Natural Heritage Evaluation and Records Review

CCOONNEESSTTOOGGOO WWIINNDD FFAARRMM

RECORDS REVIEW AND NATURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION ONTARIO REGULATION 359/09

prepared for

GENIVAR Inc.

on behalf of

NEXTERA ENERGY

DECEMBER 2010 LGL PROJECT TA4914-02

CCOONNEESSTTOOGGOO WWIINNDD FFAARRMM

RECORDS REVIEW AND NATURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION ONTARIO REGULATION 359/09

prepared by:

Digital signature Digital signature J. Arnel Fausto Allison Featherstone Senior Ecologist, Vice President Planning Ecologist

Digital signature Digital signature Jen Noël Robert Nisbet Botanist, ISA Certified Arborist Senior Wildlife Biologist

LGL Limited environmental research associates 3365 Harvester Road Burlington, Ontario L7N 3N2 Tel: 905-333-1667 Fax: 905-333-2660 Email: [email protected] URL: www.lgl.com

DECEMBER 2010 LGL PROJECT TA4914-02

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 CURRENT LAND USE ...... 2 2.0 RECORDS REVIEW...... 3 2.1 RECORDS RELATED TO PROVINCIAL PARKS AND CONSERVATION RESERVES ...... 3 2.2 RECORDS RELATED TO NATURAL FEATURES ...... 3 2.2.1 Ministry of Natural Resources Records ...... 3 2.2.1.1 Ministry of Natural Resources...... 3 2.2.1.2. Ontario Wind Resources Atlas ...... 5 2.2.2 Crown Land ...... 6 2.2.3 Conservation Authority Records ...... 6 2.2.3.1 Grand River Information Network (GRIN) Interactive Mapping...... 6 2.2.3.2 Lake Erie Source Protection Characterization Report ...... 6 2.2.3.3 Watershed Forest Plan ...... 7 2.2.3.4 Land Use Planning Policy...... 7 2.2.4 Upper Tier Municipality Records ...... 8 2.2.5 Lower Tier Municipality Records ...... 8 2.2.6 Planning Board Records ...... 9 2.2.7 Municipal Planning Authority Records ...... 9 2.2.8 Local Roads Board Records ...... 9 2.2.9 Local Services Board Records ...... 9 2.2.10 Niagara Escarpment Plan Records ...... 9 2.3 KEY FINDINGS OF THE RECORDS REVIEW ...... 9 3.0 SITE INVESTIGATION ...... 11 3.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY ...... 14 3.2 SIGNIFICANT VALLEYLANDS ...... 14 3.3 VEGETATION AND VEGETATION COMMUNITIES ...... 15 3.4 WILDLIFE HABITAT AND COMMUNITIES ...... 24 3.4.1 Birds ...... 25 3.4.2 Reptiles and Amphibians...... 25 3.4.3 Mammals ...... 26 3.4.4 Bats ...... 26 3.4.5 Plants/Vegetation ...... 26 3.5 SPECIES AT RISK SCREENING AND CONFIRMATION...... 27 3.6 SUMMARY OF CORRECTIONS BASED ON SITE INVESTIGATIONS ...... 28 4.0 EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANCE ...... 37 4.1 REA REQUIREMENTS ...... 37 4.2 SIGNIFICANT NATURAL FEATURES ...... 37 4.2.1 Significant Woodlands ...... 43 4.2.1.1 Evaluation of Significance ...... 44 4.2.2 Significant Wildlife Habitat ...... 46 4.2.3 Significant Wetlands ...... 52 4.2.3.1 Evaluation of Significance ...... 52 4.3 Evaluation of Significance Methodology, Criteria and Procedures for Valleylands ...... 58 4.4 Public and Aboriginal Consultation Input to Evaluation of Significance ...... 59 4.4.1 Aboriginal Communities ...... 59 4.4.2 Public Consultation ...... 59 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 60 5.1 Prohibited Areas ...... 60 6.0 CONCLUSION ...... 66 7.0 REFERENCES ...... 67

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Natural Heritage Information Centre Rare Species Records Table 2 Natural Features identified in project location through records review Table 3 Summary of Site Investigations for the Project Team Table 4 Site Assessment Details for Valleylands within 120m of Project Location Table 5 Summary of Natural Features, Attributes, Composition and Functions for Features Identified within 120m of Project Components Table 6 Summary of Site Investigations and Evaluation of Significance for Significant Wildlife Habitat within 120m of Project Components Table 7 Aquatic Species at Risk Assessment and Confirmation Table 8 Vegetation Species at Risk Assessment and Confirmation Table 9 Wildlife Species at Risk Assessment and Confirmation Table 10 Site Investigation Summary for Determining Significance of Natural Features Table 11 Site Assessment and Evaluation of Significance Details for Woodlands within 120m of Project Location Table 12 Woodland Evaluation Criteria and Methodology Table 13 Evaluation of Significance of Woodlands within the Conestogo Wind Farm Project Location using Criteria from the MNR Natural Heritage Reference Manual, 2005, 2nd Edition Table 14 Significant Wildlife Habitat Assessment Summary Table 15 Assessment Details for Significant Wetlands within 120m of Project Location Table 16 Wetland Evaluation of Significance Summary Table 17 Evaluation of Significance of Valleylands within the Conestogo Wind Farm Project Location using Criteria from the MNR Natural Heritage Reference Manual, 2005, 2nd Edition Table 18 Summary of Significant Natural Features within 120m of Project Location Table 19 Environmental Impact for Significant (and Potential Significant) Natural Features and Watercourses within 120m of Wind Power Project Components

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Project Components Buffer Figure 2 Sub-area 1 Figure 3 Sub-area 2 Figure 4 Sub-area 3 Figure 5 Sub-area 4 Figure 6 Sub-area 5 Figure 7 Wildlife Habitat Figure 8 Valleylands Figure 9 Significant Woodlands

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A AGENCY CONTACT SUMMARY APPENDIX B GRCA MAPPING USED IN VALLEYLANDS ANALYSIS APPENDIX C VASCULAR PLANT CHECKLIST APPENDIX D ANNOTATED BREEDING BIRD LIST APPENDIX E LGL LIMITED FIELD NOTES APPENDIX F LGL LIMITED RUNNING WILDLIFE LIST APPENDIX G DAVE MARTIN 2010 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS MEMO AND FIELD NOTES APPENDIX H WETLAND EVALUATION SCORING SHEETS APPENDIX I PROJECT TEAM QUALIFICATIONS (LGL LIMITED, GENIVAR, DAVE MARTIN) APPENDIX J REVIEW OF RECORDS REVIEW CORRECTIONS BASED ON SITE INVESTIGATIONS

Definitions

NHIC – Natural Heritage Information Centre (now referred to as the Biodiversity Database) as maintained by the Ministry of Natural Resources, available online on http://nhic.mnr.gov.on.ca/.

Study area – general location of the wind energy project, is bounded by Highway 6 to the north, Sideroad 18 to the east, 14th Line to the south and Sideroad 16 to the west.

Project area – areas within 120m of project components (sees Figure 1 of this report for a mapped image of the project components and project area).

Project location – part of a land and all or part of any building or structure in, or, over which a person is engaging in or proposed to engage in the project and includes air space. The location includes all components of the renewable energy facility such as wind turbines, lay down areas, access roads, crane assembly areas, walking paths, hydro lines/corridors, transformer stations, fencing, lighting, and construction yards.

Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

1.0 INTRODUCTION NextEra Energy Canada, ULC is proposing a single Class 4 Wind Facility consisting of nine 2.3 MW wind turbines and one 2.21 MW turbine for a nameplate capacity of 22.91 MW in the area of Arthur, Ontario to convert wind energy into electricity to be fed into the Hydro One transmission grid. The defined study area, presented as Figure 1, covers approximately 2400 ha south of Arthur and west of Alma.

The major components of the projects are as follows:

• Nine Siemens SWT 2.3-101 wind turbines

• One Siemens SWT 2.21-101 Wind Turbines

• Pad mount 690 v/ 34.5 kV step up transformers located at or near the base of each turbine

• Buried and overhead 34.5 kV electrical collector system, and ancillaries

• A 44 kV electrical line

• A transformer substation to connect to the Hydro One distribution system

• Turbine access roads

• Temporary staging areas for erection of wind turbines

• 1 meteorological tower

The turbine layout, along with associated wind power facility components are shown in Figures 1-6.

In May 2009, the Ontario Green Energy Act, aimed at expanding clean and renewable sources of energy, came into effect (MOE, 2010). As a result, renewable energy projects are subject to a regulatory approval process.

The Environmental Approvals Act: Ontario Regulations 359/09 Renewable Energy Approvals under Part V.0.1 of the Act, Section 24(1) indicates that a natural heritage assessment is required for renewable energy projects. This assessment involves:

• A records review (Sec.25);

• Site investigation (Sec.26); and,

• An evaluation of the significance of the natural features identified within the records review and site investigation (Sec.27) (MOE, 2010).

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 1 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

LGL Limited was retained by Genivar Inc. and NextEra Energy Resources to complete a natural heritage assessment for this proposed wind farm. The proposed wind farm study area is bounded by Highway 6 to the north, Sideroad 18 to the east, 14th Line to the south and Sideroad 16 to the west. Refer to Figure 1 for the study area.

1.1 CURRENT LAND USE The study area is subjected to frequent disturbance as the predominant land use is active agriculture (i.e. corn, soy beans and alfalfa). The natural features identified within this study area include hedgerows, forest, and wetland units, as well as minor tributaries of the Conestogo River.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 2 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

2.0 RECORDS REVIEW

2.1 RECORDS RELATED TO PROVINCIAL PARKS AND CONSERVATION RESERVES Based on the Crown Land Use Policy atlas administered by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), provincial parks and conservation reserves were not identified within or adjacent to the study area and project location. A search of the Ontario Provincial Parks website was also completed confirming that there were no provincial parks within the study area.

Background data records were examined to determine if the study area was located in a natural feature, within 50m of an Earth Science Area of Natural Interest (ANSI) or within 120m of a natural feature that is not an Earth Science ANSI. This records review was conducted in May 2010, with results provided in this report.

2.2 RECORDS RELATED TO NATURAL FEATURES 2.2.1 Ministry of Natural Resources Records The records associated with the MNR are outlined in the following sections. This review included correspondence with the MNR Staff in June 2007 (A. Timmerman, Area Biologist) as well as searching the:

• Natural Heritage Information Centre/Biodiversity Database;

• Lands Information Ontario Online Mapping;

• Natural Resources and Values Information (NRVIS) Centre Mapping;

• Ontario Wind Resources Atlas; and,

• Available fish records for the study area.

2.2.1.1 Ministry of Natural Resources Consultation was completed in June 2007 with Area Biologist, Art Timmerman, regarding aquatic habitat and communities in the study area. No significant features were identified at that time. A. Timmerman identified the potential for Pike spawning habitat to occur in the limits of the study area.

The MNR- Guelph District was contacted on May 12, 2010 with regards to natural features located within the study area. Information on wetlands, aquatic habitat and species at risk was provided in writing on May 25, 2010. A copy of this letter is provided in Appendix A. The correspondence from MNR did not indicate the presence of known Significant Wetlands, Woodlands, Valleylands or Wildlife Habitat within the study area and project location.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 3 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

Wetlands Within the study area, there are wetlands that have not been evaluated. The MNR suggested there is a possibility that the wetland communities in the south east corner of the study area could be added to the Alma Wetland Complex Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW).

No PSWs are identified within 120m of project location.

Species at Risk (SAR) An analysis was also completed for species listed as Threatened or Endangered. This information is included in the Species-At-Risk Report. These species were considered separately as the protection of Endangered and Threatened species is not subject to Ontario Reg. 359/09 but is provided under the Endangered Species Act, 2007.

The Approval and Permitting Requirements Document for Renewable Energy Projects (MNR, 2009) was also used as part of this analysis as it outlines requirements for associated permits or approvals for renewable energy project where MNR has a legislative responsibility, including the Endangered Species Act, 2007.

Vegetation Communities A search of the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) Biodiversity Explorer did not identify unusual or rare vegetation communities within the study area. However, a rare species occurrence was identified and results of the query is shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Natural Heritage Information Centre Rare Species Records

Element Provincial Rank MNR COSEWIC Year of Occurrence Species Scientific Name (S Rank) Ranking Ranking Record ID Plant Species 60222 American Lithospermum S3 1941-06-22 Gromwell latifolium (Source: Ministry of Natural Resources (2010) Status Legend SRANK - Natural Heritage Information Centre Species Rank S3-vulnerable

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 4 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

This consists of a record of American Gromwell Lithospermum latifolium in 1941. Since the species occurrences are mapped in a 1 km x 1 km block, an exact location is unknown. American Gromwell is one of the woodland wildflowers that bloom during the spring, but it is often overlooked and many field guides fail to describe it, probably because its flowers are not very showy. American Gromwell resembles the more common and widespread Lithospermum officinale (European Gromwell) in its overall appearance. The American Gromwell is a conservative species which prefers high quality rich woodlands where the original ground flora is largely intact.

Significant Natural Areas Significant natural areas have not been identified through the Biodiversity Explorer for the study area. However it should be noted that two wetland complexes, Ritch Tract Swamp and Alma Wetland Complex, are located adjacent to the study area.

Ritch Tract Swamp is a non-provincially significant wetland that is composed of two (2) wetland types, swamp (99%) and marsh (1%). This swamp is dominated by mixed deciduous and coniferous vegetation. Ritch Tract Swamp is an important winter cover area for wildlife as well as a staging area for waterfowl. Wildlife species such as bullfrogs, muskrat, raccoon and beaver have also been observed (MNR, 2010).

Alma Wetland Complex is a 262.9 ha PSW that is composed of 39 individual wetlands comprised of two (2) wetland types (80% swamp and 20% marsh). This wetland is an active feeding area for nesting colonial waterbirds and provides suitable habitat for waterfowl breeding (MNR, 2010). This wetland originates north of Wellington Road 17 at 10th Line. The swamp portion of the wetland is dominated by coniferous (cedar, tamarack, balsam fir) and deciduous trees (black ash, yellow birch), tall shrubs (dogwood, elm) and herb species. The marsh component is comprised of narrow-leaved emergents, shrubs (willows) and free-floating plants (duckweed). Wildlife species observed within this wetland include muskrat, raccoon, beaver, mink, coyote and red fox (MNR, 2010).

2.2.1.2. Ontario Wind Resources Atlas The Ontario Wind Resources Atlas was reviewed for the study area. Provincial Parks, Conservation Reserves, Natural Heritage Value Areas, Enhanced Management Areas, National Parks, ANSI, Wilderness Areas and Crown Game Preserves have not been identified within the study area or project location. The study area is also not designated as an Important Bird Area (IBA) (MNR, 2007).

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 5 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

2.2.2 Crown Land The Crown Land Use Policy atlas was searched and crown land within or adjacent to the study area was not identified.

2.2.3 Conservation Authority Records The study area is located within the Grand River Conservation Authority’s (GRCA) jurisdiction. The records reviewed included:

• GRCA Interactive Mapping;

• Lake Erie Source Protection Characterization Report;

• Watershed Forest Plan; and,

• Land Use Planning Policies.

2.2.3.1 Grand River Information Network (GRIN) Interactive Mapping Through the Grand River Information Network (GRIN) interactive mapping site, the land uses within the study area have been identified as agricultural (row crops, small grains, forage, pasture). Natural features include forests (generally located adjacent to stream tributaries), wetlands and tributaries of the Conestogo River, a major tributary to the Grand River. This mapping indicates that the majority of these watercourses have been classified as ‘unknown’ in terms of the fish habitat regime (coldwater, coolwater or warmwater) that they support. A tributary of Brandy Creek east of Arthur, within the northern portion of the study area, has been identified as a warmwater fishery. These tributaries as well as identified wetlands are regulated by GRCA under Ontario Regulation 150/06. ANSIs have not been identified within the project location.

2.2.3.2 Lake Erie Source Protection Characterization Report The Lake Erie Source Protection Region was formed as a result of the Clean Water Act passed by the Province in 2007. This Region has prepared a characterization report for the Grand River Watershed. The study area and project location is located within the Grand River Watershed and is part of the Conestogo River Subwatershed. This subwatershed drains an approximate area of 820 km2 and is a runoff dominated system (Lake Erie Source Protection, 2008). One natural feature group identified within the study area is wetlands. Within the study area, wetlands have not been classified as Provincially Significant. Forests are also a natural feature group that has been identified within the project area. Forest cover is important because it helps to reduce soil erosion. There are no known examples of large forested areas untouched by human activities within the Grand River Watershed (Lake Erie Source Protection, 2008). The forests within the study area have been relegated to remnant patches.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 6 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

2.2.3.3 Watershed Forest Plan The Grand River Watershed is located within the Carolinian and Great Lakes-St. Lawrence forest region (GRCA, 2004). In the study area, the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence forest predominates, dominated by Eastern hemlock, white pine and Eastern white cedar. The Ritch Tract Forest is located adjacent to the study area and consist of a 200 ha Wellington County Agreement Forest. This Agreement Forest has sub- boreal plant communities and bird species that are uncommonly seen within the watershed (GRCA, 2004).

2.2.3.4 Land Use Planning Policy Ontario Regulation 150/06 and the GRCA’s wetlands policy are two policies applicable to natural features that are used by GRCA to regulate land use.

Ontario Regulation 150/06 In 2006 the MNR approved Ontario Regulation 150/06 ‘Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alteration to Shorelines and Watercourses’. This Regulation requires that permission is obtained from the GRCA to develop in a river or stream valley, wetland, shoreline or hazardous lands, alter a river, creek, stream or watercourse or interfere with a wetland (GRCA, 2009). As previously mentioned wetlands and tributaries within the study area have been regulated by GRCA through this regulation.

Wetlands Policy Over the last 200 years the Grand River Watershed has lost 65% of its wetlands (GRCA, 2003). In 2003, GRCA developed a wetlands policy to provide a framework for improved wetland protection throughout the watershed. This policy is guided by the following principles:

• Wetlands are critical to sustaining surface and groundwater quality and quantity and are essential to the well-being of humans and other forms of life in the Grand River Watershed;

• Wetlands are core components of the natural heritage strategy of the Grand River Watershed;

• Wetlands are managed on a watershed and subwatershed basis; and,

• Wetland loss will be avoided (GRCA, 2003).

In terms of development, Policies 6.2.11 and 6.2.12 indicate that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required for development that is occurring within 30 m of a non-provincially significant wetland and 120 m of a PSW and unevaluated wetlands (GRCA, 2003). An EIS is a process of addressing potential impacts of site specific development on wetlands and supporting hydrological features such as watercourses and groundwater recharge areas.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 7 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

2.2.4 Upper Tier Municipality Records The project area is located within the rural portion of the County of Wellington, which is the upper tier municipality for the area. The County of Wellington has identified a ‘Greenlands’ system which is comprised of wetlands, environmentally sensitive areas (ESAs), streams and valley lands, ponds and reservoirs, ANSIs, woodlands, habitat for fish, wildlife and plants, floodplains and hazardous lands, and threatened or endangered species (County of Wellington, 2010). The goal of the ‘Greenlands’ system is to protect and enhance natural features and areas. ‘Core Greenlands’ (which include all wetlands and habitat of endangered or threatened species) and other ‘Greenlands’ have been identified within the project area. Woodlands are part of the ‘Greenlands’ system and are to be protected because they may be of local or regional significance. The County considers woodlands over 10 ha in size to be significant. The County defines significance as ‘an area which is ecologically important in terms of features such as species composition, age of trees and stand history; functionally important due to its contribution to the broader landscape because of its location, size or due to the amount of forest cover in a planning area; or economically important due to site quality, species composition or past management history’ (County of Wellington, 2010, p.156). The remaining woodlots within the landscape are a result of past land clearing to accommodate agriculture and these few remnant areas should be protected.

As part of Ontario’s strategy to help ensure the safe and reliable supply of electricity to all Ontarians, the Green Energy Act changes the way that renewable energy projects are approved in Ontario. The GEA provides a Province-led, coordinated approvals framework for renewable energy projects, with clear provincial rules and transparent decision making.

As a result of the new approvals framework established through the GEA and related regulations, most renewable energy developments are exempt from the provisions of the Environmental Assessment Act and, with some exceptions, are exempt from the provisions of the Planning Act

2.2.5 Lower Tier Municipality Records Township of Mapleton The project area is located within the lower tier municipality of the Township of Mapleton. The Township of Mapleton has adopted the County of Wellington’s Official Plan and natural features have been identified within this plan (Township of Mapleton, 2010).

Township of Wellington North The northern portion of the project area located south of Arthur has been identified as being located within the Township of Wellington North. Like the Township of Mapleton, the Township of Wellington North has adopted the County of Wellington’s Official Plan.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 8 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

2.2.6 Planning Board Records There are no related planning board records of natural heritage other those cited in section 2.2.5 within this study area.

2.2.7 Municipal Planning Authority Records There are no related planning authority records of natural heritage other those cited in section 2.2.5 within this study area.

2.2.8 Local Roads Board Records This parameter is not applicable to the study area.

2.2.9 Local Services Board Records This parameter is not applicable to the study area.

2.2.10 Niagara Escarpment Plan Records This parameter is not applicable to the study area. The study area is outside of the Niagara Escarpment Plan.

2.3 KEY FINDINGS OF THE RECORDS REVIEW A Records Review was completed for the Conestogo Wind Farm as a condition under Ontario Regulation 359/09 Section 25. The key findings are identified below in Table 2:

Table 2: Natural Features Identified in Project Location through Records Review.

Feature Results of Records Review an area of natural and scientific interest (earth science) not identified in study area and project location an area of natural and scientific interest (life science) not identified in study area and project location Coastal Wetland not identified in study area and project location Northern Wetland not identified is study area and project location Southern wetland unmapped and unevaluated wetland units were identified by MNR (May 25, 2010 correspondence), LIO data layers and through a review of Grand River Conservation Authority Interactive mapping in study area. NO significant wetlands were identified in the project location based on records review

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 9 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

Feature Results of Records Review Valleyland no known significant valleylands were identified in study area or the project location, however water course and related information has been collected from MNR and the C.A. which may support the identification of valley lands through the site investigation. Wildlife Habitat no known significant wildlife habitats were identified in study area or the project location, however woodland, wetland and other features which may include wildlife habitats have been identified through information provided by MNR, the C.A, and local Municipalities. Further information and occurrences of species of special concern and/or rare species which may also support wildlife the identification of wildlife habitats have also been obtained from MNR and NHIC. Woodland LIO data layers identified woodlands in study area No significant woodlands were identified in study area and project location based on records review Parks Planning Areas The study area does NOT occur within the Greenbelt, Oak Ridges Moraine or Niagara Escarpment Planning Areas.

Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves are NOT present within the study area.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 10 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

3.0 SITE INVESTIGATION Site investigations were completed for natural features that were identified within 120m of project location. Figure 1 displays project components, limits of existing natural features as determine through site investigations, and property parcels where land access was permitted. Natural features are enumerated in this figure for ease of discussion. It is noted that other supporting sub-consultants to Genivar may have referenced features in relation to proximity to turbines.

To complete the site investigations, a physical investigation of the air, land and water within 120m of the project location was completed where access to property was permitted. Where access to property was not obtained roadside/ fence line surveys were completed and supported with back ground information and ortho-imagery analysis. Figure 1 shows the areas where property access was obtained.

Various sub-consultants to Genivar participated in the site investigations and they are summarized in Table 3. The following list summarizes the project team members, dates, time and methodologies for numerous site investigations to characterize and inventory existing conditions.

The following sections detail the findings of the site investigations, characterization for natural features identified in Figure 1.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 11 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

Table 3: Summary of Site Investigations for the Project Team

Provided Input to Evaluation of Duration Significance of Dates and and # of Woodland, Purpose Investigators Weather Location Summary of Methods Qualifications Field notes Times Field Wetland, Hours Valleyland and Significant Wildlife Habitat Preliminary Arnel Fausto, LGL Limited August 25, 9:30 AM Sunny, 18C Inside and Natural Features – comparison of data Appendix I Appendix G Yes- Significant Investigation of Michael Ewaschuk, Genivar 2009 to 3:30 3 to 5 on outside of layers and existing orthophotography Valleylands Natural Features PM Beaufort 120m from with features in-field; Characterization of analysis as per the 5 hours project aquatic habitat. Natural Heritage components Reference Manual, 2005, 2nd Edition Valleyland features identified through the site investigation are shown on Figure 8 and discussed in Section 3.2 of the Site Investigation Report.

Investigation of Jen Noel, LGL Limited; April 27, 2010 9am to Daily high of 7.7, Within 120m ELC- Ecological Land Classification for Appendix I Appendix E A. Featherstone- as Natural Features, Allison Featherstone, LGL Limited 3:59pm 0 precipitation. of project Southern Ontario (Lee et al. 1998). per Significant Wildlife Habitat 14 hours (www.theweather components Wildlife Habitat and Communities network.com) Wildlife – Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide, Investigations, Technical Guide and Ecoregion Criteria Draft Addendum Vegetation Schedules, detailed Areas Search where and Ecoregion Communities all species, seen, heard of evidence of are Criteria Schedules, ELC documented. Visual searches of aquatic Draft Natural features and terrestrial features with Heritage potential basking sites with binoculars Assessment Guide during appropriate weather conditions, for Renewable overturning potential cover (woody Energy debris, tin, bark). J. Noel – as per Ontario Wetland Natural Features – comparison of data Evaluation System layers and existing orthophotography Southern Manual with features in-field; Characterization of (Ecoregions 6E and aquatic habitat 7E), ELC for Southern Ontario (Lee et al, 1998)

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 12 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

Common D. Martin, L. Wladarski June 20 and 25, June 20 Clear, calm, 20C Inside and These surveys targeted Common Appendix I Appendix G Yes – Dave Martin Nighthawk (for Dave Martin) 2010 19h00 to outside of Nighthawk in the study area surrounding provided input and Surveys 22h05 120m of and including the project location. evaluation 6 hrs project Methodologies included fixed point according the Clear, calm, 18C components, watches and area searches. SWHTG and June 25 including Criteria Schedules 19h00 to airspace in at 22h00 and around 6 hrs the project area.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 13 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

3.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY The study area is located within the Stratford Till Plain physiographic region. The Stratford Till Plain is located south of the Dundalk Till Plain physiographic region and includes parts of Dufferin, Wellington and Perth Counties and the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. This physiographic region is undrumlinized, characterized by having a faint knoll and sag relief (Chapman and Putnam, 1984). The northern portion of this region is drained by the Conestogo and Nith Rivers. The Conestogo River arises on the Till Plain north of Arthur as small streams following shallow spillways (Chapman and Putnam, 1984). Conestogo, Irvine and Grand River valleys cut deeply through the till plain and only a small portion of the area remains as woodlots, marsh or rough pasture (Lake Erie Source Protection, 2008).

The Soil Survey of Wellington County (Hoffman et al., 1963) indicates that there are five different soil types identified within this study area. The majority of the area is either covered with Perth loam, which exhibits imperfect drainage or Huron loam, which exhibits good drainage. Brookston loam (poor drainage), Listowel loam (imperfect drainage) and bottomlands (variable drainage) are also found within the study area. These soils are either stonefree or slightly stony and are found in areas of smooth sloping topography. The Brookston and Perth soils require artificial drains in order to be used for agriculture (Chapman and Putnam, 1984).

3.2 SIGNIFICANT VALLEYLANDS Valleylands are defined under separate terms within the PPS as: Valleylands: natural area that occurs within a valley or other landform depressions that has water flowing through or standing for some period of the year. In terms of Significance, the PPS definition means that in regard to other features and areas, ecologically important in terms of features, functions, representation, or amount, and contributing to the quality and diversity of an identifiable geographical area or natural heritage system.

Within 120m of the project location, there are 4 valleylands within 120m of the project location. These consist of tributaries of the Conestogo River and are labelled in Figure 9. Although the project location intersects a number of first order watercourses, they are not associated with a defined top-of-bank and stream corridor. The GRCA GIS (accessed November 17, 2010) reveals the presence of tributaries containing regulation lines, and these have been defined as having valleyland characteristics such as flooding hazard and meander belt. The GRCA GIS custom map generated for the general project area is provided in Appendix B.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 14 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

Based on the proximity of the project location with respect to the valleylands, an assessment of significance was undertaken. Table 4 provides a listing of the site investigation details and the personnel who conducted the field investigations.

Table 4: Site Assessment Details for Valleylands within 120m of Project Location Dates and Times of the August 25, 2009, April 27, 2010, and June 18, 2010 Beginning and Completion of Site Investigations Duration of Site Investigation August 2010- 5 hours April and June 2010- 6 hours each

Weather Conditions During the All conducted within sunny weather conditions Site Investigation Summary of Methods Used to Comparison of data layers and existing orthophotography with features Make Observations for the in-field; Purposes of Site Investigation Characterization of aquatic habitat using OMNR Stream Assessment Protocol Name and Qualifications of Arnel Fausto- M.Sc., Watershed Ecosystems, Honours B.Sc. 20 years Person Conduction Site experience. Investigation Michael Ewaschuk, Honours B.Sc. 10 years experience

Field Notes All field notes provided in Appendix G

3.3 VEGETATION AND VEGETATION COMMUNITIES Characterization of the features consisted of a coarse level classification of the vegetation communities according to the Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: First Approximation and Its Application (Lee et al. 1998). This evaluation consisted of a pedestrian survey through each vegetation feature that was accessible and assessing species composition. Locations of these woodlots are presented in Figure 1. Only properties where permission was granted were assessed, as shown in Figure 1 (participating lots).

The field investigation of vegetation communities and watercourses was conducted by Allison Featherstone (Planning Ecologist) and Jennifer Noël (Botanist) on April 27, 2010. A subsequent site visit was conducted by J. Noel on November 16, 2010. Details are summarized in Table 4. Trees were starting to bud and spring herbaceous plants were surveyed at the time the April field investigation. All features within the landscape identified through air-photo interpretation were observed in the field. No obvious clearing was observed. A summary of vegetation units is provided in Table 5. All the woodlots within the study area were young to mid-aged upland and lowland forests that were dominated by deciduous tree species that are generally less than 25 cm in diameter-at-breast height. Their age suggests that they have been previously disturbed or cleared in the past. These woodlots are isolated features

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 15 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

within agricultural fields or features associated with a tributary and vary in size from 0.5 to 32.6 ha. A total of 11 different vegetation communities have been identified within the wind turbine and transmission line study area and they include ELC units FOD4, FOD4-2, FOD5, FOD5-8, FOD7, CUP3, CUT1, SWD4, SWD4-1, MAM2 and MAS2. None of these vegetation communities are considered rare in Ontario. A list of plant species observed during the field visit is provided in Appendix C. A total of 84 vascular plant taxa have been noted within the study area.

Butternut was identified during field investigation. Details regarding this species in relation to the project area are provided in the Species-at-Risk Report. The location of this tree is confidential and will be provided to MNR under a separate cover to protect the exact location of this tree.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 16 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

Table 5: Summary of Natural Features, Attributes, Composition and Functions for Features Identified within the Study Area

Evaluation of Unit Within 120m of Project Significance Required ELC Unit Size Thumbnail Map (taken from Figure 1) Attributes Composition Function # Location (Wetland, Woodland, Wildlife Habitat) 0 CUT1 5.3ha The cultural thicket is associated Hawthorn shrubs dominate the Vegetated riparian Yes, 120m intersects near Yes with a watercourse near the thicket with a few scattered white corridor; the road right of way. intersection of Sixteenth Line and elm that occur above the canopy. Provides instream Sideroad 17. Meadow species occur in the ground shading; cover and include goldenrod Provides habitat for local (Solidago ssp.), reed canary grass and resident wildlife (Phalaris arundinacea), common species. geranium (Geranium maculatum), marsh-marigold (Caltha palustris) and lily (Lilium ssp) species.

1 FOD5 4.1 This woodlot is located east of The western edge of this woodlot is Provides habitat for local No, does not intersect the No Sideroad 17. disturbed and dominated by hawthorn and resident wildlife 120m setback from project and buckthorn shrubs. The species. components. remainder of the woodlot is composed of sugar maple and white elm with associations of basswood (Tilia amerciana), trembling aspen and black cherry (Prunus serotina). The ground cover consists of trout lily, spinulose woodfern (Dryopteris carthusiana), barren strawberry, jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum ssp. triphyllum) and Virginia waterleaf (Hydrophyllum virginianum). Trees range in size from 10 to 25 cm with some occasional tree measuring 35 cm.

2 FOD5-8 6.1 This woodlot is located west of the It is dominated by young to mid Provides forest habitat for No No ash deciduous forest (FOD4-1) aged sugar maple and white ash trees local and resident wildlife near Hwy 12. ranging in size from 10 to 25 cm with species; occasional trees reaching 30 cm. The Provides potential SWH woodlot is small in size measuring for bat maternal roosting 6.1 ha. Ironwood, sugar maple and sites; white elm make up the subcanopy Provides potential SWH with the understorey being dominated for woodland breeding by chokecherry. Ground cover amphibians; consists of early spring species such Provides potential habitat

as bloodroot (Sanguinaria for woodland raptor canadensis), early meadow rue breeding. (Thalictrum dioicum), trout lily and sedges.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 17 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

Evaluation of Unit Within 120m of Project Significance Required ELC Unit Size Thumbnail Map (taken from Figure 1) Attributes Composition Function # Location (Wetland, Woodland, Wildlife Habitat) 3 FOD4-2 21 One of two woodlots of this ELC . The forest is dominated by white Provides forest habitat for Yes Yes type, it is large in size and is ash with associations of trembling local and resident wildlife located west of Hwy 12 in the aspen (Populus tremuloides), sugar species; centre of the study area. maple, bitternut, and ironwood Provides potential SWH (Ostrya virginiana). The understorey for woodland breeding A small severance residential is dominated by chokecherry (Prunus amphibians. property is contained within the virginiana var virginiana), white woodlot and is not part of the elm, and service berry (Amelanchier study area sp.). There are small scattered depressions that periodically collect water in the spring. No water was found during the field visit. Ground cover is composed of red trillium (Trillium erectum), wild leek (Allium tricoccum), blue cohosh (Caulophyllum thalictroides), herb Robert (Geranium robertianum), zigzag goldenrod, trout lily and sedges (Carex sp.). Trees are young to mid age and range in size between 10 and 25 cm.

4 FOD7/CUT1 6.4 This narrow community occurs It is composed of a mixture of Contains a tree species at Yes Yes along the tributary that traverses deciduous lowland forest, upland and risk, Butternut (END); the south eastern portion of the hawthorn thicket community. The highly disturbed, portions study area. It traverses Hwy 12 eastern portion is dominated by used for cattle grazing; north of Fourteenth line. This balsam poplar (Populus balsamifera Community providing narrow community is associated ssp. balsamifera) with no understorey vegetation cover for the with the valley of the creek, and it and very little ground cover as it is creek; is actively grazed through in actively being used for cattle Provides forest habitat for sections. grazing. The hawthorn thicket occurs local and resident wildlife along the northern edge. Further east species; the community becomes more Provides potential SWH diverse in the canopy and for bat maternal roosting understorey layers with sugar maple, sites. basswood, white cedar and ironwood. A butternut tree was located along the southern boundary of the community. In areas with more open canopy cover and defined understorey the ground cover consists of barren strawberry, violet (Violet ssp), spotted touch-me-not (Impatiens capensis), common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), and field horsetail (Equisetum arvense). A small meadow marsh community

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 18 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

5 SWD4 1.4 The swamp is located within an This feature is located north west of Provides habitat for local Yes Yes agricultural field north of Hwy 12 and Fourteenth Line. This and resident wildlife Fourteenth Line and west of Hwy swamp is dominated by balsam species. 12. poplar with associations of yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis), white elm and basswood. The area was not inundated at the time of the field visit however the ground was moist. Canopy is fairly open with little understorey. The understorey species consist of balsam poplar saplings, scattered dogwood and red currant (Ribes rubrum). Ground cover is composed of a mixture of meadow and wetland species such as sedges (Carex ssp.), agrimony (Agrimonia gryoposephalla), common dandelion, herb-robert (Geranium robertianum), yellow avens (Geum aleppicum), fringed loosestrife (Lysimachia ciliata).

6 FOD4 0.5 This small woodlot is located The area was surveyed from the car Provides habitat for local No No behind the farm house west of as there were two unleashed dogs on and resident wildlife Hwy 12 and north of Fourteenth the property. This woodlot is species. Line. dominated by young to mid aged ash (Fraxinus sp.). There is very little understorey as the area is disturbed with garbage. The area contained a

wet depression that collects water for periods of the year. This small wooded feature measure 0.5 ha.

7 FOD7 3.8 This forest is located south of the Red ash dominates this woodlot Provides habitat for local Yes Yes proposed wind turbine study area along with white elm and balsam and resident wildlife and Fourteenth Line poplar. A windshield survey was species. conducted on this woodlot as Would require updating. permission was not granted. Red osier dogwood, chokecherry and wild raspberry make up the understorey. The woodlot measures 3.8 ha in size.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 19 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

Evaluation of Unit Within 120m of Project Significance Required ELC Unit Size Thumbnail Map (taken from Figure 1) Attributes Composition Function # Location (Wetland, Woodland, Wildlife Habitat)

8 FOD4-2 33 This woodlot is located west of This woodlot identified as white ash Linked to the adjacent Yes Yes Sideroad 17. deciduous forest within study area. It meadow marsh is one of the largest parcels of natural community associated cover within the study area with the creek. Site measuring 32.6 ha. It is dominated reviews indicate that this by white (Fraxinus americana) and forest contains small wet red ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) depressions that with associations of sugar maple potentially hold water in (Acer saccharum), white elm (Ulmus the spring; americana), and bitternut hickory Provides forest habitat for (Carya cordiformis). The local and resident wildlife understorey is divers with young species; sugar maple and white ash saplings. Provides potential SWH Balsam fir (Abies balsamifera) and for woodland breeding white cedar (Thuja occidentalis) also amphibians; occur throughout. The ground cover Provides potential habitat is composed of species typical of for woodland raptor deciduous forest and include barren breeding. strawberry (Waldsteinia fragarioides), dwarf raspberry (Rubus pubescens), wild ginger (Asarum canadense), trout lily (Erythronium americanum ssp. americanum) and zigzag goldenrod (Solidago flexicaulis). .

9 SWD4-1 0.5 The swamp is located within an This willow deciduous swamps Provides habitat for local Yes Yes agricultural field north of occurs north of Fourteenth Line, west and resident wildlife Fourteenth Line and west of Hwy of Hwy 12. This feature is a dug species. 12. feature that was potentially used as an irrigation pond at one time. Mature willows surround the pond that is fringed with cattails. Trees range in size from 20 to 30 cm.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 20 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

Evaluation of Unit Within 120m of Project Significance Required ELC Unit Size Thumbnail Map (taken from Figure 1) Attributes Composition Function # Location (Wetland, Woodland, Wildlife Habitat) 10 MAS2 0.2 The marsh is located within an This small feature is a depression Springs present; Yes Yes agricultural field north of within a farm field that is Provides habitat for local Fourteenth Line and west of Hwy permanently inundated. The wetland and resident wildlife 12. is bermed, as the land is not useful species. for agriculture. A spring supplies water to this feature. Meadow species such as reed canary grass, soft stem bullrush and narrow leaved cattail dominate the community. Chimney crayfish holes were observed around the pond.

11 MAM2 2.9 This meadow marsh is located This community is associated with Provides habitat for local Yes Yes west of Sideroad 17 along the the tributary that crosses Sideroad 17 and resident wildlife tributary. adjacent to the white ash woodlot species. (FOD4-2). Timothy and reed canary grass dominate the valley system. Occasional scattered shrubs of buckthorn and hawthorn occur throughout.

12 MAM2 1.5 This meadow marsh is located east This community is associated with Although this community Yes Yes of Sideroad 17 along the tributary. the tributary that crosses Sideroad 17. is considered a wetland Timothy and reed canary grass community wetland dominate the valley system. vegetation found are Occasional scattered shrubs of associated with the buckthorn and hawthorn occur tributary and are not throughout. providing a direct wetland function (as per the wetland evaluation); Provides potential SWH for S1-S3/SC concern species as it was identified as containing the largest stands of milkweed in the project area as habitat for Monarch (SC); Provides habitat for local and resident wildlife species.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 21 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

Evaluation of Unit Within 120m of Project Significance Required ELC Unit Size Thumbnail Map (taken from Figure 1) Attributes Composition Function # Location (Wetland, Woodland, Wildlife Habitat) 13 SWD4-1 0.5 Community is located east of Mature willows surround the pond Provides habitat for local No No Sideroad 18, south of Eighteenth that is fringed with cattails. Trees and resident wildlife Line along the transmission range in size from 20 to 30 cm. species. corridor.

14 CUM1-1 1.5 Community is located east of This fallow field is now being Provides habitat for local Yes Yes Sideroad 18, south of Eighteenth colonized by early successional and resident wildlife Line along the transmission meadow species. Plant species species. corridor. observed includes awnless brome, timothy, Canada goldenrod, wild carrot and asters.

15 MAM2 0.6 Community is located east of This community is a small depression Provides habitat for local Yes Yes Sideroad 18, south of Eighteenth within the agricultural field. It is and resident wildlife Line along the transmission dominated by reed canary grass with species. corridor. red osier dogwood with occasional willow and elm trees.

16 CUM1-1 9.3 This community is located south This community is used as grazing Pasture. Agricultural use; Yes Yes of Sixteenth Line west of Sideroad pasture for horses. It is heavily Provides habitat for local 18. disturbed and vegetation is very and resident wildlife much suppressed. Plant species species. found include awnless brome, Canada goldenrod, asters, wild carrot, teasel, and Canada thistle. A windshield survey was conducted on this woodlot as permission was not granted. 17 MAS2 0.5 This community is locate south of This dug pond was likely created to Dug pond currently used Yes Yes Sixteenth Line west of Sideroad 18 provide a source of water for cattle for agricultural purposes. and horses on the property. Cattails Pond not hydrologically line the edge of the largely open connected to the adjacent water pond. A windshield survey was tributary; conducted on this woodlot as Provides habitat for local permission was not granted. and resident wildlife species.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 22 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

Evaluation of Unit Within 120m of Project Significance Required ELC Unit Size Thumbnail Map (taken from Figure 1) Attributes Composition Function # Location (Wetland, Woodland, Wildlife Habitat) 18 SWD4-1 2.3 This swamp is located north of This narrow deciduous swamp Provides habitat for local Yes Yes Sixteenth Line east of Hwy 12. community occurs along the and resident wildlife watercourse. Willows dominate the species. canopy. The understorey is limited with only a few scattered shrubs of red osier dogwood and common buckthorn. Riparian species occupy the banks along the tributary. A windshield survey was conducted on this woodlot as permission was not granted. 19 MAM2 0.7 This meadow marsh is located This community is associated with Wetland features are Yes Yes west of Sideroad 17 near Sixteenth the tributary and contain a mixture of associated with the Line. upland and wetland plants. Reed tributary and are not canary grass dominates the banks of providing a direct wetland the creek with awnless brome, asters, function as per the and goldenrods dominated the more wetland evaluation; upland portions. Provides habitat for local and resident wildlife species. 20 FOC3 12.13 This community is located north of This community is a cultural Provides habitat for local Yes Yes Sixteenth Line west of Hwy 12. It plantation dominated by evenly and resident wildlife is bisected by the creek and spaced rows of pine trees. Trees are species. associated with the table land. approximately 10 to 15 m tall and range in size from 10 to 18 cm DBH. A windshield survey was conducted on this woodlot as permission was not granted.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 23 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

3.4 WILDLIFE HABITAT AND COMMUNITIES Wildlife habitat is defined within Ontario Regulation 359/09 as: “wildlife habitat” means an area where plants, animals and other organisms live or have the potential to live and find adequate amounts of food, water, shelter and space to sustain their population, including an area where a species concentrates at a vulnerable point in its annual or life cycle and an area that is important to a migratory or non-migratory species.

Wildlife habitat and communities were assessed through a review of available background documentation, consultation with Ministry of Natural Resources and the Conservation Authority, and through field investigations by LGL Limited and Dave Martin, as summarized in the Section 3.0 (see also Table 6). Wildlife habitat in the study area is provided by remnant natural areas such a small woodlots, wetlands, and hedgerows. Intervening agricultural areas also support various wildlife species, and serve as porous land through which wildlife move between remnant features. The annotated species list from Dave Martin (January 2008) report is provided in Appendix D. Wildlife Habitat is shown on Figure 7. The following subsections provide a brief overview of the wildlife assessment.

Table 6: Summary of Site Investigations and Evaluation of Significance for Significant Wildlife Habitat within 120m of Project Components Dates and Times of the Began in 2007 through initial site reconnaissance and competed with Beginning and Completion of revised and updated information on November 19, 2010. LGL Evaluation of Significance compiled and completed the SWH analysis using the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide and Ecoregion Criteria Schedules, in consultation with Dave Martin and NRSI.

Duration of Evaluation Site visits are detailed in Table 4. All of these visits, subsequent reporting and mapping were all part of the evaluation. As a result, the evaluation began in 2007 and was completed on November 19, 2010. The duration cannot be estimated accurately, but is estimated at greater than 40 hour s of desktop evaluation of the data compiled by the project team again criteria for SWH.

Weather Conditions During the Please see Table 4 for details of all wildlife related field investigations. Site Investigation Summary of Methods Used to Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (2000 version), Draft Complete the Evaluation of addendum to the SWHTG and Ecoregion criteria schedules, and Significance Decision Support Framework (zip file)

Natural Heritage Reference Manual 2nd ed.

Bat and Bat Habitats Guidelines for Wind Power Projects (2010)

Bird and Bird Habitats Guidelines for Wind Power Projects (2010)

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 24 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

Name and Qualifications of Allison Featherstone; LGL Limited (Compiled results of SWH Person Conducting Evaluation Evaluation) of Significance and Site with: Investigations Rob Nisbet; LGL Limited J. Arnel Fausto; LGL Limited Dave Martin (for Dave Martin) Andrew Ryckman, NRSI (Bat and Bat Habitat)

(Credential for LGL and Dave Martin team are in Appendix I, credential for A. Ryckman are contained within the NRSI Appendix III of the Conestogo Wind Farm: Bat Monitoring Report and EIS)

Field Notes LGL Limited field notes Appendix E. Dave Martin field notes Appendix G.

3.4.1 Birds Bird studies to address bird communities and impacts to turbine were summarized in the Dave Martin (January 2008) report, with further field work conducted in 2010 to address concerns for potential species at risk in response to MNR input. The following Dave Martin supporting documents were referenced, in consultation with Dave Martin, for inclusion in this Natural Heritage Evaluation Report and were used in support of the evaluation of significant wildlife habitat:

• Dave Martin. 2008. Avifaunal Report. For the Conestogo Windfarm Wind Energy Centre. Prepared for Genivar.

• Dave Martin. 2010. Summary Memo 2010 SAR Surveys.

• Dave Martin. 2010. Bobolink Memo.

3.4.2 Reptiles and Amphibians Reptiles and amphibians were documented through area searches in appropriate habitat and under appropriate weather conditions (as outlined in Table 3), to document potential presence/absence of species as well as to evaluate the habitat available in the project area. Anuran calling was not completed as per Marsh Monitoring protocols, but species heard calling during site visits were documented. Area searches involved searching through available habitat, overturning potential cover (woody debris, bark, farm debris or other cover material), visual searches of ponds for animals, egg masses or evidence of species use, and visual searches with binoculars of open water features for potential turtle basking areas.

Despite a concerted effort to document reptile and amphibian use of the project area, very few species were confirmed. Amphibian species included American toad (Bufo americanus), leopard frog (Rana pipiens) and green frog (R. clamitans), with green frog noted in the small wetland units and spring areas

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 25 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

identified in the study area. Reptiles were limited to painted turtle (Chrysemys picta marginata) in a pond located northeast of Wellington Road 12 and 16th Line. It is expected that other reptile and amphibian species such as garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), little brown snake (Storeria dekayi), and spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer) would utilize suitable habitat in the study area. Dave Martin faunal team documented grey treefrog (Hyla versicolor) in the study area in June/July 2010.

3.4.3 Mammals Due to the agricultural land uses within the study area, most of the natural vegetation communities have been cleared. The study area is expected to support mammal species common to rural areas. The species confirmed in the project area include: white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), coyote (Canis latrans), raccoon (Procyon lotor), Eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), and red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus). Also expected to occur in the project area are red fox (Vulpes vulpes), beaver (Castor Canadensis), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), European hare (Lepus europaeus), and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis).

3.4.4 Bats There are eight bat species within Ontario: big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans), Eastern red bat (Lasiurus borealis), hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), Eastern small-footed bat (Myotis leibii), little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus), northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and Eastern pipistrelle (Pipistrellus subflavus). A screening of potential bat use in the study area was completed by LGL Limited in 2007. Although there are woodlots and watercourses within the study area, the results of the bat screening indicated that this area was of low risk for bat potential due to the lack of significant habitat (i.e. caves, abandoned mines, hibernacula, swarming sites or other areas identified as high bat potential) and no distinguishing areas of higher relief or dramatic changes in topography that would concentrate bat migrations through the study area. Additional bat field work was completed by Natural Resource Solutions Inc during June 2010, and the results of which are included within the evaluation of significant wildlife habitat.

3.4.5 Plants/Vegetation The records review revealed a 1941 occurrence of American Gromwell (Lithospermum latifolium) within the study area. Habitats include rich deciduous woodlands, wooded slopes, and shaded riverbanks. This conservative species prefers high quality woodlands where the original ground flora is largely intact. An in-season survey for this species was carried out on April 27, 2010, as well as later surveys on June 18 and 24, 2010. Habitats considered to be of high quality include ELC Units 8 and 3, comprised of deciduous forests. During visits to these woodlands where native ground flora was noted, extensive searches did not reveal the presence of American Gromwell within the understorey. Due to the age of this record, it is unlikely that this species is present in the study area.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 26 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

The records review reveals the potential for Hill’s Pondweed (Potamogeton hillii) as being present in Wellington County. Hill’s Pondweed is a Special Concern aquatic flowering plant known to occur in about 24 sites in the Bruce Peninsula, Manitoulin Island, Wellington County and Peel Regional Municipality. It grows in clear, cold water streams, ponds, and marshes, usually that are highly alkaline. Hill’s pondweed is associated with other pondweeds including P. foliosus, P. natans, P. pusillus, P. amplifolius and P. gramineus, which are common pondweed species. Due to the difficulty in the positive identification of Hill’s pondweed, field visits where pondweed is noted have been included for further assessment in Section 4.2.2.

The Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus) can be found in Ontario wherever there are milkweed plants for its caterpillars and wildflowers for a nectar source. Monarchs are often found on abandoned farmland and roadsides, but also in city gardens and parks. Although Monarch Butterflies are a Special Concern Species, there is no formal protection for this species in Ontario. Among the key management strategies have been identified to protect the Monarch Butterfly in Ontario is to protect milkweed patches through removal from the Noxious Weed Act. Unusually large patches of Milkweed have been noted in the field and have been noted in mapping in Figure 7.

3.5 SPECIES AT RISK SCREENING AND CONFIRMATION Species at risk were not identified through a MNR Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) database search of the study area and none were directly observed in the project area. However, based on the May 25, 2010 and November 10, 2010 letters from the MNR (April Nix, MNR) regarding the potential species at risk in the study area, the following information is intended to address concerns relating to the species listed as special concern identified.

Species-at- Risk Screening and Confirmation was conducted for special concern listed Aquatic, Wildlife, and Vegetation species and is presented as 3 separate tables (Table 7, 8 and 9) and is based on the listing provided by Guelph District MNR. The table describes the species’ typical or preferred habitat and any behaviour that is relevant to assessing risk [column 3]. Column 4 discusses whether potential habitat and/or a species is present in the turbine footprint based on surveys carried out by the project team (LGL Limited, Genivar or Dave Martin’s faunal survey crew). A determination of potential impact is provided based on whether the species and its potential habitat are [or could be] present and to what extent the species and/or potential habitat might be affected by a operational wind turbine and/or by the construction that is associated with the project [column 4]. The final column [column 5] details the work that has been done to date and a recommendation of whether additional work is warranted. The following sections pertaining to vegetation and wildlife follow this same structure. For most species, the field work conducted to date is sufficient to assign a risk assessment to that species from the proposed wind turbines and/or the associated construction roads.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 27 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

A similar analysis was also completed for species listed as Threatened or Endangered. This information is included in the Species-At-Risk Report. These species were considered separately as the protection of Endangered and Threatened species is not subject to Ontario Reg. 359/09 but is provided under the Endangered Species Act, 2007.

3.6 SUMMARY OF CORRECTIONS BASED ON SITE INVESTIGATIONS At the completion of the site investigations and records review, it is found that the results of the records review match the natural features verified through site investigations. In order to satisfy the requirement of the Section 26 (3)(1), a review of the natural features against the available data layers was completed and is provided in Appendix J. These findings are considered very minor and no corrections to the records review have been completed as a result of the site investigation.

Based on the records review and site investigation, the following natural features were identified within 120m of the project location: Vegetation and Vegetation Communities by ELC Coding

• Unit 0- CUT 1 • Unit 4- FOD7/CUT1 • Unit 5-SWD4 • Unit 7-FOD7 • Unit 8-FOD4-2 • Unit 9-SWD4-1 • Unit10-MAS2 • Unit 11-MAM2 • Unit 12-MAM2 • Unit 13-SWD4-1 • Unit 14-CUM1-1 • Unit 15-MAM2 • Unit 16-CUM1-1 • Unit 17-MAS2 • Unit 18-SWD4-1 • Unit 19-MAM2 • Unit 20-FOC3

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 28 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

Potential Significant Wildlife Habitat

• Unit 4- FOD7/CUT1- Potential Bat Maternal Colonies • Unit 12-MAM2- Potential S1-S3 Species Habitat (Monarch Butterfly) - Contains milkweed community • Unit 19 and Unit 0-MAM2- Contains Potamogeton species, potential Hill’s Pondweed habitat

Potential Significant Woodlots

• Unit 8-FOD4-2- White Ash Deciduous Forest

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 29 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

Table 7 Aquatic Species at Risk Assessment and Confirmation

Status Potential habitat / Species presence / Confirmatory Field Species Typical habitat and habits (MNR) Risk assessment Work Completed Silver Shiner SC Prefers moderately flowing sections of Potential habitat: Very limited to non-existent. Habitat inventory and larger streams. Also runs and riffles of assessment using OSAP relatively clear, medium to large streams Species presence: Highly unlikely given habitat protocol carried out on with swift currents and gravel to boulder requirements. No NHIC records for the much July 6, 2010. No further substrates larger original study area. work is warranted.

Risk assessment: No risk from turbines. Appropriate mitigation will be employed to nullify potential impacts from roadwork and other construction.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 30 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

Table 8 Vegetation Species at Risk Assessment and Confirmation

Species Status Typical habitat and habits Potential habitat / Species presence / Field work completed (MNR) Risk assessment or needed Hill’s SC Clear, cold ponds and slow-moving Potential habitat: Very limited to non-existent, Habitat assessment and Pondweed streams with alkaline water. due to lack of significant groundwater input to species search carried sustain coldwater conditions. out on April 27, June 18 June 24, 2010. No Species presence: Highly unlikely. No NHIC further work is records for the much larger original study area. warranted. None observed on August 29, 2009, or April 27, June 18, June 24, 2010.

Risk assessment: No risk from turbines. Appropriate mitigation will be employed to nullify potential impacts from roadwork and other construction.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 31 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

Table 9 Wildlife Species at Risk Assessment and Confirmation

Status Potential habitat / Species presence / Field work completed Species Typical habitat and habits (MNR) Risk assessment or needed Bald Eagle SC Large stick nests near water. Potential breeding habitat: Limiting factor is Habitat assessment and presence of very large super canopy or open species search carried canopy nest trees. Such trees are few to absent out in 2007 and again in the much larger original study area and absent on June 20, 25 and July in the woodlands adjacent to turbine footprint. 3, 2010. No further Roadside surveys on January 3, February 2, work warranted March 27, 2007, prior to leaf-out did not detect any eagle nests.

Species presence: Not recorded in Atlas Region in 1st or 2nd Atlas. No birds detected during 2007 or 2010 surveys in much larger original study area. Although wide ranging outside of breeding season to search for various food sources, turbine footprint is located about 20 km from Luther Marsh, 12 km from Conestoga Lake and 25 km from Belwood Lake.

Risk assessment: Very low.

Black Tern SC Preferred breeding habitat is 50:50 open Potential breeding habitat: Not present in turbine Habitat assessment and water and emergent vegetation. footprint or close by. species search carried out in 2007 and again Breeding in shallow marshes, especially Species presence: Highly unlikely. No NHIC on June 20, 25 and July cattails. records from vicinity. Records from Atlas 3, 2010. No further Region on both 1st and 2nd Atlas are from Luther work warranted Marsh which is ~ 20 km to NE of turbine footprint.

Risk assessment: Extremely low.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 32 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

Status Potential habitat / Species presence / Field work completed Species Typical habitat and habits (MNR) Risk assessment or needed Common SC Found in a wide variety of habitats in Potential breeding habitat: Preferred habitat and Habitat assessment and Nighthawk cities and countryside. Prefers rock nesting substrate absent in small woodlots species search carried outcrops, alvars, sand barrens, bogs, adjacent to turbine footprint. out in 2007 and again fens, and woodland openings created by on June 20, 25 and July clearcuts and burns. Nests are on bare Species Presence: Highly unlikely. Found in 3, 2010. No further or sparsely vegetated rock, sand or Atlas Region but not found in Atlas Square work warranted gravel. In urban areas nests on flat- surrounding turbine footprint on 1st and 2nd topped gravelled roofs. Atlas. Not heard or observed on June 20 and June 25, 2010, targeted surveys at woodlots adjacent to turbines. Not found in Arthur on June 20 and 25 surveys.

Risk assessment: Extremely low.

Eastern SC Found at edges of lakes, ponds, bogs, Potential habitat: Very limited to creek and its Habitat assessment and Ribbonsnake streams and marshes especially where grassy buffers. species search carried there are clumps of grasses or sedges out on April 27, June 18 and scattered low shrubbery. In late Species presence: Highly unlikely. No NHIC June 24, and July 3, spring may move into adjacent uplands records for the much larger original study area. 2010. No further work in pursuit of post-breeding dispersing None observed on August 29, 2009, or April 27, is warranted. amphibians. June 18, June 24 and July 3, 2010.

Risk assessment: No risk from turbines. Appropriate mitigation will be employed to nullify potential impacts from roadwork and other construction.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 33 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

Status Potential habitat / Species presence / Field work completed Species Typical habitat and habits (MNR) Risk assessment or needed Milksnake SC A habitat generalist found in a wide Potential habitat: Present but limited to creek Habitat assessment and range of natural and anthropogenic and its grassy buffers. species search carried situations. out on April 27, June 18 Species presence: Possible. No NHIC records June 24, and July 3, for the much larger original study area. None 2010. No further work observed on August 29, 2009, or April 27, June is warranted. 18, June 24 and July 3, 2010.

Risk assessment: No risk from turbines. Appropriate mitigation will be employed to nullify potential impacts from roadwork and other construction.

Monarch SC Forages in open areas for nectar sources. Potential habitat: Lots of foraging habitat Habitat assessment and Eggs are laid on milkweed, the obligate present along the field edges, creek corridor and species search carried food plant of the caterpillar. hedgerows. Good stands of milkweed are out on July 3, 2010. No located along the creek corridor. further work is warranted. Species presence: Recorded on July 3, 2010, survey.

Risk assessment: No risk from turbines. Presence of milkweed dependent on the whims of the township and landowner in eradicating this “noxious weed”. Edges of laneways to turbines may create additional nectaring opportunities and locations for milkweed.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 34 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

Status Potential habitat / Species presence / Field work completed Species Typical habitat and habits (MNR) Risk assessment or needed Short-eared SC Open areas such as grasslands, marshes Potential breeding habitat: Minimally present. Habitat assessment and Owl and tundra. Tall grassy buffers line the creek that divides the species search carried turbine footprint although the amount of habitat out in 2007 and again is probably not adequate since the species is on June 20, 25 and July area-sensitive. 3, 2010. No further work is warranted. Species presence: Highly unlikely, an area- sensitive species. No NHIC records for the much larger original study area. Found in Atlas Region during the 1st but not the 2nd Atlas near Luther Marsh. Not found in Atlas Square surrounding turbine footprint on 1st or 2nd Atlas. Not heard or observed any of the 2007 surveys in the much larger original study area or on the 2010 surveys that specifically targeted the turbine footprint.

Risk assessment: Extremely low.

Snapping SC Requires permanent bodies of water Potential habitat: Present in creek with Habitat assessment and Turtle including quiet mud-bottomed ponds, immediately adjacent fields for nesting. species search carried lakes, sloughs and slow streams. Prefers out on April 27, June 18 shallow water. Nests in sand or gravel Species presence: Possible. None observed on June 24, and July 3, substrates. August 29, 2009, or April 27, June 18, June 24 2010. No further work and July 3, 2010. is warranted.

Risk assessment: No risk from turbines. Appropriate mitigation will be employed to nullify potential impacts from roadwork and other construction.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 35 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

Status Potential habitat / Species presence / Field work completed Species Typical habitat and habits (MNR) Risk assessment or needed Yellow- SC Scrubby thickets and successional Potential breeding habitat: Minimally present Habitat assessment and breasted Chat* habitats where clearings have become and restricted to the east side of Sideroad 6 species search carried overgrown. along the creek, well south of the closest out in 2007 and again turbine. on June 20, 25 and July 3, 2010. No further Species presence: Species presence: Unlikely. work warranted No NHIC records for the much larger original study area. Not found in Atlas Region during the 1st or 2nd Atlas. Not found in the Atlas Square surrounding turbine footprint on 1st or 2nd Atlas. Observed and heard by the Martin survey team on a point count on the first but not the second breeding season survey in 2007 in the much larger original study area. This bird was at the far north edge of the much larger original study area where it touched the southern boundary of Luther Marsh. The bird’s territory was located in a willow / alder / thicket. The location is about 20 NE of the project area.

Risk assessment: Low.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 36 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

4.0 EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANCE

4.1 REA REQUIREMENTS Section 27 of Ontario Reg. 359/09 under the Environmental Protection Act lays out the requirements for prohibited areas and where an evaluation of significance is required. Where the project location is within 120m of “significant” natural features, an environmental impact study report must be prepared to ensure that no negative environmental effects to the significant natural feature.

For the purposes of this report, a natural feature is considered “significant” if it is woodland, a valleyland or a wildlife habitat that:

• The MNR has identified as significant; or is considered to be significant when evaluated using evaluation criteria or procedures established or accepted by the MNR, as amended from time to time, for significant natural features; and,

• a natural feature is provincially significant if it is a southern wetland, a northern wetland, a coastal wetland, an area of natural and scientific interest (earth science) or an area of natural and scientific interest (life science) that the MNR has identified as significant, or is considered to be provincially significant when evaluated using evaluation criteria or procedures established or accepted by the MNR, as amended from time to time, for provincially significant natural features

4.2 SIGNIFICANT NATURAL FEATURES Significant natural features may be present within 120m of the proposed Class 4 Wind Facility project location. The following subsections provide an evaluation of the significance of these features in relation to the project location. Based on the outcome of this evaluation, the features determined to be significant which are within 120m of project location will be evaluated through an Environmental Impact Assessment provided in Section 5. Table 10 provides a summary of the site investigations used for determining significance of natural features identified in Figure 1.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 37 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

Table 10 Site Investigation Summary for Determining Significance of Natural Features

Provided Input to Evaluation of Duration Significance of Dates and and # of Woodland, Purpose Investigators Weather Location Summary of Methods Qualifications Field notes Times Field Wetland, Hours Valleyland and Significant Wildlife Habitat Acoustical Bat Rogelio Rodriques for Pandion August 15 to Equipment n/a Outside of n/a n/a n/a, digital data No Monitoring Systems September 14, recording, 120m from collection using 2010 estimated project acoustical total hours components monitoring of 408 Avifaunal Field Dave Martin, Linda Wladarski, and January 3, 2007 9h30 to 1 to 7 C, no Inside and Habitat assessment, reconnaissance Appendix I Appendix G Yes- as per Surveys: Ross Snider 13h45 precipitation, outside of survey and wintering raptors.Two Significant Wildlife habitat (for Dave Martin) wind SW 3 to 4 120m from surveyors [1 driver, 1 recorder] slowly Habitat Technical reconnaissance 12.75 hrs on Beaufort project drove all roads in the study area, recorded Guide and Criteria survey and winter location all species observed or heard and mapped Schedules raptors locations of species of interest. As well, crop types and natural habitats were mapped to determine whether there might be any areas with significant concentrations or species of concern.

Avifaunal Field D. Martin, L. Wladarski February 2, 10h20 to -8 to -1C, no Inside and Wintering raptors were targeted. Two Appendix I Appendix G Yes Surveys: (for Dave Martin) 2007 14h30 precipitation, outside of surveyors [1 driver, 1 recorder] slowly wintering raptors wind NE 4 on 120m from drove all roads in the study area, recorded 7 hrs Beaufort project all species observed or heard and mapped location locations of species of interest. Avifaunal Field James Holdsworth March 27, 2007 08h00 to 15 to 22C, no Inside and Wintering raptors and spring migrant Appendix I Appendix G Yes Surveys: (for Dave Martin) 15h00 precipitation, outside of waterfowl were targeted. Two surveyors waterfowl and wind NE 0 to 1 120m from [1 driver, 1 recorder] slowly drove all raptors 7 hrs on Beaufort project roads in the study area, recorded all location species observed or heard and mapped locations of species of interest. Avifaunal Field Pete Read, Sue Read June 6,7,8, 2007 June 6 7 to 16 C, winds Inside and The methodology used for these surveys Appendix I Appendix G Yes Surveys: (for Dave Martin) 05h30 to NW 0 to 4 outside of was a combination of Area Searches and 1st round of 11h55 120m from Point Counts. All roads were slowly breeding birds 9 to 20 C, winds project driven in the study area [area search]. June 7 S 0 to 4 location All species were recorded and species of 05h35 to interest were recorded and mapped. At 11h00 21 to 30 C habitats that might have SAR or species Winds S to SW 4 of interest a 10-minute pointcount was June 8 to 2 conducted and repeated on the second 06h00 to visit at the same location. Habitats that 12h20 might have species of interest included hay fields, lightly grazed pastures, 36.3 hrs abandoned fields, hedgerows, woodlots along roads and stream crossings.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 38 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

Provided Input to Evaluation of Duration Significance of Dates and and # of Woodland, Purpose Investigators Weather Location Summary of Methods Qualifications Field notes Times Field Wetland, Hours Valleyland and Significant Wildlife Habitat Avifaunal Field D. Martin, L. Wladarski, R. Snider, June 29, 2007 06h09 to 21 to 23C, no Outside of The methodology used for these surveys Appendix I Appendix G Yes Surveys: J. Holdsworth 11h00 precipitation, 120m from was a combination of Area Searches and 2nd round of (for Dave Martin) winds NE 1 to 3 project Point Counts. All roads were slowly breeding birds 21.7 hrs components driven in the study area [area search] and all species were recorded and species of interest were recorded and mapped. At habitats that might have SAR or species of interest a 10-minute pointcount was conducted and repeated on the second visit at the same location. Habitats that might have species of interest included hay fields, lightly grazed pastures, abandoned fields, hedgerows, woodlots along roads and stream crossings. Avifaunal Field J. Holdsworth, R. Snider July 1, 2007 06h05 to 13 to 17C, no Inside and The methodology used for these surveys Appendix I Appendix G Yes Surveys: (for Dave Martin) 11h40 precipitation, outside of was a combination of Area Searches and 2nd round of winds NW 3 to 5 120m from Point Counts. All roads were slowly breeding birds 11.2 hrs project driven in the study area [area search] and components all species were recorded and species of interest were recorded and mapped. At habitats that might have SAR or species of interest a 10-minute pointcount was conducted and repeated on the second visit at the same location. Habitats that might have species of interest included hay fields, lightly grazed pastures, abandoned fields, hedgerows, woodlots along roads and stream crossings. Preliminary Arnel Fausto, LGL Limited August 25, 9:30 AM Sunny, 18C Inside and Natural Features – comparison of data Appendix I Appendix G Yes- Significant Investigation of Michael Ewaschuk, Genivar 2009 to 3:30 3 to 5 on outside of layers and existing orthophotography Valleylands Natural Features PM Beaufort 120m from with features in-field; Characterization of analysis as per the 5 hours project aquatic habitat Natural Heritage components Reference Manual, 2005, 2nd Edition

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 39 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

Provided Input to Evaluation of Duration Significance of Dates and and # of Woodland, Purpose Investigators Weather Location Summary of Methods Qualifications Field notes Times Field Wetland, Hours Valleyland and Significant Wildlife Habitat Investigation of Jen Noel, LGL Limited; April 27, 2010 9am to Daily high of 7.7, Within 120m ELC- Ecological Land Classification for Appendix I Appendix E A. Featherstone- as Natural Features, Allison Featherstone, LGL Limited 3:59pm 0 precipitation. of project Southern Ontario (Lee et al. 1998). per Significant Wildlife Habitat 14 hours (www.theweather components Wildlife Habitat and Communities network.com) Wildlife – Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide, Investigations, Technical Guide and Ecoregion Criteria Draft Addendum Vegetation Schedules, detailed Areas Search where and Ecoregion Communities all species, seen, heard of evidence of are Criteria Schedules, ELC documented. Visual searches of aquatic Draft Natural features and terrestrial features with Heritage potential basking sites with binoculars Assessment Guide during appropriate weather conditions, for Renewable overturning potential cover (woody Energy debris, tin, bark). J. Noel – as per Ontario Wetland Natural Features – comparison of data Evaluation System layers and existing orthophotography Southern Manual with features in-field; Characterization of (Ecoregions 6E and aquatic habitat 7E), ELC for Southern Ontario (Lee et al, 1998) Wildlife Habitat A. Featherstone, LGL Limited; June 18, 2010 5:30am, Daily high 25C, Within 120m Wildlife – Significant Wildlife Habitat Appendix I Appendix E A. Featherstone- as and Communities Rob Nisbet, LGL Limited 4:30pm 0 precipitation of project Technical Guide and Ecoregion Criteria per Significant 20 hours (www.theweather components Schedules, detailed Areas Search where Wildlife Habitat network.com) all species, seen, heard of evidence of are Technical Guide, documented. Visual searches of aquatic Draft Addendum features and terrestrial features with and Ecoregion potential basking sites with binoculars Criteria Schedules, during appropriate weather conditions, Draft Natural overturning potential cover (woody Heritage debris, tin, bark). Assessment Guide for Renewable Energy

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 40 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

Wetland Jen Noel, LGL Limited Nov 16, 2010 9:30am to Clear skies, Within 120m Vegetation communities analysis and Appendix I J. Noel – as per Evaluation, 1:30pm scattered clouds. of project features pertaining to wetland evaluation Ontario Wetland Vegetation 4 hours Temperature components. criteria and requirements. Evaluation System Communities approx 8C. Southern Manual (Ecoregions 6E and 7E), ELC for Southern Ontario (Lee et al, 1998)

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 41 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

Provided Input to Evaluation of Duration Significance of Dates and and # of Woodland, Purpose Investigators Weather Location Summary of Methods Qualifications Field notes Times Field Wetland, Hours Valleyland and Significant Wildlife Habitat Bat Habitat Andrew Ryckman, NRSI 14 survey nights 235 hours Weather All natural Detailed methodology can be found in Appendix III of the No field notes are Andrew Ryckman of through-the- information is features Section 4.0 of the Conestogo Wind Farm: Conestogo Wind Farm: associated with the provided input to night acoustic provided in within 120m Bat Monitoring Report and EIS. Bat Monitoring Report acoustic bat the SWH surveys at each Section 5.0 of the of project and EIS monitoring as the evaluation of 3 stations Conestogo Wind components data collected according to the (June 15 to July Farm: Bat were largely consists of following: 6, 2010) Monitoring examined for electronic files. Report and EIS candidate bat The results of the 4 nights of habitat. acoustic bat surveys visual/acoustic Three were compared to surveys (June acoustic and the Significant 21, 24, 28, 30, visual Wildlife Habitat 2010) monitoring Technical Guide locations and Ecoregion were chosen Criteria Schedules based on the to evaluation the presence of significance of large snags. candidate These Significant Wildlife locations can Habitat for bats. be seen in Figure 2 of The evaluation of the significant bat Conestogo habitat occurred in Wind Farm: August 2010 Bat following the Monitoring completion of Report and acoustic monitoring EIS surveys in June and early July 2010.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 42 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

4.2.1 Significant Woodlands Woodlands are defined under the Ontario Regulation 359/09 as:

• “woodland” means land: a) that is south and east of the Canadian Shield as shown in Figure 1 in the Provincial Policy Statement issued under section 3 of the Planning Act and approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council by Order in Council No. 140/2005, b) that has, per hectare, at least, c) 1,000 trees of any size, d) 750 trees measuring over five centimetres in diameter, measured in accordance with subsection (7), e) 500 trees measuring over 12 centimetres in diameter, measured in accordance with subsection (7), or f) 250 trees measuring over 20 centimetres in diameter, measured in accordance with subsection (7), and g) that does not include a cultivated fruit or nut orchard or a plantation established for the purpose of producing Christmas trees.

In terms of Significance, the definition provided in the Natural Heritage Reference Manual and from the PPS means that in regard to woodlands, an area which is ecologically important in terms of features such as species composition, age of trees and stand history, functionally important due to its contribution to the broader landscape, or economically important due to site quality, species composition, or past management history.

Within 120m of the project location, there are two woodlands within 120m of the project location. One deciduous woodland (Woodlot 8) meets significant woodland criteria. This woodland community consists of a White Ash Deciduous Forest (FOD4-2) located east of Sideroad 16 and West of Sideroad17 and West of Highway 12. The remaining woodland is a cultural plantation (CUP) located on the north side of 16th Line, between Wellington Road 12 and Sideroad 6, labelled as Unit 20. Based on the proximity of the project location with respect to the valleylands, an assessment of significance was undertaken. Table 11 provides a listing of the site investigation details and the personnel who conducted the field investigations.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 43 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

Table 11: Site Assessment and Evaluation of Significance Details for Woodlands within 120m of Project Location Dates and Times of the April 27, 2010, 9:00AM to 3.59 PM Beginning and Completion of Site Investigations Duration of Site Investigation 14 hours

Weather Conditions During the Fair, Sunny Site Investigation Summary of Methods Used to ELC- Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario (Lee et al. Make Observations for the 1998). Purposes of Site Investigation Natural Features Inventory – comparison of data layers and existing orthophotography with features in-field; Characterization of aquatic habitat MNR Draft Natural Heritage Manual 2nd Edition

Name and Qualifications of Allison Featherstone, Honours B.Sc. 11 year experience Person Conduction Site Jennifer Noel, M.Sc. 10 years experience. ISA Certified Arborist since Investigation 2009

Field Notes Appendix E

4.2.1.1 Evaluation of Significance Based on the review of the County of Wellington Official Plan, woodlands that are over 10 ha in size are considered to be significant. The County defines significance as ‘an area which is ecologically important in terms of features such as species composition, age of trees and stand history; functionally important due to its contribution to the broader landscape because of its location, size or due to the amount of forest cover in a planning area; or economically important due to site quality, species composition or past management history’ (County of Wellington, 2010, p.156). The official plan also acknowledges that smaller woodlots may have local significance.

Evaluation of the significance of woodlands was made using the procedures outlined in the MNR Natural Heritage Reference Manual, 2005, 2nd Edition. Table 12 provides details on the evaluation criteria that were used, the data that was used in the evaluation, the name and qualifications of the evaluator, and dates of the beginning and completion of the evaluation. Table 13 provides the results of the evaluation of significance.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 44 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

Table 12: Woodland Evaluation Criteria and Methodology Evaluation Criteria and MNR Natural Heritage Reference Manual, 2005, 2nd Edition Procedures Size, Ecological Function, Uncommon Characteristics, Economic and Social Features Data Wellington County Official Plan Woodland Policy Field Investigations Geographical Information Systems information from MNR, GRCA, LIO, NHIC Name and Qualifications of the J. Arnel Fausto, M.Sc. Evaluator Vice President and Senior Ecologist 20 years experience in Aquatic and Terrestrial Biology

Dates of beginning and Initial evaluation completed September 15, 2009 completion of evaluation Final Evaluation completed November 19, 2010.

Table 13 Evaluation of Significance of Woodlands within the Conestogo Wind Farm Project Location using Criteria from the MNR Natural Heritage Reference Manual, 2005, 2nd Edition Woodland Size Criteria Woodland Size In Wellington County, the forest cover is approximately 17.7% (MNR Letter to T. Rasmussen, November 10, 2010.) Under the Natural Heritage Reference Manual, 2005, woodlands 20 ha in size or larger should be considered significant. There is one woodlot within 120m of the project components which meet this criterion. This is labelled as Unit 8 on Figure 1. Woodlot 8 is 32.6 ha. Woodlot 20 is less than 20 ha and is not considered significant.

Ecological Functions Woodland Interior In Wellington County, the forest cover is approximately 17.7% (MNR Letter to T. Rasmussen, November 10, 2010). Under the Natural Heritage Reference Manual, 2005, woodlands with 2 ha or more of interior habitat would be considered significant. There is one woodlot within 120m of the project components which meet these criteria. This is labelled as Unit 8 Figure 1. Woodlot 8 is 3.7 ha of interior habitat

No interior habitat is found in Woodlot 20

Proximity to other woodlands Woodlot 8 is a relatively isolated woodlot. Woodlot 8 contains a small or other habitats watercourse which may support fish habitat. Based on this criterion, woodlot 8 would be considered significant. Woodlot 8 provides shading to the watercourse which may extend the hydroperiod to allow resident fish to survive. Woodland 20 is close to a watercourse but does not provide shading. Linkages The woodlands within 120m of the project location consist of isolated woodlots and do not form linkages with other significant natural features. Water Protection Woodlot 8 contains watercourse features and is 32.6 ha in size. Woodlot 8 would be considered significant under this criterion.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 45 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

Woodland Diversity Woodlot 8 consist of naturally occurring native deciduous tree and understory herbaceous species composition. However, the species composition consists of common species that are considered widespread in Southern Ontario. The terrain within the woodland is generally flat and is not associated with a unique terrain or landform composition. Unit 8 would not be considered significant under this criterion. Woodland 20 is a conifer plantation and is not considered significant.

Uncommon Characteristics Woodlands within 120m of the project location are young to mid aged Woodlands having uncommon trees, and are comprised of relatively common species. Woodland 20 is species, cover, age, or a conifer plantation. These woodlands are not considered significant structure, or older woodlands under this criterion.

Economic and Social Functional Values

Woodlands that have a high In general, the stand composition of all woodlands within 120m of the economic or social values project location does not contain high quality merchantable timber or through particular site would be used for the production of economically forestry products. It management is likely only used for firewood production. These woodlands are not considered significant under this criterion.

Based on the results of the evaluation, Woodland Unit 8 would be considered significant. The criteria of significance met include size, interior, proximity to other woodlands or habitat, and water protection.

4.2.2 Significant Wildlife Habitat As defined in the Significant Wildlife Technical Guide, wildlife habitat is considered significant where it is: “ecologically important in terms of features, functions, representation or amount, and contributing to the quality and diversity of an identifiable geographic area or Natural Heritage System.” (OMNR 2000).

As part of the requirement from Section 27 of Ontario Reg. 359/09,, an evaluation of significance has been completed for natural features identified as wildlife habitat within 120m of the project location through records review and site investigation, to determine if the wildlife habitat is significant in accordance with the criteria from the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (SWHTG) and the draft addendum schedules.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 46 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

As part of the screening for the presence of significant habitat, criteria from the SWHTG draft addendum schedules for Ecoregion 6E were used to determine if any of the wildlife habitat types present within the project study area met the criteria to be considered as significant.

Information from the records review and site investigation were used, and the applicable criteria for determining significance applied. The results of this analysis are provided in Table 14.

Based on the evaluation, several natural features which meet at least some of the criteria required to be considered as SWH have been identified as follows:

• Units 4 – potential for significant maternal roosting colonies for bats;

• Units 8 potential for significant woodland amphibian breeding habitat;

• Unit 19 and Unit 0- potential for Hill’s Pondweed to be present

• Units 20 potential for woodland raptor breeding habitat; and,

• Unit 12 – potential for significant habitat for S1-S3/SC species, with habitat for Monarch present (SC).

For the purposes of the NHA and requirements under Ontario Reg. 359/09 these areas are being treated as significant and addressed within the EIS in Section 5.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 47 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

Table 14: Significant Wildlife Habitat Assessment Summary

Unit where potential ELC Map to View Assessment of Habitat, Species Presence and Potential to Meet SWH Summary of Characteristics of the SWH Confirmed or Potential Type Habitat Code Match Occurs to Units Criteria Type SWH in project location SWH Criteria Waterfowl Stopover Areas in CUM1 CUM1 or CUT1 with sheet water from mid- Units 0, 14 and 16 Figure 1 No evidence of sheet water or habitat use by 100 or more listed species. Not present and CUT1 march to May with aggregations of > 100 individuals of listed species. Not agricultural Only tundra swans documented were outside of 120m of project location fields except for Tundra Swan.

Waterfowl Stopover and Staging Areas MAM, SAS, SAM SAF, SWD, aquatic Units 10, 11, 12, 15, 17 and Figure 1 No evidence of habitat use by 100 or more of listed species or for 2-3 birds/ha Not present (Aquatic) habitat with invertebrates and vegetation, 19 for 7-20 days. 100 more or extended use Colonial Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat Eroding banks, sandy hills, pits, steep slopes, Units 0, 4, 14, 16, Figure 1 No nesting habitat as per criteria found within 120m of project components. Not present (Bank and Cliff Swallow) rock faces, etc. with > 8 Cliff or > 100 Bank swallows. Does not include man-made Cliff Swallows recorded on surveys were nesting under nearby bridges. structures or active pits. Shorebird Migratory Stopover Areas Shorelines of lakes and rivers, 3 or more Units 10, 11, 12, 15, 17 and Figure 1 No stopover habitat present. Not present listed species and >1000 shorebird use days 19 Songbird Migratory Stopover Woodlots need to be >10ha and within 5km None N/a Project location > 5 km from Lake Ontario. Not present of Lake Ontario. Raptor Wintering Area Combination of upland and woodland > 20 None Figure 1 Habitat combination not present in project location. No raptors found on Jan Not present ha, various species thresholds including 10 3, Feb 2, or Mar 27, 2007 in project location or more individuals of 2 or more listed species or 1 or more Short-eared Owls. Bat Hibernacula (Winter Roost, Criteria identify caves and mine features and Units 8 and 4 were Figure 1 NRSI completed assessments of potential bat SWH through visual and Potential identified in units Maternal Colonies) ecosites CCR and CCA. Maternal colonies identified as potential by acoustical monitoring. Based on the results of the monitoring, and 2 and 4. potentially occur in tree cavities, vegetation, NRSI. specifically the acoustical monitoring and level of number of bat passes – and often old buildings. POTENTIAL identified in units 2 and 4.

Not identified in study area based on risk No caves or mine features are present in the project area. Habitat could not be screening, records review, field studies by ruled out in units 2 and 4. Seasonal Concentration Area Seasonal Natural Resources Solutions Inc.

Butterfly Migratory Route/Stopover Site must be <5km from Lake Ontario None N/a Project location > 5 km from Lake Ontario. Habitat thresholds not present. Not present Areas shoreline. Habitat components include >10 ha combination of field and forest Snake Hibernaculum Congregations of 5 or more individuals or 2 None N/a No snakes observed on surveys. No potential hibernacula sites observed. Not present. or more species near potential hibernacula Colonial-Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat Presence of 5 or more active heron nests, > None N/a No heron nests found in woodlands in project location. No suitable habitat for Not present (Tree/Shrub OR Ground) 100 Herring Gulls, > 75 Caspian Terns or gulls or terns. None of target species observed in project location. any of the target species. Deer wintering areas Canopy cover of 60% or more conifer Unit 20 Figure 1 A single small coniferous plantation woodlot (12ha) is identified at Unit 20. Not present species The MNR has not identified this unit as SWH for deer. This type of SWH is to be determined by the OMNR. Amphibian Breeding Habitat Presence of a wetland, lake or pond within or Figure 1 Small vernal pools in Unit # 3 and potential in 8. Depression areas were very Possibly present in Unit 8. (woodland) within 120 metres of woodland. One or more Unit 8 – Small woodland small and held a few cm of water during the April 27, 2010 site visit. In unit listed species with at least 20 individuals. pools NOT visually 2, woodland pool was dry on July 3, 2010 visit. No post-breeding amphibians Low potential for unit 9. observed in area where site found. No evidence of criteria species within any of the pools visually investigations occurred, but observed. likely present due to similar character to woodlots 2 and No pools were identified in unit 7 (FOD) based on roadside review of habitat.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 48 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

Unit 9 – a small pond is (Unit 20 was not considered in this evaluation as it does not appear to have within unit 9, and within ponds within the wooded area.) 120m of Unit 7 FOD.

Amphibian Breeding Habitat (Wetland) Wetlands with ELC codes MAM1 to 6, Units 11, 12, 15 and 19 Based on consultation with A. Timmerman (MNR Guelph) Unit 12 does not Not present. SAS1, SAF1 or SWT1. Presence of 2 or provide wetland habitat function and are ruled out. Unit 11 does not contain more listed species with at least 20 standing or open water outside of the stream. individuals. Unit 15 did not have an open water component and did not have standing water in 2010 investigations.

Unit 19 – similar to units 11 and 12, these are linear patches along the water corridor that do not sustain water. Rare Alvar, cliff and talus slopes, savannah, None identified based on records review or None N/a None of the rare vegetation communities are present in the project location. Not present. vegetation tallgrass prairie, sand barren or old field investigations. FOD communities do not meet threshold of 100 years old with minimal communities growth forest. human activity. Waterfowl Nesting Area All upland habitats within 120 metres of Upland adjacent to: Figure 1 Unit 10, 15, 17, 18 - upland areas surrounding are active agricultural areas. Not present. listed ELC wetlands. Presence of 10 or more Not suitable. nesting pairs of Mallards or 3 or more pairs Unit 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, of other listed species. Presence of > 40cm 19 Unit 12/19- Units do not serve a wetland functions along the riparian corridor, dbh nest trees for Wood Duck and Hooded as determined in consultation with A. Timmerman (Guelph MNR). Merganser. Surrounding upland areas are active agricultural areas. Not suitable.

Unit 11 –Surround upland areas are active agricultural lands. Not suitable. . Osprey Nesting, Foraging and Perching Presence of 1 or more active Osprey nests None N/a Project location not suitable. No nests found. Not present habitat directly adjacent to a river, lake, pond or wetland Woodland Raptor Nesting Habitat ELC Community types of FOC, FOM, FOD, Units 8, 20 Figure 1 It is likely that these units could support 1 or more active nests of the wildlife Potential exists in units 8 SWC, SWM, SWD greater than 10ha in size. species in the criteria manual. No active nests were confirms during 2010 and 20. field investigations. Turtle Nesting and Over-wintering areas Site must have sand or gravel for nest None N/a Habitat requirements not present. A single turtle was documented west of Not present digging. Site must have permanent bodies of ELC Unit 18 in an offline pond. Not congregation of turtles were noted in water for over-wintering. any location. Seeps and Springs Predominantly Forested Areas with < 25% Unit 10 Figure 1 A spring was identified with up to 4 springs in the area south of turbine 10 in Not present

Specialized Wildlife Habi tat meadow/field/pasture within the headwaters ELC Unit 10 in the community MAS2. Does not meet criteria for SWH as it of a stream or river system. Presence of > 2 exists outside of forested area. No evidence of concentration of wildlife at seeps/springs present even during dry this spring location. summers Animal Movement Corridors No confirmed SWH identified based on None N/a Local corridors present. Not present records review or field investigations. Riparian corridors and hedgerows provide small scale movement corridors, and there is movement by wildlife disperse throughout the agricultural areas.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 49 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

Unit where potential ELC Map to View Assessment of Habitat, Species Presence and Potential to Meet SWH Summary of Characteristics of the SWH Confirmed or Potential Type Habitat Code Match Occurs to Units Criteria Type SWH in project location SWH Criteria Marsh Bird Breeding Habitat Wetlands with shallow water with emergent Units 11, 12, 15 and 19 Figure 1 No wetlands present as described in the criteria schedules, as these units do Not present. aquatic vegetation. Presence of select species not have a shallow water component. No marsh bird species recorded on any and abundance thresholds. of the surveys as per the criteria thresholds.

Area-Sensitive Bird Breeding Habitat Habitats where interior forest birds are Unit 8 is larger than 30ha. Figure 1 Unit 8 provides an interior habitat of 3.7603ha of interior habitat, and Not present. breeding, typically large mature (>60 years therefore does not meet the minimum criteria as set out in the Criteria old) forest stands or woodlots > 30 ha. With Schedules. at least of 10ha of interior forest 100m from edge.

Thumbnail diagram of interior habitat calculation.

None of the woodlots in or adjacent to the project location meet the criteria.

Other information: Old signs of Pileated Woodpecker foraging on trees recorded in Unit 5. Bird not present and not likely to be more than just an Habitat for Species of Conservation Concern Habitat Species for occasional visitor. Pileated woodpecker is not a criteria species as per the Criteria Schedules.

Open Country Bird Breeding Habitat Large grassland areas > 30 ha, but not Class Unit 14, 16 Does not meet size of site or number of significant species criteria. 2 Indicator Not present 1 or 2 agricultural lands and not being species (Bobolink, Vesper Sparrow) were documented through site actively used for farming. Presence of 2 or investigations, but these were found on active agricultural lands. Two more indicator or special concern species common species were noted but American Kestrel was using agricultural and at least one common species. lands. Eastern Kingbird found in 4 units. But a single common species does not meet criteria thresholds. Shrub/Early Successional Bird Breeding ELC ecosites of CUT1 and CUS1. Unit 0, Unit 4 Figure 1 Does not meet criteria of unit size or minimum number of criteria species as Not present Habitat Shrubland or Successional fields > 30 ha, but per the Criteria Schedules. not Class 1 or 2 agricultural lands and not being actively used for farming. Presence of Additional information pertaining to Units 11/12 (MAM2) are that they 2 or more indicator or special concern and at contained one indicator species Brown Thrasher, 1 common species Willow least 1 common species. Flycatcher. These units do not meet threshold for significance due to ELC ecosite and threshold number of criteria species.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 50 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

Unit where potential ELC Map to View Assessment of Habitat, Species Presence and Potential to Meet SWH Summary of Characteristics of the SWH Confirmed or Potential Type Habitat Code Match Occurs to Units Criteria Type SWH in project location SWH Criteria Special Concern S1 to S3 species and All Special Concern and rare (S1 to S3, SH) All units have potentials Figure 1 11 adults of SC Monarch (S2N) were recorded in 5 units - Units 2, 8, 11, 12 Breeding habitat present for communities plant or animal species or communities. based on ELC Code (Units and 5. Good stands of milkweed were found in Unit 12 near 17 Sideroad. small numbers of Monarch 0-20) adults and larvae in Unit 12. No target species or communities identified by LGL Limited. Potential for Hill’s Unit 0 and Unit 19 Potamogeton noted in creek habitat; however Hill’s Pondweed was not Pondweed to be present positively identified

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 51 Conestogo Wind Farm December2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

4.2.3 Significant Wetlands Wetlands are defined under separate terms within the PPS as: Wetlands: means lands that are seasonally or permanently covered by shallow water, as well as lands where the water table is close to or at the surface. In either case the presence of abundant water has caused the formation of hydric soils and has favoured the dominance of either hydrophytic plants or water tolerant plants. The four major types of wetlands area swamps, marshes, bogs and fens.

Periodically soaked or wetlands being used for agricultural purposes which no longer exhibit wetland characteristics are not considered to be wetlands for the purposes of this definition.

4.2.3.1 Evaluation of Significance Significant wetlands are wetlands that meet the criteria for this designation based on an evaluation procedure (Ontario Wetland Evaluation System or OWES) established by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). Wetlands with a score greater than 600 would be considered provincially significant under the OWES.

Within 120m of the project location, there are 13 wetlands. Discussions with Art Timmerman of MNR took place on November 17, 2010 to determine an acceptable method to evaluate wetland units, including the determination of whether to assess as an isolated wetland or as a complex. This resulted in the analysis of 5 separate wetland units for further evaluation under the OWES. Wetlands ELC Units 13 and 15 are within 750m of the Ritch Tract Swamp Non-PSW and were assessed as being included within the wetland complex. Wetlands within 750 m can be complexed if they meet the size requirement and are hydrologically connected. Two wetlands labelled as 18 and 12, were assessed as isolated wetland units because no other wetlands are within 750m. One group of wetlands (ELC Units 4, 5, 6, 9, and 10) was assessed as a complex, due to their proximity of each other. Wetland 7 was also assessed as an isolated wetland because it was located in a separate drainage divide than the adjacent wetland complex. Three wetlands identified through ELC classification were not assessed as wetlands as they were either too small or currently being used for agricultural purposes, and/or considered a riparian feature and not providing a wetland function, as determined through consultation with A. Timmerman (pers. Comm., Nov. 17, 2010). The following wetlands were excluded from the analysis: Unit 12, 17 and 19. Although some wetlands are not within 120m of project components they were assessed for significance because they provide a function at a larger landscape level (see Table 15). Table 16 provides a listing of the evaluation details and the personnel who completed the evaluation of significance.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 52 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

Table 15. Assessment Details for Significant Wetlands within 120m of Project Location Dates and Times of Beginning January 2007 to November 2010 and Completion of Site Investigations Duration of Site Investigation 160 hours (approximately) Weather Conditions During the Sunny and partly cloudy Site Investigation Summary of Methods Used to Ontario Wetland Evaluation System, Southern Ontario Manual, 3rd Make Observations for the Edition, NTS Technical Manual TM-002, MNR 1993; Purposes of Site Investigation Wetland characterization;

Compilation of data layers; mapping and analysis.

Supporting wildlife surveys by the project team. Name and Qualifications of Jennifer Noel, M.Sc. 10 years experience. Wetland Evaluation Person Conduction Wetland Certified since 2008, evaluation completed as per (Ontario Wetland Evaluation Evaluation Course) established by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). Field Notes and Evaluation Field Notes Appendix E. Notes Wetland Evaluation Documentation Appendix I.

Based on the review of background data and field investigation no wetlands within 120m of the project location are considered significant according to the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 53 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

Table 16: Wetland Evaluation of Significance Summary

Wetland Results of Evaluation MNR Wetland Unit ELC Size Significance (Yes/No to meeting Location Wetland Type Evaluated Comments Site Photos (See Figure 1.) Number ha Assessed by criteria for Wetland LGL Significance) Additional wetland evaluated that is not within 120 m of project components. This is due to the holistic landscape approach for wetland analysis. <750 m from Ritch Tract Swamp Lot 18 Con Ritch Tract Swamp N/A 0.58 Swamp (SWD) No Yes Complexed with Ritch Tract Swamp No B Still not considered a significant. Wetland score of 559. (Wetland Evaluation Included in Appendix H.)

<750 m from Ritch Tract Swamp Complexed with Ritch Tract Swamp Still not considered a significant. Wetland score of 559. (Wetland Evaluation Included in Appendix H.)

Lot 13 Con Deciduous swamp Ritch Tract Swamp 13 0.48 No Yes No 18 (SWD4-1)

<750m from Ritch Tract Swamp Still not considered a significant. Wetland score of 559. (Wetland Evaluation Included in Appendix H.)

Lot 13 Con Meadow marsh Ritch Tract Swamp 15 0.6 No Yes No 18 (MAM2)

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 54 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

Wetland Results of Evaluation MNR Wetland Unit ELC Size Significance (Yes/No to meeting Location Wetland Type Evaluated Comments Site Photos (See Figure 1.) Number ha Assessed by criteria for Wetland LGL Significance) Isolated feature. Greater than 1000 m from the Ritch Tract Swamp and from any other surrounding wetland. Assessed as a single wetland as per discussions with Art Timmerman Conestogo Wetland Lot 10 and 18 2.25 SWD4-1 No Yes (November 17, 2010) No 1 11, Con 17 Not considered significant. Wetland score of 334. (Wetland Evaluation Included in Appendix H.)

Isolated feature. Greater than 1000 m from the Ritch Tract Swamp and from any other surrounding wetland. Assessed as a single wetland as per discussions with Art Timmerman Conestogo Wetland Lot 6 Con 2.93 11 MAM2 No Yes (November 17, 2010). No 2 15 and 16 Not considered significant. Wetland score of 426. (Wetland Evaluation Included in Appendix H.)

Within 750 m of wetland units 4, 6, 9, and 10. Assessed as a complex Not considered significant. Wetland score of 373.

Conestogo Wetland Lot 9, Con 5 1.40 SWD4 No Yes No 3 15

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 55 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

Wetland Results of Evaluation MNR Wetland Unit ELC Size Significance (Yes/No to meeting Location Wetland Type Evaluated Comments Site Photos (See Figure 1.) Number ha Assessed by criteria for Wetland LGL Significance) Highly disturbed. Half of community is currently under cattle grazing. Very limited ground cover and understorey. Combination of cultural thicket, Lowland deciduous forest and meadow marsh. deciduous Portion of community is being used as Lot 8, 9, Conestogo Wetland forest/cultural a garbage dump by the property 4 and 10, 6.41 No Yes No 3 thicket owner. Con 15 (FOD7/CUT1) - Within 750 m of wetland units 5, 6, 9 Swamp and 10 and assessed as a complex as per discussions with Art Timmerman (November 17, 2010). Not considered significant. Wetland score of 373. Within 750 m of wetland units 4, 5, 6, and 10 Assessed as a complex as per discussions with Art Timmerman (November 17, 2010) Not considered significant. Wetland score of 373.

Conestogo Wetland Lot 8, Con 9 0.48 SWD4-1 No Yes No 3 15

Within 750 m of wetland units 4, 5, 6, and 9 Assessed as a complex as per discussions with Art Timmerman (November 17, 2010) Not considered significant. Wetland Conestogo Wetland Lot 9, Con 0.16 10 MAS No Yes score of 373. No 3 15 Normally too small to be assessed however the area contains seeps and was included in the complex.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 56 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

Wetland Results of Evaluation MNR Wetland Unit ELC Size Significance (Yes/No to meeting Location Wetland Type Evaluated Comments Site Photos (See Figure 1.) Number ha Assessed by criteria for Wetland LGL Significance) Isolated unit which is in a different drainage divide than Conestogo Wetland 3. Assessed separately. No wetland downstream within 750m to be complexed or included in the Conestogo Wetland Lot 8, Con Swamp/lowland 7 3.76 No Yes analysis of significance. No 4 14 forest - Swamp Wetland is greater than 1.5 km away from the Alma Wetland Complex (PSW) Not considered significant. Wetland score 320.

Not assessed or included in wetland significance analysis based on Lot 7, consultation with MNR staff Art N/A 17 0.20 Marsh (MAS2-1) No No No Con16 Timmerman (November 17, 2010) due to size of feature and lack of wetland function. Not assessed as it is a floodplain Lot 6, feature containing wetland plants not Con16 and N/A 19 0.73 MAM2 No No providing a direct wetland function. No 17; Lot 7 (Consultation with MNR Art Con16 Timmerman November 17, 2010) Not assessed as it is a floodplain Lot 7, Con feature containing wetland plants not N/A 12 16; Lot 7 1.49 MAM1 No No providing a direct wetland function. No Con 15 (Consultation with MNR Art Timmerman November 17, 2010)

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 57 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

4.3 Evaluation of Significance Methodology, Criteria and Procedures for Valleylands Evaluation of the significance of the valleylands was made using the procedures outlined in the MNR Natural Heritage Reference Manual, 2005, 2nd Edition. In nearly all of the valleylands, disturbance from agriculture activities, including cattle grazing is evident. As a result, valleyland function is limited due to the lack of size, diversity, continuity, and quality of the riparian vegetation. Table 17 provides an evaluation of the valleylands in terms of criteria listed under Landform Related Functions and Attributes, Ecological Features, and Restored Ecological Functions.

Table 17 Evaluation of Significance of Valleylands within the Conestogo Wind Farm Project Location using Criteria from the MNR Natural Heritage Reference Manual, 2005, 2nd Edition Landform Related Functions and Attributes Surface water functions There are 3 defined valleylands within the study area that are within 120m of the project components, as indicated by GRCA GIS Mapping. Crossings of these systems are labelled as 1, 2, 3. Other watercourses within 120m of the project components consist of intermittent swales and undefined watercourses that do not qualify as valleylands. All of these valleylands contain some wetland communities and provide surface water conveyance to the Conestogo River.

Groundwater Functions The groundwater functions of these valleylands are limited to infiltration. They have a tendency to be intermittent and currently do not appear to have groundwater discharge function.

Landform Prominence These valleylands are small tributary systems that drain low lying areas and wetlands to the east. They are not associated with well defined valley morphology and large meander belts.

Distinctive Geomorphic The valleylands are not associated with a distinct landform feature. Landforms Ecological Features Degree of Naturalness The valleylands traverse agricultural lands and do not contain a continuous natural vegetation cover. The vegetation cover in these watercourses has been impacted to a large degree by ongoing agricultural activities, including livestock grazing and access. Scattered patches of woody vegetation cover remain, with most reaches containing only grass or forage vegetation.

Community and Species The riparian vegetation of the valleyland features are highly disturbed Diversity and do not contain a diverse assemblage of terrestrial or wetland vegetation. The aquatic community is also limited to tolerant forage fish species.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 58 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

Landform Related Functions and Attributes Unique communities and Because of ongoing agricultural activities such as grazing and cropping Species within the valley systems, there are no known unique vegetation or faunal communities or habitats within these valleylands. There are no NHIC or MNR records of unique communities and species within these valleylands. Habitat Value There are a few small remnant natural features present within the valleylands which are within 120m of the project components. These features are disturbed. Due to the degree of disturbance, their habitat value in terms of sustaining aquatic and terrestrial species diversity is diminished.

Linkage Function The valleylands within the project area location are too small and contain fragmented patches of riparian vegetation, and do not contain a minimum width of 100m. They therefore provide a very limited wildlife or aquatic corridor or linkage function. Restored Ecological Functions Restoration Potential and Because of ongoing agricultural activities, limited size of the Value valleylands, and alteration of the feeder tributaries to facilitate agricultural drainage, the restoration potential of the valley is limited. Based on the results of this evaluation, the valleylands within 120m of the project location do not qualify as Significant Valleylands.

4.4 Public and Aboriginal Consultation Input to Evaluation of Significance 4.4.1 Aboriginal Communities NextEra Energy Canada ULC has, and continues to, consult with Aboriginal communities identified by the Director's List under Ontario Regulation 359/09, and others. Inquiries were made about Aboriginal values that may be of concern, but only general responses have been provided by some of the communities, none of which were location-specific. Additionally, all information required to be distributed to those communities under Ontario Reg. 359/09 was completed on September 13, 2010 with a request for their response to provide information on any constitutionally protected Aboriginal or treaty rights that may be affected by the Project, or any concerns about potential negative environmental impacts in which they may have an interest. To date, no responses have been received.

4.4.2 Public Consultation To date, no information has been provided to LGL Limited that would require input to, or change the results of, the evaluation of significance for wildlife, wetlands, woodlands or valleylands.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 59 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES Since initial study was undertaken in 2007, the Conestogo Wind Farm project component and turbine locations have undergone various refinements for various setback and technical reasons, and the final turbine and electrical line layout presented in this report represents the best configuration possible for minimizing effects on natural features as required in the Ontario Reg. 359/09 under the Environmental Protection Act. As such, every effort was made to develop a turbine layout and electrical connections that avoid intrusion into remnant woodlots and wetlands, and to minimize the need for crossing of drains and tributaries. In general, turbine and electrical connection layout provided in Figure1 is situated within agricultural lands and avoids many of the natural features found within the landscape. From the evaluation of significance under Section 4.0, natural features determined to be significant and associated within 120m of the project location are summarized in Tables 18 and 19.

5.1 Prohibited Areas The current REA legislation does not allow renewable energy generation facilities to be located within significant natural features. The following provides a list of prohibited areas under the REA legislation:

• Provincially significant southern wetland;

• Provincially significant coastal wetland; or

• Provincial park or a conservation reserve, unless the construction, installation or expansion of the facility is not prohibited by or under the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act, 2006 or the testing is approved by the Minister.

In addition to the above, the REA does not allow construction of renewable energy projects at any of the following locations unless an environmental impact study report demonstrating mitigation measures to ensure no negative environmental effect has been prepared:

• A provincially significant northern wetland or within 120 metres of a provincially significant northern wetland;

• Within 120 metres of a provincially significant southern wetland;

• Within 120 metres of a provincially significant coastal wetland;

• A provincially significant area of natural and scientific interest (earth science) or within 50 metres of a provincially significant area of natural and scientific interest (earth science);

• A provincially significant area of natural and scientific interest (life science) or within 120 metres of a provincially significant area of natural and scientific interest (life science);

• A significant valleyland or within 120 metres of a significant valleyland;

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 60 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

• A significant woodland or within 120 metres of a significant woodland;

• A significant wildlife habitat or within 120 metres of a significant wildlife habitat;

• Within 120 metres of a provincial park;

• Within 120 metres of a conservation reserve;

• Within 120 metres of the average annual high water mark of a lake, other than a lake trout lake that is at or above development capacity;

• Within 300 metres of the average annual high water mark of a lake trout lake that is at or above development capacity;

• Within 120 metres of the high water mark of a permanent or intermittent stream; or

• Within 120 metres of a seepage area.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 61 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

Table 18: Summary of Significant Natural Features within 120m of Project Location

Ecologically Significant Natural Measurability of Impacts or Changes to the Natural Feature or Indicator/Keystone Species for Future Sensitive Ecologically Sensitive Attributes Changes to Habitat Feature Function Monitoring (Y/N) ELC Unit 4 Y Bat Populations have low fecundity Bat populations can be monitored through post construction acoustic or May include loss of available air space or Presence or absence of resident and and can be significantly depleted radar monitoring. Activity levels pre- and post construction provides an avoidance of areas of turbine blade sweep. migratory bat species. Potential Bat Maternal through incidental mortalities. indication of bat presence. Post Construction surveys of carcasses can Colonies also be used to determine bat mortality rates. No loss of vegetation associated with habitat features in woodlots.

ELC Unit 12 Y Monarch butterfly populations are in Butterfly surveys are often used to determine populations. A more direct Loss of Milkweed (Asclepias spp.) through land Milkweed and presence of Monarch decline indication is actual numbers noted during migration periods. clearing activities butterflies and caterpillars Potential S1-S3 Species Habitat (Monarch Butterfly) ELC Units 8, 9 – Y Amphibian populations are in decline Amphibian populations can be monitored through trapping and installation Not applicable, no direct habitat loss. Presence or absence of sensitive Potential Woodland of drift fences amphibians: Breeding Amphibian • Mole salamanders; Habitat • Anurans

ELC Units 8 - Potential Y Raptor breeding can be disturbed, Raptor breeding can be monitored through direct breeding surveys May include loss of available air space or Presence or absence of raptors (hawks, Woodland Raptor leading to loss of reproduction avoidance of areas of turbine blade sweep. owls) within the subject woodlots. Breeding Habitat through nest abandonment. . Woodlot 8 N Incremental loss of woodlots area, Woodlot loss can be monitored through a number of ways including direct Not applicable if there is no direct loss or Community structure (presence or biodiversity, or habitat function surveys of area, composition, and habitat function (presence or absence of encroachment absence of invasive species) and top FOD4-2 White Ash keystone species) predator species (raptors). Deciduous Forest

ELC Units 0 and 19 Y Potential loss of Hill’s Pondweed Hill’s Pondweed presence or absence in watercourses meeting habitat Not applicable if there is no direct loss or Presence of Potamogeton hillii requirements (i.e. alkaline water). encroachment

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 62 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

Table 19: Environmental Impact for Significant (and Potential Significant) Natural Features and Watercourses within 120m of Wind Power Project Components

Potential Negative Environmental Natural Feature within Effects from Construction and Mitigation Measures Environmental Effects Monitoring Plan Commitments Construction Plan Report Commitments 120m of Project Location Operation Significant Wildlife Habitat ELC Unit 4 Possible disturbance of wildlife living Limit construction to outside of A detailed post-construction bird and bat monitoring plan, CONESTOGO WIND FARM Post Construction area to be clearly marked and staked to in the forest community during sensitive timing windows for Construction Follow-up Plan, has been developed and sent to the Ministry of Natural Resources reduce footprint impacts. Potential Bat Maternal construction of Turbine 9. breeding of bats and birds. for review. This plan was developed, in part using the 2010 working draft Bats and Bat Colonies Habitats: Guidelines for Wind Power Projects (MNR 2010) and guidelines developed by both Construction near Turbines 9 will be outside of Possible incidental kill of bats during Monitor and institute changes to the MNR and Environment Canada (EC). breeding bird timing windows (April to September). turbine operation. turbine operation if necessary. • proposed post-construction mortality monitoring period of three years for both birds and bats; • Bi-weekly mortality surveys for birds and bats of all 10 turbines from May 1st to October 31st; • Weekly mortality surveys for birds and bats of all 10 turbines from November 1st to 30th; • Scavenger removal trials; • Searcher efficiency trials; • Mortality (single event and high annual) thresholds which will result in immediate notifications to MNR and EC; and • Reporting of the monitoring program to, and consultation with, the MNR.

Potential SWH - ELC Unit Destruction of habitat (milkweed) Turbine 4 is within 120m of Unit 12, None required None required as electrical line installation will 12 during installation of electrical but there is no requirement for involve no edge clearing of vegetation (electrical transmission line. vegetation clearing during lines will share poles with Hydro One lines and be Potential S1-S3 Species installation of electrical transmission located within municipal road right-of-ways). Habitat (Monarch Butterfly) lines. Potential SWH - ELC Units Possible disturbance of breeding Limit construction to outside of None required Construction area to be clearly marked and staked to 8, (low potential for 9) – amphibians living in the forest sensitive timing windows for reduce footprint impacts. Potential Woodland community during construction; breeding amphibians. Breeding Amphibian Habitat Loss or alteration of ground or surface Construction near woodlands will be outside of water flow to potential breeding ponds; Ensure overland drainage patterns to breeding bird timing windows (April to September). Distance from construction poses low woodlots are not altered by access risk for contaminants entering habitat; road or turbine footprints. Given the proximity (distance) of construction to the No vegetation removal proposed for woodland units, maintenance of on-site drainage as woodlands that may contain habitat; existing, and, small footprint of turbines within the landscape, no disturbance to breeding amphibians is expected.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 63 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

Potential Negative Environmental Natural Feature within Effects from Construction and Mitigation Measures Environmental Effects Monitoring Plan Commitments Construction Plan Report Commitments 120m of Project Location Operation Potential SWH -ELC Units Possible disturbance of woodland Limit construction to outside of A detailed post-construction bird and bat monitoring plan, CONESTOGO WIND FARM Post Construction area to be clearly marked and staked to 8 - Potential Woodland raptors living in the forest community sensitive timing windows for Construction Follow-up Plan, has been developed and sent to the Ministry of Natural Resources reduce footprint impacts. Raptor Breeding Habitat during installation of electrical breeding of raptors. for review. This plan was developed, in part using the 2010 working draft Bats and Bat transmission line and Turbine 7. Habitats: Guidelines for Wind Power Projects (MNR 2010) and guidelines developed by both Construction near Turbine 7 will be outside of the MNR and Environment Canada (EC). breeding bird timing windows (April to September). Possible incidental kill of raptors Monitor and institute changes to • proposed post-construction mortality monitoring period of three years for both during turbine operation. turbine operation if necessary birds and bats; • Bi-weekly mortality surveys for birds and bats of all 10 turbines from May 1st

to October 31st;

• Weekly mortality surveys for birds and bats of all 10 turbines from November st th 1 to 30 ; • Scavenger removal trials; • Searcher efficiency trials; • Mortality (single event and high annual) thresholds which will result in immediate notifications to MNR and EC; and • Reporting of the monitoring program to, and consultation with, the MNR.

ELC Units 0 and 19 Degradation of habitat during electrical None required as there is no None required None required Potential Hill’s Pondweed line installation anticipated in-water work Habitat

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 64 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

Potential Negative Environmental Natural Feature within 120m of Project Construction Plan Report Effects from Construction and Mitigation Measures Environmental Effects Monitoring Plan Commitments Location Commitments Operation Significant Woodlands Significant Potential disturbance of edge No vegetation mitigation required as A detailed post-construction bird and bat monitoring plan, CONESTOGO WIND FARM Post Construction Follow-up Plan, has Construction area to be clearly Woodland - vegetation and habitat operation and installation of Turbine 7 will been developed and sent to the Ministry of Natural Resources for review. This plan was developed, in part using the 2010 marked and staked to reduce Woodlot 8 function within the woodlot not result in clearing of vegetation. working draft Bats and Bat Habitats: Guidelines for Wind Power Projects (MNR 2010) and guidelines developed by both the footprint impacts. MNR and Environment Canada (EC). FOD4-2 White Habitat disturbance mitigated by limiting • A proposed post-construction mortality monitoring period of three years for both birds and bats; Construction near Turbine 7 will Ash Deciduous installation of Turbine 7 outside of • Bi-weekly mortality surveys for birds and bats of all 10 turbines from May 1st to October 31st; be outside of breeding bird timing Forest sensitive timing windows for wildlife • Weekly mortality surveys for birds and bats of all 10 turbines from November 1st to 30th; windows (April to September).

• Scavenger removal trials; • Searcher efficiency trials; • Mortality (single event and high annual) thresholds which will result in immediate notifications to MNR and EC; and • Reporting of the monitoring program to, and consultation with, the MNR.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 65 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

6.0 CONCLUSION The Conestogo Wind Farm, located within Wellington County, northwest of the village of Alma, Ontario and south of Arthur, Ontario has been proposed as a Class 4 Wind Facility. Within this Facility, a total of 10 turbines have been planned with a nameplate capacity of 22.9MW. In May 2009, the Ontario Green Energy Act, aimed at expanding clean and renewable sources of energy, came into effect (MOE, 2010). As a result, renewable energy projects are subject to a regulatory approval process.

This Natural Heritage Evaluation and Records Review report was prepared to address The Environmental Protection Act: Ontario Regulations 359/09 Renewable Energy Approvals under Part V.0.1 of the Act, Section 24(1):

• A records review (Sec.25);

• Site investigation (Sec.26); and,

• An evaluation of the significance of the natural features identified within the records review and site investigation (Sec.27); and,

• An environmental impact study (Sec. 38) (MOE, 2010)

The study area for the Conestogo Wind Farm consists of active agricultural lands that are subject to frequent disturbance. The natural features identified within this study area include hedgerows, forest, and wetland units. The results of the records review revealed that there are unevaluated wetlands within the study area, and that the site is adjacent to PSWs. .

Based on additional consultation with MNR, refinements to the turbine layout and electrical connections were made. For the most part, turbine and electrical connection layout provided in this report is situated within agricultural lands and avoids the natural heritage features found within the landscape. One significant woodlot is present within 120m of wind power components. No significant wetlands or valleylands were identified in the project area. Significant wildlife habitat potential was identified, and no loss to these habitat features is anticipated from the project activities and project components.

Provided that recommended mitigation measures outlined in this report are adhered to, a high level of protection will be provided to remnant natural features, including woodlands, wetlands, and wildlife habitat. The proposed turbine layout and electrical connections can be constructed without adversely affecting the features and functions of the natural environment.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 66 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

7.0 REFERENCES Cadman, M.D., P.F.J Eagles, & F.M. Helleiner, 1987. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario. University of Waterloo Press, Waterloo.

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.

Chapman, L.J, Putnam, D.F (1984). The Physiography of Southern Ontario. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

County of Wellington (2010). Wellington County Official Plan: May 6, 1999 with current revisions. Accessed on May 12, 2010 from website http://www.wellington.ca/community_section.aspx?id=65

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

Government of Ontario (2009). Environmental Protection Act: Ontario 359/09 Renewable Energy Approvals Under Part V.0.1 of the Act. Accessed on May 12, 2010 from e-laws website www.search.e-laws.gov.on.ca/en/isysquery/132a7e1e-9b7e-450c-9551- b958ac36b5cb/1/doc/?search=browserstatutues&context=#hit1

Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) (2010). Grand River Information Network Interactive Mapping Application. Accessed on May 12, 2010 from website http://grims.grandriver.ca/imf/imf.jsp?site=grca_viewer&ddsid=9fd3b

Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) (2009). Grand River Conservation Authority Policies for Administration of Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourse Regulation: Ontario Regulation 150/06. Accessed on May 12, 2010 from website www.grandriver.ca/PolicyPlanningRegulations/GRCA_Policies.pdf

Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) (2004). A Watershed Forest Plan for the Grand River. Accessed on May 14, 2010 from website www.grandriver.ca/forestry/ForestPlan_complete.pdf

Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) (2003). Grand River Conservation Authority Wetlands Policy. Accessed on May 12, 2010 from website www.grandriver.ca/PolicyPlanningRegulations/Wetlands_policy.pdf

Harding, James H. 1997. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Great Lakes Region. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

Lake Erie Source Protection Regional Technical Team (Jan. 2008). Grand River Characterization Report. Accessed on May 12, 2010 from website www.sourcewater.ca/swp_watersheds_grand/Characterization_Grand.pdf

Hoffman, D.W., Matthews, B.C, Wicklund, R.E (1963). Soil Survey of Wellington Country Ontario Report No. 35 of the Ontario Soil Society. Guelph, Ontario.

Kurta, Allen. 1995. Mammals of the Great Lakes Region. Fitzhenry & Whiteside, Toronto.

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 67 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

Martin, Dave. (January 2008). Avifaunal Report for the Conestogo Wind Energy Centre. Prepared for Genivar.

Ministry of the Environment (MOE) (2010). The New Renewable Energy Approval. Accessed on May 12, 2010 from website http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/en/business/green-energy/proponents.php

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) (2010). Natural Heritage Information Centre Database: Biodiversity Explorer Application. Accessed on May 12, 2010 from website

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) (2009). Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Natural Heritage Policies for the Provincial Policy Statement 2005 Working Draft Second Edition. Accessed on May. 12, 2010 from website http://publicdocs.mnr.gov.on.ca/View.asp?Document_ID=12714&Attachment_ID=32290

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) (2007). Ontario Wind Resource Atlas. Accessed on May 12, 2010 from website www.ontariowindatlas.ca/en/welcome.html

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) (January 2009 Working Draft) Significant Wildlife Habitat Ecoregion Criteria Schedules Addendum to Significant Wildlife Habitat technical Guide.

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) (2000) Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (and Decision Support System .zip)

Natural Resource Solutions Inc. (November 2010) Conestogo Wind Farm Bat Monitoring Report and Environmental Impact Study.

Ontario Freshwater Fishes Life History Database. http://www.fishdb.ca/

Royal Ontario Museum. Ontario’s Biodiversity: Species at Risk website. http://www.rom.on.ca/ontario/risk.php

Township of Mapleton (2010). Township of Mapleton Website. Accessed on May 12, 2010 from website www.mapleton.ca/mapleton/detail.aspx?app=119&cat1=480&tp=2=lk=no&title=clerk

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 68 NumID ELC Communities 0 CUT1 Mineral Cultural Thicket Ecosite 1 FOD5 Dry-Fresh Sugar Maple Deciduous Forest Ecosite LEGEND CATHERINE ST Dry-Fresh Sugar Maple - Black Cherry Deciduous Forest 2 FOD5-8 Turbine Layout (2010-12-13) Type 3 FOD4-2 Dry-Fresh White Ash Deciduous Forest Type Blade Sweep Area (101m diameter, Fresh-Moist Lowland Deciduous Forest Ecosite / Mineral 2010-12-15) 410 SIDERD FOD7/CUT1 W Cultural Thicket Ecosite Permament Access Road (2010-12-13) 5 SWD4 Mineral Deciduous Swamp Ecosite 6 FOD4 Dry-Fresh Deciduous Forest Ecosite Permanent Access Road with UG 7 FOD7 Fresh-Moist Lowland Deciduous Forest Ecosite Electric Collector (2010-12-13) 8 FOD4-2 Dry-Fresh White Ash Deciduous Forest Type 44 kV Overhead Electric Line 9 SWD4-1 Willow Mineral Deciduous Swamp Type WELLINGTON 109 RD HWY 6 (2010-12-13) 10 MAS2 Mineral Shallow Marsh Ecosite 34 kV Overhead Electric Line 11 MAM2 Mineral Meadow Marsh Ecosite (2010-12-13) 12 MAM2 Mineral Meadow Marsh Ecosite EIGHTEENTH LINE 13 SWD4-1 Willow Mineral Deciduous Swamp Type Proposed 34_5kV Underground Electrical 14 CUM1-1 Dry-Moist Old Field Meadow Type Collector (2010-12-13) 15 MAM2 Mineral Meadow Marsh Ecosite Transformer Substation Site Plan 1 Acre 16 CUM1-1 Dry-Moist Old Field Meadow Type (2010-12-13) 17 MAS2 Mineral Shallow Marsh Ecosite EIGHTEENTH LINE 120 m Buffer around Project Components 18 SWD4-1 Mineral Deciduous Swamp Ecosite 19 MAM2 Mineral Meadow Marsh Ecosite 13 Participating Lots 20 CUP3 Coniferous Plantation ELC Communities 14 2 ELC Unit Identifier

15 1 Turbine Number

WELLINGTON 12WELLINGTON RD

6 SIDERD6 Watercourse (LIO 2010-08-18)

Floodplain (GRCA 2010-11-19)

SIXTEENTH LINE 18 19 16 17

0 1

15 SIDERD15

3 SIDERD3 2 5 3 1 6

4 Conestogo Wind Farm 2 SIDERD12 11 REA Review 8 3 8 12 Project Components 7

4 9

5 10

6 10 FOURTEENTH LINE 9 Project TA4914 Figure 1 7 Date Prepared By: ± December, 2010 KC Meters 0200 400 800 1,200 1,600 Scale 1:30,000 Verified By: JAF 0 m

1 LEGEND Turbine Layout (2010-12-13) Blade Sweep Area (101m diameter, 2010-12-15) Permament Access Road (2010-12-13) Permanent Access Road with UG Electric Collector (2010-12-13) 44 kV Overhead Electric Line (2010-12-13) 34 kV Overhead Electric Line 2 (2010-12-13) Proposed 34_5kV Underground Electrical Collector (2010-12-13) 3 Transformer Substation Site Plan 1 Acre (2010-12-13) 120 m Buffer around Project Components 1 Participating Lots

6 SIDERD 6 Wooded Area (LIO 2010-11-18)

Wetland (Genivar 2010-11-15)

ELC Communities Boundary

2 ELC Unit Identifier

1 Turbine Number

379 m Watercourse (LIO 2010-11-18) 289 m 359 m Floodplain (GRCA 2010-11-19) 4

0 m 17 m 12

11 8 34 m

8 Conestogo Wind Farm REA Review 76 m Project Components

Project TA4914 Figure 2

Date Prepared By: ± December, 2010 KC Meters Scale 1:5,000 Verified By: JAF 030 60 120 180 240 0 m

LEGEND Turbine Layout (2010-12-13) Blade Sweep Area (101m diameter, 2010-12-15) Permament Access Road (2010-12-13) Permanent Access Road with UG 1 Electric Collector (2010-12-13) 44 kV Overhead Electric Line (2010-12-13) 34 kV Overhead Electric Line (2010-12-13) Proposed 34_5kV Underground Electrical Collector (2010-12-13) Transformer Substation Site Plan 1 Acre (2010-12-13) 120 m 120 m Buffer around Project Components

Participating Lots 5 Wooded Area (LIO 2010-11-18) Wetland (Genivar 2010-11-15)

6 SIDERD 6 ELC Communities Boundary 3 2 ELC Unit Identifier

1 Turbine Number

Watercourse (LIO 2010-11-18)

Floodplain (GRCA 2010-11-19) 6

225 m 359 m

4 2 3

0 m 17 m 12 Conestogo Wind Farm 11 REA Review Project Components 34 m 0 m 8

Project TA4914 Figure 3

Date Prepared By: ± December, 2010 KC Meters Scale 1:5,000 Verified By: JAF 030 60 120 180 240 4 0 m

3 LEGEND Turbine Layout (2010-12-13) Blade Sweep Area (101m diameter, 2010-12-15) Permament Access Road (2010-12-13) Permanent Access Road with UG Electric Collector (2010-12-13) 44 kV Overhead Electric Line (2010-12-13) 34 kV Overhead Electric Line (2010-12-13) Proposed 34_5kV Underground Electrical Collector (2010-12-13) 76 m Transformer Substation Site Plan 1 Acre 4 (2010-12-13) 120 m Buffer around Project Components 9 Participating Lots Wooded Area (LIO 2010-11-18)

Wetland (Genivar 2010-11-15)

ELC Communities Boundary

2 ELC Unit Identifier

1 Turbine Number

Watercourse (LIO 2010-11-18)

Floodplain (GRCA 2010-11-19)

91 m

85 m

6 95 m Conestogo Wind Farm REA Review

WELLINGTON12 RD Project Components 10

9 FOURTEENTH LINE 0 m

Project TA4914 Figure 4

7 Date Prepared By: ± December, 2010 KC Meters Scale 1:5,000 Verified By: JAF 030 60 120 180 240 LEGEND Turbine Layout (2010-12-13) Blade Sweep Area (101m diameter, 2010-12-15) Permament Access Road (2010-12-13) Permanent Access Road with UG Electric Collector (2010-12-13) 44 kV Overhead Electric Line (2010-12-13) 34 kV Overhead Electric Line (2010-12-13) Proposed 34_5kV Underground Electrical Collector (2010-12-13) Transformer Substation Site Plan 1 Acre (2010-12-13) 120 m Buffer around Project Components

20 Participating Lots

Wooded Area (LIO 2010-11-18)

Wetland (Genivar 2010-11-15)

ELC Communities Boundary

2 ELC Unit Identifier

1 Turbine Number 0 m 0 m Watercourse (LIO 2010-11-18) SIXTEENTH LINE Floodplain (GRCA 2010-11-19)

Conestogo Wind Farm REA Review 0 Project Components

6 SIDERD 6

Project TA4914 Figure 5

Date Prepared By: ± 1 December, 2010 KC Meters Scale 1:5,000 Verified By: JAF 030 60 120 180 240

2 277 m 73 m2

2 379 m 218 m2 289 m2 359 m2

34 m2

76 m2 LEGEND Turbine Layout (2010-12-13) Blade Sweep Area (101m diameter, 2010-12-15) Permament Access Road (2010-12-13) Permanent Access Road with UG Electric Collector (2010-12-13) 44 kV Overhead Electric Line (2010-12-13) 34 kV Overhead Electric Line (2010-12-13) Proposed 34_5kV Underground Electrical Collector (2010-12-13) Transformer Substation Site Plan 1 Acre (2010-12-13) 120 m Buffer around Project Components

Participating Lots

Wooded Area (LIO 2010-11-18)

Wetland (Genivar 2010-11-15)

ELC Communities Boundary

2 ELC Unit Identifier 18 1 Turbine Number Watercourse (LIO 2010-11-18) 0 m Floodplain (GRCA 2010-11-19)

SIXTEENTH LINE

17 16

Conestogo Wind Farm REA Review Project Components

Project TA4914 Figure 6

Date Prepared By: ± December, 2010 KC Meters Scale 1:5,000 Verified By: JAF 030 60 120 180 240 Potential Potential Bath Hibernacula Habitat for Rare NumID ELC Communities Woodland Pools Seeps or Springs Woodland Raptor SWH Potential Spp. SWH Nesting Habitat LEGEND 0 CUT1 Mineral Cultural Thicket Ecosite X CATHERINE ST Fresh-Moist Lowland Deciduous Forest Ecosite / Mineral 1 Turbine Number 4 FOD7/CUT1 X Cultural Thicket Ecosite 8 FOD4-2 Dry-Fresh White Ash Deciduous Forest Type X X 2 ELC Unit Identifier 9 SWD4-1 Willow Mineral Deciduous Swamp Type 10 SIDERD W 10 MAS2 Mineral Shallow Marsh Ecosite X #4 Point Count # 12 MAM2 Mineral Meadow Marsh Ecosite X 19 MAM2 Mineral Meadow Marsh Ecosite X 20 CUP3 Coniferous Plantation X Turbine Layout (2010-12-13) *# Point Counts (Dave Martin, 2007 Field) WELLINGTON 109 RD HWY 6 Blade Sweep Area (101m diameter, 2010-12-15) #3 EIGHTEENTH LINE Permament Access Road (2010-12-13) *# Permanent Access Road with UG Electric Collector (2010-12-13) EIGHTEENTH LINE 44kV Overhead Electric Line (2010-12-13) #4 *# 34 kV Overhead Electric Line (2010-12-13) 13 Proposed 34_5kV Underground Electrical Collector (2010-11-15) 14 Transformer Substation Site Plan 1 Acre (2010-12-13) 120 m Buffer around Project Components 15 WELLINGTON 12WELLINGTON RD Participating Lots

6 SIDERD6 ELC Communities

Watercourse (LIO 2010-08-18) Special Concern SWH - Monarch

Potential Woodland Pools SWH Potential Woodland Pools SWH (Not Confirmed by Site Investigations) Bat Hibernacula SWH Potential Potential Woodland Raptor Nesting 20 Habitat Potential Natural Feature (Potamogeton) #22 #24 ^_ SIXTEENTH LINE *# *# 18 #15 Pond 19 Pond 17 *# ^_ 16 Seeps or Springs Pond

0 1

15 SIDERD15 3 SIDERD3 2 5 3 1 6 Conestogo Wind Farm 4 #23 2 SIDERD12 #21 11 REA Review 8 *# *# 3 Potential Significant Wildlife 8 12 7 Habitat

4 9

5 10

6 #20 10 *# Pond FOURTEENTH LINE 9 Project TA4914 Figure 7 7 Date Prepared By: ± December, 2010 KC Meters #19 *# 0200 400 800 1,200 1,600 Scale 1:30,000 Verified By: JAF LEGEND CATHERINE ST Turbine Layout (2010-12-13) Blade Sweep Area (101m diameter, 2010-12-15) 10 SIDERD W Permament Access Road (2010-12-13) Permanent Access Road with UG Electric Collector (2010-12-13) 44 kV Overhead Electric Line WELLINGTON 109 RD HWY 6 (2010-12-13) 34 kV Overhead Electric Line (2010-12-13) EIGHTEENTH LINE Proposed 34_5kV Underground Electrical Collector (2010-12-13) Transformer Substation Site Plan 1 Acre (2010-12-13) EIGHTEENTH LINE 120 m Buffer around Project Components

Participating Lots

1 Turbine Number Valleyland Crossing Evaluated for 3 Significance Floodplain (GRCA 2010-11-19) WELLINGTON 12WELLINGTON RD

6 SIDERD6 Regulation Limit (GRCA 2010-08-26)

Watercourse (LIO 2010-08-18)

SIXTEENTH LINE 1 2

15 SIDERD15 5 3 SIDERD3 2 3 1 6

4 Conestogo Wind Farm 12 SIDERD12 REA Review 8 Valleyland Evaluation 7 3

FOURTEENTH LINE

Project TA4914 Figure 8

Date Prepared By: ± December, 2010 KC Meters 0200 400 800 1,200 1,600 Scale 1:30,000 Verified By: JAF NumID ELC Communities 0 CUT1 Mineral Cultural Thicket Ecosite 1 FOD5 Dry-Fresh Sugar Maple Deciduous Forest Ecosite LEGEND CATHERINE ST Dry-Fresh Sugar Maple - Black Cherry Deciduous Forest 2 FOD5-8 Turbine Layout (2010-12-13) Type 3 FOD4-2 Dry-Fresh White Ash Deciduous Forest Type Blade Sweep Area (101m diameter, Fresh-Moist Lowland Deciduous Forest Ecosite / Mineral 2010-12-15) 410 SIDERD FOD7/CUT1 W Cultural Thicket Ecosite Permament Access Road (2010-12-13) 5 SWD4 Mineral Deciduous Swamp Ecosite 6 FOD4 Dry-Fresh Deciduous Forest Ecosite Permanent Access Road with UG 7 FOD7 Fresh-Moist Lowland Deciduous Forest Ecosite Electric Collector (2010-12-13) 8 FOD4-2 Dry-Fresh White Ash Deciduous Forest Type 44 kV Overhead Electric Line Willow Mineral Deciduous Swamp Type 9 SWD4-1 WELLINGTON 109 RD HWY 6 (2010-12-13) 10 MAS2 Mineral Shallow Marsh Ecosite 34 kV Overhead Electric Line 11 MAM2 Mineral Meadow Marsh Ecosite (2010-12-13) 12 MAM2 Mineral Meadow Marsh Ecosite EIGHTEENTH LINE 13 SWD4-1 Willow Mineral Deciduous Swamp Type Proposed 34_5kV Underground Electrical 14 CUM1-1 Dry-Moist Old Field Meadow Type Collector (2010-12-13) 15 MAM2 Mineral Meadow Marsh Ecosite Transformer Substation Site Plan 1 Acre 16 CUM1-1 Dry-Moist Old Field Meadow Type (2010-12-13) 17 MAS2 Mineral Shallow Marsh Ecosite EIGHTEENTH LINE 120 m Buffer around Project Components 18 SWD4-1 Mineral Deciduous Swamp Ecosite Mineral Meadow Marsh Ecosite 19 MAM2 13 Participating Lots 20 CUP3 Coniferous Plantation 1 Turbine Number 14 2 ELC Unit Identifier

15 Floodplain (GRCA 2010-11-19)

WELLINGTON 12WELLINGTON RD

6 SIDERD6 Regulation Limit (GRCA 2010-08-26)

Watercourse (LIO 2010-08-18)

ELC Communities

Significant Woodlot

SIXTEENTH LINE 18 19 16 17

0 1

15 SIDERD15

3 SIDERD3 2 5 3 1 6

4 Conestogo Wind Farm 2 SIDERD12 11 REA Review 8 3 8 12 Significant Woodlands 7

4 9

5 10

6 10 FOURTEENTH LINE 9 Project TA4914 Figure 9 7 Date Prepared By: ± December, 2010 KC Meters 0200 400 800 1,200 1,600 Scale 1:30,000 Verified By: JAF Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

APPENDIX A AGENCY CONTACT SUMMARY

LGL Limited environmental research associates Agency Contact List Contact Agency Position Contact Information Type of Contact Date Time Enquiry Response Art Timmerman MNR Area Guelph District MNR Telephone, in-person 2007 n/a Reviewed available Potential for Pike Spawning Biologist consultation natural heritage records Habitat in tributaries. No and fisheries records for other issues identified. the project area Patty Sinnamon Mapleton CAO/Clerk (519)638-3313 x.24 Telephone May 13, ~8:45 am -enquired about natural Township 2010 (left features and whether the [email protected] message) County of Wellington is the OP is the document E-Mail May 18, ~9:50 am to follow 2010

Linda Redmond County of Planner (519)837-2600 xt.2380 Telephone May 14, ~8:50 am -enquired about natural Wellington 2010 (left features within the area [email protected] message; (i.e. env. significant she is away areas, wetlands, until May woodlands) and 31, 2010) greenlands policy Mark VanPatter County of Senior (519)837-2600 xt. 2080 Telephone May 14, ~8:55 am -enquired about natural -Township of Mapleton uses Wellington Planner 2010 (left features within the area County of Wellington’s OP for [email protected] message; he (i.e. env significant direction is away areas, wetlands, -greenlands include significant until May woodlands) and woodlands, wetlands etc but 17, 2010); greenlands policy does not include species at phoned risk; would need to talk to back on MNR to find out this May 18, -core greenlands included 2010 (`2:25 provincially significant pm) wetlands, hazard lands -Official Plan is a natural heritage study -not aware of any E-Mail May 18, ~10:00 am subwatershed studies 2010 -greenlands and core greenlands are no touch areas -important to keep in mind that wooded areas should be considered significant because township has <9% tree cover) -special effort for planting trees in Mapleton (~50 000 trees have been planted)

Jamie Ferguson Grand River Resource (519)621-2763 x. 2238 Telephone May 12, ~10:10 am -enquired about species -identified that species at risk Conservation Planner 2010 (left at risk, information on and endangered species should [email protected] message) natural heritage be obtained through MNR and features, significant DFO woodlands or other -information on natural information such as heritage features should be watershed or obtained from MNR Contact Agency Position Contact Information Type of Contact Date Time Enquiry Response E-Mail May 18, ~9:35 am subwatershed studies -no watershed, subwatershed 2010 (returned e- completed for the area or natural heritage studies mail on available for the area May 18, -on-line web application GRIN 2010) will provide information on regulated features within the study area

April Nix Ministry of Planning (519) 826-4939 Telephone May 12, ~9:55 am -enquired about species -indicated that she is working Natural Intern 2010 (left at risk within the study on getting the SAR and Resources- [email protected] message); area wetland information from Guelph returned biologists District message -will send information in a ~2:30 pm letter form; sending information to Genivar (Terry and Tom) and will copy LGL -looking to have information pulled together by beginning of next week Telephone May 18, ~2:55 pm -enquired when -indicated that she is trying to 2010 information would be get information out by end of available this week (May 21st); waiting on information from a variety of people; received information on May 25, 2010

Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

APPENDIX B GRCA MAPPING USED IN VALLEYLANDS ANALYSIS

LGL Limited environmental research associates Grand River Conservation Authority Map created: November 17, 2010

Conestogo Valleylands LEGEND

GRCA Disclaimer This map is for illustrative purposes only. Information contained hereon is not a substitute for professional review or a site survey and is subject to change without notice. The Grand River Conservation Authority takes no responsibility for, nor guarantees, the accuracy of the information contained on this map. Any interpretations or conclusions drawn from this map are the sole responsibility of the user.

The source for each data layer is shown in parentheses in the map legend. For a complete listing of sources and citations go to:

http://grims.grandriver.ca/docs/SourcesCitations2.htm 0 600 1200 1800 2400 m.

Copyright Grand River Conservation Authority, 2010 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION NAD 1983, UTM Zone 17 Scale 1:53,830 Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

APPENDIX C VASCULAR PLANT CHECKLIST

LGL Limited environmental research associates Conestogo Wind Farm Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

List of Vascular Plants Scientific Name Common Name GRank1 SRank2 MNR3 COSEWIC4 Local Status5 EQUISETACEAE HORSETAIL FAMILY

Equisetum arvense field horsetail G5 S5 DRYOPTERIDACEAE WOOD FERN FAMILY Dryopteris carthusiana spinulose wood fern G5 S5 Onoclea sensibilis sensitive fern G5 S5 PINACEAE PINE FAMILY Abies balsamea balsam fir G5 S5 Picea glauca white spruce G5 S5 Pinus strobus eastern white pine G5 S5 * Pinus sylvestris scotch pine G? SE5 CUPRESSACEAE CEDAR FAMILY Thuja occidentalis eastern white cedar G5 S5

ARISTOLOCHIACEAE DUCHMAN'S-PIPE FAMILY Asarum canadense wild ginger G5 S5 RANUNCULACEAE BUTTERCUP FAMILY Caltha palustris marsh-marigold G5 S5 Thalictrum dioicum early meadow-rue G5 S5 X BERBERIDACEAE BARBERRY FAMILY Caulophyllum thalictroides blue cohosh G S5 PAPAVERACEAE POPPY FAMILY Sanguinaria canadensis bloodroot G5 S5 ULMACEAE ELM FAMILY Ulmus americana white elm G5? S5 JUGLANDACEAE WALNUT FAMILY Carya cordiformis bitternut hickory G5 S5 Juglans cinerea butternut G4 S3? END END FAGACEAE BEECH FAMILY

Conestogo Wind Farm Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

List of Vascular Plants Scientific Name Common Name GRank1 SRank2 MNR3 COSEWIC4 Local Status5 Fagus grandifolia American beech G5 S5 BETULACEAE BIRCH FAMILY Betula alleghaniensis yellow birch G5 S5

Carpinus caroliniana ssp. virginiana blue beech G5T S5

Ostrya virginiana ironwood G5 S5 POLYGONACEAE SMARTWEED FAMILY * Rumex crispus curly-leaf dock G? SE5 TILIACEAE LINDEN FAMILY Tilia americana basswood G5 S5 VIOLACEAE VIOLET FAMILY Viola conspersa American dog violet G5 S5 Viola pubescens downy yellow violet G5 S5 Viola sororia woolly blue violet G5 S5 Viola sp. violet CUCURBITACEAE GOURD FAMILY Echinocystis lobata prickly cucumber G5 S5 SALICACEAE WILLOW FAMILY Populus balsamifera ssp. balsam poplar G5T? S5 balsamifera Populus tremuloides trembling aspen G5 S5 Salix sp. willow ? * Salix X rubens reddish willow HYB SE4 BRASSICACEAE MUSTARD FAMILY * Barbarea vulgaris yellow rocket G? SE5 PRIMULACEAE PRIMROSE FAMILY Lysimachia ciliata fringed loosestrife G5 S5

Conestogo Wind Farm Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

List of Vascular Plants Scientific Name Common Name GRank1 SRank2 MNR3 COSEWIC4 Local Status5 GROSSULARIACEAE GOOSEBERRY FAMILY Ribes cynosbati prickly gooseberry G5 S5 X Ribes hirtellum smooth gooseberry G5 S5 * Ribes rubrum red currant G4G5 SE5 ROSACEAE ROSE FAMILY Agrimonia sp. agrimony Amelanchier sp. juneberry Crataegus sp. hawthorn

Fragaria vesca ssp. Americana woodland strawberry G5T? S5

Geum aleppicum yellow avens G5 S5 Geum sp. avens * Potentilla recta rough-fruited cinquefoil G? SE5 Prunus pensylvanica pin cherry G5 S5 Prunus serotina black cherry G5 S5

Prunus virginiana var. virginiana choke cherry G5T? S5

Rubus idaeus ssp. Strigosus wild red raspberry G5T S5 Rubus pubescens dwarf raspberry G5 S5 Waldsteinia fragarioides barren strawberry G5 S5 CORNACEAE DOGWOOD FAMILY Cornus alternifolia alternate-leaved dogwood G5 S5 Cornus sericea ssp. sericea red-osier dogwood G5 S5 RHAMNACEAE BUCKTHORN FAMILY * Rhamnus cathartica common buckthorn G? SE5 ACERACEAE MAPLE FAMILY * Acer platanoides Norway maple G? SE5

Conestogo Wind Farm Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

List of Vascular Plants Scientific Name Common Name GRank1 SRank2 MNR3 COSEWIC4 Local Status5 Acer saccharinum silver maple G5 S5

Acer saccharum var. saccharum sugar maple G5T? S5

GERANIACEAE GERANIUM FAMILY Geranium maculatum spotted crane's-bill G5 S5 * Geranium robertianum herb-robert G5 SE5

BALSAMINACEAE TOUCH-ME-NOT FAMILY Impatiens capensis spotted touch-me-not G5 S5 HYDROPHYLLACEAE WATER-LEAF FAMILY Hydrophyllum virginianum Virginia water-leaf G5 S5 OLEACEAE OLIVE FAMILY Fraxinus americana white ash G5 S5 SCROPHULARIACEAE FIGWORT FAMILY * Veronica anagallis-aquatica water speedwell G5 SE5 * Veronica officinalis common speedwell G5 SE5

CAPRIFOLIACEAE HONEYSUCKLE FAMILY Triosteum aurantiacum wild coffee G5 S5 Viburnum lentago nannyberry G5 S5 DIPSACACEAE TEASEL FAMILY

* Dipsacus fullonum ssp. sylvestris wild teasel G?T? SE5

ASTERACEAE ASTER FAMILY * Arctium minus common burdock G?T? SE5

Aster lanceolatus ssp. lanceolatus tall white aster G5T? S5

Aster sp. aster

Conestogo Wind Farm Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

List of Vascular Plants Scientific Name Common Name GRank1 SRank2 MNR3 COSEWIC4 Local Status5 Bidens frondosa devil's beggar-ticks G5 S5 * Cirsium arvense Canada thistle G? SE5 Lactuca sp. lettuce * Leucanthemum vulgare ox-eye daisy G? SE5 Solidago canadensis canada goldenrod G5 S5 Solidago flexicaulis zig-zag goldenrod G5 S5 * Taraxacum officinale common dandelion G5 SE5 * Tussilago farfara coltsfoot G? SE5 POTAMOGETONACEAE PONDWEED FAMILY Potamogeton sp. pondweed ARACEAE ARUM FAMILY

Arisaema triphyllum ssp. triphyllum small jack-in-the-pulpit G5T5 S5

JUNCACEAE RUSH FAMILY Juncus sp. rush CYPERACEAE SEDGE FAMILY Carex bebbii Bebb's sedge G5 S5 Carex blanda woodland sedge G5? S5 Carex granularis meadow sedge G5 S5 Carex pensylvanica Pennsylvania sedge G5 S5 Carex sp. sedge Carex vulpinoidea fox sedge G5 S5

Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani American great bulrush G? S5

Scirpus atrovirens dark-green bulrush G5? S5 POACEAE GRASS FAMILY

Conestogo Wind Farm Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

List of Vascular Plants Scientific Name Common Name GRank1 SRank2 MNR3 COSEWIC4 Local Status5

* Bromus inermis ssp. Inermis awnless brome G4G5T? SE5

Phalaris arundinacea reed canary grass G5 S5 TYPHACEAE CATTAIL FAMILY Typha angustifolia narrow-leaved cattail G5 S5 LILIACEAE LILY FAMILY Allium tricoccum wild leek G5 S5 Erythronium americanum ssp. yellow dog's-tooth violet G5T5 S5 americanum Lilium sp. lily Maianthemum stellatum star-flowered Solomon’s seal G5 S5 Trillium erectum purple trillium G5 S5 Trillium grandiflorum white trillium G5 S5 X IRIDACEAE IRIS FAMILY Iris sp. *introduced 1) G-Rank Global Rank Global ranks are assigned by a consensus of the network of Conservation Data Centres, scientific experts, and the Nature Conservatory to designate a rarity rank based on the range-wide status of a species, subspecies or variety.

The most important factors considered in assigning global ranks are the total number of known, extant sites world-wide, and the degree to which they are potentially or actively threatened with destruction. Other criteria the number of known populations considered to be securely protected, the size of the various populations, and the ability of the taxon to persist at its known sites. The taxonomic distinctness of each taxon has also been considered. Hybrids, introduced species, and taxonomically dubious species, subspecies and varieties have not been included.

G1= Extremely rare; usually 5 or fewer occurrences in the overall range or very few remaining individuals; or because of some factor(s) making it especially vulnerable to extinction. G2 = Very rare; usually between 5 and 20 occurrences in the overall range or with many individuals in fewer occurrences; or because of some factor(s) making it vulnerable to extinction.

Conestogo Wind Farm Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

G3 = Rare to uncommon; usually between 20 and 100 occurrences; may have fewer occurrences, but with a large number of individuals in some populations; may be susceptible to large-scale disturbances.

G4 = Common; usually more than 100 occurrences; usually not susceptible to immediate threats. G5 = Very common; demonstrably secure under present conditions. GH = Historic, no records in the past 20 years. GU = Status uncertain, often because of low search effort or cryptic nature of the species; more data needed.

GX = Globally extinct. No recent records despite specific searches. ? = Denotes inexact numeric rank (i.e. G4?). G" " = A "G" (or "T") followed by a blank space means that the NHIC has not yet obtained the Global Rank from The Nature Conservancy. G? = Unranked, or, if following a ranking, rank tentatively assigned (e.g. G3?). Q = Denotes that the taxonomic status of the species, subspecies, or variety is questionable. T = Denotes that the rank applies to a subspecies or variety.

2) S-Rank Provincial Rank Provincial (or Sub-national) ranks are used by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) to set protection priorities for rare species and natural communities. These ranks are not legal designations. Provincial ranks are assigned in a manner similar to that described for the global ranks, but consider only those factors within the political boundaries of Ontario. By comparing the global and provincial ranks, the status, rarity, and the urgency of conservation needs can be ascertained. The NHIC evaluates provincial ranks on a continual basis and produces updated list at least annually. S1 = Critically imperiled in Ontario because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer occurrences) or because of some factor (s) such as very steep declines making it especially vulnerable to extirpation. S2 = Imperiled in Ontario because of rarity due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer occurrences) steep declines or other factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation. S3 = Vulnerable in Ontario due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation. S4 = Apparently secure - uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. S5 = Secure - common, widespread, and abundant in Ontario. SX = Presumed Extirpated - specie or community is believed to be extirpated from Ontario. SNR = Unranked - conservation status in Ontario not yet assessed SU = Unrankable - currently unrankable due to lack of information or due to substantially conflicting information about status or trends.

Conestogo Wind Farm Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

SNA = Not applicable - a conservation status rank is not applicable because the species is not a suitable target for conservation activities. S#S# = Range rank - a numeric range rank (e.g. S2S3) is used to indicate any range of uncertainty about the status of the species or community. Ranges cannot skip more than one rank (e.g. SU is used rather that S1S4).

3) COSEWIC Committee On The Status Of Endangered Wildlife in Canada The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) assesses the national status of wild species that are considered to be at risk in Canada. Extinct (X) A wildlife species that no longer exists. Extirpated (XT) A wildlife species no longer existing in the wild in Canada, but occurring elsewhere. Endangered (E) A wildlife species facing imminent extirpation or extinction. Threatened (T) A wildlife species likely to become endangered if limiting factors are not reversed. Special Concern A wildlife species that may become a threatened or an endangered species because of a combination (SC) of biological characteristics and identified threats. Not at Risk (NAR) A wildlife species that has been evaluated and found to be not at risk of extinction given the current circumstances. Data Deficient (DD) A category that applies when the available information is insufficient (a) to resolve a wildlife species' eligibility for assessment or (b) to permit an assessment of the wildlife species' risk of extinction.

4) COSSARO/OMNR Committee On The Status Of Species At Risk In Ontario/Ontario Ministry Of Natural Resources The Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO)/Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) assess the provincial status of wild species that are considered to be at risk in Ontario. Extinct (EXT) A species that no longer exists anywhere. Extirpated (EXP) A species that no longer exist in the wild in Ontario but still occurs elsewhere. Endangered (Regulated) (END- A species facing imminent extinction or extirpation in Ontario which has been regulated under R) Ontario's Endangered Species Act. Endangered (END) A species facing imminent extinction or extirpation in Ontario which is a candidate for regulation under Ontario's Endangered Species Act. Threatened (THR) A species that is at risk of becoming endangered in Ontario if limiting factors are not reversed. Special Concern (SC) A species with characteristics that make it sensitive to human activities or natural events. Not at Risk (NAR) A species that has been evaluated and found to be not at risk. Data Deficient (DD) A species for which there is insufficient information for a provincial status recommendations.

Conestogo Wind Farm Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

5) Local Status - Wellington County X Species status within the Wellington County was used to determine local vascular plant status for the study area. Plant rarity is based on the number of occurrences within the physiographic region. The following species status was taken from Riley 1989.

Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

APPENDIX D ANNOTATED BREEDING BIRD LIST

LGL Limited environmental research associates Appendix D: Conestogo Annotated Species list with significance and use of study area See end of table for notes and explanation of codes used. Species with some level of significance are bold-faced.

Species Use of study area as detected by # of # of SCTE SRank Partners Wellington Wellington this study sightings surveys CAN In breeding breeding recorded ON Flight status status (n = 5) priority 1st atlas 2nd atlas species % squares % squares 01 Common Loon Summer visitor 1 1 - S4 - 9 9 1 June 29 over Peepabun; likely from Luther Marsh 02 American Bittern Summer breeder 1 1 - S4 - 51 58 1 June 6 in Peepabun 03 Great Blue Heron Summer breeder or visitor 9 2 - S5 - 93 87 3 early June, 6 late June 04 Green Heron Summer breeder 1 1 - S4 - 93 93 1 July 1 in Southwest 05 Turkey Vulture Summer resident 37 3 - S4 - 64 93 8 Mar 27, 10 early June, 19 late June 06 Canada Goose Overwinters 1196 3 - S5 - 87 100 35 Jan 3 Spring migrant 1023 Mar 27 Summer breeder 138 early June 7, none late June 07 Tundra Swan Spring migrant 227 1 - S3 - Not a Not a 227 Mar 27 breeder breeder 08 Wood Duck Summer breeder 1 1 - S5 - 80 92 1 June 6 in Peepabun 09 Mallard Spring migrant 36 3 - S5 - 100 100 10 Mar 27 Summer breeder 21 early June, 5 late June Species Use of study area as detected by # of # of SCTE SRank Partners Wellington Wellington this study sightings surveys CAN In breeding breeding recorded ON Flight status status (n = 5) priority 1st atlas 2nd atlas species % squares % squares - Duck species Spring migrants 50 1 - - - - - 50 March 27 10 Osprey Summer visitor 1 1 - S4 - 16 29 1 June 7 in Southwest 11 Northern Harrier Overwinters 25 4 - S4 RC 100 93 1 Jan 3 Spring migrant 5 Mar 27 Summer breeder 11 early June, 8 late June

12 Red-tailed Hawk Permanent breeding resident 29 5 - S5 - 100 100 1 Jan 3, 6 Feb 2, 2 Mar 27, 6 early June, 14 late June 13 Rough-legged Hawk Overwinters / Spring migrant 13 2 - S1 - Not a Not a 11 Feb 2, 2 Mar 27 breeder breeder 14 Ame rican Kestrel Overwinters 16 4 - S5 RC 100 93 4 Jan 3, 4 Mar 27 Summer breeder 4 early June, 4 late June 15 Wild Turkey Permanent breeding resident 1 1 - S4 - 0 87 1 Mar 27 in Peepabun 16 Sandhill Crane Summer breeder 7 2 - S4 - 0 6 4 Mar 27, 3 June 6 in Peepabun 17 Killdeer Summer breeder 57 2 - S5 - 100 100 17 early June, 40 late June 18 Spotted Sandpiper Summer breeder 7 2 - S5 - 100 96 3 early June, 4 late June Species Use of study area as detected by # of # of SCTE SRank Partners Wellington Wellington this study sightings surveys CAN In breeding breeding recorded ON Flight status status (n = 5) priority 1st atlas 2nd atlas species % squares % squares 19 Upland Sandpiper Summer breeder 1 1 - S4 - 51 35 1 June 8 in Southeast 20 Wilson’s Snipe Spring migrant 3 1 - S5 - 87 80 3 Mar 27 in Peepabun 21 Ring-billed Gull Winter visitor 186 3 - S5 - 0 3 1 Jan 3 Summer visitor 94 early June, 91 late June 22 Herring Gull Winter visitor 322 2 - S5 - 6 3 319 Jan 3, 3 Feb 2 23 Iceland Gull Winter visitor 2 1 - SZN - Not a Not a 2 Jan 3 breeder breeder 24 Rock Pigeon Permanent breeding resident 251 4 - SE - 100 100 108 Jan 3, 33 Feb 2, 38 early June, 72 late June 25 Mourning Dove Permanent breeding resident 105 3 - S5 - 100 100 56 early June, 48 late June 26 Black-billed Cuckoo Summer breeder 11 2 - S4 RC 74 74 3 early June, 8 late June RS 27 Chim ney Swift Summer visitor 2 1 UR S5 MI 58 48 2 birds July 1 over Southwest sector NIAC 28 Ruby-throated Summer breeder 2 2 - S5 - 80 93 Hummingbird 1 June 7 in Southwest, 1 June 29 in Southeast 29 Belted Kingfisher Summer breeder 7 2 - S5 RC 100 100 4 early June, 3 late June 30 Yellow-bellied Summer breeder 1 1 - S5 - 64 58 Sapsucker 1 June 29 in Peepabun Species Use of study area as detected by # of # of SCTE SRank Partners Wellington Wellington this study sightings surveys CAN In breeding breeding recorded ON Flight status status (n = 5) priority 1st atlas 2nd atlas species % squares % squares 31 Downy Woodpecker Permanent breeding resident 13 3 - S5 - 100 100 1 Feb 2, 7 early June, 5 late June 32 Hairy Woodpecker Permanent breeding resident 5 2 - S5 - 90 96 1 early June, 4 late June 33 Northern Flicker Summer breeder 33 2 - S5 RC 100 100 11 early June, 22 late June 34 Pileated Woodpecker Permanent breeding resident 5 3 - S4S5 - 74 96 1 Mar 27, 2 June 8, 2 June 29 35 Eastern Wood-Pewee Summer breeder 26 2 - S5 RC 100 100 16 early June, 10 late June 36 Alder Flycatcher Summer breeder 22 2 - S5 - 74 96 14 early June, 8 late June 37 Willow Flycatcher Summer breeder 24 2 - S5 CC 80 87 18 early June, 6 late June 38 Least Flycatcher Summer breeder 10 2 - S5 - 93 96 2 early June, 8 late June 39 Eastern Phoebe Summer breeder 3 2 - S5 - 96 100 2 early June, 1 late June 40 Great Crested Flycatcher Summer breeder 23 2 - S5 - 96 100 12 early June, 11 late June 41 Eastern Kingbird Summer breeder 73 2 - S5 RC 100 100 32 early June, 41 late June 42 Northern Shrike Winter visitor 3 3 - S2S3 - Not a Not a 1 Jan 3, 1 Feb 2, 1 Mar 27 breeder breeder 43 Warbling Vireo Summer breeder 42 2 - S5 - 93 96 22 early June, 20 late June 44 Red-eyed Vireo Summer breeder 63 2 - S5 - 90 100 32 early June, 31 late June Species Use of study area as detected by # of # of SCTE SRank Partners Wellington Wellington this study sightings surveys CAN In breeding breeding recorded ON Flight status status (n = 5) priority 1st atlas 2nd atlas species % squares % squares 45 Blue Jay Overwinters 59 4 - S5 - 100 100 13 Jan 3, 1 Feb 2 Summer breeder 19 early June, 26 late June 46 American Crow Overwinters 440 4 - S5 - 100 100 47 Jan 3, 98 Feb 2 Summer breeder 120 early June, 175 late June 47 Horned Lark Overwinters 79 3 - S5 - 100 100 12 Feb 2 Summer breeder 26 early June, 41 late June 48 Tree Swallow Summer breeder 80 2 - S5 - 100 100 20 early June, 60 late June 49 Northern Rough-winged Summer breeder 13 2 - S5 - 93 90 Swallow 2 early June, 11 late June 50 Bank Swallow Summer breeder 316 2 - S5 RS 93 90 210 June 7, 106 July 1; gravel pit in Southwest sector 51 Cliff Swallow Summer breeder 260 2 - S5 - 96 100 114 early June, 146 late June 52 Barn Swallow Summer breeder 216 2 - S5 - 100 100 91 early June, 125 late June 53 Black-capped Chickadee Permanent breeding resident 38 3 - S5 - 100 100 17 early June, 20 late June 54 Red-breasted Nuthatch Post breeding visitor 1 1 - S5 - 51 83 1 July 1 55 White-breasted Nuthatch Permanent breeding resident 5 2 - S5 - 80 93 1 early June, 4 late June Species Use of study area as detected by # of # of SCTE SRank Partners Wellington Wellington this study sightings surveys CAN In breeding breeding recorded ON Flight status status (n = 5) priority 1st atlas 2nd atlas species % squares % squares 56 House Wren Summer breeder 74 2 - S5 - 100 100 32 early June, 42 late June 57 Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Summer breeder 1 1 - S4 - 25 12 1 June 8 in Southeast sector 58 Eastern Bluebird Spring migrant 6 3 - S4S5 - 16 77 2 March 27 Summer breeder 3 early June, 1 late June 59 Veery Summer breeder 17 2 - S4 - 96 96 7 early June, 10 late June 60 Hermit Thrush Summer breeder 1 1 - S5 - 0 3 1 June 29 in Peepabun 61 Wood Thrush Summer breeder 14 2 - S5 RC 83 93 9 early June, 5 late June CC 62 American Robin Summer breeder 314 2 - S5 - 100 100 142 early June, 172 birds late June 63 Gray Catbird Summer breeder 46 2 - S5 - 96 100 17 early June, 29 late June 64 Brown Thrasher Summer breeder 12 2 - S5 RC 100 100 2 early June, 10 late June 65 European Starling Permanent breeding resident 1112 4 - SE - 100 100 570 Jan 3, 153 Feb 2, 198 early June, 191 late June 66 Cedar Waxwing Summer breeder 189 2 - S5 - 100 100 96 early June, 93 late June 67 Tennessee Warbler Fall migrant 1 1 - S5 - Not a Not a 1 July 1 in Southwest breeder breeder 68 Nashville Warbler Summer breeder 4 1 - S5 - 74 83 4 early June Species Use of study area as detected by # of # of SCTE SRank Partners Wellington Wellington this study sightings surveys CAN In breeding breeding recorded ON Flight status status (n = 5) priority 1st atlas 2nd atlas species % squares % squares 69 Yellow Warbler Summer breeder 74 2 - S5 - 100 100 42 early June, 32 late June 70 Chestnut-sided Warbler Summer breeder 5 2 - S5 - 51 80 2 early June, 3 late June 71 Yellow-rumped Warbler Summer breeder 1 1 - S5 - 22 74 1 June 6 in Peepabun 72 Black-and-white Summer breeder 2 2 - S5 - 77 83 Warbler 1 June 7 Southwest, 1 June 29 Peepabun 73 American Redstart Summer breeder 30 2 - S5 - 74 100 19 early June, 11 late June 74 Ovenbird Summer breeder 5 2 - S5 - 100 96 3 early June, 2 late June 75 Mourning Warbler Summer breeder 12 2 - S5 - 77 80 9 early June, 3 late June 76 Common Yellowthroat Summer breeder 71 2 - S5 - 83 90 38 early June, 33 late June 77 Yellow-brea sted Chat Summer breeder 1 1 SC S2S3 - Not a Not a 1 June 6 Peepabun SC breeder breeder 78 Eastern Towhee Summer breeder 3 1 - S4 RC 48 64 0 early June, 3 late June 79 American Tree Sparrow Overwinters 3 2 - S5 - Not a Not a 2 Jan 3, 1 Feb 2 breeder breeder 80 Chipping Sparrow Summer breeder 57 2 - S5 - 100 100 25 early June, 32 late June 81 Clay-colored Sparrow Summer breeder 3 1 - S4 - 19 41 3 June 29 Southeast

Species Use of study area as detected by # of # of SCTE SRank Partners Wellington Wellington this study sightings surveys CAN In breeding breeding recorded ON Flight status status (n = 5) priority 1st atlas 2nd atlas species % squares % squares 82 Field Sparrow Summer breeder 1 1 - S5 RC 74 90 1 July 1 in Southwest 83 V esper Sparrow Summer breeder 20 2 - S4 MI 93 83 8 early June, 12 late June 84 Savannah Sparrow Summer breeder 220 2 - S5 RC 96 100 113 early June, 107 late June 85 Song Sparrow Summer breeder 302 2 - S5 - 100 100 139 early June, 163 late June 86 Lincoln’s Sparrow Summer breeder 1 1 - S5 - 6 12 1 June 29 in Peepabun 87 Swamp Sparrow Summer breeder 20 2 - S5 - 100 96 6 early June, 14 late June 88 White-throated Sparrow Summer breeder 19 2 - S5 - 96 87 11 early June, 8 late June 89 Northern Cardinal Permanent breeding resident 22 3 - S5 - 80 96 2 Feb 2, 8 early June, 12 late June 90 Rose-br easted Summer breeder 42 2 - S5 RS 100 100 Grosbeak 19 early June, 23 late June 91 Indigo Bunting Summer breeder 23 2 - S5 - 100 100 10 early June, 13 late June 92 Snow Bunting Winter visitor 480 2 - SZN - Not a Not a 80 Jan 3, 400 Mar 27 breeder breeder 93 Bobolink Summer breeder 313 2 - S4 RC 100 100 166 early June, 147 late June RS 94 Red-winged Blackbird Summer breeder 574 2 - S5 - 100 100 302 early June, 272 late June 95 Eastern Meadowlark Summer breeder 32 2 - S5 RC 100 100 24 early June, 15 late June Species Use of study area as detected by # of # of SCTE SRank Partners Wellington Wellington this study sightings surveys CAN In breeding breeding recorded ON Flight status status (n = 5) priority 1st atlas 2nd atlas species % squares % squares 96 Common Grackle Summer breeder 532 2 - S5 - 100 100 199 early June, 333 late June 97 Brown-headed Cowbird Summer breeder 158 2 - S5 - 96 100 64 early June, 94 late June 98 Orchard Oriole Summer breeder 1 1 - SZB - 6 12 1 June 29 in Peepabun 99 Baltimore Oriole Summer breeder 34 2 - S5 RC 100 100 22 early June, 12 late June RS 100 House Finch Summer breeder 2 1 - SE - 19 96 1 June 29, 1 July 1 101 White-winged Crossbill Post breeding dispersal visitor 4 1 - S5 - Not a Not a 4 Mar 27 breeder breeder 102 American Goldfinch Summer breeder 240 5 - S5 - 100 100 79 early June, 146 late June Overwinters 12 Jan 3, 3 Feb 2 103 House Sparrow Permanent breeding resident 114 2 - SE - 100 100 57 early June, 57 late June

Notes and Codes for Appendix A

Column 4: # of sightings In column 4 the expression # of sightings is used instead of # of individuals because some individuals may have been recorded more than once on a single survey or on more than one survey. For example, 57 House Sparrows were recorded on each of two June breeding season surveys resulting in 114 sightings.

Column 5: # of surveys recorded (n = 5) Five surveys were conducted at Arthur. This column shows how many surveys a species was recorded on. So, 2 in this column means that the species was found on 2 of the 5 surveys.

Column 6: SCTE CAN ON Endangered rankings as determined by COSEWIC [Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada and listed on Schedule 1, 2 or 3 by SARA [Species at Risk Act], and/or, in Ontario by COSSARO [Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario]. SCTE: Special Concern, Threatened, Endangered CAN: Canada ON: Ontario Special Concern: A species of special concern because of characteristics that make it particularly sensitive to human activities or natural events. Threatened: A species likely to become endangered if limiting factors are not reversed. THR?: proposed by COSEWIC as Threatened by not yet accepted. Endangered: A species facing imminent extirpation or extinction throughout its range. END-R: Endangered-Regulated in Ontario. NAR: Not at Risk NIAC: Not in any COSARO category. Any native species evaluated by COSSARO, which does not currently meet criteria for assignment to a provincial risk category. UR: Under review by COSEWIC.

Column 7: S Rank Rank assigned by the Natural Heritage Information Centre [NHIC] for Ontario. S5: Very common and demonstrably secure in Ontario S4: Common and apparently secure in OntarioS3: 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. S3: Rare to uncommon in Ontario: usually between 20 and 100 occurrences in the province; may have fewer occurrences, but with a larger number of individuals in some populations; may be susceptible to large-scale disturbances. 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. S1: Extremely rare in Ontario; usually 5 or fewer occurrences in the province or very few remaining individuals, often especially vulnerable to extinction. SE: Exotic; not believed to be a native component of Ontario. SZN: Non-breeding migrants/vagrants. SZB: Breeding migrants/vagrants

Column 8: Partners in Flight (PIF) priority species As part of the North American Bird Conservation Initiative, Partner in Flight Ontario is developing Conservation Plans for Ontario’s four Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs). Column 8 lists the designations for species found in Bird Conservation Region 13, which encompasses the Carolinian Zone and some of the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence valley. Codes used are: CC: Continental Concern. A species on the PIF Continental Watch List for which the BCR has some conservation responsibility CS: Continental Stewardship. A species for which the BCR has high stewardship responsibility RC: Regional Concern. A species of regional concern in this BCR due to combination of regional population decline and high threat score RS: Regional Stewardship. A species of regional stewardship responsibility in this BCR because of high regional density score and/or BCR contains a high proportion of the global population MI: Of Management Interest. Includes species not listed in other categories that are of regional management interest or importance for any variety of reasons. Examples of reasons include substantial local declines (in the BCR) in abundance or distribution, combined with elevated threat conditions. UR: Under Review for designation as SCTE

Column 9 and 10: Wellington breeding status, % squares Columns 9 and 10 show the percentage of squares in Wellington County in which a species was found during the 1st Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas (1981-1985) and during the 2nd Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas (2001-2005). Wellington County had 31 atlas squares. If a species was found in 100% of the atlas squares that means it was found in 31 of the 31 squares. If it was found in 56% of the squares that means it was found in 17 atlas squares. While this data does not speak to abundance it does show distribution, albeit at a macro scale. Nevertheless, it gives a sense of a species occurrence in the Wellington and whether it has increased or decreased from the 1st to the 2nd atlas or whether it has remained stable. Not a breeder means that the species does not breed in Wellington County.

Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

APPENDIX E LGL LIMITED FIELD NOTES

LGL Limited environmental research associates Conestogo Wind Farm Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

The following comprises LGL Limited (A. Featherstone) raw field notes as recorded using Trimble Outdoors on a Blackberry Curve 8900. GPS resolution is typically to 3m sensitivity during data collection. The data is uploaded via Trimble servers and the following data tables were formatted in excel.

April 27, 2010, Field Notes, AHF, JCN 8:30am to 5:30pm wpt 0073 Facing NW small channel in field. POI 17T 0538038E 4850499N Ploughed through. wpt 0074 Pics 798_80 POI 17T 0537802E 4849973N wpt 0075 Csp approx 1m. Flow 30cm channel. POI 17T 0537281E 4849013N Clear. Sm amt flow. No fish obs. Ploughed through in field. No rip veg. wpt 0076 Several drains feed into ditch and to 60cm POI 17T 0537183E 4848840N csp. Dwn str. Channelized. Grassed ditches. Mod flow. 30 to 60 cm width wetted. Pool at dwn end of culvert. No fish obs. Grasses. Sand/silt. Rubble. wpt 0077 Road parallels watercourse POI 17T 0536572E 4848400N wpt 0078 Watercourse. Cows graze through. Bank POI 17T 0536578E 4848398N undercutting evident. Wetted approx 2- 3m. Fence across. Shrub and thicket across fence. Approx 30m from road edge wpt 0079 Open pond. Cattail and red osier along POI 17T 0536407E 4848499N margins. Rwbb. Cago. Just above bank from the creek wpt 0080 Difficult to determine flow direction due POI 17T 0535799E 4848855N to wind. Appears to be ponding or backwater on less vegetated side. Colour brown and poor visibility. Appears to be silt substrate wetted width approx 7m. Concrete bridge span approx 6m. Some boulders pla wpt 0081 Steep roadsides. Ditches grassed and dry. POI 17T 0535794E 4848842N wpt 0082 On culvert POI 17T 0535076E 4848811N wpt 0083 Pics. 810. 8m concrete span over channel. POI 17T 0534837E 4848415N Recently cleared. Flow clear. No fish obs. Small step down approx 30cm. Barrier to fish. Silt rubble cobble subst on down str side wpt 0084 Pic 811. No open chan in field. Ditch and POI 17T 0534852E 4848419N drain input. Grassed. Stagnant. Small pools

Conestogo Wind Farm Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

April 27, 2010, Field Notes, AHF, JCN 8:30am to 5:30pm wpt 0085 Sm wetted area. 6m x 8m. Leaf subst. POI 17T 0534437E 4847979N 10cm deep approx. No eggs obs wpt 0086 Creek POI 17T 0534239E 4847354N wpt 0087 Channel widens POI 17T 0534234E 4847370N wpt 0088 Downcutting POI 17T 0534227E 4847399N wpt 0089 Lg pool. No fish obs. POI 17T 0534187E 4847427N wpt 0090 Correction. Cypridids obs in pool. POI 17T 0534188E 4847429N wpt 0091 Used for paint ball POI 17T 0534147E 4847464N wpt 0092 Raccoon tx POI 17T 0534054E 4847599N wpt 0093 Sensitive Species POI wpt 0094 Top of bank POI 17T 0533967E 4847718N wpt 0095 Channel braided thru cattails. Minor POI 17T 0533855E 4847910N valley potentially. wpt 0096 Wetted area inside forest edge. Approx 6 POI 17T 0533921E 4848326N x 6m. 10m from prop line wpt 0097 Another wetted area. 20x15m approx. POI 17T 0533905E 4848334N Red osier and other debris within. Obs from prop line only. wpt 0098 3 sm wet pockets. V shallow less than POI 17T 0533844E 4848365N 5cm. Leaf litter subst wpt 0099 Wet n saturated soils. Red osier cedar POI 17T 0533749E 4847443N poplar ash lots of dead trees wpt 0100 Stick nest in poplar POI 17T 0533794E 4847497N wpt 0101 Rock pile. Pot drain outfall? POI 17T 0533674E 4848122N wpt 0102 Meadow vole POI 17T 0533672E 4848124N wpt 0103 30 to 120cm wetted width. Silt sunst. POI 17T 0533674E 4848121N Grasses. Scattered boulder. No fish obs. But fish habitat upstr of here. Marsh marigold. wpt 0104 Groundhog POI 17T 0532617E 4849043N wpt 0105 Following a deer trail POI 17T 0532559E 4849065N wpt 0106 Open drain. Tiled to woodlot edge POI 17T 0532504E 4849104N wpt 0107 Fish obs. POI 17T 0533570E 4849819N wpt 0108 Dwnstr. Silt cobble gravel boulder clear POI 17T 0533590E 4849928N mod flow. Approx 1.5m wetted depth 10- 30cm. Deep under box culvert. Meader pattern. Grasses. wpt 0109 Upstr. Parallel to road. Some meander. POI 17T 0533597E 4849916N Fish obs. Lg pool at culvert. Upstr wetted width 1-1.5m. Mainly silt. Some boulder. wpt 0110 Drainage tile to culvert under driveway. POI 17T 0532122E 4848242N

Conestogo Wind Farm Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

April 27, 2010, Field Notes, AHF, JCN 8:30am to 5:30pm wpt 0111 Channelized drain. Grasses. Wet pockets. POI 17T 0532111E 4848251N No fish obs. Csp 60cm approx. IMG00467-20100427-0853.jpg Photo 17T 0538325E 4850785N IMG00466-20100427-0853.jpg Photo 17T 0538325E 4850782N IMG00468-20100427-0855.jpg Photo 17T 0538039E 4850499N IMG00469-20100427-0856.jpg Photo 17T 0538040E 4850496N IMG00470-20100427-0857.jpg Photo 17T 0537927E 4850190N IMG00471-20100427-0859.jpg Photo 17T 0537812E 4849980N IMG00472-20100427-0913.jpg Photo 17T 0537648E 4849686N IMG00474-20100427-0916.jpg Photo 17T 0537313E 4849082N IMG00473-20100427-0916.jpg Photo 17T 0537312E 4849081N IMG00475-20100427-0917.jpg Photo 17T 0537274E 4849017N IMG00476-20100427-0918.jpg Photo 17T 0537280E 4849013N IMG00477-20100427-0921.jpg Photo 17T 0537178E 4848843N IMG00479-20100427-0921.jpg Photo 17T 0537186E 4848844N IMG00478-20100427-0921.jpg Photo 17T 0537183E 4848841N IMG00480-20100427-0924.jpg Photo 17T 0537177E 4848844N IMG00483-20100427-0927.jpg Photo 17T 0536828E 4848260N IMG00482-20100427-0927.jpg Photo 17T 0536830E 4848262N IMG00484-20100427-0928.jpg Photo 17T 0536648E 4848365N IMG00481-20100427-0926.jpg Photo 17T 0536893E 4848328N IMG00485-20100427-0930.jpg Photo 17T 0536573E 4848400N IMG00486-20100427-0930.jpg Photo 17T 0536575E 4848393N IMG00489-20100427-0935.jpg Photo 17T 0536425E 4848490N IMG00488-20100427-0935.jpg Photo 17T 0536425E 4848491N IMG00487-20100427-0934.jpg Photo 17T 0536522E 4848436N IMG00493-20100427-0938.jpg Photo 17T 0535984E 4848744N IMG00492-20100427-0938.jpg Photo 17T 0536066E 4848694N IMG00496-20100427-0940.jpg Photo 17T 0535788E 4848848N IMG00495-20100427-0940.jpg Photo 17T 0535800E 4848849N IMG00494-20100427-0940.jpg Photo 17T 0535800E 4848847N IMG00490-20100427-0937.jpg Photo 17T 0536314E 4848554N IMG00491-20100427-0937.jpg Photo 17T 0536304E 4848559N IMG00497-20100427-0941.jpg Photo 17T 0535795E 4848854N IMG00498-20100427-0944.jpg Photo 17T 0535797E 4848843N IMG00499-20100427-0944.jpg Photo 17T 0535792E 4848845N IMG00500-20100427-0950.jpg Photo 17T 0535066E 4848826N apt 0000 General voixe notes dwnst side Photo 17T 0535058E 4848826N IMG00502-20100427-0952.jpg Photo 17T 0535059E 4848827N

Conestogo Wind Farm Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

April 27, 2010, Field Notes, AHF, JCN 8:30am to 5:30pm IMG00501-20100427-0951.jpg Photo 17T 0535059E 4848827N IMG00503-20100427-0952.jpg Photo 17T 0535073E 4848818N apt 0001 Upstr voice notes Photo 17T 0535078E 4848811N IMG00505-20100427-0954.jpg Photo 17T 0535076E 4848816N IMG00504-20100427-0954.jpg Photo 17T 0535079E 4848816N IMG00506-20100427-0954.jpg Photo 17T 0535076E 4848816N IMG00508-20100427-1000.jpg Photo 17T 0534850E 4848417N IMG00507-20100427-1000.jpg Photo 17T 0534853E 4848420N IMG00509-20100427-1000.jpg Photo 17T 0534843E 4848419N IMG00510-20100427-1011.jpg Photo 17T 0534520E 4847894N IMG00511-20100427-1012.jpg Photo 17T 0534502E 4847912N IMG00513-20100427-1017.jpg Photo 17T 0534447E 4847945N IMG00512-20100427-1017.jpg Photo 17T 0534454E 4847939N IMG00514-20100427-1020.jpg Photo 17T 0534441E 4847978N IMG00515-20100427-1022.jpg Photo 17T 0534442E 4847982N IMG00516-20100427-1101.jpg Photo 17T 0534230E 4847350N IMG00517-20100427-1101.jpg Photo 17T 0534238E 4847355N IMG00518-20100427-1105.jpg Photo 17T 0534235E 4847368N IMG00519-20100427-1106.jpg Photo 17T 0534237E 4847374N IMG00520-20100427-1108.jpg Photo 17T 0534225E 4847403N IMG00521-20100427-1110.jpg Photo 17T 0534216E 4847405N IMG00526-20100427-1112.jpg Photo 17T 0534189E 4847424N IMG00524-20100427-1111.jpg Photo 17T 0534197E 4847415N IMG00525-20100427-1112.jpg Photo 17T 0534188E 4847418N IMG00523-20100427-1110.jpg Photo 17T 0534219E 4847401N IMG00522-20100427-1110.jpg Photo 17T 0534221E 4847400N IMG00527-20100427-1113.jpg Photo 17T 0534185E 4847440N IMG00528-20100427-1118.jpg Photo 17T 0534093E 4847527N IMG00529-20100427-1130.jpg Photo 17T 0533959E 4847717N IMG00531-20100427-1131.jpg Photo 17T 0533939E 4847732N IMG00535-20100427-1134.jpg Photo 17T 0533899E 4847721N IMG00536-20100427-1134.jpg Photo 17T 0533908E 4847744N IMG00532-20100427-1132.jpg Photo 17T 0533919E 4847718N IMG00530-20100427-1130.jpg POI 17T 0533953E 4847720N IMG00534-20100427-1133.jpg Photo 17T 0533916E 4847714N IMG00533-20100427-1133.jpg Photo 17T 0533918E 4847715N IMG00538-20100427-1141.jpg Photo 17T 0533855E 4847911N IMG00537-20100427-1135.jpg Photo 17T 0533887E 4847755N IMG00542-20100427-1145.jpg Photo 17T 0533876E 4847952N

Conestogo Wind Farm Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

April 27, 2010, Field Notes, AHF, JCN 8:30am to 5:30pm IMG00539-20100427-1144.jpg Photo 17T 0533874E 4847924N IMG00541-20100427-1145.jpg Photo 17T 0533874E 4847933N IMG00540-20100427-1144.jpg Photo 17T 0533874E 4847924N IMG00545-20100427-1153.jpg Photo 17T 0533940E 4848317N IMG00544-20100427-1151.jpg Photo 17T 0534002E 4848260N IMG00543-20100427-1151.jpg Photo 17T 0534002E 4848259N IMG00546-20100427-1154.jpg POI 17T 0533923E 4848328N IMG00547-20100427-1155.jpg Photo 17T 0533904E 4848332N IMG00548-20100427-1158.jpg Photo 17T 0533854E 4848361N IMG00549-20100427-1158.jpg Photo 17T 0533844E 4848366N IMG00550-20100427-1203.jpg Photo 17T 0533807E 4848448N IMG00552-20100427-1206.jpg Photo 17T 0533859E 4848562N IMG00551-20100427-1206.jpg Photo 17T 0533858E 4848553N IMG00553-20100427-1206.jpg Photo 17T 0533857E 4848570N IMG00556-20100427-1218.jpg Photo 17T 0533724E 4848522N IMG00554-20100427-1210.jpg Photo 17T 0533812E 4848546N IMG00555-20100427-1217.jpg Photo 17T 0533728E 4848523N IMG00557-20100427-1221.jpg Photo 17T 0533712E 4848444N IMG00563-20100427-1244.jpg Photo 17T 0534284E 4847431N IMG00570-20100427-1315.jpg Photo 17T 0533745E 4847440N IMG00562-20100427-1240.jpg Photo 17T 0534251E 4847723N IMG00559-20100427-1239.jpg Photo 17T 0534244E 4847728N IMG00571-20100427-1315.jpg Photo 17T 0533746E 4847441N IMG00561-20100427-1240.jpg Photo 17T 0534245E 4847727N IMG00569-20100427-1313.jpg Photo 17T 0533709E 4847410N IMG00568-20100427-1313.jpg Photo 17T 0533674E 4847392N IMG00566-20100427-1305.jpg Photo 17T 0533383E 4847074N IMG00565-20100427-1305.jpg Photo 17T 0533388E 4847074N IMG00560-20100427-1240.jpg Photo 17T 0534245E 4847727N IMG00567-20100427-1312.jpg Photo 17T 0533623E 4847373N IMG00558-20100427-1233.jpg Photo 17T 0534081E 4847916N IMG00564-20100427-1305.jpg Photo 17T 0533389E 4847074N IMG00573-20100427-1321.jpg Photo 17T 0533831E 4847482N IMG00574-20100427-1322.jpg Photo 17T 0533808E 4847513N IMG00572-20100427-1320.jpg Photo 17T 0533832E 4847475N IMG00575-20100427-1331.jpg Photo 17T 0533779E 4847872N IMG00576-20100427-1332.jpg Photo 17T 0533756E 4847948N IMG00579-20100427-1336.jpg Photo 17T 0533676E 4848127N IMG00578-20100427-1334.jpg Photo 17T 0533701E 4848026N

Conestogo Wind Farm Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

April 27, 2010, Field Notes, AHF, JCN 8:30am to 5:30pm IMG00577-20100427-1332.jpg Photo 17T 0533752E 4847950N IMG00581-20100427-1339.jpg Photo 17T 0533676E 4848122N IMG00580-20100427-1339.jpg Photo 17T 0533676E 4848122N IMG00582-20100427-1341.jpg Photo 17T 0533676E 4848121N IMG00588-20100427-1437.jpg Photo 17T 0532991E 4848843N IMG00586-20100427-1434.jpg Photo 17T 0532860E 4848610N IMG00585-20100427-1432.jpg Photo 17T 0532698E 4848319N IMG00587-20100427-1437.jpg Photo 17T 0532992E 4848843N IMG00584-20100427-1432.jpg Photo 17T 0532646E 4848225N IMG00583-20100427-1432.jpg Photo 17T 0532646E 4848225N IMG00590-20100427-1444.jpg Photo 17T 0532961E 4848864N IMG00592-20100427-1449.jpg Photo 17T 0532644E 4849035N IMG00589-20100427-1442.jpg Photo 17T 0532984E 4848842N IMG00594-20100427-1449.jpg Photo 17T 0532643E 4849038N IMG00593-20100427-1449.jpg Photo 17T 0532642E 4849037N IMG00591-20100427-1444.jpg Photo 17T 0532941E 4848874N IMG00595-20100427-1452.jpg Photo 17T 0532585E 4849050N IMG00598-20100427-1456.jpg Photo 17T 0532511E 4849110N IMG00597-20100427-1456.jpg Photo 17T 0532514E 4849111N IMG00596-20100427-1455.jpg Photo 17T 0532528E 4849096N IMG00599-20100427-1514.jpg Photo 17T 0533542E 4849818N IMG00615-20100427-1555.jpg Photo 17T 0533582E 4849443N IMG00606-20100427-1522.jpg Photo 17T 0533536E 4849811N IMG00610-20100427-1539.jpg Photo 17T 0533672E 4849268N IMG00600-20100427-1518.jpg Photo 17T 0533571E 4849817N IMG00608-20100427-1530.jpg Photo 17T 0533466E 4849470N IMG00605-20100427-1522.jpg Photo 17T 0533536E 4849811N IMG00613-20100427-1551.jpg Photo 17T 0533847E 4849267N IMG00609-20100427-1538.jpg Photo 17T 0533667E 4849274N IMG00607-20100427-1530.jpg Photo 17T 0533466E 4849472N IMG00614-20100427-1553.jpg Photo 17T 0533753E 4849363N IMG00603-20100427-1519.jpg Photo 17T 0533586E 4849791N IMG00604-20100427-1522.jpg Photo 17T 0533541E 4849818N IMG00612-20100427-1551.jpg Photo 17T 0533845E 4849266N IMG00611-20100427-1546.jpg Photo 17T 0533763E 4849227N IMG00602-20100427-1518.jpg Photo 17T 0533577E 4849807N IMG00601-20100427-1518.jpg Photo 17T 0533571E 4849816N IMG00616-20100427-1603.jpg Photo 17T 0533592E 4849932N IMG00617-20100427-1603.jpg Photo 17T 0533592E 4849931N

Conestogo Wind Farm Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

April 27, 2010, Field Notes, AHF, JCN 8:30am to 5:30pm IMG00619-20100427-1605.jpg Photo 17T 0533600E 4849922N IMG00618-20100427-1605.jpg Photo 17T 0533592E 4849920N IMG00621-20100427-1607.jpg Photo 17T 0533600E 4849926N IMG00620-20100427-1606.jpg Photo 17T 0533599E 4849916N IMG00622-20100427-1608.jpg Photo 17T 0533598E 4850082N IMG00623-20100427-1622.jpg Photo 17T 0532119E 4848244N IMG00625-20100427-1623.jpg Photo 17T 0532111E 4848249N IMG00624-20100427-1623.jpg Photo 17T 0532108E 4848247N

June 18, 2010 Field Notes AHF RN 6am - 5pm wpt 0222 Road kill am goldfinch POI 17T 0531342E 4848207N wpt 0223 Green frog calling 2 POI 17T 0533226E 4847155N wpt 0224 Pond outlet POI 17T 0533202E 4847186N wpt 0225 Culvert POI 17T 0533175E 4847187N wpt 0226 Springs 2. Flowing. POI 17T 0533746E 4847020N wpt 0227 Another spring POI 17T 0533756E 4847042N wpt 0228 Hairy woodpecker. Gr crested flycatcher. Pewee. POI 17T 0533758E 4847480N House wren. Redstart. wpt 0229 Deer bed. Approx 4. POI 17T 0533733E 4847443N wpt 0230 Approx 45cm snag. POI 17T 0533726E 4847431N wpt 0231 Slightly higher elevation cattails and impatience. POI 17T 0533710E 4847413N wpt 0232 Culvert POI 17T 0534032E 4847620N wpt 0233 Electric fence. Marked line between grazed and POI 17T 0534042E 4847619N ungrazed. wpt 0234 Creek. Yoy obs. Fish obs. POI 17T 0533882E 4847799N wpt 0235 Crows. Abundant rwbb POI 17T 0533886E 4847796N wpt 0236 Lrg dbh maple with numerous cavities. POI 17T 0533860E 4847924N wpt 0237 Lg dbh maple with some cavities POI 17T 0533809E 4847977N wpt 0238 Small short snag on opposite side of creek POI 17T 0533681E 4848183N wpt 0239 20cm snag. POI 17T 0533704E 4848468N wpt 0240 V sm fresh snag POI 17T 0533747E 4848542N wpt 0241 Red eyed vireo POI 17T 0533751E 4848542N wpt 0242 Raccoon scat POI 17T 0533809E 4848583N wpt 0243 Turkey feathers POI 17T 0533822E 4848577N wpt 0244 Sm snag w hairy woodpecker excavation POI 17T 0533832E 4848580N wpt 0245 Best area obs for potential bat monitoring in this POI 17T 0533836E 4848573N small wooded area.

Conestogo Wind Farm Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

June 18, 2010 Field Notes AHF RN 6am - 5pm wpt 0246 Snag at edge POI 17T 0533907E 4848329N wpt 0247 Chimney POI 17T 0533923E 4848312N wpt 0248 Sensitive Species POI wpt 0249 Dry ploughed through POI 17T 0533590E 4849341N wpt 0250 Coyote tracks POI 17T 0533581E 4849445N wpt 0251 3 good size snags with peeling bark POI 17T 0533721E 4849340N wpt 0252 Snags w cavoities and peeling bark in this area POI 17T 0533691E 4849301N wpt 0253 Snag w peeling bark POI 17T 0533661E 4849334N wpt 0254 Deer lay down turkey feather POI 17T 0533722E 4849310N wpt 0255 Cheery tree w potential cavity POI 17T 0533720E 4849302N wpt 0256 Raccoon scat POI 17T 0533727E 4849225N wpt 0257 Fish obs POI 17T 0533906E 4849405N wpt 0258 Leop frog x2 POI 17T 0533865E 4849391N wpt 0259 Several deer laydown areas POI 17T 0533626E 4849545N wpt 0260 Numerous fish at pool large blue crayfish x7. Cliff POI 17T 0533599E 4849918N swallows. Leop fro wpt 0261 Green frog. Brown thrasher rwbb. Fish obs. POI 17T 0532995E 4848840N wpt 0262 Ploughed and planted through. Dry. No evidence of POI 17T 0532429E 4849435N surface drainage channel wpt 0263 Painted turtle visually obs. Not a lot of areas to pul POI 17T 0535146E 4849206N out or bask wpt 0264 Cattail rimmed pond. Horses and donkey in field. POI 17T 0536430E 4848482N Some areas to pull out. Nothing visible from road. wpt 0265 Lots of standing water. Mod flow on upstr side. POI 17T 0537178E 4848844N Clear. wpt 0266 No open water area visible from road. POI 17T 0537836E 4850020N wpt 0267 Water in roadside ditch POI 17T 0537722E 4849827N wpt 0268 Leop frog. Rwbb. POI 17T 0537722E 4849827N wpt 0269 Approx 60cm culvert. No flow. POI 17T 0537696E 4849788N IMG01027-20100618-0619.jpg Photo 17T 0531337E 4848213N IMG01028-20100618-0619.jpg Photo 17T 0531345E 4848210N IMG01029-20100618-0621.jpg Photo 17T 0533208E 4847161N IMG01034-20100618-0751.jpg Photo 17T 0533221E 4847285N IMG01032-20100618-0748.jpg Photo 17T 0533285E 4847346N IMG01031-20100618-0748.jpg Photo 17T 0533266E 4847364N IMG01037-20100618-0754.jpg Photo 17T 0533228E 4847188N IMG01035-20100618-0752.jpg Photo 17T 0533215E 4847269N IMG01033-20100618-0750.jpg Photo 17T 0533260E 4847322N IMG01030-20100618-0745.jpg Photo 17T 0533255E 4847391N IMG01036-20100618-0753.jpg Photo 17T 0533230E 4847193N

Conestogo Wind Farm Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

June 18, 2010 Field Notes AHF RN 6am - 5pm IMG01038-20100618-0758.jpg Photo 17T 0533233E 4847186N IMG01040-20100618-0800.jpg Photo 17T 0533178E 4847188N IMG01039-20100618-0800.jpg Photo 17T 0533201E 4847196N IMG01042-20100618-0802.jpg Photo 17T 0533220E 4847160N IMG01044-20100618-0815.jpg Photo 17T 0533750E 4846997N IMG01043-20100618-0813.jpg Photo 17T 0533768E 4847006N IMG01041-20100618-0801.jpg Photo 17T 0533216E 4847159N IMG01045-20100618-0819.jpg Photo 17T 0533758E 4847042N IMG01046-20100618-0821.jpg Photo 17T 0533778E 4847033N IMG01047-20100618-0835.jpg Photo 17T 0533801E 4847420N IMG01048-20100618-0844.jpg Photo 17T 0533741E 4847447N IMG01049-20100618-0846.jpg Photo 17T 0533728E 4847432N IMG01050-20100618-0847.jpg Photo 17T 0533727E 4847428N IMG01054-20100618-0926.jpg Photo 17T 0534047E 4847610N IMG01053-20100618-0924.jpg Photo 17T 0534054E 4847607N IMG01052-20100618-0924.jpg Photo 17T 0534053E 4847602N IMG01051-20100618-0853.jpg Photo 17T 0533729E 4847370N IMG01057-20100618-0930.jpg Photo 17T 0534042E 4847622N IMG01056-20100618-0930.jpg Photo 17T 0534042E 4847623N IMG01055-20100618-0929.jpg Photo 17T 0534033E 4847620N IMG01058-20100618-0951.jpg Photo 17T 0533885E 4847796N IMG01059-20100618-0954.jpg Photo 17T 0533890E 4847767N IMG01060-20100618-1001.jpg Photo 17T 0533869E 4847925N IMG01061-20100618-1004.jpg Photo 17T 0533875E 4847955N IMG01062-20100618-1006.jpg Photo 17T 0533811E 4847987N IMG01067-20100618-1014.jpg Photo 17T 0533681E 4848182N IMG01065-20100618-1012.jpg Photo 17T 0533696E 4848178N IMG01063-20100618-1010.jpg Photo 17T 0533724E 4848075N IMG01068-20100618-1015.jpg Photo 17T 0533682E 4848184N IMG01066-20100618-1013.jpg Photo 17T 0533687E 4848178N IMG01064-20100618-1011.jpg Photo 17T 0533700E 4848138N IMG01069-20100618-1018.jpg Photo 17T 0533688E 4848233N IMG01070-20100618-1033.jpg Photo 17T 0533708E 4848477N IMG01071-20100618-1039.jpg Photo 17T 0533748E 4848552N IMG01072-20100618-1051.jpg Photo 17T 0533838E 4848577N IMG01073-20100618-1057.jpg Photo 17T 0533800E 4848447N IMG01074-20100618-1102.jpg Photo 17T 0533904E 4848332N IMG01075-20100618-1105.jpg Photo 17T 0534018E 4848265N IMG01077-20100618-1106.jpg Photo 17T 0534063E 4848232N

Conestogo Wind Farm Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

June 18, 2010 Field Notes AHF RN 6am - 5pm IMG01079-20100618-1151.jpg Photo 17T 0533593E 4849343N IMG01078-20100618-1151.jpg Photo 17T 0533589E 4849344N IMG01080-20100618-1154.jpg Photo 17T 0533588E 4849387N IMG01081-20100618-1157.jpg Photo 17T 0533582E 4849447N IMG01082-20100618-1202.jpg Photo 17T 0533721E 4849338N IMG01084-20100618-1206.jpg Photo 17T 0533725E 4849317N IMG01083-20100618-1206.jpg Photo 17T 0533723E 4849320N IMG01086-20100618-1209.jpg Photo 17T 0533691E 4849299N IMG01085-20100618-1209.jpg Photo 17T 0533692E 4849300N IMG01089-20100618-1213.jpg Photo 17T 0533678E 4849325N IMG01087-20100618-1213.jpg Photo 17T 0533682E 4849330N IMG01088-20100618-1213.jpg Photo 17T 0533678E 4849327N IMG01090-20100618-1214.jpg Photo 17T 0533680E 4849325N IMG01091-20100618-1217.jpg Photo 17T 0533662E 4849329N IMG01092-20100618-1222.jpg Photo 17T 0533710E 4849309N IMG01093-20100618-1224.jpg Photo 17T 0533721E 4849309N IMG01094-20100618-1229.jpg Photo 17T 0533725E 4849294N IMG01095-20100618-1229.jpg Photo 17T 0533724E 4849301N IMG01100-20100618-1239.jpg Photo 17T 0533823E 4849215N IMG01098-20100618-1236.jpg Photo 17T 0533769E 4849227N IMG01096-20100618-1233.jpg Photo 17T 0533735E 4849213N IMG01099-20100618-1238.jpg Photo 17T 0533813E 4849210N IMG01097-20100618-1234.jpg Photo 17T 0533750E 4849213N IMG01101-20100618-1249.jpg Photo 17T 0533922E 4849389N IMG01102-20100618-1251.jpg Photo 17T 0533908E 4849409N IMG01103-20100618-1253.jpg Photo 17T 0533883E 4849396N IMG01104-20100618-1256.jpg Photo 17T 0533792E 4849378N IMG01107-20100618-1304.jpg Photo 17T 0533684E 4849474N IMG01105-20100618-1300.jpg Photo 17T 0533775E 4849426N IMG01106-20100618-1300.jpg Photo 17T 0533773E 4849426N IMG01110-20100618-1314.jpg Photo 17T 0533564E 4849639N IMG01109-20100618-1311.jpg Photo 17T 0533593E 4849579N IMG01108-20100618-1311.jpg Photo 17T 0533591E 4849575N IMG01111-20100618-1316.jpg Photo 17T 0533544E 4849667N IMG01115-20100618-1325.jpg Photo 17T 0533600E 4849918N IMG01113-20100618-1321.jpg Photo 17T 0533487E 4849730N IMG01114-20100618-1324.jpg Photo 17T 0533599E 4849918N IMG01112-20100618-1320.jpg Photo 17T 0533488E 4849732N IMG01118-20100618-1330.jpg Photo 17T 0533594E 4849919N

Conestogo Wind Farm Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

June 18, 2010 Field Notes AHF RN 6am - 5pm IMG01117-20100618-1329.jpg Photo 17T 0533599E 4849919N IMG01116-20100618-1329.jpg Photo 17T 0533599E 4849918N IMG01121-20100618-1344.jpg Photo 17T 0532989E 4848843N IMG01119-20100618-1343.jpg Photo 17T 0532991E 4848841N IMG01122-20100618-1344.jpg Photo 17T 0532983E 4848845N IMG01120-20100618-1343.jpg Photo 17T 0532994E 4848838N IMG01123-20100618-1405.jpg Photo 17T 0532557E 4849658N IMG01124-20100618-1408.jpg Photo 17T 0532449E 4849474N IMG01125-20100618-1409.jpg Photo 17T 0532430E 4849436N IMG01126-20100618-1410.jpg Photo 17T 0532430E 4849436N IMG01127-20100618-1451.jpg Photo 17T 0535164E 4849203N IMG01129-20100618-1455.jpg Photo 17T 0535799E 4848848N IMG01128-20100618-1455.jpg Photo 17T 0535794E 4848843N IMG01130-20100618-1458.jpg Photo 17T 0536415E 4848492N IMG01132-20100618-1503.jpg Photo 17T 0537177E 4848846N IMG01131-20100618-1503.jpg Photo 17T 0537184E 4848841N IMG01135-20100618-1509.jpg Photo 17T 0537697E 4849782N IMG01134-20100618-1509.jpg Photo 17T 0537692E 4849773N IMG01133-20100618-1506.jpg Photo 17T 0537827E 4850009N IMG01136-20100618-1510.jpg Photo 17T 0537708E 4849805N IMG01138-20100618-1514.jpg Photo 17T 0537698E 4849789N IMG01137-20100618-1514.jpg Photo 17T 0537709E 4849784N

June 24, 2010, Field Notes, AHF 9am to 2pm wpt 0275 Potential laydown area east of dead road POI 17T 0533087E 4849020N wpt 0276 Rock pile and berm? POI 17T 0533259E 4848879N wpt 0277 Hedgerow dominated by basswood. Occ ash. POI 17T 0533588E 4848670N wpt 0278 Lg ash. In. Good shape. Approx 40cm POI 17T 0533575E 4848645N wpt 0279 Lg ash. 3 trunk. 30 - 50 cm approx POI 17T 0533555E 4848608N wpt 0280 Approx 45cm maple POI 17T 0533529E 4848558N wpt 0281 Understory of rasp and old field veg. Hawthorn an buckthorn POI 17T 0533529E 4848557N wpt 0282 Green frog on haul out. POI 17T 0533227E 4847188N wpt 0283 Mouse nest under tin POI 17T 0533325E 4847318N wpt 0284 Monarch obs. Barn swallows. POI 17T 0533339E 4847326N IMG01158-20100624-0938.jpg Photo 17T 0533089E 4849022N IMG01157-20100624-0938.jpg Photo 17T 0533090E 4849021N IMG01159-20100624-0946.jpg Photo 17T 0533217E 4848946N

Conestogo Wind Farm Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

June 24, 2010, Field Notes, AHF 9am to 2pm IMG01160-20100624-0948.jpg Photo 17T 0533254E 4848879N IMG01161-20100624-0948.jpg Photo 17T 0533250E 4848854N IMG01162-20100624-0948.jpg Photo 17T 0533245E 4848852N IMG01163-20100624-0949.jpg Photo 17T 0533261E 4848876N IMG01164-20100624-0952.jpg Photo 17T 0533349E 4848843N IMG01165-20100624-1003.jpg Photo 17T 0533540E 4848601N IMG01166-20100624-1003.jpg Photo 17T 0533541E 4848601N IMG01169-20100624-1005.jpg Photo 17T 0533531E 4848560N IMG01167-20100624-1005.jpg Photo 17T 0533527E 4848561N IMG01168-20100624-1005.jpg Photo 17T 0533531E 4848560N IMG01170-20100624-1121.jpg Photo 17T 0532980E 4848843N IMG01171-20100624-1121.jpg Photo 17T 0532989E 4848842N IMG01172-20100624-1141.jpg Photo 17T 0532915E 4848713N IMG01177-20100624-1202.jpg Photo 17T 0532390E 4848816N IMG01173-20100624-1151.jpg Photo 17T 0532546E 4848889N IMG01174-20100624-1151.jpg Photo 17T 0532539E 4848892N IMG01176-20100624-1154.jpg Photo 17T 0532497E 4848970N IMG01175-20100624-1152.jpg Photo 17T 0532521E 4848953N IMG01178-20100624-1205.jpg Photo 17T 0532486E 4848874N IMG01179-20100624-1206.jpg Photo 17T 0532504E 4848913N IMG01181-20100624-1208.jpg Photo 17T 0532565E 4848961N IMG01180-20100624-1208.jpg Photo 17T 0532560E 4848966N IMG01183-20100624-1228.jpg Photo 17T 0533227E 4847189N IMG01182-20100624-1228.jpg Photo 17T 0533227E 4847189N IMG01184-20100624-1233.jpg Photo 17T 0533318E 4847322N IMG01185-20100624-1233.jpg Photo 17T 0533328E 4847317N IMG01186-20100624-1235.jpg Photo 17T 0533360E 4847368N IMG01187-20100624-1242.jpg Photo 17T 0533668E 4847468N IMG01189-20100624-1243.jpg Photo 17T 0533680E 4847529N IMG01188-20100624-1243.jpg Photo 17T 0533680E 4847529N

Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

APPENDIX F LGL LIMITED RUNNING WILDLIFE LIST

LGL Limited environmental research associates Conestogo Wind Farm Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

Summary of Wildlife Species Documented by LGL Limited in the Conestogo Windfarm Project Area

Area Sensitive (OMNR SWH Type Fauna_Code Family_Name Scientific_Name Common_Name G_Rank S_Rank COSEWIC MNR SARA SARO FWCA MBCA Guide) Amphibian AMTO Bufonidae Bufo americanus American Toad G5 S5 Amphibian LEFR Ranidae Rana pipiens Northern Leopard Frog G5 S5 NAR NAR Amphibian GRFR Ranidae Rana clamitans Green Frog G5 S5 Reptile MPTU Emydidae Chrysemys picta marginata Northern (Midland) Painted Turtle G5T5 S5 P Bird CAGO Anatidae Branta canadensis Canada Goose G5 S5B,SZN X Bird WITU Phasianidae Maleagris gallopavo Wild Turkey G5 S4 G X Bird HAWO Picidae Picoides villosus Hairy Woodpecker G5 S5 X x Bird EAWP Tyrrannidae Contopus virens Eastern Wood Pewee G5 S5B,SZN X Bird GCFL Tyrrannidae Myiarchus crinitus Great Crested Flycatcher G5 S5B,SZN X Bird REVI Vireonidae Vireo olivaceus Red-eyed Vireo G5 S5B,SZN X Bird AMCR Corvidae Corvus brachyhrynchos American Crow G5 S5B Bird CLSW Hirundinidae Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Cliff Swallow G5 S5B,SZN X Bird BARS Hirundinidae Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow G5 S5B,SZN X Bird HOWR Troglodytidae Troglodytes aedon House Wren G5 S5B,SZN X Bird AMRE Parulidae Setophaga ruticilla American Redstart G5 S5B X x Bird BOBO Icteridae Dolichonyx oryzivorus Bobolink G5 S4B,SZN X x Bird RWBL Icteridae Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged Blackbird G5 S5B,SZN Bird AMGO Fringillidae Carduelis tristis American Goldfinch G5 S5B X Bird HOSP Fringillidae Passer domesticus House Sparrow G5 SE Mammals EACO Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus Eastern Cottontail G5 S5 G Mammals EACH Sciuridae Tamias striatus Eastern Chipmunk G5 S5 P Mammals WOOD Sciuridae Marmota monax Groundhog G5 S5 Mammals GRSQ Sciuridae Sciurus carolinensis Eastern Gray Squirrel G5 S5 G Mammals RESQ Sciuridae Tamiasciurus hudsonicus Red Squirrel G5 S5 F Mammals WFMO Muridae Peromyscus sp. Mouse G5 S5 Mammals MEVO Muridae Microtus pennsylvanicus Meadow Vole G5 S5 Mammals COYO Canidae Canis latrans Coyote G5 S5 F Mammals RACC Procyonidae Procyon lotor Raccoon G5 S5 F Mammals WTDE Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus White-tailed Deer G5 S5 G

Status Legend GRank - (GRANK) Global ranks are assigned by a consensus of the network of CDCs, scientific experts,and The Nature Conservancy to designate a rarity rank based on the range-wide status of a species, subspecies or variety. G5 -Very common; demonstrably secure under present conditions. T -Denotes that the rank applies to a subspecies or variety. SRank –Status assigned by the NHIC for the Province of Ontario boundary S4 -Apparently Secure S5 -Secure SZB - Breeding migrants/vagrants. SZN- Non-breeding migrants/vagrants. COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada): END – Endangered THR – Threatened SC – Special Concern

Conestogo Wind Farm Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources): END – Endangered THR – Threatened SC – Special Concern FWCA – Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act F- Fur bearing G- Game speces MBCA – Migratory Birds Conservation Act x- regulated species

Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

APPENDIX G DAVE MARTIN 2010 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS MEMO AND FIELD NOTES

LGL Limited environmental research associates Methodologies Used for Faunal Surveys at Conestogo Wind Farm 2007 to 2010

A variety of methodologies were employed by the faunal survey team on the Conestogo Wind Farm surveys depending on the target species guild and size of search area. The survey methodologies followed sampling protocols detailed in “Recommended Protocols for Monitoring Impacts of Wind Turbines on Birds. Final. July 28, 2006. Environment Canada and Canadian Wildlife Service”. APre‐ construction Work Plan was submitted in early February 2007. In a letter dated April 24, 2007, cc’d to the Guelph and Midhurst MNR offices, Rob Read of EC confirmed EC’s “satisfaction with the work plan”.Additional targeted surveys in June and July 2010 followed subsequent versions of EC and MNR protocols.

Summary of 2007 Surveys

Area Searches were used for the January 3, February 4 and March 27 surveys during which wintering raptors and spring migrant waterfowl were targeted. This involved two surveyors [1 driver, 1 recorder] slowly driving all roads in the study area, recording all species observed or heard and mapping locations of species of interest.

Two breeding bird surveys were conducted in each of the three subunits of the large study area between June 6 and July 1. The methodology used for these surveys was a combination of Area Searches and Point Counts. All roads were slowly driven in the study area[area search] and all species were recorded and species of interest were recorded and mapped. At habitats that might have SAR or species of interest a 10‐minute pointcount was conducted and repeated on the second visit at the same location. Habitats that might have species of interest included hay fields, lightly grazed pastures, abandoned fields, hedgerows, woodlots along roads and stream crossings.

Details on observers, survey start and finish times, field hours, weather, distance traveled, survey type are provided in Appendix C Conestogo Baseline Data in the Avifaunal Report for the Conestogo Wind Turbine Project January 2008.

Summary of 2010 Surveys

In 2010, when the current project location was confirmed, additional surveys targeting the possible presence of Species at Risk in the project location were undertaken on June 20, June 25 and July 3. The June 20 and 25 surveys targeted Chimney Swift, Common Nighthawk and Whip‐poor‐Will in the study area surrounding [one concession block] and including the project area. The July 3 survey targeted SAR that might be present in the project location. The surveyors used a combination of methodologies including Fixed Point Watches and Area Searches.

On the June 20 and June 25 surveys, the field surveyors [Dave Martin and Linda Wladarski]drove the roads [area search] enclosing the current turbine location as well as Sideroad 17, which separates turbines 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8 from turbines 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10. On June 20 the survey started at 19h00 and finished at 22h00 [6 field hours]. On June 25, the survey started at 19h00 and finished at 22h05 [6.1 field hours]. On both surveys, the surveyors slowly drove the roads[area search] and stopped at vantage points [fixed point watch] where there was a wide view of the horizon. Both surveyors scanned the sky for periods of 3 to 5 minutes for any Common Nighthawks or Chimney Swifts that might be hawking insects over the fields or woodlots. For an hour after dusk, stops of 15 to 20 minutes were made beside woodlots [fixed point watch] to listen for calling Whip‐poor‐wills.

On both the June 20 and June 25 surveys, the surveyors drove into Arthur to determine whether Chimney Swifts or Common Nighthawks were present. On June 20, the survey started at 20h37 and finished at 20h57. No Chimney Swifts or Common Nighthawks were seen or heard. On June 25, the survey started at 19h00 and finished at 19h50. For most of the survey period, 1 to 4 Chimney Swifts were observed foraging over the commercial part of the town of Arthur and appeared to be centered on the St. John Evangelical Church [fixed point watch]. None of the Chimney Swifts were seen to approach or enter a chimney within viewing distance of the observers. The observers drove around various streets around the commercial district [area search] and noted several chimneys that appeared to be the right size for nesting Chimney Swifts. It appears possible that there are 1 or 2 pairs of Chimney Swifts breeding somewhere in Arthur. This small colony is likely the source of the sightings south of Arthur that were discovered on the 2007 surveys. No Common Nighthawks were noted on the June 25 survey.Weather conditions on June 20 were clear skies, no wind and a start temperature of 20C. Weather on June 25 was clear skies, no wind and a start temperature of 18C.

On July 3, 2010, two surveyors [James Holdsworth and Ross Snider] searched the project location for faunal Species at Risk and assessed whether there was any Significant Wildlife Habitat. The methodology for this survey involved walking transects from the closest roads along the vegetated corridors to the woodlot closest to the turbines. For turbines # 6 and 7, the transect started at 17 Sideroad. For the woodlot closest to turbine # 10, the route followed the wooded creek corridor west from Wellington Road 12. In the woodlots the surveyors walked transects [area search] through the woods. The survey started at 06h45 and finished at 13h15 for a total of 13 field hours. Weather conditions were ideal with clear skies, temperatures up to 25 C and light winds.

Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

APPENDIX H WETLAND EVALUATION SCORING SHEETS

LGL Limited environmental research associates Conestogo Wetland 1

Wetland Evaluation Edition 3rd

November 18, 2010

Comments The following evaluation was completed using polygon information derived from a "Geographic Information Layer" provided by GRCA and LIO. The wetland polygon's were identified from 2006 Colour Ortho aerial photography provided by GRCA interactive website which was taken by First Base Solution.

The analysis of significance was conducted as a result of the polygone being within 120 m a proposed windfarm project component. MNR was consulted to determine which wetland within the project could be complexed together based on distance and size (Art Timmerman).

Wetland assessed from the road. Was not given permission to access the property to conduct a more detailed assessment of the area.

Additional Information Include relevant information that can not be entered in the wetland data record( Ex. Sections that have not been completed.) NextEra Energy Canada, ULC has and continues to consult with Aborigial communities identified by the Director's List under Ontario values that may be of concern, but only general responses have been provided by some of the communities, none of which were locations-specific. Additionally, all information required to be distributed to those communties under O/Reg 359/09 was completed on September 13, 2010 with a requrest for their response to provide information on any constitutionally protected Aboriginal or treaty rights that my be affected by the Project, or any concerns about potential negative environmental impacts in which they may have an interest. To date, no responses have been received.

Official Name: Conestogo Wetland 1 Evaluation Edition: 3rd Class: Wetland ID.: Wetland Significance Year/Month Last Evaluated November 18, 2010 Year/Month Last Updated Special Planning Considerations: Scores Wetland Area: 2.93 Biological: 62 Dentention Area: 0.54 Social: 60 Catchment Area: 284.00 Hydrological: 189 OMNR Source Guelph Area Biologist: Art Timmerman Special Features: 23 Information Source Field Observations: Noel Overall: 334 Submitted by: Jennifer Noel Date: November 19, 2010

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetland Manual

WETLAND DATA AND SCORING RECORD

i) WETLAND NAME: Conestogo Wetland 1

ii) MNR ADMINISTRATIVE REGION: Central DISTRICT: Guelph

AREA OFFICE (if different from District):

iii) CONSERVATION AUTHORITY JURISDICTION: GRCA

(If not within a designated CA, check here:

iv) COUNTY OR REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY: Wellington County

v) TOWNSHIP: Peel geographic township

vi) LOTS & CONCESSIONS: Lot 10, Con17; Lot 11, Con 17 (attach separate sheet if necessary)

vii) MAP AND AIR PHOTO REFERENCES

a) Latitude: 43 47 Longitude: 80 33

b) UTM grid reference: Zone: 17T Block: NJ Grid:E 358 Grid:N 485

c) National Topographic Series:

map name(s) Palmerston

map number(s) 40P/15 edition 4

scale 1 : 50,000

d) Aerial photographs: Date photo taken: 2006 Scale: digital

Flight & plate numbers: First Base Solution

(attach separate sheet if necessary)

e) Ontario Base Map numbers & scale 1017530048450 scale: 1:10,000

(attach separate sheets if necessary)

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Data Summery Form Code: Wetland Name:

2.93 - Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetland Manual

viii) WETLAND SIZE AND BOUNDARIES

a) Single contiguous wetland area: 2.93 hectares

b) Wetland complex comprised of individual wetlands:

Wetland Unit Number Size of each (for reference) wetland unit

Ha Wetland Unit No. 1 2.93 Wetland Unit No. 2 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 3 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 4 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 5 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 6 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 7 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 8 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 9 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 10 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 11 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 12 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 13 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 14 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 15 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 16 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 17 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 18 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 19 0.00 Wetland Unit Totals: 2.93 (Attach additional sheets if necessary)

TOTAL WETLAND SIZE 2.93

c) Brief documentation of reasons for including any areas less than 0.5 ha in size:

(Attach separate sheets if necessary .)

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation. Data and Scoring Record May 1994 Wetland Manual 1.0 BIOLOGICAL COMPONENT

1.1 PRODUCTIVITY

1.1.1 GROWING DEGREE-DAYS/SOILS

GROWING DEGREE DAYS MAP SOILS (check one) Estimated Fractional Area 1) <2800 1.00 clay/loam 2) x 2800 -3200 0.00 silt/marl 3) 3200 -3600 0.00 limestone 4) 3600 -4000 0.00 sand 5) >4000 0.00 humic/mesic 0.00 fibric 0.00 granite

Determine the soil type from the appropriate OMAF soils maps SCORING: Growing Clay- Silt- Lime- Sand Humic- Fibric Granite Degree- Loam Marl stone Mesic Days <2800 15 13 11 9 8 7 5 2800-3200 18 15 13 11 9 8 7 3200-3600 22 18 15 13 11 9 7 3600-4000 26 21 18 15 13 10 8 >4000 30 25 20 18 15 12 8

(maximum score 30; if wetland contains more than one soil type, evaluate based on the fractional area)

Steps required for evaluation: (maximum score 30 points)

1. Select GDD line in evaluation table applicable to your wetland; 2. Determine fractional area of the wetland for each soil type; 3. Multiply fractional area of each soil type by score; 4. Sum individual soil type scores (round to nearest whole number).

In wetland complexes the evaluator should aim at determining the percentage of area occupied by the categories for the complex as a whole. Score 18 clay/loam 18.00 silt/marl 0.00 limestone 0.00 sand 0.00 humic/mesic 0.00 fibric 0.00 granite 0.00

Final Score Growing Degree-Days/Soils (maximum 30 points) 18

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record May 1994 Wetland Manual 1.1.2 WETLAND TYPE (Fractional Area = area of wetland type/total wetland area) Estimate the Wetland Type from air photos or default to "swamp" (8) Fractional Area Score

Bog 0.00 x 3 0.0 Fen 0.00 x 6 0.0 Swamp 1.00 x 8 8.0 Marsh 0.00 x 15 0.0 Subtotal: 8.0 Wetland type score (maximum 15 points) 8

1.1.3 SITE TYPE (Fractional Area = area of site type/total wetland area) Estimate from air photos Fractional Area Score

Isolated 0.00 x 1 = 0.00 Palustrine (permanent or intermittent flow) 0.00 x 2 = 0.00 Riverine 1.00 x 4 = 4.00 Riverine (at rivermouth) 0.00 x 5 = 0.00 Lacustrine (at rivermouth 0.00 x 5 = 0.00 Lacustrine (on enclosed bay, with barrier beach) 0.00 x 3 = 0.00 Lacustrine (exposed to lake) 0.00 x 2 = 0.00 Sub Total: 4.00 Site Type Score (maximum 5 points) 4

1.2 BIODIVERSITY

1.2.1 NUMBER OF WETLAND TYPES

(Check only one) Score

1) 9 one 9 points 2) two 13 3) three 20 4) four 30

Number of Wetland Types Score (maximum 30 points) 9

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation. Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetland Manual 1.2.2 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES Veg Ref

Attach a separate sheet listing community (map) codes,vegetation forms and dominant species. Use the form on the following page to record percent area by dominant vegetation form. This information will be used in other parts of the evaluation.

Communities should be grouped by number of forms. For example, 2 form communities might appear as follows:

2 forms

Code Forms Dominant Species

M6 re, ff re, Typha latifolia; ff, Lemna minor, Wolffia

S1 ts, gc ts, Salix discolor; gc, lmpatiens capensis, Thelypteris palustris

Note that the dominant species for each form are separated by a semicolon. The dominant species (maximum of 2) within a form are separated by commas.

Scoring:

Total # of communities Total # of communities Total # of communities with 1-3 forms with 4 -5 forms with 6 or more forms 1 = 1.5 points 1 = 2 points 1 = 3 points 2 = 2.5 2 = 3.5 2 = 5 3 = 3.5 3 = 5 3 = 7 4 = 4.5 4 = 6.5 4 = 9 5 = 5 5 = 7.5 5 = 10.5 6 = 5.5 6 = 8.5 6 = 12 7 = 6 7 = 9.5 7 = 13.5 8 = 6.5 8 = 10.5 8 = 15 9 = 7 9 = 11.5 9 = 16.5 10 = 7.5 10 = 12.5 10 = 18 11 = 8 11 = 13 11 = 19

+.5 each additional +.5 each additional + 1 each additional community = 1.5 community = community =

e.g., a wetland with 3 one form communities 4 two form communities 12 four form communities and 8 six form communities would score:

6 + 13.5 + 15 = 34.5 = 35 points SubTotal: 2

Vegetation Communities Score (maximum 45 points) 2

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetland Manual

Wetland Name: Conestogo Wetland 1

Wetland Size (ha): 2.93

Vegetation Form % area in which form is dominant

h 100.00

c 0.00

dh 0.00

dc 0.00

ts 0.00

ls 0.00

ds 0.00

gc 0.00

m 0.00

ne 0.00

be 0.00

re 0.00

ff 0.00

f 0.00

su 0.00

u (unvegetated) 0.00

Total = 100% 100.00

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetland Manual

1.2.3 DIVERSITY OF SURROUNDING HABITAT (Check all appropriate items(1)) Determine from air photos 1 row crop 1 pasture abandoned agricultural land 1 deciduous forest coniferous forest mixed forest (at least 25% conifer and 75% deciduous or vice versa) abandoned pits and quarries open lake or deep river fence rows with cover, or shelterbelts terrain appreciably undulating,hilly,or with ravines creek flood plain 3 Subtotal Diversity of Surrounding Habitat Score (1 for each, maximum 7 points) 3

1.2.4 PROXIMITY TO OTHER WETLANDS (Check first appropriate category only) Scoring Determine from air photos and other wetlands evaluations in the vicinity 1) Hydrologically connected by surface water to other wetlands (different dominant wetlaI1d type) or to open lake or deep river within 1.5 km 8 points

2) Hydrologically connected by surface water to other wetlands (same dominant wetland type) within 0.5 km 8

3) Hydrologica11y connected by surface water to other wetlands (different dominant wetland type),or to open lake or deep river from 1.5 to 4 km away 5

4) Hydrologically connected by surface water to other wetlands (same dominant wetland type) from 0.5 to 1.5 km away 5

5) Within 0.75 km of other wetlands (different dominant wetland type) or open water body, but not hydrologically connected by surface water 5

6) Within 1 km of other wetlands,but not hydrologically connected by surface water 2

7) 0 No wetland within 1 km 0

Proximity to other Wetlands Score (Choose one only, maximum 8 points) 0

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation Data and Scoring Record May 1994 Wetland Manual 1.2.5 INTERSPERSION Optional: Complete as time permits or as scoring dictates. Number of Intersections (Check one) Score

1) 26 or less 3 2) 27 to 40 6 3) 41 to 60 9 9 4) 61 to 80 12 5) 81 to l00 15 6) 101 to 125 18 7) 126 to 150 21 8) 151 to 175 24 9) 176 to 200 27 10) >200 30

Interspersion Score (Choose one only maximum 30 points) 9

1.2.6 OPEN WATER TYPES Ref Determine from aerial photos. Permanently flooded: (Check one) Score

1) 8 type 1 8 2) type 2 8 3) type 3 14 4) type 4 20 5) type 5 30 6) type 6 8 7) type 7 14 8) type 8 3 9) no open water 0

Open Water Type Score (Choose one only maximum 30 points) 8

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario wetland Evaluation Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetland Manual

1.3 SIZE Score may be lower than actual if "Vegetation Community and Interspersion" have not been calculated.

2.9 hectares31 Subtotal for Biodiversity

Size Score (Biological Component) (maximum 5O points) 1

Evaluation Table Size Score (Biological component) Wetland Total Score for Biodiversity Subcomponent size (ha) <37 37-48 49-60 61-72 73-84 85-96 97- 109- 121- >132 108120 132 <21 ha 1 578 917 25 34 43 50 21-40 5 7 8 9 10 19 28 37 46 50 41-60 6 8 9 10 11 21 31 40 49 50 61-80 7 9 10 11 13 23 34 43 50 50 81-100 8 10 11 13 15 25 37 46 50 50 101-120 9 11 13 15 18 28 40 49 50 50 121-140 10 13 15 17 21 31 43 50 50 50 141-160 11 15 17 19 23 34 46 50 50 50 161-180 13 17 19 21 25 37 49 50 50 50 181-200 15 19 21 23 28 40 50 50 50 50 201-400 17 21 23 25 31 43 50 50 50 50 401-600 19 23 25 28 34 46 50 50 50 50 601-800 21 25 28 31 37 49 50 50 50 50 801-1000 23 28 31 34 40 50 50 50 50 50 1001-1200 25 31 34 37 43 50 50 50 50 50 1201-1400 28 34 37 40 46 50 50 50 50 50 1401-1600 31 37 40 43 49 50 50 50 50 50 1601-1800 34 40 43 46 50 50 50 50 50 50 1801-2000 37 43 47 49 50 50 50 50 50 50 >2000 40 46 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetland Manual

2.0 SOCIAL COMPONENT

2.1 ECONOMICALLY VALUABLE PRODUCTS

2.1.1 WOOD PRODUCTS Determine the percentage of the wetland area dominated by "h" or "c" by using aerial photograph. Area of wetland forested (ha), i.e. dominant form is h or c. Note that this is not wetland size. (Check one only) h: 2.93 c: 0.00

Score 1) x <5 ha 0 2) 5 -25 ha 3 3) 26 -50 ha 6 4) 51- l00 ha 9 5) 101 -200 ha 12 6) >200 ha 18

Source of information: Field Observations: Noel

Wood Products Score (Score one only, maximum 18 points) 0

2.1.2 WILD RICE (Check one) Score (Choose one) Present (minimum size 0.5 ha) 1) 6 points Absent 2) 0 0

Source of information: Field Observations: Noel

Wild Rice Score (maximum 6 points) 0

2.1.3 COMMERCIAL FISH (BAIT FISH AND/OR COARSE FISH (Check one) Score (Choose one) Present 1) 12 12 points Habitat not suitable for fish 2) 0

Source of infolmation: Guelph Area Biologist: Art Timmerman If any part of the wetland is riverine or the District fisheries files indicate presence of fish score"present" Commercial Fish Score (maximum 12 points) 12

2.1.4 BULLFROGS (Check one) Score (Choose one) Present 1) 1 1 points Absent 2) 0

Source of information: Field Observations: Noel David Martin Bullfrog Score (maximum 1 point) 1

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation Data and Scoring Record Wetlands Manual 2.1.5 SNAPPING TURTLES (Check one) Score (Choose one) Present 1) 1 point Absent 2) 0 0

Source of information: Field Observations: Noel David Martin Snapping Turtle Score (maximum 1 point) 0

2.1.6 FURBEARERS Fur Ref (Consult Appendix 9)

Name of furbearer Source of information

1) raccoon 3 Dave Martin 2) red squirrel 3 Dave Martin 3) cayote 3 Dave Martin 4) 5) SubTotal 9

Scoring: 3 points for each species. maximum 12 Furbearer Score (maximum 12 points) 9

2.2 RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES

Type of Wetland-Associated Use Nature Enjoyment/ Intensity of Use Hunting Fishing Ecosystem Study High 40 points 40 points 40 points Moderate 20 20 20 Low 8 8 8 Not possible/NotKnown 0 00000 Totals 0000 (score one level for each of the three wetland uses; scores are cumulative; maximum score 80 points) Sources of information:

Hunting: Field Observations: Noel

Nature: Field Observations: Noel

Fishing: Field Observations: Noel

Recreational Activities Score (maximum 80 points) 0

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring: Record May 1994 Wetlands Manual 2.3 LANDSCAPE AESTHETICS Score using ortho-aerial photography 2.3.1 DISTINCTNESS (Check one) Score (Choose one) Clearly distinct 1) 3 3 points Indistinct 2) 0

Landscape Distinctness Score (maximum 3 points) 3

2.3.2 ABSENCE OF HUMAN DISTURBANCE

(Check one) Score (Choose one) Human disturbances absent or nearly so 1) 7 points One or several localized disturbances 2) 4 Moderate disturbance; localized water pollution 3) 2 Wetland intact but impairment of ecosystem quality intense in some areas 4) 1 1 Extreme ecological degradation, or water pollution severe and widespread 5) 0

Source of information: Field Observations: Noel Wetland drainage Absence of Human Disturbance Score (maximum 7 points) 1

2.4 EDUCATION AND PUBLIC AWARENESS Optional: complete as time and scoring dictates. 2.4.1 EDUCATIONAL USES (Check one) Score (Choose one) Frequent 1) 20 points Infrequent 2) 12 No visits 3) 0 0

Source of information: Field Observations: Noel Requires contact with Local Boards of Education. Educational Uses Score (maximum 20 points) 0

2.4.2 FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS

(check one) Score (Choose one) Staffed interpretation centre 1) 8 points No interpretation centre or staff but a system of self-guiding trails or brochures available 2) 4 Facilities such as maintained paths (e.g., woodchips) boardwalks, boat launches or observation towers but no brochures or other interpretation 3) 2 No facilities or programs 4) 0 0

Source of information: Field Observations: Noel

Facilities and Programs Score (maximum 8 points) 0 12

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record May 1994 Wetlands Manual 2.4.3 RESEARCH AND STUDIES (check appropriate spaces) Score Long term research has been done 12 points Research papers published in refereed scientific journal or as a thesis 10 One or more (non-research) reports have been written on some aspect of the wetland ' s flora fauna hydrology etc. 5 No research or reports 0 0 Subtotal: 0 Attach list of known reports by above categories Refer to ESPA, EPA and ANSI reports. Research and Studies Score (Score is cumulative, maximum 12 points) 0

2.5 PROXIMITY TO AREAS OF HUMAN SETTLEMENT Circle the highest applicable score

Distance of wetland from 1) 2) population 3) population settlement population> 10,000 2,500 -10,000 <2,500 or cottage community 1) Within or adjoining 40 points 26 16 settlement 2) 0.5 to 10 km from settlement 26 26 16 10 3) 10 to 60 km from settlement 12 8 4 4) >60 km from settlement 5 2 0 26 0 0

Name of settlement: Arthur (population 11, 500)

Proximity to Human Settlement Score (maximum 40 points) 26

2.6 OWNERSHIP (FA= fraction Area) Score Select a default value of "4" if no other information exists. FA of wetland in public or private ownership held under contract or in trust for wetland protection x 10 = 0.00 FA of wetland area in public ownership,not as above x 8 = 0.00 FA of wetland area in private ownership,not as above 1.00 x 4 = 4.00

Source of information: Property GIS layers from Genivar

Ownership Score (maximum 10 points) 4

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Additional Reports Avifaunal Report for the Conestoga Wind Turbine Project, Dave Martin, January 2008 Conestogo Wind Farm Records Review and Natural Heritage Evaluation, September 2010 LGL Limited

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetlands Manual 2.7 SIZE The score may be lower than actual since economic and recreational values have not been completed. 2.9 hectares 48 Subtotal for Social

Evaluation Table for Size Score (Social Component) Wetland Total for Size Dependent Score Size (ha) <31 31-45 46-60 61-75 76-90 91-105 106-120 121-135 136-150 >150 <2 ha 1 2 4 8 10 12 14 14 14 15 2 - 4ha 1 2 4 8 12 13 14 14 15 16 5 - 8ha 2 2 5 9 13 14 15 15 16 16 9 - 12ha 3 3 6 10 14 15 15 16 17 17 13-17 3 4 7 10 14 15 16 16 17 17 18-28 4 5 8 11 15 16 16 17 17 18 29-37 5 7 10 13 16 17 18 18 19 19 38-49 5 7 10 13 16 17 18 18 19 20 50-62 5 8 11 14 17 17 18 19 20 20 63-81 5 8 11 15 17 18 19 20 20 20 82-105 6 9 11 15 18 18 19 20 20 20 106-137 6 9 12 16 18 19 20 20 20 20 138-178 6 9 13 16 18 19 20 20 20 20 179-233 6 9 13 16 18 20 20 20 20 20 234-302 7 9 13 16 18 20 20 20 20 20 303-393 7 9 14 17 18 20 20 20 20 20 394-511 7 10 14 17 18 20 20 20 20 20 512-665 7 10 14 17 18 20 20 20 20 20 666-863 7 10 14 17 19 20 20 20 20 20 864-1123 8 12 15 17 19 20 20 20 20 20 1124-1460 8 12 15 17 19 20 20 20 20 20 1461-1898 8 13 15 18 19 20 20 20 20 20 1899-2467 8 14 16 18 20 20 20 20 20 20 >2467 8 14 16 18 20 20 20 20 20 20

Total Size Score (Social Component) 4.0

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record May 1994 Wetlands Manual 2.8 ABORIGINAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUES

Either or both Aboriginal or Cultural Values may be scored. However, the maximum score permitted for 2.8 is 30 points. Attach documentation.

2.8.1 ABORIGINAL VALUES

Full documentation of sources must be attached to the data record.

1) Significant = 30 points 2) Not Significant = 0 3) Unknown 0.0 = 0 Total: 0

2.8.2 CULTURAL HERITAGE

1) Significant = 30 points 2) Not Significant = 0 3) Unknown 0.0 = 0 Total: 0 Aboriginal Values/Cultural Heritage Score (maximum 30 points) 0.0

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetlands Manual 3.0 HYDROLOGICAL COMPONENT

3.1 FLOOD ATTENUATION Estimated&Calculated values can be obtained from G.I.S. data layers. If the wetland is a complex including isolated wetlands, apportion the l00 points according to area. For example if 10 ha of a l00 ha complex is isolated, the isolated portion receives the maximum proportional score of 10. The remainder of the wetland is then evaluated out of 90.

Step 1: Detennination of Maximum Score

Wetland is located on one of the defined 5 large lakes or 5 major rivers (Go to Step 4) Wetland is entirely isolated (i.e. not part of a complex) (Go to Step 4) x All other wetland types (Go through Steps 2,3 and 4B)

Step 2: Determination of Upstream Detention Factor (DF)

(a) Wetland area (ha) 2.93 (b) Total area (ha) of upstream detention areas 3.47 estimate (include the wetland itself) (c) Ratio of (a):(b) 0.84 (d) Upstream detention factor: (c) x 2 = 1.7 1.00 (maximum allowable factor = 1)

Step 3: Determination of Wetland Attenuation Factor (AF)

(a) Wetland area (ha) 2.93 (b) Size of catchment basin (ha) upstream of wetland (include wetland itself in catchment area) 284.00 calculate (c) Ratio of (a):(b) 0.01 (d) Wetland attenuation factor: (c) x 10 = 0.1 0.10 (maximum allowable factor = 1)

Step 4: Calculation of final score

(a) Wetlands on large lakes or major rivers 0

(b) Wetland entirely isolated l00

(b) All other wetlands --calculate as follows: (c * Complex Formula - Isolated portion 100.00 Initial Score 100 * Upstream detention factor (DF) (Step 2) 1.00 Wetland attenuation factor (AF) (Step 3) 0.10 Final score: [(DF + AF)/2] x Initial score = 55.16 (c * Final score:= 55 *Unless wetland is a complex with isolated portions (see above).

Flood Attenuation Score (maximum l00 points) 100.0

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record May 1994 Wetlands Manual 3.2 WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT

3.2.1 SHORT TERM WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT

Step 1: Determination of maximum initial score

Wetland on one of the 5 defined large lakes or 5 major rivers (Go to Step 5a) X All other wetlands (Go through Steps 2, 3, 4, and 5b)

Step 2: Determination of watershed improvement factor (WIF) Calculation of WIF is based on the fractional area (FA) of each site type that makes up the total area of the wetland.

(FA= area of site type/total area of wetland) Fractional Area

FA of isolated wetland 0.00 x 0.5 = 0.00 FA of riverine wetland 1.00 x 1 = 1.00 FA of palustrine wetland with no inflow x 0.7 = 0.00 FA of palustrine wetland with inflows 0.00 x 1 = 0.00 FA of lacustrine on lake shoreline 0.00 x 0.2 = 0.00 FA of lacustrine at lake inflow or outflow x 1 = 0.00 Sub Total: 1.00 Sum (WIF cannot exceed 1.0) 1.00

Step 3: Determination of catchment land use factor (LUF) (Choose the first category that fits upstream landuse in the catchment.)

1) 1.0 Over 50% agricultural and/or urban 1.0 2) Between 30 and 50% agricultural and/or urban 0.8 3) Over 50% forested or other natural vegetation 0.6

LUF (maximum 1.0) 1.00

Step 4: Determination of pollutant uptake factor (PUT) Calculation of PUT is based on the fractional area (FA) of each vegetation type that makes up the total area of the wetland. Base assessment on the dominant vegetation form for each community except where dead trees or shrubs dominate. In that case base assessment on the domininant live vegetation. (FA = area of vegetation type/total area of wetland)

FA of wetland with live trees, shrubs, Fractional Area herbs or mosses (c,h,ts,ls,gc,m) 1.00 x 0.75 = 0.75 FA of wetland with emergent, submergent or floating vegetation (re,be,ne,su,f,ff) 0.00 x 1 = 0.00

FA of wetland with little or no vegetation (u) 0.00 x 0.5 = 0.00 Subtotal: 0.75 Estimate FA from air photos or use default factor of "0.75" Sum (PUT cannot exceed 1.0) 0.75

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation,Data and Scoring Record May 1994 Wetlands Manual Step 5: Calculation of final score

(a) Wetland on large lakes or major rivers 0 (b) All other wetlands -calculate as follows Initial score 60 Water quality improvement factor (WQF) 1.00 Land use factor (LUF) 1.00 Pollutant uptake factor (PUT) 0.75

Final score: 60 x WQF x LUF x PUT = 45.00

Short Term Water Quality Improvement Score (maximum 60 points) 45

3.2.2 LONG TERM NUTRIENT TRAP Determine wetland type from aerial photos and soil type from OMAF soils maps. Step 1: Wetland on large lakes or 5 major rivers 0 points X All other wetlands (proceed to Step 2)

Step 2: Choose only one of the following settings that best describes the wetland being evaluated

1) Wetland located in a river mouth 10 points 2) Wetland is a bog, fen or swamp with more than 50% of the wetland being covered with organic soil 10 3) Wetland is a bog, fen or swamp with less than 50% of the wetland being covered with organic soil 3 4) Wetland is a marsh with more than 50% of the wetland covered with organic soil 3 5) 0 None of the above 0

Long Term Nutrient Trap Score (maximum 10 points) 0

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation March 1993 Wetlands Manual 3.2.3 GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE The final score will be underestimated since some of the wetland characteristics cannot be scored (Circle the characteristics that best describe the wetland being evaluated and then sum the scores. If the sum exceeds 30 points assign the maximum score of 30.)

Wetland Potential for Discharge Characteristics None to Little Some High Wetland type 1) Bog = 0 2) Swamp/Marsh = 2 2 3) Fen = 5 Topography 1) Flat/rolling = 0 0 2) Hilly = 2 3) Steep = 5 Wetland Large (>50%) = 0 Moderate (5-50%) Small <(5%) = 5 Area: Upslope = 2 5 Catchment Area Lagg Development 1) None found = 0 0 2) Minor = 2 3) Extensive = 5 Seeps 1) None = 0 0 2) = or < 3 seeps = 2 3) > 3 seeps = 5 Surface marl deposits 1) None = 0 0 2) = or < 3 sites = 2 3) > 3 sites = 5 Iron precipitates 1) None = 0 0 2) = or < 3 sites = 2 3) > 3 sites = 5 Located within 1 km N/A = 0 0 N/A = 0 Yes = 10 of a major aquifer Totals 025 (Scores are cumulative maximum score 30 points) Percentage of Catchment: 0.01 Groundwater Discharge Score (maximum 30 points) 7

3.3 CARBON SINK

Choose only one of the following

1) Bog, fen or swamp with more than 50% coverage by organic soil 5 points 2) Bog, fen or swamp with between 10 to 49% coverage by organic soil 2 3) Marsh with more than 50% coverage by organic soil 3 4) Wetlands not in one of the above categories 0 0

Carbon Sink Score (maximum 5 points) 0

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation Wetlands Manual 3.4 SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL Step 1: Determine from ortho-aerial photography Score

Wetland entirely isolated or palustrine 0 X Any part of the Wetland riverine or lacustrine (proceed to Step 2)

Step 2: Choose the one characteristic that best describes the shoreline vegetation (see text for a definition of shoreline) Score 1) 15 Trees and shrubs 15 2) Emergent vegetation 8 3) Submergent vegetation 6 4) Other shoreline vegetation 3 5) No vegetation 0

Shoreline Erosion Control Score (maximum 15 points) 15

3.5 GROUND WATER RECHARGE

3.5.1 WETLAND SITE TYPE Score (a) Wetland > 50% lacustrine (by area) or located on one of the five major rivers 0 0.00 (b) Wetland not as above. Calculate final score as follows: (FA= area of site type/total area of wetland)

Fractional Area

FA of isolated or palustrine wetland 0.00 x 50 = 0.0 FA of riverine wetland 1.00 x 20 = 20.0 FA of lacustrine wetland (wetland <50% lacustrine) 0.00 x 0 = 0.0 Subtotal: 20.0

Ground Water Recharge Wetland Site Type Component Score (maximum 50 points) 20

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetlands Manual 4.0 SPECIAL FEATURES COMPONENT

4.1 RARITY

4.1.1 WETLANDS Ref Map

Site District 6-5 Presence of wetland type (check one or more) Bog Fen X Swamp Marsh

Score for rarity within the landscape and rarity of the wetland type. Score for rarity of wetland type is cumulative (maximum 80 points) based on presence or absence. Score for Score for Rarity of Wetland Type Rarity within Slte District the Landscape Marsh Swamp Fen Bog 6-1 60 40 0 80 80 6-2 60 40 0 80 80 6-3 40 10 0 40 80 6-4 60 40 0 80 80 6-5 20 40 0 80 80 6-6 40 20 0 80 80 6-7 60 10 0 80 80 6-8 20 20 0 80 80 6-9 0 20 0 80 80 6-10 20 0 20 80 80 6-11 0 30 0 80 80 6-12 0 30 0 60 80 6-13 60 10 0 80 80 6-14 40 20 0 40 80 6-15 40 0 0 80 80 7-1 60 0 60 80 80 7-2 60 0 0 80 80 7-3 60 0 0 80 80 7-4 80 0 0 80 80 7-5 60 20 0 80 80 7-6 80 30 0 80 80

Rarity within the Landscape Score (maximum 80 points) 20 Rarity of Wetland Type Score (maximum 80 points) 0

The updated scores for rarity in Site Region 7-5 are in the stages of review and still require official confirmation.( June 8, 2004)

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record December 2002 Wetlands Manual 4.1.2 SPECIES Spp Ref

4.1.2.1 BREEDING HABITAT FOR AN ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES

Name of species Source of information

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Total: 0 Attach documentation.

Scoring:

For each species 250 points

(score is cumulative, no maximum score)

Breeding Habitat for Endangered or Threatened Species Score (no maximum) 0

4.1.2.2 TRADITIONAL MIGRATION OR FEEDING HABITAT FOR AN ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES Name of species Source of information 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Total: 0

Attach documentation. Scoring:

For one species 150 points For each additional species 75

(score is cumulative, no maximum score)

Traditional Habitat for Endangered Species Score (no maximum) 0

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation March 1993 Wetlands Manual 3.5.2 WETLAND SOIL RECHARGE POTENTIAL Determine from OMAF soils maps. (Circle only one choice that best describes the hydrologic soil class of the area surrounding the wetland being evaluated.)

Dominant Wetland Type 1) Sand, loam, gravel, till 2) Clay or bedrock 1) Lacustrine or on a major 0 0 river 2) Isolated 10 5 3) Palustrine 7 4 4) Riverine (not a major river) 5 2 2 Totals 02

Ground Water Recharge Wetland Soil Recharge Potential Score (maximum 10 points) 2

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetlands Manual 4.1.2.3 PROVINCIALLY SIGNIFICANT ANIMAL SPECIES Prov Ref

Name of species Source of information

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) 15) Attach separate list if necessary; Attach documentation

Scoring:

Number of provincially significant animal species in the wetland:

1 species = 50 points 14 species = 154 2 species = 80 15 species = 156 3 species = 95 16 species = 158 4 species = 105 17 species = 160 5 species = 115 18 species = 162 6 species = 125 19 species = 164 7 species = 130 20 species = 166 8 species = 135 21 species = 168 9 species = 140 22 species = 170 10 species = 143 23 species = 172 11 species = 146 24 species = 174 12 species = 149 25 species = 176 13 species = 152 Add one point for every species past 25 (for example, 26 species = 177 points, 27 species = 178 points etc.)

(no maximum score)

Provincially Significant Animal Species Score (no maximum) 0

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetlands Manual 4.1.2.4 PROVINCIALLY SIGNIFICANT PLANT SPECIES

(Scientific names must be recorded) Common Name Scientific Name Source of information

1) #REF! 2) #REF! 3) #REF! 4) #REF! 5) #REF! 6) #REF! 7) #REF! 8) #REF! 9) #REF! 10) #REF! 11) #REF! 12) #REF! 13) #REF! 14) #REF! 15) #REF!

Attach separate list if necessary; Attach documentation

Scoring:

Number of provincially significant plant species in the wetland:

Add one point for every species past 25 (for example, 26 species = 177 points, 27 species = 178 points etc.)

Provincially Significant Plant Species Score (no maximum) 0

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record December 2002 Wetlands Manual 4.1.2.5 REGIONALLY SIGNIFICANT SPECIES (SITE REGION) Spp Ref

Scientific names must be recorded for plant species. Lists of significant species must be approved by MNR.

SIGNIFICANT IN SITE REGION:

. Common Name Scientific Name Source of information

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) 15)

Attach separate list if necessary .Attach documentation.

Scoring:

No. of species significant in Site Region

1 species = 20 6 species = 55 2 species = 30 7 species = 58 3 species = 40 8 species = 61 4 species = 45 9 species = 64 5 species = 50 10 species = 67

Add one point for every species past 10. (no maximum score)

Regionally Significant Species Score (Site Region)(no maximum) 0

Shrubs Cornus stolonifera Red-osier Dogwood S5 G5 -3

Vine Echinocystis lobata Wild Cucumber S5 G5 -2

Graminoid Phalaris arundinacea Reed Canary Grass S5 G5 -4

Herb Aster lanceolatus ssp. lanceolatus Panicled Aster S5 G5 -3

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and ScoringRecord December 2002 Wetlands Manual 4.2.1.6 LOCALLY SIGNIFICANT SPECIES (SITE DISTRICT)

Scientific names must be recorded for plant species. Lists of significant species must be approved by MNR.

Common Name Scientific Name Source of information

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Attach separate list if necessary .Attach documentation.

Scoring:

No. of species significant in Site District

1 species = 10 6 species = 41 2 species = 17 7 species = 43 3 species = 24 8 species = 45 4 species = 31 9 species = 47 5 species = 38 10 species = 49

For each significant species over 10 in the wetland, add 1 point.

Locally Significant Species Score (Site District) (no maximum) 0

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation March 1993 Wetlands Manual 4.2 SIGNIFICANT FEATURES AND/OR FISH & WILDLIFE HABITAT

4.2.1 NESTING OF COLONIAL WATERBIRDS

Status Name of species Source of Information Score

1) Currently nesting 50

2) Known to have nested 25 within past 5 years

3) Active feeding area (Do not include feeding 15 by great blue herons)

4) None known 00

Consult the Ontario Heronry database at Bird Studies Canada. Subtotal: 0 Attach documentation (nest locations etc., if known)

Score highest applicable category only; maximum score 50 points.

Score for Nesting Colonial Waterbirds (maximum 50 points) 0

4.2.2. WINTER COVER FOR WILDLIFE Score "locally significant" if trees & shrubs are present, also consult District deer yard data. (Check only highest level of significance) Score (one only) 1) Provincially significant l00 2) Significant in Site Region 50 3) Significant in Site District 25 3) Locally significant 10 4) 0 Little or poor winter cover present 0

Source of information: Guelph Area Biologist: Art Timmerman

Winter Cover for Wildlife Score (maximum l00 points) 0

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetlands Manual 4.2.3 WATERFOWL STAGING AND/OR MOULTING

(Check only highest level of significance for both staging and moulting; score is cumulative across columns, maximum score 15

Staging Score Moulting Score (one only) (one only) 1) Nationally significant 150 150 2) Provincially significant 100 l00 3) Regionally significant 50 50 4) Known to occur 10 10 5) Not possible 0 0 6) Unknown 0 0 0 0 Total: 0 0 Subtotal: 0 Source of information: Dave Martin Waterfowl Moulting and Staging Score (maximum 150 points) 0

4.2.4 WATERFOWL BREEDING

(Check only highest level of significance) Score

1) Provincially significant l00 2) Regionally significant 50 3) Habitat suitable 10 4) 0 Habitat not suitable 0

Source of information: Dave Martin

Waterfowl Breeding Score (maximum lOO points) 0

4.2.5 MIGRATOR PASSERINE, SHOREBIRD OR RAPTOR STOPOVER AREA

(check highest applicable category)

1) Provincially significant l00 2) Significant in Site Region 50 3) Significant in Site District 10 4) 0 Not significant 0

Source of information: Dave Martin

Passerine, Shorebird or Raptor Stopover Score (maximum 100 points) 0

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetlands Manual 4.2.6 FISH HABITAT Consult District Fisheries files. If fish are present in the wetland, score 15 or 25 points depending on the size of the fish habitat 4.2.6. Spawning and Nursery Habitat present.

Table 5. Area Factors for Low Marsh, High Marsh, and Swamp Communities.

No. of ha of Fish Habitat Area Factor < 0.5 ha 0.1 0.5- 4.9 0.2 5.0- 9.9 0.4 10.0- 14.9 0.6 15.0 -19.9 0.8 20.0+ ha 1.0

Step 1:

0 Fish habitat is not present within the wetland (Score = 0)

Fish habitat is present within the wetland (Go to Step 2)

Step 2: Choose only one option

1) Significance of the spawning and nursery habitat within the wetland is known (Go to Step 3)

2) Significance of the spawning and nursery habitat within the wetland is not known (Go through Steps 4, 5, 6 and 7)

Step 3: Select the highest appropriate category below attach documentation:

1) Significant in Site Region l00 points

2) Significant in Site District 50

3) Locally Significant Habitat (5.0+ ha) 25

4) Locally Significant Habitat (<5.0 ha) 15

Score for Spawning and Nursery Habitat (maximum score 100 points) 0

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation March 1993 Wetlands Manual Step 4: Proceed to Steps 4 to 7 only if Step 3 was not answered.

(Low Marsh: marsh area from the existing water line out to the outer boundary of the wetland)

Low marsh not present (Continue to Step 5) Low marsh present (Score as follows)

Scoring for Presence of Key Vegetation Groups

Scoring is based on the one most clearly dominant plant species of the dominant form in each Low Marsh vegetation community. Check the appropriate Vegetation Group (see Appendix 16 Table 16-2) for each Low Marsh community. Sum the areas of the communities assigned to each Vegetation Group and multiply by the appropriate size factor from Table 5.

Vegetation Vegetation Present Total Area Score Final Group Number Group Name as a Area Factor Score Dominant (ha) (area Form (see factor (check) Table 5) x score)

1 Tallgrass 6 pts 0.0 2 Shortgrass-Sedge 11 0.0 3 Cattail-Bulrush-Burreed 5 0.0 4 Arrowhead-Pickerelweed 5 0.0 5 Duckweed 2 0.0 6 Smartweed-Waterwillow 6 0.0 7 Waterlily-Lotus 11 0.0 8 Waterweed-Watercress 9 0.0 9 Ribbongrass 10 0.0 10 Coontail-Naiad-Watermilfoil 13 0.0 11 Narrowleaf Pondweed 5 0.0 12 Broadleaf Pondweed 8 0.0 Sub Total Score (maximum 75 points) 0.0 Total Score (maximum 75 points) 0.0

Step 5: (High Marsh: area from the water line to the inland boundary of marsh wetland type. This is essentially what is commonly referred to as a wet meadow, in that there is insufficient standing water to provide fisheries habitat except during flood or high water conditions.)

High marsh not present (Continue to Step 6) High marsh present (Score as follows)

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation March 1993 Wetlands Manual Scoring for Presence of Key Vegetation Groups

Scoring is based on the one most clearly dominant plant species of the dominant form in each High 1Marsh vegetation community. Check the appropriate Vegetation Group (see Appendix 16 Table 16-2) for each High Marsh community. Sum the areas of the communities assigned to each Vegetation Group and multiply by the appropriate size factor from Table 5.

Vegetation Vegetation Present Total Area Score Final Group Number Group Name as a Area Factor Score Dominant (ha) (see (area Form Table 5) factor (check) x score) 1 Tallgrass 6 pts 0.0 2 Shortgrass-Sedge 11 0.0 3 Cattail-Bulrush-Burreed 5 0.0 4 Arrowhead-Pickerelweed 5 0.0 Sub Total Score (maximum 25 points) 0.0 Total Score (maximum 25 points) 0.0

Step 6: (Swamp: Swamp communities containing fish habitat,either seasonally or permanently. Determine the total area of seasonally flooded swamps and permanently flooded swamps containing fish habitat.)

Swamp containing fish habitat not present (Continue to Step 7) Swamp containing fish habitat present (Score as follows)

Swamp containing fish Present Total Area Factor Score TOTAL SCORE Habitat (check) area (ha) (see Table 5) (factor x score)

Seasonally flooded 10 0.0 Permanently flooded 10 0.0 Sub SCORE (maximum 20 points) 0.0 SCORE (maximum 20 points) 0.0

Step 7: Calculation of final score

Score for Spawning and Nursery Habitat (Low Marsh) (maximum 75) = 0.0

Score for Spawning and Nursery Habitat (High Marsh) (maximum 25) = 0.0

Score for Swamp Containing Fish Habitat (maximum 20) = 0.0 Subtotal: 0.0 Sum (maximum score 100 points) = 0.0

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation March 1993 Wetlands Manual 4.2.6.2 Migration and Staging Habitat Score only if information on fish migration and staging exists, e.g. migration of northern pike through a wetland to access Step 1: spawning areas.

1) 0 Staging or Migration Habitat is not present in the wetland (Score = 0)

2) Staging or Migration Habitat is present in the wetland significance of the habitat is known (Go to Step 2) 3) Staging or Migration Habitat is present in the wetland significance of the habitat is not known (Go to Step 3)

NOTE: Only one of Step 2 or Step 3 is to be scored.

Step 2: Select the highest appropriate category below, attach documentation: Score 1) Significant in Site Region 25 points

2) Significant in Site District 15

3) Locally Significant 10

4) Fish staging and/or migration habitat present,but not as above 5

Score for Fish Migration and Staging Habitat (maximum score 25 points) 0

Step 3: Select the highest appropriate category below based on presence of the designated site type (does not have to be dominant). See Section 1.1.3. Note name of river for 2) and 3).

Score 1) Wetland is riverine at rivermouth or lacustrine at rivermouth 25 points

2) Wetland is riverine,within 0.75 km of rivermouth 15

3) Wetland is lacustrine,within 0.75 km of rivermouth 10

4) Fish staging and/or migration habitat present, but not as above 5

Score for Staging and Migration Habitat (maximum score 25 points) 0

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation March 1993 Wetlands Manual 4.3 ECOSYSTEM AGE

(Fractional Area = area of wetland/total wetland area)

Fractional Area Scoring

Bog0.00 x 25 = 0.0 Fen, treed to open on deep soils floating mats or marl x 20 = 0.0 Fen, on limestone rock x 5 = 0.0 Swamp 1.00 x 3 = 3.0 Marsh 0.00 x 0 = 0.0 Sub Total: 3.0 Ecosystem Age Score (maximum 25 points) 3.0

4.4 GREAT LAKES COASTAL WETLANDS

Score for coastal (see text for definition) wetlands only

Choose one only

wetland < 10 ha = 0 points wetland 10- 50 ha = 25 wetland 51 -lOO ha = 50 wetland > 100 ha = 75

Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Score (maximum 75 points) 0

The wetland is not within the Coastal zone for either the Great Lakes or associated major rivers and as such will not be scored within this section.

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetlands Manual 5.0 EXTRA INFORMATION

5.1 PURPLE LOOSESTRIFE

X Absent/Not seen

Present (a) One location in wetland Two to many locations

Abundance code (b) (l < 20 stems (2 20-99 stems (3 100-999 stems (4 >1000 stems

5.2 SEASONALLY FLOODED AREAS

Check one or more

Ephemeral (less than 2 weeks) Temporal (2 weeks to 1 month) Seasonal (1 to 3 months) Semi-permanent (>3 months) No seasonal flooding

5.3 SPECIES OF SPECIAL SIGNIFICANCE

5.3.1 Osprey

Present and nesting Known to have nested in last 5 yr Feeding area for osprey Not as above X

5.3.2 Common Loon

Nesting in wetland Feeding at edge of wetland Observed or heard on lake or river adjoining the wetland Not as above X

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetlands Manual INVESTIGATORS AFFILIATION

Jennifer Noel, Allsion Featherstone LGL Limited Arnel Fausto, Rob Nisbit LGL Limited Dave Martin Dave Martin Peter and Sue Read, Linda Wladarski Dave Martin Ross Snider, James Holdsworth Dave Martin

DATES WETLAND VISITED January 3, February 2, March 27, June 6,7,8, 29 and July 1 of 2007; June 29, August 25, 2009 April 27, June 18, 20, 24, 25, July 3, November 16 2010

DATE THIS EVALUATION COMPLETED: November 18, 2010

ESTIMATED TIME DEVOTED TO COMPLETING THE FIELD SURVEY IN "PERSON HOURS" 160 hours

WEATHER CONDITIONS

i) at time of field work (Continue in the space below if necessary)

ii) summer conditions in general

OTHER POTENTIALLY USEFUL INFORMATION:

CHECKLIST OF PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES RECORDED IN THE WETLAND:

Attach a list of all flora and fauna observed in the wetland.

*Indicate if voucher specimens or photos have been obtained, where located, etc.

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation March 1993 Wetlands Manual WETLAND EVALUATION SCORING RECORD

WETLAND NAME AND/OR NUMBER Conestogo Wetland 1

1.0 BIOLOGICAL COMPONENT

1.1 PRODUCTIVITY

1.1.1 Growing Degree-Days/Soils 18.0 1.1.2 Wetland Type 8.0 1.1.3 Site Type 4.0

Total for Productivity 30

1.2 BIODIVERSITY

1.2.1 Number of Wetland Types 9.0 1.2.2 Vegetation Communities (maxixmum 45) 1.5 1.2.3 Diversity of Surrounding Habitat (maximum 7) 3.0 1.2.4 Proximinty to Other Wetlands 0.0 1.2.5 Interspersion 9.0 1.2.6 Open Water Type 8.0

Total for Biodiversity 31 Sub Total for Biodiversity 31 1.3 SIZE (Biological Component) 1

Sub Total: 62 TOTAL FOR BIOLOGICAL COMPONENT (not to exceed 250) 62

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Welland Evaluation March 1993 Wetlands Manual 2.0 SOCIAL COMPONENT

2.1 ECONOMICALLY VALUABLE PRODUCTS

2.1.1 Wood Products 0 2.1.2 Wild Rice 0 2.1.3 Commercial Fish 12 2.1.4 Bullfrogs 1 2.1.5 Snapping Turtles 0 2.1.6 Furbearers 9

Total for Economically Valuable Products 22

2.2 RECREATIONAl ACTIVITIES (maximum 80) 0

2.3 LANDSCAPE AESTHETICS

2.3.1 Distinctness 3 2.3.2 Absence of Human Disturbance 1

Total for Landscape Aesthetics 4

2.4 EDUCATION AND PUBLIC AWARENESS

2.4.1 Educational Uses 0 2.4.2 Facilities and Programs 0 2.4.3 Research and Studies 0

Total for Education and Public Awareness 0

2.5 PROXIMITY TO AREAS OF HUMAN SETTLEMENT 26

2.6 OWNERSH1P 4 Subtotal for Social Component 48.0 2.7 SIZE (Social Component) 4

2.8 ABORIGINAL AND CULTURAL VALUES 0

Sub Total: 60 TOTAL FOR SOCIAL COMPONENT (not to exceed 250) 60

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southem Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Score Summary March 1993 Wetlands Manual 3.0 HYDROLOGICAL COMPONENT

3.1 FLOOD ATTENUATION 55

3.2 WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT

3.2.1 Short Term Improvement 45.0 3.2.2 Long Term Improvement 0.0 3.2.3 Groundwater Discharge (maximum 30) 7.0

Total for Water Quality Improvement 52

3.3 CARBON SINK 0

3.4 SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL 15

3.5 GROUNDWATER RECHARGE

3.5.1 Site Type 20.00 3.5.2 Soils 2.0

Total for Groundwater Recharge 22 Sub Total: 144 TOTAL FOR HYDROLOGICAL COMPONENT (not to exceed 250) 144

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Score Summary December 2002 Wetlands Manual

4.0 SPECIAL FEATURES

4.1 RARITY

4.1.1 Wetlands 4.1.1.1 Rarity within the Landscape 20.0 4.1.1.2 Rarirty of Wetland Type (maximum 80) 0.0

Total for Wetland Rarity 20

4.1.2 Species 4.1.2.1 Endangered or Threatened Species Breeding 0.0 4.1.2.2 Traditional Use by Endangered or Threatened Species 0.0 4.1.2.3 Provincially Significant Animals 0.0 4.1.2.4 Provincially Significant Plants 0.0 4.1.2.5 Regionally Significant Species 0.0 4.1.2.6 Locally Significant Species 0.0

Total for Species Rarity 0

4.2 SIGNIFICANT FEATURES OR HABITAT

4.2.1 Colonial Waterbirds 0.0 4.2.2 Winter Cover for Wildlife 0.0 4.2.3 Waterfowl Staging and Moulting 0.0 4.2.4 Waterfowl Breeding 0.0 4.2.5 Migratory Passerine, Shorebird or Raptor Stopover 0.0 4.2.6 Fish Habitat 0.0

Total for Significant Features and Habitat 0

4.3 ECOSYSTEM AGE 3

4.4 GREAT LAKES COASTAL WETLANDS 0 Sub Total: 23 TOTAL FOR SPECIAL FEATURES (maximum 250) 23

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Score Summary March 1993 Wetlands Manual SUMMARY OF EVALUATION RESULT

Wetland Conestogo Wetland 1

TOTAL FOR 1.0 BIOLOGICAL COMPONENT 62

TOTAL FOR 2.0 SOCIAL COMPONENT 60

TOTAL FOR 3.0 HYDROLOGICAL COMPONENT 144

TOTAL FOR 4.0 SPECIAL FEATURES COMPONENT 23

WETLAND TOTAL 289

INVESTIGATORS Jennifer Noel, Allsion Featherstone Arnel Fausto, Rob Nisbit Dave Martin Peter and Sue Read, Linda Wladarski Ross Snider, James Holdsworth AFFILIATION LGL Limited LGL Limited Dave Martin Dave Martin Dave Martin

DATE November 18, 2010

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004

445 Catchment 480

Conestogo Wetland470 1 450 460

485

475 WELLINGTON 12 RD 465 450

450

470

480

455

475

475 480

480

460 455 455

470 475

470

SIXTEENTH LINE

12 SIDERD

465

15 SIDERD

460

470 475 470

465 470 470 470 Conestogo Wetland 2

Wetland Evaluation Edition 3rd

November 18, 2010

Comments The following evaluation was completed using polygon information derived from a "Geographic Information Layer" provided by GRCA. The wetland polygon's were identified from 2002 & 2006 Colour Ortho aerial photography provided by GRCA interactive website.

The analysis of significance was conducted as a result of the polygon being within 120 m a proposed windfarm project component. MNR was consulted to determine which wetlands within the project area could be complexed together based on distance and size (Art Timmerman).

Official Name: Conestogo Wetland 2 Evaluation Edition: 3rd Class: Wetland ID.: Wetland Significance Year/Month Last Evaluated November 18, 2010 Year/Month Last Updated Special Planning Considerations: Scores Wetland Area: 2.92 Biological: 79 Dentention Area: 8.45 Social: 55 Catchment Area: 267.00 Hydrological: 222 OMNR Source Guelph MNR, Art Timmerman Special Features: 70 Information Source Field Observation: Jennifer Noel Overall: 426 Submitted by: Jennifer Noel Date:

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetland Manual

WETLAND DATA AND SCORING RECORD

i) WETLAND NAME: Conestogo Wetland 2

ii) MNR ADMINISTRATIVE REGION: Central DISTRICT: Guelph

AREA OFFICE (if different from District):

iii) CONSERVATION AUTHORITY JURISDICTION: GRCA

(If not within a designated CA, check here:

iv) COUNTY OR REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY: Wellington County

v) TOWNSHIP: Peel geographic township

vi) LOTS & CONCESSIONS: Lot 6, Con 16; Lot 6 Con 15 (attach separate sheet if necessary)

vii) MAP AND AIR PHOTO REFERENCES

a) Latitude: 43 47 Longitude: 80 35

b) UTM grid reference: Zone: 17T Block: NJ Grid:E 330 Grid:N 487

c) National Topographic Series:

map name(s) Palmerston

map number(s) 40P/15 edition 4

scale 1 : 50,000

d) Aerial photographs: Date photo taken: 2006 Scale: digital

Flight & plate numbers: First Base Solution from GRCA

(attach separate sheet if necessary)

e) Ontario Base Map numbers & scale 1017530048450 scale 1 : 10,000

(attach separate sheets if necessary)

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Data Summery Form Code: Wetland Name: Conestogo Wetland 2

2.92 - Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetland Manual

viii) WETLAND SIZE AND BOUNDARIES

a) Single contiguous wetland area: 2.92 hectares

b) Wetland complex comprised of individual wetlands:

Wetland Unit Number Size of each (for reference) wetland unit

Ha Wetland Unit No. 1 2.92 Wetland Unit No. 2 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 3 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 4 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 5 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 6 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 7 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 8 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 9 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 10 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 11 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 12 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 13 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 14 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 15 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 16 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 17 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 18 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 19 0.00 Wetland Unit Totals: 2.92 (Attach additional sheets if necessary)

TOTAL WETLAND SIZE 2.92

c) Brief documentation of reasons for including any areas less than 0.5 ha in size:

(Attach separate sheets if necessary .)

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation. Data and Scoring Record May 1994 Wetland Manual 1.0 BIOLOGICAL COMPONENT

1.1 PRODUCTIVITY

1.1.1 GROWING DEGREE-DAYS/SOILS

GROWING DEGREE DAYS MAP SOILS (check one) Estimated Fractional Area 1) <2800 1.00 clay/loam 2) X 2800 -3200 0.00 silt/marl 3) 3200 -3600 0.00 limestone 4) 3600 -4000 0.00 sand 5) >4000 0.00 humic/mesic 0.00 fibric 0.00 granite

(maximum score 30; if wetland contains more than one soil type, evaluate based on the fractional area)

Steps required for evaluation: (maximum score 30 points)

Final Score Growing Degree-Days/Soils (maximum 30 points) 18

Bog 0.00 x 3 0.0 Fen 0.00 x 6 0.0 Swamp 0.00 x 8 0.0 Marsh 1.00 x 15 15.0 Subtotal: 15.0 Wetland type score (maximum 15 points) 15

1.1.3 SITE TYPE (Fractional Area = area of site type/total wetland area) Estimate from air photos Fractional Area Score

Isolated 0.00 x 1 = 0.00 Palustrine (permanent or intermittent flow) 1.00 x 2 = 2.00 Riverine 0.00 x 4 = 0.00 Riverine (at rivermouth) 0.00 x 5 = 0.00 Lacustrine (at rivermouth 0.00 x 5 = 0.00 Lacustrine (on enclosed bay, with barrier beach) 0.00 x 3 = 0.00 Lacustrine (exposed to lake) 0.00 x 2 = 0.00 Sub Total: 2.00 Site Type Score (maximum 5 points) 2

1.2 BIODIVERSITY

1.2.1 NUMBER OF WETLAND TYPES

(Check only one) Score

1) 9 one 9 points 2) two 13 3) three 20 4) four 30

Number of Wetland Types Score (maximum 30 points) 9

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation. Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetland Manual 1.2.2 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES Veg Ref

Communities should be grouped by number of forms. For example, 2 form communities might appear as follows:

2 forms

Code Forms Dominant Species

M6 re, ff re, Typha latifolia; ff, Lemna minor, Wolffia

S1 ts, gc ts, Salix discolor; gc, lmpatiens capensis, Thelypteris palustris

Note that the dominant species for each form are separated by a semicolon. The dominant species (maximum of 2) within a form are separated by commas.

Scoring:

+.5 each additional +.5 each additional + 1 each additional community = 1.5 community = community =

e.g., a wetland with 3 one form communities 4 two form communities 12 four form communities and 8 six form communities would score:

6 + 13.5 + 15 = 34.5 = 35 points SubTotal: 2

Vegetation Communities Score (maximum 45 points) 2

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetland Manual

Wetland Name: Conestogo Wetland 2

Wetland Size (ha): 2.92

Vegetation Form % area in which form is dominant

h 0.00

c 0.00

dh 0.00

dc 0.00

ts 0.00

ls 0.00

ds 0.00

gc 0.00

m 0.00

ne 100.00

be 0.00

re 0.00

ff 0.00

f 0.00

su 0.00

u (unvegetated) 0.00

Total = 100% 100.00

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetland Manual

1.2.3 DIVERSITY OF SURROUNDING HABITAT (Check all appropriate items(1)) Determine from air photos 1 row crop pasture abandoned agricultural land 1 deciduous forest coniferous forest mixed forest (at least 25% conifer and 75% deciduous or vice versa) abandoned pits and quarries open lake or deep river fence rows with cover, or shelterbelts terrain appreciably undulating,hilly,or with ravines 1 creek flood plain 3 Subtotal Diversity of Surrounding Habitat Score (1 for each, maximum 7 points) 3

1.2.4 PROXIMITY TO OTHER WETLANDS (Check first appropriate category only) Scoring Determine from air photos and other wetlands evaluations in the vicinity 1) 8 Hydrologically connected by surface water to other wetlands (different dominant wetlaI1d type) or to open lake or deep river within 1.5 km 8 points

2) Hydrologically connected by surface water to other wetlands (same dominant wetland type) within 0.5 km 8

3) Hydrologica11y connected by surface water to other wetlands (different dominant wetland type),or to open lake or deep river from 1.5 to 4 km away 5

4) Hydrologically connected by surface water to other wetlands (same dominant wetland type) from 0.5 to 1.5 km away 5

5) Within 0.75 km of other wetlands (different dominant wetland type) or open water body, but not hydrologically connected by surface water 5

6) Within 1 km of other wetlands,but not hydrologically connected by surface water 2

7) No wetland within 1 km 0

Proximity to other Wetlands Score (Choose one only, maximum 8 points) 8

1) 26 or less 3 2) 27 to 40 6 3) 41 to 60 9 9 4) 61 to 80 12 5) 81 to l00 15 6) 101 to 125 18 7) 126 to 150 21 8) 151 to 175 24 9) 176 to 200 27 10) >200 30

Interspersion Score (Choose one only maximum 30 points) 9

1.2.6 OPEN WATER TYPES Ref Determine from aerial photos. Permanently flooded: (Check one) Score

1) 8 type 1 8 2) type 2 8 3) type 3 14 4) type 4 20 5) type 5 30 6) type 6 8 7) type 7 14 8) type 8 3 9) no open water 0

Open Water Type Score (Choose one only maximum 30 points) 8

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario wetland Evaluation Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetland Manual

1.3 SIZE Score may be lower than actual if "Vegetation Community and Interspersion" have not been calculated.

2.9 hectares39 Subtotal for Biodiversity

Size Score (Biological Component) (maximum 5O points) 5

Evaluation Table Size Score (Biological component) Wetland Total Score for Biodiversity Subcomponent size (ha) <37 37-48 49-60 61-72 73-84 85-96 97- 109- 121- >132 108 120 132 <21 ha 1 5 798 17 25 34 43 50 21-40 5 7 8 9 10 19 28 37 46 50 41-60 6 8 9 10 11 21 31 40 49 50 61-80 7 9 10 11 13 23 34 43 50 50 81-100 8 10 11 13 15 25 37 46 50 50 101-120 9 11 13 15 18 28 40 49 50 50 121-140 10 13 15 17 21 31 43 50 50 50 141-160 11 15 17 19 23 34 46 50 50 50 161-180 13 17 19 21 25 37 49 50 50 50 181-200 15 19 21 23 28 40 50 50 50 50 201-400 17 21 23 25 31 43 50 50 50 50 401-600 19 23 25 28 34 46 50 50 50 50 601-800 21 25 28 31 37 49 50 50 50 50 801-1000 23 28 31 34 40 50 50 50 50 50 1001-1200 25 31 34 37 43 50 50 50 50 50 1201-1400 28 34 37 40 46 50 50 50 50 50 1401-1600 31 37 40 43 49 50 50 50 50 50 1601-1800 34 40 43 46 50 50 50 50 50 50 1801-2000 37 43 47 49 50 50 50 50 50 50 >2000 40 46 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetland Manual

2.0 SOCIAL COMPONENT

2.1 ECONOMICALLY VALUABLE PRODUCTS

Score 1) 0 <5 ha 0 2) 5 -25 ha 3 3) 26 -50 ha 6 4) 51- l00 ha 9 5) 101 -200 ha 12 6) >200 ha 18

Source of information: Field Observation: Jennifer Noel

Wood Products Score (Score one only, maximum 18 points) 0

2.1.2 WILD RICE (Check one) Score (Choose one) Present (minimum size 0.5 ha) 1) 6 points Absent 2) 0 0

Source of information: Field Observation: Jennifer Noel

Wild Rice Score (maximum 6 points) 0

2.1.3 COMMERCIAL FISH (BAIT FISH AND/OR COARSE FISH (Check one) Score (Choose one) Present 1) 12 12 points Habitat not suitable for fish 2) 0

Source of infolmation: Guelph MNR, Art Timmerman If any part of the wetland is riverine or the District fisheries files indicate presence of fish score"present" Commercial Fish Score (maximum 12 points) 12

2.1.4 BULLFROGS (Check one) Score (Choose one) Present 1) 1 1 points Absent 2) 0

Source of information: Field Observation: Jennifer Noel Dave Martin Bullfrog Score (maximum 1 point) 1

Source of information: Dave Martin

Snapping Turtle Score (maximum 1 point) 0

2.1.6 FURBEARERS Fur Ref (Consult Appendix 9)

Name of furbearer Source of information

1) raccoon 3 Dave Martin 2) red squirrel 3 Dave Martin 3) 4) 5) SubTotal 6

Scoring: 3 points for each species. maximum 12 Furbearer Score (maximum 12 points) 6

2.2 RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES

Hunting: Field Observation: Jennifer Noel

Nature: Field Observation: Jennifer Noel

Fishing: Field Observation: Jennifer Noel

Recreational Activities Score (maximum 80 points) 0

Landscape Distinctness Score (maximum 3 points) 3

2.3.2 ABSENCE OF HUMAN DISTURBANCE

Source of information: Field Observation: Jennifer Noel

Absence of Human Disturbance Score (maximum 7 points) 1

2.4 EDUCATION AND PUBLIC AWARENESS Optional: complete as time and scoring dictates. 2.4.1 EDUCATIONAL USES (Check one) Score (Choose one) Frequent 1) 20 points Infrequent 2) 12 No visits 3) 0 0

Source of information: Field Observation: Jennifer Noel Requires contact with Local Boards of Education. Educational Uses Score (maximum 20 points) 0

2.4.2 FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS

Source of information: Field Observation: Jennifer Noel

Facilities and Programs Score (maximum 8 points) 0 12

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record May 1994 Wetlands Manual 2.4.3 RESEARCH AND STUDIES (check appropriate spaces) Score Long term research has been done 12 points Research papers published in refereed scientific journal or as a thesis 10 One or more (non-research) reports have been written on some aspect of the wetland ' s flora fauna hydrology etc. 5 No research or reports 0 Subtotal: 0 Attach list of known reports by above categories Refer to ESPA, EPA and ANSI reports. Research and Studies Score (Score is cumulative, maximum 12 points) 0

2.5 PROXIMITY TO AREAS OF HUMAN SETTLEMENT Circle the highest applicable score

Name of settlement: Arthur 11,500

Proximity to Human Settlement Score (maximum 40 points) 26

Source of information: Guelph GIS Parcel layer:

Ownership Score (maximum 10 points) 4

Total Size Score (Social Component) 2.0

Either or both Aboriginal or Cultural Values may be scored. However, the maximum score permitted for 2.8 is 30 points. Attach documentation.

2.8.1 ABORIGINAL VALUES

Full documentation of sources must be attached to the data record.

1) Significant = 30 points 2) Not Significant = 0 3) Unknown 0.0 = 0 Total: 0

2.8.2 CULTURAL HERITAGE

1) Significant = 30 points 2) Not Significant = 0 3) Unknown 0.0 = 0 Total: 0 Aboriginal Values/Cultural Heritage Score (maximum 30 points) 0.0

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetlands Manual 3.0 HYDROLOGICAL COMPONENT

Step 1: Detennination of Maximum Score

Wetland is located on one of the defined 5 large lakes or 5 major rivers (Go to Step 4) X Wetland is entirely isolated (i.e. not part of a complex) (Go to Step 4) All other wetland types (Go through Steps 2,3 and 4B)

Step 2: Determination of Upstream Detention Factor (DF)

(a) Wetland area (ha) 2.92 (b) Total area (ha) of upstream detention areas 11.37 estimate (include the wetland itself) (c) Ratio of (a):(b) 0.26 (d) Upstream detention factor: (c) x 2 = 0.5 0.51 (maximum allowable factor = 1)

Step 3: Determination of Wetland Attenuation Factor (AF)

(a) Wetland area (ha) 2.92 (b) Size of catchment basin (ha) upstream of wetland (include wetland itself in catchment area) 267.00 calculate (c) Ratio of (a):(b) 0.01 (d) Wetland attenuation factor: (c) x 10 = 0.1 0.11 (maximum allowable factor = 1)

Step 4: Calculation of final score

(a) Wetlands on large lakes or major rivers 0

(b) Wetland entirely isolated l00

(b) All other wetlands --calculate as follows: (c * Complex Formula - Isolated portion 100.00 Initial Score 100 * Upstream detention factor (DF) (Step 2) 0.51 Wetland attenuation factor (AF) (Step 3) 0.11 Final score: [(DF + AF)/2] x Initial score = 31.15 (c * Final score:= 31 *Unless wetland is a complex with isolated portions (see above).

Flood Attenuation Score (maximum l00 points) 100.0

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record May 1994 Wetlands Manual 3.2 WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT

3.2.1 SHORT TERM WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT

Step 1: Determination of maximum initial score

Wetland on one of the 5 defined large lakes or 5 major rivers (Go to Step 5a) X All other wetlands (Go through Steps 2, 3, 4, and 5b)

Step 2: Determination of watershed improvement factor (WIF) Calculation of WIF is based on the fractional area (FA) of each site type that makes up the total area of the wetland.

(FA= area of site type/total area of wetland) Fractional Area

FA of isolated wetland 0.00 x 0.5 = 0.00 FA of riverine wetland 0.00 x 1 = 0.00 FA of palustrine wetland with no inflow x 0.7 = 0.00 FA of palustrine wetland with inflows 1.00 x 1 = 1.00 FA of lacustrine on lake shoreline 0.00 x 0.2 = 0.00 FA of lacustrine at lake inflow or outflow x 1 = 0.00 Sub Total: 1.00 Sum (WIF cannot exceed 1.0) 1.00

Step 3: Determination of catchment land use factor (LUF) (Choose the first category that fits upstream landuse in the catchment.)

1) 1.0 Over 50% agricultural and/or urban 1.0 2) Between 30 and 50% agricultural and/or urban 0.8 3) Over 50% forested or other natural vegetation 0.6

LUF (maximum 1.0) 1.00

FA of wetland with live trees, shrubs, Fractional Area herbs or mosses (c,h,ts,ls,gc,m) 0.00 x 0.75 = 0.00 FA of wetland with emergent, submergent or floating vegetation (re,be,ne,su,f,ff) 1.00 x 1 = 1.00

FA of wetland with little or no vegetation (u) 0.00 x 0.5 = 0.00 Subtotal: 1.00 Estimate FA from air photos or use default factor of "0.75" Sum (PUT cannot exceed 1.0) 1.00

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation,Data and Scoring Record May 1994 Wetlands Manual Step 5: Calculation of final score

Final score: 60 x WQF x LUF x PUT = 60.00

Short Term Water Quality Improvement Score (maximum 60 points) 60

Step 2: Choose only one of the following settings that best describes the wetland being evaluated

Long Term Nutrient Trap Score (maximum 10 points) 0

3.3 CARBON SINK

Choose only one of the following

Carbon Sink Score (maximum 5 points) 0

Wetland entirely isolated or palustrine 0 X Any part of the Wetland riverine or lacustrine (proceed to Step 2)

Step 2: Choose the one characteristic that best describes the shoreline vegetation (see text for a definition of shoreline) Score 1) Trees and shrubs 15 2) Emergent vegetation 8 3) Submergent vegetation 6 4) 3 Other shoreline vegetation 3 5) No vegetation 0

Shoreline Erosion Control Score (maximum 15 points) 3

3.5 GROUND WATER RECHARGE

3.5.1 WETLAND SITE TYPE Score (a) Wetland > 50% lacustrine (by area) or located on one of the five major rivers 0 (b) Wetland not as above. Calculate final score as follows: (FA= area of site type/total area of wetland)

Fractional Area

FA of isolated or palustrine wetland 1.00 x 50 = 50.0 FA of riverine wetland 0.00 x 20 = 0.0 FA of lacustrine wetland (wetland <50% lacustrine) 0.00 x 0 = 0.0 Subtotal: 50.0

Ground Water Recharge Wetland Site Type Component Score (maximum 50 points) 50

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetlands Manual 4.0 SPECIAL FEATURES COMPONENT

4.1 RARITY

4.1.1 WETLANDS Ref Map

Site District 6-5 Presence of wetland type (check one or more) Bog Fen Swamp X Marsh

Rarity within the Landscape Score (maximum 80 points) 20 Rarity of Wetland Type Score (maximum 80 points) 40

The updated scores for rarity in Site Region 7-5 are in the stages of review and still require official confirmation.( June 8, 2004)

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record December 2002 Wetlands Manual 4.1.2 SPECIES Spp Ref

4.1.2.1 BREEDING HABITAT FOR AN ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES

Name of species Source of information

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Total: 0 Attach documentation.

Scoring:

For each species 250 points

(score is cumulative, no maximum score)

Breeding Habitat for Endangered or Threatened Species Score (no maximum) 0

4.1.2.2 TRADITIONAL MIGRATION OR FEEDING HABITAT FOR AN ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES Name of species Source of information 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Total: 0

Attach documentation. Scoring:

For one species 150 points For each additional species 75

(score is cumulative, no maximum score)

Traditional Habitat for Endangered Species Score (no maximum) 0

Dominant Wetland Type 1) Sand, loam, gravel, till 2) Clay or bedrock 1) Lacustrine or on a major 0 0 river 2) Isolated 10 5 3) Palustrine 7 4 4) Riverine (not a major river) 5 2 2 Totals 02

Ground Water Recharge Wetland Soil Recharge Potential Score (maximum 10 points) 2

Name of species Source of information

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) 15) Attach separate list if necessary; Attach documentation

Scoring:

Number of provincially significant animal species in the wetland:

(no maximum score)

Provincially Significant Animal Species Score (no maximum) 0

(Scientific names must be recorded) Common Name Scientific Name Source of information

1) #REF! 2) #REF! 3) #REF! 4) #REF! 5) #REF! 6) #REF! 7) #REF! 8) #REF! 9) #REF! 10) #REF! 11) #REF! 12) #REF! 13) #REF! 14) #REF! 15) #REF!

Attach separate list if necessary; Attach documentation

Scoring:

Number of provincially significant plant species in the wetland:

Add one point for every species past 25 (for example, 26 species = 177 points, 27 species = 178 points etc.)

Provincially Significant Plant Species Score (no maximum) 0

Scientific names must be recorded for plant species. Lists of significant species must be approved by MNR.

SIGNIFICANT IN SITE REGION:

. Common Name Scientific Name Source of information

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) 15)

Attach separate list if necessary .Attach documentation.

Scoring:

No. of species significant in Site Region

1 species = 20 6 species = 55 2 species = 30 7 species = 58 3 species = 40 8 species = 61 4 species = 45 9 species = 64 5 species = 50 10 species = 67

Add one point for every species past 10. (no maximum score)

Regionally Significant Species Score (Site Region)(no maximum) 0

Shrubs Crataegus sp. #REF! #REF! #REF! Cornus stolonifera Red-osier Dogwood S5 G5 -3

Vine Echinocystis lobata Wild Cucumber S5 G5 -2

Graminoid Phalaris arundinacea Reed Canary Grass S5 G5 -4

Herb Aster lanceolatus ssp. lanceolatus Panicled Aster S5 G5 -3

Amphibians Rana clamitans Green Frog S5 G5 #REF!

Mammals Procyon lotor Raccoon S5 G5 #REF! Tamiasciurus hudsonicus Red Squirrel S5 G5 #REF!

Birds Carduelis tristis American Goldfinch S5B,SZN G5 N Turdus migratorius American Robin S5B,SZN G5 N Icterus galbula Baltimore Oriole S5B,SZN G5 N Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow S5B,SZN G5 N Poecile atricapillus Black-capped Chickadee S5 G5 N Molothrus ater Brown-headed Cowbird S5B,SZN G5 N Toxostoma rufum Brown Thrasher S5B,SZN G5 N Bombycilla cedrorum Cedar Waxwing S5B,SZN G5 N Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Cliff Swallow S5B,SZN G5 N Quiscalus quiscula Common Grackle S5B,SZN G5 N Geothlypis trichas Common Yellowthroat S5B,SZN G5 N Tyrannus tyrannus Eastern Kingbird S5B,SZN G5 N Sturnus vulgaris European Starling SE G5 N Dumetella carolinensis Gray Catbird S5B,SZN G5 N Eremophila alpestris Horned Lark S5B,SZN G5 N Troglodytes aedon House Wren S5B,SZN G5 N Charadrius vociferus Killdeer S5B,SZN G5 N Zenaida macroura Mourning Dove S5B,SZN G5 N Colaptes auratus Northern Flicker S5B,SZN G5 N Stelgidopteryx serripennis Northern Rough-winged Swallow S5B,SZN G5 N Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged Blackbird S5B,SZN G5 N Passerculus sandwichensis Savannah Sparrow S5B,SZN G5 N Melospiza melodia Song Sparrow S5B,SZN G5 N Tachycineta bicolor Tree Swallow S5B,SZN G5 N Vireo gilvus Warbling Vireo S5B,SZN G5 N Empidonax traillii Willow Flycatcher S5B,SZN G5 N Dendroica petechia Yellow Warbler S5B,SZN G5 N

Lepedoptra Pieris rapae Cabbage White SE G5 Speyeria cybele Great Spangled Fritillary S5 G5

Scientific names must be recorded for plant species. Lists of significant species must be approved by MNR.

Common Name Scientific Name Source of information

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Attach separate list if necessary .Attach documentation.

Scoring:

No. of species significant in Site District

1 species = 10 6 species = 41 2 species = 17 7 species = 43 3 species = 24 8 species = 45 4 species = 31 9 species = 47 5 species = 38 10 species = 49

For each significant species over 10 in the wetland, add 1 point.

Locally Significant Species Score (Site District) (no maximum) 0

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation March 1993 Wetlands Manual 4.2 SIGNIFICANT FEATURES AND/OR FISH & WILDLIFE HABITAT

4.2.1 NESTING OF COLONIAL WATERBIRDS

Status Name of species Source of Information Score

1) Currently nesting 50

2) Known to have nested 25 within past 5 years

3) Active feeding area (Do not include feeding 15 by great blue herons)

4) None known 00

Consult the Ontario Heronry database at Bird Studies Canada. Subtotal: 0 Attach documentation (nest locations etc., if known)

Score highest applicable category only; maximum score 50 points.

Score for Nesting Colonial Waterbirds (maximum 50 points) 0

Source of information: Dave Martin

Winter Cover for Wildlife Score (maximum l00 points) 0

(Check only highest level of significance for both staging and moulting; score is cumulative across columns, maximum score 15

Staging Score Moulting Score (one only) (one only) 1) Nationally significant 150 150 2) Provincially significant 100 l00 3) Regionally significant 50 50 4) Known to occur 10 10 5) Not possible 0 0 0 0 6) Unknown 0 0 Total: 0 0 Subtotal: 0 Source of information: Guelph MNR, Art Timmerman Waterfowl Moulting and Staging Score (maximum 150 points) 0

4.2.4 WATERFOWL BREEDING

(Check only highest level of significance) Score

1) Provincially significant l00 2) Regionally significant 50 3) 10 Habitat suitable 10 4) Habitat not suitable 0

Source of information: Dave Martin

Waterfowl Breeding Score (maximum lOO points) 10

4.2.5 MIGRATOR PASSERINE, SHOREBIRD OR RAPTOR STOPOVER AREA

(check highest applicable category)

1) Provincially significant l00 2) Significant in Site Region 50 3) Significant in Site District 10 4) X Not significant 0

Source of information:

Passerine, Shorebird or Raptor Stopover Score (maximum 100 points) 0

Table 5. Area Factors for Low Marsh, High Marsh, and Swamp Communities.

No. of ha of Fish Habitat Area Factor < 0.5 ha 0.1 0.5- 4.9 0.2 5.0- 9.9 0.4 10.0- 14.9 0.6 15.0 -19.9 0.8 20.0+ ha 1.0

Step 1:

0 Fish habitat is not present within the wetland (Score = 0)

Fish habitat is present within the wetland (Go to Step 2)

Step 2: Choose only one option

1) Significance of the spawning and nursery habitat within the wetland is known (Go to Step 3)

2) Significance of the spawning and nursery habitat within the wetland is not known (Go through Steps 4, 5, 6 and 7)

Step 3: Select the highest appropriate category below attach documentation:

1) Significant in Site Region l00 points

2) Significant in Site District 50

3) Locally Significant Habitat (5.0+ ha) 25

4) Locally Significant Habitat (<5.0 ha) 15

Score for Spawning and Nursery Habitat (maximum score 100 points) 0

(Low Marsh: marsh area from the existing water line out to the outer boundary of the wetland)

Low marsh not present (Continue to Step 5) Low marsh present (Score as follows)

Scoring for Presence of Key Vegetation Groups

Vegetation Vegetation Present Total Area Score Final Group Number Group Name as a Area Factor Score Dominant (ha) (area Form (see factor (check) Table 5) x score)

High marsh not present (Continue to Step 6) High marsh present (Score as follows)

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation March 1993 Wetlands Manual Scoring for Presence of Key Vegetation Groups

Vegetation Vegetation Present Total Area Score Final Group Number Group Name as a Area Factor Score Dominant (ha) (see (area Form Table 5) factor (check) x score) 1 Tallgrass x 2.93 6 pts 0.0 2 Shortgrass-Sedge 11 0.0 3 Cattail-Bulrush-Burreed 5 0.0 4 Arrowhead-Pickerelweed 5 0.0 Sub Total Score (maximum 25 points) 0.0 Total Score (maximum 25 points) 0.0

Swamp containing fish habitat not present (Continue to Step 7) Swamp containing fish habitat present (Score as follows)

Swamp containing fish Present Total Area Factor Score TOTAL SCORE Habitat (check) area (ha) (see Table 5) (factor x score)

Seasonally flooded 10 0.0 Permanently flooded 10 0.0 Sub SCORE (maximum 20 points) 0.0 SCORE (maximum 20 points) 0.0

Step 7: Calculation of final score

Score for Spawning and Nursery Habitat (Low Marsh) (maximum 75) = 0.0

Score for Spawning and Nursery Habitat (High Marsh) (maximum 25) = 0.0

Score for Swamp Containing Fish Habitat (maximum 20) = 0.0 Subtotal: 0.0 Sum (maximum score 100 points) = 0.0

1) X Staging or Migration Habitat is not present in the wetland (Score = 0)

NOTE: Only one of Step 2 or Step 3 is to be scored.

Step 2: Select the highest appropriate category below, attach documentation: Score 1) Significant in Site Region 25 points

2) Significant in Site District 15

3) Locally Significant 10

4) Fish staging and/or migration habitat present,but not as above 5

Score for Fish Migration and Staging Habitat (maximum score 25 points) 0

Step 3: Select the highest appropriate category below based on presence of the designated site type (does not have to be dominant). See Section 1.1.3. Note name of river for 2) and 3).

Score 1) Wetland is riverine at rivermouth or lacustrine at rivermouth 25 points

2) Wetland is riverine,within 0.75 km of rivermouth 15

3) Wetland is lacustrine,within 0.75 km of rivermouth 10

4) Fish staging and/or migration habitat present, but not as above 5

Score for Staging and Migration Habitat (maximum score 25 points) 0

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation March 1993 Wetlands Manual 4.3 ECOSYSTEM AGE

(Fractional Area = area of wetland/total wetland area)

Fractional Area Scoring

Bog0.00 x 25 = 0.0 Fen, treed to open on deep soils floating mats or marl x 20 = 0.0 Fen, on limestone rock x 5 = 0.0 Swamp 0.00 x 3 = 0.0 Marsh 1.00 x 0 = 0.0 Sub Total: 0.0 Ecosystem Age Score (maximum 25 points) 0.0

4.4 GREAT LAKES COASTAL WETLANDS

Score for coastal (see text for definition) wetlands only

Choose one only

wetland < 10 ha = 0 points wetland 10- 50 ha = 25 wetland 51 -lOO ha = 50 wetland > 100 ha = 75

Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Score (maximum 75 points) 0

The wetland is not within the Coastal zone for either the Great Lakes or associated major rivers and as such will not be scored within this section.

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetlands Manual 5.0 EXTRA INFORMATION

5.1 PURPLE LOOSESTRIFE

X Absent/Not seen

Present (a) One location in wetland Two to many locations

Abundance code (b) (l < 20 stems (2 20-99 stems (3 100-999 stems (4 >1000 stems

5.2 SEASONALLY FLOODED AREAS

Check one or more

Ephemeral (less than 2 weeks) Temporal (2 weeks to 1 month) Seasonal (1 to 3 months) Semi-permanent (>3 months) No seasonal flooding

5.3 SPECIES OF SPECIAL SIGNIFICANCE

5.3.1 Osprey

Present and nesting Known to have nested in last 5 yr Feeding area for osprey Not as above

5.3.2 Common Loon

Nesting in wetland Feeding at edge of wetland Observed or heard on lake or river adjoining the wetland Not as above X

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetlands Manual INVESTIGATORS AFFILIATION

Jennifer Noel, Allsion Featherstone LGL Limited Arnel Fausto, Rob Nisbit LGL Limited Dave Martin Dave Martin Peter and Sue Read, Linda Wladarski Dave Martin Ross Snider, James Holdsworth Dave Martin

DATES WETLAND VISITED January 3, February 2, March 27, June 6,7,8, 29 and July 1 of 2007; June 29, August 25, 2009 April 27, June 18, 20, 24, 25, July 3, November 16 2010

DATE THIS EVALUATION COMPLETED: November 18, 2010

ESTIMATED TIME DEVOTED TO COMPLETING THE FIELD SURVEY IN "PERSON HOURS" 160 Hours

WEATHER CONDITIONS

i) at time of field work (Continue in the space below if necessary)

ii) summer conditions in general

OTHER POTENTIALLY USEFUL INFORMATION:

CHECKLIST OF PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES RECORDED IN THE WETLAND:

Attach a list of all flora and fauna observed in the wetland.

*Indicate if voucher specimens or photos have been obtained, where located, etc.

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation March 1993 Wetlands Manual WETLAND EVALUATION SCORING RECORD

WETLAND NAME AND/OR NUMBER Conestogo Wetland 2

1.0 BIOLOGICAL COMPONENT

1.1 PRODUCTIVITY

1.1.1 Growing Degree-Days/Soils 18.0 1.1.2 Wetland Type 15.0 1.1.3 Site Type 2.0

Total for Productivity 35

1.2 BIODIVERSITY

1.2.1 Number of Wetland Types 9.0 1.2.2 Vegetation Communities (maxixmum 45) 1.5 1.2.3 Diversity of Surrounding Habitat (maximum 7) 3.0 1.2.4 Proximinty to Other Wetlands 8.0 1.2.5 Interspersion 9.0 1.2.6 Open Water Type 8.0

Total for Biodiversity 39 Sub Total for Biodiversity 39 1.3 SIZE (Biological Component) 5

Sub Total: 79 TOTAL FOR BIOLOGICAL COMPONENT (not to exceed 250) 79

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Welland Evaluation March 1993 Wetlands Manual 2.0 SOCIAL COMPONENT

2.1 ECONOMICALLY VALUABLE PRODUCTS

2.1.1 Wood Products 0 2.1.2 Wild Rice 0 2.1.3 Commercial Fish 12 2.1.4 Bullfrogs 1 2.1.5 Snapping Turtles 0 2.1.6 Furbearers 6

Total for Economically Valuable Products 19

2.2 RECREATIONAl ACTIVITIES (maximum 80) 0

2.3 LANDSCAPE AESTHETICS

2.3.1 Distinctness 3 2.3.2 Absence of Human Disturbance 1

Total for Landscape Aesthetics 4

2.4 EDUCATION AND PUBLIC AWARENESS

2.4.1 Educational Uses 0 2.4.2 Facilities and Programs 0 2.4.3 Research and Studies 0

Total for Education and Public Awareness 0

2.5 PROXIMITY TO AREAS OF HUMAN SETTLEMENT 26

2.6 OWNERSH1P 4 Subtotal for Social Component 45.0 2.7 SIZE (Social Component) 2

2.8 ABORIGINAL AND CULTURAL VALUES 0

Sub Total: 55 TOTAL FOR SOCIAL COMPONENT (not to exceed 250) 55

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southem Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Score Summary March 1993 Wetlands Manual 3.0 HYDROLOGICAL COMPONENT

3.1 FLOOD ATTENUATION 100

3.2 WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT

3.2.1 Short Term Improvement 60.0 3.2.2 Long Term Improvement 0.0 3.2.3 Groundwater Discharge (maximum 30) 7.0

Total for Water Quality Improvement 67

3.3 CARBON SINK 0

3.4 SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL 3

3.5 GROUNDWATER RECHARGE

3.5.1 Site Type 50.00 3.5.2 Soils 2.0

Total for Groundwater Recharge 52 Sub Total: 222 TOTAL FOR HYDROLOGICAL COMPONENT (not to exceed 250) 222

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Score Summary December 2002 Wetlands Manual

4.0 SPECIAL FEATURES

4.1 RARITY

4.1.1 Wetlands 4.1.1.1 Rarity within the Landscape 20.0 4.1.1.2 Rarirty of Wetland Type (maximum 80) 40.0

Total for Wetland Rarity 60

Total for Species Rarity 0

4.2 SIGNIFICANT FEATURES OR HABITAT

4.2.1 Colonial Waterbirds 0.0 4.2.2 Winter Cover for Wildlife 0.0 4.2.3 Waterfowl Staging and Moulting 0.0 4.2.4 Waterfowl Breeding 10.0 4.2.5 Migratory Passerine, Shorebird or Raptor Stopover 0.0 4.2.6 Fish Habitat 0.0

Total for Significant Features and Habitat 10

4.3 ECOSYSTEM AGE 0

4.4 GREAT LAKES COASTAL WETLANDS 0 Sub Total: 70 TOTAL FOR SPECIAL FEATURES (maximum 250) 70

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Score Summary March 1993 Wetlands Manual SUMMARY OF EVALUATION RESULT

Wetland Conestogo Wetland 2

TOTAL FOR 1.0 BIOLOGICAL COMPONENT 79

TOTAL FOR 2.0 SOCIAL COMPONENT 55

TOTAL FOR 3.0 HYDROLOGICAL COMPONENT 222

TOTAL FOR 4.0 SPECIAL FEATURES COMPONENT 70

WETLAND TOTAL 426

DATE November 18, 2010

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004

445 430 445 455 450 Catchment

Conestogo Wetland460 2

435 SIXTEENTH LINE

440 465

450

455

6 SIDERD 450

455 455

455

470

465

FOURTEENTH LINE WELLINGTON 12 RD

460

465

12 SIDERD

460

465

WELLINGTON 7 RD

445 475 470 445

475

450

475

440 475

455 470 450 460 Conestogo Wetland 3

Wetland Evaluation Edition 3rd

November 18, 2010

Official Name: Conestogo Wetland 3 Evaluation Edition: 3rd Class: Wetland ID.: Wetland Significance Year/Month Last Evaluated November 18, 2010 Year/Month Last Updated Special Planning Considerations: Scores Wetland Area: 8.45 Biological: 75 Dentention Area: 0.63 Social: 64 Catchment Area: 439.00 Hydrological: 171 OMNR Source Guelph MNR: Art Timmerman Special Features: 63 Information Source Field Observations: Noel: 2010 Overall: 373 Submitted by: Jennifer Noel Date:

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetland Manual

WETLAND DATA AND SCORING RECORD

i) WETLAND NAME: Conestogo Wetland 3

ii) MNR ADMINISTRATIVE REGION: Central DISTRICT: Guelph

AREA OFFICE (if different from District):

iii) CONSERVATION AUTHORITY JURISDICTION: GRCA

(If not within a designated CA, check here:

iv) COUNTY OR REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY: Wellington County

v) TOWNSHIP: Peel geographic township

vi) LOTS & CONCESSIONS: Lot 9, Con 15; Lot 8 Con 15, Lot 9 Con 15; Lot 10 Con 15; (attach separate sheet if necessary) Lot 8 con 15; Lot 9 Con 15

vii) MAP AND AIR PHOTO REFERENCES

a) Latitude: 43 46 Longitude: 80 30

b) UTM grid reference: Zone: 17T Block: NJ Grid:E 338 Grid:N 470

c) National Topographic Series:

map name(s) Palmerston

map number(s) 40P/15 edition 4

scale 1 : 50,000

d) Aerial photographs: Date photo taken: 2006 Scale: digital

Flight & plate numbers: 2006 First Base Solution airphotos from GRCA

(attach separate sheet if necessary)

e) Ontario Base Map numbers & scale 1017530048450 scale 1 : 10,000

(attach separate sheets if necessary)

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Data Summery Form Code: Wetland Name:

FISH WETLAND DOMINATE COMMUNITY COMMUNITY # OF % OPEN ha OPEN HABITAT UNIT # FORM WETLAND TYPE CODE SUB_CODE AREA (ha) SITE TYPE SOIL FORMS FORMS WATER WATER (LM / HM) Dominate Species Additional Species COMMENTS 1 h Swamp S1 6.41 Riverine clay/loam h,ts, ne 3 - 2 h Swamp S2 1.40 Palustrine clay/loam h 1 - 3 ne Marsh M3 0.16 Isolated clay/loam ne 1 - 4 h Swamp S4 0.48 Isolated clay/loam h 1 ------

8.45 - Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetland Manual

viii) WETLAND SIZE AND BOUNDARIES

a) Single contiguous wetland area: 8.45 hectares

b) Wetland complex comprised of individual wetlands:

Wetland Unit Number Size of each (for reference) wetland unit

Ha Wetland Unit No. 1 6.41 Wetland Unit No. 2 1.40 Wetland Unit No. 3 0.16 Wetland Unit No. 4 0.48 Wetland Unit No. 5 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 6 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 7 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 8 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 9 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 10 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 11 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 12 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 13 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 14 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 15 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 16 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 17 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 18 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 19 0.00 Wetland Unit Totals: 8.45 (Attach additional sheets if necessary)

TOTAL WETLAND SIZE 8.45

c) Brief documentation of reasons for including any areas less than 0.5 ha in size:

the one wetland less than 0.5 hectares contains seeps, permanent water and wetland plants.

(Attach separate sheets if necessary .)

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation. Data and Scoring Record May 1994 Wetland Manual 1.0 BIOLOGICAL COMPONENT

1.1 PRODUCTIVITY

1.1.1 GROWING DEGREE-DAYS/SOILS

(maximum score 30; if wetland contains more than one soil type, evaluate based on the fractional area)

Steps required for evaluation: (maximum score 30 points)

Final Score Growing Degree-Days/Soils (maximum 30 points) 18

Bog 0.00 x 3 0.0 Fen 0.00 x 6 0.0 Swamp 0.98 x 8 7.8 Marsh 0.02 x 15 0.3 Subtotal: 8.1 Wetland type score (maximum 15 points) 8

1.1.3 SITE TYPE (Fractional Area = area of site type/total wetland area) Estimate from air photos Fractional Area Score

Isolated 0.08 x 1 = 0.08 Palustrine (permanent or intermittent flow) 0.17 x 2 = 0.33 Riverine 0.76 x 4 = 3.03 Riverine (at rivermouth) 0.00 x 5 = 0.00 Lacustrine (at rivermouth 0.00 x 5 = 0.00 Lacustrine (on enclosed bay, with barrier beach) 0.00 x 3 = 0.00 Lacustrine (exposed to lake) 0.00 x 2 = 0.00 Sub Total: 3.44 Site Type Score (maximum 5 points) 3

1.2 BIODIVERSITY

1.2.1 NUMBER OF WETLAND TYPES

(Check only one) Score

1) 9 one 9 points 2) two 13 3) three 20 4) four 30

Number of Wetland Types Score (maximum 30 points) 9

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation. Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetland Manual 1.2.2 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES Veg Ref

Communities should be grouped by number of forms. For example, 2 form communities might appear as follows:

2 forms

Code Forms Dominant Species

M6 re, ff re, Typha latifolia; ff, Lemna minor, Wolffia

S1 ts, gc ts, Salix discolor; gc, lmpatiens capensis, Thelypteris palustris

Note that the dominant species for each form are separated by a semicolon. The dominant species (maximum of 2) within a form are separated by commas.

Scoring:

+.5 each additional +.5 each additional + 1 each additional community = 4.5 community = community =

e.g., a wetland with 3 one form communities 4 two form communities 12 four form communities and 8 six form communities would score:

6 + 13.5 + 15 = 34.5 = 35 points SubTotal: 5

Vegetation Communities Score (maximum 45 points) 5

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetland Manual

Wetland Name: Conestogo Wetland 3

Wetland Size (ha): 8.45

Vegetation Form % area in which form is dominant

h 98.11

c 0.00

dh 0.00

dc 0.00

ts 0.00

ls 0.00

ds 0.00

gc 0.00

m 0.00

ne 1.89

be 0.00

re 0.00

ff 0.00

f 0.00

su 0.00

u (unvegetated) 0.00

Total = 100% 100.00

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetland Manual

1.2.3 DIVERSITY OF SURROUNDING HABITAT (Check all appropriate items(1)) Determine from air photos 1 row crop 1 pasture abandoned agricultural land deciduous forest coniferous forest mixed forest (at least 25% conifer and 75% deciduous or vice versa) abandoned pits and quarries open lake or deep river fence rows with cover, or shelterbelts terrain appreciably undulating,hilly,or with ravines creek flood plain 2 Subtotal Diversity of Surrounding Habitat Score (1 for each, maximum 7 points) 2

2) Hydrologically connected by surface water to other wetlands (same dominant wetland type) within 0.5 km 8

3) Hydrologica11y connected by surface water to other wetlands (different dominant wetland type),or to open lake or deep river from 1.5 to 4 km away 5

4) Hydrologically connected by surface water to other wetlands (same dominant wetland type) from 0.5 to 1.5 km away 5

5) Within 0.75 km of other wetlands (different dominant wetland type) or open water body, but not hydrologically connected by surface water 5

6) Within 1 km of other wetlands,but not hydrologically connected by surface water 2

7) No wetland within 1 km 0

Proximity to other Wetlands Score (Choose one only, maximum 8 points) 8

1) 26 or less 3 2) 27 to 40 6 3) 41 to 60 9 9 4) 61 to 80 12 5) 81 to l00 15 6) 101 to 125 18 7) 126 to 150 21 8) 151 to 175 24 9) 176 to 200 27 10) >200 30

Interspersion Score (Choose one only maximum 30 points) 9

1.2.6 OPEN WATER TYPES Ref Determine from aerial photos. Permanently flooded: (Check one) Score

1) 8 type 1 8 2) type 2 8 3) type 3 14 4) type 4 20 5) type 5 30 6) type 6 8 7) type 7 14 8) type 8 3 9) no open water 0

Open Water Type Score (Choose one only maximum 30 points) 8

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario wetland Evaluation Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetland Manual

1.3 SIZE Score may be lower than actual if "Vegetation Community and Interspersion" have not been calculated.

8.5 hectares41 Subtotal for Biodiversity

Size Score (Biological Component) (maximum 5O points) 5

Evaluation Table Size Score (Biological component) Wetland Total Score for Biodiversity Subcomponent size (ha) <37 37-48 49-60 61-72 73-84 85-96 97- 109- 121- >132 108 120 132 <21 ha 1 5 798 17 25 34 43 50 21-40 5 7 8 9 10 19 28 37 46 50 41-60 6 8 9 10 11 21 31 40 49 50 61-80 7 9 10 11 13 23 34 43 50 50 81-100 8 10 11 13 15 25 37 46 50 50 101-120 9 11 13 15 18 28 40 49 50 50 121-140 10 13 15 17 21 31 43 50 50 50 141-160 11 15 17 19 23 34 46 50 50 50 161-180 13 17 19 21 25 37 49 50 50 50 181-200 15 19 21 23 28 40 50 50 50 50 201-400 17 21 23 25 31 43 50 50 50 50 401-600 19 23 25 28 34 46 50 50 50 50 601-800 21 25 28 31 37 49 50 50 50 50 801-1000 23 28 31 34 40 50 50 50 50 50 1001-1200 25 31 34 37 43 50 50 50 50 50 1201-1400 28 34 37 40 46 50 50 50 50 50 1401-1600 31 37 40 43 49 50 50 50 50 50 1601-1800 34 40 43 46 50 50 50 50 50 50 1801-2000 37 43 47 49 50 50 50 50 50 50 >2000 40 46 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetland Manual

2.0 SOCIAL COMPONENT

2.1 ECONOMICALLY VALUABLE PRODUCTS

Score 1) <5 ha 0 2) 3 5 -25 ha 3 3) 26 -50 ha 6 4) 51- l00 ha 9 5) 101 -200 ha 12 6) >200 ha 18

Source of information: Field Observations: Noel: 2010

Wood Products Score (Score one only, maximum 18 points) 3

2.1.2 WILD RICE (Check one) Score (Choose one) Present (minimum size 0.5 ha) 1) 6 points Absent 2) 0 0

Source of information: Field Observations: Noel: 2010

Wild Rice Score (maximum 6 points) 0

2.1.3 COMMERCIAL FISH (BAIT FISH AND/OR COARSE FISH (Check one) Score (Choose one) Present 1) 12 12 points Habitat not suitable for fish 2) 0

Source of infolmation: Guelph MNR: Art Timmerman If any part of the wetland is riverine or the District fisheries files indicate presence of fish score"present" Commercial Fish Score (maximum 12 points) 12

2.1.4 BULLFROGS (Check one) Score (Choose one) Present 1) 1 1 points Absent 2) 0

Source of information: Dave Martin Bullfrog Score (maximum 1 point) 1

Source of information: Field Observations: Noel: 2010 Dave Martin Snapping Turtle Score (maximum 1 point) 0

2.1.6 FURBEARERS Fur Ref (Consult Appendix 9)

Name of furbearer Source of information

1) raccoon 3 Field Observations: Noel: 2010 2) red squirrel 3 Dave Martin 3) cayote 3 Field Observations: Noel: 2010 4) Field Observations: Noel: 2010 5) Field Observations: Noel: 2010 SubTotal 9

Scoring: 3 points for each species. maximum 12 Furbearer Score (maximum 12 points) 9

2.2 RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES

Type of Wetland-Associated Use Nature Enjoyment/ Intensity of Use Hunting Fishing Ecosystem Study High 40 points 40 points 40 points Moderate 20 20 20 Low 8 8 8 Not possible/NotKnown 0 0000 Totals 0000 (score one level for each of the three wetland uses; scores are cumulative; maximum score 80 points) Sources of information:

Hunting:

Nature:

Fishing:

Recreational Activities Score (maximum 80 points) 0

Landscape Distinctness Score (maximum 3 points) 3

2.3.2 ABSENCE OF HUMAN DISTURBANCE

Source of information: Field Observations: Noel: 2010 cattle grazing within the floodplain of the creek, dumping Absence of Human Disturbance Score (maximum 7 points) 1

2.4 EDUCATION AND PUBLIC AWARENESS Optional: complete as time and scoring dictates. 2.4.1 EDUCATIONAL USES (Check one) Score (Choose one) Frequent 1) 20 points Infrequent 2) 12 No visits 3) 0 0

Source of information: Field Observations: Noel: 2010 Requires contact with Local Boards of Education. Educational Uses Score (maximum 20 points) 0

2.4.2 FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS

Source of information: Field Observations: Noel: 2010

Facilities and Programs Score (maximum 8 points) 0 12

2.5 PROXIMITY TO AREAS OF HUMAN SETTLEMENT Circle the highest applicable score

Name of settlement: Arthur population 11, 500

Proximity to Human Settlement Score (maximum 40 points) 26

Source of information: Genivar property ownership layer

Ownership Score (maximum 10 points) 4

Total Size Score (Social Component) 5.0

Either or both Aboriginal or Cultural Values may be scored. However, the maximum score permitted for 2.8 is 30 points. Attach documentation.

2.8.1 ABORIGINAL VALUES

Full documentation of sources must be attached to the data record.

1) Significant = 30 points 2) Not Significant = 0 3) Unknown 0.0 = 0 Total: 0

2.8.2 CULTURAL HERITAGE

1) Significant = 30 points 2) Not Significant = 0 3) Unknown 0.0 = 0 Total: 0 Aboriginal Values/Cultural Heritage Score (maximum 30 points) 0.0

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetlands Manual 3.0 HYDROLOGICAL COMPONENT

Step 1: Detennination of Maximum Score

Wetland is located on one of the defined 5 large lakes or 5 major rivers (Go to Step 4) Wetland is entirely isolated (i.e. not part of a complex) (Go to Step 4) X All other wetland types (Go through Steps 2,3 and 4B)

Step 2: Determination of Upstream Detention Factor (DF)

(a) Wetland area (ha) 7.81 (b) Total area (ha) of upstream detention areas 9.08 estimate (include the wetland itself) (c) Ratio of (a):(b) 0.86 (d) Upstream detention factor: (c) x 2 = 1.7 1.00 (maximum allowable factor = 1)

Step 3: Determination of Wetland Attenuation Factor (AF)

(a) Wetland area (ha) 7.81 (b) Size of catchment basin (ha) upstream of wetland (include wetland itself in catchment area) 439.00 calculate (c) Ratio of (a):(b) 0.02 (d) Wetland attenuation factor: (c) x 10 = 0.2 0.18 (maximum allowable factor = 1)

Step 4: Calculation of final score

(a) Wetlands on large lakes or major rivers 0

(b) Wetland entirely isolated l00

(b) All other wetlands --calculate as follows: (c * Complex Formula - Isolated portion 92.43 Initial Score 100 * Upstream detention factor (DF) (Step 2) 1.00 Wetland attenuation factor (AF) (Step 3) 0.18 Final score: [(DF + AF)/2] x Initial score = 58.90 (c * Final score:= 62 *Unless wetland is a complex with isolated portions (see above).

Flood Attenuation Score (maximum l00 points) 62.0

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record May 1994 Wetlands Manual 3.2 WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT

3.2.1 SHORT TERM WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT

Step 1: Determination of maximum initial score

Wetland on one of the 5 defined large lakes or 5 major rivers (Go to Step 5a) X All other wetlands (Go through Steps 2, 3, 4, and 5b)

Step 2: Determination of watershed improvement factor (WIF) Calculation of WIF is based on the fractional area (FA) of each site type that makes up the total area of the wetland.

(FA= area of site type/total area of wetland) Fractional Area

FA of isolated wetland 0.08 x 0.5 = 0.04 FA of riverine wetland 0.76 x 1 = 0.76 FA of palustrine wetland with no inflow x 0.7 = 0.00 FA of palustrine wetland with inflows 0.17 x 1 = 0.17 FA of lacustrine on lake shoreline 0.00 x 0.2 = 0.00 FA of lacustrine at lake inflow or outflow x 1 = 0.00 Sub Total: 0.96 Sum (WIF cannot exceed 1.0) 0.96

Step 3: Determination of catchment land use factor (LUF) (Choose the first category that fits upstream landuse in the catchment.)

1) 1.0 Over 50% agricultural and/or urban 1.0 2) Between 30 and 50% agricultural and/or urban 0.8 3) Over 50% forested or other natural vegetation 0.6

LUF (maximum 1.0) 1.00

FA of wetland with live trees, shrubs, Fractional Area herbs or mosses (c,h,ts,ls,gc,m) 0.98 x 0.75 = 0.74 FA of wetland with emergent, submergent or floating vegetation (re,be,ne,su,f,ff) 0.02 x 1 = 0.02

FA of wetland with little or no vegetation (u) 0.00 x 0.5 = 0.00 Subtotal: 0.75 Estimate FA from air photos or use default factor of "0.75" Sum (PUT cannot exceed 1.0) 0.75

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation,Data and Scoring Record May 1994 Wetlands Manual Step 5: Calculation of final score

(a) Wetland on large lakes or major rivers 0 (b) All other wetlands -calculate as follows Initial score 60 Water quality improvement factor (WQF) 0.96 Land use factor (LUF) 1.00 Pollutant uptake factor (PUT) 0.75

Final score: 60 x WQF x LUF x PUT = 43.57

Short Term Water Quality Improvement Score (maximum 60 points) 44

Step 2: Choose only one of the following settings that best describes the wetland being evaluated

1) Wetland located in a river mouth 10 points 2) Wetland is a bog, fen or swamp with more than 50% of the wetland being covered with organic soil 10 3) 3 Wetland is a bog, fen or swamp with less than 50% of the wetland being covered with organic soil 3 4) Wetland is a marsh with more than 50% of the wetland covered with organic soil 3 5) None of the above 0

Long Term Nutrient Trap Score (maximum 10 points) 3

Wetland Potential for Discharge Characteristics None to Little Some High Wetland type 1) Bog = 0 2) Swamp/Marsh = 2 2 3) Fen = 5 Topography 1) Flat/rolling = 0 0 2) Hilly = 2 3) Steep = 5 Wetland Large (>50%) = 0 Moderate (5-50%) Small <(5%) = 5 Area: Upslope = 2 5 Catchment Area Lagg Development 1) None found = 0 0 2) Minor = 2 3) Extensive = 5 Seeps 1) None = 0 2) = or < 3 seeps = 2 2 3) > 3 seeps = 5 Surface marl deposits 1) None = 0 0 2) = or < 3 sites = 2 3) > 3 sites = 5 Iron precipitates 1) None = 0 0 2) = or < 3 sites = 2 3) > 3 sites = 5 Located within 1 km N/A = 0 N/A = 0 Yes = 10 of a major aquifer 0 Totals 045 (Scores are cumulative maximum score 30 points) Percentage of Catchment: 0.02 Groundwater Discharge Score (maximum 30 points) 9

3.3 CARBON SINK

Choose only one of the following

Carbon Sink Score (maximum 5 points) 0

Wetland entirely isolated or palustrine 0 X Any part of the Wetland riverine or lacustrine (proceed to Step 2)

Shoreline Erosion Control Score (maximum 15 points) 15

3.5 GROUND WATER RECHARGE

Fractional Area

FA of isolated or palustrine wetland 0.24 x 50 = 12.1 FA of riverine wetland 0.76 x 20 = 15.2 FA of lacustrine wetland (wetland <50% lacustrine) 0.00 x 0 = 0.0 Subtotal: 27.2

Ground Water Recharge Wetland Site Type Component Score (maximum 50 points) 27

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetlands Manual 4.0 SPECIAL FEATURES COMPONENT

4.1 RARITY

4.1.1 WETLANDS Ref Map

Site District 6-5 Presence of wetland type (check one or more) Bog Fen X Swamp X Marsh

Rarity within the Landscape Score (maximum 80 points) 20 Rarity of Wetland Type Score (maximum 80 points) 40

The updated scores for rarity in Site Region 7-5 are in the stages of review and still require official confirmation.( June 8, 2004)

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record December 2002 Wetlands Manual 4.1.2 SPECIES Spp Ref

4.1.2.1 BREEDING HABITAT FOR AN ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES

Name of species Source of information

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Total: 0 Attach documentation.

Scoring:

For each species 250 points

(score is cumulative, no maximum score)

Breeding Habitat for Endangered or Threatened Species Score (no maximum) 0

4.1.2.2 TRADITIONAL MIGRATION OR FEEDING HABITAT FOR AN ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES Name of species Source of information 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Total: 0

Attach documentation. Scoring:

For one species 150 points For each additional species 75

(score is cumulative, no maximum score)

Traditional Habitat for Endangered Species Score (no maximum) 0

Dominant Wetland Type 1) Sand, loam, gravel, till 2) Clay or bedrock 1) Lacustrine or on a major 0 0 river 2) Isolated 10 5 5 3) Palustrine 7 4 4 4) Riverine (not a major river) 5 2 2 Totals 011

Ground Water Recharge Wetland Soil Recharge Potential Score (maximum 10 points) 11

Name of species Source of information

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) 15) Attach separate list if necessary; Attach documentation

Scoring:

Number of provincially significant animal species in the wetland:

(no maximum score)

Provincially Significant Animal Species Score (no maximum) 0

(Scientific names must be recorded) Common Name Scientific Name Source of information

1) #REF! 2) #REF! 3) #REF! 4) #REF! 5) #REF! 6) #REF! 7) #REF! 8) #REF! 9) #REF! 10) #REF! 11) #REF! 12) #REF! 13) #REF! 14) #REF! 15) #REF!

Attach separate list if necessary; Attach documentation

Scoring:

Number of provincially significant plant species in the wetland:

Add one point for every species past 25 (for example, 26 species = 177 points, 27 species = 178 points etc.)

Provincially Significant Plant Species Score (no maximum) 0

Scientific names must be recorded for plant species. Lists of significant species must be approved by MNR.

SIGNIFICANT IN SITE REGION:

. Common Name Scientific Name Source of information

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) 15)

Attach separate list if necessary .Attach documentation.

Scoring:

No. of species significant in Site Region

1 species = 20 6 species = 55 2 species = 30 7 species = 58 3 species = 40 8 species = 61 4 species = 45 9 species = 64 5 species = 50 10 species = 67

Add one point for every species past 10. (no maximum score)

Regionally Significant Species Score (Site Region)(no maximum) 0

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Additional Species Scienctific Name Common Name S Rank G Rank Wet CoE Plants Equisetum arvense field horsetail G5 S5 0 Thuja occidentalis eastern white cedar G5 S5 -3 Caltha palustris marsh-marigold G5 S5 -5 Ulmus americana white elm G5? S5 -2 Betula alleghaniensis yellow birch G5 S5 0 Ostrya virginiana ironwood G5 S5 4 Rumex crispus curly-leaf dock G? SE5 -1 Tilia americana basswood G5 S5 3 Viola pubescens downy yellow violet G5 S5 4 Viola sororia woolly blue violet G5 S5 1 Viola sp. violet Echinocystis lobata prickly cucumber G5 S5 -2 Populus balsamifera ssp. balsamifera balsam poplar G5T? S5 -3 Populus tremuloides trembling aspen G5 S5 0 Salix sp. willow ? Barbarea vulgaris yellow rocket G? SE5 0 Lysimachia ciliata fringed loosestrife G5 S5 -3 Ribes rubrum red currant G4G5 SE5 5 Agrimonia sp. agrimony Crataegus sp. hawthorn Fragaria virginiana ssp. virginiana scarlet strawberry G5T? SU 1 Geum aleppicum yellow avens G5 S5 -1 Prunus virginiana var. virginiana choke cherry G5T? S5 1 Waldsteinia fragarioides barren strawberry G5 S5 5 Cornus alternifolia alternate-leaved dogwood G5 S5 5 Cornus sericea ssp. sericea red-osier dogwood G5 S5 -3 Rhamnus cathartica common buckthorn G? SE5 3 Acer saccharinum silver maple G5 S5 -3 Geranium robertianum herb-robert G5 SE5 5 Impatiens capensis spotted touch-me-not G5 S5 -3 Daucus carota wild carrot G? SE5 5 Hydrophyllum virginianum Virginia water-leaf G5 S5 -2 Fraxinus pennsylvanica red ash G5 S5 -3 Veronica anagallis-aquatica water speedwell G5 SE5 -5 Viburnum lentago nannyberry G5 S5 -1 Arctium minus common burdock G?T? SE5 5 Aster sp. aster Cirsium arvense Canada thistle G? SE5 3 Leucanthemum vulgare ox-eye daisy G? SE5 5 Solidago canadensis canada goldenrod G5 S5 3 Solidago canadensis var. scabra tall goldenrod G5 S5 3 Symphyotrichum lanceolatum var. panicled aster G5T5? S5 -3 hesperium Taraxacum officinale common dandelion G5 SE5 3 Tussilago farfara coltsfoot G? SE5 3 Juncus sp. rush Carex sp. sedge Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani American great bulrush G? S5 -5 Agrostis stolonifera redtop G5 S5 -3 Phalaris arundinacea reed canary grass G5 S5 -4 Eleocharis sp. spike-rush Typha latifolia broad-leaved cattail G5 S5 -5 Erythronium americanum ssp. yellow dog's-tooth violet G5T5 S5 5 americanum Iris versicolor multi-coloured blue-flag G5 S5 -5

Birds Corvus brachyrhynchos American Crow S5B,SZN G5 Carduelis tristis American Goldfinch S5B,SZN G5 Turdus migratorius American Robin S5B,SZN G5 Icterus galbula Baltimore Oriole S5B,SZN G5 Molothrus ater Brown-headed Cowbird S5B,SZN G5 Bombycilla cedrorum Cedar Waxwing S5B,SZN G5 Quiscalus quiscula Common Grackle S5B,SZN G5 Picoides pubescens Downy Woodpecker S5 G5 Sturnus vulgaris European Starling SE G5 Dumetella carolinensis Gray Catbird S5B,SZN G5 Troglodytes aedon House Wren S5B,SZN G5 Passerina cyanea Indigo Bunting S5B,SZN G5 Colaptes auratus Northern Flicker S5B,SZN G5 Dryocopus pileatus Pileated Woodpecker S4S5 G5 Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed Hawk S5B,SZN G5 Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged Blackbird S5B,SZN G5 Passerculus sandwichensis Savannah Sparrow S5B,SZN G5 Melospiza melodia Song Sparrow S5B,SZN G5 Pooecetes gramineus Vesper Sparrow S4B,SZN G5

Amphibians Rana clamitans Green Frog S5 G5

Mammals Canis latrans Coyote S5 G5 Procyon lotor Raccoon S5 G5 Odocoileus virginianus White-tailed Deer S5 G5

Leptodora Thymelicus lineola European Skipper SE G5 Euphyes vestris Dun Skipper S5 G5 Polygonia comma Eastern Comma S5 G5 Nymphalis antiopa Mourning Cloak S5 G5 Vanessa atalanta Red Admiral SZB G5

Odonata Anax junius Common Green Darner S5 G5 Coenagrion sp. Bluet sp. Ischnura verticalis Eastern Forktail S5 G5

Scientific names must be recorded for plant species. Lists of significant species must be approved by MNR.

Common Name Scientific Name Source of information

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Attach separate list if necessary .Attach documentation.

Scoring:

No. of species significant in Site District

1 species = 10 6 species = 41 2 species = 17 7 species = 43 3 species = 24 8 species = 45 4 species = 31 9 species = 47 5 species = 38 10 species = 49

For each significant species over 10 in the wetland, add 1 point.

Locally Significant Species Score (Site District) (no maximum) 0

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation March 1993 Wetlands Manual 4.2 SIGNIFICANT FEATURES AND/OR FISH & WILDLIFE HABITAT

4.2.1 NESTING OF COLONIAL WATERBIRDS

Status Name of species Source of Information Score

1) Currently nesting 50

2) Known to have nested 25 within past 5 years

3) Active feeding area (Do not include feeding 15 by great blue herons)

4) None known 00

Consult the Ontario Heronry database at Bird Studies Canada. Subtotal: 0 Attach documentation (nest locations etc., if known)

Score highest applicable category only; maximum score 50 points.

Score for Nesting Colonial Waterbirds (maximum 50 points) 0

Source of information: Dave Martin

Winter Cover for Wildlife Score (maximum l00 points) 0

(Check only highest level of significance for both staging and moulting; score is cumulative across columns, maximum score 15

Staging Score Moulting Score (one only) (one only) 1) Nationally significant 150 150 2) Provincially significant 100 l00 3) Regionally significant 50 50 4) Known to occur 10 10 5) Not possible 0 0 0 0 6) Unknown 0 0 Total: 0 0 Subtotal: 0 Source of information: Guelph MNR: Art Timmerman Waterfowl Moulting and Staging Score (maximum 150 points) 0

4.2.4 WATERFOWL BREEDING

(Check only highest level of significance) Score

1) Provincially significant l00 2) Regionally significant 50 3) X Habitat suitable 10 4) Habitat not suitable 0

Source of information: Guelph MNR: Art Timmerman

Waterfowl Breeding Score (maximum lOO points) 0

4.2.5 MIGRATOR PASSERINE, SHOREBIRD OR RAPTOR STOPOVER AREA

(check highest applicable category)

1) Provincially significant l00 2) Significant in Site Region 50 3) Significant in Site District 10 4) X Not significant 0

Source of information: Guelph MNR: Art Timmerman

Passerine, Shorebird or Raptor Stopover Score (maximum 100 points) 0

Table 5. Area Factors for Low Marsh, High Marsh, and Swamp Communities.

No. of ha of Fish Habitat Area Factor < 0.5 ha 0.1 0.5- 4.9 0.2 5.0- 9.9 0.4 10.0- 14.9 0.6 15.0 -19.9 0.8 20.0+ ha 1.0

Step 1:

0 Fish habitat is not present within the wetland (Score = 0)

Fish habitat is present within the wetland (Go to Step 2)

Step 2: Choose only one option

1) Significance of the spawning and nursery habitat within the wetland is known (Go to Step 3)

2) Significance of the spawning and nursery habitat within the wetland is not known (Go through Steps 4, 5, 6 and 7)

Step 3: Select the highest appropriate category below attach documentation:

1) Significant in Site Region l00 points

2) Significant in Site District 50

3) Locally Significant Habitat (5.0+ ha) 25

4) Locally Significant Habitat (<5.0 ha) 15

Score for Spawning and Nursery Habitat (maximum score 100 points) 0

(Low Marsh: marsh area from the existing water line out to the outer boundary of the wetland)

Low marsh not present (Continue to Step 5) Low marsh present (Score as follows)

Scoring for Presence of Key Vegetation Groups

Vegetation Vegetation Present Total Area Score Final Group Number Group Name as a Area Factor Score Dominant (ha) (area Form (see factor (check) Table 5) x score)

High marsh not present (Continue to Step 6) High marsh present (Score as follows)

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation March 1993 Wetlands Manual Scoring for Presence of Key Vegetation Groups

Swamp containing fish habitat not present (Continue to Step 7) Swamp containing fish habitat present (Score as follows)

Swamp containing fish Present Total Area Factor Score TOTAL SCORE Habitat (check) area (ha) (see Table 5) (factor x score)

Seasonally flooded 10 0.0 Permanently flooded x 10 0.0 Sub SCORE (maximum 20 points) 0.0 SCORE (maximum 20 points) 0.0

Step 7: Calculation of final score

Score for Spawning and Nursery Habitat (Low Marsh) (maximum 75) = 0.0

Score for Spawning and Nursery Habitat (High Marsh) (maximum 25) = 0.0

Score for Swamp Containing Fish Habitat (maximum 20) = 0.0 Subtotal: 0.0 Sum (maximum score 100 points) = 0.0

1) X Staging or Migration Habitat is not present in the wetland (Score = 0)

NOTE: Only one of Step 2 or Step 3 is to be scored.

Step 2: Select the highest appropriate category below, attach documentation: Score 1) Significant in Site Region 25 points

2) Significant in Site District 15

3) Locally Significant 10

4) Fish staging and/or migration habitat present,but not as above 5

Score for Fish Migration and Staging Habitat (maximum score 25 points) 0

Step 3: Select the highest appropriate category below based on presence of the designated site type (does not have to be dominant). See Section 1.1.3. Note name of river for 2) and 3).

Score 1) Wetland is riverine at rivermouth or lacustrine at rivermouth 25 points

2) Wetland is riverine,within 0.75 km of rivermouth 15

3) Wetland is lacustrine,within 0.75 km of rivermouth 10

4) Fish staging and/or migration habitat present, but not as above 5

Score for Staging and Migration Habitat (maximum score 25 points) 0

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation March 1993 Wetlands Manual 4.3 ECOSYSTEM AGE

(Fractional Area = area of wetland/total wetland area)

Fractional Area Scoring

Bog0.00 x 25 = 0.0 Fen, treed to open on deep soils floating mats or marl x 20 = 0.0 Fen, on limestone rock x 5 = 0.0 Swamp 0.98 x 3 = 2.9 Marsh 0.02 x 0 = 0.0 Sub Total: 2.9 Ecosystem Age Score (maximum 25 points) 2.9

4.4 GREAT LAKES COASTAL WETLANDS

Score for coastal (see text for definition) wetlands only

Choose one only

wetland < 10 ha = 0 points wetland 10- 50 ha = 25 wetland 51 -lOO ha = 50 wetland > 100 ha = 75

Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Score (maximum 75 points) 0

The wetland is not within the Coastal zone for either the Great Lakes or associated major rivers and as such will not be scored within this section.

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetlands Manual 5.0 EXTRA INFORMATION

5.1 PURPLE LOOSESTRIFE

X Absent/Not seen

Present (a) One location in wetland Two to many locations

Abundance code (b) (l < 20 stems (2 20-99 stems (3 100-999 stems (4 >1000 stems

5.2 SEASONALLY FLOODED AREAS

Check one or more

Ephemeral (less than 2 weeks) Temporal (2 weeks to 1 month) Seasonal (1 to 3 months) Semi-permanent (>3 months) X No seasonal flooding

5.3 SPECIES OF SPECIAL SIGNIFICANCE

5.3.1 Osprey

Present and nesting Known to have nested in last 5 yr Feeding area for osprey Not as above X

5.3.2 Common Loon

Nesting in wetland Feeding at edge of wetland Observed or heard on lake or river adjoining the wetland Not as above X

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetlands Manual INVESTIGATORS AFFILIATION

Jennifer Noel, Allsion Featherstone LGL Limited Arnel Fausto, Rob Nisbit LGL Limited Dave Martin Dave Martin Peter and Sue Read, Linda Wladarski Dave Martin Ross Snider, James Holdsworth Dave Martin

DATES WETLAND VISITED January 3, February 2, March 27, June 6,7,8, 29 and July 1 of 2007; June 29, August 25, 2009 April 27, June 18, 20, 24, 25, July 3, November 16 2010

DATE THIS EVALUATION COMPLETED: November 18, 2010

ESTIMATED TIME DEVOTED TO COMPLETING THE FIELD SURVEY IN "PERSON HOURS" 160 hours

WEATHER CONDITIONS

i) at time of field work (Continue in the space below if necessary)

ii) summer conditions in general

OTHER POTENTIALLY USEFUL INFORMATION:

CHECKLIST OF PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES RECORDED IN THE WETLAND:

Attach a list of all flora and fauna observed in the wetland.

*Indicate if voucher specimens or photos have been obtained, where located, etc.

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation March 1993 Wetlands Manual WETLAND EVALUATION SCORING RECORD

WETLAND NAME AND/OR NUMBER Conestogo Wetland 3

1.0 BIOLOGICAL COMPONENT

1.1 PRODUCTIVITY

1.1.1 Growing Degree-Days/Soils 18.0 1.1.2 Wetland Type 8.1 1.1.3 Site Type 3.4

Total for Productivity 30

1.2 BIODIVERSITY

1.2.1 Number of Wetland Types 9.0 1.2.2 Vegetation Communities (maxixmum 45) 4.5 1.2.3 Diversity of Surrounding Habitat (maximum 7) 2.0 1.2.4 Proximinty to Other Wetlands 8.0 1.2.5 Interspersion 9.0 1.2.6 Open Water Type 8.0

Total for Biodiversity 41 Sub Total for Biodiversity 41 1.3 SIZE (Biological Component) 5

Sub Total: 75 TOTAL FOR BIOLOGICAL COMPONENT (not to exceed 250) 75

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Welland Evaluation March 1993 Wetlands Manual 2.0 SOCIAL COMPONENT

2.1 ECONOMICALLY VALUABLE PRODUCTS

2.1.1 Wood Products 3 2.1.2 Wild Rice 0 2.1.3 Commercial Fish 12 2.1.4 Bullfrogs 1 2.1.5 Snapping Turtles 0 2.1.6 Furbearers 9

Total for Economically Valuable Products 25

2.2 RECREATIONAl ACTIVITIES (maximum 80) 0

2.3 LANDSCAPE AESTHETICS

2.3.1 Distinctness 3 2.3.2 Absence of Human Disturbance 1

Total for Landscape Aesthetics 4

2.4 EDUCATION AND PUBLIC AWARENESS

2.4.1 Educational Uses 0 2.4.2 Facilities and Programs 0 2.4.3 Research and Studies 0

Total for Education and Public Awareness 0

2.5 PROXIMITY TO AREAS OF HUMAN SETTLEMENT 26

2.6 OWNERSH1P 4 Subtotal for Social Component 51.0 2.7 SIZE (Social Component) 5

2.8 ABORIGINAL AND CULTURAL VALUES 0

Sub Total: 64 TOTAL FOR SOCIAL COMPONENT (not to exceed 250) 64

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southem Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Score Summary March 1993 Wetlands Manual 3.0 HYDROLOGICAL COMPONENT

3.1 FLOOD ATTENUATION 62

3.2 WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT

3.2.1 Short Term Improvement 43.6 3.2.2 Long Term Improvement 3.0 3.2.3 Groundwater Discharge (maximum 30) 9.0

Total for Water Quality Improvement 56

3.3 CARBON SINK 0

3.4 SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL 15

3.5 GROUNDWATER RECHARGE

3.5.1 Site Type 27.24 3.5.2 Soils 11.0

Total for Groundwater Recharge 38 Sub Total: 171 TOTAL FOR HYDROLOGICAL COMPONENT (not to exceed 250) 171

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Score Summary December 2002 Wetlands Manual

4.0 SPECIAL FEATURES

4.1 RARITY

4.1.1 Wetlands 4.1.1.1 Rarity within the Landscape 20.0 4.1.1.2 Rarirty of Wetland Type (maximum 80) 40.0

Total for Wetland Rarity 60

Total for Species Rarity 0

4.2 SIGNIFICANT FEATURES OR HABITAT

Total for Significant Features and Habitat 0

4.3 ECOSYSTEM AGE 3

4.4 GREAT LAKES COASTAL WETLANDS 0 Sub Total: 63 TOTAL FOR SPECIAL FEATURES (maximum 250) 63

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Score Summary March 1993 Wetlands Manual SUMMARY OF EVALUATION RESULT

Wetland Conestogo Wetland 3

TOTAL FOR 1.0 BIOLOGICAL COMPONENT 75

TOTAL FOR 2.0 SOCIAL COMPONENT 64

TOTAL FOR 3.0 HYDROLOGICAL COMPONENT 171

TOTAL FOR 4.0 SPECIAL FEATURES COMPONENT 63

WETLAND TOTAL 373

DATE November 18, 2010

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004

455

445 455 Catchment455 Conestogo Wetland 3

455 465 450

WELLINGTON 12 RD 460

465

465 450

FOURTEENTH LINE

460

465

470

450 455 12 SIDERD 465 Conestogo Wetland 4

Wetland Evaluation Edition 3rd

November 18, 2010

Wetland assessed from the road. Was not given permission to access the property to conduct a more detailed assessment of the area.

Official Name: Conestogo Wetland 4 Evaluation Edition: 3rd Class: Wetland ID.: Wetland Significance Year/Month Last Evaluated November 18, 2010 Year/Month Last Updated Special Planning Considerations: Scores Wetland Area: 3.76 Biological: 55 Dentention Area: 0 Social: 39 Catchment Area: 27.00 Hydrological: 203 OMNR Source Guelph MNR Art Timmerman Special Features: 23 Information Source Field Observations: Noel:2010 Overall: 320 Submitted by: Jennifer Noel Date:

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetland Manual

WETLAND DATA AND SCORING RECORD

i) WETLAND NAME: Conestogo Wetland 4

ii) MNR ADMINISTRATIVE REGION: Central DISTRICT: Guelph

AREA OFFICE (if different from District):

iii) CONSERVATION AUTHORITY JURISDICTION: GRCA

(If not within a designated CA, check here:

iv) COUNTY OR REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY: Wellington County

v) TOWNSHIP: Peel Geographic Township

vi) LOTS & CONCESSIONS: Lot 8, Con 14 (attach separate sheet if necessary)

vii) MAP AND AIR PHOTO REFERENCES

a) Latitude: 43 46 Longitude: 80 35

b) UTM grid reference: Zone: 17T Block: NJ Grid:E 332 Grid:N 468

c) National Topographic Series:

map name(s) Palmeston

map number(s) 40P/15 edition 4

scale 1 : 50,000

d) Aerial photographs: Date photo taken: 2006 Scale: digital

Flight & plate numbers: First Base Solution from GRCA

(attach separate sheet if necessary)

e) Ontario Base Map numbers & scale 1017530048450 scale 1 : 10,000

(attach separate sheets if necessary)

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Data Summery Form Code: Wetland Name:

3.76 - Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetland Manual

viii) WETLAND SIZE AND BOUNDARIES

a) Single contiguous wetland area: 3.76 hectares

b) Wetland complex comprised of individual wetlands:

Wetland Unit Number Size of each (for reference) wetland unit

Ha Wetland Unit No. 1 3.76 Wetland Unit No. 2 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 3 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 4 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 5 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 6 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 7 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 8 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 9 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 10 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 11 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 12 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 13 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 14 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 15 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 16 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 17 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 18 0.00 Wetland Unit No. 19 0.00 Wetland Unit Totals: 3.76 (Attach additional sheets if necessary)

TOTAL WETLAND SIZE 3.76

c) Brief documentation of reasons for including any areas less than 0.5 ha in size:

(Attach separate sheets if necessary .)

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation. Data and Scoring Record May 1994 Wetland Manual 1.0 BIOLOGICAL COMPONENT

1.1 PRODUCTIVITY

1.1.1 GROWING DEGREE-DAYS/SOILS

(maximum score 30; if wetland contains more than one soil type, evaluate based on the fractional area)

Steps required for evaluation: (maximum score 30 points)

Final Score Growing Degree-Days/Soils (maximum 30 points) 18

Bog 0.00 x 3 0.0 Fen 0.00 x 6 0.0 Swamp 1.00 x 8 8.0 Marsh 0.00 x 15 0.0 Subtotal: 8.0 Wetland type score (maximum 15 points) 8

1.1.3 SITE TYPE (Fractional Area = area of site type/total wetland area) Estimate from air photos Fractional Area Score

1.2 BIODIVERSITY

1.2.1 NUMBER OF WETLAND TYPES

(Check only one) Score

1) one 9 points 2) 13 two 13 3) three 20 4) four 30

Number of Wetland Types Score (maximum 30 points) 13

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation. Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetland Manual 1.2.2 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES Veg Ref

Communities should be grouped by number of forms. For example, 2 form communities might appear as follows:

2 forms

Code Forms Dominant Species

M6 re, ff re, Typha latifolia; ff, Lemna minor, Wolffia

S1 ts, gc ts, Salix discolor; gc, lmpatiens capensis, Thelypteris palustris

Note that the dominant species for each form are separated by a semicolon. The dominant species (maximum of 2) within a form are separated by commas.

Scoring:

+.5 each additional +.5 each additional + 1 each additional community = 2.5 community = community =

e.g., a wetland with 3 one form communities 4 two form communities 12 four form communities and 8 six form communities would score:

6 + 13.5 + 15 = 34.5 = 35 points SubTotal: 3

Vegetation Communities Score (maximum 45 points) 3

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetland Manual

Wetland Name: Conestogo Wetland 4

Wetland Size (ha): 3.76

Vegetation Form % area in which form is dominant

h 100.00

c 0.00

dh 0.00

dc 0.00

ts 0.00

ls 0.00

ds 0.00

gc 0.00

m 0.00

ne 0.00

be 0.00

re 0.00

ff 0.00

f 0.00

su 0.00

u (unvegetated) 0.00

Total = 100% 100.00

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetland Manual

2) Hydrologically connected by surface water to other wetlands (same dominant wetland type) within 0.5 km 8

3) Hydrologica11y connected by surface water to other wetlands (different dominant wetland type),or to open lake or deep river from 1.5 to 4 km away 5

4) Hydrologically connected by surface water to other wetlands (same dominant wetland type) from 0.5 to 1.5 km away 5

5) Within 0.75 km of other wetlands (different dominant wetland type) or open water body, but not hydrologically connected by surface water 5

6) 2 Within 1 km of other wetlands,but not hydrologically connected by surface water 2

7) No wetland within 1 km 0

Proximity to other Wetlands Score (Choose one only, maximum 8 points) 2

1) 26 or less 3 2) 27 to 40 6 6 3) 41 to 60 9 4) 61 to 80 12 5) 81 to l00 15 6) 101 to 125 18 7) 126 to 150 21 8) 151 to 175 24 9) 176 to 200 27 10) >200 30

Interspersion Score (Choose one only maximum 30 points) 6

1.2.6 OPEN WATER TYPES Ref Determine from aerial photos. Permanently flooded: (Check one) Score

1) type 1 8 2) type 2 8 3) type 3 14 4)) typeyp 4 20 5) type 5 30 6) type 6 8 7) type 7 14 8) type 8 3 9) 0 no open water 0

Open Water Type Score (Choose one only maximum 30 points) 0

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario wetland Evaluation Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetland Manual

1.3 SIZE Score may be lower than actual if "Vegetation Community and Interspersion" have not been calculated.

3.8 hectares26 Subtotal for Biodiversity

Size Score (Biological Component) (maximum 5O points) 1

Evaluation Table Size Score (Biological component) Wetland Total Score for Biodiversity Subcomponent size (ha) <37 37-48 49-60 61-72 73-84 85-96 97- 109- 121- >132 108 120 132 <21 ha 1 578 917 25 34 43 50 21-40 5 7 8 9 10 19 28 37 46 50 41-60 6 8 9 10 11 21 31 40 49 50 61-80 7 9 10 11 13 23 34 43 50 50 81-100 8 10 11 13 15 25 37 46 50 50 101-120 9 11 13 15 18 28 40 49 50 50 121-140 10 13 15 17 21 31 43 50 50 50 141-160 11 15 17 19 23 34 46 50 50 50 161-180 13 17 19 21 25 37 49 50 50 50 181-200 15 19 21 23 28 40 50 50 50 50 201-400 17 21 23 25 31 43 50 50 50 50 401-600 19 23 25 28 34 46 50 50 50 50 601-800 21 25 28 31 37 49 50 50 50 50 801-1000 23 28 31 34 40 50 50 50 50 50 1001-1200 25 31 34 37 43 50 50 50 50 50 1201-1400 28 34 37 40 46 50 50 50 50 50 1401-1600 31 37 40 43 49 50 50 50 50 50 1601-1800 34 40 43 46 50 50 50 50 50 50 1801-2000 37 43 47 49 50 50 50 50 50 50 >2000 40 46 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetland Manual

2.0 SOCIAL COMPONENT

2.1 ECONOMICALLY VALUABLE PRODUCTS

Score 1) <5 ha 0 2) 3 5 -25 ha 3 3) 26 -50 ha 6 4) 51- l00 ha 9 5) 101 -200 ha 12 6) >200 ha 18

Source of information: Field Observations: Noel:2010

Wood Products Score (Score one only, maximum 18 points) 3

2.1.2 WILD RICE (Check one) Score (Choose one) Present (minimum size 0.5 ha) 1) 6 points Absent 2) 0 0

Source of information: Field Observations: Noel:2010

Wild Rice Score (maximum 6 points) 0

2.1.3 COMMERCIAL FISH (BAIT FISH AND/OR COARSE FISH (Check one) Score (Choose one) Present 1) 12 points Habitat not suitable for fish 2) 0 0

Source of infolmation: Guelph MNR Art Timmerman If any part of the wetland is riverine or the District fisheries files indicate presence of fish score"present" Commercial Fish Score (maximum 12 points) 0

2.1.4 BULLFROGS (Check one) Score (Choose one) Present 1) 1 points Absent 2) 0 0

Source of information: Dave Martin

Bullfrog Score (maximum 1 point) 0

Source of information: Dave Martin

Snapping Turtle Score (maximum 1 point) 0

2.1.6 FURBEARERS Fur Ref (Consult Appendix 9)

Name of furbearer Source of information

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) SubTotal 0

Scoring: 3 points for each species. maximum 12 Furbearer Score (maximum 12 points) 0

2.2 RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES

Hunting:

Nature:

Fishing:

Recreational Activities Score (maximum 80 points) 0

Landscape Distinctness Score (maximum 3 points) 3

2.3.2 ABSENCE OF HUMAN DISTURBANCE

(Check one) Score (Choose one) Human disturbances absent or nearly so 1) 7 points One or several localized disturbances 2) 4 Moderate disturbance; localized water pollution 3) 2 2 Wetland intact but impairment of ecosystem quality intense in some areas 4) 1 Extreme ecological degradation, or water pollution severe and widespread 5) 0

Source of information: Field Observations: Noel:2010

Absence of Human Disturbance Score (maximum 7 points) 2

2.4 EDUCATION AND PUBLIC AWARENESS Optional: complete as time and scoring dictates. 2.4.1 EDUCATIONAL USES (Check one) Score (Choose one) Frequent 1) 20 points Infrequent 2) 12 No visits 3) 0 0

Source of information: Field Observations: Noel:2010 Requires contact with Local Boards of Education. Educational Uses Score (maximum 20 points) 0

2.4.2 FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS

Source of information: Field Observations: Noel:2010

Facilities and Programs Score (maximum 8 points) 0 12

2.5 PROXIMITY TO AREAS OF HUMAN SETTLEMENT Circle the highest applicable score

Name of settlement: Arthur population 11,500

Proximity to Human Settlement Score (maximum 40 points) 26

Source of information: Genivar property ownership layer

Ownership Score (maximum 10 points) 4

Total Size Score (Social Component) 1.0

Either or both Aboriginal or Cultural Values may be scored. However, the maximum score permitted for 2.8 is 30 points. Attach documentation.

2.8.1 ABORIGINAL VALUES

Full documentation of sources must be attached to the data record.

1) Significant = 30 points 2) Not Significant = 0 3) Unknown 0.0 = 0 Total: 0

2.8.2 CULTURAL HERITAGE

1) Significant = 30 points 2) Not Significant = 0 3) Unknown 0.0 = 0 Total: 0 Aboriginal Values/Cultural Heritage Score (maximum 30 points) 0.0

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetlands Manual 3.0 HYDROLOGICAL COMPONENT

Step 1: Detennination of Maximum Score

Step 2: Determination of Upstream Detention Factor (DF)

(a) Wetland area (ha) 3.76 (b) Total area (ha) of upstream detention areas 3.76 estimate (include the wetland itself) (c) Ratio of (a):(b) 1.00 (d) Upstream detention factor: (c) x 2 = 2.0 1.00 (maximum allowable factor = 1)

Step 3: Determination of Wetland Attenuation Factor (AF)

()(a) Wetland area ()(ha) 3.76 (b) Size of catchment basin (ha) upstream of wetland (include wetland itself in catchment area) 27.00 calculate (c) Ratio of (a):(b) 0.14 (d) Wetland attenuation factor: (c) x 10 = 1.4 1.00 (maximum allowable factor = 1)

Step 4: Calculation of final score

(a) Wetlands on large lakes or major rivers 0

(b) Wetland entirely isolated l00

(b) All other wetlands --calculate as follows: (c * Complex Formula - Isolated portion 100.00 Initial Score 100 * Upstream detention factor (DF) (Step 2) 1.00 Wetland attenuation factor (AF) (Step 3) 1.00 Final score: [(DF + AF)/2] x Initial score = 100.00 (c * Final score:= 100 *Unless wetland is a complex with isolated portions (see above).

Flood Attenuation Score (maximum l00 points) 100.0

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record May 1994 Wetlands Manual 3.2 WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT

3.2.1 SHORT TERM WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT

Step 1: Determination of maximum initial score

Wetland on one of the 5 defined large lakes or 5 major rivers (Go to Step 5a) X All other wetlands (Go through Steps 2, 3, 4, and 5b)

Step 2: Determination of watershed improvement factor (WIF) Calculation of WIF is based on the fractional area (FA) of each site type that makes up the total area of the wetland.

(FA= area of site type/total area of wetland) Fractional Area

Step 3: Determination of catchment land use factor (LUF) (Choose the first category that fits upstream landuse in the catchment.)

1) 1.0 Over 50% agricultural and/or urban 1.0 2) Between 30 and 50% agricultural and/or urban 0.8 3) Over 50% forested or other natural vegetation 0.6

LUF (maximum 1.0) 1.00

FA of wetland with little or no vegetation (u) 0.00 x 0.5 = 0.00 Subtotal: 0.75 Estimate FA from air photos or use default factor of "0.75" Sum (PUT cannot exceed 1.0) 0.75

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation,Data and Scoring Record May 1994 Wetlands Manual Step 5: Calculation of final score

Final score: 60 x WQF x LUF x PUT = 45.00

Short Term Water Quality Improvement Score (maximum 60 points) 45

Step 2: Choose only one of the following settings that best describes the wetland being evaluated

Long Term Nutrient Trap Score (maximum 10 points) 0

Wetland Potential for Discharge Characteristics None to Little Some High Wetland type 1) Bog = 0 2) Swamp/Marsh = 2 2 3) Fen = 5 Topography 1) Flat/rolling = 0 2) Hilly = 2 3) Steep = 5 Wetland Large (>50%) = 0 Moderate (5-50%) Small <(5%) = 5 Area: Upslope = 2 2 Catchment Area Lagg Development 1) None found = 0 0 2) Minor = 2 3) Extensive = 5 Seeps 1) None = 0 0 2) = or < 3 seeps = 2 3) > 3 seeps = 5 Surface marl deposits 1) None = 0 0 2) = or < 3 sites = 2 3) > 3 sites = 5 Iron precipitates 1) None = 0 0 2) = or < 3 sites = 2 3) > 3 sites = 5 Located within 1 km N/A = 0 N/A = 0 Yes = 10 of a major aquifer 0 Totals 040 (Scores are cumulative maximum score 30 points) Percentage of Catchment: 0.14 Groundwater Discharge Score (maximum 30 points) 4

3.3 CARBON SINK

Choose only one of the following

Carbon Sink Score (maximum 5 points) 0

0 Wetland entirely isolated or palustrine 0 Any part of the Wetland riverine or lacustrine (proceed to Step 2)

Shoreline Erosion Control Score (maximum 15 points) 0

3.5 GROUND WATER RECHARGE

Fractional Area

FA of isolated or palustrine wetland 1.00 x 50 = 50.0 FA of riverine wetland 0.00 x 20 = 0.0 FA of lacustrine wetland (wetland <50% lacustrine) 0.00 x 0 = 0.0 Subtotal: 50.0

Ground Water Recharge Wetland Site Type Component Score (maximum 50 points) 50

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetlands Manual 4.0 SPECIAL FEATURES COMPONENT

4.1 RARITY

4.1.1 WETLANDS Ref Map

Site District 6-5 Presence of wetland type (check one or more) Bog Fen Swamp X Marsh

Score for rarity within the landscape and rarity of the wetland type. Score for rarity of wetland type is cumulative (maximum 80 points) based on presence or absence. Score for Score for Rarity of Wetland Type Rarity within Slte District the Landscape Marsh Swamp Fen Bog 6-1 60 40 0 80 80 6-2 60 40 0 80 80 6-3 40 10 04080 6-4 60 40 0 80 80 6-5 20 40 0 80 80 6-6 40 20 0 80 80 6-7 60 10 0 80 80 6-8 20 20 0 80 80 6-9 0 20 0 80 80 6-10 20 0 20 80 80 6-11 0 30 0 80 80 6-12 0 30 0 60 80 6-13 60 10 0 80 80 6-14 40 20 0 40 80 6-15 40 0 0 80 80 7-1 60 0 60 80 80 7-2 60 0 0 80 80 7-3 60 0 0 80 80 7-4 80 0 0 80 80 7-5 60 20 0 80 80 7-6 80 30 0 80 80

Rarity within the Landscape Score (maximum 80 points) 20 Rarity of Wetland Type Score (maximum 80 points)

The updated scores for rarity in Site Region 7-5 are in the stages of review and still require official confirmation.( June 8, 2004)

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record December 2002 Wetlands Manual 4.1.2 SPECIES Spp Ref

4.1.2.1 BREEDING HABITAT FOR AN ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES

Name of species Source of information

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Total: 0 Attach documentation.

Scoring:

For each species 250 points

(score is cumulative, no maximum score)

Breeding Habitat for Endangered or Threatened Species Score (no maximum) 0

4.1.2.2 TRADITIONAL MIGRATION OR FEEDING HABITAT FOR AN ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES Name of species Source of information 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Total: 0

Attach documentation. Scoring:

For one species 150 points For each additional species 75

(score is cumulative, no maximum score)

Traditional Habitat for Endangered Species Score (no maximum) 0

Dominant Wetland Type 1) Sand, loam, gravel, till 2) Clay or bedrock 1) Lacustrine or on a major 0 0 river 2) Isolated 10 5 3) Palustrine 7 4 4 4) Riverine (not a major river) 5 2 Totals 04

Ground Water Recharge Wetland Soil Recharge Potential Score (maximum 10 points) 4

Name of species Source of information

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) 15) Attach separate list if necessary; Attach documentation

Scoring:

Number of provincially significant animal species in the wetland:

1 speciesp = 50 ppoints 14 speciesp = 154 2 species = 80 15 species = 156 3 species = 95 16 species = 158 4 species = 105 17 species = 160 5 species = 115 18 species = 162 6 species = 125 19 species = 164 7 species = 130 20 species = 166 8 species = 135 21 species = 168 9 species = 140 22 species = 170 10 species = 143 23 species = 172 11 species = 146 24 species = 174 12 species = 149 25 species = 176 13 species = 152 Add one point for every species past 25 (for example, 26 species = 177 points, 27 species = 178 points etc.)

(no maximum score)

Provincially Significant Animal Species Score (no maximum) 0

(Scientific names must be recorded) Common Name Scientific Name Source of information

1) #REF! 2) #REF! 3) #REF! 4) #REF! 5) #REF! 6) #REF! 7) #REF! 8) #REF! 9) #REF! 10) #REF! 11) #REF! 12) #REF! 13) #REF! 14) #REF! 15) #REF!

Attach separate list if necessary; Attach documentation

Scoring:

Number of provincially significant plant species in the wetland:

Add one point for every species past 25 (for example, 26 species = 177 points, 27 species = 178 points etc.)

Provincially Significant Plant Species Score (no maximum) 0

Scientific names must be recorded for plant species. Lists of significant species must be approved by MNR.

SIGNIFICANT IN SITE REGION:

. Common Name Scientific Name Source of information

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) 15)

Attach separate list if necessary .Attach documentation.

Scoring:

No. of species significant in Site Region

1 species = 20 6 species = 55 2 species = 30 7 species = 58 3 species = 40 8 species = 61 4 species = 45 9 species = 64 5 species = 50 10 species = 67

Add one point for every species past 10. (no maximum score)

Regionally Significant Species Score (Site Region)(no maximum) 0

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Additional Species Scienctific Name Common Name S Rank G Rank Wet CoE Tracked SAR Regional vs Local Comments Plants Cornus sericea ssp. sericea red-osier dogwood G5 S5 -3 Crataegus sp. hawthorn Daucus carota wild carrot G? SE5 5 Echinocystis lobata prickly cucumber G5 S5 -2 Equisetum arvense field horsetail G5 S5 0 Fraxinus pennsylvanica red ash G5 S5 -3 Impatiens capensis spotted touch-me-not G5 S5 -3 Phalaris arundinacea reed canary grass G5 S5 -4 Populus balsamifera ssp. balsam poplar G5T? S5 -3 Populus tremuloides trembling aspen G5 S5 0 Prunus virginiana var. virginiana choke cherry G5T? S5 1 Rhamnus cathartica common buckthorn G? SE5 3 Ribes rubrum red currant G4G5 SE5 5 Rumex crispus curly-leaf dock G? SE5 -1 Salix sp. willow ? Ulmus americana white elm G5? S5 -2

Scientific names must be recorded for plant species. Lists of significant species must be approved by MNR.

Common Name Scientific Name Source of information

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Attach separate list if necessary .Attach documentation.

Scoring:

No. of species significant in Site District

1 species = 10 6 species = 41 2 species = 17 7 species = 43 3 species = 24 8 species = 45 4 species = 31 9 species = 47 5 species = 38 10 species = 49

For each significant species over 10 in the wetland, add 1 point.

Locally Significant Species Score (Site District) (no maximum) 0

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation March 1993 Wetlands Manual 4.2 SIGNIFICANT FEATURES AND/OR FISH & WILDLIFE HABITAT

4.2.1 NESTING OF COLONIAL WATERBIRDS

Status Name of species Source of Information Score

1) Currently nesting 50

2) Known to have nested 25 within past 5 years

3) Active feeding area (Do not include feeding 15 by great blue herons)

4) None known 00

Consult the Ontario Heronry database at Bird Studies Canada. Subtotal: 0 Attach documentation (nest locations etc., if known)

Score highest applicable category only; maximum score 50 points.

Score for Nesting Colonial Waterbirds (maximum 50 points) 0

Source of information: Dave Martin

Winter Cover for Wildlife Score (maximum l00 points) 0

(Check only highest level of significance for both staging and moulting; score is cumulative across columns, maximum score 150

Staging Score Moulting Score (one only) (one only) 1) Nationally significant 150 150 2) Provincially significant 100 l00 3) Regionally significant 50 50 4) Known to occur 10 10 5) Not possible 0 0 6) Unknown 0 0 0 0 Total: 0 0 Subtotal: 0 Source of information: Guelph MNR Art Timmerman Waterfowl Moulting and Staging Score (maximum 150 points) 0

4.2.4 WATERFOWL BREEDING

(Check only highest level of significance) Score

1) Provincially significant l00 2) Regionally significant 50 3) Habitat suitable 10 4) 0 Habitat not suitable 0

Source of information: Dave Martin

Waterfowl Breeding Score (maximum lOO points) 0

4.2.5 MIGRATOR PASSERINE, SHOREBIRD OR RAPTOR STOPOVER AREA

(check highest applicable category)

1) Provincially significant l00 2) Significant in Site Region 50 3) Significant in Site District 10 4) 0 Not significant 0

Source of information: Guelph MNR Art Timmerman

Passerine, Shorebird or Raptor Stopover Score (maximum 100 points) 0

Table 5. Area Factors for Low Marsh, High Marsh, and Swamp Communities.

No. of ha of Fish Habitat Area Factor < 0.5 ha 0.1 0.5- 4.9 0.2 5.0- 9.9 0.4 10.0- 14.9 0.6 15.0 -19.9 0.8 20.0+ ha 1.0

Step 1:

0 Fish habitat is not present within the wetland (Score = 0)

Fish habitat is present within the wetland (Go to Step 2)

Step 2: Choose only one option

1) Significance of the spawning and nursery habitat within the wetland is known (Go to Step 3)

2) Significance of the spawning and nursery habitat within the wetland is not known (Go through Steps 4, 5, 6 and 7)

Step 3: Select the highest appropriate category below attach documentation:

1) Significant in Site Region l00 points

2) Significant in Site District 50

3) Locally Significant Habitat (5.0+ ha) 25

4) Locally Significant Habitat (<5.0 ha) 15

Score for Spawning and Nursery Habitat (maximum score 100 points) 0

(Low Marsh: marsh area from the existing water line out to the outer boundary of the wetland)

Low marsh not present (Continue to Step 5) Low marsh present (Score as follows)

Scoring for Presence of Key Vegetation Groups

Vegetation Vegetation Present Total Area Score Final Group Number Group Name as a Area Factor Score Dominant (ha) (area Form (see factor (check) Table 5) x score)

1 Tallgrass 6 pts 0.0 2 Shortgrass-Sedge 11 0.0 3 Cattail-Bulrush-Burreed 5 0.0 4 Arrowhead-Pickerelweed 5 0.0 5 Duckweed 2 0.0 6 Smartweed-Waterwillow 6 0.0 7 WaterlilyWaterlily- LotusLotus 11 000.0 8 Waterweed-Watercress 9 0.0 9 Ribbongrass 10 0.0 10 Coontail-Naiad-Watermilfoil 13 0.0 11 Narrowleaf Pondweed 5 0.0 12 Broadleaf Pondweed 8 0.0 Sub Total Score (maximum 75 points) 0.0 Total Score (maximum 75 points) 0.0

High marsh not present (Continue to Step 6) High marsh present (Score as follows)

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation March 1993 Wetlands Manual Scoring for Presence of Key Vegetation Groups

Swamp containing fish habitat not present (Continue to Step 7) Swamp containing fish habitat present (Score as follows)

Swamp containing fish Present Total Area Factor Score TOTAL SCORE Habitat (check) area (ha) (see Table 5) (factor x score)

Seasonally flooded 10 0.0 Permanently flooded 10 0.0 Sub SCORE (maximum 20 points) 0.0 SCORE (maximum 20 points) 0.0

Step 7: Calculation of final score

Score for Spawning and Nursery Habitat (Low Marsh) (maximum 75) = 0.0

Score for Spawning and Nursery Habitat (High Marsh) (maximum 25) = 0.0

Score for Swamp Containing Fish Habitat (maximum 20) = 0.0 Subtotal: 0.0 Sum (maximum score 100 points) = 0.0

1) 0 Staging or Migration Habitat is not present in the wetland (Score = 0)

NOTE: Only one of Step 2 or Step 3 is to be scored.

Step 2: Select the highest appropriate category below, attach documentation: Score 1) Significant in Site Region 25 points

2) Significant in Site District 15

3) Locally Significant 10

4) Fish staging and/or migration habitat present,but not as above 5

Score for Fish Migration and Staging Habitat (maximum score 25 points) 0

Step 3: Select the highest appropriate category below based on presence of the designated site type (does not have to be dominant). See Section 1.1.3. Note name of river for 2) and 3).

Score 1) Wetland is riverine at rivermouth or lacustrine at rivermouth 25 points

2) Wetland is riverine,within 0.75 km of rivermouth 15

3) Wetland is lacustrine,within 0.75 km of rivermouth 10

4) Fish staging and/or migration habitat present, but not as above 5

Score for Staging and Migration Habitat (maximum score 25 points) 0

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation March 1993 Wetlands Manual 4.3 ECOSYSTEM AGE

(Fractional Area = area of wetland/total wetland area)

Fractional Area Scoring

Bog 0.00 x 25 = 0.0 Fen, treed to open on deep soils floating mats or marl x 20 = 0.0 Fen, on limestone rock x 5 = 0.0 Swamp 1.00 x 3 = 3.0 Marsh 0.00 x 0 = 0.0 Sub Total: 3.0 Ecosystem Age Score (maximum 25 points) 3.0

4.4 GREAT LAKES COASTAL WETLANDS

Score for coastal (see text for definition) wetlands only

Choose one only

wetland < 10 ha = 0 points wetland 10- 50 ha = 25 wetland 51 -lOO ha = 50 wetland > 100 ha = 75

Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Score (maximum 75 points) 0

The wetland is not within the Coastal zone for either the Great Lakes or associated major rivers and as such will not be scored within this section.

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetlands Manual 5.0 EXTRA INFORMATION

5.1 PURPLE LOOSESTRIFE

X Absent/Not seen

Present (a) One location in wetland Two to many locations

Abundance code (b) (l < 20 stems (2 20-99 stems (3 100-999 stems (4 >1000 stems

5.2 SEASONALLY FLOODED AREAS

Check one or more

Ephemeral (less than 2 weeks) Temporal (2 weeks to 1 month) X Seasonal (1 to 3 months) Semi-permanent (>3 months) No seasonal flooding

5.3 SPECIES OF SPECIAL SIGNIFICANCE

5.3.1 Osprey

Present and nesting Known to have nested in last 5 yr Feeding area for osprey Not as above X

5.3.2 Common Loon

Nesting in wetland Feeding at edge of wetland Observed or heard on lake or river adjoining the wetland Not as above X

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetlands Manual INVESTIGATORS AFFILIATION

Jennifer Noel, Allsion Featherstone LGL Limited Arnel Fausto, Rob Nisbit LGL Limited Dave Martin Dave Martin Peter and Sue Read, Linda Wladarski Dave Martin Ross Snider, James Holdsworth Dave Martin

DATES WETLAND VISITED January 3, February 2, March 27, June 6,7,8, 29 and July 1 of 2007; June 29, August 25, 2009 April 27, June 18, 20, 24, 25, July 3, November 16 2010

DATE THIS EVALUATION COMPLETED: November 18, 2010

ESTIMATED TIME DEVOTED TO COMPLETING THE FIELD SURVEY IN "PERSON HOURS" 160 Hours

WEATHER CONDITIONS

i) at time of field work (Continue in the space below if necessary)

ii) summer conditions in general

OTHER POTENTIALLY USEFUL INFORMATION:

CHECKLIST OF PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES RECORDED IN THE WETLAND:

Attach a list of all flora and fauna observed in the wetland.

*Indicate if voucher specimens or photos have been obtained, where located, etc.

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation March 1993 Wetlands Manual WETLAND EVALUATION SCORING RECORD

WETLAND NAME AND/OR NUMBER Conestogo Wetland 4

1.0 BIOLOGICAL COMPONENT

1.1 PRODUCTIVITY

1.1.1 Growing Degree-Days/Soils 18.0 1.1.2 Wetland Type 8.0 1.1.3 Site Type 2.0

Total for Productivity 28

1.2 BIODIVERSITY

1.2.1 Number of Wetland Types 13.0 1.2.2 Vegetation Communities (maxixmum 45) 2.5 1.2.3 Diversity of Surrounding Habitat (maximum 7) 2.0 1.2.4 Proximinty to Other Wetlands 2.0 1.2.5 Interspersion 6.0 1.2.6 Open Water Type 0.0

Total for Biodiversity 26 Sub Total for Biodiversity 26 1.3 SIZE (Biological Component) 1

Sub Total: 55 TOTAL FOR BIOLOGICAL COMPONENT (not to exceed 250) 55

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Welland Evaluation March 1993 Wetlands Manual 2.0 SOCIAL COMPONENT

2.1 ECONOMICALLY VALUABLE PRODUCTS

2.1.1 Wood Products 3 2.1.2 Wild Rice 0 2.1.3 Commercial Fish 0 2.1.4 Bullfrogs 0 2.1.5 Snapping Turtles 0 2.1.6 Furbearers 0

Total for Economically Valuable Products 3

2.2 RECREATIONAl ACTIVITIES (maximum 80) 0

2.3 LANDSCAPE AESTHETICS

2.3.1 Distinctness 3 2.3.2 Absence of Human Disturbance 2

Total for Landscape Aesthetics 5

2.4 EDUCATION AND PUBLIC AWARENESS

2.4.1 Educational Uses 0 2.4.2 Facilities and Programs 0 2.4.3 Research and Studies 0

Total for Education and Public Awareness 0

2.5 PROXIMITY TO AREAS OF HUMAN SETTLEMENT 26

2.6 OWNERSH1P 4 Subtotal for Social Component 29.0 2.7 SIZE (Social Component) 1

2.8 ABORIGINAL AND CULTURAL VALUES 0

Sub Total: 39 TOTAL FOR SOCIAL COMPONENT (not to exceed 250) 39

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southem Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Score Summary March 1993 Wetlands Manual 3.0 HYDROLOGICAL COMPONENT

3.1 FLOOD ATTENUATION 100

3.2 WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT

3.2.1 Short Term Improvement 45.0 3.2.2 Long Term Improvement 0.0 3.2.3 Groundwater Discharge (maximum 30) 4.0

Total for Water Quality Improvement 49

3.3 CARBON SINK 0

3.4 SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL 0

3.5 GROUNDWATER RECHARGE

3.5.1 Site Type 50.00 3.5.2 Soils 4.0

Total for Groundwater Recharge 54 Sub Total: 203 TOTAL FOR HYDROLOGICAL COMPONENT (not to exceed 250) 203

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Score Summary December 2002 Wetlands Manual

4.0 SPECIAL FEATURES

4.1 RARITY

4.1.1 Wetlands 4.1.1.1 Rarity within the Landscape 20.0 4.1.1.2 Rarirty of Wetland Type (maximum 80) 0.0

Total for Wetland Rarity 20

Total for Species Rarity 0

4.2 SIGNIFICANT FEATURES OR HABITAT

Total for Significant Features and Habitat 0

4.3 ECOSYSTEM AGE 3

4.4 GREAT LAKES COASTAL WETLANDS 0 Sub Total: 23 TOTAL FOR SPECIAL FEATURES (maximum 250) 23

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Score Summary March 1993 Wetlands Manual SUMMARY OF EVALUATION RESULT

Wetland Conestogo Wetland 4

TOTAL FOR 1.0 BIOLOGICAL COMPONENT 55

TOTAL FOR 2.0 SOCIAL COMPONENT 39

TOTAL FOR 3.0 HYDROLOGICAL COMPONENT 203

TOTAL FOR 4.0 SPECIAL FEATURES COMPONENT 23

WETLAND TOTAL 320

DATE November 18, 2010

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004

455

Catchment450 Conestogo Wetland 4 6 SIDERD

FOURTEENTH LINE

460

450 460

465

455

450 WELLINGTON 12 RD

445 Ritch Tract Swamp

Wetland Evaluation Edition

November 1, 2010

Comments The following evaluation was completed using polygon information derived from a "Geographic Information Layer" provided by the Guelph District Office . The wetland polygon's were identified from 2002 & 2006 Colour Ortho aerial photography.

Additional Information Include relevant information that can not be entered in the wetland data record( Ex. Sections that have not been completed.) Wetland units 30, 31 and 32 have been added to this wetland complex analysis. This analysis was conducted beacsue some wetland units are within 120 m of project components for the Conestogo Wind Power Project and are required to be assessed for significance and complexing.

Official Name: Ritch Tract Swamp Evaluation Edition: 0 Class: Wetland ID.: Wetland Significance Year/Month Last Evaluated November 1, 2010 Year/Month Last Updated Special Planning Considerations: Scores Wetland Area: 325.66 Biological: 130 Dentention Area: 26 Social: 110 Catchment Area: 1115 Hydrological: 221 OMNR Source Art Timmerman Special Features: 98 Information Source Art Timmerman/Jennifer Noel Overall: 559 Submitted by: Jennifer Noel Date: November 1, 2010

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetland Manual

WETLAND DATA AND SCORING RECORD

i) WETLAND NAME: Ritch Tract Swamp

ii) MNR ADMINISTRATIVE REGION:Central DISTRICT: Guelph

AREA OFFICE (if different from District):

iii) CONSERVATION AUTHORITY JURISDICTION: GRCA

(If not within a designated CA, check here:

iv) COUNTY OR REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY: Wellington County

v) TOWNSHIP: Peel geographic township

vi) LOTS & CONCESSIONS: (attach separate sheet if necessary)

vii) MAP AND AIR PHOTO REFERENCES

a) Latitude: 43o 48' Longitude: 80o 30'

b) UTM grid reference: Zone: 17Block: NJ Grid:E 395Grid:N 485

c) National Topographic Series:

map name(s) Palmerston, Orangeville

map number(s) 40 P/15, 40 P/16 edition

scale 1:50,000

d) Aerial photographs: Date photo taken: 2006Scale: digital

Flight & plate numbers: South Western Ontario Ortho Photos (SWOOP)

(attach separate sheet if necessary)

e) Ontario Base Map numbers & scale

(attach separate sheets if necessary)

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Wetland Area Site Type Area % Soil Type Area % Dominate Vegetation Area % Wetland Type Area % Open Water Area 325.66 Isolated 0.00 0.00 clay/loam 49.56 0.15 h 60.66 0.19 Swamp 320.66 0.98 2.47 Palustrine (permanent or intermittent flow) 325.66 1.00 silt/marl 0.00 0.00 c 62.70 0.19 Marsh 5.00 0.02 Riverine 0.00 0.00 limestone 0.00 0.00 dh 0.00 0.00 Fen 0.00 0.00 Riverine (at rivermouth) 0.00 0.00 sand 0.00 0.00 dc 0.00 0.00 Bog 0.00 0.00 Lacustrine (at rivermouth) 0.00 0.00 humic/mesic 276.10 0.85 ts 197.30 0.61 325.66 1.00 Lacustrine (on enclosed bay, with barrier beach) 0.00 0.00 fibric 0.00 0.00 ls 0.00 0.00 Lacustrine (exposed to lake) 0.00 0.00 granite 0.00 0.00 ds 0.00 0.00 325.66 1.00 325.66 1.00 gc 0.00 0.00 m 0.00 0.00 ne 2.80 0.01 be 0.00 0.00 re 2.20 0.01 ff 0.00 0.00 f 0.00 0.00 su 0.00 0.00 u (unvegetated) 0.00 0.00 325.66 1.00

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetland Manual

viii) WETLAND SIZE AND BOUNDARIES

a) Single contiguous wetland area: hectares

b) Wetland complex comprised of 15 individual wetlands:

Wetland Unit Number Size of each (for reference) wetland unit

Ha Wetland Unit No. 1 11.50 Wetland Unit No. 2 0.70 Wetland Unit No. 3 0.70 Wetland Unit No. 4 20.10 Wetland Unit No. 5 12.00 Wetland Unit No. 6 0.60 Wetland Unit No. 7 1.40 Wetland Unit No. 8 1.80 Wetland Unit No. 9 107.10 Wetland Unit No. 10 1.80 Wetland Unit No. 11 0.80 Wetland Unit No. 12 48.00 Wetland Unit No. 13 14.90 Wetland Unit No. 14 13.70 Wetland Unit No. 15 25.80 Wetland Unit No. 16 1.00 Wetland Unit No. 17 0.70 Wetland Unit No. 18 14.40 Wetland Unit No. 19 0.50 Wetland Unit Totals: 325.66 (Attach additional sheets if necessary)

TOTAL WETLAND SIZE 325.66

c) Brief documentation of reasons for including any areas less than 0.5 ha in size:

(Attach separate sheets if necessary .)

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation. Data and Scoring Record May 1994 Wetland Manual 1.0 BIOLOGICAL COMPONENT

1.1 PRODUCTIVITY

1.1.1 GROWING DEGREE-DAYS/SOILS

GROWING DEGREE DAYS MAP SOILS (check one) Estimated Fractional Area 1) <2800 0.15 clay/loam 2) X 2800 -3200 0.00 silt/marl 3) 3200 -3600 0.00 limestone 4) 3600 -4000 0.00 sand 5) >4000 0.85 humic/mesic 0.00 fibric 0.00 granite

Determine the soil type from the appropriate OMAF soils maps SCORING: Growing Clay- Silt- Lime- Sand Humic- Fibric Granite Degree- Loam Marl stone Mesic Days <2800 15 13 11 9 8 7 5 2800-3200 18 15 13 11 9 8 7 3200-3600 22 18 15 1311 9 7 3600-4000 26 21 18 15 13 10 8 >4000 30 25 20 18 15 12 8

(maximum score 30; if wetland contains more than one soil type, evaluate based on the fractional area)

Steps required for evaluation: (maximum score 30 points)

In wetland complexes the evaluator should aim at determining the percentage of area occupied by the categories for the complex as a whole. Score 18 clay/loam 2.74 silt/marl 0.00 limestone 0.00 sand 0.00 9 humic/mesic 7.63 fibric 0.00 granite 0.00

Final Score Growing Degree-Days/Soils (maximum 30 points) 10

Bog 0.00 x 3 0.0 Fen 0.00 x 6 0.0 Swamp 0.98 x 8 7.9 Marsh 0.02 x 15 0.2 Subtotal: 8.1 Wetland type score (maximum 15 points) 8

1.1.3 SITE TYPE (Fractional Area = area of site type/total wetland area) Estimate from air photos Fractional Area Score

1.2 BIODIVERSITY

1.2.1 NUMBER OF WETLAND TYPES

(Check only one) Score

1) one 9 points 2) 13 two 13 3) three 20 4) four 30

Number of Wetland Types Score (maximum 30 points) 13

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation. Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetland Manual 1.2.2 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES Veg Ref

Communities should be grouped by number of forms. For example, 2 form communities might appear as follows:

2 forms

Code Forms Dominant Species

M6 re, ff re, Typha latifolia; ff, Lemna minor, Wolffia

S1 ts, gc ts, Salix discolor; gc, lmpatiens capensis, Thelypteris palustris

Note that the dominant species for each form are separated by a semicolon. The dominant species (maximum of 2) within a form are separated by commas.

Scoring:

+.5 each additional +.5 each additional + 1 each additional community = 11.0community = 11.5community = 2.0

e.g., a wetland with 3 one form communities 4 two form communities 12 four form communities and 8 six form communities would score:

6 + 13.5 + 15 = 34.5 = 35 points SubTotal: 25

Vegetation Communities Score (maximum 45 points) 25

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetland Manual

Wetland Name: Ritch Tract Swamp

Wetland Size (ha): 325.66

Vegetation Form % area in which form is dominant

h 18.63

c 19.25

dh 0.00

dc 0.00

ts 60.58

ls 0.00

ds 0.00

gc 0.00

m 0.00

ne 0.86

be 0.00

re 0.68

ff 0.00

f 0.00

su 0.00

u (unvegetated) 0.00

Total = 100% 100.00

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetland Manual

1.2.3 DIVERSITY OF SURROUNDING HABITAT (Check all appropriate items(1)) Determine from air photos 1 row crop pasture abandoned agricultural land 1 deciduous forest 1 coniferous forest 1 mixed forest (at least 25% conifer and 75% deciduous or vice versa) 1 abandoned pits and quarries open lake or deep river 1 fence rows with cover, or shelterbelts terrain appreciably undulating,hilly,or with ravines 1 creek flood plain 7 Subtotal Diversity of Surrounding Habitat Score (1 for each, maximum 7 points) 7

2) Hydrologically connected by surface water to other wetlands (same dominant wetland type) within 0.5 km 8

3) Hydrologica11y connected by surface water to other wetlands (different dominant wetland type),or to open lake or deep river from 1.5 to 4 km away 5

4) 5 Hydrologically connected by surface water to other wetlands (same dominant wetland type) from 0.5 to 1.5 km away 5

5) Within 0.75 km of other wetlands (different dominant wetland type) or open water body, but not hydrologically connected by surface water 5

6) Within 1 km of other wetlands,but not hydrologically connected by surface water 2

7) No wetland within 1 km 0

Proximity to other Wetlands Score (Choose one only, maximum 8 points) 5

1) 26 or less 3 2) 27 to 40 6 3) 41 to 60 9 4) 61 to 80 12 5) 81 to l00 15 6) 101 to 125 18 7) 126 to 150 21 21 8) 151 to 175 24 9) 176 to 200 27 10) >200 30

Interspersion Score (Choose one only maximum 30 points) 21

1.2.6 OPEN WATER TYPES Ref Determine from aerial photos. Permanently flooded: (Check one) Score

1) 8 type 1 8 2) type 2 8 3) type 3 14 4) type 4 20 5) type 5 30 6) type 6 8 7) type 7 14 8) type 8 3 9) no open water 0

Open Water Type Score (Choose one only maximum 30 points) 8

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario wetland Evaluation Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetland Manual

1.3 SIZE Score may be lower than actual if "Vegetation Community and Interspersion" have not been calculated.

325.7 hectares79 Subtotal for Biodiversity

Size Score (Biological Component) (maximum 5O points) 31

Evaluation Table Size Score (Biological component) Wetland Total Score for Biodiversity Subcomponent size (ha) <37 37-48 49-60 61-72 73-84 85-96 97- 109- 121- >132 108 120 132 <21 ha 1 578 917 25 34 43 50 21-40 5 7 8 9 10 19 28 37 46 50 41-60 6 8 9 10 11 21 31 40 49 50 61-80 7 9 10 11 13 23 34 43 50 50 81-100 8 10 11 13 15 25 37 46 50 50 101-120 9 11 13 15 18 28 40 49 50 50 121-140 10 13 15 17 21 31 43 50 50 50 141-160 11 15 17 19 23 34 46 50 50 50 161-180 13 17 19 21 25 37 49 50 50 50 181-200 15 19 21 23 28 40 50 50 50 50 201-400 17 21 23 25 31 43 50 50 50 50 401-600 19 23 25 28 34 46 50 50 50 50 601-800 21 25 28 31 37 49 50 50 50 50 801-1000 23 28 31 34 40 50 50 50 50 50 1001-1200 25 31 34 37 43 50 50 50 50 50 1201-1400 28 34 37 40 46 50 50 50 50 50 1401-1600 31 37 40 43 49 50 50 50 50 50 1601-1800 34 40 43 46 50 50 50 50 50 50 1801-2000 37 43 47 49 50 50 50 50 50 50 >2000 40 46 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetland Manual

2.0 SOCIAL COMPONENT

2.1 ECONOMICALLY VALUABLE PRODUCTS

Score 1) <5 ha 0 2) 5 -25 ha 3 3) 26 -50 ha 6 4) 51- l00 ha 9 5) 12 101 -200 ha 12 6) >200 ha 18

Source of information: Art Timmerman/Jennifer Noel

Wood Products Score (Score one only, maximum 18 points) 12

2.1.2 WILD RICE (Check one) Score (Choose one) Present (minimum size 0.5 ha) 1) 0 6 points Absent 2) 0

Source of information: Art Timmerman/Jennifer Noel

Wild Rice Score (maximum 6 points) 0

2.1.3 COMMERCIAL FISH (BAIT FISH AND/OR COARSE FISH (Check one) Score (Choose one) Present 1) 12 12 points Habitat not suitable for fish 2) 0

Source of infolmation: Art Timmerman If any part of the wetland is riverine or the District fisheries files indicate presence of fish score"present" Commercial Fish Score (maximum 12 points) 12

2.1.4 BULLFROGS (Check one) Score (Choose one) Present 1) 1 1 points Absent 2) 0

Source of information: N. Sullivan, 1987

Bullfrog Score (maximum 1 point) 1

Source of information: Art Timmerman/Jennifer Noel N. Sullivan, 1987 Snapping Turtle Score (maximum 1 point) 0

2.1.6 FURBEARERS Fur Ref (Consult Appendix 9)

Name of furbearer Source of information

1) muskrat 3 1987 evaluation 2) raccoon 3 1987 evaluation 3) beaver 3 1987 evaluation 4) 5) SubTotal 9

Scoring: 3 points for each species. maximum 12 Furbearer Score (maximum 12 points) 9

2.2 RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES

Type of Wetland-Associated Use Nature Enjoyment/ Intensity of Use Hunting Fishing Ecosystem Study High 40 points 40 points 40 points Moderate 20 20 20 20 Low 8 8 8 8 Not possible/NotKnown 0 000 Totals 20 8 0 28 (score one level for each of the three wetland uses; scores are cumulative; maximum score 80 points) Sources of information:

Hunting: Art Timmerman/Jennifer Noel 1987 Evaluation Nature: Art Timmerman/Jennifer Noel (Ritch Tract Agreement Forest) Fishing: Art Timmerman/Jennifer Noel

Recreational Activities Score (maximum 80 points) 28

Landscape Distinctness Score (maximum 3 points) 3

2.3.2 ABSENCE OF HUMAN DISTURBANCE

Source of information: Art Timmerman/Jennifer Noel (wetland drainage, peat mining) Absence of Human Disturbance Score (maximum 7 points) 1

2.4 EDUCATION AND PUBLIC AWARENESS Optional: complete as time and scoring dictates. 2.4.1 EDUCATIONAL USES (Check one) Score (Choose one) Frequent 1) 20 points Infrequent 2) 12 No visits 3) 0 0

Source of information: Art Timmerman/Jennifer Noel Requires contact with Local Boards of Education. Educational Uses Score (maximum 20 points) 0

2.4.2 FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS

Source of information: Art Timmerman/Jennifer Noel

Facilities and Programs Score (maximum 8 points) 0 12

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record May 1994 Wetlands Manual 2.4.3 RESEARCH AND STUDIES (check appropriate spaces) Score Long term research has been done 12 points Research papers published in refereed scientific journal or as a thesis 10 One or more (non-research) reports have been written on some aspect of the wetland ' s flora fauna hydrology etc. 5 5 No research or reports 0 Subtotal: 5 Attach list of known reports by above categories Refer to ESPA, EPA and ANSI reports. Research and Studies Score (Score is cumulative, maximum 12 points) 5

2.5 PROXIMITY TO AREAS OF HUMAN SETTLEMENT Circle the highest applicable score

Distance of wetland from 1) 2) population 3) population settlement population> 10,000 2,500 -10,000 <2,500 or cottage community 1) Within or adjoining 40 points 26 16 settlement 2) 0.5 to 10 km from settlement 26 16 16 10 3) 10 to 60 km from settlement 12 8 4 4) >60 km from settlement 5 2 0 016 0

Name of settlement: Arthur, Fergus

Proximity to Human Settlement Score (maximum 40 points) 16

2.6 OWNERSHIP (FA= fraction Area) Score Select a default value of "4" if no other information exists. FA of wetland in public or private ownership held under contract or in trust for wetland protection x 10 = 0.00 FA of wetland area in public ownership,not as above 0.25 x 8 = 2.02 FA of wetland area in private ownership,not as above 0.75 x 4 = 3.00

Source of information: Ritch Tract Agreement Forest

Ownership Score (maximum 10 points) 5

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Additional Reports

North Wellington Environmentally Sensitive Areas. 1977. Centre for Resources Development. Publication 84. University of Gu

Total Size Score (Social Component) 18.0

Either or both Aboriginal or Cultural Values may be scored. However, the maximum score permitted for 2.8 is 30 points. Attach documentation.

2.8.1 ABORIGINAL VALUES

Full documentation of sources must be attached to the data record.

1) Significant = 30 points 2) Not Significant = 0 3) Unknown = 0 Total: 0

2.8.2 CULTURAL HERITAGE

1) Significant = 30 points 2) Not Significant = 0 3) Unknown = 0 Total: 0 Aboriginal Values/Cultural Heritage Score (maximum 30 points) 0.0

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetlands Manual 3.0 HYDROLOGICAL COMPONENT

Step 1: Detennination of Maximum Score

Wetland is located on one of the defined 5 large lakes or 5 major rivers (Go to Step 4) Wetland is entirely isolated (i.e. not part of a complex) (Go to Step 4) All other wetland types (Go through Steps 2,3 and 4B)

Step 2: Determination of Upstream Detention Factor (DF)

(a) Wetland area (ha) 325.66 (b) Total area (ha) of upstream detention areas 351.66 estimate (include the wetland itself) (c) Ratio of (a):(b) 0.93 (d) Upstream detention factor: (c) x 2 = 1.9 1.00 (maximum allowable factor = 1)

Step 3: Determination of Wetland Attenuation Factor (AF)

(a) Wetland area (ha) 325.66 (b) Size of catchment basin (ha) upstream of wetland (include wetland itself in catchment area) 1115.00 calculate (c) Ratio of (a):(b) 0.29 (d) Wetland attenuation factor: (c) x 10 = 2.9 1.00 (maximum allowable factor = 1)

Step 4: Calculation of final score

(a) Wetlands on large lakes or major rivers 0

(b) Wetland entirely isolated l00

(b) All other wetlands --calculate as follows: (c * Complex Formula - Isolated portion 100.00 Initial Score 100 * Upstream detention factor (DF) (Step 2) 1.00 Wetland attenuation factor (AF) (Step 3) 1.00 Final score: [(DF + AF)/2] x Initial score = 100.00 (c * Final score:= 100 *Unless wetland is a complex with isolated portions (see above).

Flood Attenuation Score (maximum l00 points) 100.0

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record May 1994 Wetlands Manual 3.2 WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT

3.2.1 SHORT TERM WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT

Step 1: Determination of maximum initial score

Wetland on one of the 5 defined large lakes or 5 major rivers (Go to Step 5a) All other wetlands (Go through Steps 2, 3, 4, and 5b)

Step 2: Determination of watershed improvement factor (WIF) Calculation of WIF is based on the fractional area (FA) of each site type that makes up the total area of the wetland.

(FA= area of site type/total area of wetland) Fractional Area

Step 3: Determination of catchment land use factor (LUF) (Choose the first category that fits upstream landuse in the catchment.)

1) 1.0 Over 50% agricultural and/or urban 1.0 2) Between 30 and 50% agricultural and/or urban 0.8 3) Over 50% forested or other natural vegetation 0.6

LUF (maximum 1.0) 1.00

FA of wetland with little or no vegetation (u) 0.00 x 0.5 = 0.00 Subtotal: 0.75 Estimate FA from air photos or use default factor of "0.75" Sum (PUT cannot exceed 1.0) 0.75

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation,Data and Scoring Record May 1994 Wetlands Manual Step 5: Calculation of final score

Final score: 60 x WQF x LUF x PUT = 45.23

Short Term Water Quality Improvement Score (maximum 60 points) 45

Step 2: Choose only one of the following settings that best describes the wetland being evaluated

1) Wetland located in a river mouth 10 points 2) 10 Wetland is a bog, fen or swamp with more than 50% of the wetland being covered with organic soil 10 3) Wetland is a bog, fen or swamp with less than 50% of the wetland being covered with organic soil 3 4) Wetland is a marsh with more than 50% of the wetland covered with organic soil 3 5) None of the above 0

Long Term Nutrient Trap Score (maximum 10 points) 10

Wetland Potential for Discharge Characteristics None to Little Some High Wetland type 1) Bog = 0 2) Swamp/Marsh = 2 2 3) Fen = 5 Topography 1) Flat/rolling = 0 0 2) Hilly = 2 3) Steep = 5 Wetland Large (>50%) = 0 Moderate (5-50%) Small <(5%) = 5 Area: Upslope = 2 2 Catchment Area Lagg Development 1) None found = 0 0 2) Minor = 2 3) Extensive = 5 Seeps 1) None = 0 0 2) = or < 3 seeps = 2 3) > 3 seeps = 5 Surface marl deposits 1) None = 0 0 2) = or < 3 sites = 2 3) > 3 sites = 5 Iron precipitates 1) None = 0 0 2) = or < 3 sites = 2 3) > 3 sites = 5 Located within 1 km N/A = 0 0 N/A = 0 Yes = 10 of a major aquifer Totals 040 (Scores are cumulative maximum score 30 points)

Groundwater Discharge Score (maximum 30 points) 4

3.3 CARBON SINK

Choose only one of the following

1) Bog, fen or swamp with more than 50% coverage by organic soil 5 5 points 2) Bog, fen or swamp with between 10 to 49% coverage by organic soil 2 3) Marsh with more than 50% coverage by organic soil 3 4) Wetlands not in one of the above categories 0

Carbon Sink Score (maximum 5 points) 5

0 Wetland entirely isolated or palustrine 0 Any part of the Wetland riverine or lacustrine (proceed to Step 2)

Shoreline Erosion Control Score (maximum 15 points) 0

3.5 GROUND WATER RECHARGE

Fractional Area

FA of isolated or palustrine wetland 1.00 x 50 = 50.0 FA of riverine wetland 0.00 x 20 = 0.0 FA of lacustrine wetland (wetland <50% lacustrine) 0.00 x 0 = 0.0 Subtotal: 50.0

Ground Water Recharge Wetland Site Type Component Score (maximum 50 points) 50

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetlands Manual 4.0 SPECIAL FEATURES COMPONENT

4.1 RARITY

4.1.1 WETLANDS Ref Map

Site District 6-5 Presence of wetland type (check one or more) Bog Fen X Swamp X Marsh

Rarity within the Landscape Score (maximum 80 points) 20 Rarity of Wetland Type Score (maximum 80 points) 40

The updated scores for rarity in Site Region 7-5 are in the stages of review and still require official confirmation.( June 8, 2004)

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record December 2002 Wetlands Manual 4.1.2 SPECIES Spp Ref

4.1.2.1 BREEDING HABITAT FOR AN ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES

Name of species Source of information

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Total: 0 Attach documentation.

Scoring:

For each species 250 points

(score is cumulative, no maximum score)

Breeding Habitat for Endangered or Threatened Species Score (no maximum) 0

4.1.2.2 TRADITIONAL MIGRATION OR FEEDING HABITAT FOR AN ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES Name of species Source of information 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Total: 0

Attach documentation. Scoring:

For one species 150 points For each additional species 75

(score is cumulative, no maximum score)

Traditional Habitat for Endangered Species Score (no maximum) 0

Dominant Wetland Type 1) Sand, loam, gravel, till 2) Clay or bedrock 1) Lacustrine or on a major 0 0 river 2) Isolated 10 5 3) Palustrine 7 7 4 4) Riverine (not a major river) 5 2 Totals 70

Ground Water Recharge Wetland Soil Recharge Potential Score (maximum 10 points) 7

Name of species Source of information

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) 15) Attach separate list if necessary; Attach documentation

Scoring:

Number of provincially significant animal species in the wetland:

(no maximum score)

Provincially Significant Animal Species Score (no maximum)

(Scientific names must be recorded) Common Name Scientific Name Source of information

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) 15)

Attach separate list if necessary; Attach documentation

Scoring:

Number of provincially significant plant species in the wetland:

Add one point for every species past 25 (for example, 26 species = 177 points, 27 species = 178 points etc.)

Provincially Significant Plant Species Score (no maximum)

Scientific names must be recorded for plant species. Lists of significant species must be approved by MNR.

SIGNIFICANT IN SITE REGION:

. Common Name Scientific Name Source of information

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) 15)

Attach separate list if necessary .Attach documentation.

Scoring:

No. of species significant in Site Region

1 species = 20 6 species = 55 2 species = 30 7 species = 58 3 species = 40 8 species = 61 4 species = 45 9 species = 64 5 species = 50 10 species = 67

Add one point for every species past 10. (no maximum score)

Regionally Significant Species Score (Site Region)(no maximum)

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Additional Species Scienctific Name Common Name S Rank G Rank Wet CoE Tracked Poly. Loc Comments Plants Trees Acer negundo Manitoba Maple S5 G5 -2 Acer rubrum Red Maple S5 G5 0 Acer X freemanii Freeman's Maple S5 G? Carya ovata Shagbark Hickory S5 G5 3 Fraxinus americana White Ash S5 G5 3 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green/Red Ash S5 G5 -3 Picea glauca White Spruce S5 G5 3 Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine S5 G5 3 Pinus sylvestris Scots Pine SE5 G? 5 Prunus serotina Black Cherry S5 G5 3 Quercus alba White Oak S5 G5 3 Quercus bicolor Swamp White Oak S4 G5 -4 Quercus macrocarpa Bur Oak S5 G5 1 Quercus palustris Pin Oak S3 G5 -3 Quercus rubra Red Oak S5 G5 3 Salix nigra Black Willow S4? G5 -5 Tilia americana Basswood S5 G5 3 Ulmus americana White Elm S5 G5? -2 Salix X rubens Hybrid White Willow SE4 G? -4 Shrubs Berberis thunbergii Japanese Barberry SE5 G? 4 Carpinus caroliniana Blue Beech S5 G5 0 Cornus amomum ssp. obliqua Silky Dogwood S5 G5 -4 Cornus foemina ssp. racemosa Grey Dogwood S5 G5 -2 Cornus stolonifera Red-osier Dogwood S5 G5 -3 Crataegus sp Hawthorn Species Euonymus obovata Running Strawberry-bush S5 G5 5 Lindera benzoin Spicebush S5 G5 -2 Lonicera morrowii Morrow's Honeysuckle SE3 G? 5 Malus pumila Common Apple SE5 G5 5 Prunus virginiana ssp. virginiana Choke Cherry S5 G5 1 Pyrus communis Common Pear SE4 G5 5 Rhamnus cathartica Common Buckthorn SE5 G? 3 Rhamnus frangula Glossy Buckthorn SE5 G? -1 Rhus radicans ssp. rydbergii Western Poison-ivy S5 G5 0 Rhus typhina Staghorn Sumac S5 G5 5 Ribes sp Currant Species Rosa multiflora Multiflora Rose SE4 G? 3 Rubus allegheniensis Common Blackberry S5 G5 2 Rubus hispidus Swamp Dewberry S4S5 G5 -3 Rubus idaeus ssp. melanolasius Wild Red Raspberry S5 G5 -2 Salix bebbiana Bebb's Willow S5 G5 -4 Spiraea alba Narrow-leaved Meadowsweet S5 G5 -4 Syringa vulgaris Common Lilac SE5 G? 5

Ferns Athyrium filix-femina var. angustum Northern Lady Fern S5 G5 0 Dryopteris sp Wood Fern Species Equisetum arvense Field Horsetail S5 G5 0 Onoclea sensibilis Sensitive Fern S5 G5 -3

Sedge Carex bebbii Bebb's Sedge S5 G5 -5 Carex lupulina Common Hop Sedge S5 G5 -5 Carex radiata Radiate Sedge S5 G4 5 Carex sp Sedge Species Carex utriculata Beaked Sedge S5 G5 -5 Carex vulpinoidea Fox Sedge S5 G5 -5 Cyperus sp Flat Sedge Species Eleocharis sp Spike-rush Species Scirpus cyperinus Wool Grass S5 G5 -5 Scirpus sp Bulrush Species

Rush Juncus effusus ssp. solutus Soft Rush S5 G5 -5

Vine Smilax herbacea Herbaceous Carrion Flower S4 G5 0 Vicia cracca Cow Vetch SE5 G? 5

Woody Vines Lonicera japonica Japanese Honeysuckle SE2 G? 3 Parthenocissus inserta Thicket Creeper S5 G5 3 Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia Creeper S4? G5 1 Rhus radicans ssp. negundo Climbing Poison-ivy S5 G5 -1 Smilax hispida Bristly Greenbrier S4 G5Q 0 Solanum dulcamara Bittersweet Nightshade SE5 G? 0 Vitis riparia Riverbank Grape S5 G5 -2

Graminoid Agrostis gigantea Redtop Grass SE5 G4G5 0 Agrostis stolonifera Creeping Bent Grass S5 G5 -3 Bromus inermis ssp. inermis Smooth Brome SE5 G4G5 5 Cinna arundinacea Stout Woodreed S4 G5 -3 Danthonia spicata Poverty Oat Grass S5 G5 5 Elymus sp Wild Rye Species Glyceria sp Manna Grass Species Glyceria striata Fowl Manna Grass S5 G5 -5 Grass sp Grass Species Leersia oryzoides Rice Cut Grass S5 G5 -5 Panicum sp Panic Grass Species Phalaris arundinacea Reed Canary Grass S5 G5 -4 Phleum pratense Timothy SE5 G? 3

Herb Acalypha virginica var. rhomboidea Three-seeded Mercury S5 G5 3 Achillea millefolium ssp. millefolium Common Yarrow SE G5 3 Alisma plantago-aquatica Common Water-plantain S5 G5 -5 Alliaria petiolata Garlic Mustard SE5 G? 0 Ambrosia artemisiifolia Common Ragweed S5 G5 3 Arctium lappa Great Burdock SE5 G? 5 Arisaema triphyllum ssp. triphyllum Jack-in-the-pulpit S5 G5 -2 Asclepias incarnata ssp. incarnata Swamp Milkweed S5 G5 -5 Asclepias syriaca Common Milkweed S5 G5 5 Asparagus officinalis Asparagus SE5 G5? 3 Aster lanceolatus ssp. lanceolatus Panicled Aster S5 G5 -3 Aster macrophyllus Large-leaved Aster S5 G5 5 Aster novae-angliae New England Aster S5 G5 -3 Bidens frondosa Devil's Beggar-ticks S5 G5 -3 Bidens tripartita Three-lobed Beggar-ticks S5 G5 -3 Bidens vulgata Tall Beggar-ticks S5 G5 -3 Calystegia sepium ssp. angulata Hedge Bindweed S5 G5 0 Cannabis sativa Marijuana SE1 G5 0 Cerastium sp Chickweed Species Cichorium intybus Chicory SE5 G? 5 Circaea lutetiana ssp. canadensis Canada Enchanter's Nightshade S5 G5 3 Cirsium arvense Canada Thistle SE5 G? 3 Coronilla varia Trailing Crown-vetch SE5 G? 5 Daucus carota Wild Carrot SE5 G? 5 Dianthus armeria Deptford Pink SE5 G? 5 Dipsacus fullonum ssp. sylvestris Common Teasel SE5 G? 5 Epilobium sp Willow-herb Species Erigeron annuus Daisy Fleabane S5 G5 1 Eupatorium perfoliatum Common Boneset S5 G5 -4 Euthamia graminifolia Grass-leaved Goldenrod S5 G5 -2 Fragaria virginiana ssp. virginiana Common Strawberry S5 G5 1 Geranium maculatum Spotted Crane's-bill S5 G5 3 Geranium robertianum Herb Robert SE5 G5 5 Geum sp Avens Species Glechoma hederacea Ground Ivy SE5 G? 3 Hesperis matronalis Dame's Rocket SE5 G4G5 5 Hypericum perforatum Common St. John's-wort SE5 G? 5 Impatiens capensis Spotted Touch-me-not S5 G5 -3 Inula helenium Elecampane SE5 G? 5 Iris sp Iris Species Iris versicolor Northern Blue-flag S5 G5 -5 Lemna minor Lesser Duckweed S5 G5 -5 Leontodon autumnalis ssp. autumnalis Fall Hawkbit SE5 G? 5 Leonurus cardiaca ssp. cardiaca Motherwort SE5 G? 5 Lilium michiganense Michigan Lily S5 G5 -1 Lobelia inflata Indian Tobacco S5 G5 4 Lotus corniculatus Bird's-foot Trefoil G? 1 Ludwigia palustris Marsh Purslane S5 G5 -5 Lycopus americanus Cut-leaved Water-horehound S5 G5 -5 Lycopus uniflorus Northern Water-horehound S5 G5 -5 Lysimachia ciliata Fringed Loosestrife S5 G5 -3 Lysimachia nummularia Moneywort SE5 G? -4 Lythrum salicaria Purple Loosestrife SE5 G5 -5 Maianthemum canadense Canada Mayflower S5 G5 0 Maianthemum racemosum ssp. racem False Solomon's Seal S5 G5 3 Melilotus officinalis Yellow Sweet-clover SE5 G? 3 Mentha arvensis ssp. borealis Wild Mint S5 G5 -3 Myosotis sp Forget-me-not Species Oxalis sp Wood-sorrel Species Oxalis stricta Upright Yellow Wood-sorrel S5 G5 3 Penthorum sedoides Virginia Stonecrop S5 G5 -5 Physalis sp Ground-cherry Species Plantago lanceolata Ribgrass SE5 G5 0 Plantago major Common Plantain SE5 G5 -1 Polygonatum pubescens Hairy Solomon's Seal S5 G5 5 Polygonum pensylvanicum Pink Knotweed S5 G5 -4 Polygonum sagittatum Arrow-leaved Tearthumb S4 G5 -5 Polygonum virginianum Jumpseed S4 G5 0 Potamogeton sp Pondweed Species Potentilla simplex Common Cinquefoil S5 G5 4 Prenanthes altissima Tall White Lettuce S5 G5? 3 Prunella vulgaris ssp. lanceolata Heal-all S5 G5 5 Ranunculus acris Tall Buttercup SE5 G5 -2 Rudbeckia hirta Black-eyed Susan S5 G5 3 Rumex crispus Curly Dock SE5 G? -1 Saponaria officinalis Bouncing Bet SE5 G? 3 Sium suave Water-parsnip S5 G5 -5 Solidago altissima var. altissima Tall Goldenrod S5 G? 3 Solidago gigantea Giant Goldenrod S5 G5 -3 Solidago rugosa ssp. rugosa Rough Goldenrod S5 G5 -1 Tiarella cordifolia Foamflower S5 G5 1 Trifolium pratense Red Clover SE5 G? 2 Typha angustifolia Narrow-leaved Cattail S5 G5 -5 Uvularia sessilifolia Sessile-leaved Bellwort S4 G5 1 Verbena hastata Blue Vervain S5 G5 -4 Verbena urticifolia White Vervain S5 G5 -1 Veronica officinalis Common Speedwell SE5 G5 5 Veronica officinalis Common Speedwell SE5 G5 5 Viola sororia Common Blue Violet S5 G5 1 Xanthium strumarium Cocklebur S5 G? 0

Amphibians

Mammals

Birds

Reptiles

Fish

Scientific names must be recorded for plant species. Lists of significant species must be approved by MNR.

Common Name Scientific Name Source of information

1 Black Chokeberry Aronia melanocarpa D. Kirk, A. Wormington 1977 2 Winterberry Ilex verticillata D. Kirk, A. Wormington 1977 3 Labrador Tea Ledum groenlandicum D. Kirk, A. Wormington 1977 4 Swamp Fly Honeysuckle Lonicera oblongifolio D. Kirk, A. Wormington 1977 5 Withe-rod Viburnum cassinoides D. Kirk, A. Wormington 1977 6 Speckled Alder Alnus rugosa D. Kirk, A. Wormington 1977 7 Hairy Honeysuckle Lonicera hirsuta D. Kirk, A. Wormington 1977 8 Spikenard Aralia racemosa D. Kirk, A. Wormington 1977 9 Turtlehead Chelone glabral D. Kirk, A. Wormington 1977 10 Yellow Lady's Slipper Cypripedium calceolus D. Kirk, A. Wormington 1977 11 Twinflower Linnaea borealis D. Kirk, A. Wormington 1977 12 Pale-spike Lobelia Lobelia spicata D. Kirk, A. Wormington 1977 13 Tree Clubmoss Lycopodium obscurum D. Kirk, A. Wormington 1977 14 Shinleaf Pyrola elliptica D. Kirk, A. Wormington 1977 15 Mad-dog Skullcap Scutellaria lateriflora D. Kirk, A. Wormington 1977 16 Golden Ragwort Senecio aureus D. Kirk, A. Wormington 1977 17 Swamp Goldenrod Solidago uliginosa D. Kirk, A. Wormington 1977 18

Attach separate list if necessary .Attach documentation.

Scoring: 0

No. of species significant in Site District

1 species = 10 6 species = 41 2 species = 17 7 species = 43 3 species = 24 8 species = 45 4 species = 31 9 species = 47 5 species = 38 10 species = 49

For each significant species over 10 in the wetland, add 1 point.

Locally Significant Species Score (Site District) (no maximum) 0

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation March 1993 Wetlands Manual 4.2 SIGNIFICANT FEATURES AND/OR FISH & WILDLIFE HABITAT

4.2.1 NESTING OF COLONIAL WATERBIRDS

Status Name of species Source of Information Score

1) Currently nesting 50

2) Known to have nested 25 within past 5 years

3) Active feeding area (Do not include feeding 15 by great blue herons)

4) None known 0

Consult the Ontario Heronry database at Bird Studies Canada. Subtotal: 0 Attach documentation (nest locations etc., if known)

Score highest applicable category only; maximum score 50 points.

Score for Nesting Colonial Waterbirds (maximum 50 points) 0

4.2.2. WINTER COVER FOR WILDLIFE Score "locally significant" if trees & shrubs are present, also consult District deer yard data. (Check only highest level of significance) Score (one only) 1) Provincially significant l00 2) Significant in Site Region 50 3) Significant in Site District 25 3) 10 Locally significant 10 4) Little or poor winter cover present 0

Source of information: Art Timmerman

Winter Cover for Wildlife Score (maximum l00 points) 10

(Check only highest level of significance for both staging and moulting; score is cumulative across columns, maximum score 15

Staging Score Moulting Score (one only) (one only) 1) Nationally significant 150 150 2) Provincially significant 100 l00 3) Regionally significant 50 50 4) Known to occur 10 10 5) Not possible 0 0 0 0 6) Unknown 0 0 Total: 0 0 Subtotal: 0 Source of information: Art Timmerman Waterfowl Moulting and Staging Score (maximum 150 points) 0

4.2.4 WATERFOWL BREEDING

(Check only highest level of significance) Score

1) Provincially significant l00 2) Regionally significant 50 3) 10 Habitat suitable 10 4) Habitat not suitable 0

Source of information: Art Timmerman

Waterfowl Breeding Score (maximum lOO points) 10

4.2.5 MIGRATOR PASSERINE, SHOREBIRD OR RAPTOR STOPOVER AREA

(check highest applicable category)

1) Provincially significant l00 2) Significant in Site Region 50 3) Significant in Site District 10 4) 0 Not significant 0

Source of information: Art Timmerman

Passerine, Shorebird or Raptor Stopover Score (maximum 100 points) 0

Table 5. Area Factors for Low Marsh, High Marsh, and Swamp Communities.

No. of ha of Fish Habitat Area Factor < 0.5 ha 0.1 0.5- 4.9 0.2 5.0- 9.9 0.4 10.0- 14.9 0.6 15.0 -19.9 0.8 20.0+ ha 1.0

Step 1:

Fish habitat is not present within the wetland (Score = 0)

X Fish habitat is present within the wetland (Go to Step 2)

Step 2: Choose only one option

1) X Significance of the spawning and nursery habitat within the wetland is known (Go to Step 3)

2) Significance of the spawning and nursery habitat within the wetland is not known (Go through Steps 4, 5, 6 and 7)

Step 3: Select the highest appropriate category below attach documentation:

1) Significant in Site Region l00 points

2) Significant in Site District 50

3) Locally Significant Habitat (5.0+ ha) 25

4) 15 Locally Significant Habitat (<5.0 ha) 15

Score for Spawning and Nursery Habitat (maximum score 100 points) 15

(Low Marsh: marsh area from the existing water line out to the outer boundary of the wetland)

Low marsh not present (Continue to Step 5) Low marsh present (Score as follows)

Scoring for Presence of Key Vegetation Groups

Vegetation Vegetation Present Total Area Score Final Group Number Group Name as a Area Factor Score Dominant (ha) (area Form (see factor (check) Table 5) x score)

High marsh not present (Continue to Step 6) High marsh present (Score as follows)

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation March 1993 Wetlands Manual Scoring for Presence of Key Vegetation Groups

Swamp containing fish habitat not present (Continue to Step 7) Swamp containing fish habitat present (Score as follows)

Swamp containing fish Present Total Area Factor Score TOTAL SCORE Habitat (check) area (ha) (see Table 5) (factor x score)

Seasonally flooded 10 0.0 Permanently flooded 10 0.0 Sub SCORE (maximum 20 points) 0.0 SCORE (maximum 20 points) 0.0

Step 7: Calculation of final score

Score for Spawning and Nursery Habitat (Low Marsh) (maximum 75) = 0.0

Score for Spawning and Nursery Habitat (High Marsh) (maximum 25) = 0.0

Score for Swamp Containing Fish Habitat (maximum 20) = 0.0 Subtotal: 0.0 Sum (maximum score 100 points) = 0.0

1) Staging or Migration Habitat is not present in the wetland (Score = 0)

NOTE: Only one of Step 2 or Step 3 is to be scored.

Step 2: Select the highest appropriate category below, attach documentation: Score 1) Significant in Site Region 25 points

2) Significant in Site District 15

3) Locally Significant 10

4) Fish staging and/or migration habitat present,but not as above 5

Score for Fish Migration and Staging Habitat (maximum score 25 points) 0

Step 3: Select the highest appropriate category below based on presence of the designated site type (does not have to be dominant). See Section 1.1.3. Note name of river for 2) and 3).

Score 1) Wetland is riverine at rivermouth or lacustrine at rivermouth 25 points

2) Wetland is riverine,within 0.75 km of rivermouth 15

3) Wetland is lacustrine,within 0.75 km of rivermouth 10

4) Fish staging and/or migration habitat present, but not as above 5

Score for Staging and Migration Habitat (maximum score 25 points) 0

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation March 1993 Wetlands Manual 4.3 ECOSYSTEM AGE

(Fractional Area = area of wetland/total wetland area)

Fractional Area Scoring

Bog0.00 x 25 = 0.0 Fen, treed to open on deep soils floating mats or marl x 20 = 0.0 Fen, on limestone rock x 5 = 0.0 Swamp 0.98 x 3 = 3.0 Marsh 0.02 x 0 = 0.0 Sub Total: 3.0 Ecosystem Age Score (maximum 25 points) 3.0

4.4 GREAT LAKES COASTAL WETLANDS

Score for coastal (see text for definition) wetlands only

Choose one only

wetland < 10 ha = 0 points wetland 10- 50 ha = 25 wetland 51 -lOO ha = 50 wetland > 100 ha = 75

Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Score (maximum 75 points) 0

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetlands Manual 5.0 EXTRA INFORMATION

5.1 PURPLE LOOSESTRIFE

x Absent/Not seen

Present (a) One location in wetland Two to many locations

Abundance code (b) (l < 20 stems (2 20-99 stems (3 100-999 stems (4 >1000 stems

5.2 SEASONALLY FLOODED AREAS

Check one or more

Ephemeral (less than 2 weeks) Temporal (2 weeks to 1 month) x Seasonal (1 to 3 months) Semi-permanent (>3 months) No seasonal flooding

5.3 SPECIES OF SPECIAL SIGNIFICANCE

5.3.1 Osprey

Present and nesting Known to have nested in last 5 yr Feeding area for osprey Not as above

5.3.2 Common Loon

Nesting in wetland Feeding at edge of wetland Observed or heard on lake or river adjoining the wetland Not as above x

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record March 1993 Wetlands Manual INVESTIGATORS AFFILIATION

Art Timmerman Guelph MNR (2009) Jennifer Noel LGL Limited David Martin Dave Martin Pete Read and Sue Read Dave Martin James Holdworth Dave Martin Ross Snider Dave Martin

DATES WETLAND VISITED April 27, 2010, July 3, 2010, November 16, 2010

DATE THIS EVALUATION COMPLETED: November 1, 2010

ESTIMATED TIME DEVOTED TO COMPLETING THE FIELD SURVEY IN "PERSON HOURS"

WEATHER CONDITIONS

i) at time of field work (Continue in the space below if necessary)

ii) summer conditions in general

OTHER POTENTIALLY USEFUL INFORMATION:

CHECKLIST OF PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES RECORDED IN THE WETLAND:

Attach a list of all flora and fauna observed in the wetland.

*Indicate if voucher specimens or photos have been obtained, where located, etc.

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation March 1993 Wetlands Manual WETLAND EVALUATION SCORING RECORD

WETLAND NAME AND/OR NUMBER Ritch Tract Swamp

1.0 BIOLOGICAL COMPONENT

1.1 PRODUCTIVITY

1.1.1 Growing Degree-Days/Soils 10.4 1.1.2 Wetland Type 8.1 1.1.3 Site Type 2.0

Total for Productivity 20

1.2 BIODIVERSITY

1.2.1 Number of Wetland Types 13.0 1.2.2 Vegetation Communities (maxixmum 45) 24.5 1.2.3 Diversity of Surrounding Habitat (maximum 7) 7.0 1.2.4 Proximinty to Other Wetlands 5.0 1.2.5 Interspersion 21.0 1.2.6 Open Water Type 8.0

Total for Biodiversity 79 Sub Total for Biodiversity 79 1.3 SIZE (Biological Component) 31

Sub Total: 130 TOTAL FOR BIOLOGICAL COMPONENT (not to exceed 250) 130

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Welland Evaluation March 1993 Wetlands Manual 2.0 SOCIAL COMPONENT

2.1 ECONOMICALLY VALUABLE PRODUCTS

2.1.1 Wood Products 12 2.1.2 Wild Rice 0 2.1.3 Commercial Fish 12 2.1.4 Bullfrogs 1 2.1.5 Snapping Turtles 0 2.1.6 Furbearers 9

Total for Economically Valuable Products 34

2.2 RECREATIONAl ACTIVITIES (maximum 80) 28

2.3 LANDSCAPE AESTHETICS

2.3.1 Distinctness 3 2.3.2 Absence of Human Disturbance 1

Total for Landscape Aesthetics 4

2.4 EDUCATION AND PUBLIC AWARENESS

2.4.1 Educational Uses 0 2.4.2 Facilities and Programs 0 2.4.3 Research and Studies 5

Total for Education and Public Awareness 5

2.5 PROXIMITY TO AREAS OF HUMAN SETTLEMENT 16

2.6 OWNERSH1P 5 Subtotal for Social Component 78.0 2.7 SIZE (Social Component) 18

2.8 ABORIGINAL AND CULTURAL VALUES 0

Sub Total: 110 TOTAL FOR SOCIAL COMPONENT (not to exceed 250) 110

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southem Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Score Summary March 1993 Wetlands Manual 3.0 HYDROLOGICAL COMPONENT

3.1 FLOOD ATTENUATION 100

3.2 WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT

3.2.1 Short Term Improvement 45.2 3.2.2 Long Term Improvement 10.0 3.2.3 Groundwater Discharge (maximum 30) 4.0

Total for Water Quality Improvement 59

3.3 CARBON SINK 5

3.4 SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL 0

3.5 GROUNDWATER RECHARGE

3.5.1 Site Type 50.00 3.5.2 Soils 7.0

Total for Groundwater Recharge 57 Sub Total: 221 TOTAL FOR HYDROLOGICAL COMPONENT (not to exceed 250) 221

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Score Summary December 2002 Wetlands Manual

4.0 SPECIAL FEATURES

4.1 RARITY

4.1.1 Wetlands 4.1.1.1 Rarity within the Landscape 20.0 4.1.1.2 Rarirty of Wetland Type (maximum 80) 40.0

Total for Wetland Rarity 60

Total for Species Rarity 0

4.2 SIGNIFICANT FEATURES OR HABITAT

4.2.1 Colonial Waterbirds 0.0 4.2.2 Winter Cover for Wildlife 10.0 4.2.3 Waterfowl Staging and Moulting 0.0 4.2.4 Waterfowl Breeding 10.0 4.2.5 Migratory Passerine, Shorebird or Raptor Stopover 0.0 4.2.6 Fish Habitat 15.0

Total for Significant Features and Habitat 35

4.3 ECOSYSTEM AGE 3

4.4 GREAT LAKES COASTAL WETLANDS 0 Sub Total: 98 TOTAL FOR SPECIAL FEATURES (maximum 250) 98

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004 Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Score Summary March 1993 Wetlands Manual SUMMARY OF EVALUATION RESULT

Wetland Ritch Tract Swamp

TOTAL FOR 1.0 BIOLOGICAL COMPONENT 130

TOTAL FOR 2.0 SOCIAL COMPONENT 110

TOTAL FOR 3.0 HYDROLOGICAL COMPONENT 221

TOTAL FOR 4.0 SPECIAL FEATURES COMPONENT 98

WETLAND TOTAL 559

INVESTIGATORS Art Timmerman Jennifer Noel David Martin Pete Read and Sue Read James Holdworth AFFILIATION Guelph MNR (2009) LGL Limited Dave Martin Dave Martin Dave Martin

DATE November 1, 2010

Property of Ministry of Natural Resources - Guelph District November , 2004

13 LEGEND

14 NumID ELC Area (ha) 0 CUT1 5.3039 1 FOD5 4.0530 15 2 FOD5-8 6.1183 3 FOD4-2 21.0007 4 FOD7/CUT1 6.4104 5 SWD4 1.3992 6 FOD4 0.4807 7 FOD7 3.7601 8 FOD4-2 32.6279 9 SWD4-1 0.4831 10 MAS2 0.1619 11 MAM2 2.9290

WELLINGTON 12WELLINGTON RD 12 MAM2 1.4945 13 SWD4-1 0.4771 20 14 CUM1-1 1.4829 15 MAM2 0.6027 16 CUM1-1 9.2801 SIXTEENTH LINE 18 17 MAS2 0.5441 19 18 SWD4-1 2.2511 19 MAM2 0.7365 16 17 20 CUP3 12.1390

12 SIDERD12 2 11 12 8 3 Conestogo Wind Farm REA Review 4 ELC

6 SIDERD6

3 SIDERD 3 5

6 10 FOURTEENTH LINE 9

7 Project TA4914 Figure

Date Prepared By: ± November, 2010 KC Meters 0150 300 600 900 1,200 Scale 1:22,000 Verified By: JAF LEGEND

NumID ELC Area (ha) 13 0 CUT1 5.3039 1FOD5 4.0530 14 2FOD5-8 6.1183 3FOD4-2 21.0007 15 4 FOD7/CUT1 5.6827 5SWD4 1.3992 6FOD4 0.4807 7FOD7 3.1385 8FOD4-2 32.6279 9SWD4-1 0.4831 10MAS2 0.1619 11MAM2 2.9290 12MAM2 1.4945 13SWD4-1 0.4771 14 CUM1-1 1.4829 15MAM2 0.6027 16 CUM1-1 9.2801 18 17MAS2 0.5441 19 18SWD4-1 2.7306 16 17 19MAM2 0.7365

2 11 12 8 3

4 Conestogo Wind Farm REA Review ELC 5

6 10 9 7

Project TA4914 Figure 2

Date Prepared By: ± November, 2010 KC Meters 0200 400 800 1,200 1,600 Scale 1:25,000 Verified By: JAF Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

APPENDIX I PROJECT TEAM QUALIFICATIONS (LGL LIMITED, GENIVAR, DAVE MARTIN)

LGL Limited environmental research associates Conestogo Wind Farm Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

LGL LIMITED

LGL Limited environmental research associates ALLISON FEATHERSTONE, (HONS.) B.Sc. Planning Ecologist

EDUCATION

1997 Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.), University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario – Honours Specialization in Marine Biology.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

June 2003 to Planning Ecologist, LGL Limited, Burlington, Ontario present

2001 Biologist and Consultant - Vancouver Aquarium Marine Science Centre, Vancouver, British Columbia

1998 - 2001 Zoologist - Greater Vancouver Zoo, Aldergrove, British Columbia

1997 Biologist - United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Homestead, Florida

1995 - 1997 Biologist and Naturalist – Halton Region Conservation Authority, Campbellville, Ontario

1996 - 1997 Biologist and Naturalist - NEST Inc., Eden Mills, Ontario

1994 - 1996 Biologist and Junior Naturalist Coordinator - The Arboretum, Guelph, Ontario

1991-1994 Biologist – University of Guelph Marine Annex

1990 - 1991 Environmental Technician - Conestoga Rovers and Associates Ltd., Waterloo, Ontario

VOLUNTEER EXPERIENCE February 2006 to present Ecological and Environmental Advisory Committee, Region of Waterloo

PROFILE

Since joining LGL in June 2003, she has been involved with natural heritage investigations in support of Environmental Assessments for sewer, water and transportation projects, Renewable Energy Projects, Comprehensive Broad Scale Environmental Studies and Environmental Impact Statements. She has participated in benthic and fisheries collections, wildlife monitoring, tree surveys and wildlife habitat assessments for amphibians including Jefferson salamander. She has coordinated one of the largest Jefferson salamander studies to date in the Province and possibly the range of the species, in order to address the requirements of the Endangered Species Act, 2007. Ms. Featherstone’s role is to work as the project ecologist/biologist to provide a consolidated view of environmental sensitivities for a project and to work through project issues with the project team and approval agencies. Her experience as project manager and as part of a natural science team includes planning, investigating and preparing environmental impact studies, natural sciences reports, management plans, tree preservation plans and environmental inspection reports, permitting issues, including the determination of environmental constraints, development of monitoring strategies, recommendation of mitigation measures and attendance at public consultation centres for many projects.

PROJECT EXPERIENCE

Environmental Assessments (Highlighted Projects) Project Biologist for Burloak Water Purification Plant Class EA and Gore Bay Water Treatment Plant Class EA, involving assessment of fisheries habitats and terrestrial constraints for siting of water treatment plants and intake pipes into Lake Ontario and Lake Huron respectively.

Project Biologist for Permit to Take Water 16th Avenue Trunk Sewer Phase 2 involving a detailed natural heritage environmental assessment based on secondary information, field investigations, and environmental monitoring of fisheries and terrestrial impacts.

Project Biologist for Duffins Creek WPCP Upgrade EA, assessing the expansion of the plant.

Project Biologist for the Oshawa WTP Upgrade and Expansion, involving the assessment of the expansion on the terrestrial and wetland features.

Page 1 of 2

ALLISON FEATHERSTONE, (HONS.) B.Sc. Planning Ecologist

Project Biologist for the 16th Ave Yong to McCowan Class EA, involving assessing the impacts relating to road improvements.

Project Biologist for the South Kitchener Transportation Study Class EA, involving the assessment of transportation options, including detailed amphibian surveys.

Project Biologist for Etobicoke Creek Sanitary Sewer Replacement, involving assessment of a sewermain replacement within the Etobicoke Creek floodplain.

Project Biologist for Proprietary Wind Farm Project, involving screening of Natural Heritage Features at a broad environmental scale as well as a Bat Screening Assessment for determination of field efforts for pre-construction monitoring.

Project Biologist for the Guelph Waste Water Treatment Plant involving a comprehensive benthic invertebrate investigation, which included the collection of benthic invertebrates, habitat information and detailed assessment of outfall, including the collection of data to satisfy the Ontario Benthos Biomonitoring Network protocol.

Project Biologist for the Corner Brook Water Treatment Plant Upgrade EA and CEAA screening, involving a detailed desktop investigation of Natural Heritage Features.

Project Biologist for a 4th Propriety Wind Farm Project, involving the completion of the Natural Heritage Review, field investigations, public and first nation’s consultation to satisfy the new Green Energy Act and other project requirements.

Project Biologist for the Grand and Nith River Water Quality Monitoring Program participating in the extensive benthic invertebrate sampling and water quality sampling portion of the project.

Project Biologist for the River Road Extension Class EA, a transportation corridor project involving a complex Species at Risk permitting application under the Endangered Species Act, 2007.

Project Biologist and coordinator for the Toronto Basement Flooding project, which is a large and complex project that involves assessing various flooding salutations at a large scale and small scale within a large geographic area.

Project Biologist and coordinator for the Zone 1 and Zone 3 Burlington Oakville Interconnecting Watermains EAs (two separate EAs) involving a detailed and extensive program in support of the potential watermain crossing of Bronte Creek.

Comprehensive Environmental Studies, Environmental Impact Studies and Detailed Design (Highlighted Projects)

Project Biologist for the Rockfort Quarry, proposed quarry application by James Dick Construction, involving detailed amphibian surveys.

Project Biologist for Old Major Mackenzie Drive Fill Violation involving the preparation, approval, and implementation of a restoration plan as a result of a fill violation of TRCA policies along the Humber River valley.

Project Biologist for the Etobicoke Creek Trunk Sewer Detailed Design which involved a detailed tree and vegetation survey and coordination with TRCA regarding their Habitat Implementation Programs for restoration of natural areas.

Project Biologist and Project Manager for the Conestoga College Master Plan Environmental Impact Study for the new Cambridge Campus location.

Project Biologist for the Credit Valley Trunk Sewer Rehabilitation Detailed Design involving the detailed assessment of impacts to natural heritage features within the Credit Valley River corridor.

Project Biologist and Project Manager for the Brampton Christian School Natural Heritage Evaluation in support of the school expansion on table land adjacent the Etobicoke Creek valley in Brampton.

CERTIFICATIONS

2009 First Aid, Level I 1993 Sport SCUBA Diver – ACUC and NAUI Certification

Page 2 of 2

J. ARNEL FAUSTO, M.Sc. Vice President and Senior Ecologist

EDUCATION 1991 Master of Science (M.Sc.), Watershed Ecosystems, Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario. Ontario Graduate Scholar and Recipient of Entomological Society of Canada Postgraduate Scholarship Award for Outstanding Achievement

1987 Honours Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.), Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Present Vice President and Senior Ecologist 2005-2008 Manager, Burlington Area Office and Senior Ecologist 2000- 2005 Senior Project Manager and Senior Ecologist, LGL Limited, Burlington, Ontario 1996-2000 Environmental Biologist (Associate Scientist) Canadian Region, CH2M Hill Canada Limited, Consulting Engineers, Waterloo, Ontario. 1995-96 Biologist and Environmental Planner, Gore and Storrie Limited, Consulting Engineers and Scientists, Cambridge, Ontario. 1994-95 Environmental Technician and Agricultural Specialist, Department of Policy, Planning, and Resource Management, Environmental Services Division, Grand River Conservation Authority. 1991-94 Biologist, Conservation Services Advisor, Water Quality Program Specialist and Facilitator Provincial Clean Up Rural Beaches Program, Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy and the Long Point Region Conservation Authority. 1990 Senior Laboratory and Field Instructor, Faculty of Biological Services, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario. . 1985-87 Teaching Assistant and Botanical Herbarium Curator, Department of Biology, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario.

PROFILE

Mr. Fausto is a Vice President and Senior Ecologist in LGL’s Burlington office with over 20 years of experience specialising in multidisciplinary projects involving impact assessment, water quality monitoring, environmental planning, facility siting, biomonitoring, fisheries, wetlands, benthic and botanical studies in Canada and the United States. He has been a consultant for many Class Environmental Assessments, Watershed Studies, Lake and Stream Corridor Remediation and Restoration Projects, Biodiversity Studies, Environmental Impact Assessments, Fisheries Studies, Pipeline Corridor Assessments, and has also served as a Planner and Construction Inspector for numerous municipal infrastructure projects. He has performed numerous aquatic and terrestrial investigations at large industrial facilities, power utilities, water intake plants, and nuclear generating stations affected by various degrees and types of pollution, and have been qualified as an expert witness in Ontario Provincial Court. He has directed and conducted studies of the impacts of various agricultural land use practices from his involvement with provincial government environmental programs in Ontario. Mr. Fausto career experience also includes technical and permitting support for wide range of projects in the U.S., where he has prepared Environmental Assessment Documentation for submission under NEPA and the Clean Water Act, and is familiar with protocols used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Mr. Fausto specialises in the assessment of potential ecological impacts to aquatic and terrestrial habitats resulting from past industrial activities. Mr. Fausto is currently a Senior Advisor to many of the large engineering firms undertaking water quality, water supply, wastewater, and effluent plume studies throughout the Great Lakes Region and Greater Toronto Area.

1 of 3 J. ARNEL FAUSTO, M.Sc. Vice President and Senior Ecologist

RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE

Environmental Assessments of Water and Wastewater Mr. Fausto served as the LGL Project Manager (Lead Natural Heritage Specialist) for the following municipal Class EAs:  Amherstburg Water Pollution Control Plant, Town of Amherstburg;  Corner Brook Water Supply Project, City of Corner Brook, Newfoundland and Labrador;  Burlington to Oakville Interconnecting Watermains, Regional Municipality of Halton;  Skyway Waste Water Treatment Plant Expansion, Regional Municipality of Halton  Market Drive Sanitary Sewer, Regional Municipality of Halton;  Halton Zone 5 Reservoir (Milton 5L), Regional Municipality of Halton;  Burlington Water Treatment Plant, New Intake, Regional Municipality of Halton;  Yonge Street Watermains, Regional Municipality of York;  Schomberg Water Supply, Regional Municipality of York;  Brampton East Corridor Feedermains, Regional Municipality of Peel;  Etobicoke Creek Trunk Sewer Rehabilitation, Regional Municipality of Peel;  Watermains in Dixie and Goreway Drive, Regional Municipality of Peel;  Chinguacousy Forcemain, Regional Municipality of Peel;  Lakeview Water Treatment Plant Expansion, Regional Municipality of Peel;  Palgrave Watermain, Regional Municipality of Peel;  East Mall Queensway Trunk Watermain, City of Toronto;  Lornewood Creek Emergency Works and Trunk Sewer, Regional Municipality of Peel  West Trunk Sewer Class EA, Regional Municipality of Peel;  Kennedy Pumping Station to Major MacKenzie Watermains, City of Toronto  Brantford Southwest Watermains, City of Brantford;  Rosehill Pumping Station to Bayview and Eglinton Avenue Watermains, City of Toronto;  Avenue Road to Duplex Watermains, City of Toronto;  Glendarling to Bearwood Watermains, City of Toronto  Horgan to Ellesmere Trunk Watermain, City of Toronto;  F.J. Horgan Water Treatment Plant, City of Toronto  Oakfield Drive Sanitary Sewer, City of Toronto  Rennie Park Sanitary Sewer Replacement, City of Toronto;  North Toronto Treatment Plant Expansion, City of Toronto  Coatsworth Cut CSO and Stormwater Outfall Control, City of Toronto  Duffins Creek Water Pollution Control Plant Upgrade, Region of York and Durham;  Aurora Newmarket Water Supply, Regional Municipality of York Design/Build Project;  York/Peel Water Feedermain, Regional Municipality of York;  Markham Pressure District 6 Water Supply, Regional Municipality of York Design/Build Project;  Stouffville-York Water System Watermains , Regional Municipality of York;  Stouffville Water Supply, Regional Municipality of York;  Guelph Waste Water Treatment Plant Effluent Plume Biomonitoring, City of Guelph;  Burloak Water Purification Plant and New Water Intake, for the Regional Municipality of Halton;  Gore Bay Water Purification Plant and New Water Intake, Town of Gore Bay;  Leslie Street Lower Trunk Sewer and 19th Avenue Interceptor Sewer, Regional Municipality of York;  Vaughan Pressure District 7 Watermains, City of Vaughan;  Lakeview Water Treatment Plant Expansion, Regional Municipality of Peel;

2 of 3 J. ARNEL FAUSTO, M.Sc. Vice President and Senior Ecologist

 16th Avenue York Durham Sewage System Phases 1 and 2, Regional Municipality of York;  Parry Sound Water Intake, Town of Parry Sound;  Little Current Water Treatment Plant, Town of Little Current;  Timmins Water Treatment Plant, Town of Timmins

CERTIFICATIONS Certified Fisheries Assessment Specialist, Ministry of Transportation, 2006 Certified in Stream Assessment Protocol for the Province of Ontario, Ministry of Natural Resources, 1995 Certified Wetland Evaluator, Ministry of Natural Resources, 1995 Certified Electrofishing Crew Leader, 2nd Class Backpack Ministry of Natural Resources, 1994 Certified NAUI Scuba Diver

PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS American Fisheries Society North American Lake Management Society Ecological and Environmental Advisory Committee Member (1995-1998), Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Ontario. Reappointed 1998-2001

SELECTED TECHNICAL PAPERS AND PRESENTATIONS Clean Up Rural Beaches (CURB) Plan for the Lake Erie Beaches of Port Burwell and Sandhills Park Regions. Prepared for the Science and Technology Branch, Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy. 1992. Devil’s Creek Watershed Enhancement Study, A Case Study of Watershed Restoration. Proceedings of the First Annual Ecological Engineering Conference, Bangkok, Thailand. 1997. Seasonal movements of the burrowing mayfly, Hexagenia limbata (Ephemeroptera: Ephemeridae) in stratified lakes. M.Sc. dissertation, Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario. 1991. Seasonal movements of the burrowing mayfly, Hexagenia limbata (Ephemeroptera: Ephemeridae) in stratified lakes. Ontario Ecology and Ethology Colloquium. Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario. 1990. With F. Bandoni. Pioneering Ecologically Acceptable Methods for Sewer Construction: The Devil’s Creek Trunk Sewer Construction Project. Proceedings of the First Annual Ecological Engineering Conference, Bangkok, Thailand. 1997. With J.H. Pries, D. Crichton, and E. Pastrik. 1998. Pilot Stormwater Treatment Wetland for High Park, Toronto. WEAO Conference, Toronto, Ontario. With M. Berrill. Distribution patterns of the burrowing mayfly, Hexagenia limbata (Ephemeroptera: Ephemeridae) in stratified lakes. Presented at Ninth Annual Conference of the Society of Canadian Limnologists, Ottawa. 1990. With S.A. Black. 1999. Biomonitoring Impacts of Spray Irrigation at Nottawasaga Inn Golf Courses. Environmental Science and Engineering, August/ September 1999. Vol. 12:4 ISSN-0835-605X. With S.D. Finucan. Clean Up Rural Beaches Plan for the Hay and Dedrich Creek Watersheds. Prepared for the Provincial Rural Beaches Planning and Advisory Committee, Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy. 1992. With S.K. Mainguy and E. Pastrik. 1998. Mitigating Impacts of Sewer Construction through Wetland Restoration and Habitat Creation: The Devil’s Creek Trunk Sewer Project. Reclamation and Restoration of Settled Landscapes: Proceedings of Society of Ecological Restoration, Ontario Chapter, Markham, Ontario. With W.G. Clarke and S. Eaton. Mohawk Lake Sediment Management Assessment: A case study of urban lake rehabilitation. Presented at the North American Lake Management Society 15th International Symposium on Lake, Reservoir and Watershed Management, Toronto. 1995.

3 of 3 JENNIFER NOEL, M.Sc., B.Sc. (Hons.) Botanist EDUCATION 2004 Master of Science (M.Sc.), Watershed Ecosystem Graduate Program, Environmental Science, Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario

2000 Bachelor of Science Honours Conservation and Restoration Ecology Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario

2000 Certificate in Environmental Biology Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

Present Botanist, LGL Limited, Burlington, Ontario

2006 Ecologist, Watershed Management Ecology, Milton, Ontario

2005 Terrestrial Monitoring Assistant, Credit Valley Conservation, Mississauga, Ontario

2005 Data Manager, Ontario Soybean Growers, Guelph, Ontario

2004 Class Two Electrofishing Instructor, MRN Nipigon, Ontario

2004 Fisheries Research Technician, Trout Unlimited, Guelph, Ontario

2001-04 Graduate Teaching Assistant, Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario

2001 Biological Science Technician (Botany), USGS, Corvallis, Oregon

2001 Biology Research Assistant, MNR Fish Co-op Unit Sudbury, Ontario

1998-2001 Biology Research Assistant, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario

1997 Field Technician, Ecological Service Group for Planning, Timmins

PROFILE Jennifer Noël joined LGL’s Burlington Office in 2006, after 10 years of experience working for various stakeholders which include educational institutions, government agencies, conservation authorities, non profit organizations and the private sector. She has participated in a variety of projects including due diligence surveys, environmental impact studies, class environmental assessments, species at risk surveys, wetland identification and delineation, biodiversity assessments and natural heritage investigations. Ms. Noël has extensive experience in field sampling and analysis of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems using a wide range of sampling gear such as seine nets, electrofishing gear, flow gauge, pH meters, conductivity meter and various plot sampling devices. Ms. Noël is certified in electrofishing, ecological monitoring and land classification (ELC), Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES) and is familiar with the identification of aquatic and terrestrial plant, fish, and amphibians in Ontario. Ms. Noël has experience with project management, design and monitoring. She is fluent in both English and French.

Page 1 of 2

JENNIFER NOEL, M.Sc., B.Sc. (Hons.) Botanist REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT EXPERIENCE INCLUDES:

 Highway 11 Bridge Replacement – Frederick House and Kendall River, District of Cochrane and District of Temiskaming – Group “B” Class EA  Highway 11 Bridge Replacement - Blanche, White Clay and North Wicklow River Bridges, District of Cochrane Preliminary and Detail Design, Group “B” Class EA  Detroit River International Crossing – Natural heritage evaluation for Route Planning Study  Detroit River International Crossing – Species at Risk Survey  Detroit River International Crossing – Significant Wetland Investigation  Improvements to Highway 40 in Sarnia - Preliminary Design, Schedule “C’ Class EA  Milton Phase III Natural Heritage Evaluation – Vegetation and community characterization, natural heritage feature constraint analysis, wetland investigation  Evergreen Community EIS – Natural heritage evaluation and constraint analysis  Food Chain and Vegetation Stress Study of Belledune Smelter, New Brunswick.  Biodiversity Assessment of Xstrata’s Mines 12 and 6. New Brunswick  Vegetation Stress Analysis using NDVI of Xstrata’s Mine 12. New Brunswick  Rennie Park Sewer Replacement in the City of Toronto – Assessment Schedule “B” Class EA  Coatsworth Cut CSO and Stormwater Outfalls Control in the City of Toronto– Preliminary Assessment Schedule “C” Class EA  Watermain improvements EIS Meadowvale Pumping Station to Mill Creek Drive Mississauga - Natural Heritage Report  Mimico Creek Watermain Replacement, City of Toronto Vegetation assessment and route selection analysis  Etobicoke Creek Trunk Sewer. City of Toronto, vegetation analysis and route selection analysis – Schedule “C” Class EA.  LFTA TC Meaford Deer survey – field crew  16th Avenue PWWT, York Region, Fish habitat and community assessment.  Fisheries investigation Highway 11 Frederick House and Kendal River Bridge –Cochrane.  Species at Risk Surveys – Kitchener, salamander surveys  Rockfort Quarry wetland monitoring – Credit Valley Watershed  Pine Ridge wetland photo monitoring – Milton  Conservation Estates photo monitoring - Guelph  Dolphin wetland impact and restoration – Georgina  Shaver Road wetland delineation – Ancaster

MEMBERSHIPS/CERTIFICATES Ontario Wetland Evaluation System Certificate Ecological Land Classification Certificate MNR Designated Butternut Health Assessor MNR Electrofishing Crew Leader (Class 1) International Society of Arboriculture – Ontario Member CPR certification (Annually renewed)

Page 2 of 2

J. ROBERT NISBET, B.Sc. Wildlife Specialist

PROFESSIONAL EXPERTISE

• Project Management • Peer Review and Expert Consultation • Wildlife Population and Habitat Surveys • Wildlife Information Assessment and Evaluation

EDUCATION

1975 B. Sc. Geography, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario

PRESENT RESPONSIBILITIES

Responsible for project management and field investigations, provision of terrestrial wildlife biology expertise as a participant in projects, and provision of peer review services on behalf of private and public sector clients.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

1998 Project Manager/Wildlife Surveys, LGL Limited to present

1989-1997 Project Manager/Resource Planning Consultant, Bird and Hale Limited

PROFILE

Mr. Nisbet is experienced in the assessment of natural heritage conditions, specializing in wildlife species and wildlife habitat evaluation. He has a strong working knowledge of the Ontario wildlife resource, and is well known for his work by government and non-government organizations. He has many years of experience in gathering and interpreting data on wildlife populations and wildlife habitat. Mr. Nisbet has presented to municipal and regional councils, municipal planning committees, and before the Ontario Municipal Board, and he has a sound working knowledge of relevant legislation, policies and procedures. Federal legislation (Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994), and provincial legislation (Endangered Species Act, Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act and Policy 2.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement are of particular interest to Mr. Nisbet in this regard. In addition, Mr. Nisbet has a long history of involvement with non-government organizations, including advisory committees and special interest groups.

Wildlife habitat assessment and evaluation is Mr. Nisbet's principle area of expertise, particularly within the settled environment. He has considerable experience in the field of habitat assessment and the evaluation of wildlife habitat capability, including the assessment of a range of landscape types to confirm wildlife corridor and linkage functions. In addition to his professional work in this regard, Mr. Nisbet has been involved in a wide range of volunteer based wildlife survey and monitoring initiatives, including atlasing programs, bird banding, seasonal bird counts, migration monitoring, breeding bird surveys, marsh monitoring and bird of prey surveys, and has contributed numerous wildlife specimens and observations to the Royal Ontario Museum Life Science Collections and database.

Wildlife occupation and use of natural and man-made corridors comprise a field of avocational and professional interest for Mr. Nisbet. Road casualty data is collected routinely by Mr. Nisbet as a part of the field information acquisition phase of natural heritage assessments.

Page 1 of 2 J. ROBERT NISBET, B.Sc. Wildlife Specialist

Mr. Nisbet possesses a strong working knowledge of southern Ontario wildlife populations with particular emphasis on species of conservation concern. He is experienced in assessing and evaluating wildlife information in the context of government regulations, policies and guidelines, and maintains contact with the professional and academic communities, as well as avocational experts, to stay abreast of state of the art research results respecting natural heritage management issues.

PROJECT EXPERIENCE SUMMARY

Natural Heritage Planning Studies: Project Manager and participant in Secondary Plan and Community Plan level municipal studies involving terrestrial and aquatic environment assessment and evaluation, the identification of key wildlife features and functions, and the provision of recommendations for wildlife related land use strategies;

Watershed and Subwatershed Studies: Participant in numerous studies responsible for the documentation of terrestrial wildlife habitat and populations, evaluation of wildlife species and related features and functions, input to constraint analysis exercises, and recommendations for wildlife management;

Environmental Impact Studies: Project Manager and participant in numerous environmental impact studies for variable scale rural and urban developments, environmental impact statements prepared in regard for potential development affects on valued natural heritage, including plant and animal species of conservation concern, environmentally sensitive/significant areas, areas of natural and scientific interest, wetlands, the Oak Ridges Moraine, and the Niagara Escarpment;

Provincial and Municipal Road Projects: Participant in such projects in the documentation and evaluation of terrestrial habitat, wildlife presence and use of transportation corridor conditions, and in mitigation design;

Bird Hazards to Aircraft: Participant in studies assessing and evaluating the bird hazard risks to aircraft through the collection and assessment of bird population and bird behaviour information;

Landfill Impact Studies: Participant in studies of existing and proposed sanitary waste disposal sites through documentation of terrestrial wildlife habitat and populations, and monitoring of key species;

Wildlife Surveys: Project Manager and Participant in surveys and field inventories of terrestrial wildlife species and populations, including species of conservation concern and species of management interest;

Wildlife Management Studies: Project Manager and Participant in studies respecting documentation, assessment, and evaluation of wildlife data and preparation of management plans for wildlife, in situations as varied as airport land management strategies, urban nuisance wildlife conflicts, and conveyance of wildlife across transportation corridors.

Page 2 of 2 KAREN CHUNG, B.Sc.(Hons.), G.I.S. Cert. GIS Analyst

EDUCATION

2007-2008 Postgraduate Certificate in GIS – Applications Specialist, Sir Sanford Fleming College

2003-2007 B.Sc.(Honours) in Biology, Queen’s University

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

2008-present GIS Analyst LGL Limited, Burlington, Ontario

Mapping and Geospatial Data Processing Provides mapping for reports and field programs for a variety of projects. Routine tasks include: . georeferencing and mosiacing air photo . digitizing . ELC mapping . constraints mapping . mapping and processing Land Information Warehouse (LIO) warehouse data and MNR data . mapping and processing Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) natural heritage areas and at risk species data . mapping and processing Forest Resource Inventory (FRI) data . deriving secondary attributes from data . area and length calculations for spatial features . querying and classification of spatial data

GIS Analysis Grand & Nith Rivers Surface Water Quality Monitoring Program, Region of Waterloo . subwatershed delineation using Digital Elevation Model (DEM) Gowganda Surface Water Sampling, BacTech Mining Corp . subwatershed delineation using Digital Elevation Model (DEM) . habitat screening for selected at risk species Xstrata Little River Surface Water Aquatic Assessment, Task A 2009 Field Work, Xstrata Zinc Canada . subwatershed delineation using Digital Elevation Model (DEM) . land cover and vegetation analysis Xstrata Biodiversity Assessment, Xstrata Zinc Canada . derived Normalized Difference Vegetative Index (NDVI) with Landsat imagery . involved with development of a model to assess biodiversity based on forest habitat structure and composition around mine sites . created a workflow for the model in ArcGIS model builder . created raster surfaces of benthic invertebrate diversity by interpolating values at sampling stations

Page 1 of 2 KAREN CHUNG, B.Sc.(Hons.), G.I.S. Cert. GIS Analyst

Database Design and Management Grand & Nith Rivers Surface Water Quality Monitoring Program, Region of Waterloo . designed database structure . processed field sampling data for input into database Cobalt – Chemical & Biological Study to Assess the Receiving Waters, Ministry of Northern Development and Mines . designed database structure . processed historical data for input into database Xstrata Little River Surface Water Aquatic Assessment, Task A 2009 Field Work, Xstrata Zinc Canada . designed database structure . processed historical data for input into database Xstrata Biodiversity Assessment, Xstrata Zinc Canada . designed six databases to store biodiversity data for six mine sites across Canada . processed historical data for input into databases . programmed customized functions in the databases with VBA

Programming and Customization Routinely creates scripts and codes to perform customized functions and to simplify workflow for mapping and querying . linear interpolation tool with ArcObjects for interpolating parameter values between sampling stations. This tool was also used in several projects involving water quality sampling.

CERTIFICATES

ESRI Virtual Campus Training Aug 2009 Creating and Integrating Data for Natural Resource Applicationsl Jul 2009 Learning ArcGIS 3D Analyst Jun 2009 Georeferencing Rasters in ArcGIS Dec 2008 Customizing ArcGIS Desktop (for ArcGIS 9.0-9.1) Oct 2008 Learning ArcGIS Spatial Analyst (for ArcGIS Spatial Analyst 9.0-9.1) Jul 2008 Creating, Editing, and Managing Geodatabases for ArcGIS Desktop Jul 2008 Using CASE Tools (for ArcEditor and ArcInfo) Feb 2008 Geoprocessing with ArcGIS Desktop (for ArcGIS 9.0-9.1) Feb 2008 Introduction to ArcGIS 9 Geostatistical Analyst Feb 2008 Learning ArcGIS Desktop (for ArcGIS 9.0-9.1) Jan 2008 Understanding Map Projections and Coordinate Systems Oct 2007 Basics of the Geodatabase Data Model

Page 2 of 2 MELISSA A. KIDDIE, B.SC, ERPG, CEPIT Ecologist EDUCATION

Currently Masters of Environmental Studies (Planning). York University, Toronto, Ontario.enrolled 2002 Ecosystem Restoration Post Graduate Certificate. Niagara College, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario 2001 Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.), Biology (major), Chemistry and Geography (minors), Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

2003 to Ecologist, LGL Limited, Burlington, Ontario present 2002-2003 Aquatic Ecologist Intern (Science Horizons Youth Intern), Royal Botanical Gardens, Hamilton, Ontario 2002 Lynn River State of the Watershed Project Technician, Long Point Region Conservation Authority, Simcoe, Ontario 2002 Water Quality Resource Technician, Long Point Region Conservation Authority, Simcoe, Ontario

PROFILE

Since joining LGL in 2003, Melissa has been involved in baseline data collection and monitoring that has involved detailed fisheries surveys, aquatic habitat evaluations, frog call surveys, amphibian habitat assessments, benthic invertebrate collections, water temperature monitoring and water quality sampling. Melissa has also been involved with natural heritage investigations in support of due diligence requests, Class Environmental Assessments for sewer and water main projects, Environmental Impact Statements, Comprehensive Broad Scale Environmental Studies and Federal Fisheries Act Authorizations.

PROJECT EXPERIENCE

Field Baseline Data Collection and Monitoring • Phase III Milton Secondary Plan, Milton- Completed baseline data collection that involved frog call surveys and fish habitat characterization • 16th Avenue Trunk Sewer Phase 2, Region of York- Completed baseline data collection that involved fisheries surveys, benthic invertebrate sampling temperature monitoring. • Rockfort Quarry, Town of Caledon-Completed baseline data collection that involved fisheries surveys, benthic invertebrate sampling, temperature monitoring, water quality sampling and frog call surveys.

Page 1 of 2 MELISSA A. KIDDIE, B.SC, ERPG, CEPIT Ecologist Benthic Invertebrate Studies • Nottawasaga Benthic Collection, Alliston- Completed fall benthic sampling and analysis at the Nottawasaga Inn complex in order to satisfy MOE Certificate of Approval. • Bracebridge Landfill Benthic Sampling Program, Bracebridge- Completed benthic analysis and report writing for continuation of biological monitoring of the Bracebridge Landfill in order to satisfy MOE Schedule E for Certificate of Approval.

Due Diligence Reports, Class Environmental Assessments, Environmental Impact Statements • Completed natural heritage reviews for properties within Ontario in order to identify opportunities and constraints for development • Old Simcoe Road Sanitary Sewerage Pumping Station, Port Perry-Completed natural sciences report for upgrades to Old Simcoe Road Sanitary Sewerage Pumping Station in the Town of Port Perry as part of a Class B EA. • Hanson Avenue, City of Kitchener- Completed natural sciences report for the extension of Hanson Avenue as part of a Class B EA. • Grimsby Watercourse Assessment, Town of Grimsby- Completed an Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed residential development within the Town of Grimsby. • Evergreen EIS, City of Burlington- Completed an Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed residential development within the City of Burlington.

Permit Applications • Alton Lands Fish Habitat Off-site Compensation, City of Burlington- Applied for Niagara Escarpment Commission Application in order to complete off-site fish habitat compensation at Camp Sidrabene in the City of Burlington. • Burlington Wal-Mart Fairview Street, City of Burlington- Applied for DFO Fisheries Act Authorization and completed a Letter of Intent for the development of a new Wal-Mart store in the City of Burlington.

MEMBERSHIPS/CERTIFICATIONS

First Aid/CPR Certification (Annually renewed) MNR Electrofishing Crew Leader II- Backpack Course BIOMAP Certification Canadian Environmental Practitioner-in-Training Certification (CEPIT) Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) Identification of Ontario Fisheries Course Ontario Benthic Biomonitoring Network (OBBN) Certification Ontario Professional Planners Institute (Student Membership) Toastmasters International Competent Communicator Certificate

Page 2 of 2 Conestogo Wind Farm Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

GENIVAR

LGL Limited environmental research associates ENVIRONMENT

MICHAEL J. EWASCHUK, Honours B.Sc. AQUATIC AND TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGIST, ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

AREAS OF PRACTICE PROFILE Environmental Michael Ewaschuk is an Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecologist with 10 years of Management – Aquatic experience specializing in fisheries and fish habitat inventories, impact and Terrestrial Ecology assessments, and developing mitigation and compensation plans for Fisheries Act Authorizations. In addition, Mr. Ewaschuk has utilized his Terrestrial Ecology skills in characterization of riparian habitat, wildlife habitat assessments and inventories, and vegetation surveys and protection plans in project pre-design phases. His expertise comes from working with agencies and consultants involved with all aspects of fish habitat management, and components of terrestrial habitat management. Working with a variety of government agencies and private consultants has exposed Michael to a broad range of both management agendas and diverse ecosystems. His experience and educational background provide him with insight and knowledge valuable to a wide variety of projects.

EDUCATION

Honours Bachelor’s of Science, Marine and Freshwater Biology, 2002 University of Guelph Agricultural Sciences (one semester), University of Guelph 2000 Fish and Wildlife Technician Diploma, Sir Sanford Fleming 1997 College

ADDITIONAL TRAINING Ontario Waterpower Association – Power of Water Conference 2009 Class 2 Backpack Crew Leader Electrofishing Course 2009 Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol Training Course 2009 RAQS certified – Fisheries Assessment Specialist 2009 Gartner Lee Limited - Fisheries Training Workshop 2008 Gartner Lee Limited - Air Photo Interpretation Training 2008 Latornell Conference 2007 GLL Ecological Risk Management Training 2007 MTO/DFO/OMNR Protocol – Fisheries Specialist Training 2006 Course American Fisheries Society Conference 2006 Gartner Lee Limited - Surface Water/Groundwater Interactions 2006 Workshops DFO Advanced Fish Habitat Training Workshop 2005 Bay of Quinte Science Conference 2004 IJC - State of the Lakes Conference 2003 constructive people MICHAEL J. EWASCHUK, Honours B.Sc.

IAGLR Science Conference 1998 CCIW - Boat Electrofishing Training 1998 Sir Sanford Fleming College - Backpack Electrofishing Training 1997

CAREER

Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecologist, GENIVAR 2009 - Present Aquatic Ecologist, Gartner Lee Limited/AECOM, Markham, ON 2006 - 2008 Aquatic Ecologist, Niblett Environmental Associates Inc. 2004 - 2005 Fish Habitat Management Plan Coordinator, Bay of Quinte 2002 - 2004 Remedial Action Plan Geomorphology Technician, Credit Valley Conservation 2002 Stream Rehabilitation Crew Leader, Credit Valley Conservation 2000 - 2002 Aquatic Ecologist, Tarandus Associates Limited 1999 Fisheries Technician, Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan 1998 - 1999

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Environmental Approvals  Letter of Intent, Open Water Disposal in Lake Ontario (2009): Completed a Letter of Intent for approval under the Fisheries Act (Letter of Advice) for the open water disposal of sediments within an inactive intake pipe, scheduled for re-commissioning. This work involved developing methodology for the acquisition and testing of sediments within the intake pipe, which were used to gain approval from the Ministry of the Environment. Applications were also submitted for a work-permit through the Conservation Authority, as well as a work permit under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act (Ministry of Natural Resources).  Fish Screen Design Calculations, Toronto Beaches (2009): Completed the design calculations for a screen servicing a water-exchange system used to combat turbidity in a new lakeshore swimming area. The work involved use of Fisheries and Oceans guidelines, and development of a simple regression equation to be applied on a larger intake. Screen velocities were developed considering the smallest possible fish species inhabiting the nearshore during the intended use of the water-exchange system.  Letter of Advice, Development Lands, Halton Region (2008): Completed a Letter of Intent and procured a Letter of Advice, which included a self- compensating workplan for the direct loss of habitat in Hayes Pond.  Fisheries Act Authorization, (2008): Completed a Letter of Intent and procured a Fisheries Act Authorization for a culvert extension on a coldwater stream in the upper east Don River. This work included background and field inventory, developing a mitigation and compensation plan, internal consultation with a Hydrologist and Geomorphologist, and consultation with the client and TRCA. Client: Valdor Engineering  Letter of Advice, (2008): Completed a Letter of Intent and procured a Letter of Advice for shoreline stabilization works on Lake Temiskaming. Client: Private Landowner

Page 2 MICHAEL J. EWASCHUK, Honours B.Sc.

 Letter of Advice, MOE/ MNR Approval, City of Barrie (2007): Completed application/reporting requirements for Open Water Disposal in Lake Simcoe, through work with a team of consultants spanning a variety of disciplines. This method of disposal was one of several options, and necessary for the installation of a new Surface Water Intake Structure for the City of Barrie. Michael lead the fisheries and water quality components for the approval team, and proved that the Open Water Disposal would not impact the highly sensitive coldwater fishery in Lake Simcoe, on this high-profile contract.  Fisheries Act Authorization, (2005): Completed a Letter of Intent and procured a Fisheries Act authorization for the expansion of a calcite quarry. Obtaining the authorization entailed a description of existing conditions, an impact assessment, and the negotiation and development of walleye-spawning habitat as off-site compensation. Client: Confidential Client  Fisheries Act Authorization, (2005): Completed a Letter of Intent and procured a Fisheries Act Authorization for a large housing development in the City of Ottawa. The project involved the destruction of agricultural drains that provided important seasonal fish habitat. Compensation was accomplished through the completion of a preliminary design for a “Conceptual” fish habitat compensation plan, which is a long-term plan for the client’s area as well as other prospective development areas. This work involved consultation with Fisheries and Oceans. Client: Mattamy Homes  Fisheries Act Authorization, (2005): Developed a compensation plan for the procurement of a Fisheries Act authorization and associated amendments, for the installation of a box culvert on Waterhouse Creek. Off-site compensation focused on increasing recruitment of young-of-the-year walleye in the York River by creating littoral-zone habitat accessible to walleye fry. Client: River’s Edge Golf  Fisheries Act Authorization, (2004): Procured a Fisheries Act Authorization through extensive consultation with Fisheries and Oceans and the client on Balsam Lake, for the re-distribution of a crib dock used by spawning walleye, through project re-design. The project was heavily scrutinized due to declining walleye populations in Balsam Lake. Client: Private Landowner Impact Assessments, Mitigation and Compensation Plans  Impact Assessment, Mitigation and Compensation Plan, (2008): Completed aquatic portion of an Environmental Impact Study for a large-scale development in Brampton. Drafting a suitable development plan involved work with a variety of disciplines including Environmental Planners, Terrestrial and Wetland Ecologists, Fisheries Biologists and Hydrogeologists. Client: Bramwest Landowners Group  Impact Assessment, York Region (2008): Completed the aquatic portion of an impact assessment for the installation of a sanitary sewer crossing the Little Rouge Creek, Rouge River, Petticoat Creek, Pine Creek, and Duffins Creek watersheds. Completion of the impact assessment involved extensive corroboration with Hydrogeologists, for this de-watering project.  Impact Assessment, (2008): Completed an impact assessment, including electrofishing inventories, for developments in the Midhurst area with the potential to affect a variety of stream habitats including sensitive coldwater brook trout streams. Client: Confidential Developers  Compensation Proposal, (2008): Lead a team on a successful paid-proposal- bid for massive compensation works on the St. Lawrence River for the creation

Page 3 MICHAEL J. EWASCHUK, Honours B.Sc.

of new large bridges. The approved works involved were targeted to fish assemblages rather than specific species, and involved coastal marshes and creation of habitat by manipulation of water velocities. Client: Ministry of Transport Quebec – MTQ  Impact Assessment, (2008): Completed an impact assessment for a contaminated site in the Cornwall area. The impact assessment involved analysis of water quality, toxicity, benthic invertebrate and fisheries sampling data. Several mitigation/compensation options were developed based on the impacts to the productive capacity of the fishery. Client: Confidential Client  Impact Assessment, (2007): Completed an impact assessment for two mid- size housing developments in King City. Client: Private Developer  Impact Assessment and Mitigations, (2006): Completed the aquatic impact assessment and mitigation recommendations for various erosion control structures with respect to fish passage, in Cooksville Creek. Client: Jones Consulting  Impact Assessment and Mitigation Plans, (2005): Completed an impact assessment and mitigation plans for a housing development straddling the watershed boundaries of Bowmanville and Soper Creeks. Extensive mitigation was required to minimize thermal, chemical and physical impacts to the adjacent sensitive cold-water fisheries. Client: Private Developer  Impact Assessment, City of Ottawa (2005): Analyzed and ranked fish habitat sensitivity for the East-West Light Rapid Transit project through the use of modified Index of Biotic Integrities.  Impact Assessment, (2005): Completed an impact assessment for a hydro- electric project on the Mississippi River in the Town of Almonte. The assessment involved determining the significance of existing habitat with respect to the fish community, including the river redhorse, which is a Species at Risk. Development of preliminary compensation involved creating redhorse spawning and adult habitat. Client: Confidential Client  Impact Assessment, (2005): Completed an impact assessment for a road widening project on Sharbot Lake, through pike spawning habitat. Client: Private Landowner Aquatic Studies  Best Management Practices (BMP) for American Eel and Hydropower, (2009-ongoing): Project management of the BMP through collaboration with GENIVAR Quebec representatives, and a Steering Committee composed of representatives from OWA, MNR, DFO, OPG, and private hydropower operators. The development structure of the BMP is through an exhaustive literature review and summary, followed by the development of the best practices, and an industry engagement plan. The BMP will become an adaptive plan, which will be updated as research improves upon management practices. Client: Ontario Waterpower Association (OWA)  Monitoring of American Eel at a hydropower facility on the Magpie River, (2009): Participated in the deployment and collection of a trawl net in the tailrace to estimate eel turbine mortality. Participated in the set-up of the eel ladder capture device and the by-pass collection nets, as part of the on-going study required for the Fisheries Act Authorization for this new facility. Client: Hydropower Quebec

Page 4 MICHAEL J. EWASCHUK, Honours B.Sc.

 Fishway Data Collection, (2008): Participated in electrofishing inventory studying the effectiveness of a step-pool fishway on fish-passage, using passive stationary sensory system. Client: Trout Unlimited  Statistical Analysis, (2006-2008): Collected and analyzed three years of fisheries data in support of a colleague’s Master’s thesis studying the long-term effects of water-taking on a sensitive coldwater brook trout fishery. Client: Crystal Springs  Fish Habitat Data Collection, (2002): Constructed a “seepage meter” used to quantify groundwater discharge rates from the streambed to examine the relationship between discharge and brook trout embryo survivorship. Client: Trout Unlimited  Fish habitat data collection and entry, Bay of Quinte Remedial Action Plan (2002): Gathered fisheries data from local angling experts in the Bay of Quinte and compiled it into a GIS format. The data was used in conjunction with scientifically-developed fish habitat classifications to provide decision support for management.  Fisheries Data Collection and Entry, Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan (1998-1999): Conducted electrofishing inventories in the Cootes Paradise coastal wetland in support of a study monitoring the effects of carp-exclusion on habitat and the fish community. Collected weight and length data, and implanted pit tags, in support of growth rates studies on native fishes in response to carp-exclusion.  Study Design and Implementation, Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan (1998-1999): Designed and implemented mark-recapture studies to estimate carp populations in impacted wetlands.  Fisheries Data Collection, (1998): Participated in electrofishing on Duffins and Bronte Creeks in support of a study comparing growth rates in Atlantic Salmon with and without competition from rainbow trout. Client: Ministry of Natural Resources  Radio-telemetry, (1997): Utilized radio-telemetry to track mature Atlantic Salmon in the Credit River to determine spawning-run habitat-use, as well as specific spawning habitat characteristics. Client: Ministry of Natural Resources Fish Habitat Inspection/Construction Monitoring  Highway 7 Construction Monitoring, Town of Markham (2009): Completed construction monitoring for the installation of a forcemain. Work involved the design of a discharge area that was effective in allowing deposition of sediment within a defined area prior to its drainage to the adjacent Rouge River.  Construction Monitoring, City of Stouffville (2009): Completed pre- construction, active construction and post-construction monitoring, as per Fisheries Act Authorization requirements for a road-widening project. The work involved ensuring proper sediment and erosion control, and proper installation of restoration and compensation devices for the widening of a concrete box culvert, and the creation of a new channel and floodplain wetlands.  Construction Monitoring, Peel Region (2009): Completed construction monitoring of the open-cut crossing of the Credit River, as well as all sites requiring de-watering. Work involved inspection of sediment and erosion control and advising the Environmental Inspector how to resolve these issues. Part of this work involved an overall summary of actions required for the restoration phase of the project.

Page 5 MICHAEL J. EWASCHUK, Honours B.Sc.

 Construction Inspection, City of Barrie (2009): Completed a mitigation plan for the contractors upon identification of several sediment and erosion issues during construction inspection.  Inspection/Monitoring, (2008): Completed fish habitat inspections for the replacement of a drop-inlet-spillway in Mayvon Pond, and the installation of compensation works at the outlet. Client: TRCA  Frac-out Contingency Plan, York Region (2008): Completed an emergency response plan for potential frac-out for construction monitoring associated with directional drilling operations across two coldwater streams in King City.  Inspection/Monitoring, (2006-2007): Completed daily inspections for open-cut crossing of the Credit River for the installation of a new trunk sewer. Inspection duties included directing the installation of all mitigation measures for all job phases and locations, completing daily memos, landowner consultation, overseeing restoration, completing fish salvages, mini-peizometer monitoring, wetted-perimeter monitoring. Client: MacViro  Fish Habitat Inspection, (2005): Completed Fish Habitat Inspector duties for the 401 crossing of the Salmon River through the Tyendinagan Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte Territory. The inspection was one of the first using the new protocol for MTO projects, designed by DFO Prescott. Inspection duties required daily reports and photos, and consultation with the Site Foreman and Environmental Inspector. Client: Ministry of Transportation  Construction Management/Fish Salvages, (2005): Directed two stream diversions, habitat-compensation construction, and completed a fish-salvage on Sawmill Creek in the City of Ottawa. Client: Confidential Developer  Construction Management/Fish Salvages, (2005): Completed fish-salvages and directed stream diversions for three separate projects on Lynde Creek. Client: Confidential Developers Environmental Monitoring  Tree Inventory, City of Brampton (2009): Completed a tree inventory required for the permitting of construction of a new pumphouse and connections.  Riparian Planting Survivorship Monitoring (2009): Completed spring and fall vegetation survivorship surveys for riparian tree and shrub plantings as part of the restoration plan for the open cut crossing of the Credit River, as part of the Fisheries Act monitoring requirements.  Tree Inventory and Removal Permitting, City of Hamilton (2009): Completed a tree survey, submission of a Letter of Intent, and application of removal permits, for expansion of a pumphouse.  Tree Inventory, City of Toronto (2009): Completed a tree survey as part of a tree removal application for the expansion of the Bermondsey Transfer Station in the City of Toronto.  Baseline Monitoring, (2006-2008): Completed pre-construction surface water, hydrology, fisheries, fish habitat, and groundwater monitoring, for a large-scale housing development in Brampton. Client: Bramwest Developers Group  Environmental Monitoring, Halton Region (2006-2008): Completed surface and groundwater monitoring for tributaries of Bronte and 16-Mile Creeks for dewatering work required for the installation of a new waste management cell.  Environmental Monitoring, York Region (2006-2008): Completed active and post-construction monitoring of fish habitat, surface water, and groundwater for

Page 6 MICHAEL J. EWASCHUK, Honours B.Sc.

watersheds in the Markham area, for the de-watering work required for the installation of the York-Durham Trunk Sewer.  Environmental Monitoring, York Region (2008): Completed pre-constructive investigative monitoring for a de-watering project related to the installation of the Southeast Collector trunk sewer. Investigations focused on identifying biological, and physical, evidence of groundwater discharge, and was completed in the field with collaboration from the Terrestrial/Wetland Biologist and the Geomorphologist/Geologist.  Post-Construction Monitoring, York Region (2006): Completed the post- construction monitoring report for the widening of Elgin Mills Road across the Rouge River and tributaries.  Post-Construction Monitoring, (2005): Completed post-construction monitoring duties and reports for; Timberlane Acres housing development, Lester Road culvert installation project, Woodland Acres housing development, Waterhouse Creek box culvert installation, Sawmill Creek box culvert installation and fish habitat compensation, and the Abott Street extension over Poole Creek. Client: Various Developers  Post-Construction Monitoring, Region of Durham (2005): Responsible for all aspects of post-construction monitoring duties for the realignment of Bowmanville Creek. Monitoring components involved benthic invertebrate sampling, electrofishing, inspection of in-stream work, Salmonid spawning survey and habitat-use, and report submission. The goal of the monitoring was to assess works with respect to Salmonid use including juvenile rainbow trout catch-per-unit-effort, spawning sites, holding-water, food production and water quality (through benthic invertebrate analysis).  Post-Construction Monitoring, City of Ottawa (2005): Analyzed differences in the fish community prior to and following landfill operations in the Moose Creek watershed near Casselman Ontario, as part of a long-term monitoring program.  Post-Construction Monitoring, (2005): Completed a post-construction monitoring report for developments adjacent to Lynde Creek, a cold-water stream. The focus of the monitoring involved analysis of thermal regime, to determine if mitigation measures were working as intended. Client: Confidential Developer  Riparian Planting Survivorship Monitoring, (2005): Completed vegetation survival monitoring as part of the Fisheries Act Authorization requirements for a housing development in Peterborough, and for a private landowner on the Tay River. Client: Landowners and Developers Fish Habitat Restoration  Rehabilitation Plan Development, (2007): Created an emergency restoration plan for a sediment spill into a tributary of the upper Don River. Client: GEMS Environmental Services  Rehabilitation Plan Development, Bay of Quinte Remedial Action Plan (2003-2004): Developed future restoration projects as part of the Bay of Quinte Fish Habitat Management Plan through consultation with senior scientists at the Canadian Centre for Inland Waters, DFO Fish Habitat Management, MNR’s Lake Ontario Management Unit, MNR Peterborough, marine contractors, local fishing clubs, and commercial fisherman.  Rehabilitation Crew Leader, (2000-2002): Lead a stream rehabilitation crew for three field seasons for Credit Valley Conservation and Trout Unlimited.

Page 7 MICHAEL J. EWASCHUK, Honours B.Sc.

Developed novel rehabilitation structures and collected physical and biological information to help identify factors limiting brook trout populations, and to evaluate success of restoration efforts. Client: Credit Valley Conservation  Stream Rehabilitation, (1998-2002): Participated with stream rehabilitation projects on Grindstone Creek and throughout the entire Credit River watershed. Client: Volunteer Fisheries/Habitat Inventories and Assessments  Species at Risk Assessment, CFB Borden, Sudbury, Niagara Sewage Lagoons (2009): Completed a desktop review of species at risk at the CFB skeet range, a site in Sudbury, and sewage lagoons in Niagara, as part of the Phase 1 assessment for contaminated site clean-up. The work involved investigation of databases and general evaluation of the potential for species at risk impact via the proposed project work. The work on the Niagara project also involved submission of mitigation details to protect Species at Risk.  Fisheries and Habitat Inventories, (2004-2009): Completed fisheries and habitat inventories throughout Ontario for projects ranging from culvert installations, to hydro-electric projects, to pit and quarry operations, to housing developments, to water-taking projects. Client: Various Clients  Existing Conditions (MTO protocol), Niagara Region (2008): Completed existing condition report for the QEW widening through Niagara Falls.  Fisheries and Habitat Inventory, (2008): Completed fisheries inventories in the Stratford area for the proposed Highway 7/8 extension. Client: Ministry of Transportation  Fish Habitat Inventory, York Region (2008): Completed habitat assessments in the Black Creek watershed for a flooding and water quality improvement project.  Inventory and Analysis, (2007): Completed fisheries and habitat inventories for a road widening project in Brighton. Client: Confidential Client  Fisheries and Habitat Inventory, (2007): Completed extensive fisheries inventories in the Brantford area for the proposed Highway 24 extension. Client: Ministry of Transportation  Fish Habitat Inventory, Region of Peel (2007): Completed fish habitat inventories for an erosion control project in Mimico Creek.  Inventory and Analysis, (2006): Project Manager for the filling of an ephemeral water feature draining into Appleby Creek. Coordinated approach for Letter of Intent through consultation with the client, Halton Conservation, Terrestrial Ecologists and Hydrologist. Client: Walker Engineering  Fisheries and Habitat Inventory, City of Peterborough (2005): Conducted extensive fisheries/habitat inventories for the Cavan-Millbrook water and sewer line required to service a future housing development.  Fisheries and Habitat Inventory, City of Ottawa (2005): Conducted extensive fisheries/habitat inventories for a large housing development at the Jock and Rideau River confluence in the City of Ottawa.  Fisheries Inventories, (2000-2002): Completed extensive multi-purpose fisheries inventories throughout the Credit River watershed for Credit Valley Conservation. The inventories were used to: delineate the range of various coldwater species within the watershed, to identify habitat-use during specific

Page 8 MICHAEL J. EWASCHUK, Honours B.Sc.

lifestages, and to evaluate the success of rehabilitation efforts. Client: Credit Valley Conservation  Fisheries Inventory, (1998): Participated in extensive boat electrofishing in Hamilton Harbour as part of a study to quantify fish-production in littoral zones. Client: Fisheries and Oceans  Fisheries and Habitat Inventories, (1999 & 2008): Conducted extensive fisheries/habitat inventories required for the planning of the east and west 407 Extension project, in 2008 and 1999 respectfully. Client: 407 ETR Peer Reviews  Aquatic Component Peer Review, (2008): Completed a peer review for a land development project in Bracebridge. Client: Private Developer  Aquatic Component Peer Review, (2005): Conducted peer reviews of the aquatic baseline monitoring and impact assessment reports for the Port Hope and Port Granby Low-Level Radioactive Waste Removal project, to the satisfaction of DFO and the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority. Client: Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

Page 9 Conestogo Wind Farm Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

DAVE MARTIN

LGL Limited environmental research associates DAVE MARTIN Consulting Faunal Biologist

EDUCATION: B. A. History, B. Ed. (U.W.O.)

EXPERIENCE related to Faunal Surveys

2009 *Coordinated a crew of 6 surveyors on 8 wind turbine projects in Middlesex, Bruce, Grey, Norfolk and Haldimand for Genivar *Faunal surveys at 7 sites in Middlesex and Lambton Counties for Dave Hayman, BioLogic *Faunal surveys at 8 sites in Oxford, Norfolk and Haldimand Counties for Les Sztramko, Lynn Valley Consultants *Faunal surveys at 3 sites in Middlesex County for Mike Leonard *Faunal surveys in 37 woodlots in Tecumseh, Essex County for Waldron, Consulting Ecologist *Faunal surveys at 26 sites in the Big Creek Watershed, Essex County for Essex Region Conservation Authority * Bird surveys on 4 provincial highway improvement projects in Perth, Middlesex and Huron Counties for Tisha Doucette, Delcan London and Dave Hayman, BioLogic

2008 *Coordinated a crew of 6 surveyors on 9 wind turbine projects in Chatham-Kent, Middlesex, Lambton and Timiskaming for AIM PowerGen, Boralex, Gengrowth and Genivar *Faunal surveys at 9 sites in Elgin, Middlesex, and Huron Counties for Dave Hayman, Biologic *Faunal surveys at 3 sites in Middlesex County for Mike Leonard *Faunal surveys at 2 sites in Norfolk County for Les Sztramko, Lynn Valley Consultants *Faunal surveys in 30 woodlots in LaSalle, Essex County for Waldron, Consulting Ecologist

2007 *Coordinated a crew of 7 bird surveyors on 23 wind turbine projects in Essex, Chatham-Kent, Wellington, Grey and Bruce Counties for AIM PowerGen, Gengrowth Renewables, Invenergy, Dillon and Genivar * Faunal surveys at 8 sites in Elgin, Essex, Lambton and Middlesex Counties for Dave Hayman, BioLogic * Faunal surveys at 7 sites in Middlesex and Oxford Counties for Mike Leonard, BioLogic * Faunal surveys at 4 sites in Lambton, Norfolk and Brant Counties for Tisha Doucette, Delcan * Faunal surveys at 6 sites in Norfolk and Elgin Counties for Les Sztramko, Lynn Valley Consultants * Faunal surveys at 1 site in Essex County for Waldron, Consulting Ecologist *Coordinated surveys and habitat assessments for Acadian Flycatchers and Hooded Warblers at 20+ sites in Elgin, Middlesex, Oxford and Lambton Counties for Audrey Heagy, Bird Studies Canada * Coordinated 6 “expert” bird hike leaders in May at Point Pelee NP for Friends of Point Pelee

2006 * Coordinated a crew of 7 bird surveyors on 17 wind turbine projects in Essex, Chatham-Kent and Wellington Counties for AIM PowerGen, Gengrowth, Invenergy and Dillon. * Faunal surveys at 12 sites in Elgin, Lambton, Middlesex and Oxford Counties for Dave Hayman, BioLogic * Faunal surveys at 5 sites in Middlesex and Lambton Counties for Mike Leonard, BioLogic * Faunal surveys at 5 sites in Essex, Middlesex and Lambton Counties for Waldron, Consulting Ecologist

1 * Bird surveys in 20 woodlots for the Town of Lakeshore (Essex County) for Waldron, Consulting Ecologist * Faunal surveys at 2 sites in Lambton and Middlesex Counties for Tisha Doucette, Delcan * Faunal surveys at 6 sites in Norfolk and Elgin Counties for Les Sztramko, Lynn Valley Consultants * Interpretive hawk watches on 6 days at Port Burwell PP. Ontario Parks * Coordinated 6 “expert” bird hike leaders and 84 bird hikes in May at Point Pelee NP. Friends of Point Pelee * Authored Wildlife Viewing at Aylmer Wildlife Management Area through the seasons. Elgin Stewardship Council * Authored Acadian Flycatcher species account for Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas

2005 * Spring faunal surveys for wind turbine project in Essex County. Dave Hayman, BioLogic * Spring faunal surveys for wind turbine projects Huron and Bruce Counties. Michael Enright. Dillon Consulting * Surveys for Acadian Flycatchers in southwestern Ontario. Lyle Friesen. CWS * Faunal surveys at 9 sites in Middlesex, Elgin and Oxford Counties. Mike Leonard, BioLogic - London * Faunal surveys at 4 sites in LaSalle and Windsor. Waldron, Consulting Ecologist - Essex County * Faunal surveys at 10 sites in Lambton, Huron, Elgin, Essex, Oxford Counties, Chatham-Kent, Pelee Island, Ancaster. Dave Hayman, BioLogic - London * Faunal surveys at 4 sites in Huron, Elgin Counties. Les Sztramko. Lynn Valley Consultants * Faunal surveys at the Toyota site, Woodstock, Oxford County. Gary Epp. Earth Tech Canada Inc. * Species at Risk surveys at Southwold, Fort Malden, Bois Blanc Island. Vicki McKay. Parks Canada * Faunal surveys at Ladney/Bickford site Lambton County. Lambton County Stewardship/OMNR * Faunal survey of Aylmer Woodlot. Tony DiFazio. Catfish Creek Conservation Authority * Interpretive hawk watches on 6 days at Port Burwell PP. Henry Valks. Ontario Parks * Guided bird hikes in May at Point Pelee NP. Friends of Point Pelee * Authored Acadian Flycatcher/Hooded Warbler Recovery Strategy. Lyle Friesen. CWS

2004 * Year long bird surveys for wind turbine project in Essex County. Dave Hayman, BioLogic - London * Surveys for Acadian Flycatchers in southwestern Ontario. CWS * Faunal surveys at 6 sites in the London area. Mike Leonard, BioLogic - London * Surveys for Eastern Fox Snake in LaSalle. Waldron, Consulting Ecologist – Essex County * Faunal surveys at 2 sites in Lambton and Huron Counties. Dave Hayman, BioLogic - London

2003 * Faunal surveys for Hwy 407 extension east of Toronto. Ecoplans -Kitchener * Surveys for Acadian Flycatchers in southwestern Ontario. CWS * Faunal surveys at 9 sites in Middlesex, Elgin and Huron. BioLogic - London * Faunal survey at Lambton County Forest - Watson property. Nature Conservancy of Canada - Ontario * Faunal survey at 5 sites in Airport Road planning area London. Ecoplans - Kitchener * Faunal survey at Schiller=s Bush - Tecumseh - Essex. Waldron, Consulting Ecologist * Faunal survey at Bruce County quarry site. Ian Seddon - London * Hawk migration monitoring Port Burwell PP. Ontario Parks

2002 * Faunal surveys at Clear Creek, Chatham-Kent. Nature Conservancy of Canada - Ontario * Faunal surveys for the Fort Erie Natural Areas Inventory. Dugan and Associates - Guelph * Faunal surveys and habitat assessment at 9 sites in Middlesex, Perth, Essex, Elgin. BioLogic * Faunal surveys and habitat assessment at 2 sites in Essex for Waldron, Consulting Ecologist * Faunal surveys at Bickford Oak Woods, Lambton. OMNR - Lambton Stewardship Council 2 * Amphibian surveys at Komoka PP Reserve, Middlesex. Ontario Parks * Surveys for Acadian Flycatcher and Hooded Warblers at southwestern Ontario Core sites. CWS

2001 * Faunal surveys and habitat assessment at 5 Middlesex and 2 Elgin County sites. BioLogic * Faunal surveys and habitat assessment at 2 Essex County sites. Waldron, Consulting Ecologist * Assembled published and anecdotal faunal records for Eastern Hognose Snake and other fauna for Komoka PP Reserve updated Life Science Inventory. Ontario Parks * Habitat assessment and nest productivity of Acadian Flycatcher in southwestern Ontario. CWS and OMNR

2000 * Surveyed Manitoulin Island and Bruce Peninsula for Loggerhead Shrikes. Loggerhead Shrike Recovery Team * Surveys for Acadian Flycatcher and Hooded Warblers at southwestern Ontario Core sites. CWS * Faunal surveys at various development sites in Essex, Middlesex and Oxford Counties and Kitchener- Waterloo for Waldron Consulting, BioLogic and Ecoplans.

1999 * Started three year pre-development faunal monitoring program at Sifton Bog, London. BioLogic * Faunal surveys at 1 London, 1 Oxford County and 1 Middlesex County sites. BioLogic * Faunal surveys at 5 Essex County sites. Gerry Waldron, Consulting Ecologist * Searched for Acadian Flycatchers at ravine and upland forest sites in Elgin, Middlesex and Lambton Counties. Bird Studies Canada. * Faunal surveys in Dorchester Swamp Banks Tract for proposed trail location. UTRCA, County of Middlesex

1998 * Faunal surveys at 6 London and 1 Woodstock sites. BioLogic * Searched for breeding Acadian Flycatchers, Hooded Warblers and other VTE species at known sites in southwestern Ontario and noted habitat features at breeding territories. Bird Studies Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, World Wildlife Fund Canada * Conducted twice daily waterfowl counts at Aylmer Wildlife Management Area from March 16 to 31. Elgin Stewardship Council, Ministry of Natural Resources * Conducted literature searches and interviews for data needed to nominate 25 Important Bird Areas in southwestern Ontario. Bird Studies Canada

1997 * Monitored hawk, passerine and butterfly migration on 6 days at Port Burwell PP. Ontario Parks. * Faunal surveys at 7 London, 1 Woodstock, 1 Strathroy and 1 Maitland River sites for BioLogic. * Searched for breeding Acadian Flycatchers, Hooded Warblers and Prothonotary Warblers and other VTE species at known sites in southwestern Ontario and noted habitat features at breeding territories. Bird Studies Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, World Wildlife Fund Canada

1996 * Surveyed 70 woodlots for breeding birds for the Oxford County Terrestrial Ecosystems Study. Jane Bowles / Upper Thames River Conservation Authority.

3 1982+ Co-ordinated volunteers and data collection for the following projects: * Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas (2001-2005) in 70 squares in Middlesex and Elgin Counties * Amphibian Monitoring Routes in Middlesex (1992) * Atlas of the Mammals of Ontario for Middlesex and central Elgin (1990-1992) * Ontario Herpetofaunal Atlas (1987) * Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario for 70 squares in Middlesex, Oxford, Elgin (1983-1985) * Eastern Spiny Softshells in southwestern Ontario (1985 - 96) * Ingersoll Audubon Christmas Bird Count (1983+) * Fanshawe C.A. birdbanding and MAPS station (1982 - 1996)

1978 Recorded aspects of breeding ecology of Sandhill Cranes in Algoma District and analysed vegetation at nesting, feeding and staging sites. Field assistant for UWO Masters student.

1972+ Participated as a volunteer in the following data collection / monitoring programs * Audubon Christmas Bird Counts (50+ counts since 1972) * CWS Breeding Bird Surveys (13 years, 3 routes) * CWS Forest Bird Monitoring (Springwater Forest 1990s) * CWS Amphibian Pond Survey (1994+) * McIlwraith Thames River Breeding Bird Census (1985 - 90) * McIlwraith Life Science Inventories (Skunk's Misery, Komoka P.P. Reserve, Wyton Station Woods) * Shorebird surveys throughout southwestern Ontario (1996+)

Recent Publications August 2006. Acadian Flycatcher species account in Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario 2001-2005.

February 2006. Wildlife Viewing at Aylmer Wildlife Management Area through the seasons. Interpretive brochure for Elgin Stewardship Council.

Martin, Dave. March 2004. Searching for Acadians. In: The Cardinal, No 195, April 2004. The McIlwraith Field Naturalists of London.

Birds of Elgin County- A Century of Change. 2004. Co-ordinating Committee member and part author. 307 pp.

Martin, Dave. April 2002. Birding the Long Point Region. A birding and resource guide to the Long Point area for customers of Journey’s End/Comfort Inn, Simcoe, Ontario.

Martin, Dave. May 2002. Marvels of Migration. Watching the Fall Migration at Port Burwell and along the Lake Erie Shoreline. Coloured brochure for Port Burwell Provincial Park, Ontario Parks.

Martin, Dave. October 2001. Fall Birding in Elgin County along the Lake Erie Shoreline. In: OFO NEWS, Newsletter of the Ontario Field Ornithologists. Volume 19 Number 3. Ontario Field Ornithologists.

Martin, Dave. 2001. The Double-crested Cormorant in Middlesex, Elgin and Oxford Counties. In: The Cardinal, No 184, August 2001. The McIlwraith Field Naturalists of London.

Martin, Dave. June 2001. Birds of Port Burwell. Bird checklist for Port Burwell Provincial Park, Ontario Parks.

Martin, Dave. 2001. The Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis. In: The Cardinal April No. 183, April 2001. The McIlwraith Field Naturalists of London. 4

Martin, Dave. March 2001. The Maidenhair Fern Trail. Trail guide for Sibbald Point Provincial Park, Ontario Parks.

Martin, Dave. March 2001. The Lookout Trail. Trail guide for Balsam Lake Provincial Park, Ontario Parks.

Martin, Dave. March 2001. The Plantation Trail. Trail guide for Balsam Lake Provincial Park, Ontario Parks.

Bisson, Isabelle, Dave Martin, Bridget J. M. Stutchbury. 2000. Acadian Flycatcher, Empidonax virescens, Nest Site Characteristics at the Northern Edge of its Range. The Canadian Field-Naturalist. Volume 114, Number 4.

Martin Dave. 1999. Significant Breeding Birds at Port Franks Woodlands Important Bird Area. [Background report for the Port Franks IBA Conservation Plan.]

Martin Dave, Jon McCracken and Mike Cadman. 1999. Acadian Flycatchers in Ontario Ravines. In; OFO NEWS, Newsletter of the Ontario Field Ornithologists. Ontario Field Ornithologists.

Martin Dave, 1999. Bog Coppers and Brown Elfins at Sifton Bog. In: The Cardinal, No 175, April 1999. The McIlwraith Field Naturalists of London.

Martin Dave. 1998. Skunk’s Misery Revisited. In: The Cardinal, No. 173, November 1998. The McIlwraith Field Naturalists of London.

Martin, Dave. 1998. Hawk Cliff: Where do we go from here? In: OFO NEWS, Newsletter of the Ontario Field Ornithologists. Ontario Field Ornithologists. Volume 16 Number 2, June 1998.

Martin, Dave. 1998. Visible Migration - Loons. In: The Cardinal, No. 171, April 1998. The McIlwraith Field Naturalists of London.

Martin, Dave. 1998. Deep Forest Denizens (habitat requirements for 3 VTE forest interior birds in southern Ontario forests). In: Carolinian Canada Newsletter, March 1998. Carolinian Canada.

Friesen, Lyle and Dave Martin. 1998. National Recovery Plan for the Acadian Flycatcher and the Hooded Warbler. Environment Canada: Recovery of Nationally Endangered Wildlife Committee.

McCracken, Jon, Dave Martin, Isabelle Bisson, Mary Gartshore and Richard Knapton. 1998. 1998 Surveys of Acadian Flycatchers and Hooded Warblers in Ontario. Bird Studies Canada, Port Rowan, ON.

Heagy, Audrey, Dave Martin and Jon McCracken. 1997. Acadian Flycatcher and Hooded Warbler Recovery Activities: 1997 Field Surveys in Southwestern Ontario. Ontario Birds at Risk. Long Point Bird Observatory.

Martin, Dave. 1996. "Mammals of Middlesex County". In: Focus on the Thames: Natural and Cultural Heritage of the River, Anita Caveney, editor. McIlwraith Field Naturalists of London, Upper Thames River Conservation Authority.

Read, P. and Dave Martin, editors, 1996. Butterflies of Middlesex County. McIlwraith Field Naturalists, Upper Thames River Conservation Authority, London Community Foundation.

Read, P. and David Martin. Compiled 1990, revised 2009. Bird Checklist for Middlesex County. McIlwraith Field Naturalists of London, Upper Thames River Conservation Authority, London Community Foundation. 5 Related Affiliations / Memberships / Positions Acadian Flycatcher/Hooded Warbler Recovery Team (member 1997-2007) Eastern Spiny Softshell Recovery Team (member late 1990s to 2003) Loggerhead Shrike Recovery Team (former affiliate) Federation of Ontario Naturalists Long Point Bird Observatory/Bird Studies Canada McIlwraith Field Naturalists of London Ontario Field Ornithologists St. Thomas Field Naturalists Coordinator Birding Wing meetings for McIlwraith Field Naturalists since 1988

Awards The McIlwraith Field Naturalists of London, Ontario 1996 Conservation Award in recognition of outstanding contributions to conservation.

The Kettle Creek Conservation Authority 1992 Conservation Stewardship Award in recognition of contributions to natural resources conservation in the watershed.

6 Bio for Dave Martin and his faunal survey team

Dave Martin’s faunal survey team consists of Linda Wladarski, Ross Snider, James Holdsworth, Pete Read and Sue Read. All have been birding for 20 to 40 years. All have been participated extensively in volunteer and paid surveys. Currently, all make a small to substantial portion of their yearly income working as freelance faunal biologists, either working for Dave Martin or for other companies and government agencies at the local, provincial and national levels.

Volunteer Projects Volunteer participation over the years ranges from extensive involvement in the first and second Ontario Breeding Bird Atlases, Christmas Bird Counts, Breeding Bird Surveys, Forest Bird Monitoring, Project Feederwatch and reporting to various bird data collection schemes such as eBird, American Birds and Ontbirds. Volunteer work ranges from participating to coordinating at a regional or local level. Here are a few examples. Dave Martin, Ross Snider and Pete Read have coordinated the Ingersoll and London CBCs, respectively, for over 20 years. Dave Martin, Linda Wladarski and Pete Read have run Breeding Bird Surveys for over 20 years. Dave Martin and Linda Wladarski ran the Forest Bird Monitoring at Springwater Forest for 10 years. Dave Martin was the coordinator for Region 4 for both the first [1981-1985] and the second [2001-2005] Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas.

Professional work All have worked as professional paid faunal biologists with an emphasis on birds although in recent years requests for surveys for reptiles, butterflies and odonates have increased. All have been involved in small and large-scale projects that involve completion of federal and provincial Environmental Assessments and regional and local Environmental Impact Assessments. The variety of projects includes highway work, subdivision and industrial park developments, Natural Area Studies, sanitary and water systems and wind turbine projects. All have been involved to some degree or another with work for the private and public sectors. Public sector projects include surveys for Bird Studies Canada, Nature Conservancy and various Conservation Authorities, Stewardship Councils, OMNR and CWS. For example, Martin’s team has collected data for the Nature Conservancy at Lambton County Forest, Clear Creek, Bickford Oak Woods and the Ladney properties. Dave Martin’s team has been involved in various surveys for endangered species including Loggerhead Shrike, Acadian Flycatcher, Hooded Warbler and Prothonotary Warbler. Martin’s team works for a number of companies in the private sector. These include BioLogic [London], Ecoplans [Kitchener], Dugan and Associates [Guelph], Lynn Valley Consulting [Simcoe], Gerry Waldron [Essex County], Earth Tech [Kitchener], Delcan [London] Genivar [King City], LGL [Burlington] and Dillon [Toronto]. Since 2004, Dave Martin’s team has completed the avifaunal studies for 45 different wind turbine projects.

In summary, Dave Martin and his team have been extensively involved in private and public sector, volunteer and paid faunal monitoring projects for 20 to 40 years.

Conestogo Wind Farm December 2010 Ontario Regulation 359/09 Natural Heritage Records Review Project No. TA4914-02

APPENDIX J REVIEW OF RECORDS REVIEW CORRECTIONS BASED ON SITE INVESTIGATIONS

LGL Limited environmental research associates

Verification LIO wetland information within 120m of project components by LGL Limited.

Polygon Added Wetland Unit Size (ha) feature to ELC Unit Thumbnail of Map confirmation LIO Comments # LIO Layer database 1 FOD 4.05 No No Unit is outside of 120 m project components. Is not considered a wetland as it contains upland trees and ground cover species. Not assessed as a significant wetland because not providing a wetland function. 4 FOD7/CUT1 6.41 Yes. It is still a No. Feature exists in the landscape. Heavily feature. impacted by cattle grazing and dumping within the wetland and floodplain. Community is a combination of upland thicket and lowland deciduous forest. Heavily impacted. Limited wetland functions in sections. Wetland will be assessed for significance based on the wetland evaluation criteria.

5 SWD4 1.40 Yes. It is still a No Wetland will be assessed for significance based wetland. on the wetland evaluation criteria.

6 FOD7 0.48 Yes No. This feature is a lowland deciduous forest that contains a depression of water. It does provide some wetland function. Wetland will be assessed for significance based on the wetland evaluation criteria.

7 FOD7 3.76 Yes No This feature is largely a lowland deciduous forest that contains some wetland plants. Wetland will be assessed for significance based on the wetland evaluation criteria.

9 SWD4‐1 0.48 Yes No This is a dug feature that could have been used a drinking reservoir for cattle some time ago but now contains mature trees and wetland plants. Wetland will be assessed for significance based on the wetland evaluation criteria.

10 MAS2 0.16 Yes No This feature is normally too small to be included as a wetland or ELC polygon. It may have been larger in the past when the mapping was created. This dug pond that is surrounded by mounds of soil. This was done to stop the seeps from impacting the agricultural field.

Wetland will be assessed for significance based on the wetland evaluation criteria. 11 MAM2 2.92 Yes. It is still a No. Size of unit expanded to the road based on the wetland. field observations. Wetland will be assessed for significance based on the wetland evaluation criteria.

12 MAM2 1.49 No. No. LGL has classified this unit as wetland as the feature contained wetland and upland plants. Discussions with the MNR (Art Timmerman on November 17) have concluded that these plants are as a result of the floodplain and are not providing a wetland function and therefore not considered wetland for the purpose of the evaluation. This unit was not considered during the wetland evaluation analysis. 13 SWD4‐1 0.48 Yes. It is still a No Wetland does exist. Larger than projected wetland. here. Not assessed for significance because it is outside of the 120 of project components.

14 CUM1‐1 1.48 No. This is not a No Not a wetland feature in the landscape. This wetland. wetland unit does not exist. It is currently a fallow field.

15 MAM2 0.60 Yes. It is still a No This unit does exist. Wetland will be assessed wetland. for significance based on the wetland evaluation criteria.

17 MAS2‐1 0.54 No. No This is not a feature typically included in wetland evaluation as it does not provide a wetland function. The feature is less than 0.5 ha and would not be considered in ELC classification and wetland evaluations. This pond is a created feature used for agricultural purposes.

18 SWD4‐1 0.54 Yes. It is still a No Wetland will be assessed for significance based wetland. on the wetland evaluation criteria.

19 MAM2 0.73 No. No LGL has classified this unit as wetland as the feature contained wetland and upland plants. Discussions with the MNR (Art Timmerman on November 17) have concluded that these plants are as a result of the floodplain and are not providing a wetland function and therefore not considered wetland for the purpose of the evaluation. This unit was not considered during the wetland evaluation analysis.