genivar inc.€¦ · 1 7 20 5 4 0 11 18 12 14 6 9 19 15 17 13 10 #4 #3 #24 #23 #22 #21 #20 #19 #15...

CCOONNEESSTTOOGGOO WWIINNDD FFAARRMM

NNAATTUURRAALL HHEERRIITTAAGGEE EEVVAALLUUAATTIIOONN AADDDDEENNDDUUMM

OONNTTAARRIIOO RREEGGUULLAATTIIOONN 335599//0099

prepared for

GENIVAR Inc.

on behalf of

NEXTERA ENERGY CANADA, ULC (NextEra)

SEPTEMBER 2011 LGL PROJECT TA8074

CCOONNEESSTTOOGGOO WWIINNDD FFAARRMM

NNAATTUURRAALL HHEERRIITTAAGGEE EEVVAALLUUAATTIIOONN AADDDDEENNDDUUMM

OONNTTAARRIIOO RREEGGUULLAATTIIOONN 335599//0099

prepared by:

Digital signature Digital signature

Arnel Fausto

VICE PRESIDENT, SENIOR ECOLOGIST

Lynette Renzetti

PLANNING ECOLOGIST

Digital signature Digital signature

Allison Featherstone SENIOR PLANNING ECOLOGIST

Jen Noël

BOTANIST, ISA CERTIFIED ARBORIST

LGL Limited environmental research associates

3365 Harvester Road Burlington, Ontario L7N 3N2

Tel: 905-333-1667 Fax: 905-333-2660 Email: [email protected]

URL: www.lgl.com

SEPTEMBER 2011 LGL PROJECT TA8074

TABLE OF CONTENTS DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................................................................................... i

1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 RECORDS REVIEW...................................................................................................................................... 3

3.0 SITE INVESTIGATION & EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANCE ............................................................................ 3

4.0 IMPACTS OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO PROJECT LOCATION ....................................................................... 4

5.0 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................... 14

6.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................ 15

APPENDIX A SITE INVESTIGATION AND EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR WETLAND FEATURES WITHIN 120M OF PROPOSED CHANGE #4 ................................................................................................................................... 16

APPENDIX B SITE INVESTIGATION AND EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT (SWH) IN THE VICINITY OF PROPOSED PROJECT CHANGE #4 (SEPTEMBER 2011) ................................................. 18

APPENDIX C FIELD NOTES OF INVESTIGATORS .................................................................................................... 25

APPENDIX D CREDENTIALS .................................................................................................................................. 36

Conestogo Wind Farm September 2011 Natural Heritage Evaluation Addendum, Ontario Regulation 359/09 Project No. TA8074

LGL Limited environmental research associates Page i

DEFINITIONS

Study area – general location of the wind energy project, is bounded by Highway 6 to the north, Sideroad 18 to the east, 14th Line to the south and Sideroad 16 to the west. Project area – areas within 120m of project components (sees Figure 2 of this report for a mapped image of the project components and project area). Project location – part of a land and all or part of any building or structure in, or, over which a person is engaging in or proposed to engage in the project and includes air space. The location includes all components of the renewable energy facility such as wind turbines, lay down areas, access roads, crane assembly areas, walking paths, hydro lines/corridors, transformer stations, fencing, lighting, and construction yards.


LGL Limited environmental research associates Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

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

The major components of the project are as follows:

• Nine Siemens SWT 2.3-101 wind turbines

• One Siemens SWT 2.21-101 Wind Turbines

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

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

• A 44 kV electrical line

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

• Turbine access roads

• Temporary staging areas for erection of wind turbines

• 2 meteorological towers

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

• A records review (Sec.25);

• Site investigation (Sec.26); and,

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

LGL Limited was retained by Genivar Inc. and NextEra to complete a natural heritage assessment for the proposed wind farm. The Conestogo Wind Farm Records Review and Natural Heritage Evaluation (LGL, 2010a) was submitted to the MNR in December 2010 to satisfy one of the requirements for the Renewable Energy Approval (REA) Application. On December 30, 2010 a signed confirmation letter (Conestogo WEC NHA Confirmation Letter) was received from the MNR for the Conestogo project to further the REA application process.

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

_̂Pond

Pond

Pond

8 3

2

16

1

7

20

5

4

0

11

18

12

14

6

9

19

15

17

13

10

#4

#3

#24

#23

#22

#21

#20

#19

#15

2

6

4

7

9

3

8

15

10

6 S

IDE

RD

12 S

IDER

D

HWY 6

SIXTEENTH LINE

FOURTEENTH LINE

15 S

IDER

D

WE

LLIN

GTO

N 1

2 R

D

3 S

IDE

RD

EIGHTEENTH LINE

WELLINGTON 109 RD

CATHERINE ST

10 SIDERD W

EIGHTEENTH LINE

LEGEND

Project

Date

Scale

Figure

Prepared By:

Verified By:KC

Conestogo Wind FarmREA Review

Potential Significant WildlifeHabitat

TA4914

December, 2010

1:30,0000 400 800 1,200 1,600200Meters

± 7

ELC Communities

Turbine Layout (2010-12-13)

120 m Buffer around Project Components

Permament Access Road (2010-12-13)Permanent Access Road with UGElectric Collector (2010-12-13)44kV Overhead Electric Line (2010-12-13)

34 kV Overhead Electric Line (2010-12-13)

Proposed 34_5kV Underground ElectricalCollector (2010-11-15)

Blade Sweep Area (101m diameter,2010-12-15)

Transformer Substation Site Plan 1 Acre(2010-12-13)

Participating Lots

Watercourse (LIO 2010-08-18)

ELC Unit Identifier2Turbine Number1

Bat Hibernacula SWH PotentialPotential Woodland Raptor NestingHabitat

Special Concern SWH - Monarch

Potential Woodland Pools SWHPotential Woodland Pools SWH (NotConfirmed by Site Investigations)

Pond

Seeps or Springs

Point Count ##4

Point Counts (Dave Martin, 2007 Field)#*

JAF

Potential Natural Feature (Potamogeton)_̂

NumID ELC CommunitiesPotential

Woodland Pools SWH

Seeps or Springs Bath Hibernacula SWH Potential

Potential Woodland Raptor Nesting Habitat

Habitat for Rare Spp.

0 CUT1 Mineral Cultural Thicket Ecosite X4 FOD7/CUT1 Fresh-Moist Lowland Deciduous Forest Ecosite / Mineral

Cultural Thicket Ecosite X8 FOD4-2 Dry-Fresh White Ash Deciduous Forest Type X X9 SWD4-1 Willow Mineral Deciduous Swamp Type

10 MAS2 Mineral Shallow Marsh Ecosite X12 MAM2 Mineral Meadow Marsh Ecosite X19 MAM2 Mineral Meadow Marsh Ecosite X20 CUP3 Coniferous Plantation X

NOTE: PROJECT LOCATION SHOWN HERE IS SUPERSEDED BY THAT FROM AUGUST 2011.



In August of 2011, in response to public input, NextEra modified the December 2010 project location of the Conestogo Wind Farm. The proposed changes include the following:

• Movement of access roads at turbines 7, 8 and 10; • Replacement of overhead collection line planned along 14th Line with an underground line from

turbine 9 to 6 Sideroad; • Installation of two meteorological towers near turbines 1 and 10; and, • Replacement of three sections of overhead transmission line along 16th Line and 12 Sideroad with

underground line. The proposed changes outlined above are displayed in Figure 2, numbered 1 through 9 (in black). The original project layout (Figure 1) has been included for reference purposes. This addendum report has been prepared to evaluate the proposed changes from a natural heritage perspective and is to be considered, in combination with The Conestogo Wind Farm Records Review and Natural Heritage Evaluation report (LGL, 2010a) to comprise the complete NHA for the Conestogo Wind Farm. 2.0 RECORDS REVIEW A complete Records Review, including a search and analysis of records as they relate to natural heritage features, was completed in The Conestogo Wind Farm Records Review and Natural Heritage Evaluation report (LGL, 2010a). As the study area remains unchanged, the Records Review was not repeated or expanded upon for the purpose of this addendum. 3.0 SITE INVESTIGATION & EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANCE In 2009 and 2010 site investigations were completed for natural features identified within 120m of the project location; the details of which are outlined in The Conestogo Wind Farm Records Review and Natural Heritage Evaluation report (LGL, 2010a). One of the August 2011 proposed changes to the layout (change number 4, in Figure 2) identified natural heritage features within 120m of the project location that were not previously identified in the 2010 report. This area was not previously included in site investigation leading up to The Conestogo Wind Farm Records Review and Natural Heritage Evaluation report (LGL, 2010a) because the property was identified as a ‘non-participating lot’, where permission to access had not been granted by the landowner and no project components were proposed at that time. This property has become a participant since that time such that a site investigation was completed on September 9, 2011 (details included in Appendices A, B and C). All other natural features within 120m of the revised project location were identified and evaluated in The Conestogo Wind Farm Records Review and Natural Heritage Evaluation report (LGL, 2010a). For that reason, results outlined in Section 3.0 Site Investigation, and Section 4.0 Evaluation of Significance of The Conestogo Wind Farm Records Review and Natural Heritage Evaluation report (LGL, 2010a) should be referred to in considering the balance of the proposed changes identified in Figure 2. Table 1 summarizes details regarding site investigations and evaluations of significant (EOS) for project change #4 and new features identified for evaluation.



Table 1: Summary of Details Pertaining to Site Investigations and Evaluations of Significance for New Project Change #4

Site

Investigations Evaluation of Significance Staff Field

Notes

Details of Site

Investigation and EOS

Significant Valleylands

N/a – the existing evaluation in the LGL, 2010a document still applies.

N/A N/A In LGL, 2010a.

Significant Wetlands

Sept 9, 2011, 9am to 3pm, 6 hours


J. Noel, qualifications provided in LGL, 2010a.

Appendix C.

Appendix A.

Significant Woodlands

N/a –. New features assessed by project change #4 (shown in Figure 2) is not woodland, but is a cultural meadow and meadow marsh.

N/A N/A In LGL, 2010a.

Significant Wildlife



V. Kennedy (resume provided in appendix D) J. Noel, qualifications provided in LGL, 2010a.

Appendix C.

Appendix B.

4.0 IMPACTS OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO PROJECT LOCATION

A description of the August 2011 modifications to the project location, their impacts to natural features, and recommended mitigation measures are detailed below. Table 2 describes each of the proposed changes (1 through 9), how they relate to natural features previously identified in The Conestogo Wind Farm Records Review and Natural Heritage Evaluation report (LGL, 2010a), and mitigation measures where necessary. Table 3 describes proposed change #4 (as displayed in figure 3) in relation to newly identified natural features within the project location, and indicates where SWH was identified. As well, Table 3 identifies the potential negative impact of project components on the newly identified features, and indicates mitigation measures to be employed where applicable.

_̂

9

65

7

83

41 2

Pond

Pond

Pond

Pond

8 3

2

16

1

7

20

5

4

0

11

18

12

14

6

9

19

15

17

13

10

2122

T2

T6

T4

T7

T9

T3T1

T5

T10

T8

6 S

IDE

RD

12 S

IDER

D

HWY 6

SIXTEENTH LINE

FOURTEENTH LINE

15 S

IDER

D

WE

LLIN

GTO

N 1

2 R

D

3 S

IDE

RD

EIGHTEENTH LINE

WELLINGTON 109 RD

CATHERINE ST

10 SIDERD W

EIGHTEENTH LINE

LEGEND

Project

Date

Scale

Figure

Prepared By:

Verified By:KC


Proposed Project LocationChanges September 2011

TA8074

September, 2011

1:30,0000 400 800 1,200 1,600200

Meters±

2

ELC Communities



Permament Access Road (2011-08-29)Permanent Access Road and Crane Path(2011-08-29)Proposed 34 kV UG Electrical (2011-08-29)

Proposed 44 kV OH Electrical (2011-08-29)

Proposed 44 kV UG Electrical (2011-08-29)


Temporary Construction Laydown(2011-08-29)

Participating Lots






Pond

Seeps or Springs

JAF


Permanent Met Tower (2011-08-29)

Transformer Substation (2011-08-29)

Point of Interconnection (2011-08-29)

Proposed Project Change1

_̂Pond

Pond

Pond

Pond

8 3

2

16

1

7

20

5

4

0

11

18

12

14

6

9

19

15

17

13

10

2122

T2

T6

T4

T7

T9

T3

T8

T1T5

T10

6 S

IDE

RD

12 S

IDER

D

HWY 6

SIXTEENTH LINE

FOURTEENTH LINE

15 S

IDER

D

WE

LLIN

GTO

N 1

2 R

D

3 S

IDE

RD

EIGHTEENTH LINE

WELLINGTON 109 RD

CATHERINE ST

10 SIDERD W

EIGHTEENTH LINE

LEGEND

Project

Date

Scale

Figure

Prepared By:

Verified By:KC


New Significant Natural FeaturesIdentified (SWH)

September, 2011

1:30,0000 400 800 1,200 1,600200

Meters±

3

ELC Communities



Permament Access Road (2011-08-29)Permanent Access Road and Crane Path(2011-08-29)Proposed 34 kV UG Electrical (2011-08-29)




Temporary Construction Laydown(2011-08-29)

Participating Lots






Pond

Seeps or Springs

JAF





Proposed Project Change1

Pond

1

T42

11

2212

21

4

6 S

IDE

RD

NumID ELC CommunitesPotental

Woodland Pools SWH

Seeps or Springs Bat Hibernacula SWH Potental

Potental Woodland Raptor

Nestng Habi tatHabitat for Rare

Spp.0 CUT1 Mineral Cultural Thicket Ecosite X4 FOD7/CUT1 Fresh-Moist Lowland Deciduous Forest Ecosite /

Mineral Cultural Thicket Ecosite X8 FOD4-2 Dry-Fresh White Ash Deciduous Forest Type X X9 SWD4-1 Willow Mineral Deciduous Swamp Type10 MAS2 Mineral Shallow Marsh Ecosite X12 MAM2-2 Reed-canary Grass Mineral Meadow Marsh Type X19 MAM2 Mineral Meadow Marsh Ecosite X20 CUP3 Coniferous Plantaton X21 CUM1-1 Dry-Moist Old Field Meadow Type X22 CUM1-1 Dry-Moist Old Field Meadow Type X

TA8074



Table 2: Summary of Changes to Project Location – Existing Features evaluated in December 2010 Natural Heritage Evaluation

Change Number

Project Component Description of Original Project Component Description of Proposed Change to Project Component

Summary of Change as it relates to Natural Heritage

Features

Significant Feature

within 120m of

Component (EIS

required)?

During Construction and Decommissioning Phases During Operational Phase

Environmental Effects Monitoring (EEM)

Plan Commitments

Construction Plan Report

Commitments Potential Negative

Environmental Effects

Mitigation Measures

Potential Negative Environmental

Effects

Mitigation Measures

1 Access Road for Turbine 7

The access road extended approximately 500m from turbine 7 in a south easterly direction to connect to Sideroad 17. This road was 157m from ELC unit 8.

The access road would follow an easterly path to connect turbine 7 to turbine 8.

The portion of the access road In proximity of turbine 7 is within 20m of ELC unit 8, a White Ash Deciduous Forest (FOD4-2) which meets the criteria for significant woodland habitat, potential amphibian breeding habitat, and potential woodland raptor breeding habitat as determined in the NHA report dated December 2010.

Yes - Unit 8 is considered Candidate SWH for breeding raptors and breeding amphibians, also significant woodland habitat.

Road construction is within active agricultural field. No vegetation removal proposed for woodlands that may contain habitat. Potential for disturbance to woodland vegetation while operating construction equipment. Possible disturbance of breeding amphibians and raptors living in the forest community during construction. Loss or alteration of ground or surface water flow to potential breeding ponds. Potential habitat disturbance mitigated by limiting installation of access road to Turbine 7 outside of sensitive timing windows for wildlife.

Install protective fencing around the limits of construction to ensure no accidental damage to forest vegetation. Limit construction to outside of sensitive timing windows for breeding amphibians and raptors. Ensure overland drainage patterns to woodlots are not altered by access road or turbine footprints.

Roads are for the purpose of turbine maintenance and are not open to public. For this reason vehicular traffic will be infrequent, such that potential for wildlife- vehicle interactions is considered low.

Maintenance and construction vehicles should adhere to low speed limits along access roads. Maintenance staff should be advised of potential vehicle-wildlife conflicts and sensitive seasons for wildlife movement.

A detailed post-construction bird and bat monitoring plan, CONESTOGO WIND FARM Post Construction Follow-up Plan, has been developed and sent to the Ministry of Natural Resources for review. This plan was developed, in part using the 2010 working draft Bats and Bat Habitats: Guidelines for Wind Power Projects and guidelines developed by both the MNR and Environment Canada (EC). • proposed post-construction mortality monitoring period of three years for both birds and bats; • Bi-weekly mortality surveys for birds and bats of all 10 turbines from May 1st to October 31st; • Weekly mortality surveys for birds and bats of all 10 turbines from November 1st to 30th; • Scavenger removal trials; • Searcher efficiency trials; • Mortality (single event and high annual) thresholds which will result in immediate notifications to MNR and EC; and • Reporting of the monitoring program to, and consultation with the MNR.

Limit construction to outside of sensitive timing windows for breeding amphibians and raptors. Ensure overland drainage patterns to woodlots are not altered by access road or turbine footprints.



Change Number



Features

Significant Feature

within 120m of

Component (EIS

required)?



Plan Commitments




Mitigation Measures


Effects

Mitigation Measures

2 Access Road for Turbine 8

The access road extended approximately 200m west from Sideroad 17 and then in a northerly direction to connect turbine 8. The terminus of the access road at turbine 8 was within 85m of ELC unit 11.

The access road would connect Turbine 8 in an easterly direction to Sideroad 17.

The portion of the access road connecting turbine 8 to Sideroad 17 is located within 34m of ELC unit 11 (MAM2), a mineral meadow marsh. ELC Unit 11 was determined as not significant in the NHA report of December 2010.

No NA NA NA NA NA NA

3 Access Road to Turbine 10

The access road extended north from 14th Line on the west side of turbine 10 and was 349m from ELC unit 10.

Access road extends north from 14th Line on the east side of turbine 10.

The proposed access road would be within 46m of ELC unit 10 (MAS2), a shallow marsh. When evaluated as a wetland ELC Unit 10 was determined as ‘not significant’ (December 2010 NHA report).




Change Number



Features

Significant Feature

within 120m of

Component (EIS

required)?



Plan Commitments




Mitigation Measures


Effects

Mitigation Measures

4 Overhead collection line along 14th Line

Collection line (in purple) extends underground from turbine 10 east to Wellington 12 Road and continues overhead south to 14th Line. The overhead line continues west along 14th Line to 6 Sideroad where it turns north and follows the road alignment. The original transmission line was 354m from ELC unit 4.

The proposed collection line (dashed purple line) extends underground from turbine 9 to 6 Sideroad.

The collection line is also situated within 64m of ELC unit 4, a highly disturbed thicket/ forest/ marsh determined as potential Bat Hibernacula SWH in the December 2010 NHA.

Yes - Unit 4 is considered Candidate SWH (Bat Maternal Roost)

Collection line is to be installed within active agricultural field, no removal of vegetation anticipated.

Possible disturbance of wildlife living in the forest community during construction of the collection line.

Potential for increased erosion and sedimentation as a result of open cut installation of underground transmission line.

Develop and implement an erosion and sediment control plan before construction. Keep sediment and erosion control measures in place until disturbed areas have been stabilized.

Collection line is to be buried – no potential negative environmental effects anticipated during operation.

NA The EEM plan pertains to the turbine 9 and post construction monitoring. None proposed for the electrical collection system during operation poses no risk to bats.

Construction area to be clearly marked and staked to reduce footprint impacts, so as to prevent accidental intrusion into vegetation areas.



Change Number



Features

Significant Feature

within 120m of

Component (EIS

required)?



Plan Commitments




Mitigation Measures


Effects

Mitigation Measures

5 Overhead transmission line on 16th Line

Overhead transmission line on 16th Line

A section of the transmission line along 16th Line is buried below ground as it passes Lots 8 and 9 on Concession 16. The path of this transmission line follows the same path as the original overhead line first proposed.

The most westerly portion of the underground transmission line is 21m from ELC unit 20 (CUP3), a coniferous plantation identified as potential woodland raptor nesting habitat in the December 2010 NHA.

Yes - Unit 20 is considered Candidate SWH for woodland raptors.

Installation of underground transmission line is within existing road right of way. No clearing of vegetation associated with ELC unit 20; and, therefore no direct loss of habitat is anticipated. Disturbance to breeding birds due to construction proximity to SWH feature (ELC unit 20). Disturbance and/or mortality to wildlife (e.g. birds), particularly sensitive species. Potential for increased erosion and sedimentation as a result of open cut installation of underground transmission line.

Control access and movement of equipment and people; designate areas for equipment storage. Limit construction to outside of sensitive timing windows for breeding raptors. Develop and implement an erosion and sediment control plan before construction. Utilize erosion blankets, straw bales, etc. where necessary to mitigate potential excessive erosion and sedimentation into vegetation community. Ensure any materials placed in floodline are free from silt and other such particles. Schedule grading to avoid times of high runoff volumes (spring and fall). Suspend work if excessive flows of sediment discharges occur until measures are in place to provide mitigation. Keep sediment and erosion control measures in place until disturbed areas have been stabilized.

Collection line is to be buried – no potential negative environmental effects anticipated during operation.

NA None proposed. Construction area to be clearly marked and staked to reduce footprint impacts. Construction near ELC Unit 20 will be outside of breeding bird timing windows (April to August).



Change Number



Features

Significant Feature

within 120m of

Component (EIS

required)?



Plan Commitments




Mitigation Measures


Effects

Mitigation Measures

6 Overhead transmission line on 16th Line

Overhead transmission line on 16th Line

A section of the transmission line along 16th Line is buried below ground as it passes Lots 11 and 12 on Concession 17.

The proposed underground line follows the same path as the original overhead wire along the road right of way. The line is within 40m of ELC unit 17 (MAS2), a shallow marsh feature determined not to be SWH in the NHA (LGL, 2010a). The underground collection line is also within 14m of ELC unit 16 (CUM1-1), an old field meadow determined not to be SWH (LGL, 2010a).


7 Meteorological tower near turbine 1

Meteorological tower not previously identified.

Meteorological tower is located within an agricultural field within Lot 5, Concession 16.

Meteorological tower is not within 120m of any natural features.


8 Meteorological tower near turbine 10

Meteorological tower not previously identified.

Meteorological tower is within an agricultural field in Lot 9, Concession 15.

The proposed access road would be within 55m of ELC unit 10 (MAS2), a shallow marsh. When evaluated as a wetland ELC Unit 10 was determined as ‘not significant’ in the December 2010 NHA report (LGL, 2010a).




Change Number



Features

Significant Feature

within 120m of

Component (EIS

required)?



Plan Commitments




Mitigation Measures


Effects

Mitigation Measures

9 Overhead transmission line on 12 Sideroad

Overhead transmission line on 12 Sideroad

A section of the overhead transmission line along 12 Sideroad is proposed to be buried below ground (in red) as it passes a residence on Lot 12, Concession 17.

The only natural feature impacted is a watercourse. The buried transmission line is within 43m of a watercourse first assessed in the Aquatics Report (LGL, 2010b) as water body F, characterized as an agricultural drain. Water body impacts are addressed in the Water Body Report Addendum, Sept. 2011 submitted to the Ministry of Environment.




Table 3: Summary of Changes to Project Location Resulting in Newly Identified Features

Change Number


Summary of Change as it

relates to Natural Heritage Features

Significant Feature

within 120m of

Component (EIS

required)?



Plan Commitments




Mitigation Measures


Effects

Mitigation Measures

4 Underground collection along south side of tributary

Previous investigation identified only ELC Unit 12 which was evaluated from roadside.

Collection line (in purple) extends underground from turbine 10 east to Wellington 12 Road. Overhead line then follows road alignment south to 14th Line, west to 6 Sideroad and north to turbine 8. In December 2010 reporting, ELC unit 12 (MAM2) was identified and assessed from the roadside as permission to access property was not granted at that time to allow for site investigation. Air photo interpretation was used to estimate community boundary.

The proposed collection line (dashed purple line) extends underground from turbine 9 to Sideroad 6 and then north along Sideroad 6. September 2011 site investigation of area within red outline in diagram resulted in the expansion of ELC unit 12 (MAM2-2) to extend east along the watercourse and further refinement to include ELC units 21 and 22 (CUM1-1), cultural meadow associated with the tributary.

The collection line would follow the general path of a tributary of the Conestogo River through agricultural lands and then travel north along the road alignment of Sideroad 6. The portion of the proposed line travelling east-west through the agricultural field is within 60m of ELC units 12, 21 and 22, while the north-south portion along Sideroad 6 is within 43 m of ELC Units 12 and 21. ELC units 12, 21 and 22 comprise a mineral meadow marsh determined as a floodplain feature and are considered Candidate SWH for Species of Special Concern (Monarch) (see Appendix B for full evaluation of SWH). It is noted that the SWH is across the road right of way from proposed tunneling pit locations.

Yes - Candidate SWH for Species of Special Concern (Monarch) (see Appendix B for full evaluation of SWH).

Construction activities may result in the removal of host plants and direct habitat for Monarchs, or silt and sedimentation of those vegetation communities.

Ensure construction vehicles are prevented from accidental encroachment into vegetation communities through fencing at the limit of construction, and through the installation of adequate silt and sediment controls.

None identified, as the component will be sub-surface during operations.

None proposed. None proposed. None proposed.



5.0 CONCLUSION

The Conestogo Wind Farm, located within Wellington County, northwest of the village of Alma, Ontario and south of Arthur, Ontario has been proposed as a Class 4 Wind Facility. Within this Facility, a total of 10 turbines have been planned with a nameplate capacity of 22.9MW. As a renewable energy project, the Conestogo Wind Farm is subject to the Renewable Energy Approval (REA) application process. As part of the application process, The Conestogo Wind Farm Records Review and Natural Heritage Evaluation was submitted to MNR in December 2010. Subsequently, a signed confirmation letter (Conestogo WEC NHA Confirmation Letter) was received from the MNR. Since that time, in response to public input, nine changes to the project location have been proposed, all of which pertain to ancillary components; including roads, transmission/collector lines, and meteorological towers.

The study area for the Conestogo Wind Farm consists of active agricultural lands subject to frequent disturbance. The natural features identified within this study area include hedgerows, forest, and wetland units. For the most part, the ancillary project components described in this addendum report are situated within agricultural lands and avoid the natural heritage features found within the landscape. Most of the natural features and wildlife habitat identified within 120m of the proposed project location were previously identified and evaluated in The Conestogo Wind Farm Records Review and Natural Heritage Evaluation. The exception to this was in the vicinity of project change #4 where within 120m of the project location an area of significant wildlife habitat for a species of special concern (monarch butterfly, Danaus plexippus) previously identified (LGL, 2010a) was expanded to include ELC Units 12, 21, and 22 as a result of a September 2011 site investigation.

For the most part, the layout of ancillary components outlined in this report is restricted to existing road right of way. Where this was not considered feasible, installation of ancillary components is limited to areas within agricultural lands to avoid the natural heritage features found within the landscape. Two significant woodlots are present within 120m of the revised project location. No significant wetlands or valleylands were identified in the project area. Significant wildlife habitat potential was expanded from the original assessment completed in December 2010 (LGL, 2010); however, no loss to these habitat features is anticipated from the project activities or project components and changes proposed September 2011.

Provided that recommended mitigation measures outlined in this report are adhered to, a high level of protection will be provided to remnant natural features, including woodlands and wildlife habitat. The revised layout for the ancillary components, including the electrical connections, road access routes, and meteorological towers outlined in this addendum can be constructed without adversely affecting the features and functions of the natural environment.



6.0 REFERENCES

LGL Limited (2010a) The Conestogo Wind Farm Records Review and Natural Heritage Evaluation.

LGL Limited (2010b) The Conestogo Wind Farm Water Assessment Report.

Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) (2010) Natural Heritage Assessment Guide for Renewable Energy Projects.



APPENDIX A

SITE INVESTIGATION AND EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR WETLAND FEATURES WITHIN 120M OF PROPOSED CHANGE #4



Table 1. Summary of Changes to Wetland Evaluation of Significance – Updating Existing and Identifying New Features

Change Number

Wetland Unit (See Figure 3.)

ELC Number Location Size

ha Wetland Type MNR

Evaluated Wetland

Wetland Significance Assessed by

LGL

Comments

Results of Evaluation (Yes/No to meeting criteria for Significance)

Site Photos

4 N/A 12

Lot 7, Con 16; Lot 7 Con 15;

Lot 8 Con 15

1.45 MAM2-2 No No

Not assessed as it is a floodplain feature containing wetland plants not providing a direct wetland function. (Consultation with MNR Art Timmerman November 17, 2010) Boundary was redefined following September 9th, 2011 field investigation. Portions of unit were determined to be upland cultural meadow and others extended further east along the tributary.

No

4 N/A 22 Lot 8 Con 15 0.02 pond No No

Not assessed or included in wetland significance analysis based on previous consultation with MNR staff Art Timmerman (November 17, 2010) due to size and function even though it contains wetland plants. Pond being used for agricultural purposes by property owner. Pond is not hydrologically connected to tributary (does not outlet to creek). Dug feature that was dry during September 9th, 2011 field investigation and considered to be highly disturbed (i.e. metal culvert pieces, concrete rubble, dead cattle)

No



APPENDIX B

SITE INVESTIGATION AND EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT (SWH) IN THE VICINITY OF

PROPOSED PROJECT CHANGE #4 (SEPTEMBER 2011)



Introduction The project location of the Conestogo Wind Farm is located southwest of Arthur, ON. The stream segment and riparian habitat were examined as part of the site investigation and evaluation of significance (EOS) for a newly identified feature within 120m of project change #4. This new feature is located between Sideroad 6 and Wellington Road 12, and north of 14th Line. The date of site investigation and EOS was Sept 9, 2011 between 9am and 3pm, approximately 6 hours. Previous surveys have been completed for the remainder of the study area, with the exception of this stream segment as landowner permission was just recently obtained. An underground transmission is proposed to run parallel to the stream segment, which is within 120m of the new feature identified. The stream, as well as the surrounding riparian vegetation was surveyed for wildlife habitat to determine whether the area meets the criteria for significance as outline by the Province (Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide), or if there are any species at risk present that will require additional mitigation efforts. The following notes detail the observations and results of the wildlife component of the site investigation and evaluation of significance for new project component #4. Methods The study area was investigated through a pedestrian survey within all habitat features, including the meadow marsh, dug pond and cultural meadow habitat. All species seen and heard were documented. Habitat was reviewed for potential to support significant species, species at risk or to provide habitat that the Province would identified as significant. Observations Habitat included meadow marsh and cultural meadow along a riparian corridor. Species seen and their abundance throughout the study area were documented (Table 1 below). With the presence of flowering plants (predominantly Asters and Goldenrods) along the riparian buffer, there were invertebrates present. Honey Bees, and butterflies like Cabbage White (Pieris rapae), and Orange Sulphur (Colias eurytheme) were the dominant species seen. Notable invertebrates among the observations were the Monarchs (Danaus plexippus). Adults, caterpillars, and cocoons were all documented along the riparian vegetation. Hundreds of Common Milkweed (Asclepias) plants, the preferred species used by Monarchs, were also counted along the riparian zone. The bird species seen along the stream were relatively few in number, with species likely preparing for or in the process of migrating at this point in the season. No breeding behaviour was observed.



Fig 1. Adult, cocoon, and caterpillar phases for Monarch (Danaus plexippus), observed September 9, 2011.

Conclusions Most notable among observations are the Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica) and the Monarch. The Barn Swallow is listed as Threatened in Canada as determined by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), while the Monarch is listed as Special Concern both nationally and provincially. The Barn Swallows were seen flying overhead near Sideroad 6. With the preferred foraging habitat of Barn Swallows being in open fields and near ponds, it is likely they were using the area for foraging purposes only. Foraging habitat is abundant in the study area and is not limited to this newly evaluated habitat feature. Since they exclusively use man-made features like barns, old buildings, or bridges for breeding and no appropriate features were noted in the area, the area is not considered to provide nesting habitat to this species. No additional mitigation is proposed due to the presence of this species. In December 2010 LGL Limited (LGL, 2010a), identified the small section of meadow marsh adjacent to the road right of way along the riparian corridor to contain abundant milkweed plants. There currently does not exist a threshold number at which the presence of milkweed or Monarch individuals in any life stages would result in classification of SWH. As a result, LGL has conservatively considered this area to provide habitat for species of Special Concern, and as Candidate SWH based on the presence of milkweed host plants. Based on September 2011 field work, the vegetation communities (MAM and CUM) both contain milkweed, and the Candidate SWH label for these communities have been extended to include the refined community boundaries as of September 2011. Due to the distance from the Great Lakes, the habitat does not constitute Candidate SWH for Monarch or Butterfly stopover habitat. The meadow habitat with many flowering plants, and high numbers of Milkweed (Fig. 2) scattered in patches throughout the length of the stream, provides excellent habitat for this species. It is noted that no vegetation removal is proposed within these refined community boundaries, and as such, no host plants or individuals of the species are anticipated to be harmed for the installation of the underground electrical lines. It is assumed that silt and sediment controls will be installed to protect the aquatic habitat and the adjacent riparian communities. As a result, no additional mitigation is proposed for this habitat, as it is expected to be protected in the measures outlined for the protection of aquatic and riparian habitat.



Fig. 2 – Flowering plants all along stream (left) and Milkweed patches (right) providing Candidate SWH for Monarchs.



Table 1. Species documented during Sept 9, 2011 site investigation and EOS for SWH

Type Fauna Code Family Name Scientific Name Common Name G

Rank S

Rank COSEWIC MNR SARA SARO FWCA MBCA

Bird RTHA Accipitridae Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed Hawk G5 S5 NAR NAR P Bird BARS Hirundinidae Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow G5 S4B THR X Bird BLJA Corvidae Cyanocitta cristata Blue Jay G5 S5 P Bird Gulls Bird TUVU Cathartidae Cathartes aura Turkey Vulture G5 S5B P Bird AMGO Fringillidae Carduelis tristis American Goldfinch G5 S5B X

Bird GRCA Mimidae Dumetella carolinensis Gray Catbird G5 S4B X

Bird CEWA Bombycillidae Bombycilla cedrorum Cedar Waxwing G5 S5B X

Bird SAVS Emberizidae Passerculus sandwichensis Savannah Sparrow G5 S4B X

Bird SOSP Emberizidae Melospiza melodia Song Sparrow G5 S5B X

Bird BCCH Paridae Poecile atricapillus Black-capped Chickadee G5 S5 X

Bird NOMO Mimidae Mimus polyglottos Northern Mockingbird G5 S4 X Bird GTBH Ardedidae Ardea herodias Great Blue Heron G5 S5 X

Invertebrate Nymphalidae Danaus plexippus Monarch G5 S4B, S2N SC SC

Invertebrate Nymphalidae Limenitis archippus Viceroy G5 S5 Invertebrate Pieridae Pieris rapae Cabbage White G5 SNA Invertebrate Pieridae Colias eurytheme Orange Sulphur G5 S5

Invertebrate Apidae Bees (Apis sp., Bombus sp.)

Invertebrate Dragonflies Invertebrate Grasshoppers

Mammal MEVO Muridae Microtus pennsylvanicus Meadow Vole G5 S5

Fish Small Minnows



Table 2: Evaluation for Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) in the Vicinity of Proposed Change #4 (ELC Units 12, 21, and 22)

Type Habitat Summary of Characteristics of the SWH Type

Unit where potential ELC Code Match Occurs to

SWH Criteria

Map to View Units

Assessment of Habitat, Species Presence and Potential to Meet SWH Criteria

Confirmed or Potential SWH in project location

Seas

onal

Con

cent

ratio

n A

rea

Waterfowl Stopover Areas in CUM1 and CUT1

CUM1 or CUT1 with sheet water from mid-march to May with aggregations of > 100 individuals of listed species. Not agricultural fields except for Tundra Swan.

Units 21 and 22 Figure 3 No evidence of sheet water or habitat use by 100 or more listed species.

Not present

Waterfowl Stopover and Staging Areas (Aquatic)

MAM, SAS, SAM SAF, SWD, aquatic habitat with invertebrates and vegetation, 100 more or extended use

Unit 12 Figure 3 No evidence of habitat use by 100 or more of listed species or for 2-3 birds/ha for 7-20 days.

Not present

Colonial Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat (Bank and Cliff Swallow)

Eroding banks, sandy hills, pits, steep slopes, rock faces, etc. with > 8 Cliff or > 100 Bank swallows. Does not include man-made structures or active pits.

None N/a No nesting habitat as per criteria found within 120m of project components. Cliff Swallows recorded on surveys were nesting under nearby bridges.

Not present

Shorebird Migratory Stopover Areas Shorelines of lakes and rivers, 3 or more listed species and >1000 shorebird use days

None N/a No stopover habitat present. Not present

Songbird Migratory Stopover Woodlots need to be >10ha and within 5km of Lake Ontario.

None N/a Project location > 5 km from Lake Ontario. Not present

Raptor Wintering Area Combination of upland and woodland > 20 ha, various species thresholds including 10 or more individuals of 2 or more listed species or 1 or more Short-eared Owls.

None N/a Habitat combination not present in project location. No raptors found on Jan 3, Feb 2, or Mar 27, 2007 in project location

Not present

Bat Hibernacula (Winter Roost, Maternal Colonies)

Criteria identify caves and mine features and ecosites CCR and CCA. Maternal colonies potentially occur in tree cavities, vegetation, and often old buildings. Not identified in study area based on risk screening, records review, field studies by Natural Resources Solutions Inc.

None N/a No suitable habitat in ELC Units 12, 21 or 22. Not present

Butterfly Migratory Route/Stopover Areas

Site must be <5km from Lake Ontario shoreline. Habitat components include >10 ha combination of field and forest

None N/a Project location > 5 km from Lake Ontario. Habitat thresholds not present. Not present

Snake Hibernaculum Congregations of 5 or more individuals or 2 or more species near potential hibernacula

None N/a No snakes observed on surveys. No potential hibernacula sites observed. Not present.

Colonial-Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat (Tree/Shrub OR Ground)

Presence of 5 or more active heron nests, > 100 Herring Gulls, > 75 Caspian Terns or any of the target species.

None N/a No heron nests found in woodlands in project location. No suitable habitat for gulls or terns. None of target species observed in project location.

Not present

Deer wintering areas Canopy cover of 60% or more conifer species

None N/a A single small coniferous plantation woodlot (12ha) is identified at Unit 20. The MNR has not identified this unit as SWH for deer. This type of SWH is to be determined by the OMNR.

Not present

Amphibian Breeding Habitat (woodland)

Presence of a wetland, lake or pond within or within 120 metres of woodland. One or more listed species with at least 20 individuals.


Amphibian Breeding Habitat (Wetland)

Wetlands with ELC codes MAM1 to 6, SAS1, SAF1 or SWT1. Presence of 2 or more listed species with at least 20 individuals.

None N/a Based on consultation with A. Timmerman (MNR Guelph) Unit 12 does not provide wetland habitat function and is ruled out. Unit 22 did not have an open water component and did not have standing water in 2011 investigation.

Not present.

Rare vegetation

communities

Alvar, cliff and talus slopes, savannah, tallgrass prairie, sand barren or old growth forest.

None identified based on records review or field investigations.

None N/a None of the rare vegetation communities are present in the project location. FOD communities do not meet threshold of 100 years old with minimal human activity.

Not present.



Type Habitat Summary of Characteristics of the SWH Type

Unit where potential ELC Code Match Occurs to

SWH Criteria

Map to View Units

Assessment of Habitat, Species Presence and Potential to Meet SWH Criteria

Confirmed or Potential SWH in project location

Spec

ializ

ed W

ildlif

e H

abita

t Waterfowl Nesting Area All upland habitats within 120 metres of

listed ELC wetlands. Presence of 10 or more nesting pairs of Mallards or 3 or more pairs of other listed species. Presence of > 40cm dbh nest trees for Wood Duck and Hooded Merganser.

None N/a Unit 12 does not serve a wetland function along the riparian corridor, as determined in consultation with A. Timmerman (Guelph MNR). Surrounding upland areas are active agricultural areas. Not suitable. .

Not present.

Osprey Nesting, Foraging and Perching habitat

Presence of 1 or more active Osprey nests directly adjacent to a river, lake, pond or wetland

None N/a Project location not suitable. No nests found. Not present

Woodland Raptor Nesting Habitat ELC Community types of FOC, FOM, FOD, SWC, SWM, SWD greater than 10ha in size.


Turtle Nesting and Over-wintering areas

Site must have sand or gravel for nest digging. Site must have permanent bodies of water for over-wintering.

None N/a Habitat requirements not present in ELC units 12, 21, 22. Not present

Seeps and Springs Predominantly Forested Areas with < 25% meadow/field/pasture within the headwaters of a stream or river system. Presence of > 2 seeps/springs present even during dry summers


Animal Movement Corridors No confirmed SWH identified based on records review or field investigations. Riparian corridors and hedgerows provide small scale movement corridors, and there is movement by wildlife disperse throughout the agricultural areas.

None N/a Local corridors present. Not present

Hab

itat f

or S

peci

es o

f Con

serv

atio

n C

once

rn

Marsh Bird Breeding Habitat Wetlands with shallow water with emergent aquatic vegetation. Presence of select species and abundance thresholds.

Unit 12 Figure 3 No wetlands present as described in the criteria schedules, as these units do not have a shallow water component. No marsh bird species recorded on any of the breeding bird surveys as per the criteria thresholds.

Not present.

Area-Sensitive Bird Breeding Habitat Habitats where interior forest birds are breeding, typically large mature (>60 years old) forest stands or woodlots > 30 ha. With at least of 10ha of interior forest 100m from edge.

None N/a Habitat requirements not present in ELC units 12, 21, 22. Not present.

Open Country Bird Breeding Habitat Large grassland areas > 30 ha, but not Class 1 or 2 agricultural lands and not being actively used for farming. Presence of 2 or more indicator or special concern species and at least one common species.


Shrub/Early Successional Bird Breeding Habitat

ELC ecosites of CUT1 and CUS1. Shrubland or Successional fields > 30 ha, but not Class 1 or 2 agricultural lands and not being actively used for farming. Presence of 2 or more indicator or special concern and at least 1 common species.

None N/a Does not meet criteria of unit size or minimum number of criteria species as per the Criteria Schedules.

Not present

Special Concern S1 to S3 species and communities

All Special Concern and rare (S1 to S3, SH) plant or animal species or communities.

All units have potentials based on ELC Code (Units 12, 21, and 22)

Figure 3 Monarchs (S2N) were recorded in all units during September 9, 2011 site investigation. Milkweed host plants (more than 100) were found in Units 12, 21 and 22.

Breeding habitat present for Monarch adults and larvae in Units 12, 21 and 22, and these units are identified as Candidate SWH for Species of Conservation Concern (Special Concern).



APPENDIX C

FIELD NOTES OF INVESTIGATORS

(\

Grand River Conservation Authority Map created: September 7, 2011

Conestogo15EP82011 LEGEND

WATERSHED MASK • BUILDING· SYMBOLIZED (GRCA) a BUILDING· TO SCALE (GRCA)

1:1 WATERSHED BOUNDARY (GRCA)

/" UTILITY LINE (NRVIS)

~ ROADS-ADDRESSED (MNR)

,)( RAILWAY (NRVIS)

..,- DRAINAGE-NElWORK (GRCA)

PARKS (GRCA)

DRAINAGE-POLY (NRVIS)

WOODED AREA (MNR)

HEDGEROW

PLANTATION

TREED

Th is map is for illustrative purposes only. Information contained hereon is

not a substitute for professional review or a site survey and is subject to

change without notice. The Grand River Conservation Authority takes no

responsibility for, nor guarantees, the accuracy of the information contained

on this map. Any interpretations or conclusions drawn from this map are the

sole responsibility of the user.

The source for each data layer is shown in parentheses in the map legend.

For a complete listing of sources and citations go to:

http://grims.grandriver.ca/docs/SourcesCitations2.htm

0 45 90 135 1S ------- -------------- -------NAD 1983, UTM Zone 17 Scale 1:3,995

I

Jen's field notes


Conestogo25EP82011 LEGEND

WATERSHED MASK • BUILDING· SYMBOLIZED (GRCA) a BUILDING· TO SCALE (GRCA) a WATERSHED BOUNDARY (GRCA)

/" UTILITY LINE (NRVIS)

;V ROADS-ADDRESSED (MNR)

,)(' RAILWAY (NRVIS)

DRAINAGE-NETWORK (GRCA)

PARKS (GRCA)


WOODED AREA (MNR)

HEOGEROW

PLANTATION

TREED

56'\q zP\1 <reAl

GRCA Disclaimer

This map is for il lustrative purposes only. Information contained hereon is



responsibil ity for , nor guarantees, the accuracy of the information contained


sole respcnsibility of the user.

The source for each data layer is shown in parentheses in the map legend .



~ ------- -------------- -------NAO 1983, UTM Zone 17 Scale 1:4,675

Jen's field notes

POLYGON DESC RIPTlON

System I Substr·ate Topo. Feature I Cover I

}lTerrestrial I D Organic D Lacustrin e ~pen D Wet land ~ineral Soil D Riverine D Shrub D Aquatic arent Mineral D Bottomland D Treed

Site D Acidic Bedrock D Terrace

Plant Fo rm D Basic Bedrock Valley Slope

D Open Water D Carbonate Bedrock D Tableland D Plankton D Shallow Water D Rolling Upland D Submerged

I '!EtSurficial Deposits D Cliff i :oating-Ieaved D Bedrock D Talus rammotd

D Crevice/Cave orb

History D Alvar D Lichen

D Natural D Rockland D Bryophyte

D Semi-natural D Beach/Bar ~oniferous

~ultural D Sand Dune D Mixed

D Bluff D Deciduous

DIST URBANCE NOTES

HTCodes: CVR Codes: 0 =none I= O<CVR# !O% 2 = !O<CVR#25% 3 = 25<CVR#60%

Stand Composition :

Size Class Analysis: I I < JOcm I I 10-24 em I I 25-50 em Standing Snags: I I <IOcm I I 10-24 em I I 25-50 em Deadfall/Logs: I I < IOcm I I 10-24 em I I 2S-50 em N- None R-Rare O-Occas10nal A-Abundant

SOIL ANALYSIS

Texture g= Moisture HomogeneousN ariable

COMMUNITY CLASSIFICA TTON

Class: Inclusion· Series:

t------:::E.:::co::.:::s.:.:ite::.:.: _ _ _ ______ __ ---l Complex:

Type:

Co mmunity

D Lake D Pond D River D Stream D Marsh D Swamp D Fen D Bog

~~rren eadow

D Prair ie D Thicket D Savannah D Woodland

I D Forest D Plantation

BA:

1 >SO em I >50 em I >SO em

I Old Growth

G=

ELC Assessment

Layers·

ote: Number in circle indicates sam ple number of sample taken.

D = dominant

Species Code

La er 2 3 4

-pr~ p{' ~ 'o,.tlt.,,Q,_ ~\)~~~ ·[ vnv- 'OJ, ,_ _, eocu:t:tJ

o~ cJY" ~ 1'fi'P.D_ t:P ntf' + +llb~ ~ll~ to -\-tl,\o

Jen's field notes

POLYGON DESC RIPTION

Sys tem Substrate To po. Feature I Cover I Co mmunity

0 Terrestri al 0 Organic 0 Lacustrine fA:!l"Open 0 Lake ~et land l;ti:l' Mineral Soil 0 Ri verine 0 Shrub ~Pond 0 Aquatic 0 Parent Mineral 0 Bottomland 0 Treed 0 Ri ver

Site 0 Acid ic Bedrock 0 Terrace

P la nt For·m 0 Stream

0 Open Water D Basic Bedrock 0 Valley Slope 0 Marsh 0 Carbonate Bedrock 0 Tableland 0 Plankton 0 Swamp

0 Shallow Water 0 Rolling Upland 0 Submerged D Fen 0 Surfic ia l Depos its

I

O C!iff 0 Floating-leaved 0 Bog 0 Bedrock O T alu s ~Graminoid 0 Barren

0 Crevice/Cave 0 Forb 0 Meadow H is tory O A!var 0 Lichen D Prairie

0 Natural 0 Rockland 0 Bryophyte 0 T hicket

0 Semi -natural 0 Beach/Bar 0 Coniferous 0 Savannah

l...titCu ltural 0 Sand Dune 0 Mixed 0 Woodland 0 Bluff 0 Deciduous 0 Forest

0 Plantation

DISTURBANCE NOTES

STAN D DESCRIPTION

Layer I HT CVR I Species Domin ance

I Canopy 2 Sub-canopy 3 Understorey 4 Ground Cover HT Codes. I - >bm 2 = IO<HT#bm 3 = 2<HT#l0m 4 = I<HT#2m '= O.)<HT# Im 6 = 0.2<HT#0.) m CVR Codes: 0 = none I = O<CVR# IO% 2 = IO<CVR#25% 3 = 25<CVR#60% 4 = >60%

Stand Composition· BA:

Size Class Analysis: I I < lOcm I I 10-24 em I I 25-50 em I >50 em Standing Snags: I I < 10 em I I 10-24 em I I 25-50 em T >50 em Deadfall/Logs: I I < lOcm I I 10-24 em I I 25-50 em I >50 em N-Nonc R- Rare O- Occas10nal A-Abundant

I Young I Mid-age Mature I Old Growth

SOIL ANALYS IS

Texture G= Moisture HomogeneousNariable

C O MMUNITY CLASSIF ICATION

1--;;:~.:..:~~=~:::.:.s_: --------------1 Inclusi on:

~E:::::eo::::s::.:it.:.:e: ___________ ---1 Complex :

Type :

ELC Assessment

Layer10:

Abund ance Codes·

Species Code 1

~"" Ja;J')i_~ -· ·'[)

I \ rn_ ..,_it.< rr E;ci~ 0 ffiHJ)tj ~

I~PLfV.

-

Laver 2 3 4

11) ID iil. ilL le l. VI -

- , I I = w1 an = ommant

Species Laver Species Laver Code 1 2 3 4 Code I 2 3 4

Jen's field notes

POLYGON DESCRiPTION

System Substrate Topo. Feattu·e I Cover

~;errestri a l 0 Organic Wetl and ~inera l Soil

0 Lacustrine lli!tOpeo 0 Ri verine

0 Aquatic 0 Parent Mineral ~~ottomland 0 Shrub

0 Acidic Bedrock 0 Terrace 0 Treed

Site 0 Open Water

0 Basic Bedrock 0 Valley Slope Plant Form

0 Shallow Water 0 Carbonate Bedrock 0 Tab leland 0 Plankton

~urfi c i a l Deposits 0 Rolling Upl and 0 Submerged

0 Bedrock 0 Cliff ~~ Floating-.leaved

O Talu s ~Graminotd

History 0 Crevice/Cave "''!!lForb

f)g.Natural

0 Al va r 0 Lichen

0 Rockland 0 Bryophyte

0 Semi-natural 0 Beach/Bar 0 Coniferous

0 Cultural 0 Sand Dune 0 Mixed

0 Bluff 0 Deciduous

DISTURBAN CENOTES

"= ) < VR#60% ~ >60"/o

Stand Composition

Size Class Analys is: I Standing Snags: I Deadfall/Logs: 1 N None R Rare 0 Occasional

l Community Age: i')<f Pioneer

SOIL ANAL'\: SIS

Texture Moisture HomogeneousN ariable

I < ! Ocm 1 I < IOcm I

1 < 10 em I A Abundant

I I Young

COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATION

I 10-24 em 1 I 10-24 em 1 I 10-24 em I

I I Mid-age

Class· ISs;;:;er:;;;ie~s:-------------_j Inclusion:

Ecosite : ~TTy~p~e:.:.: ::.:._ _ _ _ ________ _j Complex

I 25-50 em I 25-50 em T 25-50 em

I I Mature

g

~ <~ '<"'!~-·~~; .. - ~-- •::-:. ~ ---.. . )';~,

Commu nity

0 Lake 0 Pond 0 Ri ver 0 Stream 0 Marsh 0 Swamp 0 Fen 0 Bog

~~~arren Meadow

0 Prairie 0 Thicket 0 Savannah 0 Woodland 0 Forest 0 Plantation

BA:

I >50 em I >50 em I >50 em

I T Old Growth

G

ELC Assessment

Layers·

Abundance Codes:

Species Code 1

~OCMF1~

~~~·vl

1)' ..... _ uO 1

R rare

Laver 2 3

In

0 occ~J s io ml

Species 4 Code 1

l,q I tD\A.tJ o l ~lllf

IRvio C.ID

i'J ~,;,, D

0 11.----rrr·n• .r/

IJ7 ... ·-Ill. ,ru rrn..!S41rtK/I..rfiiii\JJtl~

1"-

SQ\.. f\L11 l ~ ltlWJIY.J IQ...

(saplings and shmbs) A abWlda nt D dominant

Layer Species 2 3 4 Code 1

I f2 It: lo

fl..

lfl

IL

lo

Note: Number in circle indicates sample number of sample taken.

Layer 2 3 4

Jen's field notes

,o-r1~'!;. . flO'(,_-r. L'-"'\

'~J.tri''~ 9'IL

If)~

3t t-lr p1<s ---~~~ll.r (t?-. -zr)

t' ~,.. t..z.z., 2&) fl'<~

Copyright© Grand River Conservation Authority, 2011

')0 .. ~~~1-

t-ta~ + f.lot\P"~ :re

THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION


Conestogo1 SEP82011 LEGEND

WATERSHED MASK • BUILDING ·SYMBOLIZED (GRCA) a BUILDING· TO SCALE (GRCA)


./" UTILITY LINE (NRVIS)

;./ ROADS-ADDRESSED (MNR)

)<' RAILWAY(NRVIS)

DRAINAGE-NETWORK (GRCA)

PARKS (GRCA)


WOODED AREA (MNR)

HEDGEROW

PLANTATION

TREED

Se-PT 'f ~, \j\,tL

\A1011

GRCA Disclaimer

This map is for illustrative purposes only. Information contained hereon is






The source for each data layer is shown in parentheses in the map legend .


http:llgrims.grandriver.caldocs!SourcesCitations2.htm

0 45 90 135 180m.

~ N

------- -------------- -------NAD 1983, UTM Zone 17 Scale 1:3,995

Victoria's field notes

Copyright© Grand River Conservation Authority, 2011 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION


Conestogo2SEP82011 LEGEND

WATERSHED MASK • BUILDING· SYMBOLIZED (GRCA) a BUILDING· TO SCALE (GRCA)


/" UTILITY LINE (NRVIS) .

~ ROADS-ADDRESSED (MNR)

,)( RAILWAY (NRVIS)

v DRAINAGE-NETWORK (GRCA)

PARKS (GRCA)

DRAJNAGE-POLY (NRVIS)

WOODED AREA (MNR)

HEDGEROW

PLANTATION

TREED

5~1 q f ?-t>lf Vl-~

~fO~

GRCA Disclaimer

This map is for illustrative purposes only. Information contained hereon is






The source for each data layer is shown in parentheses in the map legend.



55 110 165 220m.

_\ N

------- -------------- -------NAD 1983, UTM Zone 17 Scale 1 :4,675


LEGEND Turbine Layout (2011-08-29)






Temporary Construction Laydown (2011-08-29)

liiiiiii1 120 m Buffer around Project Components 1.!!!!!.1 (2011-08-29)

- Project Components (2010-12-13)

120m Buffer around Project Components (201 0-12-13)

Participating Lots

ELC Communities Boundary

ELC Unit Identifier

Turbine Number


Floodplain (GRCA2010-11-19)

Point Count #

Point Counts (Dave Martin, 2007 Field)

Potential Natural Feature (Potamogeton)


Potential Woodland Pools SWH

Potential Woodland Pools SWH (Not Confirmed by Site Investigations)

Bat Hibernacula SWH Potential

Potential Woodland Raptor Nesting Habitat

Pond

Seeps or Springs

Conestogo Wind Farm REA Review

Project Components

environmental research associates

Figure

August, 2011 Prepared By:

KC

1:8,000 Verified By: JAF


---------




APPENDIX D

CREDENTIALS

VICTORIA KENNEDY, Hons. B.Sc (Environmental Science) Field Biologist

Page 1 of 1

EDUCATION 2010 Certificate in Sustainable Landscapes, Office of Open Learning, University of Guelph

2007 Bachelor of Science (Honours), Environmental Science, University of Guelph, Ontario

2007 Geographic Information Systems and Remote Sensing Certificate, University of Guelph, Ontario PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 2010 to present LGL Limited, Field Biologist, Burlington, Ontario

Completed a study aiming to identify and select appropriate habitat for the relocation of species at risk Butler’s Garter Snake as part of the Detroit River International Crossing (DRIC) environmental assessment.

Participated in the implementation of plant species at risk mitigation and conservation measures involved with DRIC.

Projects involved identification and awareness of plant species at risk, prescribed burn site preparation, and elimination of invasive plant pests.

2008 to 2010 AGAT Laboratories, Sample Coordinator Logistics, Mississauga, Ontario

Quickly log in, label and produce finished work orders for soil and water samples using computer programs such as LIMS, JIPS, and ERS.

Utilized extensive problem solving and the ability to work effectively in a fast-paced environment where precision, computer skills, and communication are key.

Team leader in charge of ensuring processes run smoothly and that priority tasks are completed during evening shift when supervisory staff is no longer present and understanding how to deal with problems independently when they arise.

Given sole responsibility for completing work for several high priority clients.

Member of Health & Safety Committee.

2006 York University, Biology Field Assistant, Toronto, Ontario

Assisted in conducting field research for a project on the mating behaviours of the endangered Acadian Flycatcher near Erie, Pennsylvania.

Recorded and organized detailed behavioural observations for about 10-12 mating pairs once nest searching and delineating pair territories was completed.

Used call playback and decoys to safely capture target individuals with mist nests. Individuals were weighed, measured, and banded. Blood/feather samples were taken from both adults and nestlings in order to determine paternity.

Independently navigated through densely forested areas and streams using only a compass and map, and completed physically strenuous work in difficult conditions.

Work completed independently and in teams and required strong attention to detail, organization, patience, creativity, and a positive attitude early in the morning.

genivar inc.€¦ · 1 7 20 5 4 0 11 18 12 14 6 9 19 15 17 13 10 #4 #3 #24 #23 #22 #21 #20 #19 #15...

Documents