Proposed 10 MW Wind Farm - Zero Emission...

Skyway 126 Wind Energy

Proposed 10 MW Wind Farm

Natural Heritage Records Review Report

Prepared by: M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd.

Prepared for: Cloudy Ridge Wind Park LP

December 21, 2012

December 21, 2012

Ingo Stuckmann

Cloudy Ridge Wind Park LP

346 Waverley St.

Ottawa, ON K2P 0W5

Dear Cloudy Ridge Wind Park LP:

Reference: Skyway 126 Wind Energy

Natural Heritage Records Review Report

We are pleased to enclose a copy of the Natural Heritage Records Review Report for the Skyway 126

Wind Energy project. This report was prepared to meet the requirements of Section 25 of the Renewable

Energy Approval regulation - Ontario Regulation 359/09. It reflects the finalized layout for the project.

Please feel free to contact me at 905-628-0077 if you have any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

M. K. INCE AND ASSOCIATES LTD.

Martin Ince, P. Eng.

President

encls.

Skyway 126 Wind Energy Natural Heritage Records Review Report

M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. i December 21, 2012

Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 THE PROPONENT .............................................................................................................................................. 2 1.3 PURPOSE ......................................................................................................................................................... 5

2 DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................................................................. 7

2.1 PROJECT LOCATION ........................................................................................................................................... 7 2.2 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND AREAS ............................................................................................................ 7

3 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................ 8

3.1 RECORDS SOURCES ............................................................................................................................................ 8

4 RESULTS ...................................................................................................................................................... 13

4.1.1 Provincial Parks, Conservation Reserves and ANSIs .......................................................................... 18 4.1.2 Wetlands ........................................................................................................................................... 19 4.1.3 Woodlands......................................................................................................................................... 20 4.1.4 Valleylands ........................................................................................................................................ 21 4.1.5 Significant Wildlife Habitat ................................................................................................................ 21 4.1.6 Species of Conservation Concern ....................................................................................................... 29

5 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................... 31

6 QUALIFICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................... 34

7 LITERATURE CITED ....................................................................................................................................... 35

List of Figures FIGURE 1-1: LOCATION OF SKYWAY 126 WIND ENERGY........................................................................................................ 3 FIGURE 1-2: SKYWAY 126 WIND ENERGY PROJECT LOCATION MAP ........................................................................................ 4 FIGURE 4-1: SKYWAY 126 WIND ENERGY RECORDS REVIEW MAP 1 OF 2 .............................................................................. 14 FIGURE 4-2: SKYWAY 126 WIND ENERGY RECORDS REVIEW MAP 2 OF 2 .............................................................................. 15 FIGURE 4-3: SKYWAY 126 WIND ENERGY SOLRIS MAP 1 OF 2 ........................................................................................... 16 FIGURE 4-4: SKYWAY 126 WIND ENERGY SOLRIS MAP 2 OF 2 ........................................................................................... 17

List of Tables TABLE 1-1: MNR NATURAL HERITAGE RECORDS REVIEW CHECKLIST SUMMARY .......................................................................... 5 TABLE 3-1: DESCRIPTION OF RECORD SOURCES SEARCHED AND ASSOCIATED RESULTS ................................................................ 10 TABLE 4-1: CONSERVATION RESERVES AND ANSIS IDENTIFIED WITHIN AND SURROUNDING THE PROJECT LOCATION ........................ 18 TABLE 4-2: WETLANDS IDENTIFIED BY NHIC ..................................................................................................................... 19 TABLE 4-3: WETLANDS IDENTIFIED WITHIN 120 M OF THE PROJECT LOCATION ........................................................................ 19 TABLE 4-4: WOODLANDS IDENTIFIED WITHIN 120 M OF THE PROJECT LOCATION ..................................................................... 20 TABLE 4-5: CANDIDATE SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT THAT MAY EXIST WITHIN 120 M OF THE PROJECT LOCATION ....................... 23 TABLE 4-6: SPECIES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED WITHIN OR NEAR THE PROJECT LOCATION .................... 30 TABLE 5-1: SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS OF THE NATURAL HERITAGE ASSESSMENT RECORDS REVIEW ........................................... 31


M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. 1 December 21, 2012

1 INTRODUCTION

This report outlines the findings of the Records Review for natural heritage features carried out at the

location of the proposed Skyway 126 Wind Energy project (the “Project”). The Natural Heritage Records

Review was performed based on the specifications detailed in Section 25 of Ontario Regulation 359/09

(the “Regulation”). This report identifies the findings of the Records Review for natural heritage features

carried out at the Project Location and Renewable Energy Approval (REA) mandated setbacks.

This report is a component of the REA application process. Outcomes of the Site Investigation

undertaken to verify and identify the presence of natural features and wildlife habitat; an evaluation of

significance on candidate features and habitats; as well as the identification of potential impacts and

mitigation measures will be dealt with in separate reports, including the Natural Heritage Site

Investigation Report (M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd., 2012), the Natural Heritage Evaluation of

Significance Report (M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd., 2012) and the Natural Heritage Environmental

Impact Study Report (M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd., 2012). Information pertaining to Species at Risk is

handled through a separate process with the MNR.

1.1 Project Overview

Cloudy Ridge Wind Park LP is a renewable energy development company committed to providing clean,

renewable energy for Ontario. Cloudy Ridge Wind Park LP proposes to build the Skyway 126 Wind

Energy project, a Class 4 wind energy generation facility with a total installed nameplate capacity of up to

10 MW, on privately-owned agricultural lands located near the communities of Badjeros and McIntyre,

within the Municipality of Grey Highlands (see Figure 1-1 and Figure 1-2). All turbines are to be

contained within the area bound by South Line C to the North, Grey Road 9 to the East and to the South,

and existing agricultural lands to the West, with electrical cabling extending to the North along Road 63.

A Power Purchase Agreement has been acquired for the project under Ontario’s Feed-In Tariff (“FIT”)

Program. The Project will generate clean, renewable energy to the local grid and feed excess electricity

into the Hydro One Networks Inc. grid. It would displace greenhouse gases, air pollution, and toxic

wastes produced by conventional energy sources. This act will result in positive cascading effects for the

natural environment, the municipality and energy security for the province of Ontario. The project will

consist of up to five (5) 2.0 MW REpower MM92 wind turbines (or similarly appropriate technology).

The rotor diameter of the REpower MM92 is 92.5 m and the hub height will be 100 m, for a maximum

total height of 146 m above grade. Each tower will be conical, made of steel and be approximately three

to four metres in diameter at the base. The turbine is supported by a concrete foundation with reinforcing

steel bars. The foundation will contain a mounting ring to which the base of the tower will be attached;

however, foundation specifications will be dependent on the results of geotechnical investigations at the

turbine locations. Overhead and/or underground electrical lines of up to 44 kV will conduct the electricity

to the point of common coupling, to be located approximately 11 km from the substation. Figure 1-2

shows the turbine layout within the project location, as well as roads and other infrastructure associated

with the project.

The topography of the project area is generally characterized as flat terrain that slopes slightly northward

toward Georgian Bay with a variable geology that includes carbonate rock, which is susceptible to karst

processes. Geological Survey of Canada maps identified the area as being located on till plains with

sandy silt to silty-sand textured till. Bedrock geology from the Silurian geological time period within the



project area, Project Location, and REA mandated setback area. As such, bedrock in this area is

composed of sedimentary rocks such as sandstone, shale, dolostone, and siltstone. The area contains

limited presence of drumlinoid ridges while the superficial geological formation consists mostly of sand,

silt and clay with surficial gravel deposits in some areas (OMNDMF, 2011). Canada Land Inventory

maps indicate the Project is located in an area of primarily Class 1 agricultural soils with some Class 3

subclass T (limitations dues to topography) soils. The project electrical line connecting to the point of

common coupling will be located within the existing municipal road allowance.

The primary land-use pattern in this region is agricultural with the presence of woodlands and a potential

presence for a number of natural heritage features throughout the project area including wetlands and

wildlife habitat.

1.2 The Proponent

The proponent of the Skyway 126 Wind Energy project is Cloudy Ridge Wind Park LP. Cloudy Ridge

Wind Park LP has contracted M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. (MKI) to provide consulting services for the

project. Contact information is as follows:

Ingo Stuckmann

Cloudy Ridge Wind Park LP

346 Waverley Street,

Ottawa, ON, K2P 0W5

Tel: 613-827-7605

Fax: 613-475-9167

Email: [email protected]

Katie Meyer-Beck

M.K. Ince and Associates, Ltd.11 Cross Street

Dundas, ON L9H 2R3

Phone: 905-628-0077

Fax: 905-629-1329

Email: [email protected]

Skyway 126 Wind Energy Project Natural Heritage Records Review Report


Figure 1-1: Location of Skyway 126 Wind Energy

Skyway 126 Wind Energy Project Natural Heritage Records Review Report

M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. 4 December 21, 2012 Figure 1-2: Skyway 126 Wind Energy Project Location Map



1.3 Purpose

As specified in the Regulation, a review of sourced records was carried out to identify any recorded

natural heritage features within specified distances of the Project Location. Assessment of natural heritage

features within the following distances from the Project Location was conducted as mandated in the

Regulation:

Within 120 m of a provincial park or conservation reserve or its boundary;

Within 120 m of an area of natural and scientific interest (ANSI), (life science),

Within 50 m of any area of natural and scientific interest (ANSI), (earth science); and

Within 120 m of any recorded natural feature that is not an area of natural and scientific interest

(ANSI).

A copy of MNR’s completed Records Review Report Checklist is found below (Table1-1). The checklist

summarizes the requirements for this report and demonstrates that those requirements have been met.

Table 1-1: MNR natural heritage Records Review checklist summary

Content Requirements Included Reference

Identifies list of records searched Section 3.1

Identifies a summary of the results obtained, including the

following sources:

1. MNR records that relate to provincial parks and

conservation reserves Section 4 and Table 5-1

2. Records related to natural features that are maintained by the:

i. MNR Section 3 and Section 4

ii. the Crown in the right of Canada

and, if applicable n/a

iv. each local and upper-tier municipality Section 3

v. the planning board n/a

vi. the municipal planning authority Section 3

vii. the local roads board n/a

viii. the Local Services Board n/a

ix. the Niagara Escarpment Commission n/a

Identifies if the project location is in or within 120 m of a

Provincial Park or Conservation Reserve. Section 4 and Table 5-1

Identifies if the project location is in or within 50 m of :

ANSI (Earth Science) Section 4 and Table 5-1

Identifies if the project location is in or within 120 m of :



ANSI (Life Science) Section 4 and Table 5-1

Coastal wetland n/a

Northern wetland n/a

Southern wetland Section 4 and Table 5-1

Wildlife habitat Section 4 and Table 5-1

Valleyland (if south or east of the Canadian Shield) Section 4 and Table 5-1

Woodland (if south or east of the Canadian Shield) Section 4 and Table 5-1

Sand barren Section 4 and Table 5-1

Savannah Section 4 and Table 5-1

Tallgrass prairie Section 4 and Table 5-1

Alvars (only in the Natural Heritage System of the

Greenbelt Plan) n/a

Southern wetlands that are not provincially significant Section 4 and Table 5-1

If the project location is Provincial Plan Areas such as the

Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan Area or the

Greenbelt Plan Area (other than in settlement areas of either

plan area).

n/a



2 DEFINITIONS

2.1 Project Location

Project Location is defined in Ontario Regulation 359/09 as follows:

“Project Location” means, when used in relation to a renewable energy project,” a part of land

and all or part of any building or structure in, on or over which a person is engaging in or

proposes to engage in the project and any air space in which a person is engaging in or proposes

to engage in the project” (O. Reg. 359/09, s.1).

Further clarification is offered in Section 3.2 of the Technical Guide to Renewable Energy Approvals

(MOE, 2011):

“This means that activities for all project phases (i.e. the construction, installation, operation and

use, changing or retiring of the facility)...also includes any air space in which a person is

engaging in or proposes to engage in a project."

The Project Location for the Skyway 126 Wind Energy Project encompasses:

turbine foundation and tower

the area or volume through which the turbine blades pass (i.e. its swept area or volume)

turbine component laydown area and crane pad

roads (both temporary and permanent) and turning radii constructed as part of the project

overhead and underground electrical lines

substation

temporary construction compound(s) and building(s)

any area disturbed during project construction (i.e. the disturbed area)

any area cleared (of trees or scrub) for construction, whether it will be allowed to regenerate

during operations, or will be kept clear during operations (disturbed or cleared area)

The full scope of the Project covered under this Renewable Energy Approval application is described in

the draft Project Description Report (M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd., 2012).

2.2 Natural Heritage Features and Areas

This Records Review is meant to identify any recorded Natural Heritage Features within defined

distances of the Skyway 126 Wind Energy Project Location.

Under Ontario Regulation 359/09, natural features are subject to subsections 25(2), 26 (2), 41 (3) and 43

(2) and are defined as:

“’Natural feature’ means, all or part of, an area of natural and scientific interest (earth science),

an area of natural and scientific interest (life science), a coastal wetland, a northern wetland, a

southern wetland, a valleyland, a wildlife habitat, or a woodland;”



3 METHODOLOGY

REA regulations require that a records search be conducted for provincial parks and conservation

reserves, natural features and ANSIs. Known or potential presence of these features was searched for

using existing records. The following sections detail the classification of these features as it pertains to the

records searches. Details on the records searched are included in Table 3-1, while the results of the

searches are summarized in Section 4.

Natural Heritage features are identified and classified in accordance with Ontario Regulation 359/09 as

amended from January 1, 2011 by Ontario Regulation 521/10, and the Natural Heritage Assessment

Guide for Renewable Energy Projects (OMNR, 2011).

Records were consulted to identify the following natural heritage features and areas surrounding the

Project Location:

Provincial parks;

Conservation reserves;

Areas of natural and scientific interest (ANSIs; earth science, life science);

Wetlands;

Woodlands;

Valleylands; and

Wildlife habitat.

Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) is further described in Sections 4 through 7of the Significant Wildlife

Habitat Technical Guide (SWHTG; OMNR, 2000) and in the SWH Ecoregion 6E Criterion Schedule

(OMNR, 2012). The SWHTG has organized wildlife habitat into four overarching categories:

1. Seasonal concentration areas;

2. Rare vegetation communities or specialized habitats for wildlife;

3. Habitat of species of conservation concern, excluding the habitat of endangered and threatened

species; and

4. Animal movement corridors.

Records relating to water bodies, Species at Risk (SAR), specifically ‘endangered’ and ‘threatened’

species and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) will be addressed in separate reporting processes with the

OMNR. Water bodies are treated under the Water Bodies Assessment Report and the Water Bodies

Impact Assessment Report.

3.1 Records Sources

According to the Natural Heritage Assessment Guide (OMNR, 2011) and O. Reg. 359/09, mandatory

sources to be contacted to obtain records include:

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources;

Federal Government;

Conservation Authority;

Municipal planning authority or local planning board;



Local and upper-tier municipalities;

Local roads boards; and

Local Services Board.

The aforementioned sources, as well as additional sources outlined in Table 6 and Appendix B of the

Natural Heritage Assessment Guide (OMNR, 2011), were contacted or accessed to obtain records

pertaining to Natural Heritage Features within the Project Location. Table 3-1 summarizes the records

searched, the sources used to obtain the records, the information obtained from the source, the date it was

obtained and if applicable, the person contacted to obtain the records.



Table 3-1: Description of record sources searched and associated results

Records Searched Source of Record(s) Information Obtained

Date

Information

Obtained

Contact

MNR NHIC Biodiversity Explorer: Element Occurrence

(Species); Natural Areas

https://www.biodiversityexplorer.mnr.gov.on.ca

/nhicWEB/mainSubmit.do

Lists and describes known species occurrences and natural

features and their locations within and around the Project

Location.

2012-05-24,

2012-07-04

N/A - Online data

LIO Land Information Ontario Data Subscription

Service:

http://www.applio.lrc.gov.on.ca/lids/

Land Information Ontario Make-a-Map:

http://www.lio.ontario.ca/imf-

ows/imf.jsp?site=makeamap_en

Geospatial information pertaining to ANSIs, wetlands and

potential cSWH, for use in maps and Geographic Information

Systems (GIS).

2012-06-05 Christine Bolton

District Offices Midhurst District Office

E-mail correspondence and personal

communication

Provided information on provincially significant wetlands. Email:

2010-11-02;

Meeting:

2011-04-14

Whitney Moore (Renewable

Energy Planning Ecologist)

Suzanne Robinson (Species at

Risk Biologist)

Ontario Parks Park Locator:

http://www.ontarioparks.com/english/ont_map.h

tml

Location of parks in the Project Location. There are no parks

within or that intersect with the Project Area.

2012-07-10 N/A - Online data

Southern Ontario Land

Resource Information

System (SOLRIS)

GIS data layer obtained from MNR MNR SOLRIS Database was used to determine land

classification in the area.


Species at Risk in Ontario

(SARO)

Species at Risk in Ontario List

http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Species/

2ColumnSubPage/276722.html

List of all species at risk in Ontario. 2012-07-09 N/A - Online data

Federal

Government

Agriculture Canada Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada website

www.agr.gc.ca/

No relevant information was found. 2012-07-10 N/A - Online data

Fisheries and Oceans

Canada

Fisheries and Oceans Canada website

www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/index-eng.htm

No relevant information was found. 2012-07-10 N/A - Online data

https://www.biodiversityexplorer.mnr.gov.on.ca/nhicWEB/mainSubmit.do

https://www.biodiversityexplorer.mnr.gov.on.ca/nhicWEB/mainSubmit.do

http://www.applio.lrc.gov.on.ca/lids/

http://www.lio.ontario.ca/imf-ows/imf.jsp?site=makeamap_en

http://www.lio.ontario.ca/imf-ows/imf.jsp?site=makeamap_en

http://www.ontarioparks.com/english/ont_map.html


http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Species/2ColumnSubPage/276722.html

http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Species/2ColumnSubPage/276722.html

http://www.agr.gc.ca/

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/index-eng.htm




Date

Information

Obtained

Contact

Conservation

Authorities

Nottawasaga Valley

Conservation Authority

Email correspondence Consultation in regards to natural features within the Project

Location

2012-03-30 Ian Ockenden (Watershed

Monitoring Specialist)

Municipal

Planning

Authority

Lower-tier Municipality of

Grey Highlands

Email correspondence No response 2012-03-29

(request sent)

Debbie Robertson (Clerk)

Municipality of Grey Highlands Official Plan

(2010)

http://www.greyhighlands.ca/gov.php?pgid=105

(reports and downloads section)

Information regarding land designations including the

locations of identified, wetlands, karst topography, ANSIs,

deer wintering areas, and significant wildlife habitat.

2012-09-24 N/A – Online data

Upper-Tier County of Grey Email correspondence Consultation in regards to natural features within the Project

Location

2012-04-11 Jordan Lee (Planner)

County of Grey Official Plan (2012)

http://www.grey.ca/services/planning-

development/county-of-grey-official-plan/

Information regarding lands and designations within the

county and most importantly the locations of significant

woodlands, ANSIs and provincially significant wetlands.

2012-09-21 N/A – Online data

Grey County GIS http://maps.grey.ca/flex/

Aerial image dates: 2006 and 2010.

Aerial imagery of Project Location and locations of natural

features.


Additional

Sources

Ontario Ministry of

Northern Development and

Mines (Ontario Geological

Survey)

Southern Ontario layers: Surficial Geology;

Physiography

http://www.mndm.gov.on.ca/en/mines-and-

minerals/applications/ogsearth

This website was used to determine the geology of the Project

Location


Atlas of the Breeding Birds

of Ontario

Information compiled by: Bird Studies Canada,

Environment Canada, Ontario Field

Ornithologist, Ontario Ministry of Natural

Resources.

http://www.birdsontario.org/atlas/index.jsp

Historical records of avian species occurring within the UTM

squares that cover the Project Location.


National Audubon Society

Inc.

Audubon’s Annual Christmas Bird Count

Results.

http://netapp.audubon.org/cbcobservation/Obser

vationCircle.aspx

Historical records of avian species observed within the

vicinity of the Project Location. No data has been collected

reasonably close to the project location.


Bird Studies Canada Recent Sightings

http://ebird.ca/sightings.jsp?country=CA&back

Historical records of avian species observed within the

vicinity of the Project Location.


http://www.greyhighlands.ca/gov.php?pgid=105

http://www.grey.ca/services/planning-development/county-of-grey-official-plan/

http://www.grey.ca/services/planning-development/county-of-grey-official-plan/

http://maps.grey.ca/flex/

http://www.mndm.gov.on.ca/en/mines-and-minerals/applications/ogsearth


http://www.birdsontario.org/atlas/index.jsp

http://netapp.audubon.org/cbcobservation/ObservationCircle.aspx


http://ebird.ca/sightings.jsp?country=CA&back=21&lang=EN




Date

Information

Obtained

Contact

eBird Canada =21&lang=EN

Important Bird Areas

Canada

http://www.ibacanada.ca/mapviewer.jsp?lang=E

N

Used to identify important bird areas (e.g. bird

concentration/nesting/migration stop-over) areas near or

within the Project Location.


Ontario Mammal Atlas Species range maps:

http://www.ontarionature.org/discover/resources

/publications.php

A list of mammals that have been recorded near the Project

Location.


Amphibian and Reptile

Atlas

Species range maps:

http://www.ontarionature.org/protect/species/re

ptiles_and_amphibians/index.php

A list of turtles, frogs, snakes and salamanders that have been

recorded near the Location.


Ontario Odonata Atlas Species range maps:

http://nhic.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/nhic/odonates/r

ange_maps.html

A list of the odonata that have been recorded near the project

Location.


Satellite Imagery Google Earth (Image date: 2004)

http://www.google.com/earth/index.html

Website was used to identify vegetation types, roads,

wetlands, streams, lakes, and general topography.

2012-07-04 –

2012-07-23

N/A - Online data

Ontario Basic Mapping

(OBM)

http://www.geographynetwork.ca/website/obm/

viewer.htm

Topographic geospatial data 2012-03-29 N/A - Online data

Aerial Photography Purchased from First Base Solutions. Image

date: 2008.

Used extensively to identify natural features and help

determine potential habitat types in the vicinity of the Project

Location. Also used to identify vegetation types, roads,

wetlands, streams, lakes, and general topography.


http://www.ibacanada.ca/mapviewer.jsp?lang=EN


http://www.ontarionature.org/discover/resources/publications.php


http://www.ontarionature.org/protect/species/reptiles_and_amphibians/index.php


http://nhic.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/nhic/odonates/range_maps.html


http://www.google.com/earth/index.html

http://www.geographynetwork.ca/website/obm/viewer.htm

http://www.geographynetwork.ca/website/obm/viewer.htm

Skyway 126 Wind Energy Natural Heritage Records Review


4 RESULTS

The sources identified within Table 3-1 were searched for information pertaining to natural heritage

features within 120 m of the Project Location. The results of these searches are presented below in the

following subsections:

Provincial parks, conservation reserves and ANSIs (Section 4.1.1);

Wetlands (Section 4.1.2);

Woodlands (Section 4.1.3);

Valleylands (Section 4.1.4); and

Wildlife habitat (Section 4.1.5).

All identified natural heritage features are displayed within Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-2, which shows the

results of all records searched and Figure 4-3 and Figure 4-4, which highlights data specifically obtained

from SOLRIS.



Figure 4-1: Skyway 126 Wind Energy Records Review Map 1 of 2



Figure 4-2: Skyway 126 Wind Energy Records Review Map 2 of 2



Figure 4-3: Skyway 126 Wind Energy SOLRIS Map 1 of 2



Figure 4-4: Skyway 126 Wind Energy SOLRIS Map 2 of 2



4.1.1 Provincial Parks, Conservation Reserves and ANSIs

Records for provincial parks, conservation reserves and ANSIs came from consultation with the district

MNR, discussion with the Nottawasaga Conservation Authority, database searches within the NHIC

website (10x10 UTM squares: 17NJ59, 17NK50 and 17NK60), and from examination of mapping data

(i.e. SOLRIS, OBM, Google Earth, Ontario Parks website and Grey County GIS). No provincial parks or

conservation reserves were identified within 120 m of the Project Location. One ANSI, the Hatherton

Wetlands (Life Science) was identified within 120 m of the Project Location. Table 4-1 summarizes the

results of the NHIC query; many of the records obtained from this search fall outside 120 m of the Project

Location. Features that fall within 120 m of the Project Location are carried forward to the Natural

Heritage Site Investigation Report.

Table 4-1: Conservation reserves and ANSIs identified within and surrounding the Project Location

Natural Area Category Significance

Level:

Location/Centroid

(NAD 83 UTM 17T) Within 120

m of the

Project

Location? Easting Northing

OSPREY WETLANDS,

SOUTH FINGERS Life Science Site Other 553251 4898227 No

SHRIGLEY ESKER Earth Science ANSI Provincial 555211 4898022 No

HATHERTON WETLANDS Life Science ANSI Provincial 552011 4900222 No

HATHERTON WETLANDS

(ESKER SITE) Earth Science ANSI Provincial 552011 4902222

No

OSPREY WETLANDS

CONSERVATION AREA


Area Other 558522 4903823

No

OSPREY WETLANDS,

NORTHEAST CORNER Life Science Site Other 554551 4901941

No

DUNEDIN International Biological

Program site Other 566011 4903322

No

DUNEDIN ESCARPMENT Life Science Site Other 565511 4903222 No

GLEN HURON SOUTHWEST

SWAMP AND ESCARPMENT Life Science ANSI Regional 563011 4909222

No

LAVENDER FALLS Life Science ANSI Provincial 563011 4901722 No

MELTWATER CHANNEL

EAST OF LAVENDER Earth Science Site Other 567511 4902722

No

NOISY RIVER PROVINCIAL

NATURE RESERVE

Provincial Park --

Nature Reserve Other 563864 4901808

No

NOISY VALLEY NEAR

DUNEDIN Earth Science Site Other 565211 4904922

No



4.1.2 Wetlands

Records for provincially significant and unevaluated wetlands came from consultation with the district


website (10 x10 UTM squares: 17NJ59, 17NK50 and 17NK60), and from examination of mapping data

(i.e. LIO, SOLRIS, OBM, FBS aerial image, and Grey County GIS). Four wetlands were identified within

120 m of the Project Location. Table 4-2 summarizes the results of the NHIC query; many of the records

obtained from this search fall outside 120 m of the Project Location. Features that fall within 120 m of the

Project Location are carried forward to the Natural Heritage Site Investigation Report.

Table 4-2: Wetlands identified by NHIC

Natural Area Category Significance

Level:

Location/Centroid

(NAD 83 UTM 17T) Within 120 m

of the Project

Location? Easting Northing

BOLTON WETLAND COMPLEX Wetland Provincial 558811 4898722 No

MELANCTHON #10- WETLAND Wetland Other 550711 4894222 No












HATHERTON WETLAND Wetland Provincial 553211 4900122 No

THE MARSH Wetland Provincial 559011 4905222 YES

LAVENDER SWAMP Wetland Other 568111 4901222 No

Table 4-3 below summarizes the wetland features that will be carried forward to the Natural Heritage

Site Investigation Report. These include features identified by NHIC, as listed above, as well as those

identified by other sources such as the MNR or mapping databases.

Table 4-3: Wetlands identified within 120 m of the Project Location

Unique

ID Description Source

Carried

Forward

to SI

WE01 A component of WO01. Comprised mostly of swamp

with small portions of marsh. Portions of the wetland

have been evaluated (not provincially significant) and

LIO data (2011 and 2012),

SOLRIS (OMNR, 2008); First

Base Solutions (Spring 2008);

YES



Unique


Carried

Forward

to SI

is known as Miscellaneous Melancthon Wetland.

Uncertain whether WE01 is located within 120 m of

Project Location.

OBM (ND); Google Earth

(Google); Grey County GIS.

WE02 A wetland forming part of a larger woodland (WO03)

that mainly consists of swamp with smaller portions of

coniferous and unidentified forest. A portion of the

wetland is provincially significant (The Marsh PSW)

but is located outside of the 120 m Project Location

buffer.

LIO data (2011 and 2012); NVCA

data (ND) SOLRIS (OMNR,

2008); OBM (ND); First Base

Solutions (Spring 2008); Grey

County GIS (2010).

YES

WE03 Provincially significant wetland. Most of this wetland

is a provincially significant area named ‘The Marsh’

(NHIC, 2012).

A swamp wetland that constitutes the larger part of a

woodland (WO03) containing smaller scattered

portions of marsh and deciduous, mixed, coniferous

and unclassified forest type. A NE portion of WE03 is

identified as a deer wintering area, coming within 120

m of the electrical cabling infrastructure. Swamp,

marsh and mixed, coniferous and unclassified forest

fall within 120 m of the project.





County GIS (2010).

YES

WE04 Provincially significant wetland. The wetland is part of

a larger provincially significant wetland complex

named “The Marsh”.

Mostly swamp, connected to smaller portions of

deciduous, coniferous and unclassified forest. Only

swamp and unclassified forest come within 120 m of

the project location.





County GIS (2010).

YES

4.1.3 Woodlands

Records for woodlands came from consultation with the district MNR, database searches within the

NHIC website (10x10 UTM squares: 17NJ59, 17NK50 and 17NK60), and from examination of mapping

data (i.e. SOLRIS, OBM, FBS aerial image, and Grey County GIS). Two woodlands were identified

within 120 m of the Project location. Table 4-4 below summarizes the woodland features that will be

carried forward to the Natural Heritage Site Investigation Report.

Table 4-4: Woodlands identified within 120 m of the Project Location

Unique


Carried

Forward

to SI

WO01 This woodland is considered significant at the municipal level

according to the Grey County Official Plan. This assessment is

based on desktop review of aerial and GIS software and should be

confirmed in field. Additionally, this woodland is connected to a

provincially significant wetland (WE01) and Life Science ANSI,

however neither the PSW or ANSI boundaries come within 120 m

of the Project Location. According to SOLRIS records, the

SOLRIS (OMNR,

2008); OBM (ND);

First Base Solutions

(Spring 2008); Grey

County GIS;

YES



Unique


Carried

Forward

to SI

woodland consists of small portions of deciduous, mixed, and

coniferous forest with some unclassified forest and treed

plantations.

WO03 This woodland is considered significant at the municipal level

according to the Grey County Official Plan. This assessment is

based on desktop review of aerial and GIS software and should be

confirmed in field. Additionally, this woodland is connected to a

provincially significant swamp “The Marsh” wetland (WE03). This

woodland consists of scattered portions of marsh, coniferous,

mixed and unclassified forest, and some tree plantations. All of

these except tree plantations fall within 120 m of the Project

Location. Within this woodland, NHIC has identified a provincially

significant wetland named ‘The Marsh’ (synonymous with ‘Osprey

Wetland’). WO03 is bounded by Grey Road 4 to the N, Grey Road

9 to the S, HWY 124 to the E and Road 63 to the W although, in 2

locations, small sections of the woodland continue on the W side of

Road 63.

SOLRIS (OMNR,

2008); OBM (ND);


(Spring 2008); Grey

County GIS

YES

4.1.4 Valleylands

Records for provincially significant and unevaluated valleylands came from consultation with the district


website (10x10 UTM squares: 17NJ59, 17NK50 and 17NK60), and from examination of mapping data

(i.e. LIO, OBM, and Google Earth). No valleylands were identified within 120 m of the Project location,

but will be carried forward to the Natural Heritage Site Investigation Report.

4.1.5 Significant Wildlife Habitat

The Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (SWHTG; OMNR, 2000) has organized wildlife

habitats into four overarching categories:

1. Seasonal concentration areas;

2. Rare vegetation communities or specialized habitats for wildlife;

3. Habitat of species of conservation concern, excluding the habitat of endangered and threatened

species; and

4. Animal movement corridors.

A search was conducted for significant wildlife habitat either known to occur from existing information

or likely to occur within the Project Location using the criteria and guidelines described in the SWHTG

(OMNR, 2000) and the Significant Wildlife Habitat Ecoregion 6E Criterion Schedule (SWHECS; OMNR

2012). Records for Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) within 120 m of the Project Location were

obtained from consultation with the MNR and the Nottawasaga Conservation Authority, database

searches within the NHIC website (10x10 UTM squares: 17NJ59, 17NK50 and 17NK60), and through

website searches (e.g. Important Bird Areas). One record of SWH, a Deer Winter Congregation Area

(DWCA01), was identified within 120 m of the Project Location. Moreover, all habitats identified within

the SWHTG and SWHECS have been considered in the context of the landscape within which the Project



Location is located. Table 4-5 summarizes candidate significant wildlife habitat that could occur within

the Project Location and the rationale for including or excluding habitat from the Site Investigation stage.



Table 4-5: Candidate significant wildlife habitat that may exist within 120 m of the Project Location

ID Habitat types

Brief Description Results of Records Review

Carried

Forward to

SI?

Seasonal Concentration Areas of Animals

WFS Waterfowl Stopover and Staging Areas

(Terrestrial)

Fields with sheet water during the spring (mid-March to May). Fields

with flooding during spring melt and run-off provide important

invertebrate foraging habitat for migrating waterfowl. Fields with waste

grains do not qualify as SWH.

Aerial imagery shows field areas which may be suitable for

waterfowl stopover should they contain sheet water during the

migratory period.

YES

WFS Waterfowl Stopover and Staging Areas

(Aquatic)

Ponds, marshes, lakes, bays, coastal inlets, and watercourses used

during migration. Sewage treatment ponds and storm water ponds do

not qualify as SWH, but a reservoir managed as large wetland or

pond/lake does. These habitats have an abundant food supply (mostly

aquatic invertebrates and vegetation in shallow water).

Records show two water bodies, one watercourse, and one

marsh falling within 120 m of the project tapline. Presence of

these water bodies and their potential to be WFS (aquatic) will

be assessed during the Site Investigation.

YES

SMS Shorebird Migratory Stopover Areas Shorelines of lakes, rivers, and wetlands, including beach areas, bars

and seasonally flooded shoreline, usually muddy and unvegetated.

Rock groins and other forms of armour rock lakeshore can be used.

No lakes or rivers are located in or within 120 m of the Project

Location. Wetlands are located within 120 m of the project

location will be assessed during site investigation.

YES

RWA Raptor Wintering Area The habitat provides a combination of fields and woodlands that provide

roosting, foraging and resting habitats for wintering raptors. Raptor

wintering sites need to be >20 ha with a combination of forest and

upland. Least disturbed sites, idle/fallow or lightly grazed field/meadow

(>15 ha) with adjacent woodlands.

Records indicate that both woodlands and adjacent upland

habitat exist within 120 m of the Project Location. These

features will be assessed during the Site Investigation to

determine whether candidate Significant Wildlife Habitat

(cSWH) for RWA exists.

YES

BH Bat Hibernacula Site where bats hibernate over winter. Caves and abandoned mines are

often used as hibernacula or swarming sites by bats.

No known hibernacula or abandoned mines identified near the

Project Location (MNDMF, 2008). Project Location has

potential for karst geology. Potential bat hibernacula will be

searched for during the Site Investigation.

YES

BMC Bat Maternity Colonies Most bat species form maternity colonies in cavities or under loose bark

of trees. These trees generally have a large diameter at breast height

(DBH) (≥20 cm), are tall, have a relatively open canopy, and a relatively

large amount of cavities and peeling bark. Areas of high snag density

are generally preferred.

Records indicate that forest may exist within 120 m of the

Project Location. Site Investigation will confirm these areas as

cSWH for BMC.

YES

BMSA Bat Migratory Stopover Area The location and characteristics of stopover habitats are generally

unknown and criteria for significance are currently being determined

(OMNR, 2012).

Unknown, criteria for identification of cSWH outstanding. No



ID Habitat types


Carried

Forward to

SI?

TWA Turtle Wintering Areas Wintering areas are in the same general areas as their core habitat. The

water in wintering areas must be deep enough not to freeze and have

soft mud substrates.

Perry’s Pond adjacent to WE04 is located within 120 m of the

Project Location and may be a potential TWA. Site

Investigation will assess the potential of this water body as

candidate TWA.

YES

SH Snake Hibernacula Hibernation takes place in sites located below the frost line in burrows,

rock crevices, and other natural locations. Areas of broken and fissured

rock are particularly valuable since they provide access to subterranean

sites below the frost line. Other features such as old wells, rock and log

piles, old building foundations, retaining walls, ground hog burrows and

crayfish burrows are examples of hibernation sites. Could exist in

hedgerows where rocks are in piles and have depressed the soils to sink

below the frost line. This can create habitat in which reptiles may

hibernate and overwinter.

Records indicate that karst is possible within the Project

Location. As well, agricultural practices are present in the area

and it is possible that rocks and debris piles exist which may

provide cSWH for SH. Site Investigations will confirm

presence of features that may serve as candidate snake

hibernacula.

YES

CBN Colonial Bird Nesting Sites Banks/sandy slopes (bank or cliff swallows). Shoreline or wetland shrub

thickets or tree colony areas (Egrets and Herons); and open ground near

lakes or large rivers (Gulls and Terns).

Perry’s Pond adjacent to WE04 is located within 120 m of the

Project Location (electrical line). Additionally, most

ecological communities near the project location consist of

swamp and marsh wetland. Therefore, CBN may exist near

the project location and Site Investigations for candidate CBN

habitat will be conducted.

YES

BFMRS Butterfly Migratory Route/Stopover

Areas

Butterfly stopover areas are rare habitats located within 5 km of Lake

Ontario. The habitat is typically a combination of field and forest, and

provides the butterflies with a location to rest prior to their long

migration south. Staging areas usually provide protection from the

elements and are often spits of land or areas with the shortest distance to

cross the Great Lakes. It will be a minimum of 10 ha in size with a

combination of field and forest habitat present, and will be located

within 5 km of Lake Ontario.

As the Project Location is not within 5 km of Lake Ontario, it

does not qualify.

No

LBMS Landbird Migratory Stopover Areas Woodlots need to be >10 ha in size and within 5 km of Lake Ontario.

The best stopover areas have a variety of different habitat types, forest,

grassland and wetland complexes.

As the Project Location is not within 5 km of Lake Ontario, it

does not qualify.

No



ID Habitat types


Carried

Forward to

SI?

WDY Deer Yarding Areas Core wintering areas of many coniferous trees (Pine, Hemlock, Cedar,

Spruce) with conifer canopy cover of more than 60%; may also include

areas of deciduous forest. Land surrounding the core area is usually

agriculture, or mixed or deciduous forest. A core deer yarding area,

however, is predominantly woodland habitat with minor components of

cultural lands. Traditionally used by deer. Absence of barriers to

migration to and from the yard itself. Suitable areas of cover, food and

adjacent natural land.

None were identified by record sources as occurring near the

Project Location. No further Site Investigations for this habitat

are required as the habitat is determined by the MNR.

No

DWCA Deer Winter Congregation Areas Generally woodlots >100 ha of coniferous, deciduous or mixed forest or

swamp. Conifer plantations may also be used. Deer management is an

MNR responsibility; deer winter congregation areas considered

significant are mapped by MNR.

Two DWCAs (Stratum 2) have been identified within WE03

by the MNR (LIO data). One is west of the tapline that

follows Road 63 and does not come within 120 m of the

Project Location. The other (DWCA01) is north of the tapline

along 4th

Line Road and falls within 120 m of the Project

Location. No further studies of this habitat are required as it is

already considered significant.

YES

Rare Vegetation Communities

CFTS Cliffs and Talus Slopes A cliff is vertical to near vertical bedrock greater than 3 m in height. A

talus slope is rock rubble at the base of a cliff made up of coarse rocky

debris. Most occur along the Niagara Escarpment.

None found using topographic maps. As the Project Location

is >5 km from the Niagara Escarpment, and there are no cliffs

on site it is unlikely to qualify. These communities will be

searched for during the Site Investigation.

YES

SB Sand Barren Exposed sand, sparsely vegetated resulting from low moisture, periodic

fires and erosion. They have little soil and the underlying rock can

protrude through the surface. Often found within forests or savannahs.

None identified by record sources.

Site Investigations for SBs near the project location will be

conducted.

YES

ALV Alvars An alvar will be level, mostly unfractured limestone, a patchy mosaic of

bare rock pavement, or shallow substrate over limestone bedrock. The

site will vary between being seasonally dry or inundated with water.

Vegetation cover varies from patchy to barren with <60% tree cover.


Site Investigations for ALVs near the project location will be

conducted.

YES

OGMF Old Growth Forest Relatively undisturbed forests, structurally complex, large proportion of

older trees, contain a wide variety of trees and shrubs in various age

classes. Supports a high diversity of wildlife species.


Site Investigations for OGMFs near the project location will

be conducted.

YES

SAV Savannah Located in open "barren" areas of flat topography and scattered trees.

Trees usually include oaks and hickories. Some dry sites include White


Site Investigations for SAVs near the project location will be

YES



ID Habitat types


Carried

Forward to

SI?

Oak and Eastern Red Cedar. Understory/ground cover composed of

prairie grasses (above), Common Juniper, Round-leaved Dogwood,

Wild Bergamot, etc.

conducted.

TGP Tallgrass Prairie Located in open treeless areas of non-cultivated land. Ground cover

dominated by prairie grasses (Big Bluestem, Indian Grass, Switch

Grass, and Tall Cord Grass). Tree cover <25%.


Site Investigations for TGPs near the project location will be

conducted.

YES

OTH Other Rare Vegetation Communities A provincially rare (S1, S2, and S3) vegetation community type within

Ontario as listed in Appendix M of the SWHTG (OMNR, 2000).

Records obtained from NHIC did not identify any rare

vegetation communities within 120 m of the Project Location.

Site Investigation will identify rare vegetation communities, if

present, within 120 m of the Project Location.

YES

Specialized Habitats for Wildlife

WFN Waterfowl Nesting Area Marshes and swamps are productive wetland habitats often with open

water. Waterfowl nesting area are upland habitats adjacent to wetlands.

The habitat extends 120 m from a wetland (> 0.5 ha) or a cluster of

smaller wetlands.

Since the Project Location is near, and in some areas is within

120 m of, provincially significant swamp and marsh wetland,

Site Investigations for potential WFN habitat near the Project

Location will be conducted.

YES

BEON Bald Eagle and Osprey Nesting,

Foraging and Perching Habitat

Nests are associated with lakes, ponds, rivers or wetlands along forested

shorelines, islands, or on structures over water.

None identified by record sources. Records did identify

provincially significant wetlands which may provide cSWH

for BEON.

YES

WRNH Woodland Raptor Nesting Habitat May be found in all forested Ecosites (woodlands or swamps). All

natural or conifer plantation woodland/forest stands >30 ha with >10 ha

of interior habitat.

No known nests identified by record sources. Records

identified forests within 120 m of the Project Location, which

may provide cSWH for WRNH.

YES

TNH Turtle Nesting Habitat Sandy or gravel stream banks and culverts may be used by turtles as

nesting habitat.

Mad River and Perry’s pond are two water bodies identified

from record sources that likely fall within 120 m of the project

location. These may harbor suitable TNH. Surveys of these

sites and other water bodies identified during the Site

Investigation will be surveyed for candidate TNH.

YES

SP Seeps and Springs Seeps and springs are areas where ground water comes to the surface.

Often they are found within headwater areas within forested habitats.

Any forested ecosite within the headwater areas of a stream could have

seeps/springs.

Based on OBM and SOLRIS maps, WE03 contains streams

and there are three locations where a stream crosses the

proposed project tapline. Therefore, existence of seeps and/or

springs within 120 m of the project location is possible. Site

Investigations to identify candidate SPs near the project

location will be conducted.

YES



ID Habitat types


Carried

Forward to

SI?

ABH Amphibian Breeding Habitat

(Woodland and Wetland)

Wetlands, lakes, ponds or pools. These may be present within woodland

or wetland habitat. Water bodies and wetlands may be permanent,

seasonal, ephemeral, large or small in size, and could be located within

or adjacent to the woodland. Woodlands with permanent ponds or those

containing water in most years until mid-July are more likely to be used

as breeding habitat. The best ponds are unpolluted with a variety of

vegetation structure in and around the pond.

Given the proximity of the project to two large wetlands

(WE01 and WE03), Perry’s Pond and Mad River, which all

come within 120 m of the project in some areas, presence of

ABH is likely.

Site Investigations to identify candidate ABHs near the project


YES

Habitat for Species of Conservation Concern

MBB Marsh Breeding Bird Habitat All wetland habitat may be used as a breeding area for marsh birds,

provided presence of shallow water with emergent vegetation.

The identification of wetlands within 120 m of the project,

particularly Perry’s pond and one marsh (part of WE03) along

the northern tapline, suggests that MBB habitat is possible,

provided wetlands maintain standing water through the

breeding season (until early summer).

Site Investigations will be conducted to confirm the presence

of candidate MBB habitat near the project location.

YES

ASBB Woodland Area-Sensitive Bird

Breeding Habitat

Interior (≥200 m from the forest edge) of large, mature (>60 years)

forest stands or woodlots >30 ha. Presence of breeding woodland area-

sensitive bird species.

None identified by record sources. A number of common and

indicator species have been identified in the Atlas of the

Breeding Birds of Ontario.

Site Investigations will be conducted for ASBB near the

Project Location.

YES

OCBB Open Country Bird Breeding Habitat

Large grassland areas (>30 ha), may be pasture, fallow or hayfield and

provide grassland bird breeding habitat. Does not include Class 1 and

Class 2 agricultural land and land being actively used for farming.

None identified by record sources. A number of common and

indicator species have been identified in the Atlas of the

Breeding Birds of Ontario.

Site Investigations will be conducted for open agricultural

fields and grassland areas >30 ha in size and not being

actively used for farming.

YES

ESBB Shrub/Early Successional Bird

Breeding Habitat

Large older field areas succeeding to shrub and thicket habitats. Larger

shrub thicket habitats (>30ha) are most likely to support and sustain a

diversity of listed species.


Site Investigations will be conducted for shrubland or

successional fields >30 ha and which are not actively being

used for farming.

YES

SCC Special Concern and Rare Wildlife

Species

All special concern, S1-S3 and SH species See Table 4-6 for species potentially present near or within

the Project Location. YES



ID Habitat types


Carried

Forward to

SI?

Surveys will be conducted to identify presence or absence of

these species and their habitat near the project location.

TC Terrestrial Crayfish Habitat Terrestrial crayfish may construct burrows on the edges of shallow

marshes, or moist open areas.

None identified by record sources. Site Investigations for

suitable habitat and evidence of terrestrial crayfish (burrows,

physical presence) near the Project Location will be

conducted.

YES

Animal Movement Corridors

AMC Amphibian Movement Corridors Hedgerows, vegetated corridors along watercourses that could provide

potential linkages between two or more significant wildlife habitats.


Site Investigations for AMCs near the project location will be

conducted.

YES

DMC Deer Movement Corridors Paths used by deer to access deer wintering habitat. Typically follow

riparian areas, woodlots, ravines or ridges.

One winter deer congregation area (WDCA) is known to exist

within 120 m of the Project Location. Therefore, there may

also be associated DMCs that enter the project setback

distance. Site Investigations for DMCs near the project


YES



4.1.6 Species of Conservation Concern

Record searches were conducted for species of conservation concern (S1-S3 and/or Special Concern)

within 10 km by 10 km UTM squares 17NK50, 17NJ59, and 17NK60. Records were obtained through

discussions with the district MNR, consultation with the Nottawasaga Conservation Authority, database

searches of the NHIC website. The results of atlas searches for the Project Location can be found in

Appendix B. It was determined that five species of conservation concern may exist within the Project

Location (See Table 4-6).



Table 4-6: Species of Conservation Concern Previously Identified Within or Near the Project Location

Latin Name Common Name COSEWIC SARO S-rank G-

rank

UTM

Square(s)/

Distance

Habitat Description

Wilsonia Canadensis Canada Warbler THR SC S4B G5

17NK50,

17NJ59,

17NK60

Deciduous and coniferous forest, often wet, with a

dense shrub layer.

Vermivora

chrysoptera

Golden-winged

Warbler THR SC S4B G5

17NK50,

17NK60

Early successional vegetation; field edges, hydro

right-of-ways or recently logged areas.

Melanerpes

erythrocephalus

Red-headed

Woodpecker THR SC S4B G5 17NK50

Open woodland and woodland edges, especially

oak savannah and riparian forest with a high

density of dead trees.

Ophiogomphus

carolus Riffle Snaketail

S2S3 G5 17NJ59

Inhabit fast flowing streams with bottom sediment

of fine gravel and sand. Nymphs burrow in the

bottom sediment of streams. Adults will be found

in fields and forest clearings in late May until July.

Asplenium

scolopendrium var.

americanum

Hart's-tongue Fern SC SC S3 G4T3 17NK50,

17NK60

Found on damp crevices and on mossy, rocky

outcrops on slopes that face north to northeast

Moist dolostone usually on bedrock in the shade of

upland deciduous forest or in rocky ravines.

Occasionally found close to streams and waterfalls.



5 CONCLUSION

In summary, the Records Review of all sources specified in Section 25 of the REA rules resulted in seven

natural heritage features being identified, all of which will be carried over for further discussion in the

Natural Heritage Site Investigation Report and include :

four wetlands (one of which is considered provincially significant);

two woodlands;

one Deer Winter Congregation Area (DWCA01).

In addition to the features that were identified at the Records Review stage, significant wildlife habitat

that has the potential to occur within the project location as outlined the SWHTG and SWHECS for

Ecoregion 6E will be explored during the Site Investigation. Wetlands will be fully investigated. Note that

fish habitat and water bodies will be investigated and reported on in the Water Body Assessment Report

and the Water Body Impact Assessment Report,, which is handled under a separate process with the

Ministry of the Environment.

The Natural Heritage Site Investigation Report and Natural Heritage Evaluation of Significance Reports

discuss the investigation and evaluation where applicable to the features shown in Table 5-1: Summary of

the Results of the Natural Heritage Assessment Records Review 5-1 as well as, any additional natural

heritage features identified during Site Investigations that were not identified during the Records Review.

Some of the features listed in Table 5-1 consist of overlapping features, for example a wooded area may

also qualify as a wetland and two separate records may refer to the same wetland.

Table 5-1: Summary of the Results of the Natural Heritage Assessment Records Review

Feature ID Reference Significance

Location Relative

to Project

Number

carried

forward

to SI Within

Within

120 m

Natural Features query for 10 x 10 km squares 17NJ59, 17NK50 and 17NK60

Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves/Areas

OSPREY WETLANDS

CONSERVATION AREA

NHIC(2012), OBM (ND) Other No No

0 NOISY RIVER PROVINCIAL

NATURE RESERVE

NHIC(2012) Other No No

ANSI – Life Science

HATHERTON WETLANDS NHIC(2012), LIO (2011

and 2012) Provincial No No

0

GLEN HURON SOUTHWEST

SWAMP AND ESCARPMENT

NHIC(2012) Regional No No

LAVENDER FALLS NHIC(2012) Provincial No No

ANSI – Earth Science

SHRIGLEY ESKER NHIC(2012) Provincial No No

0 HATHERTON WETLANDS

(ESKER SITE)

NHIC(2012), LIO (2011

and 2012) Provincial No No

Valleylands

None identified within or near the Project Location (Carried Forward to Site Investigation)

Wetlands

BOLTON WETLAND COMPLEX NHIC(2012) Provincial No No




Location Relative

to Project

Number

carried

forward

to SI Within

Within

120 m

MELANCTHON #10- WETLAND NHIC(2012) Other No No

4












LAVENDER SWAMP NHIC(2012) Other No No

WE01 LIO (2011 and 2012);

SOLRIS (OMNR, 2008);


(Spring 2008); OBM

(ND); Google Earth

(Google); Grey County

GIS

Provincial No Yes

WE02 (portions of which contain

THE MARSH PSW)

LIO (2011 and 2012);



(Spring 2008); OBM

(ND); Google Earth


GIS

Portion

Provincial No Yes

WE03 (THE MARSH PSW) NHIC(2012); LIO (2011

and 2012); SOLRIS

(OMNR, 2008); First

Base Solutions (Spring

2008); OBM (ND);

Google Earth (Google);

Grey County GIS

Provincial No Yes

WE04 LIO (2011 and 2012),



(Spring 2008); OBM

(ND); Google Earth


GIS

Unknown No Yes

Woodlands

WO01 SOLRIS (OMNR, 2008);


(Spring 2008); OBM

(ND); Google Earth


GIS

Municipal Yes Yes

2

WO03 SOLRIS (OMNR, 2008);


(Spring 2008); OBM

Municipal No Yes




Location Relative

to Project

Number

carried

forward

to SI Within

Within

120 m

(ND); Google Earth


GIS

Specialized Habitats for Wildlife


Rare Vegetation Communities


Habitats of Seasonal Concentrations of Animals

DWCA01 LIO (2012) Yes, in

context of

Natural

Heritage

Assessment

No Yes 1

Habitat for Species of Conservation Concern

Multiple species of conservation concern are reported as potentially occurring within the study area See Table 4-6:

Species of Conservation Concern Previously Identified Within or Near the Project Location (Carried Forward to

Site Investigation).

Animal Movement Corridors


Provincial Plan Areas

None identified within or near the Project Location



6 QUALIFICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS

M. K. Ince & Associates Ltd. (MKI) has prepared this report in accordance with its proposal and

information provided by its Client. The information and analysis contained herein is for the sole benefit of

the Client and save for regulatory review purposes may not be relied upon by any other person.

MKI’s assessment was made in accordance with guidelines, regulations and procedures believed to be

current at this time. Changes in guidelines, regulations and enforcement policies can occur at any time

and such changes could affect the conclusions and recommendations of this report.

The reports, maps and related documents may rely on information provided to MKI by the Client. This

information may include but is not limited to turbine manufacturer and construction specifications (e.g.

turning radius, hub height, rotor diameter) and other related information. Maps are created using a

Geographic Information System (GIS) that compiles records, information, and data from various sources

which may contain errors. While we have referred to and made use of reports, maps and geospatial data

and specifications prepared by others, we assume no liability for the accuracy of the information

contained within.

Maps and documents made available by MKI are not legal surveys and are not intended to be used as

such. No original surveying is included as part of these maps. If any contradictions exist between this

document and relevant municipal, provincial or federal laws, regulations, codes, or policies, the text of the

laws, regulations, codes or policies will be the legal authority.



7 LITERATURE CITED

Cadman, Michael D., Donald A. Sutherland, Gregor G. Beck, Denis Lepage, Andrew R. Couturier

(2007). Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario. Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario

Field Ornithologist, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Nature. Website:

http://www.birdsontario.org/atlas/index.jsp [Accessed May 24, 2012]

County of Grey. 2011. County of Grey web mapping (GIS). Website:

http://gis.greycounty.ca/NetApp/%28jbsqtomv3hoodp45ir20kf55%29/Default.aspx?Application=PLA

N [Accessed July 12, 2012].

Dobbyn, J. 1994. Atlas of the Mammals of Ontario. Federation of Ontario Naturalists. Don Mills,

Ontario.Website: http://www.ontarionature.org/discover/resources/publications.php [Accessed July 6,

2012]

eBird. 2012. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. eBird,

Ithaca, New York. Website: http://www.ebird.org [Accessed July 6 2012].

Environment Canada Canadian Wildlife Service. 2007. Recommended protocols for monitoring impacts

of wind turbines on birds. Website: http://www.ec.gc.ca/Publications/C8CE090E-9F69-4080-8D47-

0622E115A4FF%5CCWSWindTurbineAndBirdsMonitoringGuide2007.pdf [Accessed July 10, 2012].

First Base Solutions. 2008. Orthophotograph of Project Location and surrounding area. Photo dated

Spring 2008.

Google Earth. 2011. Google Earth satellite imagery date May 8, 2004/ October 7, 2010 [accessed July 04

– July 23, 2012]

Important Bird Areas Canada. 2000-2012. Map of important bird areas. Bird Studies Canada, Nature

Canada, © IBA Canada 2000-2012. Website: http://www.ibacanada.ca/mapviewer.jsp?lang=EN

[Accessed July 11, 2012].

Land Information Ontario (LIO) data. Produced by M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. under License with the

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources; Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2011

National Audubon Society. 2011. The 112th Christmas Bird Count. Website:

http://netapp.audubon.org/cbcobservation/ObservationCircle.aspx [Accessed July 6, 2012].

Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC), 2011. Biodiversity Explorer, Natural Areas Data. Website:

http://nhic.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/nhic/nhic_old.cfm. [accessed May 24 and July 04, 2012]

Ontario Base Mapping data. Produced by M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. under Licence with the Ontario

Ministry of Natural Resources © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2008.

Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. 2005. Provincial Policy Statement issued under

Section 3 of the Planning Act and came into effect on March 1, 2005.


http://www.ebird.org/

http://www.ec.gc.ca/Publications/C8CE090E-9F69-4080-8D47-0622E115A4FF%5CCWSWindTurbineAndBirdsMonitoringGuide2007.pdf

http://www.ec.gc.ca/Publications/C8CE090E-9F69-4080-8D47-0622E115A4FF%5CCWSWindTurbineAndBirdsMonitoringGuide2007.pdf





Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. 2012. Ontario Geological Survey (OGS). OGS

Earth 2 [Google Earth Layer]. © Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2012. Website:

http://www.mndm.gov.on.ca/en/mines-and-minerals/applications/ogsearth [Accessed June 5, 2012].

Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. 2008. Search Abandoned Mines. © Queen’s

Printer for Ontario, 2012. Website: http://www.geologyontario.mndm.gov.on.ca/ [Accessed July4,

2012].

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2002. Ontario Odonata Atlas. Website:

http://nhic.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/nhic/odonates/range_maps.html [Accessed July 9, 2012].

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2011a. Land Information Ontario website – geographic

information for mapping purposes. Website: http://lioapp.lrc.gov.on.ca/edwin/edwin.asp [accessed

June 5, 2012]

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2011. Bat and Bat Habitat: Guidelines for Wind Power

Projects.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2011c. MNR Species at Risk Website. Website:

http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Species/index.html [accessed July 9, 2012]

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2011. Birds and Bird Habitats: Guidelines for Wind

Power Projects.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2008. Southern Ontario Land Resource Information

System (SOLRIS) Land Use Data. Toronto Ontario.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2009. Significant Wildlife Habitat Ecoregion 6E

Criteria Schedules (SWHECS)– Addendum to Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide.

Ontario Nature. 2011. Ontario’s Reptile and Amphibian Atlas. Website:

http://www.ontarionature.org/protect/species/reptiles_and_amphibians/index.php [Accessed July 9,

2012].

Ontario Parks. 2012. Park Locator. Website: http://www.ontarioparks.com/english/ont_map.html.

[Accessed July 10, 2012].

Royal Ontario Museum. Species at Risk. Royal Ontario Museum, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.

Website: http://www.rom.on.ca/ontario/risk.php [Accessed Jul7 16, 2012].

Service Ontario. 2009. Ontario Regulation 359/09 made under the Environmental Protection Act 2009,

Renewable Energy Approvals under Part V.0.1. of the Act. September 8, 2009 version. Printed in the

Ontario Gazette: October 10, 2009.

Service Ontario. 2010. Ontario Regulation 521/10 made under the Environmental Protection Act 2007,

Renewable Energy Approvals under Part V.0.1. of the Act. January 8, 2011 version. Printed in the

Ontario Gazette: January 8, 2011.


http://www.geologyontario.mndm.gov.on.ca/


http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Species/index.html



http://www.rom.on.ca/ontario/risk.php


M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. Appendix December 21, 2012

APPENDIX A - CURRICULUM VITAE

Daniel Stuart, B.Sc.

M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd.

www.mkince.ca 11 Cross Street, Dundas, Ontario, L9H 2R3 Tel (905) 628-0077

BIOGRAPHY

Daniel Stuart is a Renewable Energy Biologist for M.K. Ince and Associates. He is a graduate of the University of Guelph with an Honours Bachelor of Science degree in the field of Ecology. Daniel’s background includes academic research involving the study of both flora and fauna for the University of Guelph as well as mitigation, monitoring and assessment work for the consulting industry. His work experience has contributed to equal proficiency in both field and office settings. Daniel has considerable knowledge of species identification and the dynamics of ecological communities in Ontario. These skills are particularly valuable to the REA Application process. He holds MNR certifications in Ecological Land Classification and the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System, and has attended training sessions detailing the Natural Heritage Assessment process and the identification and evaluation of bat maternity roosting habitat. He is an active member of the Field Botanists of Ontario. Along with his avid botany pursuits, Daniel is an enthusiastic hiker and traveler. His outdoor interests have brought him to the American southwest, western Europe, New Zealand, southeast Asia, and Nepal. These experiences have instilled in him a respect for the natural world, and a belief that the development of renewable energy sources is essential for the future of our natural environment.

EXPERIENCE

Field work involving vascular plants, small mammals, avifauna, herpetofauna, Lepidoptera, and Chiroptera, often in remote areas and in all weather conditions.

MNR certifications in Ecological Land Classification and the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System.

Site investigation design and field study design to assess significance of natural heritage features.

Synthesis of information necessary for the writing of pre-construction reports for commercial-scale wind energy projects, design and writing of NHA, Species at Risk, and Water Body Assessment reports.

Cultural awareness experience with First Nations communities in Ontario.

EDUCATION

B.Sc., Honours, Ecology, University of Guelph, 2010

AFFILIATIONS

Field Botanists of Ontario, member

Friends of the Wildlife Research Station, Algonquin Park

PROJECT EXPERIENCE

ZEP Wind Farm Ganaraska, Whispering Woods Wind Farm, Wind Farm Collie Hill, Grey Highlands ZEP Wind Park, Grey Highlands Clean Energy, Skyway 126 Wind Energy, Skyway 125 Wind Farm, Clean Breeze Centreton Wind Park, Clean Breeze Grafton Wind Farm, Snowy Ridge Wind Park, Settlers Landing Wind Park, Bow Lake Phase 1 and Phase 2 Wind Farms – REA Application Process

Organization and implementation of biological field studies for all projects listed above

PRIOR WORK / VOLUNTEER EXPERIENCE

LGL Limited. Detroit River International Crossing: Mitigation and monitoring for large-scale ecological restoration project

LGL Limited. Former Camp Ipperwash: Transect surveys observing for floral Species at Risk in Ontario

University of Guelph. Small Mammal Research: Participation in long-term population study of small mammals in Algonquin Park

University of Guelph Herbarium. Assistant to the Curator: Mounting, repairing, and filing of vascular plant specimens into the University of Guelph collection

Erin Jaggard, M.Sc.


BIOGRAPHY Erin Jaggard is a Renewable Energy Analyst for M.K. Ince and Associates. Erin recently completed her Master of Science in Physical Geography at Queen’s University. Her research focused on land-use change following the establishment of switchgrass as a bioenergy feedstock in southeastern Ontario. She continues to work on papers for publication specifically on biogeochemistry and alternative valuation techniques to support the emergence of conservation bioenergy crops. During Erin’s studies she was concurrently involved with local energy initiatives in the Kingston area. She worked with Lafarge, Bath Plant on their Cement 2020 alternative energy project to assess renewable energy sources for industrial use. She established field trials for bioenergy crops and evaluated them utilizing geospatial analysis and life cycle assessment protocols. With the FABRECC laboratory she conducted greenhouse gas emission studies in partnership with OMAFRA for bioenergy crops. Prior to returning to school Erin spent many years working in the forestry sector. Over the years, she has managed field operation amounting to the planting of over five million trees in northern Ontario. She has also provided additional silviculture services to a variety of stakeholders. Erin’s work in numerous terrestrial systems in conjunction with her excellence in project management and dedication towards alternative energy initiatives has given her the skills to provide services in the renewable energy approvals process. Her past experiences make her an asset to MKI in both field and office settings. When Erin is not working she can be found walking her dog in the great outdoors and taking deep yogi breaths. EXPERIENCE

Over five years of experience working in natural resource management, with extensive integration of provincial land-use legislation and ISO 14000 series standards

Field experience in a variety of terrestrial systems including agricultural and forestry settings; ELC certified

Experience with the public consultation process and community energy conferences

Experience with data management and analysis, systems modelling, report writing

Awards for academic excellence, written reports and presentations

EDUCATION

Master of Science, Physical Geography, Queen’s University, 2012

Bachelor of Science, Environmental Science, Queen’s University, 2006

AFFILIATIONS

Member of SWITCH – sustainable energy network for eastern Ontario

Pursuing P. Ag. designation PROJECT EXPERIENCE

ZEP Wind Farm Ganaraska, Wind Farm Collie Hill, Grey Highlands ZEP Wind Park, Grey Highlands Clean Energy, Clean Breeze Centreton Wind Park, Snowy Ridge Wind Park, Settler’s Landing Wind Park, and UDI Port Ryerse – REA Process

Organization and management of biological field studies for projects listed above


Queen’s Institute for Energy and Environmental Policy Research Assistant

Lafarge, Bath Plant, Cement 2020 Alternative Energy Project, Researcher

FABRECC laboratory, Research Assistant - emphasis on pedology, forestry, and agricultural projects

A&M Reforestation, Project Manager - silviculture projects for Domtar, Tembec, Buchanan, and Green Forest

Volunteer Instructor for Kingston Field Naturalist Junior Program

Joel Wynn Jameson, M.Sc.


BIOGRAPHY Joel Jameson is a Renewable Energy Biologist – Bat Specialist for M.K. Ince and Associates. He has a Bachelor (Honours) degree in Zoology from the University of Manitoba and a Masters degree in Biology from the University of Winnipeg. Joel has worked on ecological projects in California, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. His work has resulted in 4 peer-reviewed publications and a number of non-peer-reviewed papers, reports, and presentations, most of these on bats. During his masters, Joel designed, implemented and oversaw various research projects to understand and quantify impacts of wind energy on wildlife, especially bats. In addition to a strong background in research, Joel has worked on a number of pre-construction impact assessments of wind energy for private companies. His proficiency with a broad range of bat monitoring tools and techniques results in efficient and effective completion of REA application processes related to bats. His recent experiences with MKI have provided him with the skills to execute most REA Natural Heritage Assessment processes (e.g. Records Review, wildlife habitat surveys pertaining to the Site Investigation process, and amphibian, reptile, bat, and some bird surveys pertaining to the Evaluation of Significance process). Joel has recently adopted an enthusiasm for birds which he is developing into a skill he can apply to the REA process. He enjoys hiking, fishing and rock climbing. EXPERIENCE

Over 9 years of experience conducting biological field work in remote locations and in all weather conditions

Study design, permit and grant applications

Writing of pre-construction reports for commercial-scale wind energy projects.

Data analysis using a variety of software including GIS, SAS, Sonobat and Avisoft.

Oral presentations

Co-ordination and supervision of field researchers

EDUCATION

B.Sc.Zoology, University of Manitoba, 2007

M.Sc. Biology, University of Winnipeg, 2011

PROJECT EXPERIENCE

Bow Lake Wind Farm Phase 1

Port Ryerse Wind Farm

Skyway 125 Wind Energy Project

Skyway 126 Wind Energy Project


Monitoring bats using Passive Integrated Transponder technology to understand the movement of White Nose Syndrome among bat populations (volunteer).

Statistical analysis of a complex data set investigating the behaviour of bats afflicted with White Nose Syndrome

Designed, conducted and managed large-scale acoustic and mortality surveys for bats at communication towers and at a wind energy facility.

Recorded and studied the echolocation calls of bats at maternity colonies in Georgian Bay, ON. Excluded bats from cottages.

Small mammal surveys for a large-scale biodiversity project in Lake Tahoe, CA.

Yves Scholten, H.B.Sc.

Terrestrial/Wetland Ecologist

BIOGRAPHY

Yves Scholten is a Biologist with a strong background in Terrestrial Ecology. He joined M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. (MKI) in the spring of 2011 and is presently involved in ELC, wetland assessments, and wildlife habitat surveys as part of pre-construction Environmental Assessment, Natural Heritage reporting and the new REA processes for over a dozen commercial scale wind power projects in Ontario.

Since joining MKI, Yves has been involved in all aspects of the development and implementation of Natural Heritage Assessments, surveying for wind energy projects across Ontario. Tasks ranged from the development of survey protocols to the coordination of field biologists, participation in public consultations and the logistics of handling multiple projects with large and complex data sets. Most recently he has been involved in the analysis, research and writing of natural heritage reports for numerous projects and the development of new and improved designs for future projects based on the continuously evolving knowledge base being developed for the REA process.

Before joining M.K.I., Yves completed a Bachelor of Science at the University of Toronto, with majors in Biology and Environmental Science, including research papers, which developed his research skills, speaking and technical writing abilities. Following the completion of his degree, he has worked for the Ontario Ministry of Health conducting environmental microbiological assays, the Universities of McMaster and Toronto in a joint seabird population ecology study, and assisted with zooplankton population research in central and southern Ontario lakes for the University of Toronto’s Aquatic Ecology lab. These various aspects of Biology together with work on numerous projects in ELC, wetland assessment (OWES), botany, and wildlife surveys have helped Yves hone a broad perspective and deep passion in ecological assessments. When he has spare time, Yves likes to get out on the water using the wind to power a sailboat on Lake Simcoe, the Great Lakes or the Atlantic. EXPERIENCE

Laboratory and field research experience in Ontario ministries and

university zoology departments.

Ornithology, avian ecology and behavioural studies including

biometrics, bird banding and radio-telemetry tracking.

Terrestrial and wetland ecology experience in ELC, EA, wildlife

habitat and wetland assessments in 14 central and southern

Ontario counties/municipalities.

Data analysis and writing of pre-construction natural heritage

survey reports for fifteen commercial-scale wind energy projects.

Vascular plant, avian, herpetofaunal, mammal (including bats) and

arthropod species identification and survey protocols.

Participation in Public Consultation meetings.

EDUCATION

B.Sc.(hons.) in Biology and Environmental Science, University of Toronto, 1994.

PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATIONS & AFFILIATIONS

Water Management and Wetland Restoration Certification (WMWRC), OMNR/Univ. of Guelph, 2012

Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES), 2011

Principles of Ecological Land Classification (ELC), 2010

Ontario Field Ornithologists

Hamilton Naturalists’ Club

Bird Studies Canada

Head of the Lake Land Trust – Sanctuary Land Steward

Lone Pine Marsh Sanctuary Land Trust

Field Botanists of Ontario PROJECT EXPERIENCE

Natural Heritage surveys, ELC, Wetland Assessments, wildlife studies, ecological consultation and REA reporting for fifteen Ontario Wind Energy projects.

Yarmouth ELC Surveyor, Catfish Creek Cons. Auth.

Terrestrial Ecologist, Byng Island Vegetation Survey, Grand River Conservation Auth.

Terrestrial Biologist, Earthquest Environmental Consultants. ELC and SAR surveys.

Seabird Population Ecology, Univ’s. of Toronto and McMaster, ecological studies on Herring Gulls and Caspian Terns.


Environmental Microbiology, Ontario Ministry of Health

Aquatic Ecology Technician, University of Toronto

Bird Bander (Passerines), Ruthven Bird Observatory, Haldimand ON



APPENDIX B - SPECIES ATLAS DATA



APPENDIX B-1 - ATLAS OF THE BREEDING BIRDS OF ONTARIO

UTM

Square

Species Recorded Within

UTM squares 17NJ59,

17NK50, 17NK60

Categ UTM

Square


UTM squares 17NJ59,

17NK50, 17NK60

Categ

17NK50 Canada Goose CONF 17NK50 Mourning Dove PROB

17NK50 Wood Duck PROB 17NK50 Black-billed Cuckoo POSS

17NK50 Mallard PROB 17NK50 Eastern Screech-Owl POSS

17NK50 Blue-winged Teal POSS 17NK50 Great Horned Owl POSS

17NK50 Ruffed Grouse POSS 17NK50 Ruby-throated Hummingbird POSS

17NK50 Wild Turkey CONF 17NK50 Belted Kingfisher POSS

17NK50 Common Loon PROB 17NK50 Red-headed Woodpecker POSS

17NK50 Pied-billed Grebe PROB 17NK50 Yellow-bellied Sapsucker POSS

17NK50 American Bittern PROB 17NK50 Downy Woodpecker POSS

17NK50 Turkey Vulture POSS 17NK50 Hairy Woodpecker POSS

17NK50 Northern Harrier POSS 17NK50 Northern Flicker PROB

17NK50 Sharp-shinned Hawk PROB 17NK50 Pileated Woodpecker POSS

17NK50 Red-tailed Hawk POSS 17NK50 Eastern Wood-Pewee PROB

17NK50 American Kestrel PROB 17NK50 Alder Flycatcher PROB

17NK50 Virginia Rail POSS 17NK50 Willow Flycatcher PROB

17NK50 Killdeer CONF 17NK50 Least Flycatcher PROB

17NK50 Rock Pigeon PROB 17NK50 Eastern Phoebe CONF

17NK50 Common Snipe PROB 17NK50 Great Crested Flycatcher PROB

17NK50 American Woodcock POSS 17NK50 Eastern Kingbird PROB

17NK50 Blue-headed Vireo POSS 17NK50 Hermit Thrush PROB

17NK50 Warbling Vireo PROB 17NK50 Wood Thrush POSS

17NK50 Red-eyed Vireo PROB 17NK50 American Robin CONF

17NK50 Blue Jay CONF 17NK50 Gray Catbird PROB

17NK50 American Crow PROB 17NK50 Brown Thrasher CONF

17NK50 Common Raven POSS 17NK50 European Starling CONF

17NK50 Horned Lark PROB 17NK50 Cedar Waxwing PROB

17NK50 Tree Swallow CONF 17NK50 Golden-winged Warbler POSS

17NK50 Northern Rough-winged

Swallow POSS 17NK50 Nashville Warbler CONF

17NK50 Bank Swallow CONF 17NK50 Yellow Warbler PROB

17NK50 Cliff Swallow CONF 17NK50 Chestnut-sided Warbler PROB

17NK50 Barn Swallow CONF 17NK50 Magnolia Warbler PROB

17NK50 Black-capped Chickadee CONF 17NK50 Black-throated Blue Warbler PROB

17NK50 Red-breasted Nuthatch PROB 17NK50 Yellow-rumped Warbler CONF

17NK50 White-breasted Nuthatch POSS 17NK50 Black-throated Green Warbler PROB

17NK50 Brown Creeper POSS 17NK50 Blackburnian Warbler POSS

17NK50 House Wren PROB 17NK50 Pine Warbler PROB

17NK50 Winter Wren PROB 17NK50 Black-and-white Warbler PROB



UTM

Square


UTM squares 17NJ59,

17NK50, 17NK60

Categ UTM

Square


UTM squares 17NJ59,

17NK50, 17NK60

Categ

17NK50 Sedge Wren PROB 17NK50 American Redstart PROB

17NK50 Golden-crowned Kinglet POSS 17NK50 Ovenbird PROB

17NK50 Eastern Bluebird CONF 17NK50 Northern Waterthrush PROB

17NK50 Veery PROB 17NK50 Mourning Warbler PROB

17NK50 Common Yellowthroat PROB 17NK50 American Goldfinch PROB

17NK50 Canada Warbler PROB 17NK50 House Sparrow CONF

17NK50 Eastern Towhee POSS 17NJ59 Canada Goose CONF

17NK50 Chipping Sparrow CONF 17NJ59 Mallard PROB

17NK50 Field Sparrow PROB 17NJ59 Wild Turkey CONF

17NK50 Vesper Sparrow POSS 17NJ59 American Bittern POSS

17NK50 Savannah Sparrow CONF 17NJ59 Great Blue Heron POSS

17NK50 Grasshopper Sparrow POSS 17NJ59 Turkey Vulture PROB

17NK50 Henslow's Sparrow PROB 17NJ59 Northern Harrier POSS

17NK50 Song Sparrow CONF 17NJ59 Sharp-shinned Hawk POSS

17NK50 Swamp Sparrow PROB 17NJ59 Cooper's Hawk PROB

17NK50 White-throated Sparrow PROB 17NJ59 Red-tailed Hawk PROB

17NK50 Dark-eyed Junco POSS 17NJ59 American Kestrel PROB

17NK50 Rose-breasted Grosbeak PROB 17NJ59 Sora PROB

17NK50 Indigo Bunting PROB 17NJ59 Killdeer PROB

17NK50 Bobolink CONF 17NJ59 Rock Pigeon PROB

17NK50 Red-winged Blackbird CONF 17NJ59 Spotted Sandpiper CONF

17NK50 Eastern Meadowlark PROB 17NJ59 Common Snipe PROB

17NK50 Common Grackle CONF 17NJ59 Mourning Dove PROB

17NK50 Brown-headed Cowbird PROB 17NJ59 Black-billed Cuckoo CONF

17NK50 Baltimore Oriole CONF 17NJ59 Eastern Screech-Owl POSS

17NK50 Purple Finch POSS 17NJ59 Ruby-throated Hummingbird POSS

17NK50 House Finch POSS 17NJ59 Belted Kingfisher PROB

17NJ59 Red-bellied Woodpecker POSS 17NJ59 Barn Swallow CONF

17NJ59 Yellow-bellied Sapsucker CONF 17NJ59 Black-capped Chickadee CONF

17NJ59 Downy Woodpecker POSS 17NJ59 Red-breasted Nuthatch CONF

17NJ59 Hairy Woodpecker CONF 17NJ59 House Wren PROB

17NJ59 Northern Flicker PROB 17NJ59 Common Grackle CONF

17NJ59 Pileated Woodpecker POSS 17NJ59 Brown-headed Cowbird PROB

17NJ59 Eastern Wood-Pewee PROB 17NJ59 Baltimore Oriole POSS

17NJ59 Alder Flycatcher PROB 17NJ59 Purple Finch POSS

17NJ59 Least Flycatcher POSS 17NJ59 American Goldfinch PROB

17NJ59 Eastern Phoebe CONF 17NJ59 Winter Wren POSS

17NJ59 Great Crested Flycatcher PROB 17NJ59 Golden-crowned Kinglet POSS

17NJ59 Eastern Kingbird CONF 17NJ59 Eastern Bluebird PROB



UTM

Square


UTM squares 17NJ59,

17NK50, 17NK60

Categ UTM

Square


UTM squares 17NJ59,

17NK50, 17NK60

Categ

17NJ59 Yellow-throated Vireo POSS 17NJ59 Veery POSS

17NJ59 Blue-headed Vireo PROB 17NJ59 Wood Thrush CONF

17NJ59 Warbling Vireo POSS 17NJ59 American Robin CONF

17NJ59 Red-eyed Vireo PROB 17NJ59 Gray Catbird POSS

17NJ59 Blue Jay PROB 17NJ59 Brown Thrasher PROB

17NJ59 American Crow CONF 17NJ59 European Starling CONF

17NJ59 Common Raven CONF 17NJ59 Cedar Waxwing CONF

17NJ59 Horned Lark POSS 17NJ59 Nashville Warbler PROB

17NJ59 Tree Swallow CONF 17NJ59 Yellow Warbler POSS

17NJ59 Bank Swallow CONF 17NJ59 Chestnut-sided Warbler POSS

17NJ59 Cliff Swallow CONF 17NJ59 Magnolia Warbler POSS

17NJ59 Ovenbird PROB 17NJ59 Yellow-rumped Warbler PROB

17NJ59 Northern Waterthrush POSS 17NJ59 Black-throated Green Warbler POSS

17NJ59 Mourning Warbler POSS 17NJ59 Pine Warbler PROB

17NJ59 Common Yellowthroat PROB 17NJ59 Black-and-white Warbler POSS

17NJ59 Canada Warbler POSS 17NJ59 American Redstart PROB

17NJ59 Chipping Sparrow CONF 17NJ59 House Sparrow CONF

17NJ59 Vesper Sparrow POSS 17NK60 Canada Goose CONF

17NJ59 Savannah Sparrow CONF 17NK60 Mallard PROB

17NJ59 Song Sparrow CONF 17NK60 Ruffed Grouse POSS

17NJ59 Swamp Sparrow CONF 17NK60 Wild Turkey POSS

17NJ59 White-throated Sparrow CONF 17NK60 Great Blue Heron POSS

17NJ59 Scarlet Tanager POSS 17NK60 Turkey Vulture POSS

17NJ59 Rose-breasted Grosbeak PROB 17NK60 Northern Harrier POSS

17NJ59 Indigo Bunting POSS 17NK60 Sharp-shinned Hawk POSS

17NJ59 Dickcissel PROB 17NK60 Cooper's Hawk POSS

17NJ59 Bobolink CONF 17NK60 Northern Goshawk CONF

17NJ59 Red-winged Blackbird CONF 17NK60 Red-tailed Hawk POSS

17NJ59 Eastern Meadowlark PROB 17NK60 Killdeer CONF

17NK60 Rock Pigeon POSS 17NK60 Black/Yellow-billed Cuckoo POSS

17NK60 Spotted Sandpiper PROB 17NK60 Black-billed Cuckoo PROB

17NK60 Upland Sandpiper PROB 17NK60 Eastern Screech-Owl POSS

17NK60 Common Snipe POSS 17NK60 Ruby-throated Hummingbird PROB

17NK60 Mourning Dove PROB 17NK60 Belted Kingfisher POSS

17NK60 Yellow-bellied Sapsucker POSS 17NK60 Barn Swallow POSS

17NK60 Downy Woodpecker POSS 17NK60 Black-capped Chickadee POSS

17NK60 Hairy Woodpecker PROB 17NK60 Red-breasted Nuthatch POSS

17NK60 Northern Flicker CONF 17NK60 White-breasted Nuthatch POSS

17NK60 Pileated Woodpecker PROB 17NK60 Brown Creeper POSS



UTM

Square


UTM squares 17NJ59,

17NK50, 17NK60

Categ UTM

Square


UTM squares 17NJ59,

17NK50, 17NK60

Categ

17NK60 Eastern Wood-Pewee POSS 17NK60 House Wren POSS

17NK60 Alder Flycatcher POSS 17NK60 Winter Wren POSS

17NK60 Willow Flycatcher POSS 17NK60 Eastern Bluebird CONF

17NK60 Least Flycatcher POSS 17NK60 Veery POSS

17NK60 Eastern Phoebe CONF 17NK60 Hermit Thrush POSS

17NK60 Great Crested Flycatcher POSS 17NK60 Wood Thrush PROB

17NK60 Eastern Kingbird PROB 17NK60 American Robin CONF

17NK60 Blue-headed Vireo POSS 17NK60 Gray Catbird POSS

17NK60 Warbling Vireo POSS 17NK60 Brown Thrasher POSS

17NK60 Red-eyed Vireo PROB 17NK60 European Starling CONF

17NK60 Blue Jay PROB 17NK60 Cedar Waxwing POSS

17NK60 American Crow PROB 17NK60 Blue or Golden-winged Warbler POSS

17NK60 Common Raven CONF 17NK60 Nashville Warbler POSS

17NK60 Horned Lark POSS 17NK60 Yellow Warbler PROB

17NK60 Tree Swallow CONF 17NK60 Chestnut-sided Warbler POSS

17NK60 Northern Rough-winged

Swallow CONF 17NK60 Black-throated Blue Warbler POSS

17NK60 Bank Swallow POSS 17NK60 Yellow-rumped Warbler POSS

17NK60 Black-throated Green Warbler POSS 17NK60 Red-winged Blackbird PROB

17NK60 Pine Warbler POSS 17NK60 Eastern Meadowlark POSS

17NK60 Black-and-white Warbler POSS 17NK60 Common Grackle CONF

17NK60 American Redstart POSS 17NK60 Brown-headed Cowbird PROB

17NK60 Ovenbird PROB 17NK60 Baltimore Oriole PROB

17NK60 Northern Waterthrush POSS 17NK60 House Finch PROB

17NK60 Mourning Warbler POSS 17NK60 American Goldfinch PROB

17NK60 Common Yellowthroat PROB 17NK60 House Sparrow CONF

17NK60 Eastern Towhee POSS 17NK60 Swamp Sparrow POSS

17NK60 Canada Warbler POSS 17NK60 White-throated Sparrow POSS

17NK60 Chipping Sparrow POSS 17NK60 Scarlet Tanager POSS

17NK60 Clay-colored Sparrow POSS 17NK60 Northern Cardinal PROB

17NK60 Field Sparrow POSS 17NK60 Rose-breasted Grosbeak PROB

17NK60 Vesper Sparrow POSS 17NK60 Indigo Bunting PROB

17NK60 Savannah Sparrow POSS 17NK60 Bobolink PROB

17NK60 Song Sparrow CONF



APPENDIX B-2 - ATLAS OF THE MAMMALS OF ONTARIO


Approx. 30km of the Project

Date Recorded

pre-1900 1900-1969 1970-1993

Eastern small-footed bat

Little brown bat

Northern long-eared bat

Big brown bat

Coyote

Red fox

Grey fox

Raccoon

Ermine

Mink

Striped skunk

River otter

Wapiti

White-tailed deer

Opossum

Eastern cottontail

Snowshoe hare

European hare

Eastern chipmunk

Woodchuck

Gray squirrel

Gray squirrel black phase

Gray squirrel gray phase

Red squirrel

Northern flying squirrel

Beaver

Meadow vole

Muskrat

Norway rat

Woodland jumping mouse

Porcupine

Smokey shrew

Northern short-tailed shrew

Star-nosed mole



APPENDIX B-3 - ATLAS OF THE REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS OF

ONTARIO Species Recorded Within


Date Recorded

pre-1992 1992-present

Snapping turtle

Dekay's brownsnake

Eastern gardersnake

Eastern Massasauga

Milksnake

Northern ribbonsnake

Northern watersnake

Red-bellied snake

Smooth greensnake

Eastern newt

Eastern red-backed salamander

Mudpuppy

Spotted salamander

American bullfrog

American toad

Gray treefrog

Green frog

Mink frog

Northern leopard frog

Pickerel frog

Spring peeper

Western chorus frog

Wood frog



APPENDIX B-4 - ATLAS OF THE ODONATA OF ONTARIO SEARCH

RESULTS Species Recorded Within


Date Recorded

post-1983 pre-1984

River jewelwing

Ebony jewelwing

Lestes congener

Northern spreadwing

Emerald spreadwing

Elegant spreadwing

Slender spreadwing

Lyre-tipped spreadwing

Eastern red damsel

Violet dancer

Powdered dancer

Azure bluet

Boreal bluet

Tule bluet

Familiar bluet

Northern bluet

Northern/Vernal bluet

Marsh bluet

Stream bluet

Hagen's bluet

Fragile forktail

Eastern forktail

Sedge sprite

Canada darner

Lance-tipped darner

Lance-tipped darner

Lake darner

Variable (interrupted) darner

Black-tipped darner

Shadow darner

Common green darner

Ocellated darner

Fawn darner

Riffle snaketail

Zebra clubtail

Twin-spotted spiketail





Date Recorded

post-1983 pre-1984

American emerald

Beaverpond baskettail

Common baskettail

Spiny baskettail

Ocellated emerald

Williamson's emerald

Eastern pondhawk

Belted whiteface

Widow skimmer

Twelve-spotted skimmer

Common whitetail

Saffron-bordered meadowhawk

Cherry-faced meadowhawk

White-faced meadowhawk

Band-winged meadowhawk

Autumn meadowhawk



APPENDIX C - AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE

On 11/2/2010 2:21 PM, Moore, Whitney (MNR) wrote: Good Morning Andrea, I think there may have been some miscommunication on MNR’s part during our teleconference. Although the Ministry is able to provide advice or expertise on specific questions related to any confusion on our technical guides (OWES, SWHTG or NHRM) the Natural Heritage Assessment (NHA) is a proponent driven process and it is the responsibility of the proponent to review existing records, consult with agencies and be consistent with the REA regulation requirements and the Ministry’s technical guidelines. The Ministry of Natural Resources’ Species at Risk data is available through the Biodiversity explorer on the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) website. It is recommended you use the biodiversity explorer to obtain the Ministry’s Species at Risk records. Species at Risk include endangered and threatened species as well as species of special concern that can be considered significant wildlife habitat. Midhurst District has reviewed all other records and have offered the following comments:

1. We have no known occurrences of Redside Dace in the Mad River nor are we aware of any

known spawning locations for Redside Dace in the project area or directly downstream as we do not have that level of detail in the District. Our Redside Dace records occur in the Upper Saugeen and in Meux Creek. The Upper Saugeen however, does connect to the Mad River in the area of the Osprey Wetland and as a result, due diligence would be required. 2. We do not have any additional records for the project area beyond what is found in the NHIC

database. For the remainder of your questions, the Ministry of Natural Resources data for provincially significant natural heritage features (ANSI and PSW’s) are available through Land Information Ontario (LIO). LIO also contains the Ministry’s records for deer yards in Ontario. Beyond PSW’s, ANSI’s and possible deer yard records the Ministry does not have data concerning natural heritage features. It is recommended that you send the MNR the finalized preliminary records review and District staff can undertake a review of the information already provided by other sources (i.e. LIO, NHIC) and identify any missing information. It is further advised that all distances from known natural heritage features be clearly marked. The NHA is a proponent driven process and unfortunately the Ministry has no specific technical guide to provide any advice on search methodologies for successfully finding the species you have identified. It is the responsibility of the proponent to have qualified individuals determine the appropriate methodologies to be utilized for the investigations and evaluations required for the NHA’s. If you have any further questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me by phone or email.

Have a great day!

Whitney Moore

Renewable Energy Planning Ecologist Midhurst District

tel: 705-725-7560

fax: 705-725-7584

tel:705-725-7560

tel:705-725-7584

Project Title Report Title

M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. 1 Month dd, yyyy

Subject: RE: Skyway 126 Wind Farm: Natural Heritage Feature Query

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 10:47:03 -0400

From: Ian Ockenden <[email protected]>

To: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected]

<[email protected]>

Hello,

We are not data rich in your study area but I'll provide you what we have. If

you require the actual data for the benthic macroinvertebrates and NVCA

regulated wetlands you will need to get the attached data sharing agreement

signed.

Fisheries:

The northern watercourse in your study area is the main Mad River very close

to its headwaters. This area is classified as high-quality coldwater fish

habitat in our Fisheries Management Plan. Fish records from June 1998 found

juvenile Brook Trout, as well as juvenile Largemouth Bass in the watercourse.

The southern watercourses in you study area are tributaries of the Noisy

River in close proximity to the headwaters of the Noisy River proper. This

area is also classified as high-quality coldwater fish habitat in our

Fisheries Management Plan. Fish records From 1961-1998 have continually

found YOY, juvenile and adult Brook Trout throughout the main Noisy River,

but we have no records along the tributaries in your study area.

Baseflow:

We have insufficient data on flows in the tributaries in your study area.

Until proven otherwise, the NVCA considers all map watercourses to be active

flowing systems. Proper seasonal observations following the protocols

established in the Evaluation, Classification and Management of Headwater

Drainage Features: Interim Guidelines (CVC and TRCA, 2009) would need to be

followed to satisfy the NVCA of the non-existence of a watercourse. It is

understood that these requirements go beyond the requirements of the Green

Energy Act, but they would be required as part of our permitting process.

Benthic Macroinvertebrates:

We have two data points from 2000 and 2007 on the Noisy R at CR 124 that

indicate high-quality "unimpaired" water quality. Our nearest benthic

station on the Mad R was collected in 1998 and 2007 at the easternmost

crossing of Centre Line B, they also indicate high-quality "unimpaired" water

quality.

Natural Heritage:

We have limited data in this area and no natural heritage system has been

implemented in the vicinity of your study area.

Wetlands:

You appear to have the PSWs mapped. Our regulated wetlands in the study area

cover a greater area than the PSWs. This layer can be sent to you upon

completion of the data sharing agreement.

Forests:



We have no data on significant forests as surveys were never completed. This

doesn't mean there aren't forest features of significance.

Valleys:

We have no data on significant valley features as surveys were not completed.

This doesn't mean there aren't valley features of significance.

As a final point for your consideration, large portions of your study area

are regulated by the NVCA. I believe mapping showing our regulated areas is

available off our website. I don't personally deal with this realm of our

work so I'm not the best person to ask questions. Contact Patrick Townes,

Barbara Perreault or Kristin Nyborg in our office with regulations questions.

Ian

Ian Ockenden | Watershed Monitoring Specialist | Nottawasaga Valley


8195 8th Line | Utopia, Ontario LOM 1T0 | (705) 424-1479 x234 |

[email protected] | þwww.nvca.on.ca

This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the

intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged

information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified

that any dissemination, distribution, disclosure, or copying of this

communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. Please contact

the sender and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you.

Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really

need to.

-----Original Message-----

From: Barbra Perreault

Sent: March 29, 2012 9:06 AM

To: Kristin Nyborg; Dave Featherstone; Ian Ockenden

Subject: Fw: Skyway 126 Wind Farm: Natural Heritage Feature Query

Please respond

----- Original Message -----

From: Genevieve Brown <[email protected]>

To: Leslie Rich

Cc: Karla Klein <[email protected]>

Sent: Thu Mar 29 09:01:49 2012

Subject: Skyway 126 Wind Farm: Natural Heritage Feature Query

Dear Leslie Rich,

Please find attached a formal request for information regarding natural

heritage features located at or near the Skyway 126 Wind Farm in the

Municipality of Grey Highlands.

Please be in touch with any questions or concerns.

We thank you in advance for your assistance with this matter.

Regards,



Genevieve Brown

--

Genevieve Brown


11 Cross St., Dundas, ON L9H 2R3

Phone: 905-628-0077

Fax: 905-628-1329

Email:[email protected]

http://www.mkince.ca

Data Sharing Disclaimer.pdf

173K View Download

Grey Highlands ZEP #307a, Skyway 126 #307b, Grey Highlands Clean Energy #105, Skyway 125

Page 1 of 2

MKI/Midhurst District MNR

Minutes April 14, 2011

12:45-1:45

Type of Meeting: NHA Consultation

Invitees: Whitney Moore, Renewable Energy Planning Ecologist

Suzanne Robinson, Species at Risk Biologist

Andrea McDowell, Environmental Assessment Manager, MKI

Christine Homuth, GIS Specialist, MKI

Prepared by: Andrea McDowell

(Action Items)

Renewable Energy Approval NH Work

1) Project Backgrounds

a) Grey Highlands ZEP & Skyway 126 have recently changed hands, and this has

altered the project layout for each

b) Skyway 125 is a new project. MKI provided Whitney Moore with a map of the

acquired lands to begin the review process.

2) Site Investigations

i) Amphibian breeding areas

(1) General approach as described by MKI appears to be good

ii) Unevaluated wetlands

(1) Are cables within existing road allowances considered to be “within” or

“outside” of the wetlands on either side of the road? i.e., Can Appendix C

be used to evaluate those wetlands?

(2) Whitney believes so, but will check and get back to MKI

iii) Rare plants

(1) Plants should be surveyed for at the appropriate time of year

(2) If MKI wants to assume the presence of a species based on the existence

of the appropriate habitat type, MNR will expect the maximum level of

protection to apply in the EIS

(3) As much detail as possible should be provided for the rationale either way

iv) Snake Hibernaculum (do man-made rock piles count?)

Page 2 of 2

Z:\Projects\300 ZEP\308 Skyway 126 REA 10MW - aka Cloudy Ridge\Consultation Report (Correspondence)\Agency Correspondence\midhurst mnr minutes 2011-04-14.docx

(1) Depends on the age of the man-made structure. The newer it is, the less

likely it is to provide quality habitat. If the rock pile has naturalized, it

should be evaluated.

3) Reporting

a) Make sure to include the checklists to facilitate the review

b) Be concise: use tables and bullet points wherever possible

c) Note what criteria were used for the evaluation of significance and where they

came from

d) A typical review of a complete NHA report submission takes about six weeks

4) New Project: Skyway 125

a) MNR will take a look at the map while MKI completes the Records Review

report draft

Species at Risk Report

1) Bobolink

a) Suzanne provided MKI with a draft of the Bobolink survey methodology

proposed by MNR

b) Begin by producing a map of suitable habitats

i) Generally hayfield, depends on nutrient levels (ie type of hay and method of

cultivation)

c) What crop was planted when the species was observed in the area? Is it still there?

d) MNR recommends an additional survey

e) Presence of bobolink could affect siting of turbines & equipment; otherwise,

turbines in hayfields may require ESA authorizations

f) Suzanne will check to see if additional surveys have been required for other

projects

g) There is now a five-month service guarantee for ESA applications with a

complete submission

2) Suzanne identifies least bittern, loggerhead shrike, redside dace and heartstrung fern

as other potential SAR in the project areas.

a) Hognose snake, grey fox & thistle are not likely to be present

b) Potential for listed turtle species. Be sure to check.

c) If American ginseng is found in the project areas, this information should be kept

out of the reports as it is considered sensitive

d) Check newest version of breeding bird SAR list as it is frequently updated

Date post:	21-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

Proposed 10 MW Wind Farm - Zero Emission...

Documents