to varying degrees as a result of the transportation corridor alignment. However, the habitat 

types (agricultural lands, forest and meadow) found within the transportation corridor occur within 

the broader watershed, providing similar habitat for displaced bird species. The restoration and 

enhancement work that will be developed further at detail design will also provide habitat 

enhancement opportunities that may benefit some of these species. 

The transportation corridor does not remove or encroach into any known active amphibian 

breeding sites. The presence of common amphibian species recorded during field investigations 

was noted in Units WS8-2, WSAL-1a, 1b and 2. While the productivity in these units may 

decrease as a result of the indirect effects associated with the corridor, habitat for these common 

species is represented in areas beyond the Study Area. Appropriate design and mitigation in this 

area, for the transitway will be developed as part of a separate undertaking (i.e., as part of the 

transitway design). 

The provision of wildlife crossing structures with funnel fencing will lessen habitat fragmentation, 

encourage wildlife passage and help to reduce wildlife conflicts with the transportation corridor and 

the transitway. This is discussed further under Environmental Protection below. 


of the corridor may also result in indirect impacts to adjacent habitat that is retained. Chapter 6.1.2 

lists indirect effects to wildlife that may occur during and following the construction period including 

the creation of edge effects along newly exposed forest edge and noise impacts to remaining 

habitat adjacent to the alignment. These effects that may occur during and following the 

construction period include but are not limited to: 

 

 

 

 

edge effects 



light effects 


Any construction project has some potential for wildlife injury or mortality. However, this can be 

mitigated through Contractor awareness briefings, implementation of a wildlife encounter protocol, 

and scheduling of vegetation removals outside breeding periods (wherever possible and feasible). 



Ecoplans Limited





As described in Chapter 4.2.3 (methodology), wildlife passage recommendations were 

incorporated into the sizing and design of crossing structures associated with watercourse features 

(which will also provide “dry passage”). 

Additional site-specific mitigation measures are recommended for the upland deciduous forest 

(WS8-1) described above and include: edge management along exposed forested edges (buffer 

plantings), locating and transplanting regionally rare perennial plants, limiting construction zone 

size and maximizing retention of vegetation to the extent possible. 

Recognizing the local linkage function, and specific aspects such as the limited presence of habitat 

nodes in this portion of the watershed generally, as well as the nature of these valleys (wide, 

shallow with associated thicket and meadow riparian communities), passage for large animals, 

such as deer, (minimum OR of 0.6 and a minimum clearance height of 3 m) was recommended at 

3 of the 4 valley crossings (Crossings 11, 12 and 14). Passage for small animals (minimum OR of 

0.05) was recommended at remaining tributary (Crossing 15). 

All valleys are crossed by single span bridges. Resulting openness ratios (OR) and clearance 

heights at Crossings 11, 12 and 14 exceed the minimum requirements for large animals, including 

deer. Resulting openness ratios (OR) at Crossing 15 exceed the minimum requirement for small 

animals. Therefore 4 of the Carruthers Creek tributary valleys will accommodate wildlife passage 

and should continue to provide local wildlife linkages. 




identified during subsequent design phases. 



Magnitude: 

In total 9.4 ha of terrestrial habitat is removed by the transportation corridor. This number will be 

reduced through the implementation of a restoration plan, as discussed above. Any construction 

project has some potential for wildlife injury or mortality. This can be mitigated through Contractor 

awareness briefings, implementation of a wildlife encounter protocol, and scheduling of vegetation 

removals outside breeding periods (wherever possible and feasible). Habitat removal is 

recognized, but is a very small proportion of the total vegetation cover in the larger setting. The 

transportation corridor was selected to avoid the larger and higher quality deciduous forest habitat 

block (WS8-1). Furthermore, no SAR wildlife or habitats were recorded in the Carruthers Creek 

Watershed. 



Ecoplans Limited



Extent: 





lighting, runoff/contaminant generation etc.). Buffer plantings, edge management, and lighting 

design (or no lighting if safety permits) can help minimize effects. Runoff management and 

treatment (SWM and drainage design) will also soften impacts. Standard and site-specific wildlife 

protection measures discussed above will be utilized to protect retained habitats adjacent to the 

alignment. 

Frequency: 


2-3 years). Highway operation is a long term and recurring activity. Effects associated with 

operation and maintenance will be recurring as long as the corridor is in use (recurring). The 

wildlife structures will provide improved connectivity and will help reduce wildlife mortality during 

the operational period. 

Duration: 

Habitat removal is permanent. Clearing work will be limited to the ROW during the construction 









some effects. Affected habitat types are a product of a rural landscape (past clearing) and are not 

limited only to the transportation corridor location and are abundant throughout Durham Region 

generally. Localized effects from salt and contaminant drift are not reversible, but can be managed 

with implementation of the most current management and mitigation measures in place at the time 

of transportation corridor construction and operation. 



locations and to reduce and manage wildlife conflicts. 



Ecoplans Limited



6.4 Lynde Creek Watershed 


6.4.1.1 Lynde Creek - Mainline 


There are 25 vegetation units intercepted by the transportation corridor right-of-way along the 

Mainline section of the Lynde Creek watershed. The construction of the transportation corridor in 

this section will have a direct effect of removing 53.2 ha of terrestrial vegetation and 0.4 ha of wetland 

habitat within the transportation corridor footprint (See Chapter 6.1.1 for general effects related to 

construction). This includes removals across a range of community types including 4 upland 

deciduous forest types, 1 upland coniferous forest type, 2 wetland types and 4 culturally influenced 

community types. None of these community types are provincially rare. The dominant vegetation 

types crossed by the transportation corridor in this watershed are listed below: 

 

 

 

 

Upland Deciduous Forest Types - Fresh-Moist Ash Lowland Deciduous Forest Type 

(FOD7-2), Fresh-Moist Lowland Deciduous Forest Type (FOD7), Fresh - Moist Sugar 

Maple - Lowland Ash Deciduous Forest Type (FOD6-1), Dry - Fresh Sugar Maple - Oak 

Deciduous Forest Type (FOD5-3). 

Upland Coniferous Forest Type - Fresh-Moist White Cedar Coniferous Forest Type 

(FOC4-1). 

Wetland Types - Shallow Aquatic (SA), Reed-canary Grass Mineral Meadow Marsh 

Type (MAM2-2). 


(CUM1-1), Mineral Cultural Thicket Ecosite (CUT1), Mineral Cultural Woodland 

(CUW1), Red Pine Coniferous Plantation Type (CUP3-1). 

The proposed Highway 407 – West Durham Link freeway to freeway interchange is located 

between Coronation Road and Lakeridge Road. The ramps associated with this interchange result 

in several crossings of a valley along a tributary to West Lynde Creek (WHAL-1 and WHAL-2). 

Table A-3 (Appendix A) provides the area (ha) removed by the transportation corridor for each 

unit. Removals to these 2 units are based on a conservative approach (all vegetation within 

ROW), however there may be opportunities to retain forest patches between the transportation 

corridor and interchange ramps to reduce the mount of vegetation removed. This valley also 

includes 33 Butternuts within the ROW, 20 of which are considered retainable. 

There may be opportunities to retain several of these trees in situ at the edge of the ROW or 

between the interchange ramps. A tree survey to determine the location of each tree with respect 

to the final location of the ROW boundaries and to finalize documentation of the effects will be 

undertaken during subsequent design stages. 



Ecoplans Limited



The West Lynde Creek valley is a high quality vegetation unit (WCOR-1) that is crossed by the 

transportation corridor. The transportation corridor crosses this valley at a relatively narrow section 

(approximately 200 m) reducing the amount of vegetation removal required relative to a more 

northerly or southerly shift in the transportation corridor. Although this unit is considered high 

quality it also demonstrates areas of past disturbance. 

The removed vegetation at the southern edge of a Sugar Maple – Oak forest (WCOR-1b) is more 

disturbed than the retained area of WCOR-1b as it includes younger trees and frequent Common 

Buckthorn (a non-native, invasive species). 

Similarly, the White Cedar forest (WCOR-1a) within the transportation corridor footprint includes 

areas of very young dense White Cedar (on the west side of West Lynde Creek) that are of lower 

quality than the portion of the unit on the east side of West Lynde Creek (also within the footprint). 

The Cedar forest on the east side of West Lynde Creek contains mid-aged and mature White 

Cedar (up to 50 cm dbh) with some groundwater seepage pockets along the slopes. However, the 

valley bottom in this area has been impacted by ATV use which has compacted the soil and 

removed ground layer flora. The valley will be crossed by the transportation corridor with a large 

(approximately 85 m span) bridge. A large bridge was proposed in order to maintain valley linkage 

function and minimize impacts to the valley features. However, as a result of the ultimate width of 

the bridge structure, the vegetation under the bridge will likely be minimal due to the indirect effects 

of shading and rain shadow. 

The Lynde Creek valley is a large vegetation feature composed of common and tolerant vegetation 

community types (cultural meadow, cultural thicket, cultural woodland and meadow marsh) and 

flora. A large bridge (130 m span) was proposed in order to maintain valley linkage function and 

minimize impacts to the valley features. However, as a result of the ultimate width of this structure, 

the vegetation under the bridge will likely be minimal due to the indirect effects of shading and rain 

shadow. 

Other natural vegetation units impacted by the transportation corridor are of low to moderate 

quality and include meadow marshes along drainage features surrounded by agricultural fields, 

very small, isolated deciduous forest units (less than 2 ha), or cultural thickets. These community 

types are common and generally composed of tolerant flora that are well represented elsewhere in 

the watershed. 


transportation corridor (Horse Gentian, Swamp Rose, Black Willow, Pale Jewel-weed). 

Recommendations to salvage these species if impacted by the transportation corridor are provided 

in Table A-3 (Appendix A). The need for and salvage feasibility of these species will be confirmed 

during subsequent design stages. There were 40 Butternuts were within the ROW in 3 units (WS4- 

1, WHAL-1 and WHAL-2). This includes 23 trees which were considered retainable. However, 

there may be opportunities to retain several of these trees in situ at the edge or the ROW or 

between the interchange ramps in especially in Units WHAL-1 and WHAL-2. A tree survey to 



Ecoplans Limited



determine the location of each tree with respect to the final location of the ROW boundaries and to 

finalize documentation of the effects will be undertaken during subsequent design stages. 



that are retained. Chapter 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 identify indirect effects to vegetation that may occur 

during and following the construction period. The valley along West Lynde Creek will be the most 

susceptible to indirect effects due to the creation of new forest edges and the sensitivity of retained 

habitat. 




and consultation from Study Team specialists and/or external consultation with Review Agencies. 

A larger bridge was designed at West Lynde Creek, increasing the span from approximately 43 m 

to approximately 85 m in response to a recommendation made by CLOCA. CLOCA has identified 

this valley as a landscape corridor. In order to maintain this function, CLOCA recommended a 

larger structure at this location, as a 100 m corridor width is currently being adopted by CLOCA 

through the development of Watershed Plans. 


Additional site-specific mitigation measures are recommended for the West Lynde Creek valley, 

Lynde Creek valley, units with rare species present, and units adjacent to proposed SWM facilities. 

Additional mitigation measures include, implementing valley restoration/enhancement plans, edge 

management along exposed forested/wetland edges, keeping staging areas outside of valleys, 

locating and transplanting regionally rare perennial plants or salvaging soils (annual species), 

locating construction access in less sensitive areas, replanting temporary construction access 

roads, limiting construction zone footprint, invasive species control, maximizing retention of 

vegetation to the extent possible, and protecting retained Butternuts during construction (tree 

protection fencing). 

Potential opportunities for restoration may include a parcel near Lynde Creek (Units CGA-1 and 

CGA-2). This area would be an ideal opportunity to establish riparian woody vegetation to 

enhance coldwater conditions, while retaining relatively large cultural meadow habitat for grassland 

birds. Planting woody riparian vegetation at this location is consistent with the recommendations of 

the Lynde Creek Aquatic Resource Management Plan (CLOCA 2006). Details regarding 

restoration, enhancement and compensation principles for ecological restoration and enhancement 

will be developed through ongoing consultation with review agencies (MNR, TRCA, CLOCA, 

GRCA and DFO) as property ownership and opportunities on these lands become known. 



Ecoplans Limited




Residual Effects for the Mainline of the Lynde Creek are addressed collectively with the West 

Durham Link portion of the watershed in Chapter 6.4.1.2 below. 




Lynde Creek watershed (WDL). The construction of the transportation corridor in this section will 

have a direct effect of removing 49.1 ha of terrestrial vegetation and 10.2 ha of wetland habitat 

within the transportation corridor footprint (See Chapter 6.1.1 for general effects related to 

construction). This includes removals across a range of community types including 6 upland 

deciduous forest types, 1 upland coniferous forest type, 1 mixed forest type, 8 wetland types and 5 

culturally influenced community types. None of these community types are provincially rare. The 

dominant vegetation types crossed by the transportation corridor in this watershed are listed below: 

 

 

 

 

 

Upland Deciduous Forest Types - Fresh - Moist Aspen Deciduous Forest Type 

(FOD8-1), Fresh - Moist Willow Lowland Deciduous Forest Type (FOD7-3), Dry - Fresh 

Sugar Maple Deciduous Forest Type (FOD5-1), Dry - Fresh White Ash Deciduous 

Forest Type (FOD4-2), Dry-Fresh Sugar Maple-Beech Deciduous Forest Type (FOD5- 

2), Fresh-Moist Lowland Deciduous Forest Type (FOD7). 

Upland Coniferous Forest Type - Fresh - Moist Hemlock Coniferous Forest Type 

(FOC3-1). 

Mixed Forest Type - Dry - Fresh Hardwood – Hemlock Mixed Forest Type (FOM3-1). 

Wetland Types - Shallow Aquatic (SA), Mineral Deciduous Swamp Ecosite (SWD4), 

Red-osier Mineral Thicket Swamp Type (SWT2-5), Manitoba Maple Mineral Deciduous 

Swamp Type (SWD3-4), Willow Mineral Deciduous Swamp Type (SWD4-1), Reedcanary 

Grass Mineral Meadow Marsh Type (MAM2-2), Forb Mineral Meadow Marsh 

Type (MAM2-10), Cattail Mineral Shallow Marsh Type (MAS2-1). 


(CUM1-1), Mineral Cultural Thicket Ecosite (CUT1), Mineral Cultural Woodland 

(CUW1), Hawthorn Cultural Savannah Type (CUS1-1), Scotch Pine Coniferous 

Plantation Type (CUP3-3). 

Direct vegetation effects (i.e., removals) are primarily associated with vegetation units along 

watercourses within this portion of the transportation corridor, the majority of which are of low to 

moderate quality. Shifts were made in the transportation corridor alignment to avoid fragmenting 

large forest blocks with removals to high quality units limited to minor edge removals. 

A large forest block is located along the east edge of the transportation corridor and is composed 

of mixed forest in the north half (Unit C5HAL-1f) and coniferous plantation in the south half (Unit 



Ecoplans Limited



C5HAL-1a). Minor edge removals are required for the construction of the transportation corridor 

which may also increase edge effects along this forest block, which includes some high quality 

areas (C5HAL-1f and C5HAL-1e). 

The transportation corridor crosses several linear forest units that are primarily along watercourses 

(i.e., C5HAL-1c, C5HAL-1b, THAL-1, THAL-2a and 401LAK-1) which are of low to moderate quality 

largely due to the abundance of non-native and/or invasive species. 

The realignment of Coronation Road will fragment a deciduous forest unit (12.7 ha) composed of 

lowland forest and deciduous swamp (RLAK-2). Removals will include several mature Silver 

Maple in the southern half of this unit. The east half of this unit is more disturbed with canopy gaps 

and frequent non-native species. 

RLAK-1 contains 6 vegetation units of variable composition and quality. The transportation 

corridor will remove approximately half of a coniferous forest (RLAK-1f) along the west side of this 

group of units. This unit includes a valley dominated by mid-aged to mature Hemlock, however the 

removed area also includes the tableland along the west side of the watercourse which is disturbed 

and composed of young Trembling Aspen and planted Red Pine. The realignment of Coronation 

Road will remove the east edges of a coniferous plantation (RLAK-1b) and hedgerow inclusion of 

RLAK-1a. 

Unit 401HAR-1 includes a mid-aged Sugar Maple-Beech deciduous forest along the north side of 

Highway 401. Approximately half of this unit will be removed by the transportation corridor. This unit 

generally includes common upland deciduous flora with 2 regionally rare species observed. 

The Lynde Creek Coastal Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) Complex is crossed in 2 areas of the 

West Durham Link, both are near Highway 401. This PSW is approximately 147 ha in area and 

extends as a complex of wetland patches from just north of Dundas Street West south to Lake Ontario. 

Removals (2.3 ha of PSW) are limited to the edges of existing roads (i.e., Dundas Street and Highway 

401). Wetland types removed include cattail marsh, and shallow aquatic. 

Removals to other natural vegetation units involve common, tolerant vegetation types including 

meadow marsh along small drainage features within agricultural fields, hedgerows, cultural 

meadow, a disturbed swamp thicket (TLAK-6), or are minor edge removals to low to moderate 

quality units or removals to very small forest units (1 to 2.5 ha). These community types are 

common and generally composed of tolerant flora that will continue to thrive in retained habitats. 

7 regionally rare vascular plant species potentially removed by the transportation corridor include 

Showy Lady’s-slipper, Round-lobed Hepatica, Gray Dogwood, Bottle-brush Grass, Black Maple, 

White Rattlesnake-root, and Canada Waterleaf. Recommendations to salvage these species if 

impacted by the transportation corridor are provided in Table A-4 (Appendix A). The need for and 

salvage feasibility of these species will be confirmed during subsequent design stages. There were 

19 Butternuts (including 3 that were assessed as retainable) recorded in 5 units (Units 401HAR-1b, 

401-HAR-1d, RLAK-1f, THAL-2a, and TLAK-3) within the ROW of the transportation corridor. 

There may be opportunities to retain several of these trees in situ at the edge of the ROW (i.e., 



Ecoplans Limited



RLAK-1f and TLAK-3). A tree survey to determine the location of each tree with respect to the 

final location of the ROW boundaries and to finalize documentation of the effects will be 

undertaken during subsequent design stages. 



that are retained. Chapters 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 identify indirect effects to vegetation that may occur 

during and following the construction period. 


Standard mitigation measures (Chapters 6.1.3 and 

6.1.5) will be applied all vegetation units. Additional 

site-specific mitigation measures are recommended 

for C5HAL-1a, C5HAL-1f, RLAK-2, RLAK-1, units 

containing or adjacent to PSW (i.e., KHAL-7, 401LAK- 

5), 401HAR-1, units with rare species or units adjacent 

to SWM Facilities. Additional mitigation measures 

include, implementing valley restoration/enhancement 

plans, edge management along exposed 

forested/wetland edges, keeping staging areas 

outside of forests, locating and transplanting regionally 

rare perennial plants or salvaging soils (annual 

species), limiting the construction zone footprint, strict 

adherence to erosion and sediment control adjacent to 

Deciduous Swamp dominated by Black Ash in 

Vegetation Unit RLAK-2 (Ecoplans) 

PSWs, refining SWM facility design to avoid encroachment into adjacent vegetation units where 

possible, and protecting retained Butternuts during construction (tree hoarding). 

Once MTO purchases property for the transportation corridor there may be a surplus parcel 

associated with RLAK-1. Given the high quality vegetation and habitat including regionally rare 

species, it is strongly recommended that this wooded area be retained and enhanced. Potential 

opportunities include: 

 

 

Restoration/enhancement (e.g., wetland restoration, additional upland plantings to 

increase the size of the existing natural area and buffer existing wetlands); and 

Education opportunities due to the variety of vegetation communities present (such as 

upland deciduous and mixed forest, deciduous swamp, coniferous plantation) and 

proximity to existing residential communities. 

Residual Effects (Mainline and West Durham Link) 

The following summarizes the residual effects within the Lynde Creek watershed: 



Ecoplans Limited



Magnitude: 


transportation corridor within the Lynde Creek watershed. On a landscape scale (Lynde Creek 

watershed) these construction related impacts (i.e., removals) are very small (approximately 3%). in 

relation to the total wooded cover present in the watershed (approximately 3701 ha). Additionally, 

2.3 ha of PSW will be removed by the transportation corridor, however this represents a small 

portion (1.6%) of the remaining Lynde Creek Coastal Wetland Complex (147 ha) and an even 

smaller portion (0.6%) of the remaining PSW within this watershed (385 ha). Overall direct removals 

largely avoid large forests and sensitive vegetation features. The 3 high quality units along the 

transportation corridor are either avoided or only require minor edge removals. There are 59 

Butternuts located within the transportation corridor ROW, 26 are potentially retainable (per Ostry 

70-20-50 rule) and 10 more require further in-season field work to assess retainability. The Butternut 

mitigation strategy is outlined in Chapter 6.1.4 and a compensation plan will be developed for 

removal of all retainable Butternuts. Up to 5 regionally rare species were noted within the 

transportation corridor footprint and mitigation is recommended to salvage these species wherever 

feasible. Vegetation removals will also be reduced through the implementation of a restoration plan, 

as discussed above. 



valleys and the adjacent deciduous forests. Therefore, edge management efforts are 


Extent: 






adjacent to the ROW. SWM facilities will catch and 

treat highway runoff prior to release to natural areas 

beyond the ROW (e.g., C5HAL-7, C5HAL-4, C5HAL- 

3, THAL-1, THAL-2a, RLAK-4, KLAK-4, KLAK-1, 

401LAK-1, 401LAK-4) and edge management and 

buffer plantings will alleviate salt spray drift to the 

sensitive forest units (C5HAL-1a, C5HAL-1f, RLAK-1f, 

401HAR-1d, 401LAK-5b, 401LAK-11a). 

Young Poplar Forest with abundant Common 

Buckthorn in Vegetation Unit RLAK-4 along 

West Durham Link (Ecoplans) 



Ecoplans Limited



Frequency: 




is in use. 

Duration: 

Vegetation removal is permanent but as noted above it is primarily limited in extent to features of 

low to moderate quality with the exception of edge removal of 2 high quality units. Clearing and 

grubbing will be limited to the construction period. Contract provisions are identified to minimize the 

duration soils are exposed. Other standard mitigation measures that will limit the duration of 

disturbance or define the timing of construction are found in Chapter 6.1.3. 






Vegetation removals associated with the construction of the transportation corridor are not 

reversible. However, vegetation features will naturally grow back or be replanted after construction, 

in areas where clearing was required to facilitate construction but are not required for operation of 

the transportation corridor (e.g., construction access roads, clearing and grubbing of ROW and 

around SWM facilities). Restoration and enhancement opportunities as discussed earlier can help 

“reverse” some of the required vegetation removals. 





6.4.2.1 Lynde Creek - Mainline 


Road construction can have a number of direct effects on wildlife (Chapter 6.1.1). For example, 




Ecoplans Limited






discussed in the Operation and Maintenance Effects chapter (Chapter 6.1.2.2). These are mainly 

related to changes in habitat quality in areas adjacent to the transportation corridor. 


the direct removal of approximately 53.2 ha of terrestrial vegetation and 0.4 ha of wetland habitat. 




provide elements of specialized and sensitive wildlife habitat will be impacted. 

The main impacts to specialized and sensitive wildlife habitat are associated with the crossing of 

West Lynde Creek valley. A positive aspect is that the transportation corridor crosses at a relatively 

narrow portion of the valley with larger and broader forested valley segments present beyond the 

transportation corridor to the north and south. The proximity of the transportation corridor and 

vegetation removal is expected to reduce interior habitat by about 3 % (reduction of calculated 

habitat from 3.3 ha to 3.2 ha). It is also anticipated that some lowering of habitat quality will occur 

in adjacent valley areas inevitably due to the proximity of a major highway facility (with heightened 

noise, contaminant drift). 

The transportation corridor valley crossing will remove a portion of habitat that is considered 

suitable for winter deer cover. The majority of suitable habitat for winter deer cover elsewhere in 

the valley will be retained. The crossing also 

affects some mature forest elements (such as 

snags, downfall logs) within the footprint removal 

zone. 

Recognizing the importance of the West Lynde 

Creek valley, and at the request of CLOCA, the 

West Lynde Creek bridge was increased in span 

during the design process (now approximately 85 m 

span) to improve valley daylighting and facilitate 

future wildlife movements. In addition the bridge 

Eastern Phoebe Nest attached to bridge pier (Ecoplans) design and valley management components 

proposed for the crossing of the West Lynde Creek 

and Lynde Creek valleys are intended to facilitate wildlife passage (under bridge design elements) 

and reduce the gap effect (to the extent possible) for wildlife by maximizing tree and shrub 

retention adjacent to the structure within the valley. 



Ecoplans Limited



The portion of the West Lynde Creek valley that is crossed by the transportation corridor mainline, 

as well as upstream and downstream sections, provides some level of habitat for the following 

area-sensitive and/or regionally rare bird species: American Redstart, Broad-winged Hawk, Least 

Flycatcher and White-breasted Nuthatch. The vegetation removal required for the valley crossing 

will remove habitat that can be used by these species, although such habitat is not restricted to the 

crossing location and additional habitat is still retained elsewhere along the valley. 

Birds are highly mobile and these species listed above were found throughout the Study Area. 

Species that use the vegetation communities present will lose habitat to varying degrees as a result 

of the transportation corridor alignment. However, the habitat types (agricultural lands, forest and 




habitat enhancement opportunities that may benefit some of these species. 

The presence of common amphibian species recorded during field investigations was noted in 

units CGA-4, WCOR-1, WHAL-1, and WS4-1. While the productivity of these units may decrease 

as a result of the indirect effects associated with the transportation corridor, habitat for these 

common species is represented in areas beyond the transportation corridor. Appropriate design 

and mitigation in this area, for the transitway will be developed as part of a separate undertaking 

(i.e., as part of the transitway design). 

Outside of the main valley systems there is permanent removal of habitat for common, generalist 

species. In the smaller, already fragmented tableland habitat areas, it is anticipated that vegetation 

removals will have less of an effect on wildlife habitat. The provision of wildlife crossing structures 

with funnel fencing will minimize habitat fragmentation effects, encourage wildlife passage and help 

to reduce wildlife conflicts with motorists. This is discussed further under Environmental Protection 

below. In addition, the West Lynde Creek valley crossing design will provide a very large structure 

to maintain valley openness, as well as extensive under bridge habitat cover elements (such as 

boulders, woody debris, logs, stumps to help re-connect the valley under the bridge structure. 







 

 

 

 

edge effects 



light effects 



Ecoplans Limited







The standard and site-specific mitigation measures described in Chapters 6.1.3, 6.1.4 and 6.1.5 and 

Appendix F will minimize effects to wildlife within and adjacent to the transportation corridor. 

The transportation corridor mainline crosses 7 valleys within the Lynde Creek watershed. Of 

these, 2 are large valley systems that serve important landscape corridor functions; along the West 

Lynde Creek and Lynde Creek (Crossings 19 and 24). 

The West Lynde Creek valley is considered to be a high quality linkage as it connects large habitat 

areas north and south of the transportation corridor including a wide forested portion of the West 

Lynde Creek valley that is large enough to provide interior forest habitat, north of the transportation 

corridor, and the large habitat mosaic associated with Heber Down, south of the transportation 

corridor. Lynde Creek is considered to be of lower quality given the discontinuous nature of the 

vegetative cover and the limited connectivity to natural areas north due to the presence of the 

community of Brooklin. 

Passage for large animals, such as deer, was recommended at these 2 valley crossings (minimum 

OR of 0.6 and a minimum clearance height of 3 m). Both valleys are crossed by large bridges that 

greatly exceed the minimum OR requirements. West Lynde creek will be crossed by an 85 m 

bridge and Lynde Creek by a 130 m multi span bridge. These structures will provide large 

openness (OR) for all wildlife groups and will facilitate future wildlife movement along the valley 

system. 

The remaining smaller tributary valleys (Crossings 16, 17, 18, 20, and 21) provide some local 

linkage opportunities for wildlife use and movement. However, these systems are more limited in 

terms of width, natural vegetation cover, habitat diversity and wildlife habitat elements. Passage for 

small animals (minimum OR of 0.05) was recommended at 4 of the 5 tributaries. The current 

structure design provides passage for small animals at Crossings 16 and 17 (OR target met or 

exceeded with range of 0.06 to 0.46), and passage opportunities for all animals (including White 

Tailed Deer) at Crossings 20 (OR = 2.55) and 21 (OR = 1.48). 

A small tributary of West Lynde Creek (Crossing 18) will be realigned and therefore will not be 

crossed by the transportation corridor. The small valley will be reinstated along the realigned 

watercourse to continue to provide a potential wildlife movement linkage. 



(MNR, CLOCA and DFO) as property ownership and potential restoration sites are identified in 

subsequent design phases. 



Ecoplans Limited



Residual Effects (Mainline) 

Residual Effects for the Mainline of the Lynde Creek are addressed collectively with the West 

Durham Link portion of the watershed in Chapter 6.4.2.2 below. 









related to changes in habitat quality in areas adjacent to the corridor. 

As described in Chapter 6.6.1 above, the construction of the transportation corridor will result in the 

direct removal of approximately 49.1 ha of terrestrial vegetation and 10.2 ha of wetland habitat. 

No SAR terrestrial wildlife or habitats were recorded within or adjacent to the transportation 

corridor. 

2 provincially rare (S1-S3) terrestrial wildlife species were recorded within or adjacent to the 

transportation corridor; the Rough-legged Hawk and Bohemian Waxwing. Neither of these species 

are considered to be breeding within the Study Area as they were observed during the winter 

resident bird surveys. 



provide elements of specialized and sensitive wildlife habitat will be affected or are near the 

transportation corridor. Careful route planning was successful in minimizing the direct impacts to 

the most sensitive habitat areas. Among the 9 route alternatives examined along the WDL, the 

route alternative carried forward as the Technically Recommended Route (TRR), and eventually 

accepted as the transportation corridor, was among 2 route alternatives that resulted in the lowest 

overall impact. 

Impacts to specialized and sensitive wildlife habitat are largely avoided since most of these 

features are located outside of the transportation corridor WDL footprint. The transportation 

corridor results in minor edge encroachment to unit C5HAL-1, therefore, direct effects to higher 

quality habitat areas will be avoided. With the proximity of this route to large forest patches, 

potential deer winter habitat and interior habitat (C5HAL-1), some lowering of habitat quality in 

areas adjacent to the transportation corridor can be expected. 



Ecoplans Limited



Vegetation communities within the local study setting or crossed by the transportation corridor 

provide habitat for a number of area-sensitive and/or regionally rare bird species including 

American Redstart, Ovenbird, Veery, Brown Creeper, Red-breasted Nuthatch, White-breasted 

Nuthatch, Cooper’s Hawk, Sharp-shinned Hawk, Northern Harrier, Hairy Woodpecker, Pileated 

Woodpecker. Reductions in forest habitat along the alignment will affect habitat to varying degrees 

for some of these species. 

Birds are highly mobile and these species were found throughout the study setting. Species that 

use the vegetation communities present will lose habitat to varying degrees as a result of the 

transportation corridor alignment. However, the habitat types (agricultural lands, forest and 




habitat enhancement opportunities that may benefit some of these species. 

The presence of common amphibian species recorded during field investigations was noted in Units 

401LAK-2N, C5HAL-1c, C5HAL-8, RLAK-1a, RLAK-2, RLAK-4, THAL-1, THAL-2a, THAL-6a, THAL- 

8a, and TLAK-3. While the productivity of these units may decrease as a result of the indirect effects 

associated with the transportation corridor, habitat for these common species is represented in areas 

beyond the transportation corridor. Appropriate design and mitigation in this area, for the transitway 

will be developed as part of a separate undertaking (i.e., as part of the transitway design). 







 

 

 

 

edge effects 



light effects 





The standard and site-specific mitigation measures described in Chapters 6.1.3, 6.1.4 and 6.1.5 and 

Appendix F will minimize effects to wildlife within and adjacent to the transportation corridor. 

East-west wildlife movement opportunities will be provided at three locations along the Lake 

Iroquois Shoreline. Passage for large animals, such as deer, was recommended at 2 crossings 



Ecoplans Limited



(minimum OR of 0.6 and a minimum clearance height of 3 m); 1 associated with watercourse 

Crossing 43 and the other, to the south, associated with a micro drainage feature (referred to as 

43A). Passage for small animals (minimum OR of 0.10) was recommended at a third location 

(referred to as 43B), associated with the existing hydro corridor. Based on the current design, 

crossing 43 will be a single span bridge with an OR of 0.73 that will be suitable for passage by all 

animal groups (including White-tailed Deer). Crossing 43A will be a large open footing arch culvert 

with an OR of 1.0 that is also suitable for all animals including deer. Crossing 43 B (hydro corridor) 

will be an open footing culvert with an OR of 0.11 that is suitable for a range of small animals. 

These three structures and associated wildlife funnel fencing will provide good movement 

opportunities for wildlife at this east-west landscape feature. 

The remaining smaller tributary valleys (Crossings 44, 45, 47 and 47A, 49 and 51 and 51A-D) 

provide some local linkage opportunities for wildlife usage and movement; however, these systems 

are more limited in terms of width, natural vegetation cover, habitat diversity and wildlife habitat 

elements. 

Passage for small animals (minimum OR of 0.05) was recommended at Crossings 44, 45 and 47. 

Passage for all animals was recommended at Crossing 49, at CLOCA’s request. The original 

recommendation for Crossing 51 (and 51A-D) was for small animals - however, with the request of 

all animals being accommodated upstream at site 49, it is preferable if passage for all animals is 

also provided at 51. 

Based on the drainage design, small animal passage will be achieved (the minimum OR met or 

greatly exceeded) at Crossings 44, 45 (OR = 0.8) and 47 (OR = 0.76) and passage for all animals 

will be achieved at Crossing 49 (OR = 0.87). 

Watercourse crossing designs are not yet complete for Crossing 51 and passage details cannot be 

confirmed at this time. 

An existing Highway 401 crossing of Lynde Creek will be replaced/upgraded and will continue to 

provide an important linkage to the Lynde Marsh and Lake Ontario shoreline, south of the 401. 


ecopassages, and associated mapping for the entire Highway 407. 



(MNR, CLOCA and DFO) as property ownership and potential restoration sites are identified in 


Residual Effects (Mainline and West Durham Link) 




Ecoplans Limited



Magnitude: 

In total 102.3 ha of terrestrial habitat and 10.6 ha of wetland habitat are removed by the transportation 

corridor within the Lynde Creek watershed. These numbers will be reduced through the 

implementation of a restoration plan, as discussed above. Any construction project has some potential 

for wildlife injury or mortality. This can be mitigated through Contractor awareness briefings, 

implementation of a wildlife encounter protocol, and scheduling of vegetation removals outside 

breeding periods (wherever possible and feasible). Habitat removal is recognized, but is a very small 

proportion (approximately 3%) of the total vegetation cover in the Lynde Creek Watershed 

(approximately 3701 ha). Additionally, the removals of interior forest (loss of 0.1 ha) is also a relatively 

small proportion (approximately 0.1%) of the 185 ha of interior forest present in the Lynde Creek 

Watershed (based on GIS analysis of the NRVIS Wooded layer, 2006). 

Extent: 





lighting, runoff/contaminant generation etc.). Buffer plantings, edge management, and lighting 

design (or no lighting if safety permits) can help minimize effects. 




areas beyond the ROW (e.g., WPAD-5) and buffer plantings will alleviate salt spray drift to the 

adjacent natural areas. Standard and site-specific wildlife protection measures discussed above 

will be utilized to protect retained habitats adjacent to the alignment. 

Frequency: 

Construction effects are confined to the project construction period (not recurring) (approximately 2 

to 3 years). Transportation corridor operation is a long term and recurring activity. Effects 

associated with operation and maintenance will be recurring as long as the corridor is in use 

(recurring). The wildlife structures will provide improved connectivity and will help reduce wildlife 

mortality during the operational period. 

Duration: 


period (approximately 2 to 3 years). Right-of-way management and runoff controls will maximize 








Ecoplans Limited




Habitat removal is not reversible, although restoration and enhancement work can help offset some 

effects. Many of the affected habitat types are themselves a rural product of a landscape (past 

clearing) and are not limited only to the transportation corridor location. Removal of habitat along the 

transportation corridor mainline at the West Lynde Creek and Lynde Creek valley crossings is not 

reversible. However, these are high priority areas for both bridge design, valley restoration 

(disturbed areas), and under bridge habitat elements to help re-connect the valley. Other restoration 

and enhancement initiatives to be developed (as noted above) can also help improve habitat either 

locally or elsewhere in the watershed. Localized effects from salt and contaminant drift are not 

reversible, but can be managed with implementation of the most current management and mitigation 

measures in place at the time of corridor construction and operation. 




6.6 Oshawa Creek Watershed 




Oshawa Creek watershed. The construction of the transportation corridor in this section will have a 

direct effect of removing 25.6 ha of terrestrial vegetation and 1.2 ha of wetland habitat within the 

transportation corridor footprint (See Chapter 6.1.1 for general effects related to construction). 

This includes removals across a range of community types including 4 upland deciduous forest 

type, 2 upland coniferous forest types, 1 upland mixed forest type, 1 deciduous swamp, 4 wetland 

types and 4 culturally influenced community types. None of these community types are provincially 

rare. The dominant vegetation types crossed by the transportation corridor in this watershed are 

listed below: 

 

 

 

Upland Deciduous Forest Types - Dry - Fresh Sugar Maple Forest Type (FOD5-1), 

Fresh - Moist Aspen Deciduous Forest Type (FOD8-1), Dry - Fresh White Ash 

Deciduous Forest Type (FOD4-2), Fresh-Moist Lowland Deciduous Forest Type (FOD7) 

Upland Coniferous Forest Type - Fresh-Moist White Cedar Coniferous Forest Type 

(FOC4-1), Dry - Fresh White Cedar Coniferous Forest Type (FOC2-2) 

Upland Mixed Forest Type - Fresh-Moist White Cedar-Hardwood Mixed Forest Type 

(FOM7-2) 



Ecoplans Limited



 

Wetland Types - Willow Mineral Deciduous Swamp Type (SWD4-1), White Cedar- 

Harwood Mineral Mixed Swamp Type (SWM1-1), Forb Mineral Shallow Marsh Type 

(MAS2-9), Swamp Thicket (SWT) 

Culturally Influenced Community Types – Mineral Cultural Thicket (CUT1), Dry - 

Moist Old Field Meadow Type (CUM1-1), Mineral Cultural Woodland (CUW1), 

Hawthorn Cultural Savannah Type (CUS1-1) 

Vegetation units within this section are predominately 

associated with the valleys of the West Branch of 

Oshawa Creek ESA and the East Branch of the Oshawa 

Creek ESA. 

The transportation corridor crosses several units that are 

within and adjacent to the Oshawa Creek West valley 

(Units CGAR-2, CGAR-3, CGAR-4, CGAR-5, CGAR-6, 

CGAR-9). Within the transportation corridor, there are 

patches of coniferous and mixed forest (CGAR-2 and 

CGAR-3) along the valley slopes and cultural meadow 

(CGAR-5 and CGAR-9) along the valley bottom with 

some meadow marsh inclusions along the riparian zone. 

Cultural Meadow with Meadow Marsh inclusions 

(CGAR-5) along Oshawa Creek West with White 

Cedar Forest (CGAR-3) along the valley slope in 

the background (Ecoplans) 

The central meadow area which is not identified as a vegetation unit was the site of a residence 

surrounded by-lawn that was recently removed. The transportation corridor will fragment the valley 

vegetation, however, forest cover in the vicinity of the transportation corridor is already patchy and 

the valley is fragmented by Winchester Road upstream and the hydrolines and Thornton Road 

downstream. A large (152 m) multi-span bridge is proposed to cross this valley that will maintain 

valley linkage function and minimize impacts to valley features. However, due to the ultimate width 

of this structure, vegetation growth below the bridge will likely be minimal due to the shading and 

rain shadow caused by the bridge. 

The Oshawa Creek East valley on the east side of Ritson Road is crossed by the transportation 

corridor (Units WRIT-8, WRIT-9 and WRIT-10). This valley has patches of forest cover dominated 

by White Cedar (WRIT-8 and WRIT-10) that are separated by a cultural meadow (WRIT-9) with 

meadow marsh inclusions along the riparian zone. There is a large (165 m) multi-span bridge 

proposed to cross this valley in order to maintain valley linkage function and minimize impacts to 

valley features. However, as a result of the ultimate width of this structure, the vegetation under 

the bridge will be likely be minimal due to the indirect effects of shading and rain shadow. 

The branch of the Oshawa Creek East valley between Wilson Road and Harmony Road will also 

be crossed by the transportation corridor (Units WWA-2 to WWA-13). This valley is largely 

continuous between Harmony and Wilson Road, but will be fragmented by several bridge 

structures for the corridor, interchange ramps and transitway. This includes a large (105 m) multispan 

bridge that will maintain valley linkage function and minimize impacts to valley features. The 

impact assessment tables (Appendix A) provides the area (ha) removed by the transportation 

corridor for each unit. The areas noted in Appendix A are conservative and there may be 



Ecoplans Limited



opportunities to retain forest patches between the transportation corridor and ramps to reduce the 

mount of vegetation removed. The vegetation in this valley includes upland and lowland 

deciduous forest, coniferous forest, cultural thicket, cultural meadow, and cultural savannah. 

Similar to other structures in the west half of the Study Area, the ultimate width of the mainline 

bridge will limit vegetation growth below due to shading and a rain shadow. 

The transportation corridor crosses the south half of an isolated deciduous forest (WTHO-1) that 

was not surveyed due to a denial of permission to enter the property. If the property is obtained by 

the Ministry of Transportation, this unit will be revisited to assess the potential effects and identify if 

any site specific mitigation is warranted. 

Other natural vegetation units occur along small drainage features within agricultural fields, are 

very small, isolated forest units (less than 2 ha), cultural thicket or a highly disturbed swamp 

thicket. These community types are common and composed of tolerant flora that will continue to 

thrive in retained habitats. 


transportation corridor (Virginia Stickseed, Canada Moonseed, Rock Elm, and Black Willow). 

Recommendations to salvage these species if impacted by the transportation corridor are also 

provided in Appendix A. The need for and feasibility of salvage of these species will be confirmed 

during subsequent design stages. Butternut was recorded in 3 units (WRIT-10, WWA-4 and WWA- 

5) within the transportation corridor right-of-way. There are 5 Butternuts which are expected to be 

removed as they are located within the right-of-way, this includes 2 Butternuts that are considered 

retainable. However, there may be opportunities to retain several of these trees in situ at the edge 

or the ROW or between the interchange ramps. A tree survey to determine the location of each 

tree with respect to the final location of the ROW boundaries and to finalize documentation of the 

effects will be undertaken during subsequent design stages. 

In addition to the direct impacts discussed above, the construction and operation and maintenance of 

the transportation corridor may also result in indirect impacts to the adjacent vegetation features that 

are retained. Chapters 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 identify indirect effects to vegetation that may occur during and 

following the construction period. The valleys along the west and east braches of Oshawa Creek are 

the most susceptible to indirect effects due to the creation of new forest edges. Additionally the upland 

forest (WHAR-3), although not directly impacted by the transportation corridor will be susceptible to 

the indirect effects such as salt spray. 


During Preliminary Design, refinements to the Technically Recommended Route (TRR) were made in 

key areas to minimize impacts to natural features. Route refinements were made based on input and 

consultation from Study Team specialists and on external consultation with Review Agencies. 

A refinement to the TRR was made at the Harmony Road interchange in order to shift the route 

south, which avoided encroachment into the Oak Ridges Moraine (Countryside Area) and avoided 



Ecoplans Limited



direct impacts to a deciduous forest unit (WHAR-3). There was also a modification of the Harmony 

Road interchange design which minimized impacts to the valley (i.e., ramp configuration and 

interchange skew). 


Additional site-specific mitigation measures are recommended for Oshawa Creek valleys. 

Additional mitigation measures include, implementing valley restoration/enhancement plans, edge 

management along exposed forested/wetland edges, keeping staging areas outside of valleys, 

locating and transplanting regionally rare perennial plants or salvaging soils (annual species), 

locating construction access in less sensitive areas, limiting construction zone, invasive species 

control and maximizing retention of vegetation to the extent possible. 

Potential opportunities for restoration may include surplus parcels near the transportation corridor 

in the valley and adjacent tableland of Oshawa Creek West and Oshawa Creek East. Details 

regarding restoration, enhancement and compensation principles for ecological restoration and 

enhancement will be developed through ongoing consultation with review agencies (MNR, TRCA, 

CLOCA, GRCA and DFO) as property ownership and opportunity lands become known. 



Magnitude: 


transportation corridor within the Oshawa Creek watershed. On a landscape scale (Oshawa 

watershed) these construction related impacts (i.e., removals) are very small (approximately 1.7%). 

in relation to the total wooded cover present in the watershed (approximately 1603 ha). Many of 

the vegetation units impacted are of low to moderate quality; however there are 3 valley crossings 

required, including 1 high quality unit. All of these valleys show evidence of disturbance and 

exhibit patchy forest cover. The majority of the flora species affected are found in abundance 

outside of the Study Area; however 5 Butternut, including 2 that were assessed as retainable were 

recorded within the right-of-way and 4 regionally rare species were noted within units crossed by 

the transportation corridor. Mitigation is recommended to salvage these species wherever feasible 

and a compensation plan will be developed for the removal of all retainable Butternuts. Vegetation 

removals will also be reduced through the implementation of a restoration plan, as discussed 

above. 



valleys and the adjacent deciduous forest. Therefore, edge management efforts are 


Extent: 



Ecoplans Limited








adjacent to the ROW. SWM facilities will catch and treat transportation corridor runoff prior to 

release to natural areas beyond the ROW (e.g., WRIT and WWA) and buffer plantings will alleviate 

salt spray drift to the upland deciduous forest (WHAR-3). 

Frequency: 




is in use. 

Duration: 













clearing was required to facilitate construction but are not required for operation of the 

transportation corridor (e.g., construction access roads, clearing and grubbing of ROW and around 

SWM facilities). Restoration and enhancement opportunities as discussed earlier can help 







Ecoplans Limited











related to changes in habitat quality in areas adjacent to the transportation corridor. 


the direct removal of approximately 25.6 ha of terrestrial habitat and approximately 1.2 ha of 

wetland habitat. Habitat removals range from generally low to moderate quality riparian 

communities (cultural meadow, meadow marsh and scattered trees/shrubs) that are common and 

abundant in this type of rural landscape, throughout Durham Region to higher quality forested 

valleyland habitat. 



and consultation from Study Team specialists and on external consultation with Review Agencies. 

A refinement to the TRR was made at the Harmony Road interchange in order to shift the route 

south, which avoided encroachment into the Oak Ridges Moraine (Countryside Area) and avoid 

direct impacts to a deciduous forest unit (WHAR-3). There was also a modification of the Harmony 

Road interchange design which minimized impacts to the valley (i.e., ramp configuration and 

interchange skew). 

There are no large forest blocks containing interior forest habitat (based on a 100 m edge) that 

have been identified within or directly adjacent to the transportation corridor. However, there is a 

large forested valley/tableland area located approximately 500 m to the north of the transportation 

corridor, on Oshawa Creek East. 


There are 5 vegetation units containing specialized and sensitive wildlife habitats. Unit (WRIT-10) 

contains potential deer wintering habitat. However, the removals to this unit are marginal and the 

winter deer habitat is not anticipated to be encroached upon. 

Although the majority of vegetation units impacted along Oshawa Creek and its tributaries are 

considered to be of low to moderate quality from a terrestrial perspective, (except 1 high quality 

valley crossing of Oshawa Creek East) these units do provide habitat for a number of areasensitive 

and/or regionally rare bird species: American Redstart, Black-and-white Warbler, and 

Pileated Woodpecker. With the reduction of the forested and meadow habitat available, there will 



Ecoplans Limited



be a removal of area-sensitive and regionally rare breeding bird habitat within the transportation 

corridor. 

A high abundance of breeding birds were observed in units CGAR-2, 5, 6, and 9 within or directly 

adjacent to the transportation corridor. Birds are highly mobile and these species were found 

throughout the Study Area. Species that use vegetation communities present will lose habitat to 

varying degrees as a result of the transportation corridor alignment. However, the habitat types 

(agricultural lands, forest and meadow) found within the transportation corridor occur within the 

broader watershed and Durham Region generally, providing similar habitat for displaced bird 

species. The restoration and enhancement work that will be developed further at detail design will 

also provide habitat enhancement opportunities that may benefit some of these species. 

The transportation corridor does not remove or encroach into any known active amphibian breeding 

sites. The presence of common amphibian species recorded during field investigations was noted in 

Unit WRIT-10. While the productivity of this unit may decrease as a result of the indirect effects 

associated with the transportation corridor, habitat for these common species is represented in areas 

beyond the Study Area. Appropriate design and mitigation in this area, for the transitway will be 

developed as part of a separate undertaking (i.e., as part of the transitway design). 

As a result of the direct removal of terrestrial and wetland habitat within the transportation corridor, 

there will be fragmentation of these habitat areas for wildlife use and movement, most notably 

within the Oshawa Creeks East and West valleys and within the Oshawa Creek East tributary 

valley. In the smaller, already fragmented tableland habitat areas, it is anticipated that vegetation 

removals will have less of an effect on wildlife habitat. The provision of wildlife crossing structures 

with funnel fencing will lessen habitat fragmentation, encourage wildlife passage and help to 

reduce wildlife conflicts with motorists. This is discussed further under Environmental Protection 

below. 


of the transportation corridor may also result in indirect impacts to adjacent habitat that is retained. 


period including the creation of edge effects along newly exposed forest edge and noise impacts to 

remaining habitat adjacent to the alignment. These effects that may occur during and following the 


 

 

 

 

edge effects 



light effects 



through Contractor awareness briefings, implementation of wildlife encounter protocol, and 




Ecoplans Limited





The 407 crosses 7 valleys within the Oshawa Creek watershed (including 1 tributary of Pringle 

Creek). Three are moderate/large valley systems that serve important landscape corridor functions; 

the East and West branches of Oshawa Creek (Crossings 28 and 35) and the eastern tributary of 

Oshawa Creek East (associated with Crossing 38). Passage for large animals, such as deer, was 

recommended at these 3 valley crossings (minimum OR of 0.6 and a minimum clearance height of 

3 m). All valleys are crossed by large multi-span bridges that greatly exceed the minimum OR 

requirements. As such, these valleys should continue to provide regional wildlife linkages. 

The remaining smaller tributary valleys (Crossings 27, 32, 34, 36) provide some local linkage 

opportunities for wildlife use and movement. However, these systems are more limited in terms of 

width, natural vegetation cover, habitat diversity and wildlife habitat elements. Passage for small 

animals (minimum OR of 0.05) was recommended at 4 of the 5 tributaries. Currently, based on the 

drainage design, small animal passage will be achieved (the minimum OR met or exceeded) at all 

5 tributary crossings. An existing culvert crossing on Westney Road will be replaced with a larger 

structure to meet hydrotechnical requirements (Crossing 33), but has the added benefit of 

exceeding the minimum OR target for small animal passage. 







Magnitude: 


transportation corridor. These numbers will be reduced through the implementation of a 

restoration plan, as discussed above. Any construction project has some potential for wildlife injury 

or mortality. This can be mitigated through Contractor awareness briefings, implementation of a 

wildlife encounter protocol, and scheduling of vegetation removals outside breeding periods 

(wherever possible and feasible). Habitat removal is recognized, but is a very small proportion of 

the total vegetation cover in the larger setting. Furthermore, no SAR wildlife or habitats were 

recorded in the Oshawa Creek Watershed. 

Extent: 





Ecoplans Limited





lighting, runoff/contaminant generation etc.). However, buffer plantings, edge management, and 

lighting design (or no lighting if safety permits) can help minimize effects. 




areas beyond the ROW (e.g., WRIT and WWA) and buffer plantings will alleviate salt spray drift to 

the upland deciduous forest (WHAR-3). Standard and site-specific wildlife protection measures 

discussed above will be utilized to protect retained habitats adjacent to the alignment. 

Frequency: 

Construction effects are confined to the project construction period (not recurring) (approximately 2 

to 3 years). Transportation corridor operation is a long term and recurring activity. Effects 




Duration: 










some effects. Affected habitat types are themselves a rural product of a landscape (past clearing) 

and are not limited only to the transportation corridor location. Localized effects from salt and 

contaminant drift are not reversible, but can be managed with implementation of the most current 

management and mitigation measures in place at the time of corridor construction and operation. 






Ecoplans Limited



6.7 Harmony Creek Watershed 




Harmony Creek watershed (See Chapter 6.1.1 for general effects related to construction). None 

are considered provincially rare community types (Bakowsky 1996). The construction of the 

transportation corridor and transitway in this section will have a direct effect of removing 3.2 ha of 

terrestrial vegetation communities and 5.4 ha of a wetland vegetation community. This includes 

removals of 2 deciduous forest types, 2 meadow marsh community types (wetland), and 3 

culturally influenced community types. The dominant vegetation types crossed by the 

transportation corridor are listed below: 

 

 

 

Upland Deciduous Forest Types - Dry-fresh Sugar Maple Deciduous Forest (FOD5- 

1), Fresh-Moist Willow Lowland Deciduous forest (FOD7-3) 

Meadow Marsh Community Type (Wetland) - Forb Mineral Meadow Marsh (MAM2- 

10), Meadow Marsh (MAM) 

Culturally Influenced Community Types – Mineral Cultural Thicket (CUT1), 

Coniferous Plantation (CUP3) 

In this watershed, 6 of the 7 vegetation units are directly impacted by construction of the 

transportation corridor are of limited ecological quality. Impacts to these features include minor 

edge removal of a small, isolated cultural woodland for a SWM facility; removal of a small 

coniferous plantation; and crossing of 2 tributaries of Harmony Creek and their associated riparian 

communities (meadow marsh, cultural meadow, cultural thicket and lowland deciduous forest). 

SWM facilities are located adjacent to these tributaries on agricultural land. 

The most notable impacts are the very minor edge removal (0.001 ha) of a mature Sugar Maple 

deciduous forest (TLAN-3) for the construction of the transitway. Although this is a relatively small 

unit, it is considered high quality due to its species composition and maturity. 

There was 1 regionally rare vascular plant species (Black Willow) within a vegetation unit affected 

by the transportation corridor (CHAR-4). There is a very small edge removal of this unit for a SWM 

facility and encroachment may be minimized during subsequent design stages to avoid impacts to 

the Black Willow. However, if impacts cannot be avoided, salvage of this species is recommended 

if feasible. 

In addition to the direct impacts discussed above, indirect effects to retained features are 

anticipated as a result of the construction and operation and maintenance of the transportation 

corridor. Chapters 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 identify indirect effects to vegetation that may occur during and 

following the construction period. Generally, indirect effects are expected to be minimal in this 

section of the transportation corridor because retained vegetation is of limited ecological quality. 



Ecoplans Limited



However indirect effects to the Sugar Maple forest (TLAN-3) are of consideration due to the quality 

of this feature and proximity of the unit to the ROW. 


Standard mitigation measures (Chapters 6.1.3 and 6.1.5) will be applied across all vegetation 

units. Additional site-specific mitigation measures (Chapter 6.1.4) are recommended for the Sugar 

Maple deciduous forest (TLAN-3) described above. These additional mitigation measures include 

minimizing loss of forest cover to degree possible during design of the transitway and 

implementing edge management along the forest edge to reduce edge effects. 

There may be a surplus parcel of land available within this section of the Study Area, which 

includes CHAR-11a, CHAR-11b, and adjacent tableland. This surplus area could provide an 

opportunity for restoration/enhancement of the valley and tableland feature (e.g., increase size of 

the unit, invasive species control). Details regarding restoration, enhancement and compensation 

principles for ecological restoration and enhancement will be developed through ongoing 

consultation with review agencies (MNR, TRCA, CLOCA, GRCA and DFO) as property ownership 

and opportunity lands become known. 



Magnitude: 

In total 3.2 ha of terrestrial vegetation communities and 5.4 ha of wetland habitat are removed by 

the transportation corridor within the Harmony Creek watershed. On a landscape scale (Harmony 

watershed) these construction related impacts (i.e., removals) are very small (approximately 2%) in 

relation to the total wooded cover present in the watershed (approximately 354 ha). The majority 

of the vegetation units impacted are of limited ecological quality with only 1 high quality unit 

(upland deciduous forest) affected by minor edge removals. The majority of the flora species 

affected are found in abundance outside of the Study Area (only 1 regionally rare species noted 

adjacent to the ROW). Vegetation removals will be reduced through the implementation of a 

restoration plan, as discussed above. 

Operation and maintenance of the transportation corridor will have limited adverse effects on 

retained adjacent vegetation, primarily through the influence of salt-spray and contaminants. This is 

due to the limited natural vegetation present and its low to moderate quality. These indirect impacts 

are anticipated to be greater on the upland deciduous forest (TLAN-3), therefore, edge management 

efforts are recommended to reduce this effect on this high quality area. 



Ecoplans Limited



Extent: 

Construction impacts (associated with vegetation removals) will be limited to within ROW of the 






areas beyond the ROW (e.g., CHAR-3, CLEA-2) and buffer plantings will alleviate salt spray drift to 

TLAN-3. 

Frequency: 




is in use. 

Duration: 













clearing was required to facilitate construction but are not required for operation of the 

transportation corridor (e.g., construction access roads, clearing and grubbing of ROW and around 

SWM facilities). Restoration and enhancement opportunities as discussed earlier can help 




Ecoplans Limited





corridor construction and operation (Chapter 6.1.5). 



Road construction can have a number of direct effects (Chapter 6.1.1) on wildlife. For example, 

the construction of a new road may displace individuals, remove their habitat, or obstruct their 





related to changes in habitat quality in areas adjacent to the corridor. 


the direct removal of approximately 3.2 ha of terrestrial habitat and approximately 5.4 ha of wetland 

habitat. These habitats are generally low to moderate quality riparian communities (cultural 

meadow, meadow marsh and scattered trees/shrubs) that are common and abundant in this type 

of rural landscape, throughout Durham Region. 

No areas specialized or sensitive wildlife habitat features have been identified within or directly 

adjacent to the transportation corridor (e.g., forest interior habitat, deer wintering habitat). Linkages 

to surrounding habitat nodes and corridors (large forested patches or valley systems) are weak 

(i.e., weak linkages to high quality habitat in the adjacent Oshawa Creek watershed). 

Although the majority of vegetation units impacted along Harmony Creek and its tributaries are 

considered to be of low to moderate quality from a terrestrial perspective, these units do provide 

habitat for 1 noted area-sensitive and/or regionally rare bird species (American Redstart). Habitat 

removals by the transportation corridor will affect some habitat for this species. However, similar 

habitats are present within the broader watershed. No SAR wildlife or habitats were recorded in 

the Harmony Creek Watershed. The restoration and enhancement work that will be developed 

further at detail design will also provide habitat enhancement opportunities that may benefit this 

species. 


breeding sites. The presence of common amphibian species was not observed during field 

investigations. While the field investigations did not record any amphibian species within this 

section of the watershed within the transportation corridor, the potential remains, due to suitable 

habitat. Appropriate design and mitigation in this area, for the transitway will be developed as part 

of a separate undertaking (i.e., as part of the transitway design). 



Ecoplans Limited






period including the creation of edge effects along newly exposed forest edge and noise impacts to 

remaining habitat adjacent to the alignment. These effects that may occur during and following the 


 

 

 

 

edge effects 



light effects 

Mitigation Measures 




The standard and site-specific mitigation measures described in Chapters 6.1.3, 6.1.4, and 6.1.5 


As described in Chapter 4.2.3, wildlife passage recommendations were incorporated into the 

sizing and design of crossing structures associated with watercourse features (which will also 

provide “dry passage”). 

Recognizing the local linkage function of the Harmony Creek tributaries, the Study Team 

recommended that watercourse crossings at the 2 Harmony Creek tributary valleys crossed by 407 

be sized in order to provide passage opportunities for small animals and amphibians. Resulting 

openness ratios (OR) at Crossings 54 and 56 exceed the minimum targets of 0.05 for small 

animals and 0.1 for small animals and amphibians respectively therefore these crossings should 

continue to provide local wildlife linkages (See Appendix F for the details regarding wildlife 

passage). 







Magnitude: 

In total 3.2 ha of terrestrial habitat and 5.4 ha of wetland habitat are removed by the transportation 

corridor. These numbers will be reduced through the implementation of a restoration plan, as 



Ecoplans Limited



discussed above. Any construction project has some potential for wildlife injury or mortality. This 

can be mitigated through Contractor awareness briefings, implementation of a wildlife encounter 

protocol, and scheduling of vegetation removals outside breeding periods (wherever possible and 

feasible). Habitat removal is recognized, but is a very small proportion of the total vegetation cover 

in the larger setting. Furthermore, no SAR wildlife or habitats were recorded in the Harmony Creek 

Watershed. 

Extent: 




transportation corridor, typically due to corridor proximity (additional noise, possibly lighting, 

runoff/contaminant generation etc.). Buffer plantings, edge management, and lighting design (or no 

lighting if safety permits) can help minimize effects 




areas beyond the ROW and buffer plantings will alleviate salt spray drift to the forest blocks. 

Standard and site-specific wildlife protection measures discussed above will be utilized to protect 

retained habitats adjacent to the alignment. 

Frequency: 


2-3 years). Transportation corridor operation is a long term and recurring activity. Effects 




Duration: 

Habitat removal is permanent; clearing work will be limited to the ROW during the construction period 

(approximately 2 to 3 years). Right-of-way management and runoff controls will maximize runoff quality. 

Wildlife structures will be long term mitigation measures to help maintain connectivity. 




activities, including snow and ice control. 



Ecoplans Limited





some effects. Also affected habitat types are themselves a rural product of a landscape (past 

clearing) and are not limited only to the transportation corridor location. Effects associated with the 

construction and operation/maintenance of the corridor are not reversible. Localized effects from 

salt and contaminant drift are not reversible, but can be managed with implementation of the most 

current management and mitigation measures in place at the time of corridor construction and 

operation. 




6.8 East Mainline – Farewell Creek, Black Creek, Bowmanville Creek, Soper 

Creek and Wilmot Creek Watersheds 

6.8.1 Central Lake Ontario Conservation (CLOCA) 



There are 22 vegetation units intercepted by the transportation corridor through the Farwell Creek, 

Black Creek, Bowmanville Creek and Soper Creek watersheds. In total there will be approximately 

58.9 ha of terrestrial vegetation and 8.8 ha of wetland habitat removed by the transportation 

corridor footprint within these watersheds. Of the 8.8 ha of wetland vegetation to be removed, 0.9 

ha are designated as Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW). 

Vegetation units within this section are predominately associated with the large valley systems of 

the Farewell, Bowmanville and Soper Creeks. Other units of natural vegetation occur along 

smaller drainage features within agricultural fields and are composed of culturally modified 

woodland, plantation, thicket and meadow communities. These community types are common and 

composed of tolerant flora that will continue to thrive in retained habitats. 

The forested Farewell Creek Valley (TWAS-4) is bisected by the transportation corridor which 

fragments the continuity of the valley vegetation. In this location a large (262 m wide) bridge is 

proposed. As a result of spanning most of the valley, trees can be maintained beneath the 

structure. However, these communities will be susceptible to indirect effects as a result of bridge 

shading. A stormwater management (SWM) facility has been located outside the forested valley, 

in an agricultural field. 

The large cedar swamp dominated valley of Bowmanville Creek West Branch (TOS-2) will be 

crossed by the transportation corridor. Some vegetation will be retained beneath the large bridge 

structure proposed over Bowmanville Creek. The 407 transportation corridor crosses the 



Ecoplans Limited



predominately White Cedar, forested valleys of the Bowmanville Creek East Branches (TCED-1 

and TMID-1), fragmenting the vegetation continuity of these 2 valleys. A SWM facility has been 

located in a cultural meadow outside of the forested Bowmanville Creek East Branch valley (Unit 

TMID-1). 

Within the Soper Creek watershed, the transportation corridor crosses the Mackie Creek Valley 

(TR14-2) at its narrowest section, through predominately White Cedar forest and cultural thicket 

communities. SWM facilities were located such that there is only minor encroachment to the edge 

of a cedar forest community. The transportation corridor crosses the White Cedar forest 

communities of the Soper Creek valley. The bridge structure at this valley crossing was sized and 

designed to avoid direct impacts to an uncommon fen meadow marsh community located valley 

bottom. The plants within the fen meadow marsh may experience some impact from temporary 

groundwater drawdown due to bridge construction. Some forest will be maintained under this high 

bridge. SWM facilities have been located outside the forested valley and in adjacent agricultural 

fields. 


transportation corridor. Recommendations to salvage this species if affected by the Corridor are 

provided in Table A-7 (Appendix A). The need for and feasibility of salvage of any of these 

species will be assessed during subsequent project phases when the footprint limits are staked. 

Butternut was recorded in one area (Unit TOS-2), within the Transitway ROW. This tree is not 

considered retainable (per Ostry 70-20-50 guideline). A tree survey to determine the location of the 

tree with respect to the final location of the ROW boundaries and to finalize documentation of the 

effects will be undertaken during the design and impact assessment for the transitway facility. 



that are retained. Chapter 6.1.2.1 lists indirect effects to vegetation that may occur during and 

following the construction period, including the creation of edge effects due to the length of the 

newly exposed forest edge in some areas, depending on the sensitivity of the forest communities, 

valley topography and openness of the retained forest understorey adjacent to the transportation 

corridor. Chapter 6.1.2.1 introduced the potential effects from permanent groundwater drawdown 

from deep cuts. Specifically within this section of the transportation corridor, where the deep cuts 

occur in till, the “zone of influence” from the cut varies between 10 to 15 m centred on the cut. In 

coarser siltly sands, the zone of influence extends up to several hundred metres. Most of these 

cuts do not affect natural vegetation, although there is one area (Bowmanville Creek West valley – 

TOS-2) which may experience vegetation changes due to deep cuts. 



in key areas to minimize impacts to natural features. Route refinements were made based on 

input and consultation from Project Team specialists and on external consultation with Review 

Agencies. A refinement to the TRR at the Enfield Road interchange shifted the alignment, east of 

interchange, approximately 70 m to the north. As a result of the refinement in this location, 



Ecoplans Limited



potential indirect effects to Solina Wetland (Solina Bog) were reduced with the increased distance 

separating the Wetland and the alignment. A second Preliminary Design refinement was made at 

the Darlington-Clarke Townline interchange, which shifted a proposed transitway station slightly to 

the northwest of its original location. As a result of this transitway station refinement, the 6 

Butternut trees identified within the footprint of the original transitway station location will now be 

retained. 

Standard mitigation measures (Chapter 6.1.3) will be applied to all vegetation units. Additional 

site-specific mitigation measures (Chapter 6.1.4) are recommended for the forested valleys 

described above. These additional mitigation measure include valley restoration and enhancement, 

edge management along exposed forested edges, locating construction access in less sensitive 

areas, replanting construction access roads, locating and transplanting regionally rare perennial 

plants or salvaging soils (annual species), leaving stumps in situ wherever possible and limiting 

construction zone and maximizing retention of vegetation to the extent possible. 








Ecoplans Limited



Magnitude: 


transportation corridor through the Farwell, Black, Bowmanville and Soper Creek watersheds. The 

majority of the vegetation species affected are found in abundance outside of the Study Area. The 

effect of these removals will be reduced through the implementation of a restoration plan, as 

discussed above. When considered on a regional scale, vegetation removals (prior to the 

implementation of a restoration plan), are 1.4% in relation to the total vegetation cover present in 

the Farewell Creek, Black Creek, Bowmanville Creek and Soper Creek watersheds. 

Extent: 

Impacts are refined to the physical loss and damage of vegetation within the ROW. The influence 

of salt spray and other contaminants from the transportation corridor should be limited to the ROW 

and vegetation immediately adjacent to the ROW. Stormwater management facilities will capture 

and treat highway runoff prior to release to natural areas beyond the ROW. Standard and sitespecific 

vegetation protection measures discussed above will be utilized to protect the edges of the 

retained habitats. 

Frequency: 

Construction effects are confined to the project construction period. Effects associated with 

operation and maintenance will be recurring as long as the corridor is in use. 

Duration: 

Vegetation removal is permanent. Operation and maintenance activities occur during the lifetime 

of the facility. 


Most effects associated with the construction of the transportation corridor are not reversible. 

Vegetative features will naturally grow back after construction in areas not directly affected by the 

transportation corridor footprint. Localized effects from salt and contaminant drift are not reversible, 

but can be managed with implementation of the most current management and mitigation 

measures in place at the time of corridor construction and operation. 




the direct removal of approximately 58.9 ha of terrestrial habitat and approximately 8.8 of wetland 

habitat. The significance of these communities as wildlife habitat varies. 



Ecoplans Limited



The main impacts to specialized and sensitive wildlife habitats are associated with the crossings of 

the east and west branches of the Bowmanville Creek valley, which support diverse habitats and 

high numbers of area-sensitive species. 

The transportation corridor crosses ten units containing interior forest habitat (based on a 100 m 

edge), with the East Mainline – Farewell, Black, Bowmanville and Soper Creek watersheds. There 

is no loss of interior forest habitat in Units TOS-3 and C6R57-1 and only a negligible loss in Units 

TCOL-1, TR57-2 and TR14-1 associated with the transportation corridor. The interior habitat will 

be reduced in Units TWAS-4, TOS-2, TCED-1, TMID-1 and TR14-2. In total in the Farewell, 

Bowmanville and Soper Creek watersheds (East Mainline), interior forest habitat is reduced by 

15.5 ha. 


breeding sites. The presence of common amphibian species recorded during field investigations 

was noted in Unit TCOL-2, which is an active amphibian site directly adjacent to the alignment. 

While the productivity of this pond may decrease as a result of the indirect effects associated with 

the corridor, habitat for these common species is represented in areas beyond the Study Area. 

Birds that use agricultural lands, forests and cultural thickets 

and meadows will lose habitat to varying degrees as a 

result of the transportation corridor alignment. With the 

reduction of habitat through large forested areas, there will 

be a removal of area-sensitive and regionally rare breeding 

bird territories within the transportation corridor. However, 

there are large forested blocks and other natural habitat 

types adjacent to the transportation corridor and in the 

broader region. There is a low potential to affect Goldenwinged 

Warbler habitat because it was recorded 

approximately 150 m from the ROW and only a small 

portion of the suitable habitat at this location is affected. 

Golden-winged Warbler (COSEWIC) 

As a result of the direct removal of terrestrial and wetland 

habitat within the transportation corridor, there will be fragmentation of these habitat areas, as well 

as some impact to wildlife movement, most notably in the forested valley systems and large, 

contiguous tableland forested habitat. In the smaller, more fragmented tableland habitat areas, it is 

anticipated that vegetation removals will have less of an effect on wildlife habitat. The provision of 

wildlife crossing structures with funnel fencing will lessen habitat fragmentation, encourage wildlife 

passage and help to reduce wildlife conflicts with motorists. 



Chapter 6.1.2.2 lists indirect effects to wildlife that may occur during and following the construction 

period including the creation of edge effects along newly exposed forest edge and vehicular noise 

impacts to remaining habitat adjacent to the alignment. 



Ecoplans Limited




The standard and site-specific mitigation measures described in Chapters 6.1.3, 6.1.4, 6.1.5 and 

Appendix F will minimize effects to wildlife within and adjacent to the transportation corridor. As 

described in Chapter 4.2.3, wildlife passage recommendations were incorporated into the sizing 

and design of crossing structures associated with watercourse features, and additional ‘dry 

passageways ‘ (i.e., those not associated with a watercourse) were designed. 

There are a total of 13 wildlife passage structures designed for the transportation corridor through 

the Farewell, Black, Bowmanville and Soper Creek watersheds (East Mainline) (Appendix F). 12 

of these are associated with watercourse crossings, and 1 is ‘dry’. It is possible for animals of all 

sizes, including deer, to move through 9 of these passageways. The remainder of the 

passageways target either small mammals or small mammals and herpetiles (See Appendix F for 

target groups). 






Magnitude: 


transportation corridor through the Farewell, Black, Bowmanville and Soper Creek watersheds 

(East Mainline). The effect of these removals will be reduced through the implementation of a 

restoration plan, as discussed above. Habitat removal is 1.4 % of the total vegetation cover in the 

Farewell, Black, Bowmanville and Soper Creek watersheds. The removal of interior forest (loss of 

15.5 ha) is approximately 2.9% of the 592 ha of interior forest present in these watersheds. 

Extent: 

Wildlife within the area of impact will either be temporarily or permanently displaced due to the 

removal of terrestrial and wetland habitat. Habitat removals will be limited to the 170 m ROW. 

Indirect effects, such as noise and light will occur within the ROW and extend to habitats beyond 

the ROW. Noise effects are the furthest ranging effect and may have an impact as a far as several 

hundred metres to a kilometre or more depending on the species. Standard and site-specific 

wildlife protection measures discussed above will be utilized to protect retained habitats adjacent to 




Ecoplans Limited



Frequency: 

Construction effects are confined to the project construction period (not recurring). Effects 

associated with operation and maintenance will be recurring as long as the transportation corridor 

is in use (recurring). 

Duration: 


period. Operation and maintenance activities occur during the lifetime of the facility. 


Effects associated with the construction and operation of the transportation corridor are not 

reversible. The design and mitigation elements discussed in this report are intended to improve 

wildlife habitat connectivity at key locations and to reduce and manage wildlife conflicts. 

6.8.2 Ganaraska Region Conservation (GRCA) 



There are 10 vegetation units intercepted by the transportation corridor in the Wilmot Creek 

watershed. In total there will be approximately 32.3 ha of terrestrial vegetation and 4.3 ha of wetland 

habitat removed by the transportation corridor footprint in the Wilmot Creek watershed. 

Vegetation units within this section are predominately associated with the large Wilmot Creek 

valley system and to a lesser extent, the Orono Creek valley. Other units of natural vegetation 

occur along the smaller drainage features within agricultural fields and are composed of culturally 

modified woodland, plantation, thicket and meadow communities. These community types are 

common and composed of tolerant flora that will continue to thrive in retained habitats. 

The forested Wilmot Creek Valley (C7DCT-4 and C7DCT-5) is crossed by the transportation 

corridor, through a relatively narrow section. The transportation corridor crosses the valley just 

north of an existing hydro corridor, through White Cedar forest and Cedar swamp, mixed forest and 

cultural woodland and plantation communities. The proposed transportation corridor profile through 

this area requires the placement of fill on both the east and west slopes of the Wilmot Creek valley. 

Vegetation communities within the areas requiring fill within the valley include a community 

classified as a White Cedar monoculture, which has been selectively logged and a Moist Poplar 

Mixed Forest, with areas of broken canopy. A stormwater management pond has been located in 

an area of open field outside of the forested Wilmot Creek Valley. The transportation corridor 

crosses the Orono Creek Valley (C7DCT-1) just north of Concession Road 7, through White Cedar 

forest, Cedar swamp and a small Forb mineral meadow marsh. 



Ecoplans Limited




transportation corridor. Recommendations to salvage these species if affected by the 

transportation corridor are provided in Table A-8 (Appendix A). The need for and feasibility of 

salvage of any of these species will be assessed during subsequent project phases when the 

footprint limits are staked. 





newly exposed forest edge in some areas, depending on the sensitivity of the forest communities, 

valley topography and openness of the retained forest understorey adjacent to the transportation 

corridor. 


Standard mitigation measures (Chapter 6.1.3) will be applied all vegetation units. Additional sitespecific 

mitigation measures (Chapter 6.1.4) are recommended for the forested valleys described 

above. These additional mitigation measure include valley restoration and enhancement, edge 

management along exposed forested edges, locating construction access in less sensitive areas, 

replanting construction access roads, locating and transplanting regionally rare perennial plants or 

salvaging soils (annual species), leaving stumps in situ wherever possible and limiting construction 

zone and maximizing retention of vegetation to the extent possible. 






Magnitude: 


transportation corridor through the Wilmot Creek watershed. The majority of the vegetation species 

affected are found in abundance outside of the Study Area. The effect of these removals will be 

reduced through the implementation of a restoration plan, as discussed above. When considered 

on a landscape scale (Wilmot Creek watershed), vegetation removals (prior to the implementation 

of a restoration plan), are 1.7% in relation to the total wooded cover present in the watershed. 



Ecoplans Limited



Extent: 

Impacts are confined to the physical loss and damage of vegetation within the ROW. The 

influence of salt spray and other contaminants from the corridor should be limited to the ROW and 

vegetation immediately adjacent to the ROW. Stormwater management facilities will capture and 

treat runoff prior to release to natural areas beyond the ROW. Standard and site-specific 

vegetation protection measures discussed above will be utilized to protect the edges of the 

retained habitats. 

Frequency: 


operation and maintenance will be recurring as long as the transportation corridor is in use. 

Duration: 

Vegetation removal is permanent. Operation and maintenance activities occur during the lifetime 

of the facility. 



However, vegetative features will naturally grow back after construction in areas not directly 

affected by the transportation corridor footprint. Localized effects from salt and contaminant drift 

are not reversible, but can be managed with implementation of the most current management and 

mitigation measures in place at the time of corridor construction and operation. 




the direct removal of approximately 32.3 ha of terrestrial habitat and approximately 4.3 of wetland 

habitat. The significance of these communities as wildlife habitat varies. 

The main impacts to specialized and sensitive wildlife habitat are associated with Wilmot Creek 

valley, which supports diverse habitat and high numbers of area-sensitive birds. 

Interior forest habitat (based on a 100 m edge) has been identified in 2 Units within the Wilmot 

Creek watershed. The interior habitat will be reduced in Units C7DCT-5 and C7LES-3. In total 

interior forest habitat is reduced by 5.8 ha in the watershed. 


breeding sites. The transportation corridor ROW does not remove or encroach upon the large 



Ecoplans Limited



pond that is in the vicinity of the area where the 

Blanding’s Turtle was recorded (Wilmot Creek valley), 

however the transitway corridor and the relocated 

Hydro Tower corridor cross the north portion of this 

pond. Appropriate design and mitigation in this area, 

for the transitway corridor will be developed as part of 


Birds that use agricultural lands, forests and cultural 

thickets and meadows will lose habitat to varying 

degrees as a result of the transportation corridor 

Blanding’s Turtle (S. Gillingwater) 

alignment. With the reduction of habitat through large 

forested areas, there will be a removal of area-sensitive and regionally rare breeding bird territories 

within the transportation corridor. However, there are large forested blocks and other natural 

habitat types adjacent to the transportation corridor and in the broader region. 

As a result of the direct removal of terrestrial and wetland habitat within the transportation corridor, 

there will be fragmentation of these habitat areas, as well as some impact to wildlife movement, 

most notably in the forested Wilmot Creek valley system. In the smaller, more fragmented 

tableland habitat areas, it is anticipated that vegetation removals will have less of an effect on 

wildlife habitat. The provision of wildlife crossing structures with funnel fencing will lessen habitat 

fragmentation, encourage wildlife passage and help to reduce wildlife conflicts with motorists. This 

is discussed further in chapter below (Mitigation Measures). 


of the corridor may also result in indirect impacts to adjacent habitat that is retained. Chapter 

6.1.2.2 lists indirect effects to wildlife that may occur during and following the construction period 

including the creation of edge effects along newly exposed forest edge and vehicular noise impacts 

to remaining habitat adjacent to the alignment. 


The standard and site-specific mitigation measures described in Chapters 6.1.3, 6.1.4 and 

Appendix F will minimize effects to wildlife within and adjacent to the transportation corridor. As 

described in Chapter 4.2.3, wildlife passage recommendations were incorporated into the sizing 

and design of crossing structures associated with watercourse features, and additional ‘dry 


There are a total of 5 wildlife passage structures designed for the transportation corridor within the 

Wilmot Creek watershed (Appendix F). 4 of these are associated with watercourse crossings, and 

an additional 1 is ‘dry’. It is possible for animals of all sizes, including deer, to move through 3 of 

these passageways. The remainder of the passageways target small mammals (See Appendix F 

for target groups). 



Ecoplans Limited








Magnitude: 


transportation corridor within the Wilmot Creek watershed. The effect of these removals will be 

reduced through the implementation of a restoration plan, as discussed above. Habitat removal is 

1.7% of the total vegetation cover in the Wilmot Creek watershed. The removals of interior forest 

(loss of 5.8 ha) is approximately 2.0% of the 294 ha of interior forest present in the watershed. 

Extent: 

Wildlife within the area of impact will either be temporarily or permanently displaced due to the 

removal of terrestrial and wetland habitat. Habitat removals will be limited to the 170 m ROW. 

Indirect effects, such as noise and light will occur within the ROW and extend to habitats beyond 

the ROW. Noise effects are the furthest ranging effect and may have an impact as a far as several 




Frequency: 




Duration: 




Effects associated with the construction and operation of the transportation corridor are not 

reversible. The design and mitigation elements discussed in this report are intended to improve 




Ecoplans Limited




Watersheds 



As described in Chapter 5.7.1.1, large tracts of agricultural land are prevalent through the East 

Durham Link (within and adjacent to the transportation corridor). While many smaller vegetation 

units occur along drainage features within agricultural fields, the larger, vegetation units within this 

section are predominately associated with the Harmony-Farewell Iroquois Beach and the Maple 

Grove Wetland Complexes. 

There are 25 vegetation units affected by the transportation corridor right-of-way of the East 

Durham Link. In total there will be approximately 48.6 ha of terrestrial vegetation and 12.4 of 

wetland habitat removed by the transportation corridor footprint (Corridor and Transitway). 

Of the 12.4 ha of wetland vegetation to be removed, 5.5 ha are designated as Provincially 

Significant Wetland (PSW). 7 vegetation units contain PSW that is affected by the transportation 

corridor. Within the Black Creek Watershed, the PSW communities within 2 units (NSOL-2 and 

NCOU-1) are located outside of the transportation corridor and are therefore not subject to direct 

vegetation removal. There is minor encroachment into the edge of three units (TRUN-1, P RUN-6, 

TSOL-1). A large bridge (300 m span, 3-5 m rise) has been sized and designed to span and avoid 

the PSW communities within Unit NSOL-4. 

Other units of natural vegetation generally occur along smaller drainage features within agricultural 

fields and are composed of culturally modified woodland, plantation, thicket and meadow 

communities. These community types are common and composed of tolerant flora that should 

continue to thrive in retained habitats. 


transportation corridor. The need for and feasibility of salvage of any of these species will be 

assessed at subsequent design phases when the footprint limits are staked. Butternut was 

recorded in 3 areas (Units BHAN-11, BHAN-1 and NCOU-2) within the East Durham Link. The 1 

tree and 3 seedlings recorded in these units are considered retainable (per Ostry 70-20-50 

guideline). A tree survey to determine the location of the tree with respect to the final location of the 

ROW boundaries and to finalize documentation of the effects will be undertaken during subsequent 

design phases. 





newly exposed forest edge in some areas, depending on the sensitivity of the vegetation 



Ecoplans Limited



communities, topography and openness of the retained wetland/forest understorey adjacent to the 

transportation corridor. Chapter 6.1.2.1 introduced the potential effects from permanent 

groundwater drawdown from deep cuts. Specifically within this section of the transportation 

corridor, there is 1 deep cut which occurs in sandy soils. Here the zone of influence extends up to 

a few hundred metres. This deep cut has the potential to affect parts of the swamp community 

(past of NSOL-4). 




and consultation from Study Team specialists and on external consultation with Review Agencies. 

A refinement to the TRR was made at the freeway-to-freeway interchange (East Mainline and East 

Link). The route was shifted approximately 250 m to the northeast, which eliminated 

encroachment into a unit designated as Provincially Significant Wetland. A second refinement to 

the TRR was made to the north and south of Highway 2. The proposed alignment was shifted 

slightly to the east, which reduced direct impacts to PSWs, unevaluated wetlands and terrestrial 

vegetation. 

Standard mitigation measures (Chapter 6.1.3) will be applied all vegetation units. Additional sitespecific 

mitigation measures are recommended for the forested valleys described above. These 

additional mitigation measures include, edge management along exposed forested/wetland edges, 

locating construction access in less sensitive areas, replanting construction access roads, locating 

and transplanting regionally rare perennial plants or salvaging soils (annual species) and limiting 

construction zone and maximizing retention of vegetation to the extent possible. 



TRCA, CLOCA, GRCA and DFO) as property ownership and opportunity lands become known. A 

wetland restoration project is proposed along the east side of the East Durham Link (at 

Pebblestone Road), which will be carried forward in the ecological restoration plan for the project. 



Magnitude: 

In total, 48.6 ha of terrestrial vegetation and 12.4 ha of wetland vegetation are removed by the 

transportation corridor. The effect of these removals will be reduced through the implementation of 

a restoration plan, as discussed. The TRR was selected to minimize intrusion into Provincially 

Significant Wetlands, which are the larger and more extensive habitat blocks, to the extent 

possible. In addition, refinements to the transportation corridor were made to further minimize 

intrusion into PSWs. When considered on a landscape scale, vegetation removals (prior to the 



Ecoplans Limited



implementation of a restoration plan), are 7% in relation to the total vegetation cover present in the 

Black Creek, Tooley Creek and Darlington Creek watersheds. 

Extent: 

Vegetation removals will be limited to the 170 m ROW. The influence of salt spray and other 

contaminants from the transportation corridor will be limited to the ROW and vegetation 

immediately adjacent to the ROW. SWM facilities will capture and treat highway runoff prior to 

release to natural areas beyond the ROW. Standard and site-specific vegetation protection 

measures discussed above will be utilized to protect the edges of the retained habitats. 

Frequency: 


operation and maintenance will be recurring as long as the transportation corridor is in use. 

Duration: 

Vegetation removal is permanent, but as noted above is limited in extent. Operation and 

maintenance activities occur during the lifetime of the facility. 



Vegetative features will naturally grow back after construction in areas not directly affected by the 

corridor footprint. Localized effects from salt and contaminant drift are not reversible, but can be 

managed with implementation of the most current management and mitigation measures in place 

at the time of transportation corridor construction and operation. 




the direct removal of approximately 48.6 ha of terrestrial habitat and approximately 12.4 ha of 

wetland habitat. The significance of these communities as wildlife habitat varies. 

The main impacts to specialized and sensitive wildlife habitat are associated with the crossing of 

units complexed as part of the Harmony Farewell Iroquois Beach Wetland Complex, which support 

productive amphibian breeding pools and habitat for high numbers of area-sensitive species. 



Ecoplans Limited



Interior forest habitat (based on a 100 m edge) has been 

identified in 6 Units in the East Durham Link Study Area within 

and adjacent to the transportation corridor. There is no 

anticipated loss of interior forest habitat in Units PRUN-6, NSOL- 

2 and BHAN-9. The interior habitat will be reduced in Unit 

NSOL-4, BLHAN-5 and NCOU-1. In total along the East Durham 

Link, interior forest habitat is reduced by 2.7 ha. 

Deciduous Swamp in Vegetation Unit BHAN-9 

(Maple Grove Wetland Complex) (GLL) 

The transportation corridor encroaches into 1 active amphibian 

breeding site (NCOU-2). During field investigation, 1 individual 

Wood Frog (Rana sylvatica) was recorded in this location. The 

transportation corridor removes a meadow marsh community in 

the southeastern corner of this unit, but open water and swamp 

communities are retained here and provide viable amphibian 

habitat. There were 2 species of calling amphibians (chorus of 

Spring Peeper and American Toad (5) in Unit PSOL-1, west of 


Birds that use agricultural lands, forests and cultural thickets and meadows will lose habitat to 

varying degrees as a result of the transportation corridor alignment. With the reduction of habitat 

through large forested areas, there will be a removal of area-sensitive and regionally rare breeding 

bird territories within the transportation corridor. However, there are large forested blocks and 

other natural habitat types adjacent to the transportation corridor and in the broader region. 

The transportation corridor through the East Durham Link has been sited such that fragmentation 

of large habitat blocks has been minimized. Effects to wildlife habitat are generally limited to 

encroachment into edge habitat. While fragmentation of individual habitat units is limited, the East 

Durham Link transportation corridor creates a barrier to east-west habitat connectivity. The 

provision of wildlife crossing structures coupled with the use of funnel fencing will improve wildlife 

habitat connectivity at key locations and aid in the reduction and management of wildlife conflicts. 

This is discussed further in the Environmental Protection chapter below. 



Chapter 6.1.2.2 lists indirect effects to wildlife that may occur during and following the construction 

period including the creation of edge effects along newly exposed forest edge and vehicular noise 

impacts to remaining habitat adjacent to the alignment. 


The standard and site-specific mitigation measures described in Chapters 6.1.3, 6.1.4 and 

Appendix F should minimize effects to wildlife within and adjacent to the Transportation Corridor. 

As described in Chapter 4.2.3, wildlife passage recommendations were incorporated into the 

sizing and design of crossing structures associated with watercourse features and additional ‘dry 




Ecoplans Limited



There are a total of 7 wildlife passage structures designed for the East Durham Link (Appendix F). 

6 of these are associated with watercourse crossing, and an additional two are ‘dry’. This total 

does not include additional culverts which were not specifically tailored or designed for wildlife, but 

which might be used by some wildlife. It is possible for animals of all sizes, including deer, to move 

through 2 of these passageways. A third passageway, although just below recommended sizes for 

deer, may be used by this species. The remainder of the passageways target either small 

mammals or small mammals and herpitiles (See Appendix F for target groups). 



TRCA, CLOCA, GRCA and DFO) as property ownership and opportunity lands become known. A 

wetland restoration project is proposed along the east side of the East Durham Link (at 

Pebblestone Road), which will be carried forward in the ecological restoration plan for the project. 



Magnitude: 


Transportation Corridor. The effect of these removals will be reduced through the implementation 

of a restoration plan, as discussed above. Habitat removal is approximately 7% of the total 

vegetation cover in the East Durham link watersheds (Black Creek, Tooley Creek and Darlington 

Creek watersheds). The removals of interior forest (loss of 2.7 ha) is approximately 4% of the 70 

ha of interior forest present in these watersheds. 

Extent: 



Indirect effects, such as noise and light will be limited to the ROW and habitat adjacent to the 

ROW. Noise effects are the furthest ranging effect and may have an impact as a far as several 



the alignment. 

Frequency: 






Ecoplans Limited



Duration: 




Effects associated with the construction of the transportation corridor are not reversible. 

However,the design and mitigation elements discussed in this report are intended to improve 


6.10 Summary of Anticipated Effects and Residual Effects 

The total amount of vegetation removed by the entire transportation corridor is provided in Table 

33 below. Vegetation removals are reported by watershed and by Ecological Land Classification 

community type. 

Table 33. 

Summary of Vegetation Removals 

ELC Community Type 

East Duffins Creek 

Carruthers Creek 

Lynde Creek 

Oshawa Creek 

Deciduous Forest (FOD) 4.3 2.0 35.0 6.0 0.7 0.6 1.3 2.2 0.8 1.2 2.2 56.3 

Coniferous Forest (FOC) 0.6 6.1 5.7 3.4 1.3 12.8 8.0 5.0 42.9 

Mixed Forest (FOM) 1.8 1.2 2.0 1.7 4.3 1.0 0.4 0.8 12.2 

Forest Subtotal 4.9 2.0 42.9 12.9 0.7 6.0 4.3 19.3 9.8 6.6 2.2 0.8 111.4 

Cultural Meadow (CUM) 2.3 3.6 29.9 11.6 0.3 5.3 3.2 0.7 2.2 10.5 69.6 

Cultural Thicket (CUT) 20.3 3.5 0.9 2.0 4.1 4.6 11.6 12.8 1.1 60.9 

Cultural Woodland (CUW) 0.1 2.3 5.5 0.2 0.9 2.3 0.4 2.5 3.8 7.7 25.7 

Plantation (CUP) 1.4 1.5 1.1 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.1 10.9 0.9 0.6 17.9 

Hedgerow 0.9 0.9 

Cultural Savannah (CUS) 0.6 0.6 

Cultural Subtotal 3.8 7.4 56.8 15.9 1.5 - 3.5 12.2 9.2 25.7 19.7 19.9 175.5 

Coniferous Swamp (SWC) 3.2 4.0 2.8 10.0 

Deciduous Swamp (SWD) 7.0 2.9 1.1 2.3 4.7 0.2 0.2 0.4 1.2 0.8 20.8 

Mixed Swamp (SWM) 3.4 0.1 0.9 0.7 5.1 

Thicket Swamp (SWT) 2.2 0.1 0.1 2.2 0.2 0.7 5.5 

Shallow Marsh (MAS) 2.6 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.1 3.6 

Meadow Marsh (MAM) 5.4 3.0 5.2 0.2 1.4 0.6 0.7 0.6 17.1 

Harmony Creek 

Farewell Creek 

Black Creek 

Bowmanville Creek 

Soper Creek 

Wilmot Creek 

Tooley Creek 

Darlington Creek 

Total Removed by ELC 

Community Type 



Ecoplans Limited



Shallow Water (SA)



7. Monitoring and Commitments for the Undertaking 

In order to ensure that the mitigation measures identified in Chapter 6 are implemented as 

envisioned, a strategy and schedule was developed for monitoring environmental effects. Further, 

commitments have also been proposed for ensuring that they are carried out as part of the 

construction, operation, and maintenance of the undertaking. 

7.1 Environmental Effects Monitoring 

This chapter describes the type of monitoring recommended for terrestrial ecosystems including 

the rationale and strategy for their implementation. 

7.1.1 Species at Risk 

7.1.1.1 Butternut 

Monitoring of the success of the transplants and /or grafts should be completed for a period of time 

(e.g., 5 years) to ensure survival of the trees. The timeline will be specified in the ESA permit 

issued by MNR. Where transplants and/or grafts are not successful, a suitable response / action 

will be identified (e.g., replacement plantings). Again, a replacement plan for failing stock will be 

part of the ESA permit requirements. 


The collection of baseline vegetation conditions has been conducted between 2003 – 2008 as part 

of the route planning and Preliminary Design stages of the EA. Information collected included the 

structure and compositions of existing vegetation, i.e., dominate species, cover, community 

structure, disturbance and other notable features, with a particular emphasis on rare species 

occurrences. 

The baseline conditions were used in the impact assessment to recommend appropriate best 

management practices (BMPs) required during the construction phase, including appropriate 

vegetation hoarding and sediment control, and provide a benchmark to ensure post-construction 

site characteristics reflected the current conditions. Where post-construction plantings and/or 

ecological management is prescribed (i.e., invasive species management, forest/plantation 

thinning and planting, etc.), monitoring will target the restoration objective to ensure success of the 

program. For example, the monitoring program may include the following parameters: species 

identification prior to planting, plant survivorship post planting, site inspection and plan review, 

decline of invasive species, regeneration of native species, species composition, change in 

vegetation structure and/or cover, and change in floristic quality. Monitoring programs will vary 

depending on the issue being monitored and in terms of parameters, duration and outcome (i.e., to 



Ecoplans Limited



direct adaptive management, trigger the required replacement of dead planted material, etc.). 

Vegetation monitoring programs will be developed in greater detail during subsequent design 

phases. 

7.1.3 Groundwater Inputs to Wetlands 

Wetlands may be monitored where warranted based on the potential for temporary or permanent 

groundwater level lowering to impact wetland vegetation communities. Specific wetland 

communities (units) where monitoring may be warranted are noted in the Impact Assessment 

Tables in Appendix A. An appropriate monitoring program will be developed in consultation with 

hydrogeologists in order to detect wetland vegetation stress. Where appropriate, wetlands will be 

closely monitored during water-taking activities associated with the construction of bridge 

structures to document changes in groundwater elevation (undertaken by the project 

hydrogeologists) and visual signs of vegetation stress (undertaken by an ecologist/botanist). This 

information will be used by the project hydrogeologists to determine the cause of any identified 

groundwater fluctuations, assess impacts of groundwater fluctuations and trigger the 

implementation of a contingency plan if necessary. 

7.1.4 Wildlife Passage 

Monitoring the use of wildlife passage structures is recommended, with monitoring approaches, 

responsibilities and duration to be determined, in consultation with the agencies, during 

subsequent design phases. Monitoring approaches would include decisions on the degree of postconstruction 

monitoring and the number of passageways to be monitored. Preferably, a minimum 

of several small and several larger passageways throughout the project area would be monitored. 

The purpose of monitoring wildlife passage structures is to determine the effectiveness of the 

structures. This is done in order to identify needed alterations to the mitigation structures (e.g., 

add more funnel fencing, remove materials in underpasses etc.) as well as to determine which 

species or groups use the structures. Monitoring of this nature will provide information on the 

design and construction effectiveness of passage structures that can benefit future transportation 

corridor projects. 

7.2 Commitments 

MTO has made a number of commitments that will need to be followed through during subsequent 

design, construction, operation, maintenance phases of the 407 transportation corridor based on 

the impact assessment of the Recommended Design and in response to issues raised and 

comments received during the EA Study. A summary of theses commitments is provided in Table 

35. 

A considerable amount of information has been complied, collected and analyzed over years of 

planning of the proposed 407 transportation corridor. , as embodied in the provincially approved 



Ecoplans Limited



MTO Route Planning and Environmental Assessment, and further developed in the subsequent 

detailed planning and initial design activities that have been underway since 2006. This current 

phase of the process culminated in the development of a preliminary design for the transportation 

corridor, supported by a series of mitigation measures and commitments. 

The preliminary nature of the design and supporting mitigation measures is recognized throughout, 

however a comprehensive series of mitigation measures has been developed based on the project 

design to-date. Most importantly, given the scope and evolution of the design of this project, it is 

recognized that further data collection and analysis, as well as agency consultation, is required in 

order to properly develop and finalize many of the specific mitigation and environmental design 

measures. 

Therefore, it is now imperative that all of the mitigation measures and commitments to undertake 

further data collection, analysis, design and consultation be captured and carried forward into the 

subsequent design phases and ultimately construction and implementation of the project. 

This chapter of the report specifies MTO’s commitment to implementation of all of the mitigation 

measures outlined in the standard mitigation measures outlined in Chapter 6.1.3, the site specific 

impact assessment tables in Appendix A and the site-specific mitigation measures outlined in 

Chapter 6.1.4 and the operation and maintenance mitigation measures in Chapter 6.1.5. These 

mitigation measures and commitments to future work reinforce those measures and commitments 

made in the Route Planning and Environmental Assessment. Additional mitigation measures and 

commitments are anticipated to flow from both the Minister’s conditions of approval, as well as from 

refinements to reflect current, state-of-the-art practices. 

Ultimately, all of the mitigation measures must be distilled and captured in the Contract documents. 

MTO’s general conditions, standards, special provisions, operational constraints and specifications 

(see also MTO’s [2006] Environmental Reference for Contract Preparation) that pertain to general 

environment, wildlife and wildlife habitat, sediment and erosion control and vegetation 

management will capture many of the standard mitigation measures. However, it is anticipated that 

many of the site-specific measures will require preparation of specific specifications and drawings. 

Furthermore, the commitments to further work required to inform and develop the details of the 

design and mitigation measures, must be addressed during the subsequent design phases to 

ensure that the design and mitigation elements are properly integrated in the Contract documents. 

A summary of the mitigation commitments and commitments to further work is provided in Table 

35. 



Ecoplans Limited



Table 35. 

Summary of EA Commitments 

ID 

Summary of Commitments 

Site Specific Commitments to Mitigation and Further Work 

a 

b 

c 

d 

e 

f 

Develop edge management designs during subsequent design phases and finalize in consultation with 

MNR when grading limits are established at the following locations: WS8-1, TLAN-3, C5BR-2, WS14-9b, 

C5S16-1, WPAD-1, WPAD-2, C5HAL-1a, C5HAL-1f, RLAK-1f, 401HAR-1, 401LAK-5b and 401LAK-11a, 

TR57-2 and TMID-1 

Undertake further development of the Butternut Strategy in consultation with MNR and implement to 

include the following: 

1. Continue consultation with MNR during subsequent design phases and submit an application for 

permission to remove retainable Butternut trees under the Endangered Species Act. 

2. Undertake additional field visits to complete a health assessment of Butternuts on properties 

where access was not permitted during the 407 East EA or where there were subsequent design 

changes that now encroach into vegetation units with Butternut, not previously assessed. These 

vegetation units are C5BR-6, THAL-2a and TLAK-3. 

3. During subsequent design phases review the potential to minimize the number of Butternut trees 

removed during construction which are adjacent to the proposed ROW in the following vegetation 

units: WRIT-10, WWA-5, WWA-4, WS14-5, WHAL-1, WHAL-2, THAL-2, RLAK-1f, TOS-2, TDCT- 

7, NCOU-2 and BHAN-1. 

4. Develop approaches with MNR and the Forest Gene Conservation Association to mitigate the 

effects of Butternut removal. 

Carry out Invasive Plant Species Management at the following vegetation units as part of constructing the 

Recommended Design: WSIM-2, CGAR-3, and WCOR-1. 

Carry out salvage of regionally rare plant species where they are confirmed to occur within the ROW, in 

the following units: CTHI-1, RALK-1a, TWAS-4, TCED-1, TMID-1, TR14-2, TCOL-1, C7DCT-1, C7BES-5, 

NSOL-4, NCOU-9, NCOU-1, BHAN-11 and BHAN-9. 

Carry out field investigations during subsequent design phases to confirm the locations of other regionally 

rare plant in order to determine their location relative to the ROW. If they are present in the ROW, carry 

out salvage. These units include: WRIT-9, WWA-5, WS8-2, WSAL-4, WS16-2a, WPAD-1b, WHAL-1, 

WS4-1, C5COC-1a, CGA-1a, RLAK-4, 401LAK-5a, 401LAK-11b, 401HAR-1d, RLAK-1f, RLAK-1a, and 

THAL-2b 

Carry out wetland seedbank salvage in the northern portion of CGAR-5 if a suitable and appropriate 

receiving site is available (e.g., stormwater management facility). 

MTO and/or their agents will provide opportunities for Durham Region, MNR, CLOCA, GRCA and TRCA 

to access properties in advance of construction, so that they can salvage vegetation material. 

Undertake further development of vegetation restoration/enhancement plans including the following: 

1. Offset permanent forest and wetland vegetation removals/habitat loss at a 1:1 ratio as lands for 

the transportation corridor are secured during the subsequent design phases. This will be 

achieved through restoration/creation and enhancement. 

2. Prepare post-construction restoration plans for major valley crossings and forest blocks that will 

be disturbed during construction, during subsequent design phases in consultation with MNR, 

and the applicable CA(s) to offset vegetation removals 

3. Continue to explore opportunities for developing additional restoration plans during subsequent 

design phases, as appropriate and feasible. 

Build 6 dedicated Wildlife Passage Structures (i.e., structures not associated with watercourse crossings) 

as part of the Recommended Design in addition to the other multi-use (aquatic and terrestrial) crossing 



Ecoplans Limited



Table 35. 

Summary of EA Commitments 

ID 

g 

h 

j 

k 

locations (i.e., all watercourse crossing locations). 

Summary of Commitments 

Review opportunities during subsequent design phases to minimize encroachment into the following 

vegetation units: 

1. adjacent to Stormwater Management Facilities (WS14-1, C5S16-1, WS4-3, C5HAL-4 C5HAL-3, 

and RLAK-4), 

2. adjacent to the highway and associated facilities (TLAN-3, WS14-9b, C5S16-1, East Duffins 

Creek Valley, West Lynde Creek Valley, hedgerows [C5HAL-7 and C5HAL-5], RLAK-2 and 

RLAK-1f TTRU-7, TOS-2, TCOL-1, C6R57-1, C7DCT-3, Wilmot Creek valley) 

3. containing Provincially Significant Wetland (KHAL-7a, KHAL-7b, 401LAK-5b and 401LAK-11a, 

TWAS-4, NSOL-4, BHAN-9). 

For valley locations this could include consideration of bridge design and construction techniques that 

minimize zone of construction impacts. 

Locate construction access roads in valleys along the mainline under the centreline of the proposed 

bridge and where this is not feasible, then on the north side of the proposed bridge. With this in mind, 

prepare an access management plan during the subsequent design phases for review with MNR and the 

applicable CA(s) for the following valleys: 

1. Oshawa Creek East valley (Units WRIT) where access is preferred from the west side to avoid 

steeper slopes on the east, 

2. Tributary to Oshawa Creek East valley (Units WWA) where access is preferred from the east 

where slopes are more gradual, 

3. West Lynde Creek valley (Unit WCOR-1) where access is preferred from the west side to avoid 

steeper slopes and groundwater discharge locations along the east side of the valley, 

4. East Duffins Creek valley (Units WPAD-1 and 2) where access is preferred from the west side 

where slopes are more gradual, 

5. Farewell Creek Valley (TWAS-4) where access is preferred from the northeast side of the valley 

to minimize impacts to higher quality forest communities, 

6. Wilmot Creek valley (Unit C7DCT-4) where access is preferred from already disturbed areas (in 

the hydro corridor and laneways). 

Carry out additional field investigations during subsequent design phases to: 

7. confirm vegetation composition and wildlife use, assess anticipated effects and develop 

mitigation measures for 4 vegetation units due to lack of property access during EA (WBR-1, 

WTHO-1, TLAK-3 and CLEA-2). 

8. further assess the habitat for Blanding’s Turtle (Wilmot Creek Valley) and Golden-winged 

Warbler (Unit TR14-1) in support of an Endangered Species Act (ESA) permit, should one be 

required. 

Carry out additional field investigations during subsequent design phases to explore opportunities to 

minimize localized removals of more sensitive vegetation species/communities at stormwater 

management outfall locations. 

An Environmental Management Plan (EMPs) or Plans will be prepared following approval of the 

undertaking by the Minister of the Environment and prior to construction. The EMP(s) will include a 

description of the proposed mitigation, commitments and monitoring. 



Ecoplans Limited



8. Terrestrial Approvals Required for the Undertaking 

8.1 Endangered Species Act – Ministry of Natural Resources 

It is anticipated that permit acquisition under the Provincial Endangered Species Act (ESA) will be 

required for the removal of retainable Butternut trees. A permit may also be required for the habitat 

for Blanding’s Turtle (Wilmot Creek Valley) and Golden-winged Warbler (Unit TR14-1). 

Consultation with MNR will continue through subsequent design phases regarding the submission 

and acquisition of these permits. 



Ecoplans Limited



9. Summary 

Following the identification of the transportation corridor, an impact assessment of the 

Recommended Design was carried out to confirm the potential environmental effects, mitigation or 

compensation measures, and remaining net effects previously identified during the Alternative 

Methods phase. Further, a number of additional/continuing investigations were carried out for 

vegetation/habitat features including: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Verifying previous classifications for vegetation communities, using the Ecological Land 

Classification (ELC) System for Southern Ontario (Lee et al. 1998 and evaluating the 

sensitivity and significance of vegetation communities, using the Natural Heritage 

Resources of Ontario: Vegetation Communities of Southern Ontario (Bakowsky 1996; 

NHIC 2006). 

Augmenting the vascular plant species list presented in the 407 East Environmental 

Assessment Natural Environment Field Investigations Report (March 2008). 

Evaluating significance and sensitivity of flora recorded during field surveys at 3 scales: 

regional (Durham), provincial and national. The NHIC website (2006) was used for 

provincial and national significance, and Varga et al. (2000) was used for regional 

significance. Locations of Plant Species At Risk were noted during field surveys. 

Assessing the sensitivity to potential indirect impacts in vegetation features to be 

retained adjacent to the ROW by noting the proximity of sensitive features to ROW and 

potential for mitigation. 

Completing a Butternut Health Assessment of all Butternuts within approximately 120 m 

of the TRR. 

Winter Resident and Spring Migrant Birds Winter resident and spring migrant bird 

surveys to augment information gathered during previous breeding bird surveys 

conducted in 2003, 2006 and 2007. 

Blanding’s Turtle Habitat follow-up field-visits. 

Wildlife passage analysis to build on the previous landscape level assessment and 

examine, in more detail, regional and local linkages and address specific wildlife 

movement functions. 

Based on the new/continued investigations and analyses, the Project Team developed a more 

detailed understanding of the vegetation and habitat features and functions and anticipated effects. 



Ecoplans Limited



9.1 Species at Risk 

9.1.1 Butternut 

There will be 82 Butternut trees removed by the transportation corridor (i.e., within ROW). Based 

on a preliminary health assessment (i.e., pending MNR review) this includes 34 Butternuts that 

have been assessed as retainable. 

A permit under the Ontario Endangered Species Act will be required for the removal of retainable 

Butternut trees. Measures will be implemented to mitigate effects of Butternut removal, recognizing 

its status under the ESA, and develop appropriate approaches in consultation with MNR and the 

Forest Gene Conservation Association (FGCA). Since a Recovery Strategy for Butternut, and 

Butternut related policies to support the implementation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (2007) 

have not yet been finalized, a mitigation strategy is recommended. It is expected that the Butternut 

mitigation strategy will continue to evolve through subsequent design phases, once MNR has had an 

opportunity to complete their field review and the ESA permitting process is underway. In the 

meantime, several approaches are recommended for consideration to mitigate for the removal of 

Butternut depending on the results of the health assessment, the size of the tree and its location 

(Chapter 6.1.4.2). 

9.1.2 Blanding’s Turtle and Golden-winged Warbler 

Additional field investigations may be required for further assessment of the habitat for Blanding’s 

Turtle (Wilmot Creek Valley) and Golden-winged Warbler (Unit TR14-1) in support of an 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) permit, should one be required. 

9.2 Vegetation 

Vegetation clearing (and associated habitat removal) required to accommodate the transportation 

corridor and all associated facilities is the primary direct effect related to construction of the 

corridor. This includes permanent vegetation removals to accommodate interchanges, 

vertical/horizontal alignment, grading, drainage design, temporary road access, bridges, culverts 

and channel realignments, traffic and noise barriers, utility relocation and general construction 

activities. Vegetation removals are summarized in Tables 33 and 34. 

The transportation corridor will result in the removal of approximately 355 ha. Approximately 293 

ha (83%) is upland including: 175 ha of cultural influenced communities (meadow, thicket, 

plantation or woodland); and 118 ha of deciduous, conifer and mixed forest. The remaining 62 ha 

(17 %) of vegetation removed is wetland vegetation (swamp, marsh, shallow water). 

Forest vegetation removals associated with the transportation corridor will also result in a reduction 

in the amount of interior forest habitat. Approximately 28.9 ha of forest interior habitat will be 



Ecoplans Limited



removed or approximately 21 % of what is existing within and adjacent to the Transportation 

Corridor. Considering all of the interior forest habitat present on the broader landscape, that is, 

present in the watersheds within the Study Area, this represents a reduction of 0.02 % of total 

interior forest cumulatively in the 12 watersheds. 

As discussed in Chapter 6.1.4.7, the opportunity to offset vegetation removals through 

restoration/creation and/or enhancement has been identified by the Project Team during the 

preparation of the EA and opportunities will continue to be explored by MTO and plans developed, 

as appropriate and feasible, in subsequent design phases. MTO does not have a mandate to 

secure and mange lands for the purposes of terrestrial habitat restoration/creation/enhancement, 

however, MTO owned parcels and potential future surplus lands may be considered as candidate 

areas. In the short term, MTO will explore enhancement opportunities on MTO lands which are 

surplus to transportation needs within or adjacent to the 407 transportation corridor. 

Given the confidential and sensitive nature of advanced willing seller/willing buyer negotiations and 

future property acquisition by MTO, once the EA is approved, and recognizing that there are other 

land interests and pressures (e.g., agricultural production or urban development), there is a high 

level of uncertainty about ‘how much’ land could be allocated to habitat 

restoration/creation/enhancement. However, the Project Team has identified ‘suggested’ areas for 

potential future consideration and this will form the basis of developing 

restoration/creation/enhancement plans during subsequent design phases. 

Based on this preliminary analysis, MTO has determined that it should be possible to offset 

permanent forest and wetland vegetation removals/habitat loss at a 1:1 ratio as MTO continues to 

secure lands for the Transportation Corridor. This represents approximately 174 ha of land area 

(this corresponds to the preliminary estimates of wetland and forest vegetation removal provided in 

Table 34) and includes lands where Butternut would be planted to meet the requirements of the 

ESA. Some of this area would be allocated to compensate for HADD. 

The direct removal of forest vegetation often has the secondary effect of creating new forest edges 

that expose the retained vegetation to the effects of increased light, noise, wind, sun and salt 

spray. While the creation of the edge is a direct construction effect, the edge effects that influence 

the retained vegetation are considered indirect effects that will occur following construction. 

Construction of the transportation corridor may also result in the following effects: 

 

 

 

Vegetation clearing/damage beyond the working area. 

Release of construction-generated sediment to adjacent vegetation areas. 


While these are noted as possible adverse effects that may occur during construction, they can 

largely be avoided and/or mitigated through the standard mitigation measures. 



Ecoplans Limited



The operation and maintenance of the transportation corridor may also result in secondary effects 

to the adjacent vegetation features that are retained: 

 

 

 

 

 


Damage from excessive or improper application of herbicides and pesticides for ROW 

maintenance requirements. 

Damage to adjacent natural vegetation from transportation corridor maintenance 

activities such as salting and sanding, structure/culvert repairs, ditch cleanout. Salt 

runoff and salt spray into vegetated areas may cause loss of vegetation vigour and in 

extreme cases, vegetation dieback, and spread of salt tolerant flora (halophytes). 

Increased light, noise, wind and sun exposure within the newly created edges of adjacent 

forest communities. These effects often lead to vegetation dieback, changes in the 

ground flora composition, windthrow, and/or spread of invasive species. 

Changes in drainage patterns (groundwater and/or surface runoff flow) that can affect 

dependant vegetation/wetland areas located either upgradient or downgradient of the 

ROW. 

These potential effects to vegetation and habitat features resulting from the construction, operation and 

maintenance of the transportation corridor can be managed through implementation of standard and 

site-specific mitigation measures, as outlined in Chapter 6.1.3 to 6.1.5. 


Direct construction effects on wildlife are generally associated with: 

 

 

 

habitat loss or modification including interference with noteworthy species and habitats 

including Species at Risk; 

wildlife injury or mortality; and 

effects on animal movement. 

Specifically, the main effects are habitat loss, changes in habitat quality, wildlife mortality, and 

reduced connectivity resulting from: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the creation of edge habitat that can affect off-site breeding, feeding, shelter quality, 

and/or movement opportunities for sensitive species; 

introduction of invasive species (disturbance/increased light/creation of movement 

passage along transportation facility); 

introduction of light and noise pollution to a habitat area; 

severing of woodlands (including woodlots) may result in residual sizes that are too 

small to support ‘area- sensitive’ wildlife species; 

fragmenting wildlife populations that may cause further endangerment of an already 

sensitive and rare species; and 

vehicular traffic collisions. 



Ecoplans Limited



Reduction in wildlife habitat is related to the permanent removal of vegetation communities, 

described above. As discussed above and in Chapter 6.1.4.7, the opportunity to offset vegetation 

removals through restoration/creation and/or enhancement has been identified by the Project 

Team during the preparation of the EA and opportunities will continue to be explored by MTO and 

plans developed, as appropriate and feasible, in subsequent design phases. 

Wildlife passage, including the design of funnel fencing and escape facilities is outlined in 

Appendix F. Overall, there are 86 wildlife passages provided including where there are multiple 

crossings of a single watercourse). These include 6 terrestrial wildlife passages (i.e., not 

associated with watercourse crossings); 2 located on the West Durham Link, 2 located on the East 

Durham Link and 2 located on the east mainline. 

Many of the mitigation measures outlined in the previous sections will also work towards 

minimizing the operation and maintenance effects on wildlife. For example, the dedicated wildlife 

crossing structures, as well as combined wildlife/drainage structures including major valley bridges, 

will work to reduce wildlife mortality by providing passage for a variety of terrestrial wildlife under 

the transportation corridor. These structures have been specifically located where the greatest 

potential for cross-corridor movements is anticipated. 

Furthermore, the standard and site-specific mitigation measures for the protection of vegetation 

features will also serve to protect wildlife habitat. In addition, the treatment of highway runoff in 

SWM facilities prior to release to adjacent natural areas will not only protect the adjacent 

vegetation, but also the associated wildlife habitat quality. 

In addition, monitoring of wildlife structure use will be commitment in the EA document, with 

monitoring approaches, responsibilities and duration to be determined, in consultation with the 

agencies, during subsequent design phases. 

Chapter 7.1 describes the type of monitoring recommended for terrestrial ecosystems including 

the rationale and strategy for their implementation. Specifically, monitoring is recommended for: 

 

 

 

Butternut - in accordance with the ESA permit requirements (to be determined in 

subsequent design phases). 

Vegetation - Where post-construction plantings and/or ecological management is 

prescribed (i.e., invasive species management, forest/plantation thinning and planting, 

etc.), monitoring will target the restoration objective to ensure success of the program. 

Monitoring programs will vary depending on the issue being monitored and in terms of 

parameters, duration and outcome (i.e., to direct adaptive management, trigger the 

required replacement of dead planted material, etc.). Vegetation monitoring programs 

will be developed in greater detail during subsequent design phases. 

Groundwater levels - in wetlands where warranted based on the potential for 

permanent groundwater level lowering may impact wetland vegetation communities. 



Ecoplans Limited



 

Wildlife passage - to determine the effectiveness of the structures and associated 

funnel fencing and identify needed alterations to the mitigation structures (e.g., add 

more funnel fencing, remove materials in underpasses etc.) as well as to determine 

which species or groups use the structures. Monitoring of this nature will provide 

information on the design and construction effectiveness of passage structures that can 

benefit future transportation corridor projects. 

Mitigation measures related to the protection of terrestrial ecosystem and commitments to further 

work are outlined in Chapter 7.2 (Table 35). 



Ecoplans Limited



10. References 

Aquafor Beech Limited. 2001. 

Harmony Creek Subwatershed Plan Study: Final Report. Prepared for The City of Oshawa. 

Oshawa, Ontario. 

Aresco, M.J. 2005. 

The effect of sex-specific terrestrial movements and roads on the sex ratio of freshwater 

turtles. Biological Conservation. 123: 37-44 

Arthur and Associates and SNC-Lavalin Engineers and Constructors Inc. 2006. 

Highway 407 Expansion (East Partial and West Extensions) Valley Corridor Natural Area 

Restoration Monitoring, Annual Report – Dec 2006. Prepared for 407 ETR Concession 

Company Ltd. 61 pp plus appendices. 

Bain, M. and B. Henshaw, 1995 (eds): 

The Durham Region Natural History Report 1993. The Pickering Field Naturalists. 

Bakowsky, W.D., 1996: 

Natural Heritage Resources of Ontario: Vegetation communities of southern Ontario. 

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

Ontario. 

Bissonette, J.A., and M. Hammer. 2000. 

Effectiveness of earthen return ramps in reducing big game highway mortality in Utah. 

UTCFWRU Report Series 2000(1): 1-29. 

Carr L. W. and L. Fahrig. 2001. 

Effect of road traffic on 2 amphibian species of differing vagility. Conservation Biology. 

15:1071-1078. 

Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Department of 

Fisheries and Oceans. 2000. 

Bowmanville/Soper Creek Watershed Aquatic Resource Management Plan. 

Central Lake Ontario Conservation, Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Ontario Ministry of 

Natural Resources. Central Lake Ontario Fisheries Management Plan. Draft July 2007. 

Central Lake Ontario Conservation. 2002a. 

Oshawa Creek Watershed Aquatic Resource Management Plan. Central Lake Ontario 

Conservation Authority. Oshawa, Ontario. 

Central Lake Ontario Conservation. 2002b. 

Oshawa Creek Watershed Management Plan. Central Lake Ontario Conservation 

Authority. Oshawa, Ontario. 



Ecoplans Limited



Central Lake Ontario Conservation. 2006. 

Lynde Creek Aquatic Resource Management Plan. Central Lake Ontario Conservation 

Authority. Oshawa, Ontario. 

Central Lake Ontario Conservation. 2007. 

Lynde Creek Watershed Existing Conditions Report – Draft. Central Lake Ontario 

Conservation Authority. Oshawa, Ontario. 

Clevenger, A.P. and N. Waltho. 2005. 

Performance indices to identify attributes of highway crossing structures facilitating 

movement of large mammals. Biological Conservation (121) 3: 453-464 

Clevenger, A.P., B. Chruszcz and K.E. Gunson. 2003. 

Spatial patterns and factors influencing small vertebrate fauna road-kill aggregations. 

Biological Conservation. 109: 15-26. 

Clevenger, A.P., B. Chruszcz, and K. Gunson. 2001. 

Drainage culverts as habitat and factors affecting passage by mammals. Journal of Applied 

Ecology 38: 1340-1349. 

COSEWIC 2005. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Blanding’s Turtle 

Emydoidea blandingii in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in 

Canada. Ottawa. viii + 40 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm). 

COSEWIC 2006. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Golden-winged Warbler 

Vermivora chrysoptera in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in 

Canada. Ottawa. vii + 30 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm). 

Dodd Jr., K.C., W.J. Barichivich, and L.L. Smith. 2004. Effectiveness of a barrier wall and culverts 

in reducing wildlife mortality on a heavily travelled highway in Florida. Biological 

Conservation 5: 619-631. 

Donaldson, B.M. 2006. 

Use of highway underpasses by large mammals and other wildlife in Virginia and factors 

influencing their effectiveness. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the 

Transportation Research Board 2011: 157-164. 

Ecoplans Limited. 2006a 

Bayview Avenue Extension – York Region. Remote Wildlife Monitoring (Year 1 – 2006) 

Technical Brief. Prepared for the Regional Municipality of York. 

Ecoplans Limited. 2006b. 

Wildlife Reference for the Oak Ridges Moraine. Prepared as part of the Environmental 

Standards Documentation for the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (see 

www.mto.gov.on.ca). 



Ecoplans Limited



Ecoplans Limited. 2007. 

Bayview Avenue Extension – York Region. Remote Wildlife Monitoring (Year 2 – 2007) 

Technical Brief. Prepared for the Regional Municipality of York. 

EMS Inc. 2007. 

Wildlife crossing literature review. Prepared for the Florida Department of Transportation: 

57 pp. 

Forest Gene Conservation Association, 2008: 

Butternut Health Assessment in Ontario: Finding Retainable Trees. The Foundation for 

Butternut Recovery. Peterborough, Ontario. 

Forman R. T. T. and R. D. Deblinger. 2000. 

The ecological road-effect Zone of a Massachusetts (U.S.A.) suburban highway. 

Conservation Biology. 14:36-46. 

Forman, R.T.T., D. Sperling, J.A. Bissonette, A.P. Clevenger, C.D. Cutshall, L. Fahrig, R. France, 

C.R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J.A. Jones, F.J. Swanson, T. Turrentine, and T.C. Winter 2003. 

Road Ecology: Science and Solutions. Island Press, Washington, DC. 

Gagnon, J.W., R.E. Schweinsburg, N’L. Dodd, and A.L. Manzo. 2005. 

Use of video surveillance to assess wildlife behaviour and use of wildlife underpasses. 

2005 Proceedings of the International Conference on Ecology and Transportation. Center 

for Transportation and the Environment: 534-544. 

Ganaraska Region Conservation, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Department of 

Fisheries and Oceans. Janurary 2007. 

Wilmot Creek Fisheries Management Plan. Draft 

Gartner Lee Limited, 1978: 

Environmental Sensitivity Mapping Project. Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority. 

Oshawa, Ontario. 

Gartner Lee Limited and Ecoplans Limited, 2008: 

407 East Environmental Assessment Natural Environment Field Investigations Report, 

March 2008 

Gibbs J. P. and W. G. Shriver. 2002. 

Estimating the effects of road mortality on turtle populations. Conservation Biology. 

16:1647-1652. 

Greater Golden Horseshoe Area Conservation Authorities’ Erosion and Sediment Inspection Guide 

2008: 

http://www.sustainabletechnologies.ca/Portals/_Rainbow/Documents/Final_ESC_Inspection 

Guide_published_lowres_v2.pdf 



Ecoplans Limited



Hardy, A.R., J. Fuller, M.P. Huijser, A. Kociolek, and M. Evans. 2006. 

Evaluation of wildlife crossing structures and fencing on US Highway 93 Evaro to Polson: 

Phase 1. Preconstruction data collection and finalization of evaluation plan. Final Report. 

Western Transportation Institute, College of Engineering, Montana State University. 

Prepared for the Montana Department of Transportation. 

Hels T. and E. Buchwald. 2001. 

The effect of road kills on amphibian populations. Biological Conservation. 99:331-340. 

Henshaw, Brian. 1993: 

A Seasonal Checklist to the Birds of Durham Region, Ontario. The Pickering Naturalists. 

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. North Bay, Ontario. 

Little, S.J., R. G. Harcourt, and A.P. Clevenger. 2002. 

Do wildlife passages act as prey traps? Biological Conservation 107: 135-145. 

Massachusetts River and Stream Crossing Standards. 2006. 

Developed by the River and Stream Continuity Partnership. 18 pp. 

Mata, C., I. Hervas, J. Herranz, F. Suarez, and J.E. Malo. 2003. 

Effectiveness of wildlife crossing structures and adapted culverts in a highway in northwest 

Spain. 2003 Proceedings of the International Conference on Ecology and Transportation, 

Lake Placid, New York. 265-276. 

Mata, C., I. Hervas, J. Herranz, F. Suarez, and J.E. Malo. 2005. 

Complimentary use by vertebrates of crossing structures along a fenced Spanish 

motorway. Biological Conservation 124(3): 397-405. 

Ministry of Transportation Ontario, 2006: 

Environmental Reference for Highway Design, Section 3.2: Terrestrial Ecosystems 

Ministry of Transportation Ontario, 2007: 

407 East Environmental Assessment Alternative Methods Report – Final Draft August 2007 

Natural Heritage Information Centre, 2007: 

Natural Heritage Information Centre Website. http://nhic.mnr.gov.on.ca/nhic_.cfm. Ontario 

Ministry of Natural Resources. 

Ontario Endangered Species Act. O Reg 242/08: 

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/source/regs/english/2008/elaws_src_regs_r08242_e.htm 



Ecoplans Limited



Ontario Endangered Species Act. 

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_07e06_e.htm 

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 2000: 

Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide. Fish and Wildlife Branch, Wildlife Section. 

Science Development and Transfer Branch, Southcentral Science Section. 151p. + 

Appendices. 

Ostry, M.E., M.E. Mielke and D.D. Skilling, 1994: 

Butternut- Strategies for Managing a Threatened Tree. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-165. United 

States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 

St. Paul, Minnesota. 

Oxley D. J., M.B. Fenton, and G. R. Carmody. 1974. 

The effects of roads on populations of small mammals. Journal of Applied Ecology. 11:55- 

59. 

Steyermark, J.A., 1972: 

Flora of Missouri. Iowa State University Press. Ames, Iowa. 

Swihart, R.K. and N.A. Slade. 1984. 

Road crossing in Sigmodon hispidus and Microtus ochrogaster. Journal of Mammalogy. 

65: 357-360. 

Terrestrial Ecosystems Environmental Protection Requirements for Transportation Planning and 

Highway Design, Construction, Operation and Maintenance. 

http://www.raqsa.mto.gov.on.ca/techpubs/eps.nsf/8cec129ccb70929b852572950068f16b/4 

b54053790f1feff852572f0005475b7/$FILE/MTO%20Env%20Protection%20Req- 

Section0.pdf 

Toronto and Region Conservation. 2004. 

Fisheries Management Plan for Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek. Toronto and Region 

Conservation Authority. Toronto, ON. 

Toronto and Region Conservation. 2003. 

A Watershed Plan for Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek. Toronto and Region 

Conservation. Toronto, Ontario. 

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). 2007: 

TerrestrialNatural Heritage System Strategy. 

Trombulak, S.C. and C.A. Frissel. 1999. 

Review of the ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. 

Conservation Biology 14(1): 18-30 



Ecoplans Limited



van Manen, F.T., M.D. Jones, J.L. Kindall, and L.M. Thompson. 2001. 

Determining the potential mitigation effects of wildlife passages for Black Bears. 

Proceedings of the 2001 International Conference on Ecology and Transportation: 435- 

446. 

Varga, S. et al., 1999: 

The Vascular Plant Flora of the Greater Toronto Area (Rough Draft). Ontario Ministry of 

Natural Resources, Aurora ON. 82 pp. 

Varga, S., D. Leadbeater, J. Webber, J. Kaiser, B. Crins, J. Kamstra, D. Banville, E. Ashley, G. 

Miller, C. Kingsley, C. Jacobsen, K. Mewa, L. Tebby, E. Mosley, and E. Zajc. 2000: 

Distribution and status of the vascular plants of the greater Toronto Area. Ontario Ministry 

of Natural Resources, Aurora District. August 2000. 102 pages. 



Ecoplans Limited



11. Glossary 

Anthropogenic Disturbance 

Anticipated Effect 

Area of Natural and Scientific 

Interest (ANSI) 

Best Management Practices 

(BMP) 

Canker 

CLOCA 

Disturbance caused by human activity 

An effect that is deemed possible to result from the implementation of 

a particular alternative. 

Areas of land and water containing natural landscapes or features 

which have been identified as having values related to natural 

heritage protection, scientific study, or education. Depending on the 

features of particular areas, they may be referred to as life science or 

earth science sites. These areas vary in their level of significance and 

their vulnerability to environmental impacts. (NEC, 2003) 

A technique or methodology that, through experience or research, 

has been proven to reliably lead to a desired result. After researching 

all known management methods, the selection and adaptation of the 

most suitable practices for achieving the desired outcome. 

In relation to Butternut, canker is the reason for Butternut decline and 

current Endangered status. Butternut canker is widespread, hypervirulent, 

and fatal. Canker vectors are rain, wind and insects. Typical 

symptoms are crown dieback, long linear fissure/cracks often with 

black discharge, epicormic branching, and loose/sunken areas of 

bark 

Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority 

Conservation Authority A community-based environmental organization dedicated to 

restoring, developing and managing natural resources using the 

watershed as a management unit (Conservation Ontario, 2005) 

Corridor 

COSEWIC 

COSEWIC status 

The naturally vegetated or potential revegetated areas that link or 

border natural areas and provide ecological functions such as habitat, 

passage, hydrological flow, connection or buffering from adjacent 

impacts 

COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in 

Canada) is a committee of experts that assesses and designates which 

wildlife species are in some danger of disappearing from Canada. 

Status assigned by the Committee on the Status of Endangered 

Wildlife in Canada: 

 

 

Extinct - A species that no longer exists. 

Extirpated - A species no longer existing in the wild in 

Canada, but occurring elsewhere. 



Ecoplans Limited



 

 

 

 

Endangered - A species facing imminent extirpation or 

extinction. 

Threatened - A species likely to become endangered if 

limiting factors are not reversed. 

Special Concern (formerly vulnerable) - A species that 

may become a threatened or an endangered species 

because of a combination of biological characteristics 

and identified threats. 

Not At Risk - A species that has been evaluated and 

found to be not at risk of extinction given the current 

circumstances. 

Cultural Communities 

Deep Cut 

Deer Wintering Areas 

In terms of vegetation, a vegetation community originating from, or 

maintained by, anthropogenic (human modified) influences and 

culturally based disturbances; often containing a large proportion of 

non-native species (Ecological Land Classification for Southern 

Ontario [MNR, 1998]). 

A deep highway cut is defined as any excavation lower than 4.5 m 

below original grade. 

Deer wintering areas are described by MNR as consisting of a “core 

area of mainly coniferous trees (pines, hemlock, cedar, spruce) with a 

canopy cover of more than 60% (MNR Significant Wildlife Habitat 

Technical Guide [SWHTG], MNR 2000). White-tailed deer 

congregate in these areas during severe winters when snow is deep. 

In milder winters deer may not congregate as densely but are still 

often found in loose congregations around core winter areas (mapped 

by MNR as low density deer wintering areas). 

Edge Habitat The interface between a habitat patch and its surroundings - 

particularly forest. Edge habitats tend to be inhabited by both 

generalist species that can use many kinds of habitat and species 

that specialize in edges. 

Environmental Assessment 

Ecological Land Classification 

(ELC) 

The purpose of environmental assessment (EA) is to ensure that the 

environmental effects of a project receive due consideration before 

the proponent and responsible authorities take actions in connection 

with the project. It is a planning process that predicts, interprets and 

evaluates environmental effects, and identifies mitigation and 

environmental protection measures to reduce, eliminate or 

compensate for the environmental effects associated with a proposed 

undertaking. 

The system for the consistent description, identification, classification 

and mapping of ecological land units in Southern Ontario. 



Ecoplans Limited



Environmental Management 

Plan (EMP) 

Environmental Reference for 

Highway Design (ERD) 

Environmentally 

Significant/Sensitive Area 

(ESA) 

Forest area-sensitive 

Generalist species 

G-Rank (Global Rank) 

An Environmental Management Plan (EMP) can be defined as “an 

environmental management tool used to ensure that undue or 

reasonably avoidable adverse impacts of the construction, operation 

and decommissioning of a project are prevented; and that the positive 

benefits of the projects are enhanced”. EMPs are tools for ensuring 

that the management actions arising from Environmental Impact 

Assessment (EIA) processes are clearly defined and implemented 

through all phases of the project life-cycle. 

A Ministry of MTO document provides guidance to managing 

environmental impacts of transportation projects in transportation 

project design. Full citation: Environmental Reference for Highway 

Design, Section 1: Introduction, October 2006. Ministry of 

Transportation Ontario. 

An Environmentally Significant/Sensitive Area is a natural area 

identified by a municipality or Conservation Authority as fulfilling 

certain criteria for ecological significance or sensitivity. 

Area-sensitive breeding birds that require a relatively extensive forest 

habitat patch in which to successfully reproduce, or occur in higher 

densities in such patches. 

With reference to birds, “generalist” bird species occur in many 

different habitats, while habitat specialists will occur in only one or a 

few habitats. 

Global ranks are assigned by a consensus of the network of CDCs, 

scientific experts, and The Nature Conservancy to designate a rarity rank 

based on the range-wide status of a species, subspecies or variety. 

G1 Extremely rare; usually 5 or fewer occurrences in the 

overall range or very few remaining individuals; or because 

of some factor(s) making it especially vulnerable to 

extinction. 

G2 Very rare; usually between 5 and 20 occurrences in the 

overall range or with many individuals in fewer 

occurrences; or because of some factor(s) making it 

vulnerable to extinction. 

G3 Rare to uncommon; usually between 20 and 100 

occurrences; may have fewer occurrences, but with a large 

number of individuals in some populations; may be 

susceptible to large-scale disturbances. 

G4 Common; usually more than 100 occurrences; usually 

not susceptible to immediate threats. 

G5 Very common; demonstrably secure under present 

conditions. 



Ecoplans Limited



GRCA 

Groundwater 

Groundwater Discharge 

Groundwater Recharge 

Habitat Quality Categories 

Herpetofauna 


Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority 

Subsurface water, or water stored in the pores, cracks, and crevices 

in the ground below the water table; water passing through, or 

standing in, soil and underlying strata and free to move by gravity. 

Discharge areas are the opposite of recharge areas. They are the 

locations at which groundwater leaves the aquifer and flows to the 

surface. Groundwater discharge occurs where the water table or 

potentiometric surface intersects the land surface. Where this 

happens, springs or seeps are found. Springs and seeps may flow 

into fresh water bodies, such as lakes or streams, or they may flow 

into saltwater bodies 

Recharge is the process by which groundwater is replenished. A 

recharge area is where water from precipitation is transmitted 

downward to an aquifer 

Qualitative habitat quality categories were assigned as follows, based 

on the factors described above and professional judgement. All 

ratings were applied relative to others features within the Study Area: 

 

 

 

 

Very High: exceptional quality; highly diverse habitat and 

species composition; many rare and/or sensitive habitats 

and species; large size; relatively undisturbed / less 

disturbed; 

High: good species and habitat diversity; moderate to high 

numbers of rare species; typically low levels of 

anthropogenic disturbance; may have uncommon and /or 

specialized habitat elements. 

Moderate: lower relative habitat and species diversity; 

lower relative numbers of rare species; typically smaller, 

more disturbed woodlands and / or cultural mosaics; 

Low: common / tolerant habitats with limited species 

diversity and few or no rare / specialized species; small, 

isolated, highly disturbed features. 

The name for reptiles and amphibian species when they are put 

together in one group. This group includes frogs, toads, turtles, 

salamanders, snakes and lizards. 

The habitat found deep within woodlands, away from the influence of 

edge effects. The interior sections of forest, generally 100 m or more 

in from the forest edge, are darker, cooler and moister, and less 

prone to disturbances from outside of the forest (both human and 

environmental). 



Ecoplans Limited



Lake Iroquois Shoreline 


L-rank 

Mitigation Measure 

Monitoring 

Non-native 

Oak Ridges Moraine 

Opennes Ratio 

Operation and Maintenance 

Provincial Ranks (S-ranks) 

The Glacial Lake Iroquois Shoreline Sediments are characterized by 

gravelly beach sediments along the former shoreline of the glacial 

lake. Nearshore glaciolacustrine deposits of sand and gravel overly 

the Newmarket Till and grade to the south into laminated silts and 

clays. The high permeability of the sandy Iroquois Shoreline deposits 

provides a pathway for local groundwater discharge that coincides 

with numerous wetlands and lowland stream headwaters. 

The degree to which the landscape facilitates or impedes movement 

[of species, individuals and genetic material] among habitat patches. 

(Taylor et al. 1993). The degree to which key natural heritage 

features are connected to one another by links such as plant and 

animal movement corridors, hydrological and nutrient cycling, genetic 

transfer, and energy flows through food webs.” (ORMCP, 2002) 

A rank assigned to a species, vegetation community, or habitat patch 

which describes its status in the TRCA Region 

Action(s) that remove or alleviate to some degree the negative effects 

associated with the implementation of an alternative. 

To keep track of systematically, usually for the purpose of collecting 

information; or to test or sample according to a schedule, typically 

using a system including measuring devices and standard 

observations. 

A species, subspecies, or lower taxon introduced outside its normal 

past or present distribution; includes any part, gametes, seeds, eggs, 

or propagules of such species that might survive and subsequently 

reproduce 

The Oak Ridges Moraine is an irregular ridge of sandy hills stretching 

160 km from the Trent River in the east to the Niagara Escarpment in 

the west and it generally found to the north of the proposed 407 

Transportation Corridor. 

A measure of the “tunnel effect” or “see- throughness” of a wildlife 

structure that may influence use by some species. OR is the crosssectional 

area of the structure opening divided by the travel distance 

through (or under) the structure. 

Refers to the operation and maintenance of the Transportation 

Corridor. 

Provincial (or Subnational) ranks are used by the Natural Heritage 

Information Centre (NHIC) to set protection priorities for rare species 

and natural communities. These ranks are not legal designations. 

Provincial ranks are assigned in a manner similar to that described for 



Ecoplans Limited



global ranks, but consider only those factors within the political 

boundaries of Ontario. 

S1 Critically Imperiled - Critically imperiled in the nation or 

state/province because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer 

occurrences) or because of some factor(s) such as very 

steep declines making it especially vulnerable to extirpation 

from the state/province. 

 

 

 

 

 

S3 

 

 

 

 

S4 Apparently Secure - Uncommon but not rare; some 

cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. 

S5 Secure - Common, widespread, and abundant in the 

nation or state/province. 

Provincially Significant 

Wetlands 

Riparian 

Residual effect 

Road Ecology Group 

Specialized and Sensitive 

Wildlife Habitat (SSWH) 

These are wetlands evaluated as provincially significant using the 

Ontario Wetlands Evaluation system (OWES). 

Relating to, living, or located on the bank of a natural watercourse 

(such as a river) or sometimes of a lake or a tidewater. In the ELC, 

refers to aquatic communities adjacent to, or associated with, a river 

or stream as opposed to a lake or pond (cf. lacustrine) 

The remaining negative or positive effect of an alternative after the 

application of avoidance/ mitigation/ compensation/ enhancement 

measures. 

Championed by the Toronto Zoo, the ONTARIO ROAD ECOLOGY 

GROUP is comprised of government and non-government scientists, 

educators, and transportation planners. The Group’s goal is to raise 

awareness about the threat of roads to biodiversity in Ontario, and to 

research and apply solutions. 

The identification of areas of Specialized and Sensitive Wildlife Habitat 

(SSWH) was based on a qualitative assessment based on the 

consideration of a number of factors including: breeding bird species 

richness/diversity, area-sensitive species, habitat diversity, species of 

conservation concern, amphibian breeding habitat and habitat continuity. 



Ecoplans Limited




Species Diversity 

Species Richness 

Stormwater Management 

Tableland 

Terms of Reference 

Terrestrial 

TRR 

TRCA 

Upland 

Valleylands 

Vernal Pool 

Watercourse 

Means an extirpated, endangered or threatened species or a species 

of special concern (Species at Risk Act (2002) / Species at Risk Act 

Registry Glossary (2003). 

Refers to the number of different species within an assemblage, 

ecological community, area or sample; also known as species richness. 

Is the number of different species in a given area. 

Stormwater management is the management of stormwater runoff, 

often using water retention facilities, to provide controlled release into 

receiving streams. 

A relatively flat upland area outside of valley land. 

The first step in an application for approval to proceed with a project 

or undertaking under the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) is the 

submission of a Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Environmental 

Assessment (EA). Public and agency consultation is required on the 

preparation and submission of the ToR to the Ministry of the 

Environment. Approval is required by the Minister of the Environment. 

If approved, the ToR provides a framework / work plan for the EA. 

Refers to an environment that is of, or on the ground, or to animals 

and plants living or growing on the ground (land). Specifically 

referring to habitats where the water table is rarely or briefly above 

the substrate surface and hydric soils have not developed. 

Technically Recommended Route 

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 

A general term for an area that is higher in elevation than the surrounding 

landscape (Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario 

(Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario [MNR, 1998]). 

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 

(Provincial Policy Statement [MMAH, 2005]). 

A shallow natural or man-made depression in level ground where no 

permanent above ground outlet is present. These pools hold water 

seasonally and serve as nurseries for species such as frogs and 

salamanders. 

A stream, river or channel in which a flow of water occurs, either 

continuously or intermittently, with some degree of regularity 

(Glossary of Drainage Terms [MTO, 1999]). 



Ecoplans Limited



Watercourse Crossing 

Wetlands 

A culvert or bridge structure used to cross a water body 

(MTO/DFO/OMNR Protocol for Protecting Fish and Fish Habitat on 

Provincial Transportation Undertakings [2006]). 

Lands that are seasonally or permanently covered by shallow water, 

as well as lands where the water table is close to or at 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 

plants or water tolerant plants. The four major types of wetlands are 

swamps, marshes, bogs and fens. 

Periodically soaked or wet lands being used for agricultural purposes 

which no longer exhibit wetland characteristics are not considered to 

be wetlands for the purposes of this definition (Provincial Policy 

Statement [MMAH, 2005]). 



Ecoplans Limited

407 East Environmental Assessment 2009 - Toronto Zoo

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?