NATURAL ENVIRONMENT TECHNICAL REPORT: LEVEL I & II PREPARED FOR. Township of Southgate. Aggregate Extraction Application: Southgate Pit

Transcription

1 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT TECHNICAL REPORT: LEVEL I & II PREPARED FOR Township of Southgate Aggregate Extraction Application: Southgate Pit Part Lot 15, Concession 15 Geographic Township of Proton Township of Southgate, County of Grey BY AWS ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING AQUATIC AND WILDLIFE SERVICES R. R. # 1, Shallow Lake, Ontario, N0H 2K0 (519) , JOHN MORTON, December, 2014

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction NETR Guidelines Study Works Background Review Field Study Methodology Field Survey Dates and Focus of Works Vegetation Community Characterization...7 Level 1 : Significant Feature Analysis 4 Habitat of Endangered and Threatened Species Fish Habitat Significant Valleylands Significant Wetlands Significant Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) Significant Wildlife Habitat Significant Woodlands Level I Summary...21 Level 2: Impact Assessment 12 Site Description Terrain Hydrology Hydrogeology Habitat for Endangered Species: Barn Swallow Characterization Impact assessment Fish Habitat Characterization Impact assessment Significant Wildlife Habitat Amphibian Breeding Habitat Species of Conservation Concern: Eastern Wood-Pewee Amphibian Movement Corridors Significant Woodlands Vegetation Community Characterization Flora Diversity and Quality Assessment Impact Assessment Unevaluated Wetlands Characterization Impact Assessment NETR Mitigation Remedial Tree Planting Plan Conclusions References Figures

3 1 Introduction The Township of Southgate has proposed an aggregate extraction application, referred to as the Southgate Pit, located on Part Lot 15, Concession 15, geographic Township of Proton, Township of Southgate, Grey County. See Figure No. 1, for a general site location map for the Southgate Pit. Within the context of this report, the Licence Lands are shown on Figure No. 2, based on the Southgate Pit Site Plans. Field inventory works encompassed all of the Licence Lands plus included portions of the 120m adjacent lands which are under same land ownership (those 120m adjacent lands within Lot 15), referred to within this technical report as the field 'Study Lands', also delineated on Figure No. 2. The term 'Site Lands' includes the Study Lands plus the 120m adjacent lands around the License Lands, under the Aggregate Resources Act (ARA). The Study Lands are delineated on Figure No. 3. The extraction application for the Southgate Pit under the ARA, is a Class A Licence, Category 3, for above water table extraction. 1.1 NETR Guidelines This Natural Environment Technical Report (NETR) Level I & II has been undertaken to meet the requirements of the Aggregate Resources Act, This report format will follow the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) of 2014 for Natural Heritage 2.1 and requirements as outlined within the Provincial Natural Heritage Reference Manual (NHRM), Second Edition March Additionally a review of the environmental considerations/policies of the County Official Plan and Township Zoning has also been provided, thus in essence this report also meets the technical requirements of an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) in support of this application. Note: For this NETR text, all Italic writing sections are direct quotes from referenced documents and reports, other than Latin/Scientific names for species. This NETR is a combined 'Level I Significant Feature Analysis' & 'Level II Impact Assessment' in accordance to the Aggregate Resources Act requirements plus an expanded broader landscape review extending 1km beyond the proposed licence boundary. Field inventory works not only included the Study Lands but also accessible portions of the 120m adjacent lands which are under same land ownership (lot 15). With this expanded field inventory coverage area, this technical report provides a greater understanding of ecological functions on the subject property and any species of conservation concern immediately adjacent to the Licence Boundary. The format of this technical reporting incorporates a background literature review, detailed inventory survey and impact assessment works to address planning concerns through an' Environmental Impact Study' approach. The Aggregate Resources of Ontario Provincial Standards version 1.0, for Natural Environment Level I section for a Category 3-Class A Pit Above Water states: 2

4 Natural Environment Level 1: determine whether any of the following features exist on and within 120m of the site: significant wetland, habitat of endangered or threatened species, fish habitat, significant woodlands (south and east of the Canadian Shield), significant valley lands (south and east of the Canadian Shield), significant wildlife habitat and significant areas of natural and scientific interest. The Aggregate Resources of Ontario Provincial Standards version 1.0, for Natural Environment Level II section for a Category 3-Class A Pit Above Water states: Natural Environment Level 2: impact assessment where the level 1 identified any features on and within 120 metres of the site in order to determine any negative impacts on the natural features or ecological functions for which the area is identified and any proposed preventative, mitigative or remedial measures. Within the Aggregate Resources of Ontario Provincial Standards version 1.0, for Terminology & Definitions section it states: For the purpose of these standards references should be made to the Provincial Policy Statement (revised February 1, 1997) issued under Section 3 of the Planning Act for definitions and terms used in the Natural Environment Level 1 and 2. Note: The Provincial Policy Statement was rewritten in March 2005 and again in April The Grey County Official Plan policy provides an outline for the establishment of new Mineral Resource extraction operations, with section (g) stating: An Environmental Impact Study is required if the proposed licensed area is within or adjacent to a natural heritage feature. A Level 2-Natural Environment Report required under the Aggregate Resources Act can act as a substitute for an Environmental Impact Study. The ARA Policy states: Where there is a known presence of a feature based on existing information, or the site lies within the geographic range of a feature (e.g. endangered or threatened species) and the habitat is appropriate, the inspection must be carried out at a time when the feature would be expected to be visible, using good field observation and investigation practices. It is important to recognize that while some significant resources may already be identified and inventoried by official sources, the significance of others can only be determined after evaluation by the proponent/applicant. The AWS-NETR field survey methodology outlined under section 2.2 and investigation dates outlined under reporting section 2.3 are in accordance to accepted survey protocols and guidelines, in compliance with the ARA policy

5 2 Study Works 2.1 Background Review A literature review and a data search were conducted to aid in the identification of provincial natural heritage features (see Figure No. 4) and historical occurrence records for flora and fauna (Appendix 1) within the Site Lands and the broader landscape area extending 1km from the Site Lands. The background reviews were utilized to augment field data collection for the NETR process. A full listing of reports and documents cited has been provided within the reference section 21. The literature review for the Site Lands and broader landscape review was undertaken through data research of the following agencies and or published documents: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry: o Natural Heritage Information Centre o Owen Sound Area Office: ANSI, Wetlands, and Fisheries/Stream assessment reports o Land Information Ontario GIS mapping data files Grey County Official Plan and associated mapping Township of Southgate Zoning Saugeen Valley Conservation, Watershed Report 2.2 Field Study Methodology Field investigations and data collection for this NETR submission were carried out from April 2014 to September 2014, with details of survey focus works and dates provided in Table No. 1. A qualified two-person team comprised of John Morton and Judith Jones from AWS Environmental Consulting, completed natural environment field inventory and assessment works within the Study Lands which includes the accessible ARA adjacent lands. Vascular Plant surveys were conducted throughout the Study Lands during the growing season (spring and summer) of 2014, with a full species listing, ranking, status levels and Floristic Quality Scores provided within Appendix 2. During these surveys, significant species location mapping and abundance estimates were recorded for all floral species of conservation concern, along with ELC vegetation community mapping for the Study Lands. Flora survey works followed two standardized search methods: a) Field survey work was undertaken using both grid and random sampling methods. A gridlike transect approach was completed with transect lines spaced 30m apart in north-south and west-east orientation within the woodland and non-agricultural environments. Transect lines were surveyed within accessible environment (excluding deeper water sections of the wetland environment), with all observed vascular plants recorded. b) A second random coverage approach was implemented with: all habitat types, vegetation communities and wetland environment investigated. 4

6 General Fauna surveys within the Study Lands included specific searches and/or investigation for amphibians, breeding birds, hibernation emergence and gestation activity for snakes, turtles and nesting habitat, general searches for mammals and movement corridor functions. A full summary list of all recorded fauna species over the study period has been provided under Appendix 3 with current rankings, status levels and highest bird breeding codes observed. Bird Surveys for the Study Lands followed several standardized search methods: a) Monitoring activity included a 'Point Count' methodology for breeding activity in accordance to Bird Studies Canada for Woodland habitat. Point Count Locations were established to cover all habitat types within the Study Lands, with no point count location closer than 100m (limited overlapping of potential territories). Occurrences were recorded through both sightings and calling for a total of 5-10 minutes at each point count location in the early morning hours (dusk to 10:40am). Point Count undertaking times have been provided within Appendix 2. b) Point Counts were also established within the agricultural field areas specifically focusing on SAR birds (Bobolink and Eastern Meadowlark). The 2014 survey methodology closely followed the Ministry of Natural Resources survey protocol for Bobolinks. The transect line/point count location establishment was adjusted given the site terrain and the third monitoring date was not undertaken as no suitable grassland habitat for bird use was identified within the cash crop fields of vegetation community No.1. c) Taped 'play back calls' for territorial responses were also undertaken within the Study Lands. Both daytime and evening/dusk playback calling periods were completed in Evening survey works for frog calling monitoring and bat activity also included monitoring activity for any owls. d) Additional bird observations of feeding adults and fledglings during summer site visits were also recorded and listed under Appendix 3 as observations outside the breeding season. Herpetofaunal Surveys were conducted throughout the Study Lands but were focused within suitable habitat areas; Wetland environment, within and around old fence lines, hedgerows, rock piles, ephemeral ponds and permanent ponds. a) Amphibian-Frog Calling Survey works followed Ontario Marsh Monitoring protocol with three evening survey dates sites in Full data records have been provided under Appendix 3. b) Amphibian-Salamander and Frog breeding activity with active searches for egg masses was undertaken throughout the Study Lands from April through to late June c) Reptiles- Turtle activity was monitored within suitable on-site habitat for any potential egg laying activity during the spring season and basking adults during the summer season. d) Reptiles-Snake activity was actively searched for during the spring hibernation emergence period and summer gestation period within suitable habitat areas. Mammal sightings or observations of habitat use (tracks, scat) were recorded during all other flora and fauna investigation work during site visits in Specific searches plus random coverage across the Study Lands focused on rock piles, mature forests, wetlands, fence lines, Hedgerows, downed woody debris, game trails and habitat/vegetation transition zones. 5

7 2.3 Field Survey Dates and Focus of Works Table No. 1: Field Survey Dates Date April 29, 2014 April 29, 2014 May 5, 2014 May 27, 2014 June 2, 2014 June 16, 2014 June 16, 2014 June 25, 2014 July 2, 2014 July 18, 2014 August 11, 2014 Search Time & Effort 1300 to 1500 For 2.0 hrs 2030 to 2130 For 1.0 hrs 1300 to 1500 For 2.0 hrs 2130 to 2230 For 1.0 hrs 0600 to 0730 For 1.5 hrs 0630 to person crew For 4.0 hrs 1300 to person crew For 5.0 hrs 2230 to 2330 For 1.0 hrs 0630 to 0700 For 0.5 hrs 0800 to 0930 For 1.5 hrs 0730 to person crew For 3.0 hrs Starting Weather Conditions Air Temp. = 11 C Wind Speed = km/hr Cloud Cover = 80%, Precipitation = 0 Air Temp. = 9 C Wind Speed = 0-2 km/hr Cloud Cover=100%, Precipitation = 0 Air Temp. = 12 C Wind Speed = km/hr Cloud Cover = 30%, Precipitation = 0 Air Temp. = 13 C Wind Speed = 3-5 km/hr Cloud Cover = 25%, Precipitation = 0 Air Temp. = 21 C Wind Speed = km/hr Cloud Cover = 50%, Precipitation = 0 Air Temp. = 17 C Wind Speed = 6-11 km/hr Cloud Cover = 30%, Precipitation = 0 Air Temp. = 21 C Wind Speed = 6-11 km/hr Cloud Cover = 20%, Precipitation = 0 Air Temp. = 17 C Wind Speed = 0 km/hr Cloud Cover = 50%, Precipitation = 0 Air Temp. = 14 C Wind Speed = km/hr Cloud Cover = 35%, Precipitation = 0 Air Temp. = 19 C Wind Speed = 6-11 km/hr Cloud Cover = 20%, Precipitation = 0 Air Temp. = 17 C Wind Speed = 3-5 km/hr Cloud Cover = 85%, Precipitation = 0 Survey Focus Reptile hibernation emergence, Stick Nests, Hydrology, Amphibian breeding activity-egg mass searches First Frog/Toad calling survey, Dusk activity for Birds Reptile hibernation emergence, Hydrology, Amphibian egg mass search Second Frog/Toad calling survey, Evening Owl playback calls First breeding Bird survey, General fauna, Amphibian egg mass search, Reptile activity Second breeding Bird survey, Spring Flora and General Fauna Spring Flora and General Fauna, Amphibian egg mass search, Reptile activity Third Frog/Toad calling survey Third breeding Bird surveygrasslands General Fauna, Vegetation communities, Hydrology, Snake gestation Summer Flora, Hydrology, General Fauna, Snake gestation, Vegetation Community delineation Intensive survey works within the field Study Lands covered nine dates between late April to mid-august, with eleven site visits providing 22.5 hours of field inventory work. Amphibian investigations included three evening surveys for frog/toad calling activity plus four daytime surveys for breeding/egg mass activity. Reptile investigations included two surveys during the spring emergence period plus two surveys during the snake gestation summer period. Breeding bird work included three surveys of the grassland habitat and two surveys of the woodland habitat plus evening activity survey for night activity of birds, bats, and taped playback call survey for owls. 6

8 3 Vegetation Community Characterization Vegetation community boundaries within the Site Lands are depicted on Figure No.7. They were mapped and defined in the field based upon the Ecological Land Classification (ELC) for Southern Ontario, First Approximation, with ELC types, ranking and characterization provided in the below table. Additionally for the wetland community No. 7 and 8, boundary delineation within the Study Lands followed the Provincial Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation Standards (see Appendix 7). Table No. 2: Vegetation Communities Types - ELC Codes Comm. No. ELC Code 1 None: AG 2 CUM1-1 3 FOD5-1 4 FOD6-5 5 FOC4-3 6 CUT1-3 7 SWT2-2 8 SWC1-2 9 MAM3-4 Type Description Prov. Rank Active Agricultural Lands Dry-Moist Old Field Meadow Type Dry-Fresh Sugar Maple Forest Fresh-Moist Sugar Maple- Hardwood Deciduous Forest Fresh-Moist White Cedar- Balsam Fir Coniferous Forest Type Chokecherry Cultural Thicket Type Willow Mineral Thicket Swamp Type White Cedar- Conifer Mineral Coniferous Swamp Type Fowl Manna Grass Organic Meadow Marsh Type Cash crop fields, planted in rotational crop of soy beans and corn over the last 5-years Disturbed lands along the crest of a steep gravel ridge, scattered trees and shrubs (<25% area coverage), dominated with graminoids and forbs Mature hardwoods along the crest of the steep gravel ridge, closed canopy with a B.A of 22 sq.m/ha, average main stem for stand is 24cm dbh, dense but patch groundcover. Past tree cutting activity and minor site disturbances Mature hardwoods along the toe and plateau flats of the gravel ridge, closed canopy with a B.A. of 27 sq.m/ha, average main stem for stand is 24cm dbh, dense and uniform groundcover growth. Past tree cutting and minor site disturbances Mature conifers along sloped lands from ridge to wetland environment. Closed canopy stand with little understory growth. Shrub coverage estimated at 60% with a few scattered trees, along sloped lands from the gravel ridge to the wetland environment. Evidence of past disturbances. Dominated by tall shrubs with a few scattered trees, seasonally flooded, no visible open water channels but a series of scattered shallow pools. Dominated with mature White Cedar with scattered hardwoods and other conifers, high groundwater table, patchy groundcover. Dominated with graminoids throughout the riparian marsh, scattered beaver dams and areas of cattle access from easterly farm pasture land. NA S5 S5 S5 S5 S5 S5 S5 S5 7

9 Level 1: Significant Feature Analysis The following seven Natural Heritage Features as defined by the Provincial Policy Statement 2.1, have been researched on available reports, data banks, maps etc. currently available through Municipal, Provincial and Federal agencies for this Study Area. 4 Habitat of Endangered and Threatened Species A literature search for historic records of significant flora and fauna species was undertaken for the surrounding landscape extending 1 km from the Study Lands utilizing the Species At Risk in Ontario (SARO) listings maintained by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR); and the national lists maintained by Environment Canada (i.e. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC)). As input to this work a review was undertaken of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) web site, see Appendix 1. The 2014 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) states: Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in habitat of endangered species and threatened species, except in accordance with provincial and federal requirements. The historical data record search as provided in Appendix 1, identified one documented Endangered species: Redside Dace within the 1km search coverage area. In further review of this record, the occurrence is within a separate tributary to the main Saugeen River, as shown on Appendix 5, with this tributary being 800m northeast of the Licence Lands. The unnamed water course situated 60m east of the Licence Boundary at its closest point, is not documented to support Redside Dace, with no identifiable suitable habitat observed from Southgate Sideroad 22 (stream course through the marsh/wetland environment is slow flowing with extensive muck bottom and several beaver dams). With no surface water linkage between the Licence Lands and any watercourse feature, pit extraction constrained to above water table and the identified Redside Dace population being >120m from the Licence Lands, no negative impacts are anticipated from this extraction operation to Redside Dace habitat. Thus it has been concluded that no further review relating to Redside Dace is warranted. Through the 2014 Study Lands flora and fauna survey works, the species listing provided under Appendix 3 has confirmed active nesting for Barn Swallows within the farm properties existing barn situated 85m west of the southwest Licence Boundary corner. Barn Swallows are currently listed as a Threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Thus with a confirmed Endangered species within the Study Lands, further impact assessment is required and provided under the Level 2 reporting section 13. 8

10 5 Fish Habitat A review of Ontario Base Map features (Figure No. 4), planning maps (Figure 5B) and air photo imagery shows a permanent stream course running parallel but beyond the Licence Boundaries eastern perimeter. This watercourse feature has been documented to support fish and fish habitat, as defined under the Federal Fisheries Act. Roadside observations in 2014 by AWS at the Southgate Sideroad 22 crossing (southeast of the Licence Boundary) confirmed the presence of Cyprinidae (Minnow family) within this watercourse. No surface water features within the Study Lands support fish or fish habitat, as confirmed through survey works throughout the 2014 site visits. The 2014 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) Natural Heritage states: Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in fish habitat except in accordance with provincial and federal requirements. With no Fish Habitat within the Licence Lands, this ARA application is in compliance with the PPS The PPS Natural Heritage states: Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on adjacent lands to the natural heritage features and areas identified in policies 2.1.4, 2.1.5, and unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on their ecological functions. With Fish Habitat confirmed within the ARA Adjacent Lands, further impact assessment review is required and provided under the Level 2 reporting section Significant Valleylands Grey County or its associated Conservation Authorities have not identified potential Significant Valleylands within the Official Plan mapping to-date (policy ); as such this technical report has reviewed recommended Provincial criteria as listed in the 2010 Natural Heritage Reference Manual section 8.0, for determining said designations. Figure No. 3 provides a broader landscape air photo review of the study area and Appendix 4 provides topographical features including elevation contour lines of the broader study area. In review of these maps, they reflect no significant terrain changes, steep slopes, recessed watercourse features typically associated with 'valleylands' within 1km to the Study Lands. The Main Saugeen river, situated 1.5km north of the Licence Boundary has sufficient separation distance that its 'valleyland' which could be deemed significant, does not extend to the Southgate Pit Site. Through this review, it can be concluded that this potential designation would not occur within the Site Lands. 9

11 The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) (c) states: Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in significant valleylands in Ecoregions 6 E and 7E, unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions. The subject Study Lands occur within the Provincial Ecoregion of 6E, thus this policy is applicable. The Provincial Natural Heritage Policy for the adjacent lands to Significant Valleylands states: Development and Site Alteration shall not be permitted on adjacent lands to the natural heritage features and areas identified in policies 2.1.4, and unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on their ecological functions. With no Significant Valleyland designation occurring within the Licence Lands or the ARA 120m Adjacent Lands, this proposed pit is in compliance with the PPS section (c) and 2.1.8, and general policy (1) of the Grey County Official Plan. Therefore, it can be concluded no further impact assessment review is deemed required in relation to this natural heritage feature. 7 Significant Wetlands A review of Provincial features has been provided under Figure No. 4, sourced from the MNRF web site, December This mapping shows that no designated significant wetland feature occurs within the Site Lands. Additionally, the County of Grey Official Plan mapping Land Use designations are provided under Figure number 5A, which demonstrates that no Provincially Significant Wetlands occurs within the Site Lands. The 2014 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) (a and b) states: Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in significant wetlands in Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E and significant coastal wetlands. The Licence Lands occur within the Provincial Ecoregion of 6E, as such this policy is applicable. The PPS Natural Heritage for adjacent lands (120m) states: Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on adjacent lands to the natural heritage features and areas identified in policies 2.1.4, 2.1.5, and unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on their ecological functions. Similar policy wording and development constraint aspects can be found within the Grey County Official Plan policy for Provincially Significant Wetlands. 10

12 With no evaluated Provincially Significant Wetlands identified within the Site Lands, this application is in compliance with the PPS section (a and b) and 2.1.8, and Grey County Official Plan policy The Grey County Official Plan mapping for 'Constraints' provided under Figure No. 5 B in this vicinity, has 'other identified wetlands' mapped. This wetland feature is unevaluated partially situated within the ARA Adjacent Lands but not within the Licence Lands. Preliminary site investigations however confirmed that wetlands do occur within the Site Lands, described as vegetation community No. 7, 8 and 9 within section 4 Table 2 and mapping delineation on Figure No. 7. The Grey County Official Plan under Natural Function states: No development or site alterations are permitted within other identified wetlands, shown on Appendix B, unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on their ecological functions. With field confirmation that no wetland environment occurs within the Licence Lands, this ARA application is in compliance with the County OP policy Given that the identified wetland feature within the Site Lands is unevaluated, further review and impact assessment through Level 2 works are deemed required and provided under reporting section 17, to demonstrate compliance with the ARA policy Significant Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) A review of Provincial features has been provided under Figure No. 4, sourced from the MNRF web site, December This mapping shows that no ANSI designations within the Site Lands. Additionally, the County of Grey Official Plan mapping for Constraints, provided under Figure number 5B, demonstrates that no ANSI designations occurs within the Site Lands. The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) (e) states: Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in significant areas of natural and scientific interest unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions. The PPS Natural Heritage for adjacent lands (120m) states: Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on adjacent lands to the natural heritage features and areas identified in policies 2.1.4, 2.1.5, and unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on their ecological functions. 11

13 The Grey County Official Plan policy states: No development or site alteration may occur within Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest or their adjacent lands unless it has been demonstrated through an Environmental Impact Study that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions. The adjacent lands are defined in section 6.19 of this Plan. With confirmed no ANSI designation occurring within the Site Lands, it can be concluded that no negative impacts on ANSI features or functions would occur and this ARA application is in compliance with the PPS (e), and the County OP Therefore, it has been demonstrated that no further investigation or impact assessment is warranted for this feature. 9 Significant Wildlife Habitat 9.1 Background Literature Review Currently no mapping has been undertaken within Grey County (policy 2.8.1) to identify Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) due to its complexity and sub-component aspects requiring on-site survey works. Some historical Provincial MNR inventory and wildlife assessment works within Grey County have been sourced to aid in determination of confirmed SWH. Additionally NETR field inventory works carried out over the Study Lands will augment this historical data to aid in the determination of significance for each wildlife habitat sub-component. A literature review was undertaken for historical MNR records of significant flora and fauna data (see Appendix 1) for the Study Lands and the1km surrounding landscape. This background data identified a fauna species of the dragonfly family of Provincial conservation concern, which is included for review under section Site Investigations The Province of Ontario is currently implementing a Draft 2012 "Significant Wildlife Habitat Eco-regional Criteria Schedules", posted on the Environmental Registry in March 2012, as a supplement document to the SWHTG (2000). This draft document provides a listing of candidate significant wildlife habitat and criteria or threshold levels for the confirmation of SWH within the four principal Ecoregions of central and southern Ontario. The Site Lands are within ecoregion 6E-5, following is a review of the Provincial Ecoregion 6E Criterion Schedule for confirmation of SWH, to current provincial standards for the Study Lands. Field investigations for all flora and fauna inventory works utilized within the SWH analysis followed accepted provincial protocols and methodologies. 12

14 9.3 Seasonal Concentration Areas of Animals A summary review of the Table 1.1 Criterion is provided below: Waterfowl stopover and staging (Terrestrial) o No criteria waterfowl species were recorded in o ELC criteria codes: CUM1 and CUT1 are present but there is no evidence of annual spring flooding, steep ridge terrain, no suitable habitat identified. o No confirmed SWH. Waterfowl Stopover and staging (Aquatic) o No criteria waterfowl species were recorded in o ELC criteria code: MAM3 is present but no waterfowl 'staging' was observed within this community during the April and May 2014 site visits. o With no stopover or staging functions observed or historically documented within the criteria ELC communities, it can be concluded that the Site Lands do not support or meet SWH criteria. o No SWH confirmed. Shorebird Migratory Stopover o No criteria shorebird species were recorded in o ELC criteria code: MAM3 is present but no shorebirds were observed within this community during the April and May 2014 site visits.. o With no criteria species identified, observed stopover or staging functions or historical documentation, it can be concluded that the Site Lands do not support or meet SWH criteria. o No SWH confirmed. Raptor Wintering Area o No criteria raptors were recorded in o ELC criteria codes FOD, FOC, CUT and CUM are present. o Criteria require at least 10 individuals and two listed species to be present during the winter season and used regularly (3 in 5 years). o No historical documentation of the Site Lands for significant Raptor wintering activity. Though no site visit was undertaken during the winter period, Figure No. 3 shows that this 'habitat type' is in great abundance within the surrounding 1km (and beyond, throughout the entire Township), with no negative impacts from site development anticipated. o Anticipated no SWH within the Site Lands. o No SWH confirmed. Bat Hibernacula o No bat species were recorded in o No ELC criteria codes are present. o No candidate or confirmed SWH. Bat Maternity Colonies o No bat species were recorded in o ELC criteria code: FOD is present but no confirmed colony activity or use. 13

15 o Vegetation community No. 3 and 4 had very few large diameter (>25cm dbh) wildlife trees (past and on-going tree cutting), with no snags observed. No 'older' forest cover identified, both stands were mid-maturity in age due to active tree cutting on site. o No confirmed SWH. Bat Migratory Stopover Area o No historical documentation or recorded activity in o No confirmed SWH. Turtle Wintering Areas o No criteria species were recorded in o ELC criteria codes: SW and MA are present beyond the Licence Boundary. o No criteria species identified or threshold limit (5 or more) numbers not met, no identifiable habitat within the Licenced Lands, candidate habitat of Vegetation community No. 9 is >30m from the Licence Lands with no anticipated negative impacts. o No confirmed SWH. Reptile Hibernaculum o One criteria snake species: Eastern Gartersnake was recorded on the June 16/14 site investigation, no observations of hibernaculum functions were noted during the emergence period of late April-early May. o ELC criteria code: FOD is present. o Threshold criteria levels or active habitat use were not met. o No confirmed SWH. Colonially-Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat: Bank and Cliff o No criteria species were recorded in o ELC criteria codes: CUM1 and CUT1 are present however, no suitable nesting habitat was observed. o No confirmed SWH. Colonially-Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat: Tree/Shrub o No criteria species were recorded in o No ELC criteria codes are present. o No confirmed SWH. Colonially-Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat: Ground o No criteria species were recorded in o ELC criteria codes: CUM and CUM are present but no suitable nesting habitat identified. o No SWH confirmed. Migratory Butterfly Stopover Areas o No criteria species were recorded in o ELC criteria field codes: CUM, CUT, FOD and FOC are present however, the Site Lands are not located within the criteria location of 5km from Lake Ontario. o No confirmed SWH. 14

16 Landbird Migratory Stopover Areas o Several migratory songbird species are present within the Study Lands. o ELC criteria codes: FOD, FOC and SWC are present however, the Site Lands are not located within the criteria location of 5km from Lake Ontario o No confirmed SWH. Deer Yarding Areas o MNRF to determine this habitat, Midhurst District has identified and mapped wintering deer yards within Grey County, with no designated habitat identified within the Site Lands. o No Confirmed SWH. Deer Winter Congregation Areas o Criteria species: White-tailed Deer is present. o ELC criteria forested codes: FOD, FOC and SWC are present. o Within Grey County, deer are typically constrained by snow depths thus 'yarding habitat used', congregation areas are typically associated with Carolina habitat regions, as such not a SWH function in Grey County. o No Confirmed SWH. 9.4 Rare Vegetation Communities A summary review of the Table Criterion is provided below: Cliffs and Talus Slopes o No ELC criteria code types identified within the Site Lands. o No confirmed SWH. Sand Barren o No ELC criteria code types identified within the Site Lands. o No confirmed SWH. Alvar o No ELC criteria code types identified within the Site Lands. o No confirmed SWH. Old Growth Forest o ELC criteria codes: FOD and FOC are present however, Provincial Habitat description of Old Growth forest community is not present within the Study Lands. o No confirmed SWH. Savannah o No ELC criteria code types identified within the Site Lands. o No confirmed SWH. Tallgrass Prairie o No ELC criteria code types identified within the Site Lands. o No confirmed SWH. 15

17 Other Rare Vegetation Communities o No ELC criteria code types identified within the Site Lands. o No confirmed SWH. 9.5 Specialized Habitat for Wildlife A summary review of the Table Criterion is provided below: Waterfowl Nesting Area o No criteria species were recorded in o ELC criteria code: MAM3 is present but not adjacent to provincially significant wetland (criteria aspect). o Criteria thresholds for species, aggregate numbers, habitat location, not met. o No confirmed SWH. Bald Eagle and Osprey Nesting, Foraging and Perching Habitat o No criteria species were recorded in o ELC criteria codes FOD, FOC and SWC are present and adjacent to riparian areas. o Criteria thresholds of one or more active Osprey or Bald Eagle nests in an area not met. o No confirmed SWH. Woodland Raptor Nesting Habitat o No criteria species were recorded in o ELC criteria codes: FOD, FOC, SWC and FOC are present. o No active nest or historical (remnant) nests were observed within the Study Lands during the 2014 site investigations. o Criteria threshold for active nest not met. and no forest interior habitat identifiable within the Site Lands. o No confirmed SWH. Turtle Nesting Areas o No criteria species were recorded in o ELC criteria code: MAM3 is present but >30m beyond the Licence Lands and Study Lands, with no negative impacts anticipated. o Criteria thresholds and suitable habitat are not met. o No confirmed SWH. Seeps and Springs o Criteria species: Wild Turkey, Ruffed Grouse, Red-backed Salamander and White-tailed Deer were recorded in o Groundwater upwelling features were not identified within the Study Lands. o Criteria threshold for presence and numbers for seeps/springs not met. o No confirmed SWH 16

18 Amphibian Breeding Habitat (Woodland) o Criteria species: Gray Treefrog and Wood Frog were recorded in o ELC criteria codes: FOD, FOC and SWC are present with breeding pools observed and a wetland feature within 120m to woodland environment. o Breeding activity recorded (Appendix 3) demonstrates that monitoring site A3 being in a woodland feature, met threshold levels for woodland amphibian species and breeding population numbers for significance determination. o Confirmed SWH Amphibian Breeding Habitat (Wetlands) o Criteria species: Gray Treefrog, Northern Leopard and American Toad were recorded in o ELC community criteria codes: SW and MA are present. o Breeding activity recorded (Appendix 3) demonstrates that monitoring sites A1 and A2 met threshold levels for criteria species and breeding numbers. o Confirmed SWH 9.6 Habitat for Species of Conservation Concern (Not including Endangered or Threatened Species) A summary review of the Table 1.3 Criterion is provided below: Marsh Breeding Bird Habitat o No criteria bird species were recorded in o ELC criteria codes: MAM3 is present but beyond the Study Lands (other private lands) and 35m from the Licence Boundary with no negative impacts anticipated. o Criteria species or numbers not met. o No confirmed SWH. Woodland Area-Sensitive Bird Breeding Habitat o No criteria species were recorded in o ELC criteria codes: FOM, FOD, FOC, SWM and SWD are present within the Study Lands, no Forest Interior Habitat is present within the Study Lands (Licence Lands). o Criteria for SWH requires 3 or more nesting pairs of listed criteria species. o Criteria numbers for breeding pairs or forest interior habitat no met. o No confirmed SWH. Open Country Bird Breeding Habitat o No criteria bird species were recorded in o ELC criteria code CUM1 is present but less than the criteria threshold level of >30ha size needed. o Criteria species, numbers or habitat size no met. o No confirmed SWH. Shrub/Early Successional Bird Breeding Habitat o No criteria species were recorded in o ELC criteria code : CUT1 is present. o Criteria numbers for 'indicator species' or 'common species' not met. o No confirmed SWH. 17

19 Terrestrial Crayfish o No criteria species or evidence of, were observed in o ELC criteria code: MAM3 is present but 35m beyond the Study Lands (other private lands) with no anticipated negative impacts. o Criteria threshold for burrows and species not met. o No confirmed SWH. Special Concern and Rare Wildlife Species o No Provincially rare flora species with an S1-S3 ranking or SC status were recorded during the 2014 site investigations within the Study Lands. o One Provincial 'Special Concern' species: Eastern Wood-Pewee (Note: species was included under ESA in July 2014) was recorded in o Historical data (see Appendix 1) of the surrounding landscape identified: Clamptipped Emerald. This species was not recorded during the 2014 site investigations within the Study Lands. An internet literature review of suitable habitat was undertaken and provided below for this dragonfly family member: Small, shallow seepage forest streams Open areas including hayfields, crop lands Forest openings and roads Suitable habitat for this species is identifiable within the Site Lands and abundant within the surrounding 1km landscape, but no confirmed habitat use within the Study Lands. o Confirmed SWH for Eastern Wood-Pewee. 9.7 Animal Movement Corridors A summary review of the Table Criterion is provided below: Amphibian Movement Corridors o Criteria species present: Gray Treefrog and Wood Frog. o Provincial criteria Table states: "Movement corridors must be determined when Amphibian breeding habitat is confirmed as SWH from Table 1.2.2: Amphibian Breeding Habitat-Wetland" o With significant wetland habitat for amphibian breeding habitat confirmed for both woodland and wetland oriented species movement corridor delineation is required. o Confirmed SWH. Deer Movement Corridors o Deer wintering habitat was not confirmed through Table 1.1 analysis, thus no further assessment or delineation for deer movement corridor is required. o No confirmed SWH. 18

20 9.8 Exceptions for Ecoregion 6E A summary review of the Criterion Table is provided below: Mast Producing Areas o Candidate areas are only within for EcoDistrict 6E-14, the Upper Bruce Peninsula. The subject Site Lands are within EcoDistrict 6E-5. o No confirmed SWH Sharp-tailed Grouse o Candidate areas are only within for EcoDistrict 6E-17, Manitoulin Island. The subject Site Lands are within EcoDistrict 6E-5. o No confirmed SWH In summary for section 9: Significant Wildlife Habitat analysis, it has been confirmed that the following sub-components of wildlife habitat occur within the Site Lands with potential negative impacts from unconstrained site development: Specialized Habitat: o Amphibian Breeding Habitat for both Woodland and Wetlands. Confirmed significant breeding habitat at monitoring point count sites A1, A2 and A3. Habitat of Conservation Concern: o Provincially Rare bird species, Eastern Wood-Pewee (pending ESA species). Confirmed adult birds calling within vegetation community No. 4, monitoring point count No. B8 and probable nesting activity. Amphibian Movement Corridor: o Within the Licence Lands of vegetation community No. 4. The Natural Heritage Provincial Policy (d) regarding Significant Wildlife habitat states: Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in significant wildlife habitat unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions. Natural Heritage Provincial Policy regarding the adjacent lands (120m) for significant wildlife habitat states: Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on adjacent lands to the natural heritage features and areas identified in policies 2.1.4, and unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on their ecological functions. 19

21 The Grey County Official Plan policy in part states:...development and site alteration shall not be permitted within valleylands, wildlife habitat, and their adjacent lands (50m), unless it has been demonstrated through an acceptable Environmental Impact Study is completed in accordance with Section (4) of this Plan that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions. Through this analysis, it has been demonstrated that components of Significant Wildlife Habitat does occur within the Licence lands and the 120m ARA Adjacent Lands, as such, further impact assessment regarding Significant Wildlife Habitat is required and provided within the Level 2 section 15 reporting. 10 Significant Woodlands The Grey County Official Plan- Constraints schedule provided on Figure No. 5B for the Site Lands, demonstrates that much of the Site woodlands (including all of the Licence lands woodlands) are designated Significant through the County Official Plan process. The Natural Heritage 2014 PPS section (b) states: Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in significant woodlands in Ecoregions 6E and 7E unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions. With Significant Woodland confirmed both within the Licence Lands and the ARA Adjacent Lands confirmed, further review for this aggregate application is required under the PPS, provided under Level 2 reporting section 16. The Grey County Official Plan policy states: No development or site alteration may occur within Significant Woodlands or their adjacent lands (50m), unless it has been demonstrated through an Environmental Impact Study, as per Section of this Plan, that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions. With Significant Woodlands confirmed within the Licence Lands and ARA Adjacent Lands, further impact assessment review for this feature and associated woodland ecological functions is required under the County Official Plan, which is provided under Level 2 reporting section16. 20

22 11 Level I Summary Through the Level I analysis of the Provincial Natural Heritage features assessed, the following have been identified or confirmed to occur at some level of importance (e.g. local, provincial) either within the Licence Lands or the 120m ARA Adjacent Lands or both. Threatened Species: Barn Swallow o Confirmed nesting and foraging activity within the Site Lands. Fish Habitat o Confirmed within the stream course along the eastern perimeter of the Site Lands. Significant Wildlife Habitat o Confirmed for Specialized Wildlife Habitat - Amphibian Breeding within the Site Lands. o Confirmed Habitat for Species of Conservation Concern- Eastern Wood-Pewee within the Site Lands. o Confirmed Amphibian Movement Corridor within the Site Lands. Significant Woodland o Confirmed within the Site Lands. In addition, ' unevaluated other wetlands ' have been confirmed within 120m to the Licence Lands of County concern. The aforementioned features identified within the Level 1 analysis are assessed in greater detail within the Level 2 impact assessment reporting. 21

23 Level 2: Impact Assessment 12 Site Description 12.1 Terrain The 'Southgate Pit' has a licence area of 10.1 ha, with extraction focused along a prominent gravel ridge feature within the northeast corner of Lot 15. The Study Lands range from gently sloped woodlands, undulating agricultural fields to steep sloped-lands with a prominent steeply sloped topographic ridge, as evident within the ARA Site Plan-Existing Features. Elevation across the Licence Lands ranges from a high of 487.1mASL along the ridge crest to 475.2m ASL at the woodland pond, with elevation changes of 11.9m over the Licence Lands. Soil characteristics and terrain features on-site promote a high surface percolation rate over the entire upland portions of the Study Lands, with minimal run-off events other than during snow melt periods or heavy precipitation events. This prominent ridge feature is generally oriented in a northwest-southeast axis, creating a physical transition zone for seasonal surface waters flows in both a westerly and easterly direction and has contributed to the establishment of small catchment basins within terrain depression areas. The Site Plans completed by William Bradshaw, P. Eng. provide a more detailed overview of topographic contours and elevations for natural features for the Site Lands Hydrology The Site Lands are situated within the upper western portion of a small sub-watershed area of an unnamed feeder creek which flows northward to the Upper Main Saugeen River. The main Saugeen River is situated approximately 1.2km north of the Site Lands, with the unnamed feeder creek being 60m at its closest point, to the southeast perimeter of the Licence Boundary. Within the Licence Lands, there are no stream course features which flow permanently or seasonal from the Licence Lands off-site. Within the northeast corner area of the Licence Lands is a small isolated (no outflow) dug pond, situated within the closed canopy woodland of vegetation community No. 4 located at Point Count No. A3 (see Appendix 3 map). This pond occurs along the toe of the ridges east face and has been excavated for agricultural use in the past, with a maximum water depth estimated at 1.5m. Evidence within the immediate surroundings shows that this pond was historically a seasonally flooded terrain depression area, with intermittent seasonal input waters (shown on Figure No. 8) from the field/ridge plateau area immediately to the south. This seasonal input surface water was only identifiable in April, then dry throughout the remaining study period, indicating that this permanent pond feature is also supported through shallow groundwater input. Based on the ARA Site Plan elevation mapping, this pond feature occurs at an elevation of and is the lowest recorded elevation point within the Licence Lands. Beyond the Licence boundary, there is a small wetland/depression situated within the subject properties northwest corner, located at Point Count A4 (see Appendix 3 map). This wet environment in total (on Lot 15 and northward off property) is only 0.03ha in size, below the 22

24 threshold size limit level for wetland delineation and having no significant functions or community type attributed to it. As such, for mapping purposes it was incorporated into the overall woodland vegetation community No. 4 in this area. This wet area had shallow (<10cm depth) surface water retention until early June, then was dry throughout most of the late spring and summer season, with no evidence of outflow and only seasonal sheet flow surface water input from the agricultural field. Additionally, this wet area was dominated by Yellow Iris (see site photo's), a non-native flora species. Beyond the Licence Boundary eastern perimeter, an unevaluated wetland feature has been identified, comprised of vegetation community numbers 7, 8 and Hydrogeology Through detailed investigations within the Study Lands and through air photo interpretation, no groundwater discharge features were identified within the Study Lands or within the Site Lands. The Southgate Pit for this ARA category is to have extraction remaining 1.5m above the water table. For Natural environment concern, the unevaluated wetland feature is at an elevation of 475.7m and the pond-swh feature at point count 'A3', is at 475.2m elevation, both elevations based on the Bradshaw- Site Plan topographic mapping. In review of the groundwater investigation report by GSS Engineering, it has delineated the water table within the Licence Lands and has recommended extraction to remain 1.5m above the estimated high groundwater elevation. For test bore TH1, which is in close proximity to the southeast wetland area, the GSS report suggests this area could be extracted to a depth of m, that would create an extraction depth at least 0.47m above the wetland feature in this area. Similarly test bore TH2, which is in close proximity to the northeast wetland area, the GSS report suggests this area could be extracted to a depth of m, that would create an extraction depth at least 1.05m above the wetland feature in this area. Based on the GSS Engineering groundwater flow pattern Figure and the Site Plan contour mapping, the seasonal high groundwater table should be around 475.7m which is higher in elevation than the pond, thus supporting the AWS observation that this pond feature is in contact with the seasonal high groundwater table. Based on the GSS report the maximum extraction depth in this immediate area would be to 477.2m or 2m above the pond surface elevation. All of the above reviewed extraction depths in relation to three key surface water areas which are dependent upon groundwater input, shall retain the pit floor higher in elevation grade than the surrounding/receiving sensitive natural environment features, with no negative water quantity impairment impacts anticipated. 23

25 13 Habitat for Endangered Species: Barn Swallow 13.1 Characterization The provincially threatened 'Barn Swallow' has been confirmed to be nesting within the agricultural barn situated 85m west of the Licence Boundary southwest corner. A small colony estimated at 4-5 adults were observed to be entering and exiting this barn structure throughout the breeding season, and actively foraging in the surrounding open agricultural fields and the riparian marsh environment further to the east. On the July 18 site visit, 3 fledgling Barn Swallows were observed roosting on the barn structure, confirming successful nesting in 2014 within this barn Impact assessment The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry has defined habitat for Barn Swallows through categorization of three distinct zones and distances for each, under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (see Appendix 6). Category 1 habitat is defined as: the actual nest(s) and has the lowest level of tolerance to site alteration. For this 'Site', category 1 habitat is considered to be the barn structure in its entirety. Category 2 habitat is defined as: the area within 5m to the nest and has a moderate tolerance to alteration. For this 'Site', category 2 habitat is considered the barn structure in its entirety as the exact location of nesting within the barn itself is unknown. Category 3 habitat is defined as: the area between 5m and 200m of the nest and has a high tolerance to alteration. For this 'Site', category 3 habitat is considered to the lands extending 200m beyond the Barn which supports the Category 1 and 2 habitat. All of the above habitat types have been delineated within Appendix 6- ESA Map. Category 1 and 2 habitat associated with the Barn structure is beyond the Licence Boundary, thus no development or site alterations to the nesting habitat shall occur from the pit operations. A portion of the Category 3 habitat lands have been proposed for aggregate extraction as shown on Appendix 6 habitat mapping. These lands have also been delineated as 'Extraction Constraint Zone' shown on Figure No. 9 and Figure No. 10. The aggregate extraction process is a temporary land use site alteration and not a long term negative impact to the forage activity, as rehabilitation is back to agricultural land use. As identified under ESA, Barn Swallow exhibit a high tolerance to site alterations for category 3 habitat. To minimize the short-term site alteration effects to forage habitat for barn swallows, the extraction area within the delineated Category 3 habitat/constraint Zone lands shall be phased so that no more than 50% of the agricultural field is removed at any one time (excluding any haul road or berm requirement). Prior to site alteration impacts on the remaining Category 3 habitat lands, the previous site altered lands shall be rehabilitated and put back into agricultural use or grassland habitat, suitable for Barn Swallow forage habitat type. 24

26 The above mitigative measure design for Category 3 habitat addresses temporary forage area impacts on these delineated lands, pit rehabilitation will not see these category 3 habitat lands 'destroyed' in the long term, a key ESA requirement permitting 'word' and land use alteration aspect that would then requires an ESA permit, which is anticipated not to be the case for this ARA application. With the Extraction Constrain Zone and mitigative measure for forage habitat implemented it is anticipated that this ARA applications would be in compliance with ESA. With such compliance to ESA, it can be concluded this ARA application has demonstrated compliance with the Endangered Species Act, 2007, the PPS and the Grey County Official Plan.. The Ont. Regulation 242/08 under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 can be found at the below web site, with section 23.5 specific to Barn Swallow exemption requirements: 14 Fish Habitat 14.1 Characterization The Owen Sound MNRF Fisheries Management Plan has categorized this tributary as a cold water thermal regime system supporting a cool water fisheries with resident Brook Trout. Given this stream course was off property (other private lands), observations were only made from the Southgate Sideroad 22 crossing. At this crossing location, several Cyprinidae family members were observed throughout the 2014 site investigations. Observed stream water levels were fairly consistent and cool during the summer season. Beaver dams could be observed further downstream, with most of the watercourse riparian habitat in meadow marsh. The ARA Site Plan has most of this water course at an elevation of 475.7, with the channel bottom estimated to be at Impact assessment At its closest point, the Southgate Pit Licence Boundary is situated 60m from this water course top-of-bank and 35m from the riparian floodplain of vegetation community No. 9. Within the wetland vegetation community numbers 7 and 8, no fish or fish habitat was identifiable. The Provincial 2010 Natural Heritage Reference Manual (NHRM) for Fish Habitat, Table 11-3 in part states: Recommended minimum natural vegetated cover adjacent to Fish Habitat for coolwater stream is 30m or 20m where it is demonstrated as satisfying policy

27 The Grey County Official Plan policy states: No development shall be permitted within 30 metres of the banks of a stream, river, lake, or Georgian Bay. With the Licence Boundary 65m from this water course, and no direct surface water linkage, this ARA application is in compliance with the provincial recommendation, PPS and the Grey County Official Plan policy Additionally, with the pit extraction constrained to 'above water table' no groundwater flow pattern alterations or quantity/quality impacts would be anticipated. Furthermore, with the riparian floodplain still >30m from the Licence Boundary, no surface water quality impairment to the watercourse is anticipated from this ARA application. Thus no specific mitigative measures are deemed required for this ARA Site Plans, in relation to Fisheries Habitat, as this ARA application has demonstrated compliance with the Federal Fisheries Act, the PPS and PPS and the Grey County Official Plan. 15 Significant Wildlife Habitat 15.1 Amphibian Breeding Habitat Through the analysis of section 9.6, amphibian breeding activity exceeding minimum provincial threshold criteria, thus confirming 'significance determination' for select and overlapping areas of woodland and wetland habitat. For the upland-woodland environment of vegetation community No. 4, two Anuran point counts 'A3 and A4' were established adjacent to surface water areas identified on the April 29 site visit, for preliminary investigations. Point count 'A3' located at the dug pond feature and being under closed canopy forest cover, was confirmed to support significant amphibian breeding, with adult numbers exceeding threshold criteria levels for significance. Additionally several frog egg masses were observed throughout May and June, with large numbers of juvenile frogs (>50) observed on the August 11/14 site visit at this location. This dug pond-swh is within the Licence Lands and delineated on Figure No. 8. Point Count 'A4', also within vegetation community No. 4 but at the 'edge' of the woodland tree line, had very little amphibian breeding activity, with surface waters present for only 3-4 weeks in the spring of This wet area is outside the Licence Lands thus will not be directly impacted from the proposed pit. Through the 2014 Anuran calling survey, activity levels were well below the required threshold level for significance determination, additionally several site visits searched for egg masses and for salamanders, with no observations of either at or adjacent to this wet area. This specific wet area had little functional amphibian breeding activity identified, thus it was concluded not to be 'significant' for SWH-Amphibian breeding. Vegetation community No 7 and 8 were 'wetland' environments adjacent to the Licence eastern boundary. The site investigation on April 29/14 identified two candidate amphibian breeding pools/habitat areas, both partially surrounded by seasonally flooded wetland shrubs and treed swamps. As such, Anuran calling survey point counts 'A1 and A2' were established at each site, 26

28 to monitor calling activity and habitat use. Through the Anuran calling survey, both count point data records exceeded the provincial minimum threshold level, thus meeting significance determination at 'A1 and A2'. Additionally, numerous frog egg masses and juvenile frogs were observed at both locations Impact assessment The wetland environment and SWH in the area of point count 'A1' is along the east toe of the noted steep gravel ridge, additionally the crest of this steep ridge is typically 15m from the wetland and tree line edge in this specific area. Site alterations west of the ridge crest would have no anticipated negative impacts, as these westerly facing sloped open lands are currently disturbed, providing no seasonal surface water input and no identifiable ecological functions to the wetland environment. An enhanced vegetated Buffer Zone width of 15m along this section of the Licence Boundary will maintain the current key terrain conditions and adjacent land ecological functions. Therefore, this recommended buffer zone width is deemed sufficient to maintain no negative impact to the identified features and ecological functions specific to the SWH and its supporting wetland and forest cover within this specific general area. The wetland environment and SWH in the area of point count 'A2' is at an elevation of 475.8m with the westerly immediately adjacent lands being a flat agricultural field within the Licence Lands. A portion of the field along the wetland - tree line area, periodically and seasonally experiences surface water flooding from the wetland environment. This seasonal field flooding occurrence was observed on the April 29, 2014 site visit and has also been identified - delineated as 'Hazard Land' on Figure No. 5A and 'Environmental Protection' land on Figure No. 6, within the Licence Lands. As such, a Buffer Zone width of 30m along this northeast Licence Boundary is recommended to maintain no negative impact on the identified sensitive features and adjacent land ecological functions. This Buffer Zone width maintains the extraction lands beyond the 477m elevation contour line (based on the Bradshaw Site Plan topographic mapping) or seasonal flooding limit, with a gentle vegetated sloped landscape towards the wetland feature. The pond/wet feature in the area of point count 'A3' is at an elevation of 475.2m. Input waters to this feature are a combination of surface and groundwater. Surface water input contribution is through direct precipitation and seasonal surface water run-off from the immediate/surrounding sloped terrain. The noted steep gravel ridge which runs along the west perimeter of this pond had several small rills along it's east facing slope, with shallow rills directing seasonal run-off to the pond area. Additionally, a 15-20m long channel south of this pond has been created along the toe of the ridge feature capturing seasonal surrounding surface water run-off for this short section and directing these surface waters to the pond feature (see Figure No. 8, intermittent surface water flow). This pond feature was observed to support permanent surface waters to a depth of 1m and cool thermal surface water conditions during the summer months, it is anticipated the historical excavation of this pond made contact with the high groundwater table. As such, it is anticipated this pond feature also has seasonal shallow groundwater input as a source contributor. The pit excavation aspects in relation to this pond-swh feature were briefly reviewed in section With this pond/wet feature identified as SWH supporting critical life cycle amphibian breeding to the surrounding woodland feature, a minimum buffer zone width of 15m along its west, southern and east perimeter (north perimeter buffer zone width is addressed under sections and section ) is recommended to maintain its overhead tree canopy cover, nutrient input and corridor connection. 27

29 Within the northern portion of the Licence Lands, the undulating terrain and noted steep ridge feature that bisects this area, has established three key catchment basins. These catchment basins provide contributing surface water flow patterns which aids in supporting the sensitive habitat for the identified significant ecological functions for wildlife habitat, woodlands and wetland environments. Figure No. 10 delineates the three key catchment basins within the Licence lands northern portion. To maintain the seasonal surface water input to the noted environmental areas, the Site Plan- Rehabilitation Design shall show the final pit floor gently sloped in the identified directions (Figure No. 10) for surface water input, to maintain a similar water balance to existing conditions. With the mitigative buffer zones, extraction depth and surface water constraint zones established on the Pit Site Plans, it can be concluded this ARA application has demonstrated compliance with the PPS (d) and PPS and the Grey County Official Plan, for this SWH subcomponent Species of Conservation Concern: Eastern Wood-Pewee Breeding bird survey point count locations have been provided on Appendix 3 mapping, with point count number 'B8' having a single occurrence of Eastern Wood-Pewee heard calling on both the June 2 and June 16, 2014 survey dates. Eastern Wood-Pewee are have a provincial status of 'Special Concern' and were included under the Endangered Species Act in June 27,2014. However, with the 'SC' status under ESA, the MNRF web site states: Special Concern species do not receive species or habitat protection unlike species having a Threatened or Endangered status. Portions of both vegetation community No. 3 and No.4 provide suitable habitat for this species, with the generalized preferred habitat delineated on Figure No. 8 for the Site Lands Impact assessment As demonstrated by this habitat delineation, the bulk of the Eastern Wood-Pewee preferred habitat is outside the Licence Boundary. With the mitigative Buffer Zone strip along the north Licence Boundary from 'other' features and ecological functions (see sections 15.1 and 15.3) capturing portions of vegetation community No. 3 and No. 4, this represents <2% of this delineated preferred habitat being impacted by pit site alterations, an extent considered to be negligible for cumulative impact assessment to the overall breeding population and habitat for this bird species. Thus, with the noted mitigative buffer zone established on the Pit Site Plans, it can be concluded this ARA application has demonstrated compliance with the PPS (d) and PPS and the Grey County Official Plan, for this SWH sub-component. Additionally, with no negative impact to the breeding population and with remedial tree planting within some buffer zone lands for the Southgate Pit, no 'ecological function impacts' for the overriding Significant Woodland feature is predicted. 28

30 15.3 Amphibian Movement Corridors Portions of the woodlands and wetland environments have been identified to support significant amphibian breeding habitat within the Site Lands. As such, movement corridor functions for amphibians within the Licence Lands should not be negatively impacted from the Pit operational design to maintain compliance with the PPS and County Official Plan policies relating to Significant Wildlife Habitat, or ecological functions for Significant Woodlands or Unevaluated Wetlands. Little scientific technical information regarding amphibian movement corridors for minimum widths is available. A review of published Ontario literature noted that wildlife corridors ranging from 15m to 250m have been proven effective, dependent upon the sites physical characteristics, length of movement corridor and focus of select species. The Ministry of Natural Resources Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide states for the evaluation of animal movement corridors: Intuition and/or professional judgment, is often required to evaluate animal movement corridors because knowledge about their actual effectiveness and use by wildlife is limited. Also, animal movements may occur quickly, often under certain weather conditions, or at night. The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan Technical Paper Series recommends wildlife movement corridors ranging from 15m to 240m, with the latter width for large mammals or ESA species. The most recent OMNR-Draft Significant Wildlife Habitat Ecoregion 6E states : Animal movement corridors function at different scales often related to the size and home range of the animal. For Example, short, narrow areas of natural habitat may function as a corridor between amphibian breeding areas and their summer range. Dense closed canopy White Cedar forest cover within dry upland is not a preferred habitat area, either for movement corridor functions or summer range habitat for most amphibian species. Dense Mixed or Hardwood forests with closed canopy cover are preferred avenues for amphibian movement activity, given the usual abundance of forest floor ground cover, woody debris, shade cover and typically higher soil moisture regimes. Based on the site conditions and locations of summer range habitat to breeding habitat outside of the wetland environment, the anticipated movement corridor habitat has been delineated on Figure No. 8. This corridor links the noted 'pond/wet' breeding area within vegetation community No. 4 (area at point count A3) to the easterly wetland feature and the northwesterly wet area (vegetation community No. 4 adjacent to the northwest licence corner) and forested land off-site further to the west Impact assessment Through the impact assessment of section , a 15m buffer zone has been recommended around the perimeter of the identified amphibian breeding habitat of the pond/wet area at point count 'A3'. Currently the Licenced Matheson Pit, located immediately north of the subject 29

31 Southgate Pit, has a 15m vegetated buffer strip along its south Licence Boundary, see Appendix 9 for the Matheson Site Plans. To maintain no negative impacts to the corridor habitat and its ecological functions, it is recommended that a vegetated and natural Buffer Zone width of 50m along this joint property line be maintained from site alterations or development. This buffer zone width is sufficient to maintain the corridor habitat and ecological functions by maintaining a significant portion of the mature on-site Hardwood forest cover linkage to the forested lands west of the subject property and to the easterly wetland and riparian habitat feature. With the Matheson Pit retaining 15m of undisturbed lands along its south perimeter, a 35m Buffer Zone width will be required along the Southgate Licence Boundary perimeter. This 35m buffer zone will capture the amphibian breeding habitat at point count 'A3' and is also of sufficient width to maintain wildlife movement for all species and prevent fragmentation of the Significant Woodland feature. Thus with the mitigative buffer zone established on the Pit Site Plan for amphibian movement, it can be concluded this ARA application has demonstrated compliance with the PPS (d) and PPS and the Grey County Official Plan , for this SWH sub-component. In summary for SWH, potential negative impacts from the pit operations have been mitigated through avoidance or buffer zone establishment and extraction constraints, to all identified significant features and associated ecological functions. 16 Significant Woodlands 16.1 Vegetation Community Characterization The County of Grey Official Plan Constraints mapping for the Site Lands has been provide on Figure 5B which delineates the Significant Woodlands in this area. Vegetation community mapping for the Site Lands has been delineated on Figure No. 7, with corresponding Ecological Land Classification type, coding provided on Table No. 2 with observed dominant characteristics for each vegetation community. Through the Level 1 review, vegetation community numbers 3, 4 and 8 reflect the field confirmed woodland edge and Significant Woodland (SW) feature. Though the County Official Plan-SW mapping, extends into the NETR vegetation community No. 2, field investigation noted this area did not meet provincial or County criteria for said designation. The few trees within vegetation community No. 2 were scattered, patchy and immature early successional species. No tree patches within this community had a canopy cover >60%, a criteria factor for 'woodland' environment, but varied from open 20% tree canopy cover, to semi-open or 40% tree canopy cover. This criteria aspect was used to delineate the vegetation community boundary lines as shown on Figure No. 7. Thus, through this on-site survey, the scattered trees within the delineated vegetation community No. 2, are not considered to be part of the Significant Woodland feature. 30

32 16.2 Flora Diversity and Quality Assessment Appendix 2, provides a listing of all the vascular plants (excluding the cash crop plants) recorded within the Study Lands. The following provides more detail regarding the floristic surveys completed and the vascular plant diversity observed. Within the Licence Lands, the Significant Woodland feature is represented by vegetation community No. 3 and No. 4. Vegetation community No. 8, also part of the Significant Woodland is beyond the Licence Lands but still within the ARA 120m adjacent lands. A detailed review of the two woodland communities within the Licence Lands listed under Appendix 2- Section 1 for vascular plant species recorded, significance and tolerance to site alterations analysis is provided below. Within the Study Lands vegetation community No. 3 and No. 4, 69 vascular plants were recorded, of which 55 were native species and 14 were introduced or non-native species. This represent a non-native species composition (weediness value) of 20%. Within Southern Ontario, the average weediness value ranges between 20 to 30%, as noted by M. Oldham of OMNR Natural Heritage Information Center. For the two hardwood upland stands, the weediness composition is within the average range, demonstrating a consistent plant diversity and botanical composition for Southern Ontario. The Floristic Quality Assessment 'coefficient of conservatism' scoring ranks for all native vascular plant species are based on a plants degree of fidelity to a range of synecological parameters. An analysis of the provincial floristic quality scoring for these 55 native species is provided in Table 3 below. Table No. 3: Native Flora Coefficient of Conservatism Breakdown - Veg. Comm. No. 3 and 4 Ranking Provincial Description Numbers and % Composition 0 to 3 Plants found in a wide variety of plant communities including disturbed sites 13 or 24% 4 to 6 Plants typically associated with a specific plant community, but tolerate moderate disturbances 38 or 69% 7 to 8 Plants associated with a plant community in an advanced successional stage that has undergone 4 or 7% minor disturbance 9 to 10 Those plants with high degrees of fidelity to a narrow range of synecological parameters 0 or 0 % No flora species of conservation concern were identified within vegetation community No. 3 or No. 4. Vegetation community No. 2 is not part of the Significant Woodland feature but represents the adjacent lands to SW within the Licence Lands. For vegetation community No. 2, 63 vascular plants were recorded, of which 33were native species and 30 were introduced or non-native species. This represent a non-native species composition (weediness value) of 48%. Within Southern Ontario, the average weediness value ranges between 20 to 30%, as noted by M. Oldham of OMNR Natural Heritage Information Center. For this upland open community, the 31

33 weediness composition is well above the provincial average range, demonstrating a community highly disturbed in botanical composition. The Floristic Quality Assessment 'coefficient of conservatism' scoring ranks for all native vascular plant species are based on a plants degree of fidelity to a range of synecological parameters. An analysis of the provincial floristic quality scoring for these 33 native species is provided in Table 4 below. Table No. 4: Native Flora Coefficient of Conservatism Breakdown - Vegetation Comm. No. 2 Ranking Provincial Description Numbers and % Composition 0 to 3 Plants found in a wide variety of plant communities including disturbed sites 18 or 55% 4 to 6 Plants typically associated with a specific plant community, but tolerate moderate disturbances 14 or 42% 7 to 8 Plants associated with a plant community in an advanced successional stage that has undergone 1 or 3% minor disturbance 9 to 10 Those plants with high degrees of fidelity to a narrow range of synecological parameters 0 or 0 % One flora species of local conservation concern was identified within vegetation community No.2. Vegetation community No. 8 is part of the Significant Woodland feature beyond the Licence Boundary but within the 120m ARA adjacent lands. Vegetation community No. 7 is also beyond the Licence Boundary but is not part of the Significant Woodland feature, however this community was combined with vegetation community No. 8 for flora listing given similar habitat type for impact assessment purposes. For vegetation community No. 7 and No. 8, 105 vascular plants were recorded, of which 101were native species and 4 were introduced or non-native species. This represent a non-native species composition (weediness value) of 4%. Within Southern Ontario, the average weediness value ranges between 20 to 30%, as noted by M. Oldham of OMNR Natural Heritage Information Center. For this forested wetland community, the weediness composition is well below the provincial average range, demonstrating a community in very stable botanical composition. The Floristic Quality Assessment 'coefficient of conservatism' scoring ranks for all native vascular plant species are based on a plants degree of fidelity to a range of synecological parameters. An analysis of the provincial floristic quality scoring for these 101 native species is provided in Table 5 below. 32

34 Table No. 5: Native Flora Coefficient of Conservatism Breakdown - Vegetation Community No. 7 and No. 8 Ranking Provincial Description Numbers and % Composition 0 to 3 Plants found in a wide variety of plant communities including disturbed sites 33 or 33% 4 to 6 Plants typically associated with a specific plant community, but tolerate moderate disturbances 55 or 54% 7 to 8 Plants associated with a plant community in an advanced successional stage that has undergone 12 or 12% minor disturbance 9 to 10 Those plants with high degrees of fidelity to a narrow range of synecological parameters 1 or 1 % No flora species of conservation concern were identified within vegetation community No.7 or No. 8. Vegetation community No. 5 and No. 6 do not represent Significant Woodland and both are beyond the Licence Boundary. Though vegetation community No. 5 is forested, it has a separation distance >20m from the Significant Woodland vegetation community No. 8, thus in accordance to the County Official Plan criteria, vegetation community No. 5 was not included within the Significant Woodland designation. However, for impact assessment purposes, both vegetation community No. 5 and No. 6, were included in the flora inventory works. Appendix 2- Sections 4 and 5 did not identify any flora species of conservation concern within vegetation community No.5 or No Impact Assessment Within the Licence Boundary, vegetation community No. 3 and No. 4, being part of the Significant Woodland feature, have also been confirmed to support Significant Wildlife Habitat features and overlapping woodland ecological functions. Through the impact assessment section and , a minimum 35m wide buffer zone has been recommended along the north Licence boundary extending through vegetation community No. 3 and No. 4, with this buffer zone expanding another 15m around the identified pond/wet area of the identified significant amphibian breeding area (pond/wet area) within vegetation community No. 4. The buffer zone lands within vegetation community No. 3 and No. 4 will see 0.8ha of non-disturbed hardwood forest maintained, with the proposed extraction area impacting upon 1.0ha of removed forest cover from vegetation community No. 3 and No. 4. Through the florist quality assessment review of Table No. 3, 93% of the native flora within this hardwood forest can tolerate site disturbances and are typically found throughout similar habitat types. With the identified ecological functions of this woodland maintained, the removal of 1.0ha of significant woodland forest cover is the only identified measurable impact incurred from the Southgate Pit proposal. To off-set this minor 'forest cover loss' within the Licence Lands, remedial tree planting has been proposed within non-treed areas of the Southgate Pit Natural Environment Buffer Zone lands and small portion of the adjacent field environment abutting the northwest licence corner. 33

35 These remedial tree planting lands are delineated on Figure No. 9, representing 1.5ha of tree planting area. This remedial tree planting is greater than the lost tree cover area and is strategically located to augment the wildlife corridor function and buffer key amphibian breeding habitat areas within the wetland environment. Thus, an overall net gain has been achieved in both significant woodland area size and woodland ecological functions within the Site Lands. Through the implementation of the buffer zones and remedial tree planting, it can be concluded that this ARA application is in compliance with the 2014 PPS (b) and and the Grey County Official Plan Unevaluated Wetlands 17.1 Characterization Vegetation community No. 7, No. 8 and No. 9 represent the wetland feature within the Site Lands, with all three vegetation communities beyond the Licence Boundary. As such, no direct impacts to the identified wetland features shall occur from this ARA application. All of the noted wetland vegetation communities are 'unevaluated' to provincial wetland evaluation standards. As such, and in keeping with ARA standards, this NETR has taken a precautionary approach for impact assessment purposes and has assumed this wetland feature is a 'candidate' provincially significant wetland, while currently designated as 'other identified wetlands' within the County Official Plan (see Figure 5B). Provided it can be demonstrated that no negative impacts shall occur to the wetland feature or its identified supporting ecological functions of the adjacent lands which occur within the Licence Lands, then this approach is consistent with the ARA standards, with no full wetland evaluation required. If direct impacts to unevaluated wetlands having loss of wetland area (drain, filling etc.) or impacts to wetland functions were proposed or identified, then a wetland evaluation to provincial standards could be required to demonstrate compliance with the PPS. All of the aforementioned wetland vegetation communities have been classified and characterized under the ELC system, see report section 4, with field wetland boundary mapping for each of these wetland vegetation communities following provincial wetland evaluation delineation methodology (see Appendix 7). Ground water functions, flow patterns and water table elevations shall not be altered or impacted from this ARA application category, with all extraction maintained 1.5m above the estimated seasonal high groundwater table. For portions of vegetation community No. 1 and No. 2, situated within the Licence Lands have seen significant site alterations and disturbances over time, through land clearing, cash cropping, drainage, and excavation of aggregate for farm use. The primary identifiable ecological function of these adjacent lands to the wetland feature is seasonal surface water quantity input and nutrient loading. Through the establishment of Buffer Zones and Extraction-Rehabilitation Constraint Zones which shall maintain the seasonal surface water input and with remedial tree planting for enhanced vegetation buffer zone lands, no measurable negative impacts from site development within these adjacent lands to the wetland feature are anticipated. 34

36 For vegetation community No. 2, No. 3 and No. 4 situated within the Licence Boundary, site development has been proposed within portions of each stand given the significant aggregate deposit volume and quality of the material within the ridge-esker feature. Two ecological functions provided from these adjacent lands within the Licence Boundary are: Site specific seasonal surface water contribution and linkage corridor function for amphibian movement to breeding areas Impact Assessment Seasonal surface water input from the Licence Lands provides key water quantity to three identified 'sensitive' features, located both within and adjacent to the Licence Boundary. As previously discussed under section , the northern portion of the Licence Lands with its undulating terrain and noted steep ridge esker like feature, has established three key catchment basins. Figure No. 10 delineates the three key catchment basins within the Licence lands northern portion. The catchment basin labeled 'B' contributes seasonal surface water to this wetland environment and its associated significant wildlife habitat. To maintain this seasonal surface water input to the noted environmental areas, the Site Plan- Rehabilitation Design shall show the final pit floor gently sloped in the identified directions as shown on Figure No. 10, thus no significant alterations from a 'water balance' review shall occur to the identified wetland environment. Also previously discussed under section , the steep ridge-esker like feature also bisects the southeast portion of the Licence Lands. Through the SWH impact assessment review of section , a 15m Buffer Zone width has been recommended along this portion of the Licence Lands. This buffer zone width captures almost all of the easterly sloped ridge lands, were the seasonal surface water run-off provides a minor 'input' source to the receiving and adjacent wetland feature. The minor land base specific to this area along the ridge outside of the buffer zone, is anticipated to have negligible change or impacts on the overall water balance for water input to this wetland. Therefore, with buffer zone establishment and pit rehabilitation for contouring/sloping, it is anticipated that no significant water balance changes to either surface water or groundwater input to the wetland environment are predicted. Through the impact assessment of wildlife movement corridors, a buffer zone width of 35m has been recommended (see section ) along the entire length of the northern Licence Boundary. This woodland corridor linkage has an overall minimum width of 50m, 35m on Southgate Pit + 15m on Matheson Pit, but at several locations this corridor expands to be >85m in width. With this buffer zone mitigative measure in place, the wildlife movement corridor being an adjacent lands ecological function to the wetland feature, shall be maintained with no anticipated negative impact to this ecological function. Through this impact assessment review it has been demonstrated that with the buffer zone establishment and constraint aspects on the Pit Operations and Rehabilitation design, no negative impacts to this unevaluated wetland feature is anticipated or to is identified adjacent lands ecological functions. Therefore it has been concluded, this ARA application would be in compliance with the ARA standards, 2014 PPS section and the County of Grey Official Plan policy and

37 18 NETR Mitigation The following mitigation measure shall be represented on the Site Plans to address the identified potential negative environmental impacts from the proposed aggregate extraction operation. These measures are recommended to maintain the ecological functioning role and natural heritage features that have been identified within the Site Lands and are in keeping with Provincial and Municipal policies and guidelines The Licence site alteration lands shall maintain a minimum setback distance of 35m from the north Licence Boundary, as depicted on the NETR Figure No. 9 and No The Licence site alteration lands shall maintain a minimum setback distance of 30m from the northeastern portion of the Licence Boundary, as depicted on the NETR Figure No. 9 and No The Licence site alteration lands shall maintain a minimum setback distance of 15m from the remainder of the eastern Licence Boundary, as depicted on the NETR Figure No. 9 and No The Licence site alteration lands shall maintain a minimum setback distance of 15m from the pond/wet feature identified for significant amphibian breeding habitat within vegetation community No. 4, as depicted on the NETR Figure No. 9 and No The noted setbacks for points 18.1 to 18.4 are 'Buffer Zones' to identified Natural Environment features or support significant ecological functions of the identified feature. All N.E. Buffer Zones within the Licence Boundary are to be protected from pit site alterations with existing treed sections to remain in a natural condition The Buffer Zone' lands currently not supporting tree cover within vegetation community No. 1 and No. 2 shall be planted with trees following the 'Remedial Tree Planting Plan', as shown on the NETR Figure No. 9. Said remedial tree planting shall be completed prior to any site alterations within 50m to the identified Unevaluated Wetland or Significant Woodland boundaries within the Site Lands For the Licence site alteration lands, the 'ESA Constraint Zone' as delineated on the NETR Figure No. 10 depicts the Barn Swallow Category 3 Habitat, the following site alteration constraint note applies and shall be shown on the Site Plan(s): i. The site alteration lands within the delineated 'ESA Constraint Zone' lands, shall be phased so that no more than 50% of the agricultural field is removed at any one time (excluding the internal haul road and berm footprint if required). Prior to site alterations commencing on the remaining 'ESA Constraint Zone' lands, the previous site altered lands shall be rehabilitated and put back into agricultural use or grassland habitat, similar to the existing land use and suitable Barn Swallow forage habitat type. ii. Consultation with MNRF shall be completed prior to any site alterations within this 'ESA Constraint Zone' lands, confirming any ESA permitting requirements or approval if needed. 36

38 18.8 For the Licence site alteration lands, three key catchment basin areas have been depicted within the NETR Figure No. 10. Pit rehabilitation shall demonstrate that the pit floor is gently sloped in the depicted orientation, to maintain seasonal surface water input functions For the Licence site alteration lands, prior to any site alterations within 50m to the identified colony of the Locally rare Frostweed Aster (Aster pilosus) colony, said colony shall be transplanted to suitable habitat of non-treed cover within the Buffer Zone lands, as depicted on the NETR Figure No. 9. Transplanting shall be undertaken by qualified and experienced personnel, following best management practices and ideally undertaken during the late spring or early summer season. 19 Remedial Tree Planting Plan The following tree planting targets and monitoring are applicable to those lands identified as Remedial Tree Planting Areas depicted on the NETR Figure No. 9 and as noted under mitigation measures. o The Provincial standards for tree planting vary between 2000 deciduous trees/ha to 2300 conifers/ha. Site remedial tree planting measures are focused on a 'mixed' regeneration forest at this site with a recommended target composition of around 65% conifer + 35% deciduous or a planting ratio of : 2 conifers to 1 deciduous. o Remedial tree planting areas cover 1.5ha, thus requiring 3300 tree seedlings for full coverage tree planting, equating to: 2200 native Conifer seedling numbers in total being an approximate equal mix of: Eastern White Cedar (Thuja occidentalis), White Spruce (Picea glauca) and White Pine (Pinus strobus). Conifer seedlings to have a minimum height ranging from 20cm to 30cm at time of planting native Deciduous early successional seedling numbers in total being an approximate equal mix of : White Birch (Betula papyrifera), Aspen - Largetooth or Trembling (Populus grandidentata or tremuloides) and Sugar Maple (Acer saccarum). Deciduous seedlings to have a minimum height ranging from 30cm to 45cm at time of planting. Tree planting density to have an average spacing at 2.5m between rows and 2.0m between trees within each row. Thus within a 15m wide Buffer Zone, this equates to 2 tree planting rows with 2.5m between each row, tree planting row width of 2.0m and 2.5 between the Licence Boundary/Existing Tree Line and 6.0m setback from the inside tree row to the pit site alteration lands. o One year post tree planting, a site inspection shall be completed by a qualified person for three consecutive years between June 15 to September 15, with reporting to the MNRF by that monitoring year calendars end. Said monitoring shall include but not limited to: 37

39 Assessment of planted tree stock, with a threshold target level of no more than 15% mortality rate in any given year, or 20% cumulative mortality rate over the 3-year monitoring period. Action plan submission in that reporting year if deemed necessary for replacement tree planting, if planted tree mortality rate exceeds threshold levels. 20 Conclusions This Natural Environment report in conjunction with the Hydrogeological Investigation report (GSS Engineering) have examined, in detail, the potential for negative effects on natural features and functions both within the Site Lands to some degree, aspects within the broader surrounding landscape. Through avoidance of sensitive features, mitigation measures of Buffer Zones, Operational Constraints and Remedial Tree Planting, no significant negative impacts are predicted to occur on the identified natural heritage features or identified ecological functions provided, within the Site Lands. All comments contained within this report pertain to available literature, reports, documents and existing site conditions for this study area. The NETR maps contained within this report should not be considered a legal survey but are adequate for this planning and ARA application review process and are based on detailed site elevation surveying data and mapping by William Bradshaw, P. Eng., as per the Southgate Pit Site Plans. Respectfully Submitted John Morton Owner, Aquatic and Wildlife Services 38

40 21 References A checklist of Vascular Plants (Local Status) for Bruce and Grey Counties Ontario, 1997 & 2000 Partnership publication between MNR, OSFN and SFN Aggregate Resources of Ontario (1997). Provincial Standards, version 1.0. Queens Printer for Ontario. Bradshaw, William, 2014 Southgate Pit Site Plans Dobbyn, Jon (1994). Atlas of the Mammals of Ontario. Federation of Ontario Naturalists. Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network (March 2001). Anuran Species Richness and Calling Phenology. Environment Canada, Federal Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), 2014, GSS Engineering Consultant Ltd. October 2014, Hydrogeologic Investigation Southgate Gravel Pit Grey County Official Plan and Web Site Mapping Lee, H.T., W.D. Bakawsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig and S. McMurray (1998). Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: First Approximation and its Application. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, South Central Science Section, Science Development and Transfer Branch. SCSS Field Guide FG-02. Oldham, M.J., W.D. Bakowsky and D.A. Sutherland, (1995). Floristic Quality Assessment for Southern Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Information Centre Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources: Natural Heritage Reference Manual for the Provincial Policy Statement (2010) Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources: Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide, Fish and Wildlife Branch (October 2000).. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Midhurst District-Owen Sound Area Office: Wetland Mapping, Fisheries Management Plan and Fish-Wildlife mapping for the former Proton Twp. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (2003) Old Growth Forest Definitions for Ontario Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources: Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC), 2014 Provincial Status of Plants, Wildlife and Vegetation Communities database OMNR, Peterborough. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 2014 Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO) Township of Southgate Zoning Designations, web site mapping 39

41 22 Figures Mapping Note For Clarification: For Detailed Licensed Boundary Mapping, See The Engineering Operational Plan, All Below Figures Are A Very Close Approximation For The Proposed Licensed Boundary But Given Various Mapping Scales, Figures May Not Match The Licensed Boundary Entirety To The Operational Plan. Figure No. 1. Site Location Figure No. 2...Licence Boundary and Field Study Lands: April 2010 Air Photo Figure No Surrounding Landscape and 'Site Lands' : April 2010 Air Photo Figure No. 4...Provincial Natural Heritage Features- MNRF web site Figure No. 5A...Grey County Official Plan- Land Use Designations Figure No. 5B...Grey County Official Plan- Constraints Figure No. 5C... Grey County Official Plan-Aggregate Resources Figure No. 6...Township Zoning Designations Figure No. 7.. Vegetation Community Mapping: April 2010 Air Photo Figure No Natural Heritage Significant Features: April 2010 Air Photo Figure No. 9.. Buffer Zones, Extraction Constraint Zone, Remedial Tree Planting Areas Figure No Buffer Zones and Pit Rehabilitation Constraint Areas 40

42 Figure No. 1: Site Location Source map: Provincial web site mapping with Ontario Base Map features

43 Figure No. 2: Licence and Study Lands Base Map source: Grey County web site with Leaf-off April 2010 Air Photo Imagery

44 Figure No. 3: Surrounding Landscape Base Map source: Grey County web site with Leaf-off April 2010 Air Photo Imagery Licence Boundary and 120m ARA Adjacent Review Lands = Site Lands

45 Legend Ministry of Natural Resources MNR Make-a-Map: Selected Natural Heritage Figure No. 4: Provincial Feature Review Notes: Southgate Pit- Lot 15 Proton Kilometers Scale: 1 : 48,238 This map should not be relied on as a precise indicator of routes or locations, nor as a guide to navigation. The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) shall not be liable in any way for the use of, or reliance upon, this map or any information on this map. Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2013 Imagery Copyright Notices: DRAPE Aéro-Photo (1961) Inc., GTA 2005 / SWOOP 2006 / Simcoe-Muskoka-Dufferin FirstBase Solutions, 2005 / 2006 / 2008 Copyright for Ontario Parcel data is held by Queen s Printer for Ontario and its licensors [2013] and may not be reproduced without permission. THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY.

46 Legend Notes Parcels Future Secondary Plan Area Land Use Classification Primary Settlement Area Secondary Settlement Area Tertiary Settlement Area Agricultural Escarpment Recreation Area Hazard Lands Inland Lakes & Shoreline Niagara Escarpment Plan Area Rural Space Extensive Commercial Space Extensive Industrial Special Agriculture Wetlands Recreation Resort Area Figure No. 5A: County Official Plan -Land Use Designations WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere County of Grey Kilometers This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. Printed: December 9, 2014 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION Southgate Pit

47 Legend Notes Parcels Streams ANSI Earth Life Science Earth Science Life Science Other Identified Wetlands Lakes Significant Woodlands Figure No. 5B: County Official Plan - Constraints WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere County of Grey Kilometers This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. Printed: December 9, 2014 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION Southgate Pit

48 Legend Notes Parcels Mineral Resource Extraction Aggregate Resource Area Figure No. 5C: County Official Plan - Aggregates WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere County of Grey Kilometers This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. Printed: December 9, 2014 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION Southgate Pit

49 Legend Notes Parcels Zoning - Southgate A1 Agricultural A2 Restricted Agricultural C1 Local Commercial C2 General Commercial C3 Highway Commercial C4 Rural Commercial C5 Recreational Commercial C6 Campground Commercial C7 Space Extensive Commercial CF Community Facility CPR Canadian Pacific Railway D Deferred Development EP Environmental Protection M1 General Industrial M2 Rural Industrial M3 Space Extensive Industrial M4 Extractive Industrial MH Mobile Home Park OS Open Space PU Public Utility R1 Residential Type 1 R2 Residential Type 2 R3 Residential Type 3 R4 Residential Type 4 R5 Residential Type 5 R6 Residential Type 6 W Wetland Protection Figure No. 6: Township of Southgate Zoning WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere County of Grey Kilometers This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. Printed: December 9, 2014 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION Southgate Pit

50 Figure No. 7: Vegetation Communities Base Map source: Grey County web site with Leaf-off April 2010 Air Photo Imagery

51 Base Map Source: Grey County web site with Leaf-off April 2010 Air Photo Imagery Figure No. 8: Natural Environment Significant Features Southgate Pitt: NETR December 2014 Part Lot 15, Concession 5, Geographic Township of Proton

52 Base Map Source: Grey County web site with Leaf-off April 2010 Air Photo Imagery Figure No. 9: Natural Environment Buffer Zones, ESA Constraint Zone and Remedial Tree Planting Areas Southgate Pitt: NETR December 2014 Part Lot 15, Concession 5, Geographic Township of Proton

53 Base Map Source: Bradshaw Site Plan and GSS Engineering High Groundwater Contours Note: Map Not Too Scale Figure No. 10: Buffer Zones and Pit Rehabilitation Constraint Areas Southgate Pitt: NETR December 2014 Part Lot 15, Concession 5, Geographic Township of Proton

54 APPENDIX 1 MNR: Natural Heritage Information Centre data search for Significant Flora and Fauna historical records extending 1km from the Study Lands 41

55 Legend Ministry of Natural Resources MNR Make-a-Map: Selected Natural Heritage Historical Records Search Coverage Area Extending 1km from Licence Notes: Southgate Pit- Lot 15 Proton Kilometers Scale: 1 : 36,112 This map should not be relied on as a precise indicator of routes or locations, nor as a guide to navigation. The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) shall not be liable in any way for the use of, or reliance upon, this map or any information on this map. Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2013 Imagery Copyright Notices: DRAPE Aéro-Photo (1961) Inc., GTA 2005 / SWOOP 2006 / Simcoe-Muskoka-Dufferin FirstBase Solutions, 2005 / 2006 / 2008 Copyright for Ontario Parcel data is held by Queen s Printer for Ontario and its licensors [2013] and may not be reproduced without permission. THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY.

56 Southgate Pit - Proton Township: OMNRF Historical Records search for Significant Flora and Fauna Search results (December 2014) from the overlapping 1km square UTM grids and Adjacent Lands extending 1 km from the Southgate Pit Licence boundary identified two significant flora species: Redside Dace (Clinostomus elongatus) o Provincial Ranking = S2, Provincial Status = Endangered o Last recorded in 1951 Clamp-tipped Emerald (Somatochlora elongatus) o Provincial Ranking = S2S3, Provincial Status = Rare o Last recorded (Unknown)

57 APPENDIX 2 Flora Inventory Listing: Ranking, Status & Floristic Quality Assessment Scoring 42

58 1) Vegetation Community No. 3 and No. 4: Significant Woodlands (includes the pondand wet feature at point count 'A3 and A'4) No species of Conservation concern identified Southgate Pit : Flora Inventory Listing With Rankings, Status and Southern Ontario Floristic Quality Assessment Values Part Lots 22 and 23, Concession 5, Geographic Township of Sullivan Latin Name Common Name Native or Introduced N Rank S Rank National Status Provincial Status Local Status FQA CC FQA CW Acer saccharum Sugar Maple N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 4 3 Actaea pachypoda Doll's Eyes N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 6 5 Actaea rubra Baneberry N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 5 5 Amelancher laevis Smooth Serviceberry N N4N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 5 5 Arctium minus Burdock I N? SE Exotic Exotic Exotic 0 5 Arisaema triphyllum Jack-in-the-pulpit N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 5-2 Asarum canadense Wild Ginger N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 6 5 Athyrium filix-femina Lady Fern N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 4 0 Betula alleghaniensis Yellow Birch N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 6 0 Carex arctata Drooping Wood Sedge N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 5 5 Carex gracillima Graceful Sedge N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 4 3 Carex intumescens Bladder Sedge N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 6-4 Carex pedunculata Long-stalked Sedge N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 5 5 Carex plantaginea Plantain-leaved Sedge N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 7 5 Carex rosea Stellate Sedge N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 5 5 Carpinus caroliniana Blue Beech N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 6 0 Caulophyllum thalictroides Blue Cohosh N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 6 5 Circaea lutetiana Enchanter's Nightshade N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 3 3 Cirsium arvense Canada Thistle I N? SE Exotic Exotic Exotic 0 3 Cirsium vulgare Bull Thistle I N? SE Exotic Exotic Exotic 0 4 Clematis virginiana Virgin's Bower N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 3 0 Cornus alternifolia Alternate-leaved Dogwood N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 6 5 Corylus cornuta Beaked Hazel N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 5 5 Dactylis glomerata Orchard Grass I N? SE Exotic Exotic Exotic 0 3 Dirca palustris Leatherwood N N4 S4? NAR NAR Common 7 0 Dryopteris carthusiana Spinulose Woodfern N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 5-2 Page 1 of 10

59 Epipactis helleborine Helleborine I N? SE Exotic Exotic Exotic 0 5 Erythronium americanum Trout Lily N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 5 5 Fragaria virginiana Wild Strawberry N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 2 1 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 3-3 Fraxinus nigra Black Ash N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 7-4 Geranium robertianum Herb Robert I N5 SE NAR Exotic Exotic 0 5 Geum aleppicum Yellow Avens N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 2-1 Geum canadense White Avens N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 3 0 Glyceria striata Fowl Manna Grass N N5 S4S5 NAR NAR Common 3-5 Hydrophyllum virginianum Virginia Waterleaf N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 6-2 Impatiens pallida Pale Touch-me-not N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 7-3 Iris pseudacorus Yellow Iris I N? SE Exotic Exotic Exotic 0-5 Lapsana communis Nipplewort I N? SE Exotic Exotic Exotic 0 5 Maianthemum canadense Mayflower N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 5 0 Maianthemum racemosum Spikenard N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 4 3 Matteuccia struthiopteris Ostrich Fern N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 5-3 Mitchella repens Partridge Berry N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 6 2 Nepeta cataria Catnip I N? SE Exotic Exotic Exotic 0 1 Onoclea sensibilis Sensitive Fern N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 4-3 Oryzopsis asperifolia False Rice Grass N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 6 5 Oxalis stricta Common Yellow Wood Sorrel N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 0 3 Phalaris arundinacea Reed Canary Grass N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 0-4 Picea glauca White Spruce N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 6 3 Poa compressa Canada Bluegrass I N5 SE NAR Exotic Exotic 0 2 Polystichum acrosticoides Christmas Fern N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 5 5 Populus tremuloides Trembling Aspen N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 2 0 Prunella vulgaris Heal-all N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 5 5 Prunus serotina Black Cherry N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 3 3 Rubus alleghaniensis Blackberry N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 2 2 Rubus pubescens Dwarf Raspberry N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 4-4 Rumex obtusifolius Broad-leaved Water Dock I N? SE Exotic Exotic Exotic 0-3 Schizachne purpurascens Purple Melic Grass N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 6 2 Solidago gigantea Late Goldenrod N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 4-3 Sorbus aucuparia European Mountain Ash I N5 SE NAR Exotic Exotic 0 5 Taraxicum officinale Dandelion I N5 SE NAR Exotic Exotic 0 3 Thalictrum pubescens Meadow Rue N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 5-2 Thuja occidentalis White Cedar N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 4-3 Page 2 of 10

60 Tilia americana Basswood N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 4 3 Trillium grandiflorum Large-flowered Trillium N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 5 5 Ulmus americana American Elm N N5? S5 NAR NAR Common 3-2 Valeriana officinalis Garden Valerian I N? SE Exotic Exotic Exotic 0 2 Viola canadensis Canada Violet N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 6 5 Viola conspersa Dog Violet N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 4-2 Viola pubscens Yellow Violet N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 5 4 MEAN 4 1 Total number of Native species 55 Total number of Introduced or Non-Native species ) Vegetation Community No. 2 (includes Fields and fenclines). One species of Local conservation concern found along the ridge. Latin Name Common Name Native or Introduced N Rank S Rank National Status Provincial Status Local Status FQA CC FQA CW Acer saccharum Sugar Maple N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 4 3 Achillea millefolium Yarrow I N5 SE NAR Exotic Exotic 0 3 Arctium minus Burdock I N? SE Exotic Exotic Exotic 0 5 Asclepias syriaca Common Milkweed N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 0 5 Aster lateriflorus var. hirsuticaulis Calico Aster N N5 S4? NAR NAR Common 3-2 Aster pilosus Frostweed Aster N N5 S5 NAR NAR Rare 4 2 Capsella bursa-pastoris Shephard's Purse I N? SE Exotic Exotic Exotic 0 1 Centaurea nigra Black Knapweed I N? SE Exotic Exotic Exotic 0 5 Chrysanthemum leucanthemum Ox-Eye Daisy I N? SE Exotic Exotic Exotic 0 5 Cirsium arvense Canada Thistle I N? SE Exotic Exotic Exotic 0 3 Cirsium vulgare Bull Thistle I N? SE Exotic Exotic Exotic 0 4 Clinopodium vulgare Wild Basil N N? S5 NAR NAR Common 4 5 Cornus alternifolia Alternate-leaved Dogwood N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 6 5 Crataegus monogyna English Hawthorn I N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 0 5 Crataegus submollis Downy Hawthorn N N5 S4S5 NAR NAR Common 4 5 Dactylis glomerata Orchard Grass I N? SE Exotic Exotic Exotic 0 3 Page 3 of 10

61 Danthonia spicata Poverty Grass N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 5 5 Daucus carota Wild Carrot I N? SE Exotic Exotic Exotic 0 5 Echium vulgare Bugloss I N? SE Exotic Exotic Exotic 0 5 Erigeron philadelphicum Philadelphia Fleabane N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 1-3 Erigeron strigosus Rough Fleabane I N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 0 1 Euthamia graminifolia Grass-leaved Goldenrod N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 2-2 Festuca pratensis Meadow Fescue I N5 SE NAR Exotic Exotic 0 4 Fragaria virginiana Wild Strawberry N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 2 1 Geranium robertianum Herb Robert I N5 SE NAR Exotic Exotic 0 5 Geum aleppicum Yellow Avens N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 2-1 Hieracium pilosella Mouse-ear Hawkweed I N? SE Exotic Exotic Exotic 0 5 Hieracium piloselloides Yellow Hawkweed I N? SE Exotic Exotic Exotic 0 5 Hydrophyllum virginianum Virginia Waterleaf N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 0-2 Lotus corniculatus Tick-trefoil I N? SE Exotic Exotic Exotic 0 1 Malva moschata Musk Mallow I N? SE Exotic Exotic Exotic 0 5 Medicago lupulina Black Medick I N? SE Exotic Exotic Exotic 0 1 Medicago officinalis Alfalfa I N? SE Exotic Exotic Exotic 0 5 Oenothera biennis Evening Primrose N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 0 3 Oxalis stricta Common Yellow Wood Sorrel N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 0 3 Phleum pratense Timothy I N? SE Exotic Exotic Exotic 0 3 Picea glauca White Spruce N N5 SE NAR NAR Common 6 3 Plantago lanceolatus English Plantain I N? SE Exotic Exotic Exotic 0 0 Populus balsamifera Balsam Poplar N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 4-3 Populus tremuloides Trembling Aspen I N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 2 0 Potentilla recta Sulphur Cinquefoil I N? SE Exotic Exotic Exotic 0 5 Prunus serotina Black Cherry N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 3 3 Prunus virginiana Choke Cherry I N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 2 1 Pyrus malus Pear I N5 SE NAR Exotic Exotic 0 5 Rhamnus cathartica Common Buckthorn I N? SE Exotic Exotic Exotic 0 3 Rubus occidentalis Black Raspberry N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 2 5 Silene vulgaris Bladder Campion I N? SE Exotic Exotic Exotic 0 5 Sisyrinchium montanum Common Blue-eyed Grass N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 4-1 Solidago altissima Tall Goldenrod N N? S4? NAR NAR Common 1 3 Solidago canadensis Canada Goldenrod N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 1 3 Solidago nemoralis Grey-stemmed Goldenrod N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 2 5 Sporobolus neglectus Overlooked Dropseed Grass N N5 S4 NAR NAR Common 1 5 Taraxicum officinale Dandelion I N5 SE NAR Exotic Exotic 0 3 Page 4 of 10

62 Thuja occidentalis White Cedar N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 4-3 Tilia americana Basswood I N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 4 3 Trifolium pratense Red Clover I N? SE NAR NAR Common 0 2 Ulmus americana American Elm N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 3-2 Verbascum thapsis Mullein I N? SE NAR NAR Common 0 5 Viburnum cassinoides Wild Raisin N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 7-3 Viburnum lentago Nannyberry N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 4-1 Viburnum trilobum High-bush Cranberry I N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 5-3 Vicia cracca Cow Vetch I N? SE Exotic Exotic Exotic 0 5 Viola canadensis Canada Violet N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 6 5 MEAN 2 3 Total number of Native species 33 Total number of Introduced or Non-Native species ) Vegetation community No. 7 and No. 8: wetland environment No species of Conservation concern identified Latin Name Common Name Native or Introduced N Rank S Rank National Status Provincial Status Local Status FQA CC FQA CW Abies balsamea Balsam Fir N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 5-3 Acer rubrum Red Maple N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 4 0 Acer saccharum Sugar Maple N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 4 3 Acer spicata Mountain Maple N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 6 3 Agrimonia gyrosepala Agrimony N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 2 2 Anemone canadensis Canada Anemone N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 3-3 Aquilegia canadensis Columbine N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 5 1 Aralia nudicaulis Sarsaparilla N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 4 3 Asclepias incarnatum Swamp Milkweed N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 6-5 Asclepias syriaca Common Milkweed N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 0 5 Aster lanceolatus Panicled Aster N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 3-3 Aster lateriflorus var. hirsuticaulis Calico Aster N N5 S4? NAR NAR Common 3-2 Betula alleghaniensis Yellow Birch N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 6 0 Betula papyrifera Paper Birch N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 2 2 Carex bebbii Bebb's Sedge N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 3-5 Page 5 of 10

63 Carex crinita Fringed Sedge N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 6-4 Carex diandra Lesser Panicled Sedge N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 7-5 Carex flava Yellow Sedge N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 5-5 Carex gracillima Graceful Sedge N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 4 3 Carex interior Inland Sedge N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 6-5 Carex lacustris Lake Sedge N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 5-5 Carex lupulina Hop-like Sedge N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 6-5 Carex projecta Spreading Sedge N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 5-4 Carex retrorsa Retrorse Sedge N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 5-5 Carex stipata Awl-fruited Sedge N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 3-5 Carex stricta Tussock Sedge N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 4-5 Carex tuckermanii Tuckerman's Sedge N N4 S4 NAR NAR Common 7-5 Carex utriculata Beaked Sedge N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 7-5 Carex vulpinoidea Fox Sedge N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 3-5 Cerastium fontanum Mouse-ear Chickweed I N? SE Exotic Exotic Exotic 0 3 Cicuta bulbifera Bulbous Water Hemlock N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 5-5 Clinopodium vulgare Wild Basil I N? S5 NAR NAR Common 4 5 Cornus alternifolia Alternate-leaved Dogwood N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 6 5 Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 5-4 Cornus stolonifera Red Osier Dogwood N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 2-3 Dirca palustris Leatherwood N N4 S4? NAR NAR Common 7 0 Dryopteris cristata Crested Woodfern N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 7-5 Epilobium ciliatum Downy Willow Herb N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 3 3 Equisetum arvense Field Horsetail N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 0 0 Equisetum fluviatile Water Horsetail N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 7-5 Eupatorium maculatum Joe-Pye-Weed N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 3-5 Eupatorium perfoliatum Boneset N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 2-4 Fragaria virginiana Wild Strawberry N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 2 1 Fraxinus nigra Black Ash N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 7-4 Galium asprellum Rough Bedstraw N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 6-5 Galium palustre Marsh Bedstraw N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 5-5 Galium triflorum Scented Bedstraw N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 4 2 Geum rivale Purple Avens N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 7-5 Glyceria striata Fowl Manna Grass N N5 S4S5 NAR NAR Common 3-5 Impatiens capensis Touch-me-not N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 4-3 Iris versicolor Blue Flag N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 5-5 Juncus effusus Soft Rush N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 4-5 Page 6 of 10

64 Larix laricina Tamarack N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 7-3 Leersia oryzoides Rice Cut Grass N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 3-5 Ludwigia palustris Water Purslane N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 5-5 Lycopus americanus Water Horehound N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 4-5 Maianthemum stellatum Starry False Solomon's Seal N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 6 1 Maianthemum trifolium Three-leaved False Solomon's S N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 10-5 Mentha arvensis Field Mint N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 3-3 Mitella nuda Mitrewort N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 6-3 Onoclea sensibilis Sensitive Fern N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 4-3 Osmunda cinnamomea Cinnamon Fern N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 7-3 Oxalis acetosella Wood Sorrel N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 8 3 Oxalis stricta Common Yellow Wood Sorrel N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 0 3 Phalaris arundinacea Reed Canary Grass N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 0-4 Picea glauca White Spruce N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 6 3 Pilea pumila Clearweed N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 5-3 Poa palustris Marsh Bluegrass N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 5-4 Polygonum hydropiperoides Mild Smartweed N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 4-5 Polygonum lapathifolium Pale Smartweed N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 2-4 Populus balsamifera Balsam Poplar N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 4-3 Populus tremuloides Trembling Aspen N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 2 0 Potentilla anserina Silver and Gold N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 5-4 Potentilla palustre Swamp Cinquefoil N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 7-5 Prunus serotina Black Cherry N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 3 3 Prunus virginiana Choke Cherry N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 2 1 Ranunculus hispidus Swamp Buttercup N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 5-5 Ranunculus sceleratus Celery-leaved Buttercup N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 2-5 Ribes cynosbati Gooseberry N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 4 5 Rubus pubescens Dwarf Raspberry N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 4-4 Rubus strigosus Red Raspberry N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 0-2 Salix bebbiana Bebb's Willow N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 4-4 Salix discolor Pussy Willow N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 3-3 Salix lucida Shining Willow N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 5-4 Salix petiolaris Meadow Willow N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 3-4 Sambucus canadensis Red Elderberry N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 5-2 Scirpus atrovirens Dark Green Bulrush N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 3-5 Scirpus cyperinus Wool-grass N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 4-5 Scutellaria galericulata Marsh Scullcap N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 6-5 Page 7 of 10

65 Scutellaria lateriflora Mad Dog Skullcap N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 5-5 Solanum dulcamara Black Nightshade I N? SE Exotic Exotic Exotic 0 0 Solidago rugosa Rough Goldenrod N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 4-1 Sorbus aucuparia European Mountain Ash I N5 SE NAR Exotic Exotic 0 5 Sphagnum sp. Peat moss N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 0 0 Spiraea alba Meadow Sweet N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 3-4 Stellaria graminea Lesser Stichwort I N? SE Exotic Exotic Exotic 0 5 Symphyotrichum puniceum Purple-stemmed Aster N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 6-5 Thalictrum pubescens N5 N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 5-2 Thelypteris palustris Marsh Fern N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 5-4 Thuja occidentalis White Cedar N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 4-3 Tilia americana Basswood N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 4 3 Typha latifolia Cattail N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 3-5 Ulmus americana American Elm N N5? S5 NAR NAR Common 3-2 Urtica dioica Nettle N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 2-1 Viburnum lentago Nannyberry N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 4-1 Viola canadensis Canada Violet N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 6 5 MEAN 4-2 Total number of Native species 101 Total number of Introduced or Non-Native species ) Vegetation community No. 5: Conifer upland No species of Conservation concern identified Latin Name Common Name Native or Introduced N Rank S Rank National Status Provincial Status Local Status FQA CC FQA CW Abies balsamea Balsam Fir N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 5-3 Acer saccharum Sugar Maple N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 4 3 Arctium minus Burdock I N? SE Exotic Exotic Exotic 0 5 Athyrium filix-femina Lady Fern N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 4 0 Betula alleghaniensis Yellow Birch N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 6 0 Carex gracillima Graceful Sedge N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 4 3 Carex plantaginea Plantain-leaved Sedge N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 7 5 Carex rosea Stellate Sedge N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 5 5 Cirsium vulgare Bull Thistle I N? SE Exotic Exotic Exotic 0 4 Page 8 of 10

66 Cornus alternifolia Alternate-leaved Dogwood N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 6 5 Dactylis glomerata Orchard Grass I N? SE Exotic Exotic Exotic 0 3 Geranium robertianum Herb Robert I N5 SE NAR Exotic Exotic 0 5 Matteuccia struthiopteris Ostrich Fern N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 5-3 Picea glauca White Spruce N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 6 3 Poa compressa Canada Bluegrass I N5 SE NAR Exotic Exotic 0 2 Populus tremuloides Trembling Aspen N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 2 0 Thuja occidentalis White Cedar N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 4-3 Ulmus americana American Elm N N5? S5 NAR NAR Common 3-2 MEAN 3 2 Total number of Native species 13 Total number of Introduced or Non-Native species ) Vegetation community No. 6: Thickets No species of Conservation concern identified Native or N S National Provincial Local FQA FQA Latin Name Common Name Introduced Rank Rank Status Status Status CC CW Acer saccharum Sugar Maple N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 4 3 Arctium minus Burdock I N? SE Exotic Exotic Exotic 0 5 Asclepias syriaca Common Milkweed N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 0 5 Centaurea nigra Black Knapweed I N? SE Exotic Exotic Exotic 0 5 Chrysanthemum leucanthemum Ox-Eye Daisy I N? SE Exotic Exotic Exotic 0 5 Cirsium arvense Canada Thistle I N? SE Exotic Exotic Exotic 0 3 Erigeron strigosus Rough Fleabane I N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 0 1 Festuca pratensis Meadow Fescue I N5 SE NAR Exotic Exotic 0 4 Fragaria virginiana Wild Strawberry N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 2 1 Oxalis stricta Common Yellow Wood Sorrel N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 0 3 Picea glauca White Spruce N N5 SE NAR NAR Common 6 3 Plantago lanceolatus English Plantain I N? SE Exotic Exotic Exotic 0 0 Populus balsamifera Balsam Poplar N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 4-3 Populus tremuloides Trembling Aspen I N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 2 0 Potentilla recta Sulphur Cinquefoil I N? SE Exotic Exotic Exotic 0 5 Prunus serotina Black Cherry N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 3 3 Prunus virginiana Choke Cherry I N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 2 1 Solidago canadensis Canada Goldenrod N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 1 3 Page 9 of 10

67 Taraxicum officinale Dandelion I N5 SE NAR Exotic Exotic 0 3 Thuja occidentalis White Cedar N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 4-3 Trifolium pratense Red Clover I N? SE NAR NAR Common 0 2 Ulmus americana American Elm N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 3-2 Verbascum thapsis Mullein I N? SE NAR NAR Common 0 5 Viburnum cassinoides Wild Raisin N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 7-3 Viburnum lentago Nannyberry N N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 4-1 Viburnum trilobum High-bush Cranberry I N5 S5 NAR NAR Common 5-3 Vicia cracca Cow Vetch I N? SE Exotic Exotic Exotic 0 5 MEAN 2 2 National and Provincial Rank: Based on current 2014 Ontario Natural Heritage Information Center (NHIC) listings N? Defined as: Unranked SNR defined as : Unranked NU defined as: Uncertain status SNA/SE defined as : Not Applicable for conservation N5 defined as: Very common S5 defined as: Secure N4 defined as: Common S4 defined as: Apparently Secure N3 defined as: Rare to uncommon species S3 defined as: Vulnerable N2 defined as : Very Rare S2 defined as: Imperiled N1 defined as: Extremely Rare S1 defined as: Critically Imperiled NAR defined as : Not At Risk Regional Status based on: Bruce-Grey Plant Committee: A Checklist of Vascular Plants for Bruce and Grey Counties Ontario Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 'Floristic Quality Assessment' (FQA) Scoring System: CC = Coefficient of Conservatism, ranked 0 (grows anywhere) to 10 (very specific habitat requirements) WI = Wetness Index, values from -5 (very wet) to 5 (very dry) Note: CC scores of 8 or higher are indicator species of candidate Significant Woodlands Total number of Native species 12 Total number of Introduced or Non-Native species National Status based on: Species At Risk Act, COSEWIC 2014 Listings Provincial Status based on: Endangered Species Act 2007, NHIC 2014 and 2014 COSSARO Listings Page 10 of 10

68 APPENDIX 3 Fauna Inventory Listing with Rankings and Status Levels and Map of Point Count Locations 43

69 Reptiles Thamnophis sirtalis Common Gartersnake N5 S5 NAR NAR Common Amphibians Bufo americanus American Toad N5 S5 NAR NAR Common Hyla versicolor Gray Treefrog N5 S5 NAR NAR Common Plethodon cinerus Red-backed Salamander N5 S5 NAR NAR Common Rana pipiens Northern Leapord Frog N5 S5 NAR NAR Common Rana sylvatica Wood Frog N5 S5 NAR NAR Common Butterflies Celastrina neglecta Summer Azure N5 S5 NAR NAR Common Cercyonis pegala Common Wood-Nymph N5 S5 NAR NAR Common Cilias philodice Clouded Sulpher N5 S5 NAR NAR Common Euphyes vestris Dun Skipper N5 S5 NAR NAR Common Nymphalis antiopa Morning Cloak N5 S5 NAR NAR Common Pieris rapae Cabbage White N5 S5 NAR NAR Common Dragonflies Anax junius Common Green Darner N5 S5 NAR NAR Common Southgate Pit; Study Lands Fauna Listing Species Ranking and Status Two bird species of conservation concern and significant amphibian breeding habitat confirmed Ranking Status Latin Name Common Name National Prov. National Prov Local Mammals Canis latrans Coyote N5 S5 NAR NAR Common Erethizon dorsatum Porcupine N5 S5 NAR NAR Common Lepus americanus Snowshoe Hare N5 S5 NAR NAR Common Marmota monax Woodchuck N5 S5 NAR NAR Common Odocoileus virginianus White-tailed Deer N5 S5 NAR NAR Common Peromyscus maniculatus Deer Mouse N5 S5 NAR NAR Common Procyon lotor Raccoon N5 S5 NAR NAR Common Sciurus carolinensis Eastern Gray Squirrel N5 S5 NAR NAR Common Sylvilagus floridanus Eastern Cottontail N5 S5 NAR NAR Common Tamias striatus Eastern Chipmunk N5 S5 NAR NAR Common Fish None observed- no suitable habitat within the Study Lands Page 1 of 4

70 & Damselflies Calopteryx maculata Ebony Jewelwing N5 S5 NAR NAR Common Pachydiplax lonipennis Blue Dasher N5 S5 NAR NAR Common Plathemis lydia Common Whitetail N5 S5 NAR NAR Common Breeding Code Birds Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged Blackbird N5 S5 NAR NAR Common Conf Archilochus colubris Ruby-throated Hummingbird N5 S5 NAR NAR Common Po-H Bombycilla cedrorum Cedar Waxwing N5 S5 NAR NAR Common Pr Carduelis tristis American Goldfinch N5 S5 NAR NAR Common Conf Colaptes auratus Norrthern Flicker N5 S5 NAR NAR Common Po-H Contopus virens Eastern Wood-Peewee N5 S4 SC SC SC Po-S Cyanocitta cristata Blue Jay N5 S5 NAR NAR Common Po-H Dendroica petechia Yellow Warbler N5 S5 NAR NAR Common Po-H Dumetella carolinensis Gray Catbird N5 S4 NAR NAR Common Po-H Empidonax minimus Least Flycatcher N5 S4 NAR NAR Common Po-H Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow N5 S4 Thr Thr Thr Conf Icterus galbula Baltimore Oriole N5 S4 NAR NAR Common Pr Meleagris gallopavo Wild Turkey N5 S5 NAR NAR Common Pr Molothrus ater Brown-headed Cowbird N5 S5 NAR NAR Common Po-H Myiarchus crinitus Great Crested Flycatcher N5 S5 NAR NAR Common Po-H Pheucticus ludovicianus Rose-breasted Grosbeak N5 S4 NAR NAR Common Po-S Picoides pubescens Downy Woodpecker N5 S5 NAR NAR Common Po-H Picoides villosus Hairy Woodpecker N5 S5 NAR NAR Common Po-H Poecile atricapillus Black-capped Chickadee N5 S5 NAR NAR Common Pr Quiscalus quiscula Common Grackle N5 S5 NAR NAR Common Po-H Sayornis phoebe Eastern Phoebe N5 S5 NAR NAR Common Pr Sitta carolinensis White-breasted Nuthatch N5 S5 NAR NAR Common Po-H Spizella passerina Chipping Sparrow N5 S5 NAR NAR Common Po-H Sturnus vulgaris European Starling NNR SNA Exotic Exotic Exotic Po-H Tachycineta bicolor Tree Swallow N5 S4 NAR NAR Common Pr Troglodytes aedon House Wren N5 S5 NAR NAR Common Po-S Turdus migratorius American Robin N5 S5 NAR NAR Common Pr Tyrannus tyrannus Eastern Kingbird N5 S4 NAR NAR Common Pr Vireo olivaceus Red-eyed Vireo N5 S5 NAR NAR Common Po-S Zenaida macroura Mourning Dove N5 S5 NAR NAR Common Po-H Zonotrichia albicollis White-Throated Sparrow N5 S5 NAR NAR Common Po-H Condensed Breeding Codes as per Bird Studies Canada Protocol Page 2 of 4

71 Ob = Observed bird outside of the Breeding Season Po-S = Possible: Singing/Calls in suitable nesting habitat Ob-X = Observed in breeding season but no evidence of breeding Pr = Probable: pairs observed, nest building, courtship Po-H = Possible: Observed in suitable nesting habitat Conf = Confirmed: active nest, egg shells, feeding young National and Provincial Rank: Based on current 2014 Ontario Natural Heritage Information Center (NHIC) listings N? /NNR Defined as: Unranked SNR defined as : Unranked NU defined as: Uncertain status SNA defined as : Not Applicable for conservation N5 defined as: Very common S5 defined as: Secure N4 defined as: Common S4 defined as: Apparently Secure N3 defined as: Rare to uncommon species S3 defined as: Vulnerable N2 defined as : Very Rare S2 defined as: Imperiled N1 defined as: Extremely Rare S1 defined as: Critically Imperiled Thr : Threatened Regional Status lists based on: Birds- Region No. 9- Grey 'Atlas Breeding Birds of Ontario ' Dragonflies & Damselflies (Grey County) ' Regional Lists of Ontario Odonata' by Paul Pratt, 2004 National Status based on: Species At Risk Act, COSEWIC 2014 Listings Provincial Status based on: Endargered Species Act 2007, COSSARO 2014 Listings Page 3 of 4

72 Southgate Pit: Point Count Data - Anuran Survey Date Point Count No. Start Time Abundance Code : Species Code / Numbers Apr-29 A Code 1 : WF / A Code 1 : WF / 7-8 A Code 1 : WF / 6 A Code 0 May-27 A Code 1: AT/2 Code 2: NLF/ A Code 2: NLF/10-12 Code 1: WF/3 A Code 1: WF/ 3-5 Code 1: AT/ 3 Code 2: NLF/>20 A Code 1: NLF/3-5 Jun-25 A Code 1: NLF / 2 A Code 0 A Code 0 A Code 0 North American / Bird Studies Canada - Marsh Monitoring Frog Calling Abundance Codes: Code 0 = No calling Activity Recorded Code 1 = Individual calls do not overlap and calling individuals can be descretly counted Code 2 = Calls of individuals sometimes overlap, but numbers of individuals can still be estimated Code 3 = Overlap among calls seems continous (full chores) and count estimate is impossible Frog Species Codes: AT = American Toad WF = Wood Frog SP = Spring Peeper PF= Pickeral Frog NLF = Northern Leapord Frog GT = Gray Treefrog GF= Green Frog BF = Bull Frog

73 Southgate Pit: Point Count Location Map

74 APPENDIX 4 Topographic Features Map of Surrounding Landscape-Valleyland Review 44

75 Legend Ministry of Natural Resources MNR Make-a-Map: Selected Natural Heritage Significant Valleyland Review Notes: Southgate Pit- Lot 15 Proton Kilometers Scale: 1 : 18,056 This map should not be relied on as a precise indicator of routes or locations, nor as a guide to navigation. The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) shall not be liable in any way for the use of, or reliance upon, this map or any information on this map. Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2013 Imagery Copyright Notices: DRAPE Aéro-Photo (1961) Inc., GTA 2005 / SWOOP 2006 / Simcoe-Muskoka-Dufferin FirstBase Solutions, 2005 / 2006 / 2008 Copyright for Ontario Parcel data is held by Queen s Printer for Ontario and its licensors [2013] and may not be reproduced without permission. THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY.

76 APPENDIX 5 Redside Dace: Upper Saugeen Watershed Range Map 45

77 Saugeen Watershed : Redside Dace Habitat

78 APPENDIX 6 ESA-Barn Swallow Habitat Categories and Site Delineation Map 46

79 Ministry of Natural Resources General Habitat Description for the Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica) A general habitat description is a technical document that provides greater clarity on the area of habitat protected for a species based on the general habitat definition found in the Endangered Species Act, General habitat protection does not include an area where the species formerly occurred or has the potential to be reintroduced unless existing members of the species depend on that area to carry out their life processes. A general habitat description also indicates how the species habitat has been categorized, as per the policy Categorizing and Protecting Habitat Under the Endangered Species Act, and is based on the best scientific information available. HABITAT CATEGORIZATION 1 Nest 2 The area within 5 m of the nest 3 The area between 5 m and 200 m of the nest Category 1 Barn Swallow nests are key features used in the reproduction life process and will be considered to have the lowest level of tolerance to alteration. These are areas the species depends on for egg laying, incubation, feeding, resting and rearing of young. The Barn Swallow will also accept artificial nest cups and nesting platforms (Brown and Brown 1999, Mercadante and Stanback 2011). Nests are often reused from year to year and can support multiple broods within the same year (Barclay 1988). Each individual, intact nest has the potential to support the reproductive success of a high number of individuals (Shield 1984, Barclay 1988, Safran 2004, 2006). Category 2 The area within 5 m of the nest represents the area defended by male Barn Swallows during the breeding season and has a moderate tolerance to alteration. Barn Swallows depend on this area for roosting, feeding, rearing of young, and resting. Barn Swallows defend relatively small areas around their nests as compared to territories by other species. The size of the defended territory varies depending on the breeding stage. During the pair formation and egg laying stages, it is approximately 78 m 2 (i.e., the area within 5 m of the nest) (Møller 1990). That area declines to 4 m 2 during chick rearing. During the breeding season, females will roost on the nest while their partners roost and perch nearby (Thompson 1992). Once young fledge, they generally remain in or around the nest for about a week (Thompson 1992).

80 Category 3 Category 3 includes the area between 5 m and 200 m of the nest and has a high tolerance to alteration. Barn Swallows depend on this area for various life processes including rearing, feeding, and resting. Barn Swallows are insectivores, foraging in relatively low airspace on the wing (Waugh 1978). They feed at lower altitudes than most other North American swallows, usually no more than 10 m above ground and often lower than 1 m from ground (Brown and Brown 1999). They depend on nearby open areas that provide good sources of flying insects, such as waterbodies, pastures with livestock, and woodland edges (Brown and Brown 1999, Evans et al. 2007). The stage of the nesting cycle influences foraging distance. The period of greatest energy demand for a swallow is during nestling rearing (Bryant and Westerterp in Turner 1980). Turner (1980) found the average distance traveled by Barn Swallows while feeding the first brood to be 188 m and 138 m for the second. Weather plays an important role in the variation in food availability for swallows and therefore also influences foraging distance. Turner (1980) found the average distance traveled by Barn Swallows during the breeding season was 148 m when the temperature was above 20ºC but increased to 203 m when it was 16ºC or less. Activities in Barn Swallow habitat Activities in general habitat can continue as long as the function of these areas for the species is maintained and individuals of the species are not killed, harmed, or harassed. Generally compatible: n Continuation of existing agricultural practices and planned management activities such as annual harvest, mowing, and cattle grazing. n General building use and building improvements that do not impair the function of the habitat. Generally not compatible*: n Significant modifications to structures such as buildings and bridges where nests are found, which would render the nesting habitat unsuitable. n Development activities that result in significant fragmentation or removal of large tracts of suitable habitat. * If you are considering an activity that may not be compatible with general habitat, please contact your local MNR office for more information. 2

81 Sample application of the general habitat protection for Barn Swallow 3

82 References Barclay, M.R Variation in the cost, benefits, and frequency of nest reuse by barn swallows (Hirundo rustica). The Auk 105(1): Brown, C.R. and M.B. Brown Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America (B. Online: Evans, K.L., J.D. Wilson, and R.B. Bradbury Effects of crop type and aerial invertebrate abundance on foraging barn swallows Hirundo rustica. Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environment 122: Mercadante, A.N. and M.T. Stanback Out of sight, out of mind? Visual obstructions affect settlement patterns in Barn Swallows (Hirundo rustica). The Auk 128(2): Møller, A. P Changes in the size of avian breeding territories in relation to the nesting cycle. Animal Behaviour 40: Safran, R.J Adaptive site selection rules and variation in group size of barn swallows: individual decisions predict population patterns. American Naturalist 164: Safran, R.J Nest-site selection in the barn swallow, Hirundo rustica: what predicts seasonal reproductive success? Canadian Journal of Zoology 84: Shield, W.M Factors affecting nest and site fidelity in Adirondack barn swallows (Hirondo rustica). The Auk 101: Thompson, M.L Reproductive success and survival of swallows (Hirundo rustica): effects of age and body condition. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Stirling, Stirling, United Kingdom.393 pp. Turner, A.K The use and time and energy by aerial feeding birds. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Stirling, Stirling, United Kingdom.347 pp. Waugh, D.R Predation strategies in aerial feeding birds. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Stirling, Stirling, United Kingdom.293 pp. 4

83 Barn Swallow Habitat : As per ESA Categories Southgate Pit Category 1 and Category 2 (The existing Barn within the southwest corner of the Adjacent Lands to the Licence Boundary) Category 3, within the Licence Boundary (Extending 200m beyond Category 2 )

84 APPENDIX 7 MNRF- Wetland Evaluation protocols-boundary delineation excerpts 47

85 MNRF- Ontario Wetland Evaluation System, Southern Manual version 3.2, 2013 (Excerpts from Technical Manual-Followed by AWS on unevaluated wetland features) Wetland Boundary Delineation Identification and delineation of outer wetland boundaries is based, first and foremost, on the presence and relative abundance of wetland plant species. It is important that evaluators be able distinguish wetland from upland plant species. In many cases the outer boundary of a wetland can be clearly delineated by using plant species. However, wetland boundaries that occur in zones of gradual ecological change (ecotones) can sometimes seem indefinite. In such cases, other criteria such as substrates may help evaluators identify wetland boundaries. The nature of the underlying substrate can provide important information to help evaluators determine wetland boundaries. The composition of the plant community has long been used as the primary criterion to determine if wetland habitat is present. The plant species composition in a given area represents the integrated response of that area to complex and interacting environmental factors also known as the biological response variable. Once a certain threshold of soil moisture saturation is surpassed, the plant composition shifts to those species adapted and able to thrive in wet environments. Knowing which plant species are characteristic of wetland areas is necessary for delineating wetland boundaries. The assessment of the relative abundances of wetland versus terrestrial plant species is a primary task of the evaluator and is known as the 50% wetland vegetation rule. To assess the 50% wetland vegetation rule, the evaluator must: 1)identify wetland and upland plant species, and 2) estimate the relative abundance, or cover, of wetland and upland species. When applying the 50% rule evaluators should refer to Appendix 10, and to the section on Timing of Field Visits for guidance on appropriate times for data collection. When identifying and delineating wetland boundaries, the 50% wetland vegetation rule is used. This rule uses relative cover, and assesses the relative abundance of wetland plant species to upland plant species cover. The intent of the 50% wetland vegetation rule is to judge where plant species cover consists mostly of wetland plants. This is based on the inference that where wetland species make up most of the cover in an area, the area must contain wetter substrates and thus indicate wetland conditions. The order in which the vegetation should be assessed, using the 50% wetland vegetation rule, should follow the structural nature of the vegetation, from the upper layers to the ground and aquatic layers. The upper layers, especially the woody trees and shrubs, are typically longer lived and better reflect the long-term conditions of the site. In treed conditions, first assess whether the trees are wetland species, along with their relative cover. Similarly, in shrub dominated areas, begin with assessing the upper shrub layers first. Once woody vegetation has been assessed, or where only herbaceous vegetation dominates, move to the herbaceous, ground and aquatic layers. When there are contradictory messages from different layers, use the dominant layers as your primary indicator. For example, sometimes in altered wetlands, the trees will indicate wetland conditions yet the ground layers may not. In this case, the tree layers will take precedence over the ground layers. Other wetland criteria (e.g., substrates) can also aid in the determination. Some tree species that can dominate or co-dominate in swamps (e.g., the eastern white cedar, white elm, eastern hemlock, red maple, trembling aspen and balsam poplar) occur in both wetland and upland habitats. When these species dominate an area, one should also look at the understory layers and the substrate to help in determining whether you are in an upland or wetland. For example, if an area dominated by eastern white cedar occurs on hydric or near hydric substrates and is associated with a dominant groundcover or shrub layer of wetland plant species, it is an eastern white cedar swamp, whereas, if the substrates are not hydric and the understory is dominated by upland plant species, then it is an eastern white cedar upland forest. Wetland plant species range from those species that occur primarily in wetlands ( wetland indicators ) to those species that occur in both wetlands and uplands. 1

86 For delineating and mapping wetland boundaries, the 50% wetland vegetation rule is used to locate a contour line that follows a series of points where relative plant species cover consists mostly of wetland species. Other factors, like substrates, are associated with the vegetation patterns, and can aid evaluators in the delineation. Evaluators may find it useful to create a contour line by sampling transects that traverse from upland to wetland conditions along the moisture gradient that encircles the wetland. The number of transects will depend on the size of the wetland and the complexity of the moisture gradient. Find the point along the transect(s) where the 50% vegetation rule (and other wetland criteria) indicates wetland conditions. Delineate or draw the wetland boundary by connecting the points on adjacent transects, using observations of vegetation patterning and composition to shape the lines connecting each sample transect point. It is very important to note that the 50% wetland vegetation rule is not based on the number of species, but on the relative cover of species. For example, a list of species present at a site could lead to an incorrect conclusion. If there are more upland species than wetland species but the wetland plants dominate the site in terms of cover then the area is identified as wetland. Always assess the relative cover of species is assessed and not the number of wetland species versus the number of upland species. Wetland Complexing The rules for delineating a wetland complex are: 1. Watersheds: Wetlands must not be complexed across watersheds except in rare circumstances. For example, it can be difficult to determine to which watershed wetlands in major headwater areas, such as the Oak Ridges Moraine among others, belong. These wetlands can be considered for complexing because of their cumulative importance in functions such as ground water recharge, water quality improvement, flood attenuation, and erosion control. The test for determining whether a complex should be defined is the comfort level of the biologist in defending the complex on grounds of wetland function. 2. Distance: The maximum distance between units of a complex must not exceed 0.75 km straight line distance, i.e. as the crow flies. Note that this is different from the 2nd edition which permitted greater distances with an explanation. 3. Lacustrine Wetlands: Lacustrine wetlands often occur at the mouths of streams entering the lake. As long as these wetlands are within the 0.75 km distance criterion, they may be considered as units of a complex, i.e. they are not considered to be in different watersheds. On the other hand, shoreline wetlands connected to one another by bands of submergent vegetation will not necessarily be complexes. Again, it is up to the professional judgement of the biologist to ensure that the complex is justified on functional grounds. See Figure 2 for instructions on determining the outer boundary of a wetland on a lake with a shoreline band of submergent vegetation. Wetland Minimum Size Note that wetland units less than 2 ha in size may be included as part of the complex. Such tiny wetlands may be recognized when, in the opinion of the evaluator, the small wetland pocket may provide important ecological benefit. Some examples of such benefits would be: a grassy area used by spawning pike; an area containing a community or specimen of a rare or unusual plant species; a seepage area in which a regionally or provincially significant plant or animal species is found; or a wetland which strengthens a corridor link between larger wetlands or natural areas. The evaluator must attach to the Wetland Data Record a brief documentation of the reasons for inclusion of those areas less than 2 ha. The reasons for recognizing any group of wetlands as a complex together with the outer boundary line should receive the approval of the appropriate MNR District or Area office. 2

87 APPENDIX 8 SVCA Upper Saugeen River Watershed Report Card 48

88

89

90

91

92 APPENDIX 9 Matheson Pit Rehabilitation Site Plan with 15m Buffer Zone along South Perimeter 49

93

94 APPENDIX 10 Site Photographs:

95 Photo No. 1: Vegetation community No. 1 from southwest Licence corner Photo No. 2: Vegetation community No. 1, field in northeast Licence corner, June

96 Photo No. 3: Vegetation community No. 2 in June Photo No. 4: Vegetation community No. 3 in June

97 Photo No. 5: Vegetation community No. 4 in June Photo No. 6: Vegetation community No. 5 in June

98 Photo No. 7: Vegetation community No. 7 in June Photo No. 8: Vegetation community No. 8 in June

99 Photo No. 9: Farm Barn, Barn Swallows entering in foundation opening to right Photo No. 10: Point Count area 'A1' in late April

100 Photo No. 11: Point Count area 'A2' in late April Photo No. 12: Point Count area 'A3' in late April

101 Photo No. 13: Point Count area 'A3' in late August Photo No. 14: Point Count area 'A4' in late April, Matheson property to north

102 Photo No. 15: Point Count 'A4' area in June-Dry and dominated with Yellow Iris Photo No. 16: Crest of Ridge/Esker in area of Frostweed Aster Colony

103 APPENDIX 11 AWS Qualifications and Experience 51

104 AWS AQUATIC AND WILDLIFE SERVICES Environmental Consulting & Resource Management , R.R. # 1, Shallow Lake, Ontario, N0H 2K0 Phone: , Fax: , aws@gbtel.ca C.V. Summary: John D. Morton Education 1985: Graduate Sault College, Forestry Technician 1986: Honors Graduate Sault College, Fish & Wildlife Technologist 15 years training and experience with Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources as a contract & full time employee for Natural Heritage Programs and Biology/Ecology Work Experience Summary 1997 to Present: Sole Proprietorship of Aquatic and Wildlife Services, specializing in Natural Heritage Studies and Development Impact Assessments: o Over 250 Natural Heritage and Natural Environment Impact Study Reports for Land Use development proposals throughout Southwestern and Central Ontario in accordance to Legislation and Regulation for Federal and Provincial Agencies, Government and Niagara Escarpment Plan Policies and Conservation Authority Regulatory Lands. Impact assessment technical reports ranging from: Single Residential Lot creations to Plan of Subdivisions for 100+ Lots, and Aggregate applications ranging from 5ha Wayside Gravel Pits to120 ha Quarry Operations for both above and below groundwater table. o Design and Monitoring technical reports for Marina Development,, Water Crossings, Recreational Pond designs, Fish & Wildlife Habitat Restoration Plans and Managed Forest Plans. o Species At Risk Surveys for flora and fauna with study areas encompassing 20ha to 7000ha o Ontario Municipal Board expert witness testimony on Natural Heritage Features, Ecology, Development Impacts and Mitigation Techniques to 1997 : Resource Technician with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, responsibilities included: o Backfill positions for Owen Sound Area Office District Biologist (Fisheries and Wildlife), and District Fish & Wildlife Management Officer. o Review and commenting on Provincial interests through Planning Review for development proposals. o Deputy Conservation Officer with completion of 5-week Enforcement Training Program, Provincial Offenses charges, court evidence presentation and convictions. o Fish & Wildlife Population and Habitat surveys and Rehabilitation Designs. o Midhurst District Administrator and Program Coordinator of Wetlands and CFWIP Programs with annual budgeting and auditing roles. o Fisheries Research Technician and Fish Culture Technician, Chatsworth Fish Culture Station to 1986 : Contract Resource Technician With Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Grey-Sauble and Saugeen Conservation Authorities, responsibilities included: o Wetland Inventory Technician, Fish and Wildlife Population and Habitat Surveys. 1

105 Project Related Experience Summary Fauna population and habitat surveys: o Salmonid biomass surveys through seining and Electrofishing. o Stream/Watershed surveys for habitat quality/conditions, fish passage/barriers, water quality assessment including Benthic Macro Invertebrate sampling. o Genetic research survey work on Chinook Salmon, Saugeen Muskellunge, Backcross Lake Trout. o Inland Lake surveys for water quality, thermal regimes, fisheries qualitative assessments through seining, trap netting, creel survey. o Stream/River/Lake Fisheries habitat enhancement and rehabilitation Plans. o Wintering Deer Yard mapping, quality assessment, carrying capacity calculations, herd health monitoring and natural reproduction rates. o Genetic research work on Bruce Peninsula Eastern Massassagua Rattlesnake and Black Bears including radio telemetry. o Breeding Bird surveys including waterfowl nesting surveys and natural recruitment success, Bald Eagle monitoring and banding, mapping of Owen Sound area significant production/staging areas. o Amphibian qualitative assessment within sensitive environments and monitoring population trends for wetland habitat conditions. o Species At Risk Surveys with habitat mapping and Ecological Land Classification community mapping for Copeland Forest, Shallow Lake Wetland, Meaford National Defense Training Centre, Grey County Pretty River Forest Tract and Oliphant Fens Flora species and habitat surveys: o Provincially Certified Wetland evaluator to Book 2 and 3 standards, with over 150 wetland evaluations and desktop upgrades completed. Wetland Evaluation instructor to former book 2 standards with successful training of 30+ candidates. o Southern Ontario Ecological Land Classification- Vegetation Community Mapping for sensitive and/or rare habitat types including fens, bogs, natural beaches, and alvars plus common woodland community types. o Botanical qualitative inventory works including identification, mapping of species of conservation concern with status levels and habitat types/condition assessments. o Tree marking for sustainable harvesting and rotational management of fuel wood and/or saw logs. o Native tree and shrub nursery operation with annual seedling production and retail sales of deciduous and conifer seedlings and saplings. Certification & Training Courses: ~ Provincially Certified Wetland Evaluator to Book 2 and Book 3 Standards ~ Provincial Class 1 Electrofishing Certification ~ Provincial workshop training for Natural Heritage Environmental Impact Studies, Natural Hazard Studies and Non-Renewable (Aggregates) Impact Studies ~ Level 1 OMNR Law Enforcement training ~ Advanced Fish Habitat training and Habitat Impact Assessment ~ Fluvial Geomorphology Workshop ~ Stream Bioengineering Restoration training ~ Cyprinidae Identification Workshop ~ Wetland Restoration Techniques Training ~ Provincial Managed Forest Tax Incentive Plan Approver ~ Species-At-Risk Ontario Mussel Identification ~ Bruce Peninsula Eastern Massassagua Rattlesnake Habitat Identification Training through Radio Telemetry work with Parks Canada ~ Ecological Land Classification System for Southern Ontario ~ Provincial Tree Making Course ~ WHMIS ~ Ontario Courts Evidence Collection and Presentation Training ~ Department of Fisheries and Oceans South Georgian Bay Fish Habitat Issues Workshop ~ Provincial Butternut Health Assessor ~ Biotechnical Slope Stabilization Workshop. Recipient of Provincial -OMNR Award for Fish Habitat Restoration Works & Stewardship 2

106 JUDITH JONES: CV Summary Education B.S. Botany, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 1980 M.Sc. Cell Biology, University of Illinois, Chicago 1983 Ontario Provincial Wetland Evaluator, certified 1999 Canadian Environmental Assessment Screenings training 2007 Areas of Expertise Plant identification and classification Vegetation identification (Ecological Land Classification; other classifications) Identification of Species at Risk and their habitats Life science inventories Field mapping of species, vegetation, habitats, etc. Helping the public understand science (through teaching, leading field trips, designing nature trails, writing for the popular press, etc.) Judith Jones has been an independent consulting biologist since She has worked for AWS since Summary of Recent Projects BOTANICAL SURVEYS FOR EIS (Subdivisions, Aggregates, etc.) Aquatic and Wildlife Services since 2005 M.K. Ince and Associates (2006) CEAA screenings, Beausoleil First Nation LIFE SCIENCE INVENTORIES Carden Alvar ANSI 4 provincial parks on Manitoulin Island 4 conservation reserves on the Georgian Bay Coast Survey and mapping of alvars of Manitoulin Island (1995-present) Survey and mapping of alvars on the North Channel islands Manitoulin Island Escarpment ecosystem Field work for NCC's Ecological Survey of the Georgian Bay Coast. Field work on Manitoulin candidate ANSI sites SPECIES AT RISK SURVEYS Mapping of critical habitat of Pitcher's Thistle in Pukaskwa National Park SAR mapping, Wikwemikong First Nation SAR survey on Christian Island, Beausoleil First Nation. Trent-Severn Waterway (Parks Canada) Fort St. Joseph National Historic Site Sault Canal National Historic Site Survey and mapping of 12 SAR in the Manitoulin Region Survey and mapping of Pitcher's Thistle and dune grasslands on Lake Huron Survey of 30 beaches and dunes on the North Shore of Lake Huron RECOVERY STRATEGIES (RS) FOR SAR Author of RS for Alvar Ecosystems of the Bruce Peninsula and Manitoulin Regions (Gattinger's Agalinis, Lakeside Daisy, Houghton's Goldenrod) Author of RS for Forked Three-awned Grass (Aristida basiramea) Author of RS for Hill's Thistle (Cirsium hillii) Advisor to Pitcher's Thistle-Dune Grasslands Recovery Team. RESEARCH Sustainable harvest levels for Canada Yew (Taxus canadensis) Fire history of Oak Savannah vegetation Fire history of Manitoulin alvars Invasiveness of mossy stonecrop (Sedum acre) on alvar Field collection protocol for genetic studies of Pitcher's Thistle Analysis of data on exotic plant species present on alvars OUTREACH AND TEACHING Coordinator of a SAR monitoring program by landowners on Manitoulin Island Workshops about SAR for school kids and general community, Christian Island Co-author of a website about Pitcher's Thistle (endangered) Spring flora courses for non-biologists ( ) Layout and construction of nature trails and ski trails (Misery Bay Provincial Park; other locations) Nature and environment columnist for the Manitoulin Expositor ( )

107 Natural Environment Technical Reports: Aggrgate Application Experience Bruce County (34) Grey County (39) Grey County Middlesex County (4) Johnston Bros. Colwell Pit Cederwell Priceville Pit Winter Pit Forest City Agg. II, Van Der Velde Pit Ferris Pit HSC Grant Pit Hays Pit Demar Agg. Lagrou Pit Hunter Albemarle Quarry Cederwell Benett Pit Kilsyth Wayside Pit L82 Const. Hill Pit Greenock Pit Priceville Pit Arnott Pit Demars Fallan Pit Culross Pit H. Bye Const. Rice Pit HSC Clavering Pit Gingerich Pit H. Bye Const. Atiken Pit HSC Lindsay Quarry J. Cook Pit Elgin County (2) Bridge Wiarton Quarry S. Cook Pit Oxford County (10) Buckskin Wiarton Quarry West Grey Wayside Pit Strickland Bulldozing Strickland Pit Teewater Concrete Teeswater Pit H. Bye Const. Flanagan Pit Matheson Farms Pit Walker Pit Crigger Pit Durham Stone & Paving Arnil Pit Horely Pit Arran Wayside Pit H. Bye Const. Egremont Pit Stubbe's Precast Sims Pit Elderslie Wayside Pit Feversham Pit Forest City Agg.Arnold Pit Region of Durham (3) Vola Rock Quarrry HSC Durham Pit Bedrock Gravel & Sand Boniface Pit Hays Quarry HSC Keppel Quarry Demar Agg. Granger Pit Vicdom Sand & Gravel North Sunderland Pit Hunter Albemarle Pit HSC Bayview Quarry AAR-CON Baigent Pit Vicdom Sand & Gravel Sunderland Pit DiPoce Quarry HSC Sarawak Clay Pit Zorra Twp. Robinson Pit Brock Aggregates Sunderland Pit Bester Pit Southgate Pit Smith Const. Pit Everest Quarry HSC Pike Pit Paton Peat Extraction Bricker Pit Aberdeen Exp. Pit Peel Region (1) Reich Pit Winters Quarry Chepstow Pit Blueland Farms Handy Pit Simcoe County (1) Blueland Farms McCormick Pit Bridge Lindsay Quarry O'Neil Pit Nickason Pit Ellison Pit Croft Sunnidale Pit Arran Wayside Becker Pit K.Jackson Pit West Grey Wayside Forbes Tara Pit Fleshcon Croft Pit Huron County (4) South Bruce Pit Shepherd Pit Beirnes Pit Ardiel Pit Open Valley Pit Chamberlain Quarry Southgate Pit Handy Acres Pit Lang Farm 2 Pit Best Pit Porter Pit Ebel Quarry Aberdeen Pit Lavis Contr. Walter Pit Legerock Wiarton Quarry Markdale Pit Lang Farm Pit Gowenlock Pit Page 1 of 1

108 AWS AQUATIC AND WILDLIFE SERVICES Environmental Consulting & Resource Management , R.R. # 1, Shallow Lake, Ontario, N0H 2K0 Phone: , Fax: , aws@nvloisp.com Environmental Impact Studies for Land Development & Aggregate Extraction Environmental Impact Studies ranging from Single Severance Applications for Residential dwellings to Large Scale Subdivision Plans. Including diverse development applications for land use rezoning on Agricultural, Commercial Lands and Waterfront Developments. Environmental Impact Assessment Studies for Water Taking, Aggregate Extractions, and Marina development Flora and Fauna Inventory Studies for Species of Conservation Concern. Biological Surveys for Sensitive Habitat types and Significant Species. Rare Flora relocation plans along with biological monitoring, population surveys and habitat restoration plans Scoped Impact Assessment Studies for Sensitive Natural Features like Stream Crossings, Drainage Courses, Karst Topography, Woodlands and Regulated Development Control Lands.

109 AWS AQUATIC AND WILDLIFE SERVICES Environmental Consulting & Resource Management , R.R. # 1, Shallow Lake, Ontario, N0H 2K0 Phone: , Fax: , aws@nvloisp.com AGGREGATE RESOURCES Natural Environment Level I and II Technical Reports For Aggregate Pits and Quarries for both above Groundwater and Below Water Table Extraction. Annual Compliance Reports and Biological Monitoring ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING Industrial / Commercial Development, Stream Course realignment, including impacts from discharge waters to Flora and Fauna habitat with Assessment and Remedial Action Plans Prepared SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENTS Development Applications and Environmental Surveys for Land Use Alterations adjacent to Sensitive Landforms like Wetlands, Niagara Escarpment, Shorelines or Specialised Habitat areas for Fisheries, Wildlife, Breeding Birds,Herpetofaunal and Flora RESTORATION & DESIGN Project designs with agency Application assistance for Federal, Provincial and Municipal approvals and Permit applications within Water Courses and the Great Lakes. Private Ponds Shoreline Naturalization Projects, Wetland Rehabilitation and Creation along with Tree and Shrub Retail Sales