Cornwall Solar Project. Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report. June 5, 2012

Transcription

1 Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report June 5, 2012

2 Cornwall Solar Inc. Toronto, ON Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report Cornwall Solar Project H Rev. 0 June 5, 2012

3 Cornwall Solar Inc. - Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report Report Disclaimer This report has been prepared by Hatch Ltd. (Hatch) for the sole and exclusive use of Cornwall Solar, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Cornwall Solar, the Client or the Proponent ) for the purpose of assisting the management of the Client in making decisions with respect to the development of a proposed solar photovoltaic project and shall not be (a) used for any other purpose, or (b) provided to, relied upon or used by any third party. This report contains opinions, conclusions and recommendations made by Hatch, using its professional judgment and reasonable care. Any use of or reliance upon this report and estimate by the Proponent and the Client is subject to the following conditions: the report being read in the context of and subject to the terms of the agreement between Hatch and the Client including any methodologies, procedures, techniques, assumptions and other relevant terms or conditions that were specified or agreed therein; the report being read as a whole, with sections or parts hereof read or relied upon in context; the conditions of the site may change over time (or may have already changed) due to natural forces or human intervention, and Hatch takes no responsibility for the impact that such changes may have on the accuracy or validity of the observations, conclusions and recommendations set out in this report; and the report is based on information made available to Hatch by the Proponent and/or the Client or by certain third parties; and unless stated otherwise in the Agreement, Hatch has not verified the accuracy, completeness or validity of such information, makes no representation regarding its accuracy and hereby disclaims any liability in connection therewith. H , Rev. 0, Page i Hatch 2012/05

4 Cornwall Solar Inc. - Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report Blank back H , Rev. 0, Page ii Hatch 2012/05

5 Cornwall Solar Inc. - Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report Project Report Cornwall Solar Inc. Cornwall Solar Project June 5, 2012 Report Disclaimer Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report Table of Contents 1. Introduction Renewable Energy Approval Legislative Requirements Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report Evaluation of Candidate Significant Natural Features Summary of Candidate Significant Natural Features Evaluation of Significance Methodology Additional Assessments/Evaluations Breeding Bird Surveys Anuran Surveys Wetland Evaluation Raptor Winter Survey Waterfowl Stopover and Staging Candidate Significant Woodlands Woodland Ecotype 1: Dry-Fresh Sugar Maple-Hickory Deciduous Forest Type (FOD5-5) Woodland Ecotype 2: Dry-Fresh Poplar Deciduous Forest Type (FOD3-1) Woodland Ecotype 3: Fresh-Moist White Cedar-Hardwood Mixed Forest Type (FOM7-2) Woodland Ecotype 4: Fresh-Moist White Cedar Coniferous Forest Type (FOC4-1) Candidate Significant Wetlands Wetland Cell 1 and Wetland Cells 3 to 6: Mineral Meadow Marsh Ecosite (MAM2) Candidate Significant Wildlife Habitat Habitats of Seasonal Concentrations of Animals Raptor Winter Feeding and Roosting Areas Waterfowl Nesting Areas Waterfowl Stopover and Staging Areas Specialized Habitats for Wildlife Amphibian Breeding Wetlands Marsh Breeding Birds Turtle Nesting Habitats of Species of Conservation Concern ESA Special Concern & Provincially Rare - Other Species H , Rev. 0, Page iii Hatch 2012/05

6 Cornwall Solar Inc. - Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report Declining Guilds Shrubland Birds Animal Movement Corridors Amphibian Corridors Summary of Evaluation Next Steps Date of Beginning and Completion of Evaluation Names and Qualifications of Evaluators References Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Cornwall Solar Project Wetland Field Notes Wetland Characteristics and Ecological Functions Assessment for the Cornwall Solar Project Cornwall Solar Project Breeding Bird Survey Data Sheets Cornwall Solar Project Anuran Survey Data Sheets List of Tables Table 3.1 Summary of Amphibian Breeding Surveys by Marsh Wetland Cell on the Cornwall Solar Project Location List of Figures Figure 3.1 Candidate Significant Natural Features... 7 Figure 3.2 Significant Natural Features Figure 3.3 Wetland OWES Characterization H , Rev. 0, Page iv Hatch 2012/05

7 Cornwall Solar Inc. - Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report 1. Introduction Cornwall Solar, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Cornwall Solar ) is proposing to develop a 10 megawatt (MW) solar photovoltaic facility titled the Cornwall Solar Project (hereinafter referred to as the Project ). The proposed Project Location [1] is situated on approximately 24.7 hectares (ha) of land (i.e., at the site of a former quarry), on Part Lots 5, 6 and 7, Concession 5, Indian Lands Charlottenburgh, designated as Part 1 and 2 on Reference Plan 14R5859, within the Township of South Glengarry (lower tier municipality), in the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (upper tier municipality) ), and within Kemptville Ecodistrict 6E-12. [1] Project Location means, when used in relation to a renewable energy project, a part of land and all or part of any building or structure in, on or over which a person is engaging in or proposes to engage in the project and any air space in which a person is engaging in or proposed to engage in the project (O. Reg. 359/09, s. 1 (1)). H , Rev. 0, Page 1 Hatch 2012/05

8 Cornwall Solar Inc. - Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report H , Rev. 0, Page 2 Hatch 2012/05

9 Cornwall Solar Inc. - Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report 2. Renewable Energy Approval Legislative Requirements Ontario Regulation (O. Reg.) 359/09 Renewable Energy Approvals Under Part V.0.1 of the Act, made under the Environmental Protection Act identifies the Renewable Energy Approval (REA) requirements for renewable energy projects in Ontario. The REA Regulation has since been amended by O. Reg. 521/10, which came into effect as of January 1, Per Section 4 of the amended REA Regulation, ground mounted solar facilities with a name plate capacity greater than 12 kilowatts (kw) are classified as Class 3 solar facilities and require a REA. Subsection 24 (1) of O. Reg. 359/09 requires proponents of Class 3 solar projects to undertake a natural heritage assessment consisting of a records review report, site investigation report and an evaluation of significance report for each natural feature identified during the natural heritage assessment records review and site investigation. Natural features are defined in subsection 1 (1) of O. Reg. 359/09 to be all or part of: a) an area of natural and scientific interest (ANSI) (earth science) b) an ANSI (life science) c) a coastal wetland d) a northern wetland e) a southern wetland f) a valleyland g) a wildlife habitat, or h) a woodland. 2.1 Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report Section 27 of the REA Regulation requires proponents of Class 3 solar projects to prepare a Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report for natural features identified in the Natural Heritage Assessment Records Review Report (Hatch, 2012a) and Natural Heritage Assessment Site Investigation Report (Hatch Ltd., 2012b) that sets out: a determination of whether the natural feature is: provincially significant or not provincially significant (i.e. wetlands and ANSI s) significant or not significant (i.e. woodland, valleyland or wildlife habitat) a summary of the evaluation criteria or procedures used to make the determinations the name and qualifications of any person who applied to evaluation criteria or procedures. This report has been prepared to meet these requirements. Although not a requirement under Section 27 of the REA Regulation, a map showing the boundaries of the candidate significant natural features (Figure 3.1) and the natural features identified as significant in this report (Figure 3.2) has also been prepared. H , Rev. 0, Page 3 Hatch 2012/05

10 Cornwall Solar Inc. - Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report The evaluation commenced with the initial site investigation on May 12, 2010, followed by wetland evaluations and habitat use studies throughout 2010 and This report was completed on February 6, H , Rev. 0, Page 4 Hatch 2012/05

11 Cornwall Solar Inc. - Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report 3. Evaluation of Candidate Significant Natural Features 3.1 Summary of Candidate Significant Natural Features The Natural Heritage Assessment Site Investigation Report (Hatch Ltd., 2012b) determined that much of the Project Location was a former aggregate pit that has naturalized through succession. The report concluded that the following candidate significant natural features occur on or within 120 m of the Project Location and require an evaluation of significance: Woodlands The following woodland ecotypes, located on and within 120 m of the Project Location, have been identified as candidate significant woodlands: Woodland 1 Dry fresh sugar maple hickory deciduous forest type (FOD5-1) Woodland 2 Dry fresh poplar deciduous forest type (FOD3-1) Woodland 3 Fresh moist white cedar hardwood mixed forest type (FOM7-2) Woodland 4 Fresh moist white cedar coniferous forest type (FOC4-1) Wetlands Six wetland cells, located on and within 120 m of the Project Location, have been identified as candidate significant wetlnds: Wetland Cell 1 Red maple mineral deciduous swamp (SWD3-1) Wetland Cells 2 to 6 Mineral meadow marsh ecosite (MAM2) Wildlife Habitat The following candidate significant wildlife habitat types have been identified on and within 120 m of the Project Location: Habitats of seasonal concentrations of animals Raptor winter feeding and roosting area, waterfowl stopover and staging areas and waterfowl nesting areas Specialized habitat for wildlife Amphibian breeding wetlands, marsh breeding birds and turtle nesting Habitat of species of conservation concern ESA Special Concern & provincially rare other species Forest guild Baltimore Oriole, Common Nighthawk, Eastern Wood-Pewee and Northern Flicker; Grassland guild (cultural meadow and agricultural land) Field Sparrow, Savannah Sparrow and Vesper Sparrow Other habitat Milksnake Wetland/riparian guild Belted Kingfisher, eastern ribbonsnake, snapping turtle and western chorus frog H , Rev. 0, Page 5 Hatch 2012/05

12 Cornwall Solar Inc. - Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report Declining guilds shrubland birds Black-billed Cuckoo, Brown Thrasher, Eastern Towhee, Field Sparrow and Northern Flicker Animal movement corridors Amphibian corridors The location of the candidate significant natural features identified in the Natural Heritage Assessment Site Investigation Report (Hatch Ltd., 2012b) and outlined above are illustrated in Figure Evaluation of Significance Methodology The candidate significant natural features identified in the Natural Heritage Assessment Site Investigation Report (Hatch, 2012b) were evaluated to determine their significance based on criteria from various publications/guides, as made available by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). These publications/guides include: the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (NHRM) (MNR, 2010), the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (SWHTG) (MNR, 2000), Significant Wildlife Habitat Decision Support System (MNR, 2001) and the Draft Significant Wildlife Habitat Ecoregion Criteria Schedules: addendum to Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (DSWHECS) (MNR, 2009) Additional Assessments/Evaluations For some candidate significant natural features identified on and/or within 120 m of the Project Location, it was deemed necessary to conduct habitat-use studies to aid in the determination of significance. These additional assessments are described in the following sections Breeding Bird Surveys Breeding bird point count surveys were conducted from May through June 2011, using standardized survey methods as described in the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas Guide for Participants (Cadman and Kopysh, 2001) for field and open land habitats, and the Canadian Wildlife Service Forest Bird Monitoring Program for Woodlands (Environment Canada, 2009). Survey stations were established across the Project Location (Figure 3.1) in accordance with minimum spacing requirements, so as to reduce incidences of observational overlap. Surveys were conducted within the window of breeding season for most bird species expected to be using the habitats found at the site (i.e., May to June). Surveying typically began at 0600, under appropriate weather conditions. Bird survey field data sheets are provided in Appendix C Anuran Surveys Amphibian calling surveys were conducted in May 2010 and May and June 2011 following standardized Marsh Monitoring Program protocol (Birds Studies Canada, 2003). The number and intensity of amphibian calls were recorded at four stations on and adjacent to the Project Location, which were predetermined based on reconnaissance work in 2010 that identified potential amphibian breeding habitat (Figure 3.1). Surveys were conducted within the breeding season window for most anuran species expected to be using the habitats found at the site (i.e., May to June). Amphibian survey field data sheets are provided in Appendix D Wetland Evaluation The candidate significant wetlands were assessed according to the criteria outlined in the Appendix C of the Natural Heritage Assessment Guide for Renewable Energy Projects (NHAG) (MNR, 2011). Completion of Appendix C of the NHAG (MNR, 2011) was completed in accordance H , Rev. 0, Page 6 Hatch 2012/05

13 CUT1 AY W GH HI! 8 13 Project Site # 115 m FOC4-1 CUM1-1 o Wo Wetland Cell 1 ds ai n Dr 12 m SWD3-1 SWD3-1 #! 12 m Hig h wa y 40 1 St. Lawrence River! # 115 m! Cornwall Key Map LEGEND FOM7-2 Road Watercourse Parcel # Fencing FOD3-1 Project Location # 120 m from Project Location AG FOM7-2 Candidate Significant Natural Features 100 m Wetland CUT1! # Woodland (FOD5-5, FOM7-2, FOC4-1, FOD3-1) Candidate Significant Habitats of Seasonal Concentrations of Animals 22 m Raptor Winter Feeding and Roosting Area (FOD5-5, FOM7-2, FOC4-1, FOD3-1, CUM1-1, CUT1) m 26 m 73 Waterfowl Nesting / Stopover and Staging Area (CUM1-1, CUT1) Wetland Cell 6 Candidate Significant Specialized Habitats for Wildlife! Amphibian Breeding Wetlands MAM2! Wetland Cell 2 Marsh Breeding Birds Turtle Nesting AG!! Candidate Significant Habitats of Species of Conservation Concern MAM2 FOD3-1 Forest Habitat Guild (Baltimore Oriole, Common Nighthawk Eastern Wood-pewee, Northern Flicker) CUM1-1! Grassland Habitat Guild (Field Sparrow, Vesper Sparrow, Savanah Sparrow) 21 m CUT1!! Wetland Cell 3 MAM2 Other Habitat Guild (Milksnake) Wetland Cell 4 MAM2 D YR NT 10 m FOD5-5 Wetland / Riparian Habitat Guild (Belted Kingfisher, Eastern Ribbonsnake, Snapping Turtle, Western Chorus Frog) 5m 8m 20! U CO Shrubland Bird Habitat Guild (Black-billed Cuckoo, Brown Thrasher, Eastern Towhee, Field Sparrow, Norther Flicker) MAM2 Candidate Significant Animal Movement Corridors Wetland Cell 5 Amphibian Movement Corridor Ecological Land Classification AG CO U YR NT D1 9 AG LO K IN N CH 0 RD Path: SPECIALIST_APPS\Cornwall\Cornwall_NH_SIR_16Nov11.mxd Scale 1:4,000 Date Saved: 3/7/ :32:19 AM Metres Notes: 1. Produced by Hatch under licence from Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Copyright (c) Queens Printer Spatial referencing UTM NAD Satellite Imagery from Google Earth Pro. FOD5-5 FOD3-1 FOM7-2 FOC4-1 Dry - Fresh Sugar Maple Hickory Deciduous Forest Type (Woodland 1) Dry - Fresh Poplar Deciduous Forest Type (Woodland 2) Fresh - Moist White Cedar - Hardwood Mixed Forest type (Woodland 3) Fresh - Moist White Cedar Coniferous Forest Type (Woodland 4) SWD3-1 MAM2 Red Maple Mineral Deciduous Swamp Type Mineral Meadow Marsh Ecosite AG Agricultural CUM1-1 Dry - Moist Old Field Meadow Type CUT1 Mineral Cultural Thicket Ecosite Figure 3.1 Cornwall Solar, Inc. Cornwall Solar Energy Project Candidate Significant Natural Features

14 Cornwall Solar Inc. - Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report Back of fig 3.1 H , Rev. 0, Page 8 Hatch 2012/05

15 Cornwall Solar Inc. - Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report with the appropriate sections of the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES) (MNR, 2002). The OWES protocol is a tool that allows planners to consider the relative value of different wetlands through the examination and ranking of a number of wetland functions. An initial desktop study was carried out to obtain background information of the wetlands. Following the desktop study, a field survey of the subject wetlands was conducted (June 23, 2011). Species of flora and fauna within the wetlands were recorded during the field surveys. Wetlands were identified and characterized using the Ecological Land Classification (ELC) system (Lee et al., 1998) (Figure 3.1) and the OWES protocol (MNR, 2002) (Figure 3.3). Wetland Field Notes are provided in Appendix A, while the Wetland characteristics and ecological functions are presented in Appendix B. The wetland evaluation was overseen and completed by Martine Esraelian of Hatch, Ltd., a certified OWES assessor Raptor Winter Survey The survey objective was to estimate the use of the Project Location by raptors, assess the relative abundance and diversity of raptor species. All raptors present were counted at fixed locations. The Project Location was walked in transects away from the main roads. One site visit was carried out, on January 19, 2012, within the season-window for most raptor species expected to be using the habitats found at the site (i.e., November to early March). Raptor winter survey field data sheets are provided in Appendix C. The raptor winter survey was carried out between 11:45 and 13:00 hrs, under favourable field conditions (i.e. no snow, wind = 0 on the Beaufort Wind Scale, temperature of -16 C) Waterfowl Stopover and Staging Two site visits were completed during the spring (May 2010 and May 2011), and one site visit was conducted in the fall of Though primary focus of these surveys was related to other aspects of environmental studies, areas of seasonal flooding were scanned for occurrences of staging waterfowl. Field notes from these site visits are provided in Appendix D. 3.3 Candidate Significant Woodlands The Natural Heritage Assessment Records Review Report (Hatch Ltd., 2012a) confirmed the presence of significant woodlands on and within 120 m of the Project Location. These significant woodlands are identified as such in the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Official Plan (2010). The site investigations further confirmed the presence of woodland communities in the vicinity of the Project Location. Although there are confirmed significant woodlands on the Project Location, the following discussion is provided to determine which criteria were met. Woodlands are defined in Subsection 1 (1) of the REA Regulation as: a) land that is south and east of the Canadian Shield b) land that has per hectare, at least i trees of any size ii. 750 trees measuring over 5 cm in diameter iii. 500 trees measuring over 12 cm in diameter iv. 250 trees measuring over 20 cm in diameter H , Rev. 0, Page 9 Hatch 2012/05

16 Cornwall Solar Inc. - Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report c) land that does not include a cultivated fruit or nut orchard or a plantation established for the purpose of producing Christmas trees. The site investigations confirmed that there are woodlands on the Project Location that meet the criteria for tree stocking density. The criteria for establishing woodland significance are identified in Section of the Natural Heritage Assessment Guide (NHAG) (MNR, 2011). The criteria for establishing significance, and how the woodlands were evaluated against these criteria, are discussed below. Woodlands that meet a suggested minimum standard set out in the NHAG (MNR, 2011) for any one of the criteria are considered significant. Criteria for Establishing Significant Woodlands Woodland size Significance of woodlands based on size is related to the amount of woodland coverage within a region (MNR, 2011). The Project Location is within the Township of South Glengarry, which has approximately 28% woodland coverage. According to the NHAG, where woodland cover is between 16 and 30%of the land cover, woodlands 20 ha in size or larger should be considered significant. Ecological function Woodland interior Where woodlands cover about 16 and 30% of the land cover, 2 ha or more of interior habitat is considered significant. Woodland interior habitat is usually defined as habitat more than 100 m from the edge of the woodland. Proximity to other woodlands or other habitats Woodlands within 30 m of a significant natural feature receiving ecological benefit from the woodland. Linkages Woodlands should be considered significant if they provide a connecting link between two other significant features. Water protection Woodlands should be considered significant if they are located within a sensitive or threatened watershed, or within 50 m of a watercourse. Woodland diversity Woodlands should be considered significant if they have a high native diversity through a combination of composition and terrain. Uncommon characteristics Woodlands should be considered significant if they possess uncommon characteristics, such as old-growth and/or rare vegetation communities. Economic and social functional values Woodlands should be considered significant if they possess have high economic or special services values Woodland Ecotype 1: Dry-Fresh Sugar Maple-Hickory Deciduous Forest Type (FOD5-5) The Natural Heritage Assessment Site Investigation Report (Hatch Ltd., 2012b) identified Woodland 1 (dry-fresh sugar maple-hickory deciduous forest Type FOD5-5) as a candidate significant woodland (Figure 3.1). This woodland community is part of larger contiguous woodland that is approximately 140 ha in size and extends beyond 120 m of the Project Location. Portion of this woodland community is situated within 120 m of the Project Location, along the southwest boundary. H , Rev. 0, Page 10 Hatch 2012/05

17 Cornwall Solar Inc. - Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report Woodland size This woodland is part of larger contiguous woodland that is estimated to be 140 ha in size, calculated using the MNR Land Information Ontario (LIO) wooded area layer in ArcMap 9.3. Approximately 1.3 ha of this ecotype is found within 120 m of the Project Location. The woodland is considered significant for the region and, therefore, this criterion is met. Woodland interior The contiguous forest has approximately 68 ha of woodland interior, though there is no forest interior of this ecotype situated within the 120 m setback of the Project Location (i.e., as measured starting from 100 m from the woodland perimeter). Based on the amount of interior forest available within the larger community this criteria is considered to be met. Proximity to other woodlands or other habitats Woodland 1 is adjacent to significant turtle nesting habitats, amphibian breeding habitats and movement corridors. The woodland is located more than 30 m from habitat likely receiving ecological benefit from the woodland. Therefore, this criterion is met. Linkages The woodland is a prominent feature of the landscape, and would provide linkages to other features on the landscape. Accordingly, Woodland 1 meets this criterion of significance. Water protection The woodland is not located within a sensitive or threatened watershed, and is not within 50 m of a watercourse. Therefore, this criterion is not met. Woodland diversity The woodland contains species that have declined ; and it possesses a high native diversity of composition and terrain. Accordingly, it meets this criterion of significance. Uncommon characteristics No uncommon vegetation communities, or vegetation communities with a provincial ranking of S1, S2, or S3, are found within the boundary of this woodland. However, the woodland provides habitat for several species of conservation concern (see Section , Species Requiring Forest Habitat). Therefore, this criterion is met. Economic and social functional values There is evidence of tree cutting, recreational trails and past use as a sugar bush within Woodland 1. Therefore, the woodland meets this criteria of significance. Evaluation The evaluation has determined that the dry-fresh sugar maple-hickory deciduous forest Type (FOD5-5) woodland community situated within 120 m of the Project Location (i.e., Woodland 1) is significant, based on the criteria above. Since development is proposed within 120 m of this woodland, this feature will be carried forward to the Natural Heritage Assessment Environmental Impact Study to assess potential negative environmental effects. A map showing the location of this significant vegetation community is provided in Figure Woodland Ecotype 2: Dry-Fresh Poplar Deciduous Forest Type (FOD3-1) The Natural Heritage Assessment Site Investigation Report (Hatch Ltd., 2012b) identified Woodland 2 (dry-fresh poplar deciduous forest type FOD3-1) as a candidate significant woodland (Figure 3.1). Four, isolated, stands of this vegetation type are found on and within 120 m of the Project Location. This woodland is not part of the larger contiguous woodland community that has been identified by the municipality as significant. H , Rev. 0, Page 11 Hatch 2012/05

18 Cornwall Solar Inc. - Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report Woodland size The largest stand of FOD3-1 (0.53 ha) is situated on the southern portion of the Project Location. It is surrounded by two smaller stands (i.e., 0.16 ha and 0.06 ha in size, respectively) in areas of remnant rock piles from past aggregate activities. There is also a 0.18 ha stand of this ecotype on the northeast portion of the Project Location. A total of approximately 0.6 ha of this ecotype is found on the Project Location. Woodland size was calculated using the MNR LIO wooded area layer in ArcMap 9.3. This woodland is not part of the larger, contiguous woodland community that has been identified by the municipality as significant. The woodland is not considered significant for the region and, therefore, this criterion is not met. Woodland interior There is no interior forest habitat present within this ecotype on or within 120 m of the Project Location, as determined using a 100-m buffer around the woodland perimeter. Therefore, this criterion is not met. Proximity to other woodlands or other habitats Woodland 2 is not part of a significant woodland. The largest stand is located adjacent to a significant amphibian breeding habitat and turtle nesting habitat. All other stands are more than 30 m from habitat likely receiving ecological benefit from the woodland. Therefore, this criterion is met for the largest of these stands. Linkages Three of the four stands are isolated. Only the southwestern stand provides a connecting link between Wetland Cells 2 and 3, respectively, which support amphibian breeding in the area within 120 m of the Project Location. Accordingly, only the southwestern stand of Woodland 2 meets this criterion of significance. Water protection These woodland stands are not located within a sensitive or threatened watershed, and are not within 50 m of a watercourse. Therefore, this criterion is not met. Woodland diversity The southwestern stand located within the 120 m Project setback area contains species that have declined. Accordingly, this criterion of significance is partially met. Uncommon characteristics No uncommon vegetation communities, or vegetation communities with a provincial ranking of S1, S2, or S3, are found within the boundary of this woodland, and the woodland was not identified as providing significant habitat for species of conservation concern (see Section , Species Requiring Forest Habitat). Therefore, this criterion is not met. Economic and social functional values There is no evidence of economic or social functions associated with this woodland. Therefore, this criterion is not met. Evaluation The evaluation has determined that 3 of the 4 stands of the dry-fresh poplar deciduous forest type (FOD3-1) woodland community situated on the Project Location is not significant, based on the criteria above and, therefore, will not be carried forward to the Natural Heritage Assessment Environmental Impact Study to assess potential negative environmental effects. The fourth stand of this community located on and within 120 m of the Project location is significant, based on the criteria above and, therefore, will be carried forward to the Natural Heritage Assessment Environmental Impact Study to assess potential negative environmental effects. A map showing the significant and non-significant woodland stands of Woodland Ecotype 2 is provided in Figure 3.2. H , Rev. 0, Page 12 Hatch 2012/05

19 CUT1 AY W GH HI 8 13! CUM1-1 Project Site 115 m o Wo ds SWD3-1 FOC m! Wetland Cell 1 ai n Dr SWD3-1 Hig 12 m h wa y 40 1 St. Lawrence River! Cornwall Key Map! 115 m LEGEND FOM7-2 Road 27 m Watercourse Annual Vegetation Management Zone Fencing FOD3-1 Parcel Project Location FOM7-2 AG! m from Project Location Significant Natural Features CUT1 m SWD3-1 Red Maple Mineral Deciduous Swamp Type Wetland Woodland (FOD5-5, FOM7-2, FOC4-1) 22 m 26 m 73 Significant Specialized Habitats for Wildlife Wetland Cell 6 m SWD3-1 Turtle Nesting! Significant Habitats of Species of Conservation Concern MAM2!! Forest Habitat Guild (Baltimore Oriole, Eastern Wood-pewee, Northern Flicker) AG! MAM2 Other Habitat Guild (Milksnake) FOD3-1 Wetland / Riparian Habitat Guild (Snapping Turtle) CUM1-1! Wetland Cell 2 CUT1 Significant Animal Movement Corridors Wetland Cell 4!! Wetland Cell 3 MAM2 Amphibian Movement Corridor MAM2 Ecological Land Classification U CO 10 m FOD5-5 D YR NT 5m! 20 8m Amphibian Breeding Wetland Wetland Cell 5 FOD5-5 FOD3-1 FOM7-2 FOC4-1 Dry - Fresh Sugar Maple Hickory Deciduous Forest Type (Woodland 1) Dry - Fresh Poplar Deciduous Forest Type (Woodland 2) Fresh - Moist White Cedar - Hardwood Mixed Forest type (Woodland 3) Fresh - Moist White Cedar Coniferous Forest Type (Woodland 4) SWD3-1 MAM2 Red Maple Mineral Deciduous Swamp Type Mineral Meadow Marsh Ecosite AG Agricultural CUM1-1 Dry - Moist Old Field Meadow Type CUT1 Mineral Cultural Thicket Ecosite MAM2 AG U CO YR NT 9 D1 AG 0 50 Scale 1:4,000 LO K IN Notes: 1. Produced by Hatch under licence from Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Copyright (c) Queens Printer Spatial referencing UTM NAD Satellite Imagery from Google Earth Pro. CH RD Path:SPECIALIST_APPS\Cornwall\Cornwall_NH_EOS_17Nov11.mxd 25 Date Saved: 3/22/ :53:20 AM Metres N Figure 3.2 Cornwall Solar, Inc. Cornwall Solar Energy Project Significant Natural Features

20 Cornwall Solar Inc. - Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report Back of fig 3.2 H , Rev. 0, Page 14 Hatch 2012/05

21 Cornwall Solar Inc. - Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report Woodland Ecotype 3: Fresh-Moist White Cedar-Hardwood Mixed Forest Type (FOM7-2) The Natural Heritage Assessment Site Investigation Report (Hatch Ltd., 2012b) identified Woodland 3 (fresh-moist white cedar-hardwood mixed forest type FOM7-2) as a candidate significant wetland (Figure 3.1). This woodland community is part of the larger contiguous woodland that extends beyond 120 m of the Project Location. It is situated along the western boundary of the Project Location. Woodland size The FOM7-2 woodland community situated on and within 120 m of the Project Location is approximately 8.2 ha in size, with 4.2 ha falling on the Project Location itself (calculated using the MNR LIO wooded area layer in ArcMap 9.3). This ecotype is part of a larger, 140 ha woodland community and, accordingly, the woodland is considered significant for the region. Woodland interior The contiguous forest has approximately 68 ha of woodland interior, though only 0.05 ha of Woodland 3 interior habitat is situated within the 120 m setback of the Project Location (i.e., as measured starting from 100 m from the woodland perimeter). Based on the amount of interior forest available within the larger community this criteria is considered to be met. Proximity to other woodlands or other habitats The woodland is part of a significant woodland and is adjacent to fish habitat likely receiving ecological benefit from the woodland. It is adjacent to a significant wetland (i.e., Wetland Cell 1) as well as a significant amphibian breeding habitat. Accordingly, Woodland 3 meets this criterion of significance. Linkages Woodland 3 provides a connecting link between other woodlands and, therefore, meets this criterion of significance. Water protection The woodland is not located within a sensitive or threatened watershed, but is located within 50 m of a watercourse and, therefore, meets this criterion of significance. Woodland diversity Woodland 3 contains species that have declined; and it possesses a high native diversity of composition and terrain. Accordingly, it meets this criterion of significance. Uncommon characteristics No uncommon vegetation communities, or vegetation communities with a provincial ranking of S1, S2, or S3, are found within the boundary of this woodland. However, the woodland provides habitat for several species of conservation concern (see Section , Species Requiring Forest Habitat). Therefore, this criterion is met. Economic and social functional values There is no evidence of economic or social functions associated with this woodland. Therefore, this criterion is not met. Evaluation The evaluation determined that the fresh-moist white cedar-hardwood mixed forest type (FOM7-2) woodland community situated on and within 120 m of the Project Location (i.e., Woodland 3) is significant, based on the criteria above. Since development is proposed within 120 m of this woodland, this feature will be carried forward to the Natural Heritage Assessment Environmental Impact Study to assess potential negative environmental effects. A map showing the location of this significant vegetation community is provided in Figure 3.2. H , Rev. 0, Page 15 Hatch 2012/05

22 Cornwall Solar Inc. - Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report Woodland Ecotype 4: Fresh-Moist White Cedar Coniferous Forest Type (FOC4-1) The Natural Heritage Assessment Site Investigation Report (Hatch Ltd., 2012b) identified Woodland 4 (fresh-moist white cedar coniferous forest type FOC4-1) as a candidate significant woodland (Figure 3.1). This woodland community is also part of the larger contiguous woodland that extends beyond 120 m of the Project Location. The main block of this ecotype is a 1.45 ha woodland on the northeast portion of the Project Location, adjacent to the Woods Drain watercourse (Figure 3.1). Woodland size This ecotype covers an area of approximately 1.45 ha, of which 0.68 ha is found on the Project Location. The size was calculated using the MNR LIO wooded area layer in ArcMap 9.3. Woodland 4 is part of the larger, 140 ha contiguous woodland and, therefore, meets this criterion. Woodland interior The contiguous forest has approximately 68 ha of woodland interior, though there is no forest interior of this ecotype situated within the 120 m setback of the Project Location (i.e., as measured starting from 100 m from the woodland perimeter). Based on the amount of interior forest available within the larger community this criteria is considered to be met. Proximity to other woodlands or other habitats The woodland is adjacent to other woodland communities on the Project Location; and it is located within 75 m of the Woods Drain watercourse (i.e., fish habitat) that likely receives ecological benefits from the woodland. It is also adjacent to a significant wetland (i.e., Wetland Cell 1) and a significant amphibian breeding habitat. Accordingly, this criterion of significance is met. Linkages The FOC4-1 woodland does not provide a connecting link between two other significant features within 120 m. Accordingly, it meets this criterion of significance. Water protection This woodland stand is not located within a sensitive or threatened watershed, and is not within 50 m of a watercourse. Therefore, this criterion is not met. Woodland diversity Woodland 4 contains species that have declined; and it possesses a high native diversity of composition and terrain. Accordingly, it meets this criterion of significance. Uncommon characteristics No uncommon vegetation communities, or vegetation communities with a provincial ranking of S1, S2, or S3, are found within the boundary of this woodland. However, the woodland provides habitat for several species of conservation concern (see Section , Species Requiring Forest Habitat). Therefore, this criterion is met. Economic and social functional values The woodland provides no known social or economic value. Therefore, this criterion is not met. Evaluation The evaluation has determined that the fresh-moist white cedar coniferous forest type (FOC4-1) woodland community situated on and within 120 m of the Project Location is significant, based on the criteria above. Since development is proposed within 120 m of this woodland, this feature will be carried forward to the Natural Heritage Assessment Environmental Impact Study to assess potential negative environmental effects. A map showing the location of this significant vegetation community is provided in Figure 3.2. H , Rev. 0, Page 16 Hatch 2012/05

23 Cornwall Solar Inc. - Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report 3.4 Candidate Significant Wetlands The June 23, 2011 site investigation (Appendix A) gathered information on six unevaluated wetland cells that are located within 120 m of the Project Location (Figures 3.1 and 3.3). Satellite imagery indicates that more unevaluated wetland units are located within 750 m of the identified wetland cells. To address whether the wetlands in the vicinity of the Project Location should be complexed with other wetlands (i.e. to identify whether a string of unevaluated wetlands occur between the subject wetland cells and the nearest evaluated wetland), a full wetland evaluation would be required. To reduce the complexity and time associated with a full evaluation of significance beyond the Project Location and 120 m setback area, a scoped evaluation according to Appendix C of the NHAG (MNR, 2011) was performed. The wetlands characteristics and ecological functions assessment was completed through desktop work and site investigation information. The results of these analyses is provided in Table B1 of Appendix B. The wetlands found in the vicinity of the Project Location consist of a red maple mineral deciduous swamp type (SWD3-1, i.e., Wetland Cell 1) and five mineral meadow marshes ecosite (MAM2, i.e., Wetland Cells 2 through 6). The wetlands occurring in the vicinity of the Project Location have been characterized using the ELC system (Lee et al., 1998) (Figure 3.1) and the OWES protocol (MNR, 2002) (Figure 3.3). It should be noted that the candidate significant wildlife habitat(s) found within any wetland cells were evaluated for significance separately (Section 3.5) Wetland Cell 1 and 2 The Natural Heritage Assessment Site Investigation Report (Hatch Ltd., 2012b) identified Wetland Cells 1 (red maple mineral deciduous swamp type SWD3-1) and 2 (mineral meadow marsh ecosite MAM2) as candidate significant wetlands (Figure 3.1). Wetland Cell 1 is associated with the Woods Drain watercourse, and is located a minimum of 12 m north of the Project location, extending more than 120 m from the Project Location. Wetland Cell 2 is located a minimum of 22 m west of the Project location. The Project Location does not encroach upon these natural features. (Figures 3.1 and 3.3). Evaluation Following the completion of the wetland evaluation sections outlined in the Appendix C of the NHAG (MNR, 2011), Wetland Cells 1 and 2 were assumed to be PSWs. Since development is proposed within 120 m of these wetlands, these features will be carried forward to the Natural Heritage Assessment Environmental Impact Study to assess potential negative environmental effects. A map showing the location of these significant features are provided in Figure Wetland Cells 3 to 6: Mineral Meadow Marsh Ecosite (MAM2) There are four other marshes occurring on or within 120 m of the Project Location. Wetland Cell 3 is located entirely within the western 120 m Project setback area, at a minimum distance of 5 m from the Project Location. Wetland Cells 4, 5 and 6 are respectively located on the southern portion of the Project Location. Two of the meadow marshes are associated with dug ponds (i.e., Wetland Cells 3 and 4), while the other meadow marshes are in low-lying areas that are seasonally flooded and hold water due to the bedrock being near the surface (i.e., Wetland Cells 5 and 6). H , Rev. 0, Page 17 Hatch 2012/05

24 Cornwall Solar Inc. - Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report Wetland size and type Using the OWES protocol (MNR, 2002) Wetland Cell 3 (0.4 ha) was characterized as open water surrounded by meadow marsh; Wetland Cell 4 (0.2 ha) was characterized as a broad-leaved emergent marsh; Wetland Cell 5 (0.03 ha) was characterized as a robust emergent marsh; and Wetland Cell 6 (0.4 ha) was characterized as a meadow marsh (Figure 3.3). Proximity to other wetlands or other habitats The meadow marshes are clustered together with an average distance between each other of 95 m (Figure 3.3). Site type and wetland diversity All four meadow marshes are isolated and not hydrologically connected by surface water (Appendix B). Wetland Cell 3 contains species that have declined. Uncommon characteristics No uncommon vegetation communities, or vegetation communities with a provincial ranking of S1, S2, or S3, are found within the boundary of this wetland. Snapping turtles were confirmed to be present within Wetland Cell 4 by the site investigations (Hatch Ltd., 2012b). This is the only riparian/wetland species of conservation concern that has been observed within 120 m of the Project Location. Significant features and habitats Wetland Cells 3 and 4 are considered candidate significant amphibian breeding wetlands (Section ) and turtle nesting areas (Section ). The amphibian breeding habitats associated with Wetland Cell 3 is considered to be a candidate significant amphibian movement corridor (Section ). Wetland Cell 4 is a confirmed significant habitat for snapping turtle (Section ). Economic and social functional values The meadow marshes provides no known social or economic value. Evaluation Wetland Cells 3 to 6 are less than 0.5 ha (which according to the OWES is too small to map and to require wetland evaluation [MNR, 2002]), and because these meadow marshes are isolated and not hydrologically connected by surface water, the marshes were not considered to be part of a larger wetland complex. As a result, Wetland Cells 3 through 6 will not be carried forward to the Natural Heritage Assessment Environmental Impact Study. 3.5 Candidate Significant Wildlife Habitat The SWHTG (MNR, 2000) identifies four main types of wildlife habitat that can be classified as significant: habitats of seasonal concentrations of animals, rare vegetation communities or specialized habitats for wildlife, habitats of species of conservation concern and animal movement corridors. The criteria and processes outlined in the NHRM (MNR, 2010), SWHTG (MNR, 2000) and DSWHECS (MNR, 2009) were used to evaluate the significance of wildlife habitat in the Project area. The criteria identified in these sources were used in the evaluation, and are discussed by habitat type below. H , Rev. 0, Page 18 Hatch 2012/05

25 AY W GH HI 8 13 Narrow-leaved Emergent Marsh Project Site 160 m 334 m o Wo ds.m. eadow Marsh ai n Dr Hig h wa y 40 1 St. Lawrence River! Cornwall Key Map 12 m LEGEND Road Deciduous Swamp. 27 m Watercourse Project Location 120 m from Project Location Meadow Marsh 251 m 304 m Wetland 1 Wetland 2 Wetland 3 Wetland 4 22 m m 26 Meadow Marsh Wetland 5 Wetland m Wetland 7 Meadow Marsh 119 m 92 m 40 m Open Water 21 m U CO Open Water D YR NT 125 m Meadow Marsh 89 m m 5m Robust Emergent Marsh Broad-leaved Emergent Marsh Notes: 1. Produced by Hatch under licence from Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Copyright (c) Queens Printer Spatial referencing UTM NAD Satellite Imagery from Google Earth Pro. 0 CO U YR NT D Metres N Scale 1:4,000 Figure 3.3 Cornwall Solar, Inc. Cornwall Solar Energy Project Wetland OWES Characterization Path:SPECIALIST_APPS\Cornwall\Cornwall_Wetland_OWES EOS_26Jan12.mxd Date Saved: 3/7/ :42:33 AM

26 Cornwall Solar Inc. - Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report Back of Fig 3.3 H , Rev. 0, Page 20 Hatch 2012/05

27 Cornwall Solar Inc. - Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report Habitats of Seasonal Concentrations of Animals Specific criteria used to evaluate habitats of seasonal concentrations of animals are identified in Table Q-1, Appendix Q in the SWHTG (MNR, 2000). The DSWHECS (MNR, 2009) was also used to supplement information obtained in the SWHTG (MNR, 2000). The criteria that were considered during this evaluation and how they were assessed are discussed for each of the candidate significant habitats of seasonal concentrations of animals habitat types identified in the Natural Heritage Assessment Site Investigation Report (Hatch Ltd., 2012b) Raptor Winter Feeding and Roosting Areas The Natural Heritage Assessment Site Investigation Report (Hatch Ltd., 2012b) identified candidate significant raptor winter feeding and roosting areas on and within 120 m of the Project Location. There is forested habitat (FOC4-1, FOD3-1, FOD5-5 and FOM7-2) immediately adjacent to upland feeding habitat (CUM1-1 and CUT1) within 120 m of the Project Location (Figure 3.1). The following criteria were used to determine significance. Importance of the site to raptor populations Significant sites are generally the only known sites in the planning area; or they are one of only a few in the area (MNR, 2000). Grassland areas and forest communities are common within Ecodistrict 6E-12, representing the majority of the landscape (i.e., more than a 100,000 ha), and therefore this site,at approximately 21 ha (Woodlands + meadow on and within 120 m), is not of relative importance. Further, the Natural Heritage Assessment Records Review (Hatch Ltd., 2012a) did not identify this area as being as significant site for raptors. Therefore, this criterion is not met. Presence of species of conservation concern/species Diversity and Abundance Most significant sites support several species of concern, but significant sites may also support just one such species (MNR, 2000). Sites with the greatest number of species and the highest number of individuals are more significant (MNR, 2000). Red-tailed Hawk were recorded during the baseline investigations (2010). A winter raptor survey was performed on January 19, 2012 to confirm the use by raptor in the winter period. During this winter survey, one Red-tailed Hawk was observed using some perch on the site and feeding on neighbour s property (Appendix C). Red-tailed Hawk are not a species of conservation concern. No raptor species of conservation concern have been observed overwintering in the area. For more information on the raptor survey methodology refer to Section The Project Location was not found to support many raptor species or high number of individuals and, as a result, this criterion of significance is not met. Size of site Raptor wintering sites need to be greater than 20 ha (MNR, 2000; MNR, 2009), Sites located near other open field areas, with adjacent woods are more significant (MNR, 2000). The site investigations confirmed that the open upland habitats associated with the Project Location occur in small fragmented blocks (10 ha and 18.7 ha), which added together are over the 15 ha required for upland raptor feeding areas or winter roosts. The woodlands in the vicinity of the Project Location are part of a larger woodland complex of approximately 140 ha in size and therefore meet the 5 ha requirement. Given that these habitats also occur in the surrounding area, this criterion is met. H , Rev. 0, Page 21 Hatch 2012/05

28 Cornwall Solar Inc. - Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report Level of disturbance Sites with little disturbance (e.g., haying, cattle grazing) are more significant (MNR, 2000). There is active agricultural operations ongoing in the vicinity of the Project Location that may create visual/noise disturbances for raptors. Therefore, this criterion is not met. Location of site Sites located near other open field areas with adjacent woodlands are more significant (MNR, 2000). The woodland communities are adjacent to the upland habitat, and there are other open agricultural fields in the vicinity of the Project Location. Therefore, this criterion is met. Quality of habitat Most significant sites have better habitat features (e.g., abundant prey and perches; a tendency toward less snow accumulation due to exposure to strong prevailing winds) (MNR, 2000). Though abundance of prey is unknown, the habitat in the Project area is believed to be reflective of the quality of habitat available within the region. Therefore, habitat quality is moderate (i.e., likely consistent with the general characteristics of the region not providing an over or under abundance of prey). Therefore, this criteria is not met. Historical use of area Significant sites have been used by raptors for several years and/or at least 60% of winters (MNR, 2000). Neither the MNR nor other planning authorities have any records indicating that the Project lands serve as a raptor winter feeding and roosting area (Hatch Ltd., 2012a). Therefore this criterion is not met. Evaluation Based on the low relative importance of this site, level of disturbance within the habitat, absence of any records of this site as a significant site for wintering raptors and the abundance of this habitat type within the region, the Project lands are not considered to be a significant raptor winter feeding and roosting area and will not be carried forward to the Natural Heritage Assessment Environmental Impact Study Report Waterfowl Nesting Areas The Natural Heritage Assessment Site Investigation Report (Hatch Ltd., 2012b) identified candidate significant waterfowl nesting areas on and within 120 m of the Project Location (Figure 3.1). The following criteria were used to determine significance. Importance of the site to local bird populations Significant sites are generally the only known sites in the planning area; or they are one of only a few in the area (MNR, 2000). The Natural Heritage Assessment Records Review (Hatch Ltd., 2012a) did not identify the area as being a significant site for local waterfowl populations and, therefore, this criterion is not met. Presence of species of conservation concern Most significant sites support several species of conservation concern, but significant sites may also support just one such species (MNR, 2000). No waterfowl species of conservation concern were observed using the site during the site investigations or breeding bird studies. Therefore, this criterion is not met. Species diversity Sites with the greatest number of species are most significant (MNR, 2000). Two waterfowl species were observed on the Project Location: the Mallard and Canada Goose. Neither species was observed nesting and, therefore, this criterion is not met. Abundance Sites with the greatest number of species are most significant (MNR, 2000). All sites with nesting and brood habitat for American Ducks should be considered significant. Also, H , Rev. 0, Page 22 Hatch 2012/05

29 Cornwall Solar Inc. - Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report all nesting areas for Gadwall, Green-winged Teal, Northern Pintail, Northern Shoveler, and American Widgeon should be considered significant. Furthermore, sites with the highest number of individuals are more significant. No waterfowl nests were found during the site investigations or breeding bird studies and, therefore, this criterion is not met. Size of site Larger sites of suitable habitat (e.g., grasslands adjacent to wetlands, ponds, lakes for many species) are more significant (MNR, 2000). The upland habitat is considered rather large (i.e., greater than 10 ha) and, therefore, this criterion is met. Quality of habitat Most significant sites have better habitat (e.g., optimal vegetation structure, stable water levels, abundant cover, and a wetland/water body within 150 m) (MNR, 2000). Optimum habitat conditions vary by species preference, but generally, open grassy areas and marshes near brood rearing sites that support high densities of macroinvertebrates are preferred. The cultural meadow habitat appears to be good waterfowl nesting habitat from a vegetation structure standpoint, however, no nesting waterfowl were observed during the site investigations and breeding bird surveys. Therefore, the area is not functioning as a concentrated waterfowl nesting area, and this criterion is not met. Location of site Sites providing safe movement of broods between wetlands/water bodies (i.e., no road obstructions/hazards) are more significant (MNR, 2000). This site would provide safe movement between habitat types/wetland cells and, therefore, this criterion is met. Nest predation Sites with lower rates of nest predation are more significant (MNR, 2000). Predation rates are assumed to be similar to that of the surrounding landscape. As such, this criterion is unevaluated. Level of disturbance Sites with little disturbance (e.g., haying, cattle grazing) are more significant (MNR, 2000). The site exhibits little disturbance that would affect waterfowl species and, therefore, this criterion is met. Evaluation Although the upland nesting habitat has characteristics favourable for nesting waterfowl, habitat use studies confirm that the area is not used by waterfowl to nest (Hatch, 2012b). Therefore, waterfowl nesting habitat was evaluated as not significant, and this habitat type will not be carried forward to the Natural Heritage Assessment Environmental Impact Study Waterfowl Stopover and Staging Areas The Natural Heritage Assessment Site Investigation Report (Hatch Ltd., 2012b) identified candidate significant waterfowl stopover and staging areas on and within 120 m of the Project Location (Figure 3.1). The following criteria were used to determine significance. Importance of the site to local bird populations Significant sites are generally the only known sites in the planning area; or they are one of only a few in the area (MNR, 2000). The Natural Heritage Assessment Records Review (Hatch Ltd., 2012a) did not identify the area as being a significant site for local waterfowl populations and, therefore, this criterion is not met. Presence of species of conservation concern Most significant sites support several species of conservation concern, but significant sites may also support just one such species (MNR, 2000). No waterfowl species of conservation concern were observed using the site during the site investigations or breeding bird studies. Therefore, this criterion is not met. H , Rev. 0, Page 23 Hatch 2012/05

30 Cornwall Solar Inc. - Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report Species diversity Sites with the greatest number of species are most significant (MNR, 2000). Two waterfowl species were observed on the Project Location: the Mallard and Canada Goose. Therefore, species diversity is poor, and this criteria is not met. Abundance Sites with the highest number of individuals are more significant (MNR, 2000). All sites with Trumpeter Swans, Ruddy Ducks, Canvasbacks and Redheads should also be considered significant. No evidence of significant numbers of waterfowl, or presence of the aforementioned species, were observed during the site investigations in the spring and fall and, therefore, this criterion is not met. Size of site Larger wetlands are more significant (MNR, 2000). Given that, individually, wetlands within the complex and associated seasonally flooded areas are comparatively small to support large numbers of migrant waterfowl, this criteria is determined not to be met. Quality of habitat Most significant sites have better habitat (e.g., optimal vegetation structure, ratio of open water to emergent vegetation, extensive shoreline, abundant food, nocturnal roosting cover) (MNR, 2000). Optimum habitat conditions are not present on the Project site, given the low ratio of open water to emergent vegetation and the absence of extensive shoreline. Therefore, this criterion is not met. Evaluation As none of the criteria were met, this is not considered to be a significant waterfowl stopover or staging area and will not require an environmental impact study Specialized Habitats for Wildlife Specific criteria used to evaluate habitats of seasonal concentrations of animals are identified in Table Q-2, Appendix Q in the SWHTG (MNR, 2000). The DSWHECS (MNR, 2009) was also used to supplement information obtained in the SWHTG (MNR, 2000). The criteria that were considered during this evaluation and how they were assessed are discussed for each of the candidate significant wildlife habitat type identified in the Natural Heritage Assessment Site Investigation Report (Hatch Ltd., 2012b) Amphibian Breeding Wetlands The Natural Heritage Assessment Site Investigation Report (Hatch Ltd., 2012b) identified candidate significant amphibian breeding habitat (wetland) within the wetland vegetation communities and open-water ponds (i.e., dugout ponds) located on and within 120 m of the Project Location. The site investigations performed in 2010 and 2011 did not identify use of these wetlands by salamanders, nor were any salamander egg masses observed. Amphibian calling surveys were conducted in 2010 and 2011 to determine anuran use. A summary of the surveys is provided in Table 3.2. Table 3.2 Summary of Amphibian Breeding Surveys by Marsh Wetland Cell on the Cornwall Solar Project Location Wetland Cell Habitat Type Species Observed 1 SWD 3-1 AMTO CGTF GRFR SPPE Comments Few individuals, less than (<) 20 Few individuals, <20 Full chorus more than (>) 20 individuals Full chorus >20 individuals H , Rev. 0, Page 24 Hatch 2012/05

31 Cornwall Solar Inc. - Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report Wetland Cell Habitat Type Species Observed 2 MAM 2 BULL CGTF GRFR 3 MAM 2 CGTF GRFR SPPE 4 MAM 2 CGTF GRFR SPPE Comments Few individuals, < 20 Several individuals, assume > 20 Several individuals, assume > 20 Full chorus>20 individuals Few individuals, < 20 Full chorus >20 individuals Full chorus >20 individuals Few individuals, < 20 Full chorus > 20 individuals Legend: AMTO: American toad, BULL Bullfrog, CGTF Common gray treefrog, GRFR Green frog, SPPE: Spring peeper Note: Wetland Cell 5 is small, and Wetland Cell 6 was not identified as containing open water, and though surveys were not completed at these features, it was noted during surveys completed at Wetland Cells 2 through 4 that there was no calling activity occurring from the vicinity of these features. The following criteria were used to determine significance. Presence of breeding amphibians The presence of 20 breeding individuals (i.e., adults, juveniles, eggs/larval masses) of at least two of the following species is considered significant: eastern newt, blue-spotted salamander, spotted salamander, American toad, common gray treefrog, spring peeper, western chorus frog and northern leopard frog (MNR, 2009). The anuran survey (Appendix D) confirmed the presence of the following species on and within 120 m of the Project Location: American bullfrog, American toad, common gray treefrog, green frog, northern leopard frog 1 and spring peeper, Wetland Cell 1 (SWD3-1) provides habitat for four species (American toad, common gray treefrog, green frog and spring peeper) of which two species were recorded having 20 or more breeding individual. Three amphibian species were heard in the vicinity of Wetland Cells 2, 3 and 4. The presence of 20 breeding individuals of at least two species were recorded on the mineral meadow marsh ecosite (MAM2). Therefore, this criterion is met for Wetland Cells 1, 2, 3 and 4. Presence of area-sensitive species Any wetland with confirmed breeding by American bullfrogs is considered significant. American bullfrogs are considered area-sensitive species (MNR, 2000). American bullfrogs were observed in the vicinity of the Project Location during the amphibian surveys in 2010 and 2011, with their location confirmed in Bullfrogs were found to be present in Wetland Cell 2 (Appendix D). Therefore, this criterion is met. Evaluation The evaluation determined that Wetland Cells 1, 2, 3 and 4 are significant as amphibian breeding wetlands. Since development is proposed within 120 m of this habitat type, these wetland cells will be carried forward to the Natural Heritage Assessment Environmental Impact Study to 1 The northern leopard frog is mentioned in Table 1: Species Recorded on the Cornwall A and B Sites of the Golder and Associates July 2, 2010 report, but the species is not recorded on their anuran survey data sheet, and therefore, the habitat location of this species is unknown. H , Rev. 0, Page 25 Hatch 2012/05

32 Cornwall Solar Inc. - Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report assess potential negative environmental effects. A map showing the location of this vegetation community is shown in Figure Marsh Breeding Birds The Natural Heritage Assessment Site Investigation Report (Hatch Ltd., 2012b) identified the meadow marshes (MAM2) as candidate marsh breeding bird habitat on and within 120 m of the Project Location (Figure 3.1). Note that the revised NHAG (MNR, 2011) considers this habitat as specialized habitat for wildlife while the DSWHECS (MNR, 2009) considers this habitat under the category of habitats for species of conservation concern. Criteria for significance were taken from the latter document. Size of habitat A minimum size for a wetland is not important when determining significance, as long as there is shallow water with emergent aquatic vegetation present. Wetland Cells 2 through 6 are small, but as there is no size requirements, this criterion is considered to be met. Abundance The presence of five or more nesting pairs of Sedge Wren, Marsh Wren, or four nesting pairs for other marsh species are most significant (MNR, 2009). None of the target species were observed during the site investigations or the breeding bird surveys and, therefore, this criterion is not met. Presence of species of conservation concern Any wetlands with breeding Black Terns or Yellow Rail are to be considered significant (MNR, 2009). These species were not observed during the site investigations and, therefore, this criterion is not met. Evaluation Although there is marsh breeding bird habitat on and within 120 m of the Project Location, it was evaluated as not significant because it is not used by target species of marsh birds. Accordingly, this habitat will not be carried forward to the Natural Heritage Assessment Environmental Impact Study Turtle Nesting The Natural Heritage Assessment Site Investigation Report (Hatch Ltd., 2012b) identified candidate turtle nesting habitat within Wetland Cells 2, 3 and 4 (Figure 3.1). The following criteria were used to determine significance. Size of habitat Larger sites are most significant because fewer nests are likely to be lost to predation and larger areas are more likely to be important to larger numbers of turtles (MNR, 2000). Wetland Cells 2 (0.8 ha), 3 (0.4 ha) and 4 (0.2 ha), respectively, are considered small areas. Wetland Cell 2 was determined to be the deepest of the three wetlands, with water depths of more than 3 m (Hatch, 2012b). Wetland Cell 3 has variable water depths that range from 1 to 3 m. At less than 3 m deep, Wetland Cell 4 is the shallowest. Therefore this criterion is not met. Location of site Nesting areas adjacent to permanent waterbodies and large wetlands and removed from roads are more significant because of increased likelihood of nesting success and hatchlings reaching the water, as well as reduced road mortality (MNR, 2000). Higher, welldrained sites are more important than poorly drained, low-lying areas at risk of inundation by water (MNR, 2000). Sites with good exposure to sunlight are more significant (MNR, 2000). H , Rev. 0, Page 26 Hatch 2012/05

33 Cornwall Solar Inc. - Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report The area around Wetland Cells 2, 3 and 4 has good exposure and some sandy soil which may potentially be used as nesting sites. Therefore, this criterion is met. Evidence of use The presence of several nests or adult females observed during the nesting season within a single area indicates a significant habitat (MNR, 2000). Sites with evidence of use by several species are more significant (MNR, 2000). Several painted turtles were observed during the June 2, 2010 and May 31, 2011 turtle surveys within Wetland Cells 2, 3 and 4. Also, an incidental observation of painted turtle, within Wetland Cell 4, was made during the May 31, 2011 breeding bird survey (Appendix C). The wetland assessment of June 23, 2011 mentionned the presence of painted turtle within Wetland Cell 3 and snapping turtles within Wetland Cell 4 (Appendix A). Snapping turtles were also observed in Wetland Cell 2 during the June 2, 2010 survey. Therefore, this criterion of significance is met. Presence of rare species Nesting habitat used by rare species is more significant (MNR, 2000). Snapping turtle a species of conservation concern (G5, S3) designated as Special Concern both nationally (COSEWIC) and provincially (SARO) was observed on and within 120 m of the Project Location in Wetland Cells 2 and 4 in 2010 and/or 2011 and, therefore, this criterion is met. Level of predation More significant sites are less prone to nest predation (i.e., they are not located in highly active wildlife corridors) (MNR, 2000). Predation rates of turtle nests in southern Ontario are typically high and, as such, predation rates on the Project Location would be consistent with those of the surrounding landscape. Therefore, this criterion is met. Presence of movement corridor Most significant nesting habitats are connected to other turtle habitats (e.g., wetlands) by corridors permitting relatively safe movement of these reptiles (MNR, 2000). Wetland Cells 2, 3 and 4 are clustered and their distances relative to each other are less than 200 m (Figure 3.3), which would permit easy turtle movement between aquatic habitats. Therefore, this criterion is met. The Woods Drain would function as a turtle movement corridor, as it is a tributary of the Raisin River. Degree of disturbance Nesting habitat that is relatively undisturbed by human activities (e.g., away from busy roads, residential areas) is most significant (MNR, 2000). Sites that are buffered by natural landforms and vegetation are usually more significant than unbuffered, exposed sites because of their superior ability to protect nesting turtles, hatchlings, and nests from natural and human disturbance (MNR, 2000). Ideal habitat is relatively undisturbed and free of roads which increase the likelihood of juvenile and adult survival. The Project Location, although highly disturbed in the past, is presently relatively undisturbed (especially the wetland areas) and, therefore, this criterion is met. Degree of threat Sites threatened with degradation or loss are more significant than similar, but currently unthreatened, sites (MNR, 2000). The development proposes some concerns, yet as a result of planned avoidance and mitigation protocols during construction, the threat of degradation is significantly reduced. Evaluation Turtles are likely common in Wetland Cells 2, 3 and 4, as they were observed during the 2010 and 2011 site investigations and, therefore, presumably overwinter in these wetland cells. The wetlands provide sufficient water for overwintering and have suitable adjacent nesting habitat. H , Rev. 0, Page 27 Hatch 2012/05

34 Cornwall Solar Inc. - Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report Therefore, Wetlands Cells 2, 3 and 4 were evaluated as significant turtle nesting habitat and, accordingly, will be carried forward to the Natural Heritage Assessment Environmental Impact Study. A map showing the location of this significant habitat type is provided in Figure Habitats of Species of Conservation Concern Criteria used to evaluate habitats of species of conservation concern are identified in Table Q-3, Appendix Q in the SWHTG (MNR, 2000). The DSWHECS (MNR, 2009) was also used to supplement information obtained in the SWHTG (MNR, 2000). The criteria that were considered during this evaluation and how they were assessed are discussed for each of the candidate significant habitats of species of conservation concern identified in the Natural Heritage Assessment Site Investigation Report (Hatch Ltd., 2012b) ESA Special Concern & Provincially Rare - Other Species The Natural Heritage Assessment Site Investigation Report (Hatch Ltd., 2012b) identified several species of Special Concern and other provincially rare species with candidate significant wildlife habitat on or within 120 m of the Project Location. To assess the habitat of these species they were sorted by habitat guild. Note: the shrubland bird guild which is a separate candidate significant habitat type in the NHAG (MNR, 2011) is considered separately under Section Species Requiring Forest Habitat The woodland communities on and within 120 m of the Project Location include: dry-fresh sugar maple-hickory deciduous forest type (FOD5-5); dry-fresh poplar deciduous forest type (FOD3-1); fresh-moist white cedar-hardwood mixed forest type (FOM7-2); fresh-moist white cedar coniferous forest type (FOC4-1) (Figure 3.1). The breeding bird surveys identified four species of conservation concern that inhabit forest and forest-edge habitat types, the Baltimore Oriole, Common Nighthawk, Eastern Wood-pewee and Northern Flicker (Hatch, 2012b) (Figure 3.1). The Common Nighthawk was not observed during site investigations, day surveys for breeding birds nor night surveys for nightjars. The criteria used to evaluate the significance of forest and forest-edge habitats on and within 120 m of the Project Location are described below. Degree of rarity of species found at site Habitats of provincially rare species (i.e., S1 to S3) are considered more significant than regionally or locally rare species (MNR, 2000). Baltimore Oriole, Eastern Wood-pewee and Northern Flicker are regionally rare, and less significant in this regard. The Common Nighthawk is designated as Threatened nationally and Special Concern provincially, and is protected under the provisions of the ESA. Therefore, this criterion is met. Documented significant decline in a species and /or its critical habitat Habitat for species experiencing the greatest decline is most significant (MNR, 2000). Baltimore Oriole, Eastern Wood-pewee and Northern Flicker are regionally rare species that are identified by the Ontario Partners in Flight (2008) as priority species whose populations and/or distributions have significantly declined (i.e., with a reverse decline conservation objective). The Common Nighthawk is designated as Threatened nationally and Special Concern provincially, and is protected under the provisions of the ESA. Therefore, this criterion is met. Species whose range is solely or primarily found in Ontario Habitat for species with the poorest representation within the planning area is more significant (MNR, 2000). The Baltimore H , Rev. 0, Page 28 Hatch 2012/05

35 Cornwall Solar Inc. - Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report Oriole, Common Nighthawk, Eastern Wood-pewee and Northern Flicker have ranges that extend beyond Ontario. Therefore, this criterion is not met. Condition of existing habitat at site Sites that provide habitat that best meets the survival requirements of the targets species and that also include a natural buffer zone are most significant (MNR, 2000). The woodlands on and within 120 m of the Project Location are comprised of a mix of vegetation communities. The dry fresh poplar deciduous forest type (FOD3-1) woodland is not considered high quality habitat, as it is culturally influenced or disturbed from past agricultural and aggregate activities, has no interior forest and is isolated from other significant features. The dry fresh sugar maple hickory deciduous forest type (FOD5-5) and the fresh moist white cedar hardwood mixed forest type (FOM7-2) have interior forest that could be of high enough quality to appeal to forest breeding birds. The fresh moist white cedar coniferous forest type (FOC4-1) has no interior forest, but could provide linkage refuge for breeding birds. The Baltimore Oriole was observed during the June 13, 2010 and June 17, 2011 breeding bird surveys within the cultural thicket (Appendix C). The Eastern Wood-pewee was found using the forest habitat (FOM7-2 ) during the June 13, 2010 and June 28, 2010 breeding bird surveys (Appendix C). The Northern Flicker was also observed on the Project Location during the June 28, 2010 breeding bird survey (Appendix C). Therefore, this condition of good habitat is met for the FOC4-1, FOD5-5 and FOM7-2 woodland. Size of species population at site/evidence of use of the habitat Habitats supporting large populations of several species of conservation concern are most significant (MNR, 2000). The Common Nighthawk was not observed in the vicinity of the Project Location during the sites investigations. The Baltimore Oriole, Eastern Wood-pewee and Northern Flicker were observed during the breeding bird surveys (Appendix C). The population size of these species is unknown. Therefore, this criterion is met. Size and location of habitat Large sites supporting large populations of several species of conservation concern are most significant (MNR, 2000). The dry-fresh sugar maple-hickory deciduous forest type (FOD5-5) (1.3 ha), fresh-moist white cedar-hardwood mixed forest type (FOM7-2) (8.2 ha) and fresh-moist white cedar coniferous forest type (FOC4-1) (1.45 ha) located in the vicinity of the Project Location are part of a larger woodland complex, approximately 140 ha in size. These forest stands are comprised of a mix of vegetation communities surrounded by shrub, meadow and wetlands. The approximate size of these vegetation communities were only calculated for the portions located on and within 120 m of the Project Location. Note that the dry-fresh poplar deciduous forest type (FOD3-1) (0.9 ha) stands are isolated. Therefore, this criterion of sufficient size is met for the FOC4-1, FOD5-5 and FOM7-2 stands. Potential for long-term protection of the habitat Habitats that provide the best opportunity for long-term protection are usually more significant than similar habitats with little opportunity for protection or facing an uncertain future due to potential threats (MNR, 2000). The woodlands are situated on privately owned land and, as such, long term protection cannot be assured. Therefore, this criterion is not met. Representation of species/habitat within the municipality Poorly represented habitats for species of conservation concern are significant (MNR, 2000). Woodlands represent 37% of the H , Rev. 0, Page 29 Hatch 2012/05

36 Cornwall Solar Inc. - Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report land cover within Kemptville District 6E-12 (Henson and Brodribb, 2005). The habitat for Baltimore Oriole, Common Nighthawk, Eastern Wood-pewee and Northern Flicker are common and well represented within the Kemptville District. Since this habitat is well represented, this criterion is not met. Species of particular interest to the planning authority Sites that provide the best examples of habitat that will ensure the long-term sustainability of the species are significant (MNR, 2000). The woodlands on and within 120 m of the Project Location have been identified by the municipality as significant, and they may provide significant habitat for Baltimore Oriole, Eastern Wood-pewee and Northern Flicker. Therefore, this criterion is met. Evaluation The Eastern Wood-pewee has been observed in association with the FOM7-2 forest habitat, while the Baltimore Oriole and Northern Flicker have been observed on the Project Location. The habitat found in the FOC4-1, FOD5-5 and FOM7-2 have been evaluated as significant habitat for these three species. Since development is proposed within 120 m of this habitat type, this feature will be carried forward to the Natural Heritage Assessment Environmental Impact Study to assess potential negative environmental effects. A map showing the location of this significant wildlife habitat type is shown in Figure Species Requiring Wetland/Riparian Habitat Wetland/riparian habitat on and within 120 m of the Project Location includes the red maple mineral deciduous swamp type (SWD3-1), along the Woods Drain watercourse and the mineral meadow marsh ecosite (MAM2) and associated dugout ponds (Figure 3.1). The Natural Heritage Assessment Records Review Report (Hatch Ltd., 2012a) identified four species of conservation concern that inhabit riparian/wetland habitat: Belted Kingfisher, eastern ribbonsnake, snapping turtle and western chorus frog. The criteria used to evaluate the significance of wetland/riparian habitats on and within 120 m of the Project Location are described below: Degree of rarity of species found at site Habitats of provincially rare species (i.e., S1 to S3) are considered more significant than regionally or locally rare species (MNR, 2000). The eastern ribbonsnake, snapping turtle and western chorus frog are provincially rare, while the Belted Kingfisher is of regional concern but not rare. Therefore, this criterion is met. Documented significant decline in a species and /or its critical habitat Habitats for species experiencing the greatest declines are most significant (MNR, 2000). The eastern ribbonsnake, snapping turtle and western chorus frog are identified as species of Special Concern on the SARO list, and protected under the provisions of the ESA. The Belted Kingfisher has an Ontario Partners in Flight (2008) conservation objective of reverse decline. Therefore, this criterion is met. Species whose range is solely or primarily found in Ontario Habitats for those species with the poorest representation within the planning area or province are more significant (MNR, 2000). The Belted Kingfisher, eastern ribbonsnake, snapping turtle and western chorus frog have ranges that extend across North America. Therefore, this criterion is not met. H , Rev. 0, Page 30 Hatch 2012/05

37 Cornwall Solar Inc. - Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report Condition of existing habitat at site Sites that provide habitat that best meets the survival requirements of the target species are most significant (MNR, 2000). The deciduous swamp habitat is relatively undisturbed and borders the Woods Drain watercourse. It is a habitat of good quality, but not for the target species. The other meadow marshes is largely a result of aggregate extraction, although it has naturalized in the past decades. Wetland Cells 2 and 4 provide a diversity of wetland habitat, with open water conditions favourable for the Kingfisher and snapping turtle, as well as adjacent upland cover for the eastern ribbonsnake. Wetland Cell 2 could provide good habitat for the western chorus frog. Therefore, the criterion of good habitat conditions is met for Wetland Cells 2 and 4. Size of species population at site / Evidence of use of the habitat The eastern ribbonsnake, western chorus frog and Belted Kingfisher were not observed on or within 120 m of the Project Location. However, snapping turtles were observed in Wetland Cell 2 (June 23, 11 Appendix A) and Wetland Cell 4 (June 2, 2010). The population size of the species described above is unknown. Therefore, this criterion is met for snapping turtles with respect to Wetland Cells 2 and 4. Size and location of habitat Habitats supporting large populations of several species of conservation concern, or habitat supporting large populations of a single species, are most significant (MNR, 2000). The riparian/wetland habitat on and within 120 m of the Project Location is relatively small. The approximate size of the wetlands identified on and within 120 m of the Project Location include: red maple mineral deciduous swamp type (SWD3-1) (i.e., Wetland Cell 1, 6.29 ha in size); mineral meadow marsh ecosite (MAM2) (i.e., Wetland Cells 2 to 6, 1.83 ha in size). Therefore, this criterion is not met. Potential for long-term protection of the habitat Habitats that provide the best opportunity for long-term protection are usually more significant than similar habitats with little opportunity for protection (MNR, 2000). The habitat for these species is located on private land and, therefore, long-term protection cannot be assured. Therefore, this criterion is not met. Representation of species/habitat within the municipality Poorly represented habitats for species of conservation concern are significant (MNR, 2000). The habitat for the Belted Kingfisher, eastern ribbonsnake, snapping turtle and western chorus frog are common and well represented within the Kemptville District. This criterion is meant to assess the rarity of the habitat within the municipality and, therefore, this criterion is not met. Species of particular interest to the planning authority Sites that provide the best examples of habitat that will ensure the long-term sustainability of the species are most significant (MNR, 2000). The wetland/riparian species have not been identified as being of particular interest to the planning authority, and the habitat on and within 120 m of the Project Location is relatively small, and not considered high quality or significant to the long-term survival of the Belted Kingfisher, eastern ribbonsnake, snapping turtle or western chorus frog within the Kemptville District. Therefore, this criterion is not met. Evaluation Habitat for the Belted Kingfisher, eastern ribbonsnake and western chorus frog has been evaluated as not significant, as the habitat on and within 120 m of the Project Location is very small and the species were not observed during wildlife and breeding bird surveys. The snapping turtle H , Rev. 0, Page 31 Hatch 2012/05

38 Cornwall Solar Inc. - Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report was observed within Wetland Cells 2 and 4, as such, these wetland cells will be carried forward to the Natural Heritage Environmental Assessment Impact Study Report as significant snapping turtle wetland/riparian habitat (Figure 3.2) Species Requiring Grassland/Agriculture Habitat The Natural Heritage Assessment Site Investigation Report (Hatch Ltd., 2012b) identified grassland habitat in the form of cultural meadow (CUM 1-1) and agricultural hayfield (AG) on and within 120 m of the Project Location (Figure 3.1). Habitat use studies documented the use of this habitat by Field Sparrow, Savannah Sparrow and Vesper Sparrow. The criteria used to evaluate these habitats for these species are described below. Degree of rarity of species found at site Habitats of provincially rare species (i.e., S1 to S3) are considered more significant than regionally or locally rare species (MNR, 2000). The species identified above are not considered provincially rare species and, therefore, this criterion is not met. Documented significant decline in a species and /or its critical habitat The Field Sparrow, Savannah Sparrow and Vesper Sparrow have been identified by the Ontario Partners in Flight (2008) as a priority species that have declined, but with populations that are still at an acceptable level (i.e., with a halt decline conservation objective). Therefore, this criterion is not met. Species whose range is solely or primarily found in Ontario None of the species identified above have ranges solely in Ontario. Therefore, this criterion is not met. Condition of existing habitat at site The cultural meadow was highly disturbed in the past but is now relatively undisturbed, except for a few recreational trails. Species composition of the meadow is weedy with alien and invasive species. The agricultural hayfield situated in the southeast portion of the Project Location is actively farmed and not considered good habitat. Therefore, this criterion of good grassland/agricultural habitat is not met. Size of species population at site / evidence of use of the habitat Two grassland/agricultural species of conservation concern were observed during the breeding bird surveys. The Field Sparrow was observed during the June 13, 2010, June 28, 2010, May 31, 2011 and June 17, 2011 breeding bird surveys (Appendix C). The Vesper Sparrow was observed during the June 13, 2010 survey. Therefore, this criterion of evidence of use is met (although the population sizes at site are unknown). Size and location of habitat The site investigation identified 10.4 ha of cultural meadow (CUM1-1) found on and within 120 m of the Project Location, with 8.9 ha being a naturalized meadow and 1.5 ha being an active hayfield (Figure 3.1). The grassland/agriculture habitat on and within 120 m of the Project Location is too small to support area-sensitive species. The Project Location does not occur in an area noted as particularly suitable for grassland/agriculture species. Therefore, this criterion is not met. Potential for long-term protection of the habitat As this habitat is situated on privately owned land, long-term protection cannot be assured and, therefore, this criterion is not met. H , Rev. 0, Page 32 Hatch 2012/05

39 Cornwall Solar Inc. - Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report Representation of species/habitat within the municipality The habitat on and within 120 m of the Project Location has not been identified as representative for the species by the municipality. This criterion is meant to assess the rarity of the habitat within the municipality and, therefore, this criterion is not met. Species of particular interest to the planning authority Sites that provide the best examples of habitat that will ensure the long-term sustainability of the species are considered significant (MNR, 2000). The habitat for the species listed above has not been identified as being of particular interest to the local planning authority and, therefore, this criterion is not met. Evaluation As the habitat is relatively small and is composed of non-native species, the grassland/ agriculture habitat for species of conservation concern is evaluated as not significant, and will not be carried forward to the Natural Heritage Assessment Environmental Impact Study Report Species Requiring Other Habitat The Natural Heritage Assessment Site Investigation Report (Hatch Ltd., 2012b) identified one generalist species of conservation concern (i.e., milksnake) with the potential to occur throughout the Project Location (Figure 3.1). The criteria used to evaluate the significance of milksnake habitat are discussed below. Degree of rarity of species found at site Milksnake is listed as a species of Special Concern under SARA and ESA and, therefore, this criterion is met. Documented significant decline in a species and /or its critical habitat This species lives in open woodlands, fields and farm buildings (McKenny et al., 2007). Observations in Ontario suggest that it has maintained much of its historical range, although the species has likely been extirpated from some large urban centres or areas of intensive agricultural use where habitat has been lost (Government of Canada, 2010). Therefore, this criterion is met. Species whose range is solely or primarily found in Ontario Milksnakes are found from southern Canada, throughout the United States and Mexico, and into northern South America (Government of Canada, 2010). Therefore, this criterion is not met. Condition of existing habitat at site The Project Location offers suitable places for basking and egg-laying. The roads in the vicinity of the Project Location are a threat for milksnake. However, the naturalized area is fairly large and undisturbed and, therefore, this criterion of good habitat is met. Size of species population at site The population size at the site is unknown. There are no population estimates of the milksnake available for Ontario (Government of Canada, 2010). Therefore, this criterion is unevaluated. Size and location of habitat The majority of the vegetation communities on and within 120 m of the Project Location are common and well-represented within the Kemptville District. However, the woodland on and within 120 m of the Project Location is considered significant, as it is connected to a larger, contiguous woodland community of approximately 140 ha in size. Therefore, this criterion is met. H , Rev. 0, Page 33 Hatch 2012/05

40 Cornwall Solar Inc. - Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report Potential for long-term protection of the habitat The potential milksnake habitat is located on privately owned land and, therefore, long-term protection cannot be assured. As such, this criterion is not met. Representation of species/habitat within the municipality Interpretation of the aerial photographs of the surrounding land suggests the presence of other suitable habitat for the milksnake within the vicinity of the Project Location. This criterion is meant to assess the rarity of the habitat within the municipality and, therefore, this criterion is not met. Evidence of use of the habitat As milksnake are difficult to detect, use of the area by milksnake was unconfirmed. The species was not observed on or within 120 m of the Project Location during the site investigations (Hatch Ltd, 2012b). As such, this criterion is not fully evaluated. Species of particular interest to the planning authority The Project Location is not recognized as significant milksnake habitat by the planning authority and, therefore, this criterion is not met. Evaluation Although use is unconfirmed, the area is evaluated as significant wildlife habitat for the milksnake as it provides good snake habitat. Since this habitat falls on and within 120 m of the Project Location, this feature will be carried forward to the Natural Heritage Assessment Environmental Impact Study Report. The location of this significant milksnake habitat is shown on Figure Declining Guilds Shrubland Birds The Natural Heritage Assessment Site Investigation Report (Hatch Ltd., 2012b) identified approximately 16 ha of mineral cultural thicket ecosite (CUT1) on and within 120 m of the Project Location, with 10 ha found solely on the Project Location. Habitat use studies confirmed the presence of five bird species of conservation concern that inhabit shrubland: Black-billed Cuckoo, Brown Thrasher, Eastern Towhee, Field Sparrow and Northern Flicker (Figure 3.1). The criteria used to evaluate the significance of shrubland bird habitat on and within 120 m of the Project Location are described below. Degree of rarity of species found at site Habitats of provincially rare species (i.e., S1 to S3) are considered more significant than regionally or locally rare species. The Black-billed Cuckoo, Brown Thrasher, Eastern Towhee, Field Sparrow and Northern Flicker are regionally rare and, therefore, this criterion is not met. Documented significant decline in a species and/r its critical habitat The Black billed Cuckoo, Brown Thrasher, Eastern Towhee, Field Sparrow and Northern Flicker are regionally rare species that are identified by the Ontario Partners in Flight (2008) as a priority species, whose population and/or distribution has declined but are still at an acceptable level (i.e., with a halt decline conservation objective). Therefore, this criterion is not met. Species whose range is solely or primarily found in Ontario The Black billed Cuckoo, Brown Thrasher, Eastern Towhee, Field Sparrow and Northern Flicker have breeding ranges that extend across eastern North America. Therefore, this criterion is not met. Condition of existing habitat at site The shrubland habitat on and within 120 m of the Project Location are culturally influenced and disturbed from historic agricultural and aggregate H , Rev. 0, Page 34 Hatch 2012/05

41 Cornwall Solar Inc. - Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report activities, but are now relatively undisturbed. A large proportion of the vegetation is composed of non-native species. Thus, the habitat is not of great quality, but based on the evidence of use, this criterion is met. Size of species population at site / Evidence of Use of the Habitat The Brown Thrasher (indicator species), Eastern Towhee (common species), and Field Sparrow (common species) were observed during the breeding bird surveys, although their population size is unknown.. The Brown Thrasher was observed during the June 13, 2010, May 31, 2011 and June 17, 2011 breeding bird surveys and the observations were associated with the forest edge, cultural meadow and cultural thicket habitats. The Eastern Towhee was observed during the May 31, 2011 and June 17, 2011 breeding bird surveys. The Field Sparrow was observed during the June 13, 2010, June 28, 2010, May 31, 2011, June 17, 2011 breeding bird surveys. Therefore, this criterion is met. Size and location of habitat Shrub thicket habitat over 30 ha in size is more likely to support and sustain a diversity of indicator species (MNR, 2009). According to MNR (John Boos, pers com.), bird species using this habitat type typically require at least 10 ha of habitat to establish a breeding territory. The approximate size of the shrubland habitat cultural thicket ecosite (CUT 1) on and within 120 m of the Project Location is 16 ha with, 10 ha falling solely on the Project Location. The habitat patch on and within 120 m of the Project Location meets the minimum threshold and, therefore, this criterion is met. Potential for long-term protection of the habitat The habitat for these species is located on private land and, therefore, long-term protection cannot be assured. As such, this criterion is not met. Representation of species/habitat within the municipality The habitat for the Black-billed Cuckoo, Brown Thrasher, Eastern Towhee, Field Sparrow and Northern Flicker are common and well represented within the Township of South Glengarry. This criterion is meant to assess the rarity of the habitat within the municipality and, therefore, this criterion is not met. Species of particular interest to the planning authority Sites that provide the best examples of habitat that will ensure the long-term sustainability of the species are most significant. The habitat on and within 120 m of the Project Location is not considered high quality or significant to the long-term survival of the Black-billed Cuckoo, Brown Thrasher, Eastern Towhee, Field Sparrow and Northern Flicker within the Kemptville District. Therefore, this criterion is not met. Evaluation The shrubland habitat is evaluated as not significant. The DSWHECS (MNR, 2009) requires at least two indicator species/special concern species and at least one common species to be present for significance. Only one indicator species was observed, (i.e., Brown Thrasher) and two common species were found (i.e., Eastern Towhee and Field Sparrow) on and within 120 m of the Project Location during the site investigations (Hatch, 2012b). However, the habitat is also common within the planning district, contains a large proportion of non native species and is at the very minimum size needed for shrubland birds to establish breeding territories. Therefore, this habitat will not be carried forward to the Natural Heritage Assessment Environmental Impact Study Report. H , Rev. 0, Page 35 Hatch 2012/05

42 Cornwall Solar Inc. - Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report Animal Movement Corridors Criteria used to evaluate animal movement corridors are identified in Table Q-4, Appendix Q in the SWHTG (MNR, 2000). The DSWHECS (MNR, 2009) was also used to supplement information obtained in the SWHTG (MNR, 2000). The criteria that were considered during this evaluation and how they were assessed are discussed for each of the candidate significant animal movement corridor types identified in the Natural Heritage Assessment Site Investigation Report (Hatch Ltd., 2012b) Amphibian Corridors The Natural Heritage Assessment Site Investigation Report (Hatch Ltd., 2012b) identified a candidate amphibian movement corridor in the vicinity of the Project Location (Figure 3.1). The amphibian movement corridor provides a linkage between Wetland Cells 2 and 3. To be significant, amphibian movement corridors must be associated with significant amphibian breeding habitat. Wetland Cells 2 and 3have been evaluated as significant amphibian breeding habitat. The corridor runs through dry-fresh poplar deciduous forest (FOD3-1) and mineral cultural thicket ecosites (CUT1) (Figure 3.1). Amphibian movement corridor habitat was assessed against the criteria in the DSWHECS (MNR, 2009) to evaluate for significance. Importance of area to be linked by corridor More significant corridors link significant natural features (i.e., ANSI s, provincially significant wetlands, significant wildlife habitat) and provide access to critical habitats during different stages of their life history (MNR, 2000). The corridor links significant amphibian breeding habitats identified associated with Wetland Cells 2 and 3, therefore this criteria is met. Importance of the corridor to the survival of the target species Corridors linking significant wildlife habitat for a target species (e.g., spring breeding ponds and woodland habitat) are more significant (MNR, 2000). Common gray treefrogs were the most abundant amphibian species associated with these wetlands (Hatch, 2012b). The terrestrial habitat adjacent to Wetland Cells 2 and 3 is considered important non-breeding habitat for common gray treefrog. Therefore, this criterion is met. Dimensions of the corridor Corridors that are at least 200 m wide are considered more significant. Wide corridors provide adequate cover, food and protection from predation, natural and human disturbance compared to narrow corridors (MNR, 2000). Most of the Project Location is fragmented, and the corridor is less than 200 m wide. As such, this criterion is not met. Continuity of the corridor Continuous corridors are not fragmented (i.e., roads, residential areas, gaps such as fields) and have few small gaps that are less than 20 m in size (MNR, 2000). The corridor is very short and, as such, is continuous. Therefore, this criterion is met. Habitat and habitat structure of the corridor Corridors that are considered more significant should meet the habitat requirements for the target species. Corridors should provide a diversity of habitat types, including a combination of vegetation communities, several layers of vegetation, variety of ground cover (i.e., leaf litter, downed woody debris, rock piles) and contain water sources. The habitat considered to be a corridor between Wetland Cells 2 and 3 contains a H , Rev. 0, Page 36 Hatch 2012/05

43 Cornwall Solar Inc. - Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report diversity of habitat and preferred structure for common gray treefrogs. Therefore this criterion is met. Species found in the corridor or presumed to be using the corridor Corridors containing a high overall species diversity (i.e., vegetation, invertebrate and vertebrate species) used for movement by many species (including rare species) are considered most significant (MNR, 2000). The use of the corridors was not evaluated. However, several species of amphibians were heard within both Wetland Cells 2 and 3 during the amphibian breeding survey (Hatch, 2012b) (Table 3.2) and, therefore, this criterion is met. Risk of mortality for species using the corridor Corridors that provide safe passage for wildlife moving across the landscape are considered more significant (i.e., low risk of mortality) (MNR, 2000). The corridor has a low risk of mortality for species, as the corridors are short and not adjacent to roads. Therefore, this criterion is met. Opportunity for protection Corridors with the best opportunity for protection (e.g., unopened road allowances, rights-of-way, borders of conservation areas, undeveloped shorelines, hydroelectricity and pipeline corridors) are considered significant (MNR, 2000). The land on and within 120 m of Project Location is not protected and, therefore, this criterion is not met. Evaluation The area identified in Figure 3.2 between Wetland Cells 2 and 3 has been evaluated as a significant amphibian movement corridor as it links two significant amphibian breeding habitats. This corridor will be carried forward to the Natural Heritage Assessment Environmental Impact Study Report. H , Rev. 0, Page 37 Hatch 2012/05

44 Cornwall Solar Inc. - Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report H , Rev. 0, Page 38 Hatch 2012/05

45 Cornwall Solar Inc. - Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report 4. Summary of Evaluation Based on the findings in this report, the following natural features have been evaluated as significant. A map showing the locations of these habitat types is provided in Figure 3.2. Significant Woodlands The following woodland ecotypes, located located on and within 120 m of the Project Location, have been identified as significant woodlands: Woodland 1 Dry fresh sugar maple hickory deciduous forest type (FOD5-1) Woodland 3 Fresh moist white cedar hardwood mixed forest type (FOM7-2) Woodland 4 Fresh moist white cedar coniferous forest type (FOC4-1) Assumed Provincially Significant Wetland Wetland Cell 1 Red maple mineral deciduous swamp (SWD3-1) and Wetland Cell 2 Mineral Meadow Marsh (MAM2). Significant Wildlife Habitat The following significant wildlife habitat types have been identified on and within 120 m of the Project Location: Specialized habitats for wildlife Amphibian breeding wetlands and turtle nesting Habitats for species of conservation concern ESA Special Concern & provincially rare other species Forest guild Baltimore Oriole, Eastern Wood-Pewee and Northern Flicker Other habitat Milksnake Wetland/riparian guild Snapping turtle Animals movement corridors Amphibian corridors Therefore, the significant natural features identified above will be carried forward to the Natural Heritage Environmental Assessment Impact Study Report to assess the potential negative environmental effects to these features as a result of the proposed project, and outline subsequent mitigation and/or monitoring strategies. H , Rev. 0, Page 39 Hatch 2012/05

46 Cornwall Solar Inc. - Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report Blank back H , Rev. 0, Page 40 Hatch 2012/05

47 Cornwall Solar Inc. - Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report 5. Next Steps A Natural Heritage Assessment Environmental Impact Study Report conducted according to the requirements of Subsection 38 (2) of O. Reg. 359/09 will be required in order to assess the potential effects, recommend mitigation and monitoring requirements for the construction, operation and decommissioning of Project components within 120 m of these significant natural features. H , Rev. 0, Page 41 Hatch 2012/05

48 Cornwall Solar Inc. - Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report Blank back H , Rev. 0, Page 42 Hatch 2012/05

49 Cornwall Solar Inc. - Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report 6. Date of Beginning and Completion of Evaluation The evaluation commenced with a site investigation in May 2010 and was finalized with the completion of this report in March H , Rev. 0, Page 43 Hatch 2012/05

50 Cornwall Solar Inc. - Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report H , Rev. 0, Page 44 Hatch 2012/05

51 7. Names and Qualifications of Evaluators Cornwall Solar Inc. - Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report Evaluations of significance were completed by Paul Ashley, Martine Esraelian and Caleb Coughlin of Hatch Ltd. Paul Ashley, MSc. is a senior ecologist with Hatch. He completed the breeding bird surveys and amphibian surveys (along with Martine Esraelian) (Appendixes C and D). Paul has wide-ranging experience working in terrestrial and wetland landscapes. He has led many management and rehabilitation projects related to forests, savannahs, wetlands and riparian corridors. While doing so he has worked with representatives from all tiers of government, non-governmental organizations, universities and the private sector. Paul joined Hatch in 2010 and is actively involved in the Renewable Energy Approval process. Martine Esraelian, B.Sc. a terrestrial ecologist with diverse technical and consulting skills. She completed the breeding bird surveys and amphibian surveys (along with Paul Ashley) (Appendixes C and D) and the OWES assessment (along with Caleb Coughlin) (Appendixes A and B). Martine has conducted field inventories and assessments, including wildlife and vegetation surveys, ELC mapping, soil surveys, land use surveys, and hydrological assessments. She has managed several environmental projects from initial design and planning through technical analysis, documentation, and delivery. She has played a major role in the completion of environmental and agricultural impact studies for major developments, including the proposed Canadian Motor Speedway proposed in Fort Erie, Ontario. This work has enabled Martine to liaise with all levels of government, the community, and a portfolio of clients that includes consulting firms, planners, and high-profile developers. She also has considerable experience working with species at risk, including Jefferson salamander, spotted turtle, spoon-leaved moss, Massasauga and gray ratsnake among others. Martine is a certified OWES evaluator. Caleb Coughlin performed the raptor survey (Appendix C) and assisted the wetland evaluation (Appendix A and B). Caleb is an environmental technologist with experience in resource management studies; focusing on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, including sustainable forestry practises, assessments of avian populations, large mammals, furbearers and aquatic invasive species. Caleb also has extensive experience in fisheries management. The 2010 summer breeding bird surveys (Appendix C) were completed by Fergus Nicoll from Golder Associates. Fergus is a Wildlife Technician who provides field expertise in ornithology, botany, and ecology in areas of terrestrial and wetland ecology. He has experience managing and leading field crews collecting various types of bird and botanical data in remote northern regions of Ontario, Alberta, Manitoba, Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as Northern and Central Quebec. In addition Fergus has experience in wetland and terrestrial habitat delineation (including for species at risk) and assessment throughout various ecoregions in Eastern Canada. Fergus has extensive experience in the development and logistical support of boreal landbird and waterfowl assessments as well as species at risk assessments and herpetofaunal surveys. Fergus is also a scientific author of several peer-reviewed manuscripts. Anuran surveys (Appendix D) were conducted by the following individuals from Golder Associates: Fergus Nicoll (Diploma- Fish and Wildlife, Diploma- Parks), Jamie Weir (Diploma- Fish and Wildlife H , Rev. 0, Page 45 Hatch 2012/05

52 Cornwall Solar Inc. - Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report Technician, Diploma- Fish and Wildlife Technologist), Lasha Milne (B.Sc. Biology, Diploma- Fish and Wildlife Technology) and William Nalley (Aquaculture, F&W Technician, GIS diploma),. Jamie Weir is a fish and wildlife technologist who has extensive experience with environmental assessment and biological monitoring programs in a number of sectors including power and mining. Jamie has conducted various fish programs including watercourse and lake electrofishing (backpack and boat), stream assessments, fish habitat assessments, fish-outs and spawning surveys. In addition, he has experience conducting herpetofaunal and creel census surveys. Jamie is also involved with groundwater and surface water sampling and monitoring including work on both greenfield and contaminated sites. Lasha Milne is a biologist with experience in both aquatic and terrestrial aspects of data collection and analysis. She has excellent botanical skills and has conducted a wide range of fisheries and wildlife related works in the field. Field investigations that she has participated in have included terrestrial habitat classification, species at risk and significant wildlife habitat assessments, ornithological inventories, herpetofaunal surveys, bat roost assessments and acoustic monitoring, and fish collection. Lasha has been a participant in several projects, especially mining and renewable energy with public and cultural consultation, field crew lead, data collection, data analysis and reporting contributions. William Nalley is a senior fisheries technician who has participated in numerous fisheries projects involving community groups, government agencies, and aboriginal communities. William s resume includes working for various private consulting firms and with the Federal government. With over 14 years of practical experience, William has applied his knowledge to baseline studies, fisheries research projects, and various ongoing monitoring projects for linear facilities, hydro, mining, and habitat construction. His freshwater and marine work experience involved working on projects from the Bahamian island of Eleuthera, north to the Arctic and places in between. William continues to contribute his skills to multi-disciplinary projects offering expertise in field program study design, problem solving, with special emphasis on northern remote field work planning and execution. William also has extensive experience conducting herpetofaunal and species at risk habitat assessments. H , Rev. 0, Page 46 Hatch 2012/05

53 Cornwall Solar Inc. - Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report 8. References Audubon Christmas Bird Count. Available on-line at Bird Studies Canada The Marsh Monitoring Program Training Kit and Instructions for Surveying Marsh Birds, Amphibians and their Habitats. Published by Bird Studies Canada om cooperation with the Environment Canada and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 40 pp. Government of Ontario Ontario Regulation 359/09 made under the Environmental Protection Act, Renewable Energy Approvals under Part V.0.1 of the Act. September 8, 2009 version. Printed in The Ontario Gazette: October 10, Available on-line at: Accessed September 15, Government of Ontario Ontario Regulation 521/10 made under the Environmental Protection Act, Renewable Energy Approvals under Part V.0.1 of the Act. December 15, 2010 version. Printed in The Ontario Gazette: January 8, Available on-line at: Accessed January, Hatch Ltd. 2012a. Natural Heritage Assessment Records Review Report Cornwall Solar Project. Prepared for Cornwall Solar, Inc. Hatch Ltd. 2012b. Natural Heritage Assessment Site Investigation Report Cornwall Solar Project. Prepared for Cornwall Solar, Inc. Henson, B. L., K. E. Brodribb Great Lakes Conservation Blueprint for Terrestrial Biodiversity. Volume 2: Ecodistrict Summaries. Nature Conservancy of Canada and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 344 pp. Lee H. T., W. D. Bakowsky, J. R. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig and S. McMurray Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: First Approximation and its Application. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Southcentral Science Section, Science Development and Transfer Branch. SCSS Field Guide FG-02. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES): Southern Manual. 252pp. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (SWHTG). Toronto. Queen s Printer for Ontario. 151 pp. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) Significant Wildlife Habitat Decision Support System. Ver Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Southcentral Science and Information. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) Draft Significant Wildlife Habitat Ecoregion Criteria Schedules: addendum to Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide. H , Rev. 0, Page 47 Hatch 2012/05

54 Cornwall Solar Inc. - Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Natural Heritage Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, Second Edition. Toronto: Queen s Printer for Ontario. 248 pp. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) Natural Heritage Assessment Guide for Renewable Energy Projects. First Edition. Toronto: Queen s Printer for Ontario. 99p. Ontario Partners In Flight Ontario Landbird Conservation Plan: Lower Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Plain, North American Bird Conservation Region 13. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada. Draft Version 2.0 United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Official Plan. Available on line at Accessed September 21, H , Rev. 0, Page 48 Hatch 2012/05

55 Cornwall Solar Inc. - Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report Appendix A Cornwall Solar Project Wetland Field Notes H , Rev. 0 Hatch 2012/05

56

57

58 Tree Species Shrub Species Herbaceous Species Aquatic Species White Cedar Speckled Alder Green Sedge White Water Lily Red Maple Willow spp Beaked Sedge Yellow Water Lily Tamarack Red Osier Dogwood Bullrush Pondweeds spp. Hard Maple Elderberry Narrow-leaved Cattail Arrowhead White Birch Highbush Cranberry Horsetails spp. Duckweed spp Yellow Birch Nannyberry Cow Vetch Millfoil Apple (Crab) Timothy grass Bladderwort White Spruce Orchard grass Balsam Poplar Golden Rods spp. Trembling Aspen Sedges spp. American Elm Trillium Basswood Sphagnum Moss spp Largetooth Aspen Mushroom/fungus spp Silver Maple Balsam Fir Marsh Marigolds Buttercup Oxe eyed daisey Wool Grass Small Fruited Sedge Wild Mint Canada Blue Joint Black Eyed Susan Hawkweed

59 Cornwall Solar Inc. - Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report Appendix B Wetland Characteristics and Ecological Functions Assessment for the Cornwall Solar Project H , Rev. 0 Hatch 2012/05

60 Table B-1: Wetland Characteristics and Ecological Functions at the Cornwall Solar Project Characteristic / Ecological Function OWES Manual Section (south) Field visits Details Wetland Size (ha) N/A Desktop Wetland Cell 1: 6.3 ha Wetland Cell 2: 0.8 ha BIOLOGICAL COMPONENT Setbacks from both Wetland Cells 1 and 2 will ensure that there is no increase or decrease in overall wetland size. Wetland Type June 23, 2011 (ELC + Wetland) Wetland Cell 1: Majority of Wetland Cell 1 is a deciduous swamp, but small portion is a meadow marsh (Figure 3.3). Wetland Cell 2: Meadow marsh The use of a stormwater management plan (to ensure that rates of runoff into the wetlands are not altered, a dust control plan (to prevent fugitive dust generation), and a sediment and erosion control plan (to prevent sedimentation into the wetlands) will ensure that the Project should not impact the wetland type. Site Type June 23, 2011 (ELC + Wetland) Wetland Cell 1: Palustrine (permanent inflow and outflow) associated with Wood Drain Wetland Cell 2: Isolated, no inflow or outflow The Project will not impact site type as no new inflow or outflows will be created, and no existing inflows or outflows will be removed or blocked.

61 Table B-1: Wetland Characteristics and Ecological Functions at the Cornwall Solar Project Characteristic / Ecological Function Vegetation Communities OWES Field visits Manual Section (south) September 28, 2010 (ELC) October 7, 2010 (ELC) June 23, 2011 (Wetland Evaluation) Details Wetland Cell 1: Deciduous dominated swampland community, associates included coniferous vegetation, tall shrubs, narrow-leaved emergent. Wetland Cell 2: Mineral meadow marsh, dominated by Narrow-leaved and robust emergents, free floating and submerged plants present within open water. Proximity to Other Wetlands As is noted with respect to Wetland Type, mitigation measures employed during all phases of the Project will ensure no potential for impact to vegetation communities within the wetland cells Desktop Wetland Cell 1 is located 251 m north of Wetland Cell 2. (See Figure 3.3) These wetland communities are not hydrologically connected. Wetland Cell 1 is hydrologically connected to other wetland communities downstream along Wood Drain. Wetland Cell 2 is an isolated community. The Project will not impact proximity between the wetlands, and will not prevent movement of wildlife between the wetland communities. 2

62 Table B-1: Wetland Characteristics and Ecological Functions at the Cornwall Solar Project Characteristic / Ecological Function OWES Manual Section (south) Field visits Details Interspersion Desktop Wetland Cell 1: Relatively long and narrow shaped wetland with irregular boundaries. Wetland Cell 1 is composed of three distinct wetland communities, namely meadow marsh, deciduous swamp and the open waters of Wood Drain. Further, the wetland intersects with several different upland communities, including mixed forest, coniferous forest, cultural meadow, and agricultural land. Wetland Cell 2: The wetland communit y contains a square dugout pond and a meadow marsh surrounding the pond. In addition the wetland borders two different upland communities; cultural thicket and deciduous forest. Open Water Types Desktop and June 23, 2011 (Wetland Evaluation) As is noted with respect to Wetland Type, mitigation measures employed during all phases of the Project will ensure no potential for impact to interspersion within the wetland cells. Wetland Cell 1: Type 1 small watercourse (Wood Drain), occupying less than 5% of the wetland area. Wetland Cell 2: Type 4: Open water (the dug out pond) occupies 27% of the wetland area, occurring over a central area. HYDROLOGICAL COMPONENT As is noted with respect to Wetland Type, mitigation measures employed during all phases of the Project will ensure no potential for impact to open water types within the wetland cells. Flood Attenuation (Total) 3.1 Desktop Wetland Cell 1: Wetland Cell 1 is located near the headwaters of a small watercourse (Wood Drain), slowing water discharge to downstream sections of the watercourse, reducing risk of erosion and sedimentation. 3

63 Table B-1: Wetland Characteristics and Ecological Functions at the Cornwall Solar Project Characteristic / Ecological Function OWES Manual Section (south) Field visits Details Wetland Cell 2: This wetland cell is totally isolated and not associated with any watercourses. This wetland cell collects surface run off in times of high precipitation, reducing water volume of nearby watercourses. Water Quality Improvement (Total) As is noted with respect to Wetland Type, mitigation measures employed during all phases of the Project will ensure no potential for impact to flood attenuation within the wetland cells. 3.2 June 23, 2011 (Wetland Evaluation) Wetland Cell 1: Wetland Cell 1 act as a sediment and nutrient trap for any surface water runoff coming mainly from the Wood Drain that takes its origin on neighboring agricultural fields. Wetland Cell 2: This small wetland cell is not associated with any watercourses or contaminant sources, and therefore provides no contributions towards water quality improvement. Shoreline Erosion Control As is noted with respect to Wetland Type, mitigation measures employed during all phases of the Project, in association with a emergency spills response plan, will ensure no potential for impact to water quality improvement functions of Wetland Cell Desktop Wetland Cell 1: Erosion of the shoreline along Wood Drain is minimized by the presence of wetland vegetation along the banks of the drain. Therefore, this wetland provides shoreline erosion control Wetland Cell 2: Given that this feature is associated with a dug out pond, shoreline erosion control is not relevant. As is noted with respect to Wetland Type, mitigation measures employed during all phases of the Project will ensure no potential for impact to shoreline erosion control within the wetland cells. 4

64 Table B-1: Wetland Characteristics and Ecological Functions at the Cornwall Solar Project Characteristic / Ecological Function Groundwater Recharge (Total) OWES Manual Section (south) Field visits Details 3.5 June 23, 2011 (Wetland Evaluation) Wetland Cell 1: Wetland Cell 1 is a minimal recharge area; Wood Drain tributary transports the majority of associated water downstream. Wetland Cells 2: This wetland cell is isolated, and likely provides some measures of groundwater recharge, however, the majority of water collected via precipitation is eventually evaporated or released through plant evapotranspiration. Species Rarity (Total) May 12, 2010 (Anuran + General) June 2, 2010 (Anuran + Reptile) June 13, 2010 (Bird) June 28, 2010 (Bird) September 28, 2010 (ELC) October 7, 2010 (ELC) May 31, 2011 (Bird + Reptile + Anuran) June 16, 2011 (Anuran) June 17, 2011 (Bird) June 23, 2011 (Wetland Evaluation) January 19, 2012 (Raptor Winter) Significant Features and Habitats (Total) May 12, 2010 (Anuran + General) June 2, 2010 (Anuran + Reptile) June 13, 2010 (Bird) As is noted with respect to Wetland Type, mitigation measures employed during all phases of the Project will ensure no potential for impact to groundwater recharge within the wetland cells through reductions in stormwater runoff. The Natural Heritage Assessment Records Review Report (Hatch Ltd., 2012a) identified four species of conservation concern that inhabit riparian/wetland habitat: Belted Kingfisher, eastern ribbonsnake, snapping turtle and western chorus frog. None of these species were noted during surveys within Wetland Cell 1, however significant snapping turtle were confirmed within Wetland Cell 2. Significant habitats for the other species were not identified on or within 120 m of the Project location (Section Species Requiring Wetland/Riparian Habitat). Minimum setbacks from Wetland Cell 2, as well as previously identified mitigation measures, will ensure that there is no impact to the function of the wetlands to provide habitat for rare species. Wetland Cell 1: Amphibian breeding wetland Wetland Cell 2: Amphibian breeding wetland, amphibian movement corridor associated with the breeding habitat, confirmed significant 5

65 Table B-1: Wetland Characteristics and Ecological Functions at the Cornwall Solar Project Characteristic / Ecological Function OWES Manual Section (south) Field visits June 28, 2010 (Bird) September 28, 2010 (ELC) October 7, 2010 (ELC) May 31, 2011 (Bird + Reptile + Anuran) June 16, 2011 (Anuran) June 17, 2011 (Bird) June 23, 2011 (Wetland Evaluation) January 19, 2012 (Raptor Winter) Details habitat for snapping turtle, turtle nesting Minimum setbacks from the wetland cells, as well as previously identified mitigation measures, will ensure that there is no impact to the function of the wetlands to provide wildlife habitat. Fish Habitat (Total) Desktop and June 23, 2011 (Wetland Evaluation) Wetland Cell 1: Some fish have been observed within the Wood Drain, and this feature is expected to provide fish habitat. A few deeper pools are expected to possess overwintering areas. Wetland Cell 2: Wetland Cell 2 offers fish habitat within the dugout pond, but no fish were observed during the visual aquatic habitat survey. No other fisheries work has been completed and the desktop records review didn t reveal any data on fish population within this pond. Minimum setbacks from the wetland cells, as well as previously identified mitigation measures, will ensure that there is no impact to the function of the wetlands to provide fish habitat. 6

66 Cornwall Solar Inc. - Cornwall Solar Project Natural Heritage Assessment Evaluation of Significance Report Appendix C Cornwall Solar Project Breeding Bird Survey Data Sheets H , Rev. 0 Hatch 2012/05

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100