DOCSLIB.ORG

Muskoka Airport Scoped Wetland Assessment District Municipality of Muskoka

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Muskoka Airport Scoped Wetland Assessment District Municipality of Muskoka GUIDING SOLUTIONS IN THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Muskoka Airport Scoped Wetland Assessment District Municipality of Muskoka Prepared For: District Municipality of Muskoka Prepared By: Beacon Environmental Date: Project: June 2011 211123 MARKHAM BRACEBRIDGE GUELPH OTTAWA (SMS Aviation Safety Inc.) 144 Main St. North, Suite 206 126 Kimberley Avenue 337 Woolwich Street 275 Slater Street, Suite 900 Markham, Ontario L3P 5T3 Bracebridge, Ontario P1L 1Z9 Guelph, Ontario N1H 3W4 Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5H9 T) 905.201.7622 F) 905.201.0639 T) 705.645.1050 F) 705.645.6639 T) 519.826.0419 F) 519.826.9306 T) 613.238.3232 F) 613.236.3754 Muskoka Airport Scoped Wetland Assessment Table of Contents page 1. Introduction ................................................................................................ 1 2. Study Objectives ........................................................................................ 1 3. Natural Heritage Policy and Regulation ................................................... 2 3.1 Endangered Species Act (2007) ..................................................................................... 2 3.2 Migratory Birds Convention Act (1994) ........................................................................... 3 3.3 District of Muskoka Official Plan (2010) .......................................................................... 3 3.3.1 Wetland Policy Review ..................................................................................................... 3 3.4 Town of Gravenhurst Official Plan (2008) ....................................................................... 4 4. Methods ....................................................................................................... 5 4.1 Background Information .................................................................................................. 5 4.2 Field Investigations ......................................................................................................... 5 5. Existing Conditions .................................................................................... 6 5.1 Vegetation Communities ................................................................................................. 6 5.1.1 Wetland Areas .................................................................................................................. 8 5.1.2 Flora ................................................................................................................................. 9 5.1.3 Wildlife ............................................................................................................................ 10 5.2 Significant Natural Heritage Features ........................................................................... 10 5.2.1 Species at Risk and Wildlife Habitat .............................................................................. 10 5.2.2 Old Growth Vegetation Communities ............................................................................. 11 6. Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................................... 11 7. References ................................................................................................ 14 Figures Figure 1. Site Location ..........................................................................................................after page 2 Figure 2. Existing Environmental Features ...........................................................................after page 6 Appendices A. Site Photographs B. Plant Species Recorded from the Study Area C. Wildlife Recorded from the Study Area Muskoka Airport Scoped Wetland Assessment 1. Introduction Beacon Environmental was retained by the District Municipality of Muskoka (DMM) in May 2011 to conduct a Scoped Wetland Assessment for lands on the west side of the Muskoka Airport. These lands are being reviewed for potential development opportunities associated with the airport. The study area is approximately 9 ha (22.5 acres) in size and is bounded by Gravenhurst Parkway to the north, Beaver Creek Drive to the west, Airport Road and mowed lawn to the east, and areas of rock barren and forest cover to the south (see Figure 1). The proposed development is at the conceptual stage and the extent and type of development has not yet been determined. The Scoped Wetland Assessment is being completed to understand what environmental constraints and opportunities there are for development. The study is intended to help guide and/or confirm development options for the lands. It is our understanding that as the study area and proposed lands for development are not proposed for severance or require rezoning, requirements under the Planning Act are not applicable nor is the proposal subject to the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). Other policies and regulations, for example, the Endangered Species Act (ESA), may apply and are discussed below. 2. Study Objectives The purpose of this study is to provide a background review and description of the physical and ecological characteristics of the wetlands and adjacent lands within the study area. This includes an initial review of the wetland functions, significance and sensitivity. The study is considered a scoped assessment of the wetlands as it is based on one primary site visit and not a multi-season field investigation program. Page 1 Muskoka Airport Scoped Wetland Assessment 3. Natural Heritage Policy and Regulation There is no proposal for severance or required rezoning and it is our understanding that there will be no development or site alteration as defined under the PPS. As such the Planning Act and the policies of the PPS do not apply. Natural heritage policies under the District of Muskoka Official Plan (DMM 2010) and Town of Gravenhurst Official Plan (2008) are therefore not specifically applicable. However, policies and policy recommendations have been given consideration. The other policies and regulations that may apply depending on the timing and location of proposed works are discussed below. 3.1 Endangered Species Act (2007) Ontario’s new ESA came into effect on June 30, 2008 and replaced the former legislation. Under the new ESA there are over 190 species in Ontario that are identified as extirpated, endangered, threatened, or of special concern. The Act prohibits the killing or harming of threatened and endangered species, as well as the destruction of their habitat. There are, however, several transitional provisions that provide extended timelines before the protection of the habitats for certain species comes into force. The full requirements of the Act for the protection of habitat will not come into effect for up to five years for many of the endangered and threatened species listed on Schedules 2 and 3 of the Species at Risk in Ontario List (SARO List). The SARO List is itself a regulation and currently is Ontario Regulation 373/10; the list (and regulation) is updated about twice a year. The endangered species listed under Schedule 1 of the new ESA were regulated under Ontario Regulation 328 of the old ESA and have general habitat provisions under the new Act. The species listed under Schedule 1 of the ESA are found on Schedules 2 and 3 of the SARO List (General Regulation 230-08). For those endangered or threatened species that do not have “general habitat” or regulated habitat protection under the ESA, the absence of habitat protection for these species will remain in effect until species specific Habitat Regulations are developed by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), or until June 20, 2013, after which “general habitat” provisions will come into effect. There are two key protection provisions in the ESA: Section 9 describes prohibited activities (e.g., kill, harm, harass, possess, collect, buy and sell) for species listed as extirpated, endangered or threatened on the SARO List. Section 10 prohibits the damage of destruction of protected habitat of species listed as extirpated, endangered or threatened on the SARO List Page 2 Highway 11 Airport Road Gravenhurst Parkway Beaver Creek Drive Site Location Figure 1 Highway 118 Germania Road Muskoka Lake Muskoka Airport Scoped Wetland Assessment Airport Road Airport First Base Solutions Highway 11 Winhara Road Web Mapping Service 2009 UTM Zone 17 N, NAD 83 - 0 85 170 340 Meters Gravenhurst Parkway 1:9,000 Site Location Project 21112 3 Gravenhurst Jun e 2011 Muskoka Airport Scoped Wetland Assessment 3.2 Migratory Birds Convention Act (1994) Regulations under the Migratory Birds Convention Act provide restrictions during the period of the end of April to the middle of August. The regulations include prohibiting the capture or killing of migratory birds, or the damage or destruction of their nests. With regard to the provisions of the Migratory Birds Convention Act that have relevance to the proposed undertaking, removal of trees, shrubs and vegetation during the period of the end of April to approximately the middle of August could contravene the Act. 3.3 District of Muskoka Official Plan (2010) The District of Muskoka Official Plan was approved in June 1991 with various amendments since that time and a recent Office Consolidation of the OP in November 2010. Section F (Environment) of the Official Plan identifies a number of “Areas of Natural Constraint” that are to be considered in development applications. The following policies under the “Wetlands” section have been considered as guidance although they do not specifically apply to this project: Wetlands F.65
Load more

Recommended publications
  • This Article Appeared in a Journal Published by Elsevier. the Attached
    This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution and sharing with colleagues. Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party websites are prohibited. In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or institutional repository. Authors requiring further information regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are encouraged to visit: http://www.elsevier.com/copyright Author's personal copy Quaternary Research 75 (2011) 531–540 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Quaternary Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/yqres Response of a warm temperate peatland to Holocene climate change in northeastern Pennsylvania Shanshan Cai, Zicheng Yu ⁎ Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Lehigh University, 1 West Packer Avenue, Bethlehem, PA 18015, USA article info abstract Article history: Studying boreal-type peatlands near the edge of their southern limit can provide insight into responses of Received 11 September 2010 boreal and sub-arctic peatlands to warmer climates. In this study, we investigated peatland history using Available online 18 February 2011 multi-proxy records of sediment composition, plant macrofossil, pollen, and diatom analysis from a 14C-dated sediment core at Tannersville Bog in northeastern Pennsylvania, USA. Our results indicate that peat Keywords: accumulation began with lake infilling of a glacial lake at ~9 ka as a rich fen dominated by brown mosses.
    [Show full text]
  • Minesing Wetlands Natural Area Conservation Plan Executive Summary Approved in 2017
    Minesing Wetlands Natural Area Conservation Plan Executive Summary Approved in 2017 Vision Statement The Minesing Wetlands is one of the largest wetland systems in southern Ontario and supports a diversity of rare species and wetland habitats including extensive marshes, fens, and treed swamps. Conservation activities focus on strategic securement of remaining private land parcels, and restoration activities in a variety of habitats to retain the full complement of ecological functions and structures. Conservation partners, compatible recreational users, researchers and community members are cooperatively engaged in the long-term conservation, promotion, and understanding of this Ramsar Wetland of International Importance. Project Team Name Organization Role Phone Email 519-826-0068 x.5222 kristyn.ferguson@ Kristyn Nature Conservancy natureconservancy.c Ferguson of Canada Plan lead a Nature Conservancy Team Laura Robson of Canada member Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Team Byron Wesson Authority member Nottawasaga Valley Dave Conservation Team Featherstone Authority member Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Team Kyra Howes Authority member Nature Conservancy Team Claire Elliott of Canada member Mhairi Nature Conservancy Team McFarlane of Canada member Doug van Nature Conservancy Project Hemessen of Canada advisor Sean Ducks Unlimited Project Rootham Canada advisor Naomi Friends of Minesing Project Saunders Wetlands advisor Danny Friends of Minesing Project Mainville Wetlands advisor Project Chris Evans Nature Barrie advisor Nottawasaga Valley
    [Show full text]
  • CEDARBURG BOG WETLAND TYPES Kate Redmond Coniferous Bog, Coniferous Swamp, Fen, Lowland Hardwood Swamp, Marsh, Shrub Carr, Ephemeral Pond, Patterned Peatland
    SOUTHEAST - 2 CEDARBURG BOG WETLAND TYPES Kate Redmond Coniferous bog, coniferous swamp, fen, lowland hardwood swamp, marsh, shrub carr, ephemeral pond, patterned peatland ECOLOGY & SIGNIFICANCE low strips of open sedge mat alternating with peat ridges of bog birch, leatherleaf, white cedar and tamarack. Plants Cedarburg Bog is the least disturbed large bog remaining common at the site include cranberry, bog birch, narrow- in southern Wisconsin. This wetland complex was once leaved sedge, bogbean, water horsetail, arrowgrass and part of a large glacial lake; today six lakes of varying size orchids as well as insectivorous plants like round-leaved and depth, all with high water quality, remain. The site’s • sundew, purple pitcher plant and bladderwort. More than OZAUKEE COUNTY 2500 acres support a number of different wetland plant 35 plant species at Cedarburg Bog are at or near the southern community types and an associated diversity of plants, extent of their range in Wisconsin. including many species that are regionally rare and are at the southern limits of their range here. This Wetland Gem Cedarburg Bog provides excellent habitat for both breeding also supports significant wildlife diversity including many and migrating birds. Nearly 300 species of birds have been amphibians, mammals and hundreds of birds. documented in the area, including 19 species that are near the southern extent of their range in Wisconsin. Breeding FLORA & FAUNA birds include Acadian Flycatcher, willow flycatcher, hooded This diverse wetland complex consists of extensive warbler, golden-crowned kinglet, Canada warbler, northern coniferous bog with a canopy of tamarack and black spruce waterthrush and white-throated sparrow.
    [Show full text]
  • Dynamique Du Pin Blanc (Pinus Strobus Linnaeus) Dans Les Tourbières Ombrotrophes Du Sud Du Québec
    Dynamique du pin blanc (Pinus strobus Linnaeus) dans les tourbières ombrotrophes du sud du Québec Mémoire Sarah-Kim Lavoie Maîtrise en sciences géographiques Maître en sciences géographiques (M. Sc. Géogr.) Québec, Canada © Sarah-Kim Lavoie, 2017 Dynamique du pin blanc (Pinus strobus Linnaeus) dans les tourbières ombrotrophes du sud du Québec Mémoire Sarah-Kim Lavoie Sous la direction de : Martin Lavoie directeur de recherche Martin Simard codirecteur de recherche ii RÉSUMÉ Plusieurs tourbières du Québec sont aujourd’hui caractérisées par un processus de boisement qui est souvent une conséquence des activités anthropiques in ou ex situ ayant affecté leurs conditions hydrologiques. Bien que le pin blanc (Pinus strobus) soit une espèce arborescente que l’on rencontre plutôt rarement dans les tourbières ombrotrophes, les individus qui y poussent semblent afficher dans plusieurs cas une bonne croissance, autant en hauteur qu’en diamètre. Les objectifs de la présente étude étaient (1) de déterminer l’époque d’établissement de l’espèce dans quelques tourbières de la région écologique de la Plaine du Saint-Laurent et les facteurs ayant favorisé cet établissement, (2) de caractériser leur croissance radiale et (3) de déterminer les facteurs qui ont régi la croissance. Cinq tourbières ont été étudiées. Des analyses dendrochronologiques ont été réalisées pour des individus sur tourbe et sur sol minéral à proximité afin de comparer la croissance entre les deux types de milieu. Des fonctions de réponse et de corrélation ont été effectuées sur les séries dendrochronologiques afin de déterminer l’influence du climat sur la croissance. Enfin, des monolithes de tourbe de surface furent l’objet d’une analyse macrofossile afin de trouver des restes de pin blanc.
    [Show full text]
  • 7.0 Disturbance Processes (Threats) and Their Impact on Sifton Bog ESA
    7.0 Disturbance Processes (Threats) and their Impact on Sifton Bog ESA Many natural disturbance processes, modified by human proximity and interaction, are currently disrupting the ecological integrity of the Sifton Bog ESA. This section describes nine threats and their effect on the bog. Some management options are presented here, with additional recommendations in Chapter 8. Timely intervention is needed to manage these threats to acceptable levels that will result in no further harm and, ideally, will allow the naturally resilient ecosystem an opportunity to recover. Many of these threats commonly occur in other natural areas. The relatively small size of Sifton Bog ESA compared with other ESAs in the City makes it an early indicator of ecosystem distress. The disturbance processes discussed include: • Changes to bog hydrology • Overabundance of White-tailed Deer • Invasive alien plant species and other bog invaders • Human use effects (trails and vegetation and wildlife disturbance) • Effects of adjacent land use and disturbance processes on bog succession • Effects of tree hazard cutting on forest stand basal area • Introduced Goldfish in Redmond’s Pond • West Nile Virus mosquito control program • Effects of fire 7.1 Stress-Response-Intervention-Outcome Model Urban wetlands such as the Sifton Bog require intervention to safeguard biodiversity and to sustain the habitat values that are desirable for educational and research purposes. One cannot assume that a natural park in an urban environment, if it is to remain in a natural, healthy state, can be left to nature unattended. If such lands are in public ownership, then wise and timely intervention are a responsibility.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sawkill Creek
    The Sawkill Creek & Vandermark Creek Watershed: A Rivers Conservation Plan Prepared by: Princeton Hydro, LLC 1108 Old York Rd., Suite 1 P.O. Box 720 March 2005 Ringoes, NJ 08551 This plan was funded, in part, through a grant from: Pennsylvania Department of Conservation & Natural Resources Bureau of Recreation and Conservation Community Conservation Partnerships Program Rivers Conservation Program Keystone Recreation, Park and Conservation Fund Introduction Sawkill Creek - Vandermark Creek RCP Table of Contents Topic Page Table of Contents i List of Tables ii List of Figures iii List of Appendices iii Introduction 1 Section 1 - Project Area Characteristics: An Overview 1.1 Watershed Location, Size and Major Tributaries 5 1.2 Topography 7 1.3 Geohydrology 7 1.4 Land Use and Zoning 10 1.5 Social/Economic Profile 13 1.6 Outstanding or Unique Features 17 Section 2 - Identification of Regional Public Issues, Concerns, Constraints and Opportunities 2.1 Public Participation Process 20 2.2 Outreach Approach 22 Section 3 - Land Resources 3.1 Soil Characteristics and Limitations 25 3.2 Prime Agricultural Soils 35 3.3 Geology 37 3.4 Land Use / Land Cover 39 3.5 Landfills and Sinkholes 39 3.6 Potential Hazard Areas 39 Section 4 - Water Resources 4.1 Major Tributaries 41 4.2 Wetlands 42 4.3 Floodplains 47 4.4 Lakes and Ponds 48 4.5 Water Quality 49 4.6 Water Supply 51 i Introduction Sawkill Creek - Vandermark Creek RCP Section 5 - Biological Resources 5.1 Vegetation 52 5.2 Wildlife 53 Section 6 - Cultural and Historic Resources 6.1 Recreational Resources
    [Show full text]
  • A Continental Dataset of Riparian Zones
    Remote Sens. 2016, 8, x; doi: S1 of S7 Supplementary Materials: Europe’s Green Arteries— A Continental Dataset of Riparian Zones Christof J. Weissteiner, Martin Ickerott, Hannes Ott, Markus Probeck, Gernot Ramminger, Nicola Clerici, Hans Dufourmont and Ana Maria Ribeiro de Sousa Supplementary Data Figures S1 and S2 show composing sources of the ARZ/PRZ ratio, for a country-wise and DU-wise approach, i.e., the country-wise and DU-wise ARZ and PRZ sums are visible. The regression lines serve as orientation lines, in order to understand each country’s or DU’s position within the continental context. The country-wise regression lines are both depicted for (i) all countries and (ii) for all countries without NO, SE, FI, which exhibit particular high ARZ values. Similarly, the DU-regression is depicted for (i) all DUs and for (ii) all DUs without Nordic DUs, which exhibit again particularly high ARZ values. Figure S1. Country-wise comparison of ARZ/PRZ ratios dependent on the individual overall extents. Due to extra-ordinary high ARZ abundance for three Nordic countries (NO, FI, SE), regression lines were calculated with/without them. The small graph displays the indicated detail. Remote Sens. 2016, 8, x; doi S2 of S7 Figure S2. DU-wise comparison between ARZ and PRZ. Due to extra-ordinary high ARZ abundance for some Nordic DUs (27A, 29A, 31A, 37A, 38A, 34A), regression lines were calculated with/without them. The small graph displays the indicated detail. Remote Sens. 2016, 8, x; doi S3 of S7 Figure S3. (A) Spatial distribution of the visual validation points and complementary points used in the accuracy assessment; (B) Number of checkpoints and matches as well as checkpoint’s containing ARZ polygon size (average) per Strahler’s stream order and accuracy type (Producer’s accuracy (PA) and User’s accuracy (UA)).
    [Show full text]
  • Wetland Hydrology Monitoring Report 2007-2009
    Wetland Hydrology Monitoring Report 2007-2009 NorthMet Project Prepared for PolyMet Mining Inc. March 2010 Wetland Hydrology Monitoring Report 2007-2009 NorthMet Project Prepared for PolyMet Mining Inc. March 2010 4700 West 77th Street Minneapolis, MN 55435-4803 Phone: (952) 832-2600 Fax: (952) 832-2601 Wetland Hydrology Monitoring Report 2007-2009 PolyMet Mining Inc. March 2010 Table of Contents Executive Summary.....................................................................................................................................vi 1.0 Objectives ..............................................................................................................................................1 2.0 Methods..................................................................................................................................................2 2.1 Well Placement ...............................................................................................................................2 2.2 Well Construction and Installation..................................................................................................3 2.3 Water Level Recording ...................................................................................................................4 3.0 Wetland Hydrology and Climatic Criteria .............................................................................................5 3.1 Wetland Hydrology Criteria............................................................................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • Minesing Wetlands Biological Inventory
    Minesing Wetlands Biological Inventory February 2007 Prepared for: Friends of Minesing Wetlands Minesing Wetlands Biological Inventory & Nottawasaga Valley Conservation12/13/2007 Authority Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority MINESING WETLANDS BIOLOGICAL INVENTORY Prepared by ROBERT L. BOWLES, JOLENE LAVERTY and DAVID FEATHERSTONE February 2007 Prepared for Friends of Minesing Wetlands & Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority Minesing Wetlands Biological Inventory 12/13/2007 Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority FOREWARD The Minesing Wetlands Biological Inventory and Evaluation was conducted during 2005-2006 field season. Technical investigations were conducted within the Minesing Wetlands by Bowles Environmental Consultants and Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA) for the NVCA Minesing Wetlands Management Plan and for Friends of Minesing Wetlands (FOMW). This report received technical review prior to its publication and does not necessarily signify that its contents reflect the views and policies of the Friends of Minesing Wetlands or their partners; nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. For additional copies of this report or information about NVCA or FOMW, please contact: Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority Centre for Conservation John Hix Conservation Administration Centre 8195 Concession Line 8 Utopia, Ontario L0M 1T0 Phone: (705) 424-1479 Fax: (705) 424-2115 www.nvca.on.ca Friends of Minesing Wetlands www.minesingswamp.ca Minesing Wetlands
    [Show full text]
  • Section 4 – E Nvironmental Inventory and Analysis
    SECTION 4 – ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS A. Geology, Soils and Topography 1. General Description Foxborough is located in Norfolk County in eastern Massachusetts. It shares many characteristics with other New England towns, including varying soils, abundant forest land and wetlands, and a system of rivers and streams. Soils are typically shallow, stony, and dry on hillsides, richer and deeper in drainage areas, with wetlands and the fertile flatlands toward the south. To the northwest, the topography is more rugged, with hilltop elevations reaching 430 feet. From the top of High Rocks in the State Forest, you can see Boston and Southeastern Massachusetts. Throughout the town, the highest elevations are no more than 100 feet above surrounding areas. The Town lies on the divide between two major watersheds, the Neponset River to the north and the Taunton River to the south. Topographic extremes are found at either end of a line between High Rock and Beaumont’s Pond. The land grades from 430 feet at the fire tower to 150 feet where Canoe River enters Mansfield; this line passes across Foolish Hill, which is prominent more because of its isolation than its height. The land from east of the South Street/Mechanic Street line is for the most part flat or gently rolling interspersed with numerous wetlands and vernal pools. It appears to be a transitional plateau between the more irregular uplands and the broad flat plan which characterizes the Mansfield/Easton area. a. Bedrock Geology - Foxborough is located in the Eastern Plateau of Massachusetts. The majority of this area is characterized by glacial deposits that overlay a flat, well-dissected bedrock plateau which slopes gently eastward with summit altitudes generally less than 500 feet.
    [Show full text]
  • Information Regarding Agency Jurisdiction
    FRESHWATER WETLANDS This is a supplement to the Citizen’s Guide, which provides basic information about Adirondack Park Agency regulations. Regulated Wetlands Defined in §802 of the Adirondack Park Agency Act, wetlands are “any land which is annually subject to periodic or continual inundation by water and commonly referred to as a bog, swamp or marsh which are either (a) one acre or more in size or (b) located adjacent to a body of water, including a permanent stream, with which there is free interchange of water at the surface, in which case there is no size limitation1.” Section 578.3 of the Agency’s regulations provides additional wetland information, and the criteria for identifying wetland areas are provided in the New York State Wetland Delineation Manual (available at http://www.apa.ny.gov). Wetland Permitting Under the Adirondack Park Agency Act and the Freshwater Wetlands Act, an Agency permit must be obtained for the following activities involving wetlands in the Adirondack Park: 1. Draining, dredging, or excavating2 a wetland; 2. Placing fill, including soil, stone, sand, gravel, mud, trash, structures, pilings, roads, or any other obstruction or substance3, into a wetland; 3. Clearcutting4 more than three acres; 4. Releasing any form of pollution into a wetland, including pesticides and sewage effluent or other liquid waste; 1 Areas that are less than one acre in size and meet the New York State Wetland Delineation Manual criteria are considered wetlands for Agency purposes if: 1) the adjacent waterbody is at least 6.6 feet deep; 2) the adjacent waterbody is at least one acre in surface area; 3) the adjacent waterbody and the wetland together are at least one acre in surface area; or 4) the adjacent waterbody has a permanent surface water inlet or outlet.
    [Show full text]
  • Vol 3 Appendix H Vegetation and Wetlands
    Appendix H Vegetation and Wetlands (Baseline Data Summary) Suncor Energy Inc. Lewis In Situ Project Volume 3 – EIA Appendices February 2018 APPENDIX H: VEGETATION AND WETLANDS (BASELINE DATA SUMMARY) TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1.0 ECOLOGICAL LAND CLASS DESCRIPTIONS ............................................................. 1 2.0 ALBERTA WETLAND CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM .................................................... 20 3.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 25 LIST OF TABLES Table H-1: Characteristic Species in Ecological Land Class b4 (n=3) .................................... 3 Table H-2: Characteristic Species in Ecological Land Class d2 (n=9) .................................... 4 Table H-3: Characteristic Species in Ecological Land Class d3 (n=4) .................................... 5 Table H-4: Characteristic Species in Ecological Land Class g1 (n=13) .................................. 7 Table H-5: Characteristic Species in Ecological Land Class h1 (n=8) .................................... 8 Table H-6: Characteristic Species in Ecological Land Class i1 (n=4) ..................................... 9 Table H-7: Characteristic Species in Ecological Land Class i2 (n=3) ..................................... 9 Table H-8: Characteristic Species in Ecological Land Class j1 (n=13) ................................. 10 Table H-9: Characteristic Species in Ecological Land Class k1 (n=7) .................................. 11 Table H-10: Characteristic Species
    [Show full text]