Otter Creek Wind Farm Site Investigation Report draft for discussion

Otter Creek Wind Farm LP

Otter Creek Wind Farm Site Investigation Report

draft for discussion

Prepared by:

AECOM

105 Commerce Valley Drive West, Floor 7 905 886 7022 tel

Markham, ON, Canada L3T 7W3 905 886 9494 fax

www.aecom.com

October, 2016 Project Number: 60504082


Otter Creek Wind Farm

Site Investigation Report

B1_02_Site Investigation (25.10.2016)

Statement of Qualifications and Limitations

The attached Report (the “Report”) has been prepared by AECOM Canada Ltd. (“AECOM”) for the benefit of the Client (“Client”) in

accordance with the agreement between AECOM and Client, including the scope of work detailed therein (the “Agreement”).

The information, data, recommendations and conclusions contained in the Report (collectively, the “Information”):

is subject to the scope, schedule, and other constraints and limitations in the Agreement and the qualifications

contained in the Report (the “Limitations”);

represents AECOM’s professional judgement in light of the Limitations and industry standards for the preparation of

similar reports;

may be based on information provided to AECOM which has not been independently verified;

has not been updated since the date of issuance of the Report and its accuracy is limited to the time period and

circumstances in which it was collected, processed, made or issued;

must be read as a whole and sections thereof should not be read out of such context;

was prepared for the specific purposes described in the Report and the Agreement; and

in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, may be based on limited testing and on the

assumption that such conditions are uniform and not variable either geographically or over time.

AECOM shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness of information that was provided to it and has no

obligation to update such information. AECOM accepts no responsibility for any events or circumstances that may have

occurred since the date on which the Report was prepared and, in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical

conditions, is not responsible for any variability in such conditions, geographically or over time.

AECOM agrees that the Report represents its professional judgement as described above and that the Information has been

prepared for the specific purpose and use described in the Report and the Agreement, but AECOM makes no other

representations, or any guarantees or warranties whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to the Report, the

Information or any part thereof.

Except (1) as agreed to in writing by AECOM and Client; (2) as required by-law; or (3) to the extent used by governmental

reviewing agencies for the purpose of obtaining permits or approvals, the Report and the Information may be used and relied

upon only by Client.

AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to parties other than Client who may obtain access to the

Report or the Information for any injury, loss or damage suffered by such parties arising from their use of, reliance upon, or

decisions or actions based on the Report or any of the Information (“improper use of the Report”), except to the extent those

parties have obtained the prior written consent of AECOM to use and rely upon the Report and the Information. Any injury, loss

or damages arising from improper use of the Report shall be borne by the party making such use.

This Statement of Qualifications and Limitations is attached to and forms part of the Report and any use of the Report is subject

to the terms hereof.

AECOM: 2015-04-13

© 2009-2015 AECOM Canada Ltd. All Rights Reserved.





Authors

Report Prepared By:

Julie Ellis, H.B.Sc.

Terrestrial Ecologist

Report Reviewed By:

Jessica M. Ward, Ph.D.

Senior Ecologist

Mark van der Woerd, MES, EP

Senior Project Manager





Table of Contents

page

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

1.1 Project Boundary and Location .......................................................................................... 1

2. Methods ...................................................................................................... 4

2.1 REA Requirements ............................................................................................................ 4

2.2 Site Investigation Methodology Overview ........................................................................... 4

2.3 Ecological Land Classification (ELC) and Vascular Plant Surveys ..................................... 4

2.4 Alternative Site Investigation .............................................................................................. 5

2.5 Wetlands ............................................................................................................................ 6

2.6 Woodlands ......................................................................................................................... 6

2.7 Wildlife Habitat ................................................................................................................... 6

2.7.1 Bat Habitat Assessment Surveys ........................................................................... 7

3. Results ...................................................................................................... 13

3.1 Vegetation Communities .................................................................................................. 13

3.2 Vascular Plant Inventory .................................................................................................. 13

3.3 Wetlands .......................................................................................................................... 37

3.4 Woodlands ....................................................................................................................... 37

3.5 Wildlife Habitat ................................................................................................................. 40

3.5.1 Seasonal Concentration Areas of Animals ........................................................... 40

3.5.1.1 Waterfowl Stopover and Staging Areas: Terrestrial and Aquatic ...................... 40 3.5.1.2 Shorebird Migratory Stopover Areas ................................................................. 45 3.5.1.3 Raptor Wintering Areas ..................................................................................... 45 3.5.1.4 Bat Hibernacula ................................................................................................. 45 3.5.1.5 Bat Maternity Colonies ...................................................................................... 45 3.5.1.6 Turtle Wintering Areas ....................................................................................... 46 3.5.1.7 Reptile Hibernacula ........................................................................................... 46 3.5.1.8 Colonially-Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat (Bank and Cliff Swallows) ................ 46 3.5.1.9 Colonially-Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat (Tree/Shrubs) ................................... 48 3.5.1.10 Colonially-Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat (Ground) ........................................... 48

3.5.2 Rare Vegetation Communities .............................................................................. 49

3.5.2.1 Other Rare Vegetation Communities ................................................................ 49

3.5.3 Specialized Habitats for Wildlife ........................................................................... 50

3.5.3.1 Waterfowl Nesting Areas ................................................................................... 50 3.5.3.2 Bald Eagle and Osprey Nesting, Foraging and Perching Habitat ..................... 50 3.5.3.3 Woodland Raptor Nesting Habitat ..................................................................... 51 3.5.3.4 Turtle Nesting Areas .......................................................................................... 51 3.5.3.5 Seeps and Springs ............................................................................................ 52 3.5.3.6 Amphibian Breeding Habitat (Woodland and Wetland) ..................................... 52 3.5.3.7 Woodland Area-Sensitive Bird Breeding Habitat............................................... 53

3.5.4 Habitat for Species of Conservation Concern (not including Threatened or Endangered Species) ........................................................................................... 53

3.5.4.1 Marsh Bird Breeding Habitat ............................................................................. 53





3.5.4.2 Open Country Bird Breeding Habitat ................................................................. 54 3.5.4.3 Shrub/Early Successional Bird Breeding Habitat .............................................. 54 3.5.4.4 Terrestrial Crayfish ............................................................................................ 54

3.5.5 Species of Conservation Concern Identified through the Records Review – Special Concern and Rare Wildlife ....................................................................... 55

3.5.5.1 SOCC Birds ....................................................................................................... 55 3.5.5.2 SOCC Insects .................................................................................................... 56 3.5.5.3 SOCC Plants ..................................................................................................... 57 3.5.5.4 SOCC Reptiles .................................................................................................. 58

3.5.6 Animal Movement Corridors ................................................................................. 59

3.5.6.1 Amphibian Corridors .......................................................................................... 59

3.6 Summary of Candidate Significant Wildlife Habitats Carried Forward to Evaluation of Significance ..................................................................................................................... 59

4. References ................................................................................................ 60

List of Figures

Figure 1: Project Boundary and Identified Natural Features ................................................................................ 3

Figure 2: (2A – 2T) Key Map and Ecological Land Classification within the Area of Investigation .................... 14

Figure 3: Wetlands .............................................................................................................................................. 38

Figure 4: Woodlands ........................................................................................................................................... 39

Figure 5: (5A – 5C) Significant Wildlife Habitat .................................................................................................. 41

List of Tables

Table 2-1: Alternative Site Investigations ............................................................................................................... 5

Table 2-2: Summary of Criteria and Methods Used to Identify Each type of Candidate Significant

Wildlife Habitat ....................................................................................................................................... 8

Table 3-1: Vegetation Communities Identified In the Area of Investigation ......................................................... 35

Table 3-2: Woodland Features found within the Area of Investigation ................................................................. 37

Table 3-3: Terrestrial and Aquatic Waterfowl Stopover and Staging Areas ......................................................... 44

Table 3-4: Turtle Wintering Areas ......................................................................................................................... 47

Table 3-5: Colonially-Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat (Bank and Cliff Swallows) .................................................. 48

Table 3-6: Provincial Rankings of Vegetation Communities Identified through the Site Investigation ................. 49

Table 3-7: Amphibian Breeding Habitat (Woodland and Wetland) ....................................................................... 53

Table 3-8: Historical Records of Plant SOCC ....................................................................................................... 58

Table 3-9: Summary of Natural Features Carried Forward to the EOS ............................................................... 59





Appendices

Appendix A. Site Investigation Field Notes

Appendix B. Qualifications

Appendix C. Vascular Plant List

Appendix D. Otter Creek Wind Farm Waterfowl Stopover & Staging and Amphibian Breeding Habitat Site

Investigations and Evaluation of Significance Surveys. (NRSI, 2016)

Appendix E. Incidental Wildlife Observations

List of Acronyms and Glossary

AOI ............ Area of Investigation

ELC ........... Ecological Land Classification

NHA ........... Natural Heritage Assessment

REA ........... Renewable Energy Approval

RoW .......... Rights-of-Way

SWH .......... Significant Wildlife Habitat

SWHTG ..... Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide

SOCC ........ Species of Conservation Concern




B1_02_Site Investigation (25.10.2016) 1

1. Introduction

The Otter Creek Wind Farm (the Project) is being proposed by Otter Creek Wind Farm Limited Partnership (Otter

Creek), a partnership of Renewable Energy Systems Canada (RES Canada) and Boralex Inc. In close proximity to

the Project is Walpole Island First Nation who is a participant of this project. The Project is also grateful to have

received support from the Municipality of Chatham-Kent which has been granted an option to participate in the

Project.

The Project has been proposed in response to the Government of Ontario’s plan to integrate more renewable

energy into the province’s power grid. This Site Investigation Report was prepared in accordance with the

requirements of the Renewable Energy Approval (REA) process outlined in Ontario Regulation (O. Reg.) 359/09,

as amended, and the Natural Heritage Assessment Guide for Renewable Energy Projects (MNRF, 2012).

The Project’s nameplate capacity is up to 50 megawatts (MW) and the wind farm will consist of up to 12 turbines.

The proposed turbine for the Project is the Enercon E-141 with a nameplate capacity of up to 4.2 MW. With a

nameplate capacity of up to 50 MW, the Project is categorized as a Class 4 wind facility and will be in compliance

with the requirements outlined for such facilities.

1.1 Project Boundary and Location

Otter Creek is proposing to develop a wind energy project located north of the community of Wallaceburg in the

Municipality of Chatham-Kent, Ontario. The location of the Project was determined based on interest expressed by

local landowners, municipal support for the Project, the availability of wind resources, and the availability of existing

infrastructure to facilitate a connection to the electrical grid.

The Project Boundary is generally bounded by Whitebread Line and Kent Line to the north, Payne Road to the

west, Stewart Line and McCreary Line to the south and Mandaumin Road / County Road 44 to the east (refer to

Figure 1). The Project Boundary represents the wider area that was considered for the siting of project

infrastructure. The following co-ordinates define corners of the external limits of the Project Boundary:

Longitude (Degrees North) Latitude (Degrees West)

-82.468736 42.631227

-82.245325 42.626739

-82.246385 42.601952

-82.469707 42.606686

The Project Boundary encompasses approximately 4,600 hectares (11,400 acres) of land that is predominantly

designated for agricultural use according to the Municipality of Chatham-Kent’s Official Plan (2016). The Project

Boundary also consists of fragmented areas of forest and riparian habitat associated with the Sydenham River,

which bisects the Project flowing in a north-south direction, as well as other small creeks and/or farm drains.

Under O. Reg. 359/09, as amended, the Project Location is “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”. As described therein, the Project Location

boundary is the outer limit of where site preparation and construction activities will occur (i.e., disturbance areas

described below) and where permanent infrastructure will be located, including the air space occupied by turbine

blades.





To provide flexibility while designing and constructing the location of Project infrastructure, only the locations of

turbines and collector lines (including associated infrastructure such as junction boxes) within public RoW have

been identified within the Project Location / Construction Disturbance Area; therefore, with the exception of turbines

and collector lines within the RoW, the most conservative approach was taken for the purposes of the NHA by

assuming that any other type of infrastructure could be located in the remaining Project Location / Construction

Disturbance Area (Figure 1).

For the purposes of completing this Natural Heritage Assessment, a 50 m Area of Investigation for collector lines

located within public rights-of-way (RoW) and a 120 m Area of Investigation for all other infrastructure types were

applied to the Project Location. These distances are based on the requirements of O. Reg. 359/09 and the Natural

Heritage Assessment Guide for Renewable Energy Projects (MNRF, 2012). The Area of Investigation

encompasses the Project Location and an additional 50 m or 120 m surrounding the Project Location / Construction

Disturbance Area, measured from the Project Location / Construction Disturbance Area boundary as described

above. Going forward, areas in or within 50 m of the collector line within public RoW as well as areas in or within

120 m of turbines and all other infrastructure will be referred to as the Area of Investigation. As part of the REA

process, features located within the Area of Investigation must be investigated and evaluated to determine whether

they are significant or provincially significant, in order to ascertain whether development prohibitions apply as per

O. Reg. 359/09 and the Natural Heritage Assessment Guide for Renewable Energy Projects (MNRF, 201),

hereafter referred to as the Natural Heritage Assessment Guide.





Figure 1: Project Boundary and Identified Natural Features





2. Methods

2.1 REA Requirements

This Site Investigation report was prepared in accordance with O. Reg. 359/09 and the Natural Heritage Assessment

Guide.

Information collected during the Records Review was used to guide the Site Investigations. The presence and

boundaries of features identified during the Records Review were confirmed, and any changes are noted in this

report. Any additional features not identified through the Records Review but identified through the Site

Investigations as occurring within the Area of Investigation are also described below.

2.2 Site Investigation Methodology Overview

Site investigations were conducted for features within the Area of Investigation. In order to facilitate Site

Investigation data collection and reporting, “natural areas” were identified and their boundaries delineated as

natural areas (e.g., comprised of woodland, wetland, successional vegetation communities, or a combination

thereof) that were either contiguous or in close proximity to one another. Each natural area was assigned a unique

identifier. Survey data were later analyzed to identify natural features (i.e., woodlands, wetlands, Significant Wildlife

Habitat (SWH)), as required by O. Reg. 359/09.

Natural features within the Area of Investigation identified through the Records Review were assessed to determine

their composition, form and function. No corrections to the Records Review were identified during the Site

Investigations. The following sections describe the methods used to conduct the Site Investigation. Appendix A

contains detailed Site Investigation field notes (including dates, start and end times, field investigators and weather

conditions) and Appendix B contains qualifications (i.e., curriculum vitae) for all investigators.

2.3 Ecological Land Classification (ELC) and Vascular Plant Surveys

Field surveys to classify vegetation communities and identify vascular plant species composition within the Area of

Investigation were conducted on May 26 and 27, June 1, and August 18, 2016. Site Investigation survey dates,

start times and end times are provided in Table 3-1.

All natural areas occurring within the Area of Investigation were initially identified to the ELC Community Series

level through aerial photography interpretation. On-site field surveys of each natural area within the Area of

Investigation were conducted where permission to enter private property was available. If property access was

unavailable at the time of field investigations, an Alternative Site Investigation was conducted following the

protocols described in Section 2.4 of this report. Reconnaissance field investigations were also conducted to

confirm the presence/absence of additional natural areas not identified through aerial photography interpretation. A

combination of aerial photography interpretation and on-site field investigations were used to delineate ELC

communities within the Area of Investigation.

Vegetation communities were described using the Ecological Land Classification (ELC) for Southern Ontario (Lee

et al., 1998). ELC is the provincially accepted standard for classifying vegetation communities in Ontario, and

provides methods for identifying and mapping areas in a form that is useful for land use planning. This protocol





distinguishes vegetation communities based on stand structure and composition, which includes the compilation of

a floral species list, noting dominant species within each vegetation layer and a delineation of vegetation

communities into Ecological Land Classification units.

This protocol uses a series of six levels (Site Region, System, Community Class, Community Series, Ecosite and

Vegetation Type), each giving context to the site from largest to finest scale. Wherever possible, communities were

described to Vegetation Type which is the finest level of classification. However, in some cases where Alternative

Site Investigations were conducted, including where aerial photography was used for the assessment, vegetation

communities were described to Ecosite and/or to Community Series. The ELC assessment consisted of a

combination of soil profile analysis, basal area prism sweeps, and multilayer (canopy, sub-canopy, and ground

cover) vegetation inventories where feasible.

Vascular plant inventories were completed in conjunction with vegetation community surveys, where possible.

Plant species were considered rare if designated provincially as S1 (Extremely rare in Ontario), S2 (Very rare in

Ontario), or S3 (Rare to uncommon in Ontario), or locally rare in Chatham-Kent by Oldham (1995).

2.4 Alternative Site Investigation

In certain instances, it was necessary to conduct an Alternative Site Investigation, as described in Part IV, Section

26 of O.Reg. 359/09. Alternative Site Investigations were completed when access to private property was not

granted and on-site investigations could not be conducted as per Section 2.2 above. Alternative Site

Investigations were completed using aerial photograph interpretation as well as field observations including

observations made from the nearest property where entry was granted (fence line surveys) and observations made

from a municipal or provincial road RoW (roadside surveys). Through aerial photography and visual field

observations, vegetation communities in these natural areas were identified to the lowest possible level using the

Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario.

Following preliminary natural area delineation using aerial imagery, AECOM submitted requests to Otter Creek

Wind Farm LP, for access to private property, in order to complete the Site Investigation. Where permission was

granted, surveys were undertaken. Alternative Site Investigations were conducted without contacting the

landowner to request access in instances where a natural area or feature extended onto an adjacent property

during field work, or when a natural area extended onto an additional property only slightly and a survey was

possible from the adjacent property or roadside.

Table 2-1 provides a summary of the Alternative Site Investigations conducted for the Otter Creek Wind Farm and

describes how information pertaining to the natural area or ELC community was obtained. The locations and ELC

classifications of specific natural areas are shown in Section 3.1 on Figure 2 (key map) and Figures 2A – 2T

(refer to figure legend for ELC community names corresponding to codes in Table 3-1).

Table 2-1: Alternative Site Investigations

Natural

Area No.

Date of Alternative

Site Investigation Method of Alternative Site Investigation

001 June 1, 2016 A roadside survey from Langstaff Line.

007 June 1, 2016 A roadside survey from Stewart Line.

008 May 27, 2016 A roadside survey from Langstaff Line.

010 May 26, 2016 A roadside survey from Langstaff Line.

011 May 27, 2016 A roadside survey from Richardson Road.

012 May 27, 2016 A roadside survey from Richardson Road.





Table 2-1: Alternative Site Investigations

Natural

Area No.

Date of Alternative

Site Investigation Method of Alternative Site Investigation

014 May 27, 2016 A survey was conducted by viewing with woodland with binoculars from the property

immediately south and west of the woodland, where access was granted.

016 July 20, 2016 Site investigation completed through air photo interpretation.



2.5 Wetlands

The Project Location was developed to be situated away from known wetlands. Through the Records Review, the

boundaries of evaluated wetlands (as identified by MNRF) were identified within the Project Boundary. The St. Clair

Region Conservation Authority (SCRCA) was contacted but had no wetlands data to provide within the Project

Boundary. ELC and vascular plant inventories were undertaken within all accessible natural areas within the Area

of Investigation in order to identify vegetation communities including previously unidentified wetlands. A

combination of aerial photography interpretation and on-site field investigations were used to delineate wetlands

within the Area of Investigation.

2.6 Woodlands

Woodland or forested areas were initially identified through the Records Review and aerial photography

interpretation. The presence and composition of woodlands within the Area of Investigation were then confirmed at

the time of vegetation community surveys during field investigations where possible. A combination of aerial

photography interpretation and on-site field investigations were used to delineate woodlands within the Area of

Investigation. Appendix A contains detailed Site Investigation field notes including start and end times as well as

weather conditions. Qualifications (i.e., curriculum vitae) for field personnel are summarized in Appendix B.

Survey dates, start times and end times are also provided in Table 3-1.

Ecological vegetation community mapping was used to identify woodlands according to the definition of woodlands

provided in O. Reg. 359/09, as amended through O. Reg. 521/10, whereby a “woodland” is defined as a treed area,

woodlot or forested area, other than a cultivated fruit or nut orchard or a plantation established for the purpose of

producing Christmas trees, that is located south and east of the Canadian Shield.

Woodland features were identified according to the procedures described in the Natural Heritage Assessment

Guide which states that “a bisecting opening 20 m or less in width between crown edge is not considered to divide

a woodland into two separate woodlands and the area of the developed opening (e.g., maintained public opening or

rail line) is not included in the wooded area calculation”. Woodland features were therefore established by grouping

qualifying ELC polygons located within 20 m or less of each other. Woodland features located at least partially in or

within the Area of Investigation were carried forward to the Evaluation of Significance (EOS).

2.7 Wildlife Habitat

Field investigations to identify candidate SWH located within the Area of Investigation were conducted in

conjunction with Ecological Land Classification (ELC) mapping and vascular plant surveys during May 26 and 27,

June 1, and August 18, 2016. These surveys were generally conducted between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm. Site





Investigation field notes, survey dates, start and end times as well as weather conditions are provided in

Appendix A. Qualifications (i.e., curriculum vitae) for field personnel are summarized in Appendix B.

As described in the Natural Heritage Assessment Guide, candidate SWH were identified using criteria established

by MNRF in the SWH Technical Guide (SWHTG) (MNRF, 2000) and Ecoregion 7E Criterion Schedule (MNRF,

2015). Bat-related habitats were also assessed with reference to Bats and Bat Habitats: Guidelines for Wind

Power Projects (MNRF 2011).

The determination of the presence or absence of candidate SWH located at least partially within the Area of

Investigation was initiated through the identification and delineation of ELC communities and completion of vascular

plant species inventories as described in Section 2.3 of this report. SWH field data cards were used to facilitate

the efficient application of criteria used to identify candidate SWH. Site Investigation surveys focused on identifying

SWH triggers including but not limited to cavity trees, potential hibernacula (e.g., rock piles), or stick nests, as well

as habitats for Species of Conservation Concern (SOCC). A combination of aerial photography interpretation and

on-site field investigations were used to identify wildlife habitat within the Area of Investigation. Incidental wildlife

observations were also recorded during field investigations.

A summary of the criteria and methods used to identify each type of candidate SWH is provided in Table 2-2.

These criteria have been assembled from the following sources:

Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (MNRF, 2000);

Bats and Bat Habitats: Guidelines for Wind Power Projects (MNRF, 2011); and

Ecoregion 7E Criterion Schedule (MNRF, 2015).

Typically, wherever a feature would meet the criteria outlined in Table 2-2 for a particular habitat type, Appendix D

of the Natural Heritage Assessment Guide would be consulted to determine whether the feature should be carried

forward to the EOS as candidate SWH or as generalized candidate SWH. Appendix D of the Natural Heritage

Assessment Guide for Renewable Energy Projects (MNRF, 2012) sets out the criteria for identifying candidate

SWH required to be identified based on occurrence within 120 m of specific types of Project infrastructure (refer to

Table 16 – candidate SWH required to be identified within 120 metres of the Project Location based on Project

Location component). SWH features identified within 120 m of the Project Location but not within 120 m of the

qualifying infrastructure types (e.g. Turbines, Access Road), as specified in Appendix D of the Natural Heritage

Assessment Guide for Renewable Energy Projects (MNRF, 2012) are treated as generalized candidate SWH and

do not require unique identifiers. In accordance with MNRF guidelines (2012), these features are carried forward to

the EOS and EIS, where they are addressed through general construction phase mitigation measures.

However, to provide flexibility while designing the location of Project infrastructure, only the locations of turbines

and collector lines within the RoW have been confirmed within the Project Location / Construction Disturbance

Area; therefore, with the exception of turbines and collector lines within the RoW, the most conservative approach

was taken for the purposes of the NHA by assuming that any other type of infrastructure could be located in the

remaining Project Location.

2.7.1 Bat Habitat Assessment Surveys

Field investigations conducted on May 26 and 27, 2016 followed the MNRF guidance document, Bats and Bat

Habitats: Guidelines for Wind Power Projects (MNRF, 2011); however, where access was denied and the

woodlands were too distant to be viewed by binoculars, the features were assumed to be candidate significant and

acoustic monitors were installed to record potential bat activity.





Table 2-2: Summary of Criteria and Methods Used to Identify Each type of Candidate Significant Wildlife Habitat

Type of Candidate Significant Wildlife Habitat

Characteristics of candidate Significant Wildlife Habitat1 Methods of Assessment

Seasonal Concentration Areas of Animals

Waterfowl Stopover and Staging Areas

(Terrestrial and Aquatic)

Terrestrial: Presence of the following Ecosites: CUM1, CUT1;

Evidence of annual spring flooding from melt water or runoff; and

Flooded agricultural land with waste grains and evidence of annual spring flooding that are utilized by Tundra Swans during

the spring.

Aquatic: Presence of the following Ecosites: MAM1, MAM2, MAM3, MAM4, MAM5, MAM6, MAS1, MAS2, MAS3, SAS1, SAM1,

SAF1, SWD1, SWD2, SWD3, SWD4, SWD5, SWD6, SWD7;

Where standing water is present including ponds, marshes, lakes, bays, coastal inlets and watercourses during migration.

Sewage treatment ponds and stormwater ponds do not qualify as Significant Wildlife Habitat;

Significant sites generally have better habitat quality (e.g., optimal vegetation composition, ratio of open water to emergent

vegetation; extensive shoreline; abundant food, nocturnal roosting cover); and

Larger wetlands are more significant (size).

Also Refer to NRSI report, Appendix D

Terrestrial: Search for presence of cultural meadows, cultural thickets or agricultural fields with waste grains that may

experience spring flooding or runoff on air photo mosaics within Project Boundary.

Search for evidence of annual or frequent spring flooding or runoff where suitable ecosites encountered during Site

Investigation.

Determine if areas show evidence of extensive seasonal flooding to host large numbers of staging waterfowl.

Record location and physical attributes of any potentially qualifying features.

Aquatic: Search for presence of marsh, shallow water or deciduous swamp communities large enough to act as waterfowl

staging areas on air photo mosaics within Project Study Boundary.

Search for presence of marsh, shallow water or deciduous swamp communities large enough to act as waterfowl staging

areas where suitable ecosites encountered during Site Investigation.


Also refer to NRSI report, Appendix D

Shorebird Migratory Stopover Areas

(Shorebird Staging)

Presence of the following Ecosites: BBO1, BBO2, BBS1, BBS2, BBT1, BBT2, SDO1, SDS2, SDT1, MAM1, MAM2, MAM3,

MAM4, MAM5; and

Shorelines of lakes, rivers and wetlands, including beach areas, bars, seasonally flooded shoreline, mudflats, rock groynes, and

other forms of armour rock lakeshore.

Search for stretches of undisturbed landscape found along shorelines of lakes, rivers and wetlands on air photo mosaics within

project boundaries.

Search for presence of mudflats or shorelines adjacent to large open water area during Site Investigation.


Raptor Wintering Area Combination of ELC Community Series; presence of one Community Series from each land class:

Forest: FOC, FOD, FOM;

Upland: CUM, CUT, CUS, CUW;

Combination of forest and upland communities must be >20 ha in size;

Sites that are less disturbed by agricultural activities are more significant; and,

Sites with better habitat quality (e.g., abundant prey and perches; a tendency toward less snow accumulation due to exposure

to strong prevailing winds) are probably more significant.

Search for fields and open meadows on air photo mosaics within Project Location that are >15 ha in size and adjacent to forest

habitats.

Search for fields that provide a variety of herbaceous plant species which offer seeds, nuts, fruit and leafy plant matter

throughout the year which supports high populations of prey (small mammals and ground nesting birds) where suitable ecosites

encountered during Site Investigation.


Bat Hibernacula All caves, abandoned mine shafts, underground foundations, karst, or one of the following Ecosites: CCR1, CCR2, CCA1,

CCA2 (buildings are not to be considered Significant Wildlife Habitat).

Search for presence of caves, mine shafts, underground formations and karst within Area of Investigation.


Bat Maternity Colonies Refer to Section 2.7.1 above Refer to Section 2.7.1 above for a detailed description of the methods used to assess candidate bat maternity colonies.

Turtle Wintering Areas Presence of all Ecosites associated with the following ELC Community Series: FEO, BOO; or the following ELC Community

Classes: SW, MA, OA, SA;

Open water areas such as deeper rivers or streams and lakes with current can also be used as over-wintering habitat (Northern

Map Turtle);

Overwintering sites are permanent water bodies, large wetlands, and bogs or fens with adequate dissolved oxygen; and

Water has to be deep enough not to freeze and have soft mud substrates.

Search for presence of ponds, large marshes, lakes or other water bodies on air photo mosaics within Area of Investigation.

Search for presence of deep ponds, large marshes, lakes or other water bodies during Site Investigation.


Reptile Hibernacula All ELC Ecosites are potentially related to these habitats except very wet ones; and

Areas of broken and fissured rock, rock piles or slopes, stone fences, crumbling foundations, and old wells that extend below

the frost line are candidate Significant Wildlife Habitat.

Search for presence of wooded areas adjacent to fields or thickets on air photo mosaics within Area of Investigation.

Search for areas of broken and fissured rock, rock piles or slopes, stone fences, crumbling foundations, and old wells during

Site Investigation.


Colonially-Nesting

Bird Breeding Habitat (Bank and Cliff)

Presence of the following Ecosites2: CUM1, CUT1, CUS1, BLO1, BLS1, BLT1, CLO1, CLS1, CLT1;

Eroding banks, sandy hills, pits, steep slopes, and rock faces that are undisturbed or naturally eroding; and

Significant habitats are not located in licensed aggregate pits, man-made structures (bridges or buildings), or recently (2 years)

disturbed soils areas.

Search for presence of earthen banks on air photo mosaics within Area of Investigation.

Search for presence of earthen banks where suitable ecosites encountered during ELC field investigations. Record location of

any potentially qualifying features.

Colonially-Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat

(Trees/Shrubs)

Presence of the following Ecosites: SWM2, SWM3, SWM5, SWM6, SWD1, SWD2, SWD3, SWD4, SWD5, SWD6, SWD7, FET1;

Nests in live or dead standing trees in wetlands, lakes, islands and peninsulas. Shrubs and occasionally emergent vegetation

may also be used;

Significant sites generally have better habitat quality (e.g., optimal vegetation composition, abundant food); and

Size of habitat and level of disturbance are also important.

Search for presence of treed wetlands (e.g., mixed or deciduous swamps or treed fen habitats) on air photo mosaics within

Area of Investigation.

Search for presence of large stick nests (particularly where more than one) where suitable ecosites encountered during Site

Investigation.

Record location of any nests, as well as the size of the habitat and evidence of disturbance.

Colonially-Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat

(Ground)

Presence of the following Ecosites: MAM1-6, MAM1-3; Ecosites associated with the following ELC Community Series: CUM,

CUT, CUS;

Any (rocky) island or peninsula (natural or artificial) within a lake or large river (two-lined on a 1:50,000 NTS map);

Brewer’s Blackbird colonies are found in open fields or pastures with scattered trees or shrubs, loosely on the ground or in low

bushes in close proximity to streams and irrigation ditches within farmlands;

Significant sites generally have better habitat quality (e.g., optimal vegetation composition, abundant food); and

Size of habitat and level of disturbance are also important.

Search for presence of rocky islands or peninsulas within lakes or large rivers on air photo mosaics within Area of Investigation.

Search for presence of rocky islands or peninsula where suitable ecosites encountered during Site Investigation.


1. Derived from the following sources:

Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (MNRF, 2000); Draft and final versions of Bats and Bat Habitats: Guidelines for Wind Power Projects (MNRF, 2010 and 2011); Bats and Bat Habitats: Guidelines for Wind Power Projects (MNRF, 2011); Draft Ecoregion 6E Criterion Schedule Addendum to the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (MNRF, 2011a); and, Draft Ecoregion 7E Criterion Schedule Addendum to the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (MNRF, 2012d).

2. Ecosites are defined as “mappable, landscape units integrating a consistent set of environmental factors and vegetation characteristics” (Lee et al., 1998).








Deer Winter Congregation Areas Presence of all Ecosites associated with the following ELC Community Series: FOC, FOM, FOD, SWC, SWM, SWD;

Conifer plantations (CUP) smaller than 50 ha may also be used;

Woodlots > 100 ha in size or if large woodlots are rare in a planning area woodlots >50 ha; and

Woodlots with high densities of deer due to artificial feeding are not significant.

Deer Winter Congregation Areas are evaluated by MNRF following methods outlined in Selected Wildlife and Habitat Features:

Inventory Manual.

Rare Vegetation Communities

Cliffs and Talus Slopes Presence of all Ecosites associated with the following ELC Community Series: TAO, CLO, TAS, CLS, TAT, CLT;

Cliffs are greater than 3 m in height of vertical to near-vertical bedrock; and

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

Search for presence of cliffs and talus slopes on air photo mosaics within Area of Investigation.

Search for presence of cliffs and talus slopes during Site Investigation.


Sand Barrens Presence of any of the following Ecosites: SBO1, SBS1, SBT1;

Typically exposed sand habitats, generally sparsely vegetated and caused by lack of moisture, periodic fires, and erosion. Sand

barrens have little or no soil, and the underlying rock protrudes through the surface. Usually located within other types of natural

habitat, such as forest or savannah;

Sites must not be dominated by non-indigenous species; and

Vegetation cover varies from patchy and barren to continuous meadow (SBO1), thicket-like (SBS1), or more closed and treed

(SBT1). Tree cover always < 60%.

Search for presence of sand barrens on air photo mosaics within Area of Investigation.

Search for presence of sand barrens during Site Investigation.


Alvars Presence of any of the following Ecosites: ALO1, ALS1, ALT1;

Typically a level, mostly unfractured calcareous bedrock feature with a mosaic of rock pavements and bedrock overlain by a thin

veneer of soil;

Sites must be at least 0.5 ha in size; and

Sites must not be dominated by non-indigenous species.

Search for presence of alvars on air photo mosaics within Area of Investigation.


Refer to Appendix N of the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (MNRF, 2000) and determine whether alvar indicator

species are present.

Old-growth or Mature Forests Presence of all Ecosites associated with the following ELC Community Series: FOD, FOC, FOM;

Typically relatively undisturbed, structurally complex and contain a wide variety of trees and shrubs in various age classes;

Most significant sites will contain numerous trees which are at least 140 years old. Stands containing younger trees (e.g., 100

years or older) are significant where older trees no longer exist; and

Stands containing predominantly long-lived species are probably more significant than stands consisting primarily of short-lived

species (e.g., trembling aspen, birch).

Search for forest communities on air photo mosaics within Area of Investigation.

Search for mature trees in forested areas that have never been cutover (Old-Growth) and mature trees in forest stands consisting

of a broad range of tree size classes (Mature Forest Stands) where suitable ecosites encountered during Site Investigation.

Search for large standing snags and abundance of downed wood in variable sizes where suitable ecosites encountered during

Site Investigation.


Savannahs Presence of any of the following Ecosites: TPS1, TPS2, TPW1, TPW2, CUS2;

Tallgrass prairie habitat with tree cover between 25% and 60%. Site conditions must be restored or natural (e.g., not railway

RoW); and


Search for presence of savannahs on air photo mosaics within Area of Investigation.

Search for presence of savannahs and document all flora during Site Investigation.


Refer to Appendix N of the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (MNRF, 2000) and determine whether savannah

indicator species are present.

Tall-grass Prairies Presence of any of the following Ecosites: TPO1, TPO2;

Sites with ground cover dominated by prairie grasses and less than 25% tree cover;

Site conditions must be restored or natural (e.g., not railway RoW); and


Search for presence of tall-grass prairies on air photo mosaics within Area of Investigation.

Search for presence of tall-grass prairies and document all flora during Site Investigation.


Refer to Appendix N of the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide and determine whether tall grass prairie indicator

species are present.

Other Rare Vegetation Communities Provincially Rare S1, S2 and S3 vegetation communities as listed in Appendix M of the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical

Guide; and

Any ELC Ecosite that has a possible ELC vegetation type that is Provincially Rare.

Search for presence of provincially rare vegetation communities and document all flora during Site Investigation.


Refer to Appendix M of the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide and determine whether provincially rare vegetation

communities are present.

Specialized Habitat for Wildlife

Waterfowl Nesting Areas All upland habitats located adjacent to (within 150 m of) the following Ecosites: MAS1, MAS2, MAS3, SAS1, SAM1, SAF1,

MAM1, MAM2, MAM3, MAM4, MAM5, MAM6, SWT1, SWT2, SWD1, SWD2, SWD3, SWD4; or upland habitats adjacent to

(within 150 m of) Provincially Significant Wetlands;

Upland areas should be at least 120 m wide so that predators have difficulty finding nests;

Larger sites of suitable habitat are more significant;

Significant sites generally have better habitat quality (e.g., optimal vegetation structure, stable water levels, abundant cover); and

Sites wilt little disturbance (e.g., from agricultural activities such as hay cultivation or cattle grazing) are more significant.

Search for upland habitat located near wetlands with standing water /open water areas on air photo mosaics within Area of

Investigation.

Search for upland habitat located near suitable wetland ecosites when encountered during Site Investigation.


Bald Eagle and Osprey Nesting, Foraging

and Perching Habitat

Presence of all Ecosites associated with the following ELC Community Series: FOC, FOM, FOD, SWC, SWM, SWD, that are

directly adjacent to riparian areas of rivers, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and islands; and

Nests located on man-made objects are not Significant Wildlife Habitat.

Search for presence of forest communities directly adjacent to open water on air photo mosaics within Area of Investigation.

Search for presence of nest bowls where suitable ecosites encountered during Site Investigation.

Record location and physical attributes of any potentially qualifying features and nests.

Woodland Raptor Nesting Habitat Presence of all Ecosites associated with the following ELC Community Series: FOC, FOM, FOD, SWC, SWM, SWD, or the

following Ecosite: CUP3; and

All natural or conifer plantation woodland/forest stands >30 ha with at least 4 ha of interior forest habitat.

Search for extensive forested areas (>30 ha in size) on air photo mosaics within Area of Investigation.

Search for large patches of suitable ecosites during Site Investigation.

Search for presence of stick nests during Site Investigation.


Turtle Nesting Areas Exposed mineral soil (sand or gravel) areas adjacent (<100 m) or within the following ELC Ecosites: MAM1, MAM2, MAM3,

MAM4, MAM5, MAM6, SAS1, SAM1, SAF1, BOO1, FEO1;

Areas of sand and/or gravel that turtles are able to dig in that are located in open, sunny areas, including sand and gravel

beaches adjacent to undisturbed shallow weedy areas of marshes, lakes, and rivers; and

Nesting areas on the sides of municipal and provincial road embankments, railway embankments and active aggregate

operations are not Significant Wildlife Habitat.

Search for presence of open vegetated areas near ponds, marshes, lakes or other water bodies on air photo mosaics within

Area of Investigation.

Search for areas that are elevated and consist of gravel or sandy soils where suitable ecosites encountered during Site

Investigation.

Search for evidence of turtle egg predation (broken turtle shells) where suitable ecosites encountered during Site Investigation.









Seeps and Springs Seeps and springs are areas where groundwater comes to the surface. Often they are found within headwater areas within

forested habitats; and

Any forested Ecosite (with <25% meadow/ field/ pasture) within the headwater areas of a stream could have seeps or springs.

Search for presence of forest or swamp communities on air photo mosaics within Area of Investigation.

Search for presence of seeps or springs, and determine presence of indicator species during Site Investigation.

Record location and physical attributes of any potentially qualifying features, including groundwater indicator plants as

described in McKenny and Peterson (1996), Crow and Hellquist (2000), and Niering and Thieret (2009).

Amphibian Breeding Habitat (Woodland

and Wetland)

Woodland: Presence of all Ecosites associated with the following ELC Community Series: FOC, FOM, FOD, SWC, SWM, SWD;

Woodland with a wetland, lake or pond, including breeding pools that may be permanent, seasonal, ephemeral, and located

within or adjacent to (within 120 m of) the woodland (no minimum size);

Vernal pools or ponds in woodlands that contain water in most years until mid-July are more likely to be significant; and

Woodlands used for breeding with presence of shrubs and logs around the edges are more significant because of increased

structure for calling, foraging, escape and concealment from predators.

Wetland: Presence of all Ecosites associated with the following ELC Community Classes: SW, MA, FE, BO, OA and SA;

Wetland areas greater than 120 m from woodland habitats;

Wetlands used for breeding with presence of shrubs and logs around the edges increase because of increased structure for

calling, foraging, escape and concealment from predators;

Wetlands and pools (including vernal pools) >500 m2 (about 25 m diameter) isolated from woodlands (>120 m) supporting

high species diversity and larger sites of suitable habitat are significant; and

Bullfrogs require permanent water bodies with abundant emergent vegetation.


Woodland: Search for presence of forests and swamps on air photo mosaics within Project Study Boundary.

Search for permanent or temporary wooded pools that are likely to hold water until July or have depths of at least 30 cm in

early spring where suitable ecosites encountered during Site Investigation. The 30 cm depth criterion is consistent with the

recommendations of Calhoun and deMaynadier (2004).


Wetland: Search for presence of meadow marsh, shallow marsh, and other suitable ecosites on air photo mosaics within

Project Study Boundary.

Search for presence of temporary or permanent standing water where suitable ecosites encountered during Site

Investigation.

Search for pools that are likely to hold water until July or have depths of 30 cm in early spring where suitable ecosites

encountered during Site Investigation. The 30 cm depth criterion is consistent with the recommendations of Calhoun and

deMaynadier (2004).



Habitat for Species of Conservation Concern (Not including Endangered or Threatened Species)

Marsh Bird Breeding Habitat Presence of the following Ecosites: MAM1, MAM2, MAM3, MAM4, MAM5, MAM6, SAS1, SAM1, SAF1, FEO1, BOO1;

For Green Heron, presence of CUM1 Ecosites and all Ecosite associated with the following Community Classes: SW, MA;

Wetland habitats containing shallow water and emergent aquatic vegetation; and

For Green Heron, habitat is usually at the edge of water such as sluggish streams, ponds and marshes sheltered by shrubs and

trees.

Search for presence of large marshes on air photo mosaics within Area of Investigation.

Search for marshes containing standing water at least 30 cm deep (calculated using the average minimum water depth that

each target species requires for nesting habitat, obtained from the Birds of North American online database (Poole, 2005)), and

where emergent aquatic vegetation is present during Site Investigation.


Woodland Area-Sensitive Bird Breeding

Habitat

Presence of all Ecosites associated with the following ELC Community Series: FOC, FOM, FOD, SWC, SWM, SWD;

Large mature (>60 years old) forest (non-plantation) stands or woodlots greater than 10 ha in size; and

Woodlands with at least 4 ha interior forest habitat (at least 200 m from edge of forest).

Search for contiguous areas of forest of at least 10 ha, with at least 4 ha of interior habitat on air photo mosaics within Area of

Investigation.

Determine whether large mature trees are present where suitable ecosites encountered during Site Investigation.


Open Country Bird Breeding Habitat Presence of the following Ecosite: CUM1, CUM2; and

Grassland areas (includes natural and cultural fields and meadows) greater than 30 ha in size, excluding Class 1 and 2

agricultural lands and lands actively used for farming (i.e., no row-cropping, intensive hay or livestock pasturing in the last 5

years).

Search for presence of large patches (>30 ha) of grassland or old field habitat on air photo mosaics within Area of Investigation.

Search for large grassland patches where suitable ecosites encountered during Site Investigation.


Shrub/Early Successional Bird Breeding

Habitat

Presence of the following Ecosites: CUT1, CUT2, CUS1, CUS2, CUW1, CUW2; and

Shrublands or successional fields greater than 10 ha in size, excluding Class 1 or 2 agricultural lands and lands actively used

for farming (i.e., no row-cropping, intensive hay or livestock pasturing in the last 5 years).

Search for presence of shrublands or early successional fields >10 ha in size on air photo mosaics within Area of Investigation.

Search for presence of large shrublands or early successional fields during Site Investigation.


Terrestrial Crayfish Presence of the following Ecosites: MAM1, MAM2, MAM3, MAM4, MAM5, MAM6, MAS1, MAS2, MAS3; and

Entrances of terrestrial crayfish burrows, which are conspicuous tall “chimneys” constructed from pellets of excavated mud.

Search for presence of large meadow marsh and shallow marsh communities on air photo mosaics within Area of Investigation.

Search for entrances of burrows (“chimneys”) where suitable ecosites encountered during Site Investigation.


Species of Conservation Concern Identified Through Records Review – Special Concern and Rare Wildlife

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

Species of Conservation Concern

Imperilled – S2

MNRF(SC)

Breeding habitat for this species was assessed as Bald Eagle and Osprey Nesting, Foraging and Perching Habitat (described above).

Black Tern (Chlidonias niger)


Vulnerable – S3

MNRF(SC)

Breeding habitat for this species was assessed as Marsh Bird Breeding Habitat (described above).

Black-Crowned Night-Heron (Nycticorax

nycticorax)


Vulnerable – S3

Breeding habitat for this species was assessed as Colonially-Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat (Trees/Shrubs) (described above).

Forster’s Tern (Sterna forsteri)


Imperilled – S2

Large open and fresh or saltwater marshes and deep cattail marshes which must be near open water, marsh nesting restricts

this species breeding distribution and it seldom uses marshes less than 300 ha (MNRF, 2000).

Search for presence of large marshes (>300 ha) with considerable open water within project area.


Great Egret (Ardea albus)


Imperilled – S2

Breeding habitat for this species was assessed as Colonially-Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat (Trees/Shrubs) (described above).








White-eyed Vireo (Vireo griseus)


Imperilled – S2

Dense swampy thickets, hillsides with blackberry and briar tangles, forest edges, and early successional fields (MNRF, 2000).

The species maintains territories of 1-2 ha in size (MNRF, 2000).

Search for presence of suitable habitat and documentation of all birds observed during Site Investigation.

Record locations and physical attributes of suitable habitat or species if present.

Yellow-headed Blackbird (Xanthocephalus

xanthocephalus)


Imperilled – S2

Includes deep (0.6 to 1.2 m) marshes or sloughs, lake edges with emergent vegetation, reedy lakes (MNRF, 2000). Search for presence of suitable habitat and documentation of all birds observed during Site Investigation.


Duke’s Skipper (Euphyes dukesi)


Imperilled – S2

A variety of moist habitats with long grass, such as marshes or ditches, but the primary habitat is patches of sedge, its main

larval host plant, in forested swamps. (Xerces Society, 2016).

Search for presence of suitable habitat and documentation of insects observed during Site Investigation.


Elusive Clubtail (Stylurus notatus)


Imperilled – S2

Large, clear rivers with moderate current and gravel or sandy (Nature Serve, 2015). Search for presence of suitable habitat and documentation of insects observed during Site Investigation.


Pronghorn Clubtail (Gomphus graslinellus)


Imperilled – S2

Slow-moving streams with sandy or muddy substrates. Search for presence of suitable habitat and documentation of insects observed during Site Investigation.


Red-legged Spittlebug (Prosapia ignipectus)


Critically Imperilled – S1? (rank uncertain)

Alvar grassland, prairie fens, jack pine barrens and lakeplain prairies (Cuthrell, 1999), Search for presence of suitable habitat and documentation of insects observed during Site Investigation.


American Gromwell (Lithospermum latifolium)


Vulnerable – S3

Species occurs on river floodplains, woods and edges of woods (MNRF, 2000). Search for presence of suitable habitat and documentation of all flora during Site Investigation.

American Lotus (Nelumbo lutea)


Imperilled – S2

Shallow open water in marshes (MNRF, 2000) Search for presence of suitable habitat and documentation of all flora during Site Investigation.

Bushy Aster (Symphyotrichum dumosum)


Imperilled – S2

Inhabits prairies and wet meadows, primarily in the Carolinian Zone (MNRF, 2000). Search for presence of suitable habitat and documentation of all flora during Site Investigation.

Buttonbush Dodder (Cuscuta cephalanthi)


Imperilled – S2

Marsh, creek banks and pond margins; also cultivated fields - parasitic on Ambrosia, Aster, Bidens, Circaea, Daucus, Linum,

Malva, Medicago, Melilotus, Polygonum, Trifolium (MNRF, 2000).

Search for presence of suitable habitat and documentation of all flora during Site Investigation.

Climbing Prairie Rose (Rosa setigera)


Vulnerable – S3

MNRF(SC)

Open or early successional habitats including prairies, open woods, shrub thickets, old fields, pastureland, hedgerows and

roadsides, as described in the Environment Canada Management Plant for Climbing Prairie Rose (Rosa sertigera) in Canada

(EC, 2013).


Clinton’s Club-rush (Trichophorum clintonii)


Imperilled/Vulnerable – S2S3

Open, sunny habitats in moist or dry, sandy or sandy-loam soils (MNDRN, 2016) Search for presence of suitable habitat and documentation of all flora during Site Investigation.

Crowned Beggarticks (Bidens trichosperma)


Imperilled – S2

Found in openings in swamps, marshes, along shores & wet fields (MNRF, 2000). Search for presence of suitable habitat and documentation of all flora during Site Investigation.

Deer-tongue Panicgrass (Dichanthelium

clandestinum)


Imperilled – S2

Habitats include moist depressions in rocky upland woodlands, sandy woodlands, sandy savannahs, sand prairies, acidic

gravelly seeps, sandy swamps, low areas along streams and ponds, and abandoned sandy fields (Hilty, 2015).


Hazel Dodder (Cuscuta coryli)


Critically Imperilled – S1

Occurs in open, moist tall-grass prairie and meadows - parasitic on Aster, Heliathus, Monarda, Rubus, Solidago. (MNRF, 2000). Search for presence of suitable habitat and documentation of all flora during Site Investigation.

Many-fruited Seedbox (Ludwigia polycarpa)


Imperilled/Vulnerable – S2S3

Wet meadows, peat bogs, and wet disturbed areas (MNRF, 2000). Search for presence of suitable habitat and documentation of all flora during Site Investigation.








Mat Panicgrass (Dichanthelium meridionale)



Prairies (MNRF, 2000). Search for presence of suitable habitat and documentation of all flora during Site Investigation.

Mead’s Sedge (Carex meadii)


Imperilled – S2

Occurs in prairies and moist or dry open areas (MNRF, 2000). Search for presence of suitable habitat and documentation of all flora during Site Investigation.

Muskingum Sedge (Carex muskingumensis)


Vulnerable – S3

Wet-mesic hardwood forests (MNRF, 2000). Search for presence of suitable habitat and documentation of all flora during Site Investigation.

Northern Fogfruit (Phyla lanceolate)


Imperilled – S2

Roadside ditches and wet places (MNRF, 2000). Search for presence of suitable habitat and documentation of all flora during Site Investigation.

Prairie Milkweed (Asclepias sullivantii)


Vulnerable – S3

Wet meadows and prairies and roadsides (MNRF, 2000). Search for presence of suitable habitat and documentation of all flora during Site Investigation.

Spreading Chervil (Chaerophyllum

procumbens)


Imperilled – S2

Rich moist deciduous woods and edges, thickets; moist open places (MNRF, 2000). Search for presence of suitable habitat and documentation of all flora during Site Investigation.

Swamp Rose-mallow (Hibiscus moscheutos)


Vulnerable – S3

MNRF(SC)

Swamp marshes, wet woods and ponds (MNRF, 2000). Search for presence of suitable habitat and documentation of all flora during Site Investigation.

Tall Nutrush (Scleria triglomerata)



Moist prairie and thicket (MNRF, 2000). Search for presence of suitable habitat and documentation of all flora during Site Investigation.

Tall Tickseed (Coreopsis tripteris)


Imperilled – S2

Damp prairies, thickets, open woods (MNRF, 2000). Search for presence of suitable habitat and documentation of all flora during Site Investigation.

Taper-leaved Water-horehound (Lycopus

rubellus)


Vulnerable – S3

Swampy thickets, woodlands and forests (MNRF, 2000). Search for presence of suitable habitat and documentation of all flora during Site Investigation.

Vasey’s Rush (Juncus vaseyi)


Vulnerable – S3

Sandy, open areas (MNRF, 2000). Search for presence of suitable habitat and documentation of all flora during Site Investigation.

Wingstem (Verbesina alternifolia)


Vulnerable – S3

Clay banks, sandy thickets, river banks and rich alluvial woods (MNRF, 2000). Search for presence of suitable habitat and documentation of all flora during Site Investigation.

Northern Map Turtle (Graptemys geographica)


Vulnerable – S3

MNRF(SC)

Habitats of this species were assessed as Turtle Nesting Areas and Turtle Wintering Areas (described above).

Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentine)


Vulnerable – S3

MNRF(SC)

Habitats of this species were assessed as Turtle Nesting Areas and Turtle Wintering Areas (described above).

Animal Movement Corridor

Amphibian Corridors Corridors may be found in all ecosites associated with water;

Corridors will be determined based on identifying significant amphibian breeding habitat (wetland);

Corridors should consist of native vegetation with no gaps such as roads, fields, waterways or waterbodies; and

Corridors should be at least 200 m wide with gaps less than 20 m and if following riparian area with at least 15 m of vegetation

on both sides of waterway.

Search for candidate Amphibian Woodland Breeding Habitat and candidate Amphibian Wetland Breeding Habitat as described

above.

Search for possible amphibian movement corridors associated with the above habitats during Site Investigation.






3. Results

A total of 18 “natural areas” (refer to Section 2.2) were identified within the Area of Investigation. The locations

and ELC classifications of these natural areas are shown on Figure 2 (key map) and Figures 2A – 2T. The ELC

summary by community determined through the Site Investigation is provided in Table 3-1 below. Incidental

wildlife observations recorded during field investigation are also included in Table 3-1.

3.1 Vegetation Communities

All natural areas occurring within the Area of Investigation were delineated into ELC units (Figures 2A – 2T).

Vegetation communities found within the Area of Investigation can be divided into six (6) community series (e.g.,

CUM: Cultural Meadow, FOD: Deciduous Forest, SWT: Thicket Swamp, etc.). The units are determined based on

the type of vegetation cover or plant form that best characterizes the community in question (e.g., open, shrub,

treed, deciduous, coniferous, or mixed).

The observed community series designations were further separated into eight (8) ecosites (e.g., CUM1: Mineral

Cultural Meadow Ecosite, FOD9: Fresh – Moist Oak Maple Hickory Deciduous Forest Ecosite etc.). Ecosites are

defined as “mappable, landscape units integrating a consistent set of environmental factors and vegetation

characteristics” (Lee et al., 1998).

Where possible, these ecosites were then classified to vegetation type (e.g., CUM1-1: Dry-Moist Old field Meadow

Type or FOD7-3: Fresh - Moist Willow Lowland Deciduous Forest Type) which is the finest level of detail within the

ELC classification system. These units are based on specific groupings of plants (Lee et al., 1998). The vegetation

communities intersecting the Area of Investigation are further described in Table 3-1 below. The minimum distance

from each vegetation community to the Project Location is provided in the table, along with whether the closest

infrastructure is a collector lines located in the public RoW, a turbine or all other infrastructure (including a collector

line located on private property). Inclusions were described where distinct vegetation communities smaller than 0.5 ha

were identified within vegetation community polygons (i.e., vegetation communities larger than 0.5 ha in size).

During the Site Investigation it was determined that the Area of Investigation is largely represented by agricultural crops

such as corn, winter wheat or soy. Through ELC surveys in areas of natural vegetation, it was noted that Open Aquatic

(OAO) was the most frequently occurring ELC community, due to the large number of agricultural drains and two large

ponds. Meanwhile, the most frequently occurring terrestrial community within the Area of Investigation is a complex of

Cultural Meadow and Cultural Thicket (CUM-CUT) representing a total of 9.15 ha and 5.10 ha, respectively.

The rarity of each vegetation community was identified. Rare vegetation communities were assessed as Significant

Wildlife Habitat (refer to Section 3.5.2.2).

3.2 Vascular Plant Inventory

A total of 111 vascular plant species were observed in natural areas occurring within the Area of Investigation. Of

these, 58 species (52%) are native and 47 (42%) are non-native, with the remaining six (6) identified to the genus

level. This level of species diversity is indicative of the low number of naturally occurring vegetation communities

present within the Area of Investigation. Co-efficient of conservatism (CC) is used as a standardized numerical

measure of habitat quality which describes the ecological sensitivity or propensity of individual plants to occur in areas

disturbed by humans (Bried et al., 2012). Of the species observed, the majority (48%) had a low co-efficient of

conservatism (CC) (between 0 and 3).





Figure 2: (2A – 2T) Key Map and Ecological Land Classification within the Area of Investigation





Table 3-1: Vegetation Communities Identified In the Area of Investigation

Natural Area

Total Size of Natural

Area (ha)

Minimum Distance to Project Location (m)

Date and Time of Site Investigation

ELC Code ELC Name Inclusions

(if applicable) Area (ha)

Community Age

Vegetation Composition Incidental Wildlife Observed

1 0.30 0 (Collector line) June 1, 2016

10:00 – 11:16

CUT1-4 Grey Dogwood Cultural Thicket Type - 0.30 Pioneer -

Young

Canopy and sub-canopy layers are not present within this community.

There is a dense shrub layer that consists of gray dogwood, Manitoba maple, red

cedar, and red-berried elderberry. The ground layer was dominated by Canada

goldenrod, wild carrot, common burdock and giant ragweed.

Common Yellowthroat, Rusty

Blackbird, Song Sparrow,

Savanah Sparrow, Horned Lark,

American Robin, Willow

Flycatcher, American Gold Finch,

Yellow Warbler.


11:16 – 11:40

CUT1 / CUM1-

1

Mineral Cultural Thicket - Dry - Moist Old

Field Cultural Meadow Complex

- 0.04 Pioneer -

Young


The shrub layer consists of staghorn sumac, gray dogwood, willow sp. The ground

layer was dominated by reed canary grass, common reed, wild carrot and wild teasel.

-

3 0.13 31.5 (Collector line) June 1, 2016

11:16 – 11:40

CUT1 / CUM1-

1



- 0.13 Pioneer -

Young




-


11:16 – 11:40

CUT1 / CUM1-

1



- 4.02 Pioneer -

Young




-

June 1, 2016

10:00 – 11:16

CUT1-4 Grey Dogwood Cultural Thicket Type - 3.11 Pioneer -

Young


There is a dense shrub layer that consists of gray dogwood, Manitoba maple, red

cedar, and red-berried elderberry. The ground layer was dominated by Canada

goldenrod, wild carrot, common burdock and giant ragweed.

Common Yellowthroat, Rusty

Blackbird, Song Sparrow,

Savanah Sparrow, Horned Lark,

American Robin, Willow

Flycatcher, American Gold Finch,

Yellow Warbler.

5 6.00

0 (Collector line) June 1, 2016

9:30 – 10:00

CUT1 / CUM1-

1



- 4.03 Young Canopy and sub-canopy layers are not present within this community.

A limited shrub layer is present and consists entirely of hawthorne species. The ground

layer is dominated by grasses, smooth rose, and wormseed mustard.

Green Frog

0 (Collector line) June 1, 2016

9:30 – 10:10

MAS2-9 Forb Mineral Shallow Marsh Type A hedgerow is

present on the west

side of the bank.

1.97 Young This community is a vegetation portion of the Skinner agricultural drain. Canopy and

sub-canopy layers and shrub layers are not present within this community. The ground

layer was dominated by flowing-rush is considerably lesser amounts of narrow-leaved

cattail and lesser duckweed.

7 0.93 0 (All other infrastructure) June 1, 2016

11:16 – 11:40

*conducted as an Alternative Site Investigation.

CUT1 / CUM1-

1



- 0.93 Pioneer -

Young




-

8 0.37 0 (Collector line) May 26, 2016

15:15 – 17:30

H Hedgerow - 0.37 Mid-aged Identified via air photo interpretation, a planted hedgerow is located in this area. -

9 2.75

0 (All other infrastructure) May 26, 2016

15:15 – 17:30

CUW1 Mineral Cultural Woodland - 1.62 Mid-aged The canopy consists of swamp white oak, ash snags, white elm and chokecherry. The

sub-canopy consists of hawthorne sp, chokecherry and bitternut hickory. The shrub

layer consists of chokecherry and dogwood Sp. The ground layer was not visible.

Tree Swallow, muskrat, Barn

Swallow, Red-winged Blackbird,

Grey Cat Bird

OAO Open Aquatic - 1.13 N/A This community consists of an open water agricultural drain with cultural woodland on

the east bank and row crop on the west bank.

10 0.56 0 (Collector line and all

other infrastructure)

May 26, 2016

15:15 – 17:30


CUW1 Mineral Cultural Woodland - 0.37 Mid-aged The canopy consists of swamp white oak, ash snags, White Elm and chokecherry. The

sub-canopy consists of hawthorne sp., chokecherry and bitternut hickory. The shrub

layer consists of chokecherry and dogwood species. The ground layer was not visible.

-

OAO Open Aquatic - 0.19 N/A This community consists of an open water agricultural drain with cultural woodland on

each bank and row crops in close proximity.



May 27, 2016

12:05 – 12:31


CUM1-1 Dry-Moist Old Field Cultural Meadow - 3.36 Young This area is agricultural in nature and have been maintained as pastureland. Canopy

and sub-canopy layers are not present within this community.

A limited shrub layer is present and consists of white ash, willow sp. and nannyberry.

The ground layer is dominated by grass species with lesser amounts of Canada

goldenrod and wild teasel.

Green Frog, Red-winged

Blackbird, Long-nosed Gar

May 27, 2016

12:05 – 12:31


OAO Open Aquatic - 1.43 N/A This community consists of an open water creek with narrow bands of riparian

woodland, a large cultural meadow, and large area of row crop on the banks.





Table 3-1: Vegetation Communities Identified In the Area of Investigation

Natural Area

Total Size of Natural

Area (ha)

Minimum Distance to Project Location (m)

Date and Time of Site Investigation

ELC Code ELC Name Inclusions

(if applicable) Area (ha)

Community Age

Vegetation Composition Incidental Wildlife Observed

12 5.51 0 (Collector line) May 27, 2016

12:31 – 13:00


FOD7-3 Fresh - Moist Willow Lowland Deciduous

Forest Type

SWT2-2: Willow

Mineral Thicket

Swamp

0.35

Young to

Mid-aged

The canopy consists of willow sp, white elm and bitternut hickory. The sub-canopy

consists of willow sp. white elm and white ash. There is no shrub layer. The ground

layer is dominated by grasses.

Bobolink, Red-winged Blackbird,

Grey Catbird, Long-nosed Gar.,

Minnow sp., and unknown fish sp.

32 (Collector line) May 27, 2016

13:10 – 13:45

FOD9 Fresh - Moist Oak Maple Hickory Deciduous

Forest Ecosite

- 1.93 Mid-aged The canopy consists of swamp white oak, white ash and Manitoba maple. The sub-

canopy consists of equal amounts chokecherry and hawthorne Sp. The shrub layer

consists of gray dogwood, honeysuckle sp, and nannyberry. The ground layer consists

of grasses, Canada goldenrod, and garlic mustard.


12:31 – 13:00

*conducted as an Alternative

Site Investigation.

OAO Open Aquatic - 0.42 N/A This community consists of an open water creek with narrow bands of riparian

woodlands.

13.5 (Collector line) July 20, 2016

(air photo interpretation)

FOD Deciduous Forest - 2.48 Mature Identified via air photo interpretation, a deciduous forest is located in this area. -


13:10 – 13:45

CUM1-1 Dry - Moist Old Field Cultural Meadow - 0.01 Pioneer -

Young

Canopy, sub-canopy and shrub layers are not present within this community.

The ground layer was dominated by reed canary grass, common reed, wild carrot and

wild teasel.

-



May 27, 2016

13:10 – 13:45

H Hedgerow - 0.53 - Identified via air photo interpretation, a planted hedgerow is located in this area. -

14 2.42

0 (All other infrastructure) May 27, 2016

11:00 – 11:30

CUM1-1 Dry-Moist Old Field Cultural Meadow - 1.73

Pioneer No canopy or sub-canopy was present within this community. A very limited low shrub

was present that consisted of riverbank grape and seedlings of black walnut. The

ground layer consisted of Kentucky blue grass, awnless brome, and field horsetail.

American Toad (adult), American

Toad (Tadpoles), Red-winged

Blackbird, Killdeer, Raccoon,

Evidence of Terrestrial Crayfish

(chimney). 0 (All other infrastructure) May 27, 2016

11:00 – 11:30

OAO Open Aquatic - 0.69

N/A This community consists of an open water agricultural drain with row crop on each

bank.

15 0.43 0 (All other infrastructure) May 27, 2016

12:31 – 13:00

H Hedgerow 0.43 Mid-aged Identified via air photo interpretation, a planted hedgerow is located in this area. -

16 7.97 0 (Collector line) July 20, 2016


FOD Deciduous Forest - 7.97 Mature Identified via air photo interpretation, a deciduous forest is located in this area. -



CUW1 Mineral Cultural Woodland - 2.21 Mid-aged –

Mature

Identified via air photo interpretation, a cultural woodland is located in this area. -

July 20, 2016


OAO Open Aquatic - 5.34 N/A Identified via air photo interpretation, two ponds are located in this area. -



OAO Open Aquatic - 0.11 N/A Identified via air photo interpretation, an agricultural drain is located in this area. -

19 0.25 0 (Collector line) August 18, 2016

10:15 – 11:00

H Hedgerow - 0.25 Mid-aged A spruce (Picea sp.) hedgerow is present in this area.





Species with this range of CC are associated with a wide variety of communities including disturbed sites. Twenty-

five percent (25%) of the species observed are ranked as having a moderate sensitivity (between 4 and 6) and

these are species that are associated with a specific community type, but tolerate moderate disturbance. Three

percent (3%) of species have a high CC rank (between 7 and 8). These species are associated with a mature

community, and are tolerant of only minor disturbances. No plants were found with the highest CC (9 and 10)

species rank, which are species which can only tolerate undisturbed and high quality native habitat.

A complete list of plant species observed in each natural area is presented in Appendix C. The rarity of each

species was determined using Appendices J and M of the SWHTG and the Natural Heritage Information Centre

(MNRF, 2011b). Of the species recorded during the Site Investigation, 53 are ranked as S5 (Secure), four (4) are

ranked as S4 (Apparently Secure) and none are ranked as provincially rare (S1-S3).

Four (4) regionally rare plants were also recorded; red-berried elderberry, catnip giant-hyssop, purple flowing raspberry

and Missouri willow were recorded in the Grey Dogwood Cultural Thicket (CUT1-4) in Natural Area 004. All suitable

habitats (delineated as ELC polygons) in those natural areas where rare plant species were observed were carried

forward to the EOS phase of this Natural Heritage Assessment as SWH, as described in Section 3.5.5.3 below.

3.3 Wetlands

A total of 1.97 ha of wetland was identified as occurring within the Area of Investigation. A single (1) wetland, a shallow

marsh with a total size of 1.97 ha was identified within 0 m of collector lines located within the public ROW. The wetland

is a narrow linear feature that was likely established through the creation agricultural drain along Arnold Road. The

shallow marsh wetland is classified as a marsh wetland type. The dominant vegetation forms are herbs (gc) dominated

by flowering-rush, a non-native species. Gc refers to the herbaceous vegetation form under the Ontario Wetland

Evaluation System (OWES). The wetland is less than 2 ha in size and does not require evaluation under OWES. The

wetland and the small wet inclusion are described in Section 3.1 and Table 3-1 above. The wetland feature (WET-001)

was carried forward to the EOS phase of this Natural Heritage Assessment. Refer to Figure 3 for location.

3.4 Woodlands

A total of five (5) woodlands were identified within the Area of Investigation through the Records Review and Site

Investigation. The boundaries of these woodland units are shown on Figure 4. A description of each woodland, as

well as the distance from each woodland to the Project Location, is provided in Table 3-2 below. With the exception

of WOD-001, these woodlands are adjacent to project infrastructure and no vegetation removal is proposed within

the features. All of these woodlands were carried forward to the EOS phase of this Natural Heritage Assessment.

Table 3-2: Woodland Features found within the Area of Investigation

Woodland ID

Natural Area(s)

Minimum Distance from Project Location (m)

3

Total Size (Ha)

Forest Community Type Woodland

Age Composition Functions

WOD-001 009 0 (overlapped by all other infrastructure)

1.62 Mineral Cultural Woodland Mid-aged Refer to Table 3-1 above.

Provides habitat for woodland plants and animals, carbon storage, and water and soil retention

WOD-002 010 0 (adjacent to collector line) 0.37 Mineral Cultural Woodland Mid-aged

WOD-004 012 0 (adjacent to collector line) 4.76 Deciduous Forest, Fresh - Moist Willow Lowland Deciduous

Forest, Fresh - Moist Oak Maple Hickory Deciduous Forest

Young to Mid-aged

WOD-006 016 0 (adjacent to collector line) 7.97 Deciduous Forest Mid-aged – Mature

WOD-007 017 0 (adjacent to collector line) 2.21 Mineral Cultural Woodland Young to Mid-aged

3. Reflects distance between feature and the Project Location (Construction Disturbance Area). In some instances the reported distance is

0 m. This occurs when the Project Location abuts a feature but does not indicate that a feature will be directly impacted by the Project.





Figure 3: Wetlands





Figure 4: Woodlands





3.5 Wildlife Habitat

The presence of candidate Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) and generalized candidate SWH within the Area of

Investigation was confirmed through the Site Investigation. A description of how a determination was made of the

presence or absence of each type of candidate SWH or generalized candidate SWH identified through the Records

Review and Site Investigation is provided in the sections that follow. The locations of candidate SWH and

generalized candidate SWH carried forward to the EOS are shown on Figures 5A – 5C.

3.5.1 Seasonal Concentration Areas of Animals

Seasonal concentration areas of animals are described in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide

(SWHTG) and Ecoregion 7E Criterion Schedule Addendum to the SWHTG (MNRF, 2015). The following seasonal

concentration areas of animals were identified as potentially occurring in the Project Boundary through the Records

Review:

Waterfowl stopover and staging areas (terrestrial and aquatic);

Shorebird migratory stopover areas;

Raptor wintering areas;

Bat hibernacula;

Bat maternity colonies;

Turtle wintering areas;

Reptile hibernacula; and,

Colonially-nesting bird breeding habitat (bank and cliff, tree/shrubs and ground).

Natural Resource Solutions Inc. (NRSI) was retained by Otter Creek Wind Farm LP., in April 2016 to conduct habitat

assessments and evaluation of significance surveys for Waterfowl Stopover and Staging Areas and Amphibian

Breeding Habitats (woodland and wetland). NRSI provided AECOM with their report titled Otter Creek Wind Farm

Waterfowl Stopover & Staging and Amphibian Breeding Habitat Site Investigations and Evaluation of Significance

Surveys on June 24, 2016. The results of their investigations as they related to the Otter Creek Natural Heritage

Assessment Site Investigation Report are summarized below and the full report is presented in Appendix D.

A description of the Site Investigation results pertaining to seasonal concentration areas of animals follows.

3.5.1.1 Waterfowl Stopover and Staging Areas: Terrestrial and Aquatic

Terrestrial waterfowl stopover and staging habitat typically consists of agricultural fields with waste grains that are

subject to annual spring flooding from melt water or runoff. Meanwhile, aquatic waterfowl stopover and staging

areas may be found within ponds, marsh, shallow water and deciduous swamp vegetation communities with fairly

extensive areas of shallow open water.

NRSI conducted surveys to search for potential waterfowl stopover and staging areas on April 1, 8, and 15, 2016. A

route of greater than 50 km was surveyed throughout the entire Project Boundary to search for fields with waste

grain and sheet water and/or spring flooding as well as the presence of aquatic habitat used by waterfowl during

migration. A total of seven (7) potential waterfowl stopover and staging areas were identified (Table 3-3 below)

within the Area of Investigation. Of these, one (1) feature (WSA-005) is located within 120 m of qualifying

infrastructure (i.e., a turbine) when the prescribed 300 m buffer for this feature type is applied. As such, this feature

is carried forward to the EOS as candidate SWH. The remaining six (6) features are within 50 m of collector lines

within the RoW, non-qualifying infrastructure for this SWH type, and are therefore carried forward to the EOS as

generalized candidate SWH. Figure 5A presents the locations of these features.





Figure 5: (5A – 5C) Significant Wildlife Habitat





Table 3-3: Terrestrial and Aquatic Waterfowl Stopover and Staging Areas

Feature No.

Minimum

Distance from

Project

Location (m)4

Provincial Criteria Habitat Assessment Results

Carried Forward

to EOS as

generalized

candidate SWH

Carried Forward

to EOS as

candidate SWH

WST-001 0 (Collector line) Fields with sheet water or annual

spring melt water flooding found in

any of the following Community

Types: Meadow (ME), Thicket (TH),

or agricultural fields utilized by

waterfowl during Spring (mid-March

to May).

Agricultural fields with waste grains

are commonly used by waterfowl;

these are not considered SWH

unless they have spring sheet

water available. Fields with

seasonal flooding and waste grains

in the Long Point, Rondeau, Lake

St. Clair, Grand Bend and Point

Pelee areas may be important to

Tundra Swans.

A habitat assessment conducted in

April 2016 confirmed that suitable

habitat is present, in the form of a

flooded agricultural field. As such,

this area provides generalized

candidate terrestrial stopover and

staging habitat for waterfowl.

Yes No

WST-004 7 (Collector line) A habitat assessment conducted in


habitat is present, in the form of a

flooded agricultural field. As such,


candidate terrestrial stopover and


Yes No

WSA-002 11.6 (Collector

line)

Suitable permanent open water with

an abundant food supply (mostly

aquatic invertebrates and vegetation

in shallow water) in the following

Community Types: Shallow Marsh

(MAS), Shallow Aquatic (SA), and

Deciduous Swamp (SWD).

Also includes ponds, marshes,

lakes, bays, coastal inlets, and

watercourses used during

migration.

Sewage treatment ponds and

stormwater ponds do not qualify as

a SWH, however a reservoir

managed as a large wetland or

pond/lake does qualify.



permanent open water is present, in

the form of an agricultural drain. As

such, this area provides generalized

candidate aquatic stopover and


Yes No


line)




the form of a natural watercourse. As

such, this area provides generalized



Yes No

WSA-005 0 (Collector line

and all other

infrastructure)




the form of a natural watercourse. As

such, this area provides candidate

aquatic stopover and staging habitat

for waterfowl.

No Yes


line)




the form of a large pond. As such,




Yes No


line)




the form of a large pond. As such,




Yes No







3.5.1.2 Shorebird Migratory Stopover Areas

Shorebird migratory stopover areas are used by migratory shorebirds to rest and feed along their migration route.

Natural areas that function as migration stopover areas for shorebirds typically provide a stretch of undisturbed

shoreline and relatively abundant invertebrate food. These habitats can be found along the shorelines of lakes,

rivers and wetlands, including beach areas, bars, seasonally flooded shoreline, mudflats, rock groynes, and other

forms of armour rock lakeshore. These habitats are associated with following ELC Ecosite codes: BBO1, BBO2

BBS1, BBS 2, BBT1, BBT2, SDO1, SDS2, SDT1, MAM1, MAM2, MAM3, MAM4, and MAM5. A section of Otter

Creek is located within the Area of Investigation; however, none of the above Ecosites were identified within the

Area of Investigation through the Records Review or Site Investigation. As such, this type of SWH was not carried

forward to the EOS.

3.5.1.3 Raptor Wintering Areas

Fields and open meadows can function as important feeding habitats for a variety of raptors, since prey (e.g., small

mammals and ground nesting birds) are often abundant in these open areas. Open areas also provide good

visibility and unimpeded flight, contributing to hunting success. Because the persistence of local raptor populations

is highly influenced by the availability of food, fields and meadows are key habitats for many raptor species.

In southern Ontario, old fields, pastures and open meadows provide critical winter roosting areas for Northern

Harriers and Short-eared Owls, which roost on the ground in winter. Good roosting habitat consists of large fields

(usually >20 ha) since these are generally not disturbed, have adequate cover, as well as abundant and nearby

prey resources, typically consisting of Meadow Voles.

For fields and meadows to function as SWH for wintering raptors, they must provide suitable habitat for prey

species. Prey population density and productivity will be maximized in fields with a diversity of herbaceous plant

species offering a mix of green leafy plant matter, seeds, nuts and fruits throughout the year. Sufficient cover is

also needed to ensure that predators do not exert too much pressure on prey populations, causing them to decline

to low levels that no longer provide sufficient food for raptors. Areas with grasses or forbs 5 cm to 30 cm in height

are ideal, as this provides adequate cover for small mammals, yet the cover is not so dense that raptors cannot

detect prey.

There are no natural areas within the Area of Investigation that contain a combination of both forest and upland

Ecosites having a total area of greater than 20 ha. As such, this SWH type was not carried forward to the EOS.

3.5.1.4 Bat Hibernacula

Bat winter hibernacula may be found in caves, mine shafts, underground formations and karsts. No candidate bat

winter hibernacula were identified within the Area of Investigation. Consequently, this type of SWH was not carried

forward to the EOS.

3.5.1.5 Bat Maternity Colonies

A total of two (2) potential bat maternity roost habitats, one (1) of which is located in Natural Area 012, southeast of

the intersection of Richardson Road and Langstaff Line, and one (1) in Natural Area 016, southeast of the

intersection of Booth Road and Langstaff Line, were identified in forested Ecosites (i.e., FOD, FOM, SWD or SWM)

within the Area of Investigation. Neither of these is located within 120 m qualifying infrastructure (i.e., a turbine), nor

are they located within an area where vegetation removal is proposed to be undertaken. Consequently, these two

(2) features are carried forward to the EOS as generalized candidate SWH. Refer to Figure 5A for locations.





3.5.1.6 Turtle Wintering Areas

Turtles over-winter in permanent water bodies including deep rivers, large wetlands, and bogs or fens with

adequate dissolved oxygen, soft mud substrates that they can burrow into, and water deep enough so as not to

freeze completely in winter. Snapping Turtles can utilize a wide variety of habitats including swamps, marshes,

bogs, fens and open aquatic communities while a Northern Map turtle use primarily open water environments with

currents in deep rivers, streams of lakes.

There are no bogs, fens, or swamps, watercourses with current, or lakes with current within the Area of

Investigation. Many manmade agricultural drains are present, which are used for agricultural purposes. Typically,

manmade agricultural water features have steep sides with minimal emergent vegetation and are not preferred

habitats for turtle wintering. Two (2) potentially manmade ponds are also present within the Area of Investigation.

Natural or naturalized ponds, as well as marshes, swamps and shallow water vegetation communities containing

water greater than 1 m in depth and muddy substrates were considered potential turtle wintering habitat. Within the

Area of Investigations open water and marsh communities were present in Natural Areas 005, 009, 010, 011, 012,

014, 017 and 018. Natural Areas 009, 010, 011, 012, 014 and 018 where channelized agricultural drains with steep

banks due to regular dredging which also lacking emergent vegetation and in many locations had limited flow.

Natural Areas 005 and 017 were represented by a marsh wetland and two large pond adjacent to a naturalized

watercourse; these were deemed potential habitat for Turtle Wintering Areas and were assessed to determine if

they contain suitable habitat for turtle wintering (Table 3-4).

Potential suitable turtle wintering habitat for Snapping Turtle was identified in two (2) locations within the Area of

Investigation, one (1) in Natural Area 005 along Arnold Road south of Langstaff Line, and one (1) in Natural Area

017 southeast of the intersection of Pond Road and Langstaff Line. Neither feature is located within 120 m of

triggering infrastructure (i.e., an access road). Both features are located adjacent to collector lines to be installed

within the municipal road RoW. As such, these features are carried forward to the EOS as generalized candidate

SWH. Refer to Table 3-4 for additional information and Figure 5B for the location. No suitable overwintering habitat

for Northern Map turtle was identified within the Area of Investigation.

3.5.1.7 Reptile Hibernacula

Rock crevices, rock piles and abandoned foundations which allow snakes to enter the ground below the frost line

provide protection from the harsh winter temperatures and enable over-winter survival. Some snake species can

hibernate in large groups, while other species tend to hibernate in isolation. Once spring has arrived, snakes will

typically come out of hibernation, bask in the sun’s warmth on sunny days in close proximity, and then return to

their hibernating sites at night. They may remain in the vicinity of their hibernaculum for a week or so before

moving out to their summer range.

No snakes were encountered during field investigations. Nor were any talus, rock barren, crevices, caves, alvars, rock

piles or abandoned foundations found within the Area of Investigation. As such, no candidate reptile hibernacula were

identified within Area of Investigation; therefore, this type of SWH was not carried forward to the EOS.

3.5.1.8 Colonially-Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat (Bank and Cliff Swallows)

Nesting colonies of Bank Swallows can be found on exposed eroding banks, such as shoreline bluffs, river banks

sand piles and abandoned pits, and steep slopes. Cliff Swallows will nest on steep rock faces such as cliffs, but

may also nest more commonly on man-made structures such as bridges and barns (which do not qualify as SWH).

Rock cliff faces do not occur within the Area of Investigation but bluffs can occur along some creeks or in

abandoned pits. Bluffs (BLO) can be an ELC community on its own, or occasionally may occur in abandoned pits

or stream banks in cultural meadows, cultural thicket or cultural savannah communities. No bluff or cliff Ecosites

were identified within the Area of Investigation during the Site Investigation (refer to Figures 2A – 2T).





Table 3-4: Turtle Wintering Areas

Natural

Area No.

Minimum Distance

from Project

Location (m)5

ELC Unit Description of

Water Body Description of Surrounding Area Substrate

Evidence of

Turtles

Water Depth

(m)

% Open Water /

% Emergent

Vegetation

Within 120 m

of Project

Location

Within

Project

Location

Carried forward to EOS

Rationale Candidate

SWH

Generalized

Candidate SWH

005 0 (Collector line) MAS2-9 in the

Skinner Agricultural

Drain

Agricultural Drain

Agricultural drain is bounded by a narrow

strip of cultural meadow/ cultural thicket

complex. Roads are immediately adjacent on

both the west and east sides of the drain.

Mineral soils, None

observed

Estimate

between 0.25

and 0.5.

50/50 Y Y No Yes May support turtle wintering habitat as

emergent vegetation is abundant.

017 1.16 (Collector line) Open Aquatic Pond Two large open water ponds, potentially man

made, adjacent to the West Otter Creek.

Property Access was not granted.

N/A N/A N/A N/A Y N No Yes Property access was not granted therefore

must assume the feature contains suitable

habitat for turtle wintering.

5. Reflects distance between feature and the Project Location (Construction Disturbance Area). In some instances the reported distance is 0 m. This occurs when the Project Location abuts a feature but does not indicate that a feature will be directly impacted by the Project.





While there were a total of eight (8) areas containing cultural vegetation communities belonging to one of the

specified Ecosites (e.g., community types belonging to CUM1 and CUT1 Ecosites) identified within the Area of

Investigation during the Site Investigation, none of these contained suitable natural Bank Swallow or Cliff Swallow

nesting habitat (refer to Table 3-5). This type of SWH was not carried forward to the EOS.

Table 3-5: Colonially-Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat (Bank and Cliff Swallows)

Natural

Area No. ELC Unit

Contains Bank,

Cliff, Slope, etc.

Habitat

Within

120 m of

Turbine

Within

Project

Location

Carried Forward to EOS

Rationale Candidate

SWH

Generalized

Candidate SWH

1 CUT1-4 No No Yes No No No suitable habitat.

2 CUM1-1/CUT1 No No Yes No No No suitable habitat.

3 CUM1-1/CUT1 No No No No No No suitable habitat.

CUM1-1/CUT1 No No Yes No No No suitable habitat.




CUM1-1/CUT1 No No No No No No suitable habitat.


CUT1-4 No No Yes No No No suitable habitat.




11 CUM1-1 No No Yes No No No suitable habitat.

CUM1-1 No No Yes No No No suitable habitat.

CUM1-1 No No Yes No No No suitable habitat.

14 CUM1-1 No Yes Yes No No No suitable habitat.

CUM1-1 No Yes Yes No No No suitable habitat.



3.5.1.9 Colonially-Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat (Tree/Shrubs)

Nesting colonies of herons generally occur within trees in treed wetlands such as mixed or deciduous swamps or

treed fen habitats. Colonies are specific sites where herons congregate to build nests and raise young but need to

fly out and forage widely from the colony in all directions over many square kilometres. No treed fens, mixed

swamps or deciduous swamps were identified in or within the Area of Investigation during the Site Investigation. As

such, no candidate colonial nesting bird breeding habitat (tree/shrub) were identified in or within the Area of

Investigation; therefore this type of SWH was not carried forward to the EOS.

3.5.1.10 Colonially-Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat (Ground)

Colonies of ground-nesting birds such as Herring Gull, Great Black-backed Gull, Little Gull, Common Tern, and

Caspian Tern may occur on any rocky island or peninsula (natural or artificial) within a lake or large river. A section

of Otter Creek is located within the Area of Investigation, but no suitable habitats were identified within the Area of

Investigation through the Records Review or Site Investigation.

Brewer’s Blackbird requires open fields or pastures with scattered trees or shrubs in close proximity to

watercourses. This species is associated with the following Ecosites and Vegetation Communities: MAM1-6,

MAS1-3, CUM, CUT and CUS. Although potentially suitable habitat does exist within the Project Location, the

Breeding Bird Atlas does not have any records of Brewer’s Blackbird within the vicinity of the Project Boundary and

the closest records are from north of Walkerton Ontario (Cadman et al., 2007), more than 200 km to the north of the

Project Boundary. Due to the very low likelihood of the species breeding within the Project Boundary, habitat for

this species was not carried forward to the EOS.





3.5.2 Rare Vegetation Communities

The following rare vegetation communities or specialized habitats for wildlife were identified as potentially occurring

in the Project Boundary through the Records Review:

Cliffs and talus slopes;

Sand barrens;

Alvars;

Savannahs;

Tall-grass prairies;

Old growth or mature forest stands; and

Other rare vegetation communities.

The presence/absence of rare vegetation communities was confirmed through the Site Investigation. No cliff or

talus slope, sand barren, alvar, savannah, tallgrass prairie or old growth/mature forest vegetation communities were

identified within the Area of Investigation. Consequently, these rare vegetation community types were not carried

forward to the EOS.

A description of the Site Investigation results for the remaining rare vegetation communities follows.

3.5.2.1 Other Rare Vegetation Communities

The provincial rankings for all vegetation communities identified within the Area of Investigation were obtained from

the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) and Appendix J of the SWHTG. These are provided in Table 3-6.

No provincially rare vegetation communities were identified within the Area of Investigation; therefore, rare

vegetation community types were not carried forward to the EOS.

Table 3-6: Provincial Rankings of Vegetation Communities Identified through the Site

Investigation

ELC Community Provincial Rank

(S-rank)1

Cultural Meadow (CUM) CUM1-1: Dry-Moist Oldfield Meadow Type S5

Cultural Thicket (CUT) CUT1: Mineral Cultural Thicket Community not ranked

CUT1-4: Gray Dogwood Cultural Thicket Type Community not ranked

Cultural Woodland (CUW) CUW1: Mineral Cultural Woodland Community not ranked

Deciduous Forest (FOD) FOD: Deciduous Forest Community not ranked

FOD2: Dry- Fresh Oak Maple Hickory Deciduous forest Community not ranked

FOD7-3: Fresh - Moist Willow Lowland Deciduous Forest Type Community not ranked

FOD9: Fresh - Moist Oak Maple Hickory Deciduous Forest Ecosite Community not ranked

Shallow Marsh (MAS) MAS2-9: Forb Mineral Shallow Marsh Type S4S5

Meadow Marsh (MAM) MAM2: Mineral Meadow Marsh Ecosite Community not ranked

Open Aquatic (OAO) OAO: Open Aquatic S5

1 S-rank: S The Natural Heritage provincial ranking system (provincial S-rank) is used by the MNRF Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) to set protection priorities for rare species and natural communities. Definitions are as follows:

S1 Extremely rare in Ontario; usually 5 or fewer occurrences in the province or very few remaining individuals; often especially vulnerable to extirpation.

S2 Very rare in Ontario; usually between 5 and 20 occurrences in the province or with many individuals in fewer occurrences; often susceptible to extirpation.

S3 Rare to uncommon in Ontario; usually between 20 and 100 occurrences in the province; may have fewer occurrences, but with a large number of individuals in some populations; may be susceptible to large-scale disturbances. Most species with an S3 rank are assigned to the watch list, unless they have a relatively high global rank.

S4 Common and apparently secure in Ontario; usually with more than 100 occurrences in the province.

S5 Very common and demonstrably secure in Ontario.





3.5.3 Specialized Habitats for Wildlife

Specialized habitats for wildlife are described in the SWHTG. The following specialized habitats for wildlife were

identified as potentially occurring in the Project Boundary through the Records Review:

Waterfowl Nesting Areas;

Bald Eagle and Osprey Nesting, Foraging

and Perching Habitats;

Woodland Raptor Nesting Habitats;

Turtle Nesting Areas;

Seeps and Springs;

Amphibian breeding habitats (woodland); and

Amphibian breeding habitats (wetland).

A description of the Site Investigation results pertaining to specialized habitats for wildlife follows.

3.5.3.1 Waterfowl Nesting Areas

Waterfowl nesting areas are typically located in upland vegetation communities composed of grasses, sedges,

rushes and low shrubs adjacent to wetland habitat with open standing water. Wood Duck nesting areas, consisting

of nesting cavities in large hollow trees or nest boxes within forests or swamps with open standing water, may also

be considered waterfowl nesting area SWH. To qualify as SWH, the surrounding upland habitat must be greater

than 120 m in width to decrease nest predation (MNRF, 2000), which is generally higher in upland habitat adjacent

to wetlands. Upland areas that are adjacent to marshes might support nests of species such as Mallard, Teal and

American Black Duck. These upland areas would often be large open meadow habitats, which there is little of in

the Project Boundary. Treed upland areas adjacent to swamps might support nests of Wood Duck or Hooded

Merganser.

There are no combinations of wetland and upland communities which meet the above criteria within the Area of

Investigation; therefore, this SWH type is not carried forward to the EOS.

3.5.3.2 Bald Eagle and Osprey Nesting, Foraging and Perching Habitat

Osprey and Bald Eagle nest near open water where fish species are abundant. Nests are built in large trees, or in

artificial structures, and can become very large as new material is added with each year. These species can be

sensitive to human activity, so remoteness may be a factor in determining a nest site.

Osprey nests in Ontario are usually 9 to 18 m from the ground (Wetmore and Gillespie, 1976) and are within 10 km

of large lakes, marshes or productive foraging areas (Ewins, 1997). Ospreys prefer dead coniferous tree tops with

unobstructed views and there is typically a tall perch nearby for the male. As such, the majority of nests are found

in mature, isolated trees, rather than groups of trees.

Like Osprey, most Bald Eagle nests are associated with large lakes. Bald Eagle nests are typically 15 to 22 m from

the ground and are often found in mature forest with discontinuous or open canopy, but may also be in isolated

groups of trees. In Ontario, Bald Eagles show a preference for live trees and conifers, typically at least 60

centimetres diameter at breast height (dbh). Bald Eagles choose trees with an unobstructed view and flight path.

Both the Osprey and Bald Eagle may use the same nest every year, for decades.

Osprey and Bald Eagle prey on fish species in clear, shallow water. Osprey typically hunt in water less than 1 m

deep while the Bald Eagle will hunt in areas less than 6 m deep. As such, nesting habitats must be located near

large water bodies with large shallow areas and an abundance of fish populations.

According to the Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, there is possible evidence of breeding for both Bald Eagle

and Osprey in the general vicinity of the Project Boundary (Cadman et al., 2007). However, these records were





from Atlas square 17LH81 and 17LH71, respectively. These squares contain areas which are largely outside of the

Project Boundary and includes the Sydenham River, which is likely where the species were observed.

While the Project Location does include woodlands adjacent riparian areas, no stick nests were observed during

the Site Investigation. Taking this into consideration and the likelihood that of the OBBA records of Bald Eagle and

Osprey were observed outside of the Area of Investigation, this SWH type is not carried forward to the EOS.

3.5.3.3 Woodland Raptor Nesting Habitat

Woodland raptors find shelter, build nests and hunt for prey in forested habitat. These species are sensitive to even

minor changes in habitat as they have specialized habitat requirements. Woodland raptors are very territorial and

seldom nest closer than 1 km to another of the same species. As a result, the species are highly sensitive to

fragmentation because they require large tracts of forest cover. In addition, some woodland raptors can be

intolerant of human activity which can result in disturbance to nests and ultimately may affect brood survival.

According to the Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, there is confirmed evidence of breeding for Sharp-shinned

Hawk and possible breeding evidence for Cooper’s Hawk and Red-Shouldered Hawk in the general vicinity of the

Project Boundary (Cadman et al., 2007).

Cooper’s Hawk usually nests in deciduous forests greater than 50 ha in size. This species prefers upland forests,

tends to nest in intermediate-aged or mature forests and forest interior, and often nests within 300 m or less of

water (Wildlife Habitat Decision Support System, Index #45; MNRF, 2010d).

Sharp-shinned Hawk’s secretive nature and tendency to nest within dense vegetation makes it a difficult species to

detect during the breeding season. These hawks breed mainly in large stands of deciduous, coniferous and mixed

pine-hardwood forests and pine plantations (Bildstein & Meyer, 2000).

Red-shouldered Hawks select nest sites near some form of water (e.g., pond, stream or swamp) in order to

facilitate access to prey (Dykstra et al. 2000, 2001), and will use deciduous or coniferous species of tree. Nests are

usually located below the canopy, but more than halfway up the tree and close to the trunk of the host tree (Palmer,

1988).

No nests of these three (3) species were recorded during Site Investigations, however the nests are typically well-

concealed and woodland raptors are very inconspicuous around their nests. Consequently, it is difficult to confirm

this type of SWH based on identifying nests alone. However, these species have woodland size criteria and no

woodlands located within the Area of Investigation are equal to or greater than 30 ha in size and contain greater

than 4 ha of interior forest. Consequently, this SWH type is not carried forward to the EOS.

3.5.3.4 Turtle Nesting Areas

Turtles typically nest in areas of open vegetation in the general vicinity of ponds, marshes, lakes or other water

bodies that support turtle populations. Sand or gravel beaches adjacent to undisturbed shallow lakes, marshes

and/or rivers provide higher quality nesting habitat and reduce the chances of a nest being discovered by a

predator, such as Striped Skunk or Raccoon. Sand and gravel absorb heat from the sun which aids in incubating

the eggs thus accelerating hatching. Nests will be laid in other soils if sand is not available, preferably exposed

soils located on south or west facing slopes to maximize radiant heat. The immediate exposed sandy shorelines of

ponds, where raised well above water level, can provide suitable nesting sites. Ideal turtle nesting habitat is located

close to water, away from roads and on sites less prone to egg predation from Striped Skunk or Raccoon (MNRF,

2015). Furthermore, nesting areas on the sides of municipal or provincial road embankments do not qualify as

SWH (MNRF, 2015).





Wetland habitat is limited within the Area of Investigation. There are no swamps, bogs or fens in or this area. Only

a single shallow marsh, which is a potentially suitable ELC Ecosite for turtle nesting areas according to the

Ecoregion 7E Criterion Schedule (MNRF, 2015) was identified in the Area of Investigation. The shallow marsh is

located within a portion of Skinner Agricultural Drain, which is bordered on each side by Arnold Road. Furthermore,

during the Site Investigation, the banks of the drain were densely vegetated with grasses and no exposed mineral

soils (sand or gravel) areas are present within 100 m of the shallow marsh. This feature does not have the

appropriate substrate for turtle nesting habitat and consequently this SWH type is not carried forward to the EOS.

3.5.3.5 Seeps and Springs

Seeps and springs, where groundwater comes to the surface, are often located at the source of coldwater streams

and within headwater areas in forested habitats. Wildlife may rely on open water available at seeps and springs

during the winter (MNRF, 2015). Seeps are also important for baseflow to streams thereby contributing to fish

habitat, and may provide habitat for a number of specialized plant species.

No seeps or springs were identified during the Site Investigation, including field studies conducted for the Water

Assessment and Water Bodies Report (AECOM, 2016), based on evidence of iron precipitates, pooling or

upwelling of water and / or the presence of seep indicator plant species, such as Watercress (Nasturtium officinale)

or Skunk Cabbage (Symplocarpus foetidus). Consequently this SWH type is not carried forward to EOS.

3.5.3.6 Amphibian Breeding Habitat (Woodland and Wetland)

Woodland breeding amphibians congregate in wooded ponds and temporary vernal or ephemeral pools in spring

where they mate and eggs are laid in water. The larvae then hatch and live in the water for several months until

they emerge as adults. To be suitable, woodland pools must hold water until at least July so that the larvae have

sufficient time to develop and transform. Pools therefore must be sufficiently deep, preferably about 50 cm in the

early spring (Calhoun and deMaynadier, 2004).

Wetland breeding amphibians congregate in temporary or permanent standing water in spring where they mate and

lay eggs. The larvae then hatch and live in the water for several months to over a year in the case of Green Frogs

and Bullfrogs. Amphibian species require a sufficient water depth with submergent and/or emergent shoreline

vegetation to support populations of invertebrates on which the larvae feed, and to provide protection from

predators. To be suitable, pools must hold water until at least July so that the larvae have sufficient time to develop

and transform. Pools therefore must be sufficiently deep, preferably about 50 cm in the early spring (Calhoun and

deMaynadier, 2004).

NRSI conducted areas searches of woodlands and wetlands throughout the Project Boundary on April 21, 2016

and May 12, 2016 in order to identify candidate amphibian breeding habitat (woodlands and wetlands). NRSI

identified one (1) candidate amphibian breeding habitat (Table 3-7 below) within the Area of Investigation. During

the Site Investigation, AECOM identified a second candidate amphibian breeding habitat within the Area of

Investigation. This results in a total of two (2) candidate amphibian breeding habitat features, one (1) of which is

located within 120 m of the Project Location which may contain qualifying infrastructure (i.e., access roads) and is

therefore carried forward to the EOS as candidate SWH (AWE-004; refer to Figure 5B for location). The remaining

feature (AWE-006) is located in Natural Area 005 along Arnold Road south of Langstaff Line and adjacent to a

collector line within the public RoW. Collector lines are non-qualifying infrastructure for this SWH type; therefore,

this feature is carried forward to the EOS as generalized candidate SWH. Refer to Figure 5B for locations for

these features.





Table 3-7: Amphibian Breeding Habitat (Woodland and Wetland)

Feature

No.

Minimum

Distance from

Project Location

(m)6

Provincial Criteria Habitat Assessment Results

Carried Forward

to EOS as

generalized

candidate SWH

Carried

Forward to

EOS as

candidate SWH

AWE-004

(Wetland)

0 (Collector line),

18.5 m (All other

infrastructure

potentially

including access

road)

Any of the following Community

Types: Swamp (SW), Marsh (MA),

Fen (FE), Bog (BO), Open Water

(OA), Shallow Aquatic (SA) that are

>500 m2 or 25 m in diameter, and

located >120 m from woodlands.

The ELC Ecosite wetland area and

the shoreline are the SWH

A habitat assessment conducted

from a roadside location in April

2016 confirmed that suitable habitat

was present, in the form of a reed

canary grass marsh, with pockets

of pooled water. As such, this area

provides candidate wetland

breeding habitat for amphibians.

No Yes

AWE-006

(Wetland)

0 (Collector line) Any of the following Community

Types: Swamp (SW), Marsh (MA),

Fen (FE), Bog (BO), Open Water

(OA), Shallow Aquatic (SA) that are

>500 m2 or 25 m in diameter, and

located >120 m from woodlands.

A wetland (MAS2-9) was identified

during the Site Investigation by

AECOM. This community meets the

criteria to be considered SWH for

Amphibian Wetland Breeding

Habitat.

Yes No

3.5.3.7 Woodland Area-Sensitive Bird Breeding Habitat

Forest-interior birds, also referred to as area-sensitive birds, are susceptible to forest fragmentation and require

large tracts of forest for nesting, or are notably more productive in large forest patches. These large sections of

continuous forest provide shelter and nesting habitat, in addition to food for their inhabitants. Birds that prefer

forest interiors tend to avoid edges, whereas birds that are considered area-sensitive tend to prefer forests with

certain size characteristics.

While some area sensitive breeding birds may occur in much smaller woodlands, these woodlands may not

contribute to reproductive success for those species. Interior forest species utilizing smaller woodlands have fewer

young reaching maturity due to greater susceptibility to nest parasitism, and nest and fledgling predation known to

occur in edge habitats. In order to qualify as SWH for interior forest breeding birds, a contiguous area of forest

must be at least 30 ha in size, of which at least 4 ha must comprise interior habitat (i.e., at least 200 m from a forest

edge), based on MNRF criteria (refer to Table 2-2). The forest must also contain some mature forest. No

woodlands within the Area of Investigation meet the above criteria; consequently this SWH type is not carried

forward to the EOS.

3.5.4 Habitat for Species of Conservation Concern (not including Threatened or Endangered Species)

3.5.4.1 Marsh Bird Breeding Habitat

A number of bird species in Ontario require high quality marsh habitat for successful breeding. The following

Ecosites are considered potential habitat for Marsh Breeding Birds: Meadow Marsh (MAM1- MAM4), Submerged

Shallow Aquatic (SAS1), Mixed Shallow Aquatic (SAM1), Floating Shallow Aquatic (SAF1), Open Fen (FEO1) and

Open Bog (BOO1). According to the Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, there is confirmed breeding evidence

for Black Tern, Marsh Wren, and Pied-Billed Grebe in the general vicinity of the Project Boundary (Cadman et al.,

2007); however none of the above suitable wetland types are present within the Area of Investigation.







Green Heron will use any Swamp (SW), Marsh (MA) or Cultural Meadow (CUM1) habitats. While cultural meadows

and a single shallow marsh are present within the Area of Investigation, there are no records of Green Heron in the

general vicinity of the Project Boundary according to the Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario (Cadman et al.,

2007). Consequently, this SWH type is not carried forward to the EOS.

3.5.4.2 Open Country Bird Breeding Habitat

Area-sensitive open country breeding birds are dependent on large patches of grassland or old field habitat for

successful breeding. This wildlife habitat type is declining throughout Ontario and North America. To qualify as

significant wildlife habitat, the MNRF criteria for grassland patches are that they must be greater than 30 ha in size

and are not classified as Class 1 or 2 agricultural lands, nor are they being actively used for farming (i.e., no row

cropping or intensive hay or livestock pasturing in the last 5 years) (refer to Table 2-2). All grassland areas

identified within the Area of Investigation were assessed based on these criteria to determine whether they contain

suitable habitat for open country breeding birds. The largest patch of grassland habitat within the Area of

Investigation was found in Natural Area 011. It is a 3.36 ha cultural meadow, which is being maintained as a

pasture for agricultural purpose. The remaining cultural meadows not actively being used for farming within the

Area of Investigation are considerably smaller than the one described above. Given that no cultural meadows, not

actively being used for farming, meet the minimum size criteria of greater than 30 ha, this SWH type is not carried

forward to the EOS.

3.5.4.3 Shrub/Early Successional Bird Breeding Habitat

Bird species utilizing shrubland for breeding are declining as a guild in North America. This type of SWH consists

of shrublands or successional fields greater than 10 ha in size, excluding Class 1 or 2 agricultural lands and lands

actively used for farming (i.e., no row-cropping in the last five years).

All shrublands and successional field areas identified within the Area of Investigation were assessed based on

these criteria to determine whether they contain suitable habitat for open country breeding birds. Shrubland

habitat, not currently actively being used for farming was identified in Natural Areas 001, 002, 003, 004, 005,

007,009, 010 and 017, the largest of which were a 3.11 ha cultural thicket in Natural Area 004. The remaining

cultural thickets and woodlands, not actively being used for farming, are all smaller in size than the one described

above. Given that no cultural thickets or woodlands, not actively being used for farming, meet the minimum size

criteria of greater than 10 ha in size, this SWH type is not carried forward to the EOS.

3.5.4.4 Terrestrial Crayfish

Chimney or Digger Crayfish occur in areas of wet or seasonally wet clay-based soils that allow burrowing crayfish

to form the tubes. These crayfish are an important keystone species as their burrows are used for hibernation by

other wildlife species including amphibians, some snakes, and a variety of invertebrates. Chimney crayfish habitat

where found in meadow marsh or shallow marsh vegetation communities is considered SWH.

All meadows and edges of shallow marsh communities within the Area of Investigation were searched for evidence

of terrestrial crayfish. None were found within these community types, which are identified as the candidate

significant Ecosites for this SWH type in the Ecoregion 7E Criterion Schedule (MNRF, 2015). Evidence of crayfish

tubes or ‘chimneys’ was observed within the Area of Investigation in the OAO community of the agricultural drain in

Natural Area 014. However, OAO is not identified as a candidate Ecosite for this SWH type and, as such, this SWH

type is not carried forward to the EOS.





3.5.5 Species of Conservation Concern Identified through the Records Review – Special Concern and Rare Wildlife

Habitats for Species of Conservation Concern (SOCC) are described in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical

Guide (SWHTG; MNRF, 2000) and Ecoregion 7E Criterion Schedule (MNRF, 2015). Any plant or animal species

designated as Special Concern or ranked S1, S2 or S3 and not already recognized as Endangered or Threatened

by COSSARO is provincially significant and considered to be a Species of Conservation Concern. As well, species

which are rare within the planning area, regardless of their provincial status, are also SOCC.

A total of 43 rare species were identified as potentially occurring within the Project Boundary through the Records

Review. Of these, 35 are considered SOCC based the criteria above. AECOM ecologists reviewed the specific

habitat requirements of these species and searched for suitable habitats during the Site Investigation. A description

of the Site Investigation results pertaining to habitats for these SOCC follows.

In addition, AECOM ecologists searched for and documented any occurrences of other SOCC not identified

through the Records Review during the Site Investigation. Complete lists of the plant and wildlife species observed

during the Site Investigations are provided in Appendix C and Appendix E, respectively. One additional SOCC,

Monarch (Danaus plexippus), was recorded within the Area of Investigation during the Site Investigation.

3.5.5.1 SOCC Birds

A total of 11 rare birds were identified during the Records Review, of which seven (7) are considered SOCC. The

habitats of all of the SOCC identified through the Records Review were assessed to determine whether suitable

habitat occurs within the Area of Investigation.

Bald Eagle habitats were assessed as part of Bald Eagle and Osprey Nesting, Foraging and Perching Habitat

(Section 3.5.3.2). No Bald Eagle nests were observed within the Area of Investigation. As such, neither Bald Eagle

and Osprey Nesting, Foraging and Perching Habitat nor Habitat for Bald Eagle were carried forward to the EOS.

Black Tern habitats were assessed as part of Marsh Bird Breeding Habitat, as described in Section 3.5.4.1 above.

As there were no suitable wetlands within the Area of Investigation for species other than Green Heron, and no

records of Green Heron in the vicinity of the Project Boundary, neither Marsh Bird Breeding Habitat nor Habitat for

Black Tern were carried forward to the EOS.

Black-Crowned Night-Heron habitats were assessed as part of Colonially Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat

(Trees/Shrubs), as described in Section 3.5.1.9 above. As there were no suitable wetland types identified within

the Area of Investigation, neither Colonially Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat (Trees/Shrubs) nor Habitat for Black-

Crowned Night-Heron were carried forward to the EOS.

Forster’s Tern habitat includes large open and fresh or saltwater marshes and deep cattail marshes which must be

near open water; marsh nesting restricts this species’ breeding distribution and it seldom uses marshes less than

300 ha in size (MNRF, 2000). No wetlands within the Area of Investigation meet these criteria therefore habitat for

Forster’s Tern was not carried forward to the EOS.

Great Egret habitat was assessed as part of Colonially Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat (Trees/Shrubs), as described in

Section 3.5.1.9 above. As there were no suitable wetland types identified within the Area of Investigation neither

Colonially Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat (Trees/Shrubs) nor Habitat for Great Egret were carried forward to the EOS.

White-eyed Vireo habitat includes dense swampy thickets, hillsides with blackberry and briar tangles, forest edges,

and early successional fields (MNRF, 2000). The species maintains territories of 1 to 2 ha in size (MNRF, 2000).

This species was identified within the vicinity of the Project Boundary during the Records Review; there is a single





record of this species in atlas square 17LH72. Atlas square 17LH72 encompasses the eastern shoreline of the St.

Clair River and is entirely outside of both of the Project Boundary and the Project Location. Furthermore, this bird is

noted to be an extremely rare breeding bird in Ontario, with the majority of the population living in the United States,

and less than 1% of breeding population being located in Canada (EC, 2015). Given the extreme rarity of this bird

being present in Ontario and the lack of records within the Area of Investigation, habitat for White-eyed Vireo was

not carried forward to the EOS.

Yellow-headed Blackbird habitat includes deep (0.6 to 1.2 m) marshes or sloughs, lake edges with emergent

vegetation, and reedy lakes (MNRF, 2000). The species forages on grain fields, freshly ploughed ground and

barnyards and nests in semi-colonial situations. Ontario is the extremely eastern edge of the species’ habitat and

this species is more abundantly found in western Canada. This bird was identified within the vicinity of the Project

Boundary during the Records Review. The records of this species were from the NHIC database and are dated

1990; however in subsequent province-wide breeding bird surveys conducted for the Ontario Atlas of Breeding

Birds, this species was not found within the vicinity of the Project Boundary. Therefore, taking into consideration the

rarity of this species and lack of up to date records of it within the vicinity of the Project Boundary, the species is

considered to no longer be present within the Area of Investigation. Habitat for Yellow-headed Blackbird was not

carried forward to the EOS.

3.5.5.2 SOCC Insects

A total of five (5) rare insects were identified during the Records Review and through the Site Investigation, all of

which are considered SOCC. Regardless of whether species were found during Site Investigations, the habitats of

all of the insect SOCC identified through the Records Review were assessed to determine whether suitable habitat

occurs within the Area of Investigation.

Duke’s Skipper habitat can be found in a variety of moist habitats with long grass, such as marshes or ditches, but

the primary habitat is patches of sedge, its main larval host plant, in forested swamps (Xerces Society, 2016). The

Ontario Butterfly Atlas (TEA, 1991), which identifies the range of Butterfly species in Ontario, confirms that the

closest record of this species to the Project Boundary is located at the eastern shoreline of the St. Clair River near

Walpole Island, which is entirely outside of both of the Project Boundary and the Area of Investigation. Given the

lack of records within the Area of Investigation, habitat for this species was not carried forward to the EOS.

Elusive Clubtail habitat appears to usually be large, clear rivers with moderate current and gravel or sandy

substrate (Nature Serve, 2015). However, the last known record of this species was from 1935, therefore the record

is considered historical and this species is no longer considered present within the Project Boundary. Habitat for

this species was not carried forward to the EOS.

Pronghorn Clubtail habitat includes slow-moving streams with sandy or muddy substrates, which are present

within the Area of Investigation; however, the last known record of this species was from 1959. Therefore, the

record is considered historical and this species is no longer considered present within the Project Boundary. Habitat

for this species was not carried forward to the EOS.

Red-legged Spittlebug habitat is associated with alvar grassland, prairie fens, jack pine barrens and lakeplain

prairie, none of which are present within the Area of Investigation. Furthermore, the last known record of this

species is from 1976, therefore the record is considered historical and this species is no longer considered present

within the Project Boundary. Habitat for this species was not carried forward to the EOS.

Monarch habitat is characterized as having an abundance of milkweed, its host plant. The observations of the

Monarch alone do not trigger SWH as the species is known to travel widely and the study area does not include

optimal habitat types including those with an abundance of milkweed. Habitat for this species was not carried

forward to the EOS.





3.5.5.3 SOCC Plants

The Project Boundary is located within the Carolinian Zone, an area known to have a high density of rare species in

Ontario. However, lands within the Area of Investigation are largely dominated by intensive agricultural production;

therefore, natural habitats which could contain the plant SOCC are limited. A total of 24 rare plants were identified

during the Records Review, of which 22 are considered SOCC. Furthermore, of the 22 SOCC identified, 19 records

are historical and only three (3) were deemed probable to still be present within the Area of Investigation.

Field investigators document all species of vascular flora encountered within the Area of Investigation, where

access was permitted. No plant SOCC were found within the Area of Investigation during the Site Investigations.

Plant SOCC (Recent Records)

Recent records of plant SOCC are assessed in detail below.

Climbing prairie rose habitat includes open or early successional habitats including prairies, open woods, shrub

thickets, old fields, pastureland, hedgerows and roadsides, as described in the Environment Canada Management

Plant for Climbing Prairie Rose (Rosa sertigera) in Canada (2013). No climbing prairie rose were observed during

the Site Investigations. This plant was identified as potentially occurring within the vicinity of the Project Boundary

during the Records Review; there are three (3) records of this species all of which are from square 17LH7918. Atlas

square 17LH7918 is a one (1) by one (1) km square that encompasses the southwestern most corner of the Project

Boundary and is outside of the Area of Investigation (i.e., no project infrastructure is proposed to be placed in the

area). Additionally, this plant was not observed during the Site Investigation. Taking into consideration that the

species was not found during the Site Investigation and the lack of records within the Area of Investigation, habitat

for Climbing Prairie Rose was not carried forward to the EOS.

Prairie milkweed habitat includes wet meadows, prairies and roadsides (MNRF, 2000). No prairie milkweed was

observed during the Site Investigation. While no meadows or prairies are present within the Area of Investigation,

roadsides are abundant. Most road RoW are regularly mown short and can only support grasses (note the

manicured road sides in Figures 2A – 2T). There are a small number of road right-of-way cultural meadows where

vegetation is more abundant and mowing does not appear to occur as frequently. However, even in these locations

mowing does occur and habitat is considered marginal. Taking into consider that the species was not observed

during the Site Investigation and that the mown road RoW are considered marginal habitat for prairie milkweed was

not carried forward to the EOS.

Swamp rose-mallow habitat includes swamp, marshes, wet woods and ponds (MNRF, 2000). No swamp rose-

mallow was observed during the Site Investigations. While there are no swamps within the Area of Investigation,

there is marsh in Natural Area 005 and wet woodlands in Natural Areas 009, 010, 012 and 016.

Natural Areas 005 and 009 were surveyed for swamp rose mallow. As the plant was not found, these features are

not considered habitat for the plant and are not carried forward to the EOS. Natural Areas 010, 012 and 016 could

contain the species but could not be surveyed due to property access restrictions. Feature SCP-007 is located in

Natural Area 010, which is 19.5 m from where qualifying Project infrastructure (i.e., an access road to turbines 7

and 8) may be located; therefore, this feature (SCP-007) is considered candidate SWH and carried forward to the

EOS (Refer to Figure 5C for location). Additionally SCP-007 is 0 m from non-qualifying infrastructure (i.e., a

collector line within the RoW). Natural Areas 012 and 016 are located within 50 m of collector lines within the RoW,

non-qualifying infrastructure for this SWH type. Consequently these two (2) features are carried forward to the EOS

as generalized candidate SWH.

Four (4) regionally rare plants were recorded during the Site Investigation. Red-berried elderberry, catnip giant-

hyssop, purple flowing raspberry and Missouri willow were recorded in feature SCP-005 (in Natural Area 004,





within the CUT1-4 polygon), as described in Section 3.2 above. Feature SCP-006 (Natural Area 001) was

investigated through an alternative site investigation therefore the presence or absence of these species could not

be confirmed, however it is an extension of the habitat along the railway corridor in feature SCP-005. Feature SCP-

005 is located 0 m or immediately adjacent to where qualifying Project infrastructure (i.e., an access road to turbine

1) may be located, as well as 0 m from non-qualifying infrastructure (i.e., a collector line within the RoW). Feature

SCP-006 is located 16.2 m from where qualifying Project infrastructure (i.e., an access road to turbine 1) may be

located, as well as 0 m from non-qualifying infrastructure (i.e., a collector line within the RoW). Both features are

therefore considered candidate SWH and carried forward to the EOS (Refer to Figure 5C for locations).

Plant SOCC (Historical Records)

Historical records of plant SOCC are summarized briefly in Table 3-8 below. However, because these records are

historical and the species are not considered to be present within the Area of Investigation, habitats for these

species are not carried forward to the EOS.

Table 3-8: Historical Records of Plant SOCC

Species Observation

Date Habitat Requirements

Habitat Present

within the Area

of Investigation

American Gromwell 6/17/1901 Species occurs on river floodplains, woods and edges of woods (MNRF, 2000). Y

American Lotus 8/27/1953 Shallow open water in marshes (MNRF, 2000) Y

Bushy Aster 8/20/1987 Inhabits prairies and wet meadows, primarily in the Carolinian Zone (MNRF,

2000).

N

Buttonbush Dodder 1986 Marsh, creek banks and pond margins; also cultivated fields - parasitic on

Ambrosia, Aster, Bidens, Circaea, Daucus, Linum, Malva, Medicago, Melilotus,

Polygonum, Trifolium (MNRF, 2000).

Y

Clinton’s Club-rush 5/8/1982 Open, sunny habitats in moist or dry, sandy or sandy-loam soils (MNDRN, 2016) N

Crowned Beggarticks 9/27/1958 Found in openings in swamps, marshes, along shores & wet fields (MNRF, 2000). Y

Deer-tongue

Panicgrass

1986 Habitats include moist depressions in rocky upland woodlands, sandy woodlands,

sandy savannahs, sand prairies, acidic gravelly seeps, sandy swamps, low areas

along streams and ponds, and abandoned sandy fields (Hilty, 2015).

N

Hazel Dodder 1986 Occurs in open, moist tall-grass prairie and meadows - parasitic on Aster,

Heliathus, Monarda, Rubus, Solidago. (MNRF, 2000).

N

Many-fruited Seedbox 1986 Wet meadows, peat bogs, and wet disturbed areas (MNRF, 2000). Y

Mat Panicgrass 7/20/1909 Prairies (MNRF, 2000). N

Mead’s Sedge 6/16/1984 Occurs in prairies and moist or dry open areas (MNRF, 2000). Y

Muskingum Sedge 8/4/1950 Wet-mesic hardwood forests (MNRF, 2000). Y

Northern Fogfruit 8/19/1950 Roadside ditches and wet places (MNRF, 2000). Y

Spreading Chervil 5/1/1986 Rich moist deciduous woods and edges, thickets; moist open places (MNRF,

2000).

Y

Tall Nutrush 1986 Moist prairie and thicket (MNRF, 2000). N

Tall Tickseed 7/7/1987 Damp prairies, thickets, open woods (MNRF, 2000). Y

Taper-leaved Water-

horehound

1986 Swampy thickets, woodlands and forests (MNRF, 2000). Y

Vasey’s Rush 5/8/1982 Sandy, open areas (MNRF, 2000). N

Wingstem 8/14/1997 Clay banks, sandy thickets, river banks and rich alluvial woods (MNRF, 2000). Y

3.5.5.4 SOCC Reptiles

Northern Map Turtle and Snapping Turtle

Habitats for these species were assessed as part of Turtle Winter Areas and Turtle Nesting Habitat, as described in

Sections 3.5.1.6 and 3.5.3.4 above. No candidate turtle nesting habitat was found within the Area of Investigation,

however, there is generalized candidate Turtle Winter Area habitat for Snapping Turtle within the Project Location

(Refer to Figure 5C). Consequently, Habitat for Snapping Turtle is carried forward as generalized candidate SWH

to the EOS. Habitat for Northern Map Turtle is not carried forward to the EOS.





3.5.6 Animal Movement Corridors

3.5.6.1 Amphibian Corridors

Many woodland and open wetland breeding amphibians move from their hibernation sites to breeding areas in

spring and then to their summer habitats. The Project Boundary is generally characterized by isolated woodlots

spread out on a mostly agricultural landscape. Many amphibians will move from one woodlot to another for

breeding, then return to their home woodlot. These movements mostly take place at night, particularly during rainy

nights in the spring. Corridors are of particular concern for proposed access roads because moving amphibians

are susceptible to road mortality.

The candidate Amphibian Breeding Habitat (Wetland) feature identified in Section 3.5.3.6 above was examined to

identify potential movement corridors. This breeding area was examined in a landscape context by considering

where amphibians are likely migrating from, and identifying probable movement corridors based on connecting

vegetation, riparian links, and nearness of natural areas.

According to MNRF criteria, amphibian movement corridors should consist of naturally vegetated areas that are at

least 200 m wide or follow a riparian area with at least 15 m of vegetation on both sides of the waterway and thus

may allow for dispersion of amphibians from terrestrial to wetland breeding habitats. Areas adjacent to the

candidate Amphibian Breeding Habitats (Wetland) feature, do not meet the above size criteria; and as a result this

SWH type is not carried forward to the EOS.

3.6 Summary of Candidate Significant Wildlife Habitats Carried Forward to Evaluation of Significance

Table 3-9 summarizes the natural features identified through the Records Review and confirmed through the Site

Investigation as occurring within the Area of Investigation; these are the features that were carried forward to the EOS.

Table 3-9: Summary of Natural Features Carried Forward to the EOS

Feature Results of Site Investigation

Wetlands One (1) wetland feature was confirmed within the Area of Investigation and carried forward to the EOS.

Woodlands Five (5) woodland features were confirmed within the Area of Investigation and carried forward to the EOS.

Significant

Wildlife Habitat

The following candidate SWH types were identified within the Area of Investigation and carried forward to EOS:

Waterfowl Stopover and Staging Areas: Terrestrial and Aquatic (WSA-005);

Amphibian Breeding Habitat (Wetland) (AWE-004);

Habitat for Plant SOCC:

Swamp rose-mallow (SCP-007);

Red-berried elderberry (SCP-005 and SCP-006);

Catnip giant-hyssop (SCP-005 and SCP-006);

Purple flowing raspberry (SCP-005 and SCP-006); and

Missouri willow (SCP-005 and SCP-006).

The following generalized candidate SWH types were identified within the Area of Investigation and carried forward to EOS:

Waterfowl Stopover and Staging Areas: Terrestrial (WST-001 and WST-004);

Waterfowl Stopover and Staging Areas: Aquatic (WSA-002, WSA-003, WSA-006 and WSA-007);

Bat Maternity Colonies (Natural Areas 012 and 016);

Turtle Wintering Areas (Natural Areas 005 and 017);

Amphibian Breeding Habitat (Woodland and Wetland) (Natural Area 005);

Habitat for Plant SOCC:

Swamp rose-mallow (Natural Areas 012 and 016); and

Habitat for Reptile SOCC:

Snapping Turtle (Natural Areas 005 and 017).





4. References

AECOM, 2016:

Water Assessment and Water Bodies Report Prepared for Otter Creek Wind Farm LP. 2016

Bried, J.T., K.L. Strout and T. Portante, 2012:

Coefficients of Conservatism for the Vascular Flora of New York and New England: Inter-State

Comparisons and Expert Opinion Bias. Northeastern Naturalist, 19(Sp6): 101-114.

Bildstein, K.L. and K. Meyer, 2000:

Sharp-shinned Hawk (Accipiter striatus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell

Laboratory of Ornithology. Accessed July, 2012. Available: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/482

Cadman, M.D., D.A. Sutherland, G.G. Beck, D. Lepage and A.R. Couturier, (eds.), 2007:

Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, 2001-2005. Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario

Field Ornithologists, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Nature, Toronto, xxii + 706 pp.

Calhoun, A.J.K. and P. deMaynadier, 2004:

Forestry habitat management guidelines for vernal pool wildlife. MCA Technical Paper No. 6, Metropolitan

Conservation Alliance, Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, New York.

Cauthrell, D.L., 1996.

Special animal abstract for Prosapia ignipectus (red-legged spittlebug). Michigan Natural Features

Inventory, Lansing, MI. 3 pp.

Environment Canada (EC), 2013:

Management Plan for the Climbing Prairie Rose (Rosa setigera) in Canada [Proposed]. Species at Risk Act

Management Plan Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa. iii + 16 pp.

Environment Canada (EC), 2015:

Status of Birds in Canada White-eyed Vireo (Vireo griseus). Available Online: http://www.ec.gc.ca/soc-

sbc/oiseau-bird-eng.aspx?sY=2011&sL=e&sM=p1&sB=WEVI. Accessed July 7, 2016.

Ewins, P.J., 1997:

Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) populations in forested areas of North America: changes, their causes and

management recommendations. J. Raptor Res. Vol. 31, pp. 138-150.

Hilty. J.D., 2015:

Illinois Wildflowers: Deer-Tongue Grass. Available Online:

http://www.illinoiswildflowers.info/grasses/plants/deertg_grass.html. Date Accessed July 7, 2016.

Lee, H.T., W.D. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig and S. McMurry, 1998:

Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: First Approximation and its Application. Ontario

Ministry of Natural Resources, Southcentral Science Section, Science Development and Transfer

Branch. SCSS Field Guide FG-02.

Municipality of Chatham-Kent, 2015:

Municipality of Chatham-Kent Zoning By-law. Consolidated as of September 03, 2015

http://www.ec.gc.ca/soc-sbc/oiseau-bird-eng.aspx?sY=2011&sL=e&sM=p1&sB=WEVI

http://www.ec.gc.ca/soc-sbc/oiseau-bird-eng.aspx?sY=2011&sL=e&sM=p1&sB=WEVI

http://www.illinoiswildflowers.info/grasses/plants/deertg_grass.html





Municipality of Chatham-Kent, 2016:

Municipality of Chatham-Kent Official Plan. Consolidated as of May 12, 2016.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR), 2016:

Rare Species Guide Trichoporm clintoniii. Available Online

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/rsg/profile.html?action=elementDetail&selectedElement=PMCYP0Q0A0. Date

accessed: July 7, 2016.

Natural Resource Solution Inc. (NRSI), 2016:

Otter Creek Wind Farm Waterfowl Stopover & Staging and Amphibian Breeding Habitat Site Investigations

and Evaluation of Significance Surveys. Prepared for Boralex. Project Number 1741. June 2016. 89 pp.

Oldham, M.J., 1993:

Distribution and Status of the Vascular Plants of Southwestern Ontario. Draft. Ontario Ministry of Natural

Resources. Aylmer. 150 pp.

Oldham, M.J., W.D. Bakowskey and D.A. Sutherland, 1995:

Floristic quality assessment system for Southern Ontario. Natural Heritage Information Centre, Ministry of

Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario. 69 pp.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), 2000:

Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide. October 2000. 139 pp.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), 2010d:

Significant Wildlife Habitat Decision Support System.


Bats and Bat Habitats: Guidelines for Wind Power Projects.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), 2011b:

Natural Resources and Values Information System (NRVIS) mapping. Accessed November 2011 and

March 2012.


Natural Heritage Assessment Guide for Renewable Energy Projects. Second Edition. November 2012. 109

pp.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), 2015b:

Significant Wildlife Habitat Ecoregion 7E Criterion Schedule. January 2015. 40 pp.

Palmer, R.S., 1988:

Red-shouldered Hawk. Handbook of North American birds, vol. 4. (Palmer, R.S. ed.), Yale University

Press, New Haven, CT, p. 413-429

Wetmore, S.T. and D.I. Gillespie, 1976:

Osprey and Bald Eagle populations in Labrador and NE Quebec, 1969-1973. Can. Field-Nat. 90: 330-337.

Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, 2016:

Euphyes dukesi Profile. Date accessed June 10, 2016. Available Online: http://www.xerces.org/dukes-

skipper

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/rsg/profile.html?action=elementDetail&selectedElement=PMCYP0Q0A0

http://www.xerces.org/dukes-

http://www.xerces.org/dukes-





About AECOM

AECOM (NYSE: ACM) is built to deliver a better world. We design, build, finance and operate infrastructure assets for governments, businesses and organizations in more than 150 countries.

As a fully integrated firm, we connect knowledge and experience across our global network of experts to help clients solve their most complex challenges.

From high-performance buildings and infrastructure, to resilient communities and environments, to stable and secure nations, our work is transformative, differentiated and vital. A Fortune 500 firm, AECOM companies had revenue of approximately US $19 billion during the 12 months ended June 30, 2015.

See how we deliver what others can only imagine at aecom.com and @AECOM.

aecom.com

http://aecom.com/

Otter Creek Wind Farm Site Investigation Report draft for discussion

Documents

Transcript of Otter Creek Wind Farm Site Investigation Report draft for discussion