b3. species of conservation concern (socc) vascular plant surveys · 2018-06-22 · ecological land...
TRANSCRIPT
1ra_2012-11-15_BW Amend Tps_60155032.Docx
B3. Species of Conservation Concern (SOCC) Vascular Plant Surveys
SOCC Vascular Plant
Survey
SCP-01
SCP-01
SCP-01
1ra_2012-11-15_BW Amend Tps_60155032.Docx
B4. Snake Hibernaculum Surveys
RH-05
EOS - Reptile
Hibernaculum Study
RH-05
1ra_2012-11-15_BW Amend Tps_60155032.Docx
B5. Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES) Field Notes
1ra_2012-11-15_BW Amend Tps_60155032.Docx
Appendix C Project Team CVs
Rob Aitken B. Sc.EcologistCurriculum Vitae
Through the completion of environmentalprograms at Trent University and Sir SandfordFleming College Mr. Aitken has developed asound understanding of the natural environmentand the tools that are used to evaluate it. Hehas continued to build on this foundation throughthe application of these skills while working fororganizations in the private and public sectorcompleting inventories and assessments ofaquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.
As a member of the Aboud & Associates team,Mr. Aitken is responsible for botanical andwildlife inventories, ELC/vegetation communityassessments and GIS Mapping on a wide rangeof projects.
EDUCATIONBachelor of Biology & EnvironmentalResources Sciences (Honours), TrentUniversity, 2008.Environmental Technologist, Sir SandfordFleming College 2006.Natural Resources Law Enforcement PostGraduate Certification, Sir Sandford FlemingCollege, 2004.Ecosystem Management Technician, SirSandford Fleming College 2003.
Continuing Education & Certification:Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol,OMNR/TRCA (2011)Class 2 Backpack Electro fishing Certificate,TRCA (2011)MTO/DFO/OMNR Environmental Guide forFish and Fish Habitat Workshop (2011)Asters and Goldenrods Workshop, RoyalBotanical Gardens (2010)Ecological Land Classification, OMNR (2010)Ontario Wetland Evaluation System, OMNR(2009)Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol Level 1Fish Identification (2009)
CAREER EXPERIENCEPrior to joining Aboud & Associates in 2010, Mr.Aitken worked with the following organizations:
Environmental ScientistConestoga Rovers & Associates (2008-2010)
Hydraulic stream flow monitoringGround and surface water quality monitoringSediment SamplingWetland delineationsFish collection and identificationCollection of aquatic invertebrates usingOBBN protocolsStream flow, ground water level andprecipitation data management andinterpretationPermits to Take Water and Certificates ofApproval
Shell Conservation InternThe Nature Conservancy of Canada (2007)
Flora and Fauna inventoriesClassifying ecological communities using theEcological Land Classification for SouthernOntarioMonitoring ongoing rehabilitation projectsCompleting site monitoring and managementreports
Field TechnicianThe Watershed Science Centre (2006)
Hydraulic stream flow monitoringCollection of aquatic invertebratesSuspended sediment collectionStream flow data and precipitationmanagement and interpretation
Greening Co-op StudentThe Regional Municipality of York (2005)
Assisted in implementing the Region’sgreening strategyInvasive species removalMapping natural features using Arcview GISStreet tree planting, mulching, pruning andinventories
Rob Aitken B. Sc.EcologistCurriculum Vitae
CAREER EXPERIENCE (CONTINUED)
Environmental TechnicianConservation Halton (2004)
Collection and identification of aquaticinvertebratesCollection and identification of fishHydraulic stream flow monitoringClassifying ecological communities andperforming flora inventoriesAssisted in completing the North ShoreWatershed Study Report
Resources Management TechnicianPinery Provincial Park (2001)
Wild lupine seed collection, preparation andplantingPreparation work for prescribed burns andDeer CountsInvasive species removalNative species plantingsEducating public about rare natural featuresand species
AREAS OF EXPERTISEIdentification of flora and faunaELC / Vegetation Community AssessmentVegetation MonitoringGIS Mapping
SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCETree Inventory/Management Plan:
Lotco II Landscape Plan Street Tree Inventory(Cambridge)Street Tree Inventory for InfrastructureImprovement Projects (Cambridge)Jefferson Forest Edge Management &TreePreservation Plans (Richmond Hill)10606 Milton Road Tree Inventory (Pickering)Block 12 Phase 3 Trail Tree Inventory(Vaughan)Lackner Boulevard Tree Management Plan(Kitchener)
Tree Inventory/Management Plan(Continued):
699 Speedvale Avenue Tree Inventory(Guelph)Kleinburg Tree Preservation Plan &Relocation Strategy (Vaughan)Klienburg Edge Management Plan (Vaughan)
Botanical Inventory / Vegetation CommunityAssessment:
Rare species surveys for 407 extension(Durham)Windsor Essex Parkway – Species at Risk(SAR) surveys & Botanical Inventories ofremnant prairie communitiesBlock 12 Large Restore Buffer VegetationMonitoring (Vaughan)ENS Poultry Renewable Energy ApplicationNatural Heritage Assessment (Elora)Gordon Street Property ScopedEnvironmental Impact Study (Guelph)Block 5 Woodlot Management Plan(Brampton)Mill Pond Park Botanical Inventory & ELCAssessment (Richmond Hill)Block 11 Wetland Vegetation Monitoring(Vaughan)
Wildlife Inventory/Assessments:Heffernan Street Shoreline Rehabilitation FishHabitat Assessment (Guelph)Breeding Bird Surveys for Quarry Expansion(Waterloo Region)Breeding Bird Surveys for ProposedSubdivision (Guelph)Arkell Dam Restoration Fish Habitat/NaturalHeritage Assessment (Guelph)Subwatershed Study Snake and SnakeHibernacula Surveys (Fergus)Breeding Bird/Snake and Snake HibernaculaSurveys Summit Park (Hamilton)Mill Pond Park Breeding Bird Survey(Richmond Hill)
Rob Aitken B. Sc.EcologistCurriculum Vitae
In addition, Mr. Aitken also provides assistancewith:
Data Collection and EntryReport WritingPeer Reviews
VOLUNTEER EXPERIENCEBotanical inventory/Bird Surveys for theEscarpment Biosphere Conservancy (2011)Amphibian Call Surveys for the MarshMonitoring Program (2011)Volunteer Backpack Electro fishingCrewmember Credit Valley ConservationAuthority (2009)Deer Check Station Flynns Turn (2004)Pinery Provincial Park Pine Removal Program(1998, 1999)
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONSField Botanists of OntarioOntario Field Ornithologist
1 of 3
Sam Gildiner Ecologist
Education
MEM, Forestry, University of New Brunswick, 2011
BSc, Forest Management, University of New Brunswick, 2009
Diploma, Forest Technology, Maritime College of Forest Technology, 2007
Licenses/Registrations
Certified Arborist, Ontario, #ON-1579A, Issued 06/29/2012, Exp. 06/29/2015
Years of Experience
With AECOM: 1
With Other Firms: 7
Professional Associations
International Society of Arboriculture, Active Member
Association of Registered Professional Foresters of Ontario, Active Member
Association of Registered Professional Foresters of New Brunswick, Active Member
New Brunswick Wetland Delineators Association, Executive Committee, 2010 - 2012
Training and Certifications
Bear Awareness Training
CPR and First Aid Training
Fire Extinguisher Training
Mr. Gildiner is a terrestrial ecologist with more than 7 years of experience in the natural resource and environmental consulting field. He has worked throughout eastern and western Canada as a forester, and has worked in central and eastern Canada as an ecological consultant. Mr. Gildiner has experience in wetland science, forest science, habitat management, forest management, soil science, and arboriculture.
Project Experience
Other Category
J.D. Irving Limited, Federal Flood Relief Bridge and Culvert Replacement, Fredericton, New Brunswick. Coordinated assessments of watercrossing affected by storms on crown land. Performed field work with surveyors, engineers, and biologists to determine compensation to forest company. Prepared reports detailing required infrastructure damage and replacement objectives. [04/01/2011-11/10/2011]
Matt Harris and Sons Ltd., Water Source and Supply Assessment - Johnston Estates, Fredericton, New Brunswick. Coordinated well driller, location of wells, and field technicians to assess the potential for groundwater supply to well systems in a proposed residential subdivision. Managed long term safe yield calculations, water quality testing, and reporting for suitability of an aquifer for proposed development. [10/05/2011-10/31/2011]
Matt Harris and Sons Ltd., Water Source and Supply Assessment - Richardson Estates, Fredericton, New Brunswick. Coordinated well driller, location of wells, and field technicians to assess the potential for groundwater supply to well systems in a proposed residential subdivision. Managed long term safe yield calculations, water quality testing, and reporting for suitability of an aquifer for proposed development. [06/29/2011-08/22/2011]
Willow Homes, Water Source and Supply Assessment - Willow Estates, Fredericton, New Brunswick. Coordinated well driller, location of wells, and field technicians to assess the potential for groundwater supply to well systems in a proposed residential subdivision. Managed long term safe yield calculations, water quality testing, and reporting for suitability of an aquifer for proposed development. [07/27/2011-09/01/2011]
Peterson Mini Home Park, Peterson Mini Home Park - Environmental Impact Assessment, Fredericton, New Brunswick. Coordinated all field work and reporting associated with provincial EIA requirements including wildlife habitat, rare species, wetlands, groundwater, archaeology, and social considerations. [04/08/2011-09/22/2011]
Sam Gildiner
2 of 3
Matt Harris and Sons Ltd., Harris Estates - Environmental Impact Assessment, Fredericton, New Brunswick. Coordinated all field work and reporting associated with provincial EIA requirements including wildlife habitat, rare species, wetlands, groundwater, archaeology, and social considerations. [04/14/2011-08/18/2011]
Kria Resources, Nesting Bird Survey, New Brunswick. Conducted field work and reporting for bird nest surveys in northern New Brunswick for a mining project. [06/15/2011-06/22/2011]
Chippin Real Estate, Trail Design and Layout, Fredericton, New Brunswick. Designed and implemented on-the-ground a trail system that highlighted natural features of a significant woodland/wetland complex to increase natural capital of a residential subdivision. [08/02/2011-08/24/2011]
Department of Transportation - New Brunswick, Route 8 Suspended Solids Monitoring, Southern New Brunswick. Conducted total suspended solids monitoring, data management, reporting, and lab testing for water quality monitoring for a new highway alignment. [04/01/2011-11/23/2011]
Department of Transportation - New Brunswick, Route 8 Species at Risk and Nest Surveys, Fredericton, New Brunswick. Conducted field work, mapping, and reporting for habitat descriptions, rare plant surveys, and nesting bird surveys for several borrow pit locations along a highway construction path. [05/17/2011-07/05/2011]
Wassis Estates, Wassis Estates - Environmental Impact Assessment, Wassis, New Brunswick. Coordinated all field work and reporting associated with provincial EIA requirements including wildlife habitat, rare species, wetlands, groundwater, archaeology, and social considerations. [04/06/2011-07/20/2011]
City of New Maryland, New Maryland Water Supply Investigation - Environmental Impact Assessment, New Maryland, New Brunswick. Conducted field work and reporting duties for wildlife habitat assessment and wetland delineation for an area surrounding a proposed well location. [08/03/2011-08/23/2011]
Sunbury Developments, Noonan Estates, Noonan, New Brunswick. Performed field work, data compilation, and mapping duties for vegetation community description and wetland delineations. [08/10/2011-08/24/2011]
Wolastoqiyik Sacred Land Trust, Ecological Forest Management Plan, Burton, New Brunswick. Conducted field work, mapping, data compilation, public presentations, community teaching, and team management for forest management plan prescribing silvicultural interventions to meet community goals. [02/17/2010-11/15/2011]
Hill Developments, Hill Developments - Wetland Delineation, Fredericton, New Brunswick. Performed wetland delineation, mapping, data compilation, and reporting duties for residential subdivision wetland delineations. [07/01/2010-08/10/2010]
OVAC Ltd., Route 11 Wetland Delineations, Northern New Brunswick.
Sam Gildiner
3 of 3
Performed wetland delineations, functional assessments, mapping, and data compilation for a linear highways alignment as part of a provincial environmental impact assessment. [06/09/2010-08/04/2010]
Sundbury Developments, Noonan Developments, Noonan, New Brunswick. Performed wetland delineation, mapping, data compilation, and reporting for a residential subdivision. [08/12/2010-09/07/2010]
Department of Transportation - New Brunswick, Lorneville Barge Terminal - Environmental Impact Assessment, Lorneville, New Brunswick. Assisted with rare plant surveys, habitat assessments, electrofishing, and shoreline assessment of a proposed barge terminal as part of an EIA. [08/17/2011-09/14/2011]
Chippin Real Estate, Wetland Delineation, Fredericton, New Brunswick. Performed wetland delineation field work, mapping, data compilation, and reporting duties for a residential development. [07/29/2010-08/18/2010]
Port of Belledune, Port Expansion, Belledune, New Brunswick. Performed suspended solids monitoring in ocean waters during a dredging operation. [05/03/2011-07/05/2011]
1 of 8
Jessica Piette H. B.ES Terrestrial Ecologist
Education
Bachelor’s Degree, Environment and Resources Studies, University of Waterloo
Diploma, Environmental Assessment – University of Waterloo
Years of Experience
With AECOM: 5
Training and Certifications
Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario Training Course, Ministry of Natural Resources, 2007
Ontario Wetland Evaluation Training Course, Ministry of Natural Resources, 2008
First Aid Certification, St. John’s Ambulance, 2007
Environmental Impact Assessment Diploma, University of Waterloo, 2004
Ms. Piette is a terrestrial ecologist with AECOM’s Ecological Services Group working in Kitchener, Ontario. Her technical skills include wetland boundary delineation, and evaluations, soils identification, air-photo interpretation, vegetation inventories, community descriptions, amphibian surveys, and woodland evaluations. She is trained and has experience in the application of Ecological Land Classification (ELC) of Southern Ontario, and the Ministry of Natural Resources Wetland Evaluation guidelines. These skills facilitate in the preparation and data collection to complete environmental impact studies, constraints and opportunity reports, subject land status reports, tree preservation reports, environmental assessment evaluations, and natural heritage studies.
Project Experience
Environmental Impact Studies Orfus Realty, King Township Property – Natural Heritage Constraints & Opportunities Report, King Township, Region of York. Completed terrestrial field investigations including aerial photography interpretation, the delineation of vegetation into Ecological Land Classification (ELC) units, the collection of a comprehensive floral species list and the delineation of on-site wetland communities following the Ministry of Natural Resources Wetland Evaluation Protocol for insertion into the final Natural Heritage C&O document. Completed a Species at Risk (SAR) Screening to identify any potential SAR as well as their associated habitat located within the study area. City of London, Southcrest Storm Sewer and Outfall Replacement – Environmental Impact Study, London, Ontario. Completed terrestrial field investigations to determine existing site conditions. This included the delineation of vegetation communities into Ecological Land Classification Units, as well as a tree inventory along the proposed storm sewer alignment and outfall location. Completed a Species at Risk (SAR) Screening to identify any potential SAR as well as their associated habitat located within the study area. Following data collection completed the corresponding sections within the EIS report. City of London, South West Area Plan – Natural Heritage Report, London Ontario. Completed terrestrial investigations for 24 unevaluated vegetation patches within the City of London in order to determine their significance within the Natural Heritage System. Investigations included aerial photography interpretation as well as site specific investigations. Following data collection the City of London’s woodland evaluation guidelines, and/or wetland evaluation guidelines were applied accordingly. City of London, Meadowlily Area Plan – Natural Heritage Study, London Ontario – Conducted terrestrial field investigations, including aerial photography interpretation, the application of Ecological Land Classification and the collection of a comprehensive floral species list for insertion into the Meadowlily Area Plan – Natural Heritage Study Report.
Jessica Piette
2 of 8
City of Kitchener, Blockline Road Extension, Kitchener, Ontario – Conducted terrestrial field investigations, including aerial photography interpretation, the application of Ecological Land Classification, the collection of a comprehensive floral species list and the delineation of on-site wetland communities following the Ministry of Natural Resources Wetland Evaluation Protocol for insertion into the final Environmental Impact Study document. Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Rapid Transit Initiative, Transit Project Assessment Process, Environmental Impact Assessment. – Carried out terrestrial field investigations, including aerial photography interpretation, the application of Ecological Land Classification and the collection of a comprehensive floral species list along the proposed Light Rail Transit (LRT) Route. This was completed in order to assess the significance of the existing natural heritage features, to present potential development constraints, as well as, provide direction for specific design considerations of the LRT. GMS Mortgage, Huron Shores – Environmental Impact Study, Lampton County. Assisted in the delineation of wetland communities, plant identification and the completion of necessary report updates. St. Joseph’s Health Care, St. Thomas Regional Mental Health Care Centre - Scoped Environmental Impact Study. Completed terrestrial field investigations for existing site conditions for the development of a Regional Mental Health Care Centre facility on lands located adjacent to Hepburn Drain and lands designated as Significant Woodland and Significant Valleyland. This included the delineation of vegetation communities into Ecological Land Classification (ELC) units, as well as a tree inventory for the subject lands for insertion into the final document. Sifton Properties, Wilton Grove Road Environmental Impact Study, London, Ontario. Assisted in the completion of vegetation inventories to determine existing conditions. Completed the description of vegetation communities using proper Ecological Land Classification units according to the Ministry of Natural Resources: Ecological Land Classification System (Lee et al, 1998), created corresponding vegetation profiles, as well as assisted in the preparation of the final report. Completed salamander monitoring using cover boards as described by EMAN-Parks Canada National Monitoring Protocol for Terrestrial Salamanders. Sydney Tar Ponds Agency, Sydney Tar Ponds Baseline Avifauna Environmental Effects Monitoring Report, Sydney, Nova Scotia. Assisted in the collection of background information as well as in the completion of the Avifauna baseline report. Sifton Properties, Hardy Road Environmental Impact Study, Brantford, Ontario. Aided in the completion of vegetation inventories to determine existing conditions, completed background research on native prairie species for Brant County and created a detailed plant list. Participated in restoration efforts in association with the Ministry of Natural Resources regarding on-site tufa and a remnant prairie community.
Jessica Piette
3 of 8
Sifton Properties, Fanshawe Ridge – Environmental Impact Study, London, Ontario. Helped in the data collection to determine existing site conditions and constraints to development to be inserted in the final EIS document. This included aerial photography interpretation, vegetation community delineation into Ecological Land (ELC) Classification units, and the collection of a detailed floral species list. The onsite Fanshawe Ridge Provincially Significant Wetland boundaries were refined using the protocols set out in the Ministry o Natural Resources Wetland Evaluation Guide. GMS Mortgage, Huron Shores Environmental Impact Study, Lampton County, Ontario. Aided in the delineation of a wetland community. Labrador Iron Mines, Labrador Iron Mines Environmental Impact Study, Schefferville, Quebec. Aided in the completion of the baseline breeding birds report. Sifton Properties, Wickerson Road Environmental Impact Study, London, Ontario. Created corresponding vegetation profiles for Ecological Land Classification communities. Assisted in the completion of the final report. Completed amphibian surveys, using the “point-count” techniques as described in the Great Lakes Marsh Monitoring Program, as well as completed salamander monitoring using cover boards as described by EMAN-Parks Canada National Monitoring Protocol for Terrestrial Salamanders. Valente & Theocharis, 14873 Medway Road Constraints and Opportunities Report, London, Ontario. Aided in the completion of vegetation inventories to determine existing site conditions. Contacted local and provincial authorities requesting background information on the subject lands. Assisted in the description of vegetation communities using proper Ecological Land Classification units according to the Ministry of Natural Resources: Ecological Land Classification System (Lee et al, 1998), and assisted in the completion of the final report. City of Woodstock, Woodstock Woodlands Environmental Impact Study, Woodstock, Ontario. Assisted in the completion of vegetation inventories, the description of vegetation communities using proper Ecological Land Classification units, according to the Ministry of Natural Resources: Ecological Land Classification System (Lee et al, 1998), and in the completion of the final report. Completed a wetland evaluation for two of the patches using the Ministry of Natural Resources Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation System. Sifton Properties, Denfield Property DAR, London, Ontario. Aided in the completion of vegetation inventories to determine existing site conditions. Contacted local and provincial authorities requesting background information on the subject lands. Assisted in the description of vegetation communities using proper ELC units and assisted in the completion of the final report. Sifton Properties, Fratscko Lands Advisory and Environmental Impact Statement, London, Ontario. Aided in completion of field investigations to determine existing site conditions. Completed vegetation inventories and helped complete preliminary amphibian surveys, using the “point-count” techniques as described in the Great Lakes Marsh Monitoring Program.
Jessica Piette
4 of 8
Downham, Downham Property Environmental Impact Statement, London, Ontario. Assisted in completion of vegetation inventories for the subject property. Prepared community descriptions and profiles using ELC units. City of Woodstock, BB2D Wetland Environmental Impact Statement, Woodstock, Ontario. Assisted in collection of vegetation inventories and prepared a detailed list with all common and Latin floral names. Contacted local and provincial authorities requesting background information. Sifton Properties, Old Victoria Road Environmental Impact Statement, London, Ontario. Aided in gathering of vegetation inventories according to Ecological Land Classification units (ELC) and delineation of wetland boundaries. Contacted local and provincial authorities to obtain necessary background information. Kenmore Home, Bierens Property, London, Ontario. Assisted in description of vegetation communities by creating vegetation profiles and detailed plant lists. Contacted local and provincial authorities obtaining necessary background information. Renewable Energy NextEra Energy Canada, Bluewater Wind Energy Centres and Transmission Line Renewable Energy Project, Grand Bend, Ontario. Completed terrestrial site investigations, including delineations of vegetation communities into Ecological Land Classification (ELC) units, amphibian surveys following the Marsh Monitoring Protocol. Completed the woodland evaluations following the protocols set out in the Natural Heritage Assessment Guide for Renewable Energy Project Table 8: Significant Woodland Evaluation Criteria and Standards. Wetland Restoration ORE Development, Highbury Business Park Wetland Creation, London, Ontario. Aided with the vegetation inventory and monitoring of the area. Wetland Monitoring City of London, Uplands North Storm Water Management – Wetland Monitoring Program – Baseline Data, London, Ontario. Completed baseline data collection for a 3 year monitoring program within a wetland located adjacent to a storm water management pond. This included the selection and establishment of 5 permanent monitoring quadrats within the study area as well as a tree health assessment for existing trees within the wetland. Conducted amphibian surveys following the Marsh Monitoring Protocol for inclusion into the baseline report. Following data collection completed Baseline Wetland Monitoring Report. City of London, Forest City Wetland Forest City Stormwater Management Facility Westminster Wetland Complex Assessment of Reported Die-back. Conducted wetland assessment of Westminster Wetland complex including boundary delineation and a detailed floral species list for insertion into the final document.
Jessica Piette
5 of 8
City of London, Uplands North Storm Water Management – Wetland Monitoring Program – Year 1 Monitoring, London, Ontario. Completed Year 1 data collection for a 3 year monitoring program within a wetland located adjacent to a storm water management pond. This included vegetation monitoring within the 5 permanent monitoring quadrats within the study area as well as a tree health assessment for existing trees within the wetland. Class Environmental Assessments Regional Municipality of York, Upper York Sewage Solutions Environmental Assessment – Natural Environment Baseline Conditions Report. Completed terrestrial field investigations using a combination of Rapid Ecological Land Classification (ELC), and a comprehensive floral species list for the entire study area. This was completed in order to determine existing conditions as well as provide constraints to the overall selection of the preferred alternative. Township of Woolwich, Municipal Class Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Replacement of Floradale Road Structure # 050106 – Collected necessary background documentation from local agencies. Completed terrestrial field investigations using a combination of Ecological Land Classification (ELC), and a comprehensive floral species list, and conducted impact assessment for insertion into the final EA document. Niagara Region, Municipal Class Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Reece Bridge Replacement – Collected necessary background documentation from local agencies. Completed terrestrial field investigations using a combination of Ecological Land Classification (ELC), and a comprehensive floral species list, and conducted impact assessment for insertion into the final EA document. Go Transit, Expansion of Rail Service from Oshawa to Bowmanville on the Lakeshore East Corridor: Natural Environmental Conditions Report. – Completed terrestrial field investigations using a combination of Rapid Ecological Land Classification (ELC), and a comprehensive floral species list for 14 land parcels within the study area. This was completed in order to determine existing conditions as well as in the prevention and reduction of potential negative effects associated with the overall design, construction implementation and long-term operation of the rail expansion to natural heritage features. San Gold Corporation, Bissett Gold Mine Tailings Pond Expansion, Bissett, Manitoba. Aided in the completion of vegetation inventories to determine existing conditions. City of Toronto, Toronto Island Water Main Extension EA, Toronto Ontario. Aided in the completion of vegetation inventories. City of London, Sunningdale Stormwater Management Pond EA, London, Ontario. Aided in the collection of vegetation inventories and background information.
Jessica Piette
6 of 8
City of Woodstock, Water-Wastewater EA, Woodstock, Ontario. Assisted in the collection of existing conditions to aid in selection of a preferred alternative, and in the completion of a memo reporting these findings. City of Grimsby, Russ Road Extension EA, Grimsby, Ontario. Aided in the collection of field data, including vegetation inventories. Assisted in the completion of the memo reporting the investigation results. City of London, Bradley Avenue Trunk Water Main Class EA, London, Ontario. Collected vegetation inventory for the section of Bradley Avenue from Jackson Road to Airport Road, by identifying tree species, calculating its DBH, dripline, and assessing its health. Also assisted in writing the methods, findings, and significance sections of the initial report. City of London, Western Road Widening, London, Ontario. Aided in the compilation of field data to determine existing site conditions. Completed vegetation inventories and finalized initial memo to the client. City of Milton, Alternate Water Supply Class EA, Milton, Ontario. Helped refined preferred route by taking notes and photographs then compiling the data into report form. Manitoulin Island, Islandwide Waste Management Plan, Manitoulin, Ontario. Aided in collection of background information by contacting Manitoulin’s landfill and transfer station representatives and asking a series of predetermined questions pertaining to their waste practices. Also contacted were the marinas and aquaculture farms of the area. City of London, Old Oak SWM Pond, London, Ontario. Aided in gathering of field data by completing vegetation inventories and community descriptions, as well as, completing a detailed floral list for the study area. City of Guelph, Burke Well, Guelph, Ontario. Aided with compilation of vegetation inventories and community descriptions. Mining Labrador Iron Mines, Labrador Iron Mines, Environmental Impact Study, Schefferville, Quebec. Assisted in the completion of vegetation community delineations by aerial photography interpretation followed by ground truthing using the Canadian Vegetation Classification System. Compiled a detailed plant species list for each of the three specific areas of interest. Helped in the completion of the baseline breeding birds report. San Gold Corporation, Bissett Gold Mine Tailings Pond Expansion, Bissett, Manitoba. Helped in the completion of vegetation inventories to determine existing conditions for the expansion of the tailings ponds. Bancroft Uranium, Bancroft, Ontario. Completed the delineation of vegetation communities using aerial photography interpretation followed by field investigations. Sydney Tar Ponds Agency, Sydney Tar Ponds – Baseline Avifauna
Jessica Piette
7 of 8
Environmental Effects Monitoring Report, Sydney, Nova Scotia. Assisted in the collection of background information as well as in the completion of the Avifauna baseline report. Subject Land Status Reports City of London, Highbury and Highway 401 Expansion, London, Ontario. Completed vegetation inventories to determine existing conditions. Completed the description of vegetation communities using proper Ecological Land Classification units according to the Ministry of Natural Resources: Ecological Land Classification System (Lee et al, 1998), and completed the final report. Sifton Properties, Fanshawe Ridge Wetland Subject Land Status Report, London Ontario. Aided in the completion of field investigations, including vegetation inventories, community delineation into proper Ecological Land Classification units according to the Ministry of Natural Resources: Ecological Land Classification System (Lee et al, 1998), the delineation and staking of the wetland boundary, and in the completion of the final report. City of Woodstock, Parkinson SWM Pond Cleanout, Woodstock, Ontario. Participated in the initial amphibian’s survey for the study area. Assisted in field investigations by collecting vegetation samples and prepared detailed community descriptions for the final report. Tree Preservation Plans City of Mississauga, Hanlan Feedermain Environmental Assessment, Mississauga Ontario. Completed a tree inventory along each proposed feedermain route in order to assist in the identification in the preferred route. This included noting trees species within proximity to alternative alignments, potential impacts from proposed works. As well detailed tree data was collected including identification of dominant species, measuring diameter at breast height, assessing health, calculating height, and measuring the dripline along alternative routes as well as a description of existing riparian vegetation along various watercourse crossings. Sifton Properties, Hopedale Tree Preservation Plan, London Ontario. Collected tree inventory data by identifying individual species, measuring diameter at breast height, assessing health, calculating height, and measuring the dripline in order to complete a Tree Preservation Plan. Toronto Island Watermain extension – EA, Toronto Ontario. Aided in the collection of tree data. This included the identification of tree species, measuring the diameter at breast height, calculating height, assessing health and measuring the dripline. This information was then used to complete a Tree Preservation Plan. City of London, Innovation Park Phase 4, London Ontario. Completed significant woodland/wetland boundary staking using the dripline of edge trees. Completed vegetation inventories and tree inventory noting species, diameter at breast height, health and height. This information was used to determine the existing conditions of the subject property in order to complete a Tree Preservation Plan.
Jessica Piette
8 of 8
Environmental Monitoring Bancroft Uranium, Bancroft, Ontario. Completed the delineation of vegetation conditions using aerial photography interpretation followed by field investigations. Woodland Assessments Pen Equity Corporation and Goal Ventures Inc., Subject Land Status Report. London Ontario. Conducted necessary site investigations to complete a woodland evaluation following criteria set out by the City of London. Sifton Properties, Van Horik Woodland Assessment, London, Ontario. Assisted in the completion of field investigations, which included the collection of detailed plant lists and the delineation of different communities within the woodland using the Ministry’s Ecological Land Classification System.
Page 1 of 4
Pete Read-Faunal Related Resume to 2011 Education: Hons. B.Sc. Zoology / Ecology. (University of Western Ontario)
Experience: Projects marked with ** indicate I was working as part of Dave Martin’s Environmental Consulting team of faunal surveyors 2012 Acted as “expert” bird hike leader in May at Point Pelee NP for Friends of Point Pelee 2011 Avian studies for Wind Turbine Projects on Amherst Island. Avian studies for rail and storage yard development in Sept Isle, Quebec. Various avian studies for AECOM in London and area, and for 404 extension. **Observations at Eagle nests in South-western Ontario for post wind turbine construction (Chatham-
Kent) Acted as “expert” bird hike leader in May at Point Pelee NP for Friends of Point Pelee
2010 **Faunal studies at sites for wind turbine projects (Haldimand and Norfolk) Designing and Constructing Enclosures and Consulting for Loggerhead Shrike Recovery Program
employed by Toronto Metropolitan Zoo. (continuing program). Acted as “expert” bird hike leader in May at Point Pelee NP for Friends of Point Pelee
2009 **Faunal surveys at sites for wind turbines (Middlesex, Bruce, Grey, Norfolk and Haldimand) **Faunal surveys in 37 woodlots in Tecumseh, Essex County. Designing and Constructing Enclosures and Consulting for Loggerhead Shrike Recovery Program
employed by Wildlife Preservation Canada and Canadian Wildlife Service. (continuing program). Acted as “expert” bird hike leader in May at Point Pelee NP for Friends of Point Pelee
2008 **Field studies, mostly road surveys of avifauna for wind turbine projects(Chatham-Kent, Middlesex,
Lampton) Designing and Constructing Enclosures and Consulting for Loggerhead Shrike Recovery Program
employed by Wildlife Preservation Canada and Canadian Wildlife Service. (continuing program). Acted as “expert” bird hike leader in May at Point Pelee NP for Friends of Point Pelee
2007 **Field studies of avifauna for wind turbine projects (Chatham-Kent, Middlesex) **took part in surveys and habitat assessments for Acadian Flycatchers and Hooded Warblers at various
sites in Elgin, Middlesex, Oxford and Lambton Counties Designing and Constructing Enclosures and Consulting for Loggerhead Shrike Recovery Program
employed by Wildlife Preservation Canada and Canadian Wildlife Service. (continuing program). Acted as “expert” bird hike leader in May at Point Pelee NP for Friends of Point Pelee
2006 **Field studies of avifauna for wind turbine projects (locations, migration watches) in Dover Township
and near Amherstburg. Designing and Constructing Enclosures and Consulting for Loggerhead Shrike Recovery Program
employed by Wildlife Preservation Canada and Canadian Wildlife Service (continuing program). Acted as “expert” bird hike leader in May at Point Pelee NP for Friends of Point Pelee
Page 2 of 4
2005 Crew Leader for Boreal inventories of birds (locations, habitats, point counts) and wildlife in different
regions of North Western Ontario employed by Federation of Ontario Naturalists (Ontario Nature), Boreal Initiative, and Atlas of Breeding Birds for a joint study. In charge of program, transportation, accommodations, communications with First Nations People on trip, final reports, etc.
Bird survey work (locations, habitats, point counts) as one of the summer field work crew leaders in area near Algonquin Park, hired by Atlas of Breeding Birds for Ontario.
Designing and Constructing Enclosures and Consulting for Loggerhead Shrike Recovery Program employed by Wildlife Preservation Canada and Canadian Wildlife Service(continuing program)
Acted as “expert” bird hike leader in May at Point Pelee NP for Friends of Point Pelee 2004 Crew member for Boreal Forest inventories of birds (locations, habitats, point counts) and other wildlife
during summer field season, in North Western Ontario, employed by Federation of Ontario Naturalists (Ontario Nature), Boreal Initiative, and Atlas of Breeding Birds for a joint study.
Collection of nest records, habitat studies, banding, blood sampling of Acadian Flycatchers for the Acadian Flycatcher research program in South Western Ontario run by Dr. Bonnie Wolfenden, York University.
Designing and Constructing Enclosures and Consulting for Loggerhead Shrike Recovery Program employed by Wildlife Preservation Canada and Canadian Wildlife Service.
Acted as “expert” bird hike leader in May at Point Pelee NP for Friends of Point Pelee 2003 Breeding bird survey work (locations, habitats, point counts) studying in area near Temagami, North Bay,
Sudbury regions for Atlas of Breeding Birds and Federation of Ontario Naturalists (Ontario Nature). Acted as “expert” bird hike leader in May at Point Pelee NP for Friends of Point Pelee
2002 ** Faunal surveys at Clear Creek, Chatham-Kent, for the Nature Conservancy of Canada ** Faunal surveys for the Fort Erie Natural Areas Inventory for Dougan and Associates ** Faunal surveys at Bickford Oak Woods, Lambton, for Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources ** Amphibian surveys at Komoka PP Reserve, Middlesex, ** Surveys for Acadian Flycatcher and Hooded Warblers at southwestern Ontario Core sites for Canadian Wildlife
Service Acted as “expert” bird hike leader in May at Point Pelee NP for Friends of Point Pelee
2001 ** Faunal Surveys for Komoka Provincial Park ** Habitat assessment and nest productivity of Acadian Flycatcher in southwestern Ontario for Canadian Wildlife
Service and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Acted as “expert” bird hike leader in May at Point Pelee NP for Friends of Point Pelee
2000 ** Surveys for Acadian Flycatcher and Hooded Warblers at southwestern Ontario Core sites for Canadian Wildlife
Service 1999 ** Searched for Acadian Flycatchers at ravine and upland forest sites in Elgin, Middlesex and Lambton Counties for
Bird Studies Canada. 1998 ** Searched for breeding Acadian Flycatchers, Hooded Warblers and other VTE species at known sites in
southwestern Ontario and noted habitat features at breeding territories. Bird Studies Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, World Wildlife Fund Canada
1997 ** Searched for breeding Acadian Flycatchers, Hooded Warblers and Prothonotary Warblers and other VTE species
at known sites in southwestern Ontario and noted habitat features at breeding territories. Bird Studies Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, World Wildlife Fund Canada
Page 3 of 4
Additional… 1975+ Organizer or co-ordinator for the following projects: * London Peregrine Project (1995-2005) MNR advisor and co-ordinator of volunteers for monitoring nest site * Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas (2001-2005) member of Atlas Co-ordinators team, Region 4 * London Audubon Christmas Bird Count (since 1983) co-ordinate and compile, as well as participate * Audubon Field Notes (since 1983) contributor/editor for Middlesex County *Middlesex Bird Records Compiler and Committee Chair –recording and compiling bird records for Middlesex
County and chairing the evaluations of record committee (1983+) * Compiled Bird Checklist for Komoka Provincial Park for Ontario Parks (1985)
1975+ Participated as a volunteer in the following data collection/monitoring programs * Audubon Christmas Bird Counts (40+ counts since 1975) * Atlas of the Mammals of Ontario for Middlesex (1990-1992) * Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario (1985-1987) * CWS Breeding Bird Surveys (10+ years, 3 routes) * CWS Forest Bird Monitoring (Skunk’s Misery Forest 1990 to 2001) * CWS Species at Risk Studies (1990s) * CWS Endangered Species Studies (2001) * McIlwraith Field Naturalists of London Thames River Breeding Bird Census (1985 - 90) * McIlwraith Field Naturalists of London Life Science Inventories (Skunk's Misery, Komoka P.P. Reserve)
Related Natural History Experiences 2005 Member of interpretive staff for Akademik Ioffe, cruise ship to Antarctica for Peregrine Tours 1995-1997 Teacher at Outdoor Education Facilities in London, Ontario (JK-OAC) 2001+ Trip Leader for Worldwide Quest Nature Tours (Cuba, Costa Rica, Iceland, Amazon). 2001+ Trip Leader for Friends of Point Pelee 1980+ Numerous hikes for various nature clubs such as the Ontario Field Ornithologists, Ontario Nature /
Federation of Ontario Naturalists, Nature London / McIlwraith Field Naturalists, and Canadian Nature Federation. 1980 -1990 Teacher of birding interest courses with associated field trips for Fanshawe College and University of
Western Ontario Recent Publications. Read, P. McCowan’s Longspur:New to Ontario. In Ontario Birds, August 2006, Volume 24, number 2. Ontario Field Ornithologists. Domm, J. 2002. Guide to London Birds. (selected and wrote London Birding Hot Spots). Lorimer Publ. Read, Peter. 2000 American Anhinga, Anhinga anhinga summers at Delaware Sportsman’s Conservation Pond. In Ontario Birds, December 2000, Volume 18 number 3. Ontario Field Ornithologists. Read, P. and David Martin. Bird Checklist for Middlesex County. compiled 1990, revised 1996, 2003, 2009. Nature London aka McIlwraith Field Naturalists of London J.C. Findlay. 1984, revised 1990s. A Bird-finding Guide to Canada ( selected, wrote and revised section on London, St. Thomas and Sarnia) Hurtig Publ Read, Peter. From 1983+ Annual Summary of Birds Reports for Middlesex County. In: The Cardinal. Nature London / The McIlwraith Field Naturalists of London. Read, Peter. From 1983+ Seasonal Bird Reports. In: The Cardinal, 4 times a year. Nature London / The McIlwraith Field Naturalists of London. Read, Peter. From 1983+ many articles including trip reports, news items, but also birding articles such as… Osprey Nesting in Middlesex , Sharp-shinned Hawk Rescue, Peregrine Falcon Nesting, etc. In: The Cardinal. Nature London / The McIlwraith Field Naturalists of London.
Page 4 of 4
Awards The Conservation Award in recognition of outstanding contributions to conservation from The McIlwraith Field Naturalists of London, 1996 Ministry of Natural Resources Great Lakes Raptor Recovery Program in recognition of outstanding contributions to the restoration, recovery and conservation of raptor populations in the great lakes basin, London Project Peregrine, 1996 Ontario Field Ornithologists certificate of appreciation, Sept 2000 Federation of Ontario Naturalists (Ontario Nature) for outstanding commitment to nature as teacher, volunteer, birder and researcher, May 2002 The W. E. Saunders Award of Merit in recognition of outstanding contributions to The McIlwraith Field Naturalists of London, November 2004 Nature London Special Recognition Award in recognition of 26 years on the Board of Directors for Nature London/McIlwraith Field Naturalists of London, November 2009 Related Affiliations/Memberships/Positions: American Birding Association member Canadian Nature Federation member Ontario Nature / Federation of Ontario Naturalists member Friends of Point Pelee member Long Point Bird Observatory/Bird Studies Canada member Nature London / McIlwraith Field Naturalists of London-former Chairperson Birding Wing 1985-2009 -Vice president 2010-2011 -President as of Sept. 2011 Ontario Field Ornithologists-Life/charter member Woodland Advisory Committee for the County of Middlesex-member since 2007 Komoka Provincial Park Advisory Committee (completed 2005) References (others as needed) 1. Quest Nature Tours- 1-800-387-1483 2. Dave Martin- 1-519-269-3262 3. Ian Platt- 1- 519- 438-3330
Tom Shorney Ecologist
Professional History
07/25/2011 - present, AECOM, Ecologist 03/20/2011 – 07/22/2011, Quiet Nature, Restoration technician 06/2008 – 12/17, 2010, Natural Resources Canada, Great Lakes Forestry Centre, Ecological Technician
Education
Diploma, Ecosystems Management Technology, Sir Sandford Fleming College
Years of Experience
With AECOM: 4 months
Training and Certifications
Ecological Land Classification Certification 2012
First Aid Certification, St. John’s Ambulance 2012
Diploma, Ecosystems Management Technology, Sir Sandford Fleming College
WHIMIS training
Canadian Pleasure Craft Operator
Tom Shorney is a Terrestrial Ecologist with 4 years of field experience, with a keen interest in Birds and Amphibians. Since having joined the AECOM team in the summer of 2011, Tom has participated in both small and large scale projects. The majority of Tom’s experience in the consulting industry has involved assisting in Ecological Land Classification field work, as well as general stream measurements. He has had a major role in preparing Environmental Impact studies, and utilizing the Natural Heritage Information Centre for background species research. Experience Renewable Energy NextEra Energy Canada Along with a team of ecologists, several terrestrial investigations were conducted over a large spatial area for the purpose of wind energy. Specific investigations involved Ecological Land Classification (ELC) surveys, Significant Wildlife Habitat surveys, and wetland investigations. During the breeding season for amphibians, day searches and night call surveys were conducted. Monitored the distance of turbine locations to natural features during the micrositing process. Class Environmental Assessments Huron Bridge, City of Kitchener Performed terrestrial field investigations including the characterization of the surrounding vegetative communities along Schneider creek and prepared a photographic log. Cooksville Creek Erosion Control Study, EA Assisted in characterizing the terrestrial environment using Ecological Land Classification (ELC) techniques. Compiled a complete floral species list of plants in the area. Performed aquatic field investigations including stream depth, stream width, mineral composition of stream bottom, bank stabilization, and photo log. Contacted area officials regarding Species at Risk, and prepared the existing conditions portion of the report.
Reece Bridge Restoration Project, EA Assisted in field investigations such as classifying the terrestrial environment using Ecological Land Classification guidelines; and gathered specific background information using Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC). Forest City, City of London Performed field investigations pertaining to Stormwater Management Facility. Project required Aerial Photograph interpretation, NHIC search for background information, and the close contact with city and conservation authorities. Played key role in preparing the report. Cedar Creek, City of Woodstock Conducted a complete tree survey within study area including components such as: species, Diameter at breast height (DBH), tree condition, distances from stream, and GPS waypoints. Conducted background search and was in contact with provincial authorities. Monitoring Uplands North Storm Water Management – Wetland Monitoring Program, City of London Assisted in the preparation of a 3 year monitoring program which track the potential affects that development of a Storm Water Management Pond may have on the surrounding wetland. 5 plots were constructed in randomly selected areas, where vegetation communities will be closely monitored as well as, Water depth, water quality and tree health. Upper York Sewage Solutions, The Regional Municipality of York, EA Played a role in the completion of terrestrial investigations such as classifying vegetative communities and preparing a photographic log. Kitchener Waste Water Treatment Plant Assisted in the completion of terrestrial investigations which included photo interpretation, vegetation inventories which included using the ELC protocol, identified and measured trees and photographic log. Highway 2 Rapid Bus, Regional Municipality of Durham, Existing Environmental Conditions Performed terrestrial investigations along entire study which included classification of vegetative communities using ELC units, roadside tree inventory, photographic log and general notes. Supplied background information using the Natural Heritage Information Centre’s (NHIC) Biodiversity explorer, and assisted in the preparation of the report.
Barrie-Oliver, Class Environmental Assessment\ Performed Background information research using the Natural Heritage Information Centre’s (NHIC) Biodiversity explorer, as well as prepared a Species at Risk (SAR) table which outlines the species, their preferred habitat and when the species was last spotted. Species at Risk Assessment for Highway 81 Developed an information card for area citizens pertaining to the identification features of the Chimney Swift, which is listed as a Species at Risk.
1ra_2012-11-15_BW Amend Tps_60155032.Docx
Appendix D Weather Conditions during Site Investigations
1ra_2012-11-15_BW Amend - App D - Weather Data _60155032.Docx
Appendix D Weather Conditions during Bluewater Amendment Site Investigation Surveys – 2012 Weather Station: ........ Goderich Climate Identifier: ....... 6122847
Field Date Max. Temp. (°C) Min. Temp. (°C) Total Precip. (mm)
Speed of Max. Gust (km/h)
Average Wind Speed (km/hr)1
4/17/2012 4.9 -1.4 0 39 14.5 4/19/2012 11.3 6.9 0 41 17.7 4/23/2012 7.4 3.3 0 67 29.9 5/16/2012 12.4 4.6 2.9 44 19.9
Note: 1. At the time of this report, Environment Canada’s National Climate Data and Information Archive did not have the wind speed from 12 p.m. to 2 p.m. The average wind speed, therefore, was calculated using the wind speed data available.
1ra_2012-11-15_BW Amend Tps_60155032.Docx
Appendix E Vascular Plant Species List
Appe
ndix
H.
Plan
t Spe
cies
Lis
tN
exte
ra -
Blu
ewat
er S
tudy
Are
a
Coefficient of Conservatistm
Wetness Index
Weediness Index
Provincial Status
OMNR StatusCOSEWIC Status
Global Status
Local Status Huron County
514 BLW1603&1658
April 17, 2012
514 BLW1603&1658
April 17, 2012
514 BLW1603&1658
April 17, 2012
551 BLW1358&1371
April 19, 2012
551 BLW1358&1371
April 19, 2012
555 BLW1329April 23, 2012
555 BLW1329June 19, 2012
582 BLW1315May 16, 2012
582
Oldham et al
Oldham et al
Oldham et al
Newmaster
Newmaster
Oldham 1993
SWD
6-3
FOD
5-1
CU
M1
FOD
5-2
C
UM
1-1
CU
P3-2
FOD
9-5
SOC
CVa
scul
ar P
lant
Su
rvey
FOD
9-5
CU
M1-
1
PTER
IDO
PHYT
ESFE
RN
S &
ALL
IES
Dry
opte
ridac
eae
Woo
d Fe
rn F
amily
Mat
teuc
cia
stru
thio
pter
isO
stric
h Fe
rn5
-3S5
G5
XU
Ono
clea
sens
ibilis
Sens
itive
Fer
n4
-3S5
G5
XU
GYM
NO
SPER
MS
CO
NIF
ERS
Pina
ceae
Pine
Fam
ilyPi
cea
abie
sN
orw
ay S
pruc
e5
-1SE
3G
?U
Pinu
sst
robu
sEa
ster
n W
hite
Pin
e4
3S5
G5
XU
DPi
nus
sylv
estri
sSc
otch
Pin
e5
-3SE
5G
?I
RTs
uga
cana
dens
isEa
ster
n H
emlo
ck7
3S5
G5
XR
Cup
ress
acea
eC
edar
Fam
ilyTh
uja
occi
dent
alis
East
ern
Whi
te C
edar
4-3
S5G
5X
UU
DIC
OTY
LED
ON
SD
ICO
TSAc
erac
eae
Map
le F
amily
Acer
plan
tano
ides
Nor
way
Map
le5
-3SE
5G
?U
Acer
sacc
haru
m
Suga
r Map
le4
3S5
G5T
?X
AU
DF
FA
cer
negu
ndo
Man
itoba
Map
le0
-2S5
G5
UR
Acer
Xfre
eman
iiFr
eem
an's
Map
leS5
DU
Anac
ardi
acea
eSu
mac
or C
ashe
w F
amily
Toxi
code
ndro
nra
dica
ns s
sp. n
egun
doPo
ison
-ivy
(Clim
bing
)5
-1S5
G5T
XU
RTo
xico
dend
ron
rydb
ergi
lPo
ison
-ivy
00
S5G
5F
Apia
ceae
Car
rot o
r Par
sley
Fam
ilyD
aucu
sca
rota
Wild
Car
rot
5-2
SE5
G?
IU
Aqui
folia
ceae
Hol
ly F
amily
Ilex
verti
cila
taw
inte
rber
ry5
-4S5
G5
XU
Aris
tolo
chia
ceae
Duc
hman
's-p
ipe
Fam
ilyA
saru
mca
nade
nse
Wild
Gin
ger
65
S5G
5X
UAs
clep
iada
ceae
Milk
wee
d Fa
mily
Ascl
epia
ssy
riaca
Com
mon
Milk
wee
d0
5S5
G5
XR
Aste
race
aeC
ompo
site
or A
ster
Fam
ilyAr
ctiu
mm
inus
C
omm
on B
urdo
ck5
-2SE
5G
?T?
IR
DR
UC
enta
urea
bieb
erst
eini
iSp
otte
d Kn
apw
eed
5-3
SE5
G?
USo
lidag
oal
tissi
ma
Tall
Gol
denr
od1
3S5
XU
Solid
ago
flexi
caul
isZi
g-za
g G
olde
nrod
63
S5G
5X
UD
Solid
ago
spec
ies
Gol
denr
od s
peci
esU
FSy
mph
yotri
chum
late
riflo
rum
Cal
ico
Aste
r3
-2S5
G5T
5R
UTa
raxa
cum
offic
inal
eC
omm
on D
ande
lion
3-2
SE5
G5
IR
RR
UB
alsa
min
acea
eTo
uch-
me-
not F
amily
Impa
tiens
cape
nsis
Spot
ted
Jew
elw
eed
4-3
S5G
5X
UB
erbe
ridac
eae
Bar
berr
y Fa
mily
Cau
loph
yllu
mth
alic
troid
esBl
ue C
ohos
h6
5S5
GX
UU
UR
Pod
ophy
llum
pelta
tum
May
-app
le5
3S5
G5
XU
UB
etul
acea
eB
irch
Fam
ilyB
etul
aal
legh
anie
nsis
Yello
w B
irch
60
S5G
5X
UBe
tula
papy
rifer
aW
hite
Birc
h2
S5G
5X
RC
arpi
nus
caro
linia
naBl
ue B
eech
60
S5G
5TX
RU
Ost
rya
virg
inia
naIro
nwoo
d4
4S5
G5
XR
UU
Bra
ssic
acea
eM
usta
rd F
amily
Allia
riape
tiola
taG
arlic
Mus
tard
0-3
SE5
G5
IF
UR
UF
Cap
rifol
iace
aeH
oney
suck
le F
amily
Loni
cera
tata
rica
Tarta
rian
Hon
eysu
ckle
3-3
SE5
G?
IU
Sam
bucu
sni
gra
Euro
pean
Bla
ck E
lder
berr
yS5
G5
UVi
burn
umac
erifo
lium
Map
le-le
aved
Vib
urnu
m6
5S5
G5
XR
Vibu
rnum
lent
ago
Nan
nybe
rry
4-1
S5G
5X
FU
RC
orna
ceae
Dog
woo
d Fa
mily
Cor
nus
alte
rnifo
liaAl
tern
ate-
leav
ed D
ogw
ood
65
S5G
5X
UU
Cor
nus
race
mos
aR
ed P
anic
led
Dog
woo
d/G
ray
dogw
oo2
-2S5
G5?
XU
Cor
nus
rugo
saR
ound
-leav
ed D
ogw
ood
65
S5G
5X
UC
ornu
sse
ricea
Red
-osi
er D
ogw
ood
2-3
S5G
5X
UD
Faga
ceae
Bee
ch F
amily
Fagu
sgr
andi
folia
Amer
ican
Bee
ch6
3S5
G5
XU
FU
UQ
uerc
usru
bra
Red
Oak
63
S5G
5X
RG
eran
iace
aeG
eran
ium
Fam
ilyG
eran
ium
robe
rtian
umH
erb-
robe
rt5
-2SE
5G
5I
U
551
555
(SC
P-0
1)B
OTA
NIC
AL N
AME
CO
MM
ON
NAM
E51
4
1ra_
2012
-11-
15_B
W A
men
d - A
pp E
- P
lant
Lis
t_60
1550
32.x
lsx
Pag
e 1
pf 4
Appe
ndix
H.
Plan
t Spe
cies
Lis
tN
exte
ra -
Blu
ewat
er S
tudy
Are
a
Coefficient of Conservatistm
Wetness Index
Weediness Index
Provincial Status
OMNR StatusCOSEWIC Status
Global Status
Local Status Huron County
514 BLW1603&1658
April 17, 2012
514 BLW1603&1658
April 17, 2012
514 BLW1603&1658
April 17, 2012
551 BLW1358&1371
April 19, 2012
551 BLW1358&1371
April 19, 2012
555 BLW1329April 23, 2012
555 BLW1329June 19, 2012
582 BLW1315May 16, 2012
582
Oldham et al
Oldham et al
Oldham et al
Newmaster
Newmaster
Oldham 1993
SWD
6-3
FOD
5-1
CU
M1
FOD
5-2
C
UM
1-1
CU
P3-2
FOD
9-5
SOC
CVa
scul
ar P
lant
Su
rvey
FOD
9-5
CU
M1-
1
551
555
(SC
P-0
1)B
OTA
NIC
AL N
AME
CO
MM
ON
NAM
E51
4
Gro
ssul
aria
ceae
Cur
rant
Fam
ilyR
ibes
amer
ican
umW
ild B
lack
Cur
rant
4-3
S5G
5X
FU
UU
Rib
escy
nosb
ati
Pric
kly
Goo
sebe
rry
45
S5G
5X
UR
ibes
lacu
stre
Swam
p Bl
ack
Cur
rant
7-3
S5G
5F
UU
RJu
glan
dace
aeW
alnu
t Fam
ilyC
arya
cord
iform
isBi
ttern
ut h
icko
ry6
0S5
G5
XU
FD
Jugl
ans
nigr
aBl
ack
Wal
nut
53
S4G
5X
RR
Lam
iace
aeM
int F
amily
Clin
opod
ium
vulg
aris
Wild
bas
il4
5S5
XR
Ole
acea
eO
live
Fam
ilyFr
axin
usam
eric
ana
Whi
te A
sh4
3S5
G5
XF
FR
FF
Frax
inus
nigr
aBl
ack
Ash
7-4
S5G
5X
FFr
axin
uspe
nnsy
lvan
ica
Gre
en a
sh3
-3S5
G5
XU
UU
Ona
grac
eae
Even
ing-
prim
rose
Fam
ilyC
ircae
alu
tetia
naEn
chan
ter's
Nig
htsh
ade
33
S5G
5T5
UPa
pave
race
aePo
ppy
Fam
ilySa
ngui
naria
cana
dens
isBl
oodr
oot
54
S5G
5X
UF
UU
UPl
anta
gina
ceae
Plan
tain
Fam
ilyPl
anta
gom
ajor
Com
mon
Pla
ntai
n-1
-1SE
5G
5I
UPo
lem
onia
ceae
Phlo
x Fa
mily
Phlo
xsp
ecie
sU
Ran
uncu
lace
aeB
utte
rcup
Fam
ilyAn
emon
eca
nade
nsis
Can
ada
Anem
one
3-3
S5G
5X
UC
alth
apa
lust
risM
arsh
-mar
igol
d5
-5S5
G5
XU
Thal
ictru
mpu
besc
ens
Tall
Mea
dow
-rue
S5G
5X
UF
Rha
mna
ceae
Buc
ktho
rn F
amily
Rha
mnu
sca
thar
tica
Com
mon
Buc
ktho
rn3
-3SE
5G
?I
UR
RU
Ros
acea
eR
ose
Fam
ilyC
rata
egus
punc
tata
Larg
e-fru
ited
Thor
n4
5S5
G5
XR
UF
Cra
taeg
ussp
ecie
sH
awth
orn
spec
ies
UFr
agar
iavi
rgin
iana
Vi
rgin
ia S
traw
berr
y2
1SU
G5T
?X
UU
RF
Geu
mal
eppi
cum
Yello
w A
vens
2-1
S5G
5X
UM
alus
pum
ilaC
omm
on a
pple
5-1
SE5
G5
IR
Prun
usse
rotin
aBl
ack
Che
rry
33
S5G
5X
RR
UR
Prun
usvi
rgin
iana
ssp
. virg
inia
naC
hoke
Che
rry
21
S5G
5T?
XF
FF
FF
FPy
rus
spec
ies
Pear
spe
cies
RR
ubus
idae
usR
ed R
aspb
erry
SE1
G5T
5U
FF
UR
ubus
odor
atus
Purp
le-fl
ower
ed R
aspb
erry
35
S5G
5U
Sor
bus
aucu
paria
Euro
pean
Mou
ntai
n-as
h5
-2SE
4G
5I
USa
licac
eae
Will
ow F
amily
Pop
ulus
delto
ides
ssp
. del
toid
esEa
ster
n C
otto
nwoo
d4
-1SU
G5T
?X
RSa
lixsp
ecie
sW
illow
spe
cies
DTi
liace
aeLi
nden
Fam
ilyTi
liaam
eric
ana
Amer
ican
Bas
swoo
d4
3S5
G5
XU
UR
Ulm
acea
eEl
m F
amily
Ulm
usam
eric
ana
Whi
te E
lm3
-2S5
G5?
XR
UU
UU
RU
rtic
acea
eN
ettle
Fam
ilyU
rtica
dioi
ca s
sp. d
ioic
aEu
rope
an S
tingi
ng N
ettle
-1-1
SE2
G5T
?U
Viol
acea
eVi
olet
Fam
ilyVi
ola
cons
pers
aD
og V
iole
t4
-2S5
G5
XF
RV
iola
pube
scen
sD
owny
Yel
low
Vio
let
54
S5G
5X
RVi
ola
spec
ies
Viol
et s
peci
esF
MO
NO
CO
TYLE
DO
NS
MO
NO
CO
TSAr
acea
eAr
um F
amily
Aris
aem
atri
phyl
lum
Smal
l Jac
k-in
-the-
pulp
it5
-2S5
G5T
5X
UR
RU
Cyp
erac
eae
Sedg
e Fa
mily
Car
expe
dunc
ulat
aLo
ng-s
talk
ed S
edge
55
S5G
5X
RR
Lilia
ceae
Lily
Fam
ilyAl
lium
trico
ccum
Wild
Lee
k7
2S5
G5
RF
FEr
ythr
oniu
mam
eric
anum
ssp
. am
eric
anum
Yello
w T
rout
Lily
55
S5G
5T5
XF
UU
FF
FM
aian
them
umca
nade
nse
Wild
Lily
-of-t
he-v
alle
y5
0S5
G5
XU
Mai
anth
emum
race
mos
umFa
lse
Solo
mon
's S
eal
43
S5G
5TX
FF
UU
Poly
gona
tum
pube
scen
sH
airy
Sol
omon
's S
eal
55
S5G
5F
Stre
ptop
us
lanc
eola
tus
Ros
e Tw
iste
d-st
alk
10-1
S5G
5R
Trilli
umgr
andi
floru
mW
hite
Tril
lium
55
S5G
5X
UU
UF
U
1ra_
2012
-11-
15_B
W A
men
d - A
pp E
- P
lant
Lis
t_60
1550
32.x
lsx
Pag
e 2
pf 4
Appe
ndix
H.
Plan
t Spe
cies
Lis
tN
exte
ra -
Blu
ewat
er S
tudy
Are
a
Coefficient of Conservatistm
Wetness Index
Weediness Index
Provincial Status
OMNR StatusCOSEWIC Status
Global Status
Local Status Huron County
514 BLW1603&1658
April 17, 2012
514 BLW1603&1658
April 17, 2012
514 BLW1603&1658
April 17, 2012
551 BLW1358&1371
April 19, 2012
551 BLW1358&1371
April 19, 2012
555 BLW1329April 23, 2012
555 BLW1329June 19, 2012
582 BLW1315May 16, 2012
582
Oldham et al
Oldham et al
Oldham et al
Newmaster
Newmaster
Oldham 1993
SWD
6-3
FOD
5-1
CU
M1
FOD
5-2
C
UM
1-1
CU
P3-2
FOD
9-5
SOC
CVa
scul
ar P
lant
Su
rvey
FOD
9-5
CU
M1-
1
551
555
(SC
P-0
1)B
OTA
NIC
AL N
AME
CO
MM
ON
NAM
E51
4
Orc
hida
ceae
Orc
hid
Fam
ilyEp
ipac
tishe
llebo
rine
Com
mon
Hel
lebo
rine
5-2
SE5
G?
IU
Poac
eae
Gra
ss F
amily
Dac
tylis
glom
erat
aO
rcha
rd G
rass
3-1
SE5
G?
IF
Gly
ceria
stria
taFo
wl M
anna
Gra
ss3
-5S5
G5
XR
Phal
aris
arun
dina
cea
Ree
d C
anar
y G
rass
0-4
S5G
5X
UD
Poa
prat
ensi
s ss
p. p
rate
nsis
Kent
ucky
Blu
egra
ss0
1S5
G5T
XF
FLO
RIS
TIC
SU
MM
AR
Y &
ASS
ESSM
ENT
Spec
ies
Div
ersi
tyTo
tal S
peci
es:
82N
ativ
e Sp
ecie
s:65
79.2
7%Ex
otic
Spe
cies
1720
.73%
Tota
l Tax
a in
Reg
ion
(Lis
t Reg
ion,
Sou
rce)
1000
0%
Reg
iona
l Tax
a R
ecor
ded
0.82
%R
egio
nally
Sig
nific
ant S
peci
es0
S1-S
3 Sp
ecie
s0
S4 S
peci
es1
S5 S
peci
es66
Co-
effic
ient
of C
onse
rvat
ism
and
Flo
ral Q
ualit
y In
dex
Co-
effic
ient
of C
onse
rvat
ism
(CC
) (av
erag
e)4.
20C
C 0
to 3
low
est s
ensi
tivity
1929
.23%
CC
4 to
6m
oder
ate
sens
itivi
ty41
63.0
8%C
C 7
to 8
high
sen
sitiv
ity4
6.15
%C
C 9
to 1
0hi
ghes
t sen
sitiv
ity1
1.54
%Fl
oral
Qua
lity
Inde
x (F
QI)
33.8
6
Pres
ence
of W
eedy
& In
vasi
ve S
peci
esm
ean
wee
dine
ss-2
.06
wee
dine
ss =
-1lo
w p
oten
tial i
nvas
iven
ess
529
.41%
wee
dine
ss =
-2m
oder
ate
pote
ntia
l inv
asiv
enes
635
.29%
wee
dine
ss =
-3hi
gh p
oten
tial i
nvas
iven
ess
635
.29%
Pres
ence
of W
etla
nd S
peci
esav
erag
e w
etne
ss v
alue
1.51
upla
nd24
29.2
7%fa
culta
tive
upla
nd20
24.3
9%fa
culta
tive
1417
.07%
facu
ltativ
e w
etla
nd18
21.9
5%ob
ligat
e w
etla
nd2
2.44
%
EXPL
ANAT
ION
OF
TERM
INO
LOG
Y Bo
tani
cal a
nd C
omm
on N
ame:
Fro
m In
tegr
ated
Tax
onom
ic In
form
atio
n Sy
stem
(IT
IS).
2012
.Co
-effi
cien
t of C
onse
rvat
ism
: Thi
s va
lue,
rang
ing
from
0 (l
ow) t
o 10
(hig
h), i
s ba
sed
on a
spe
cies
tole
ranc
e of
dis
turb
ance
and
fide
lity
to a
spe
cific
hab
itat i
nteg
rity.
W
etne
ss In
dex:
Thi
s va
lue,
rang
ing
from
-5 (o
blig
ate
wet
land
) to
5 (u
plan
d) p
rovi
des
the
prob
abilit
y of
a s
peci
es o
ccur
ring
in w
etla
nd o
r upl
and
habi
tats
.W
eedi
ness
Inde
x: T
his
valu
e, ra
ngin
g fro
m -1
(low
) to
-3 (h
igh)
qua
ntifi
es th
e po
tent
ial i
nvas
iven
ess
of n
on-n
ativ
e pl
ants
. In
com
bina
tion
with
the
perc
enta
ge o
f non
-nat
ive
plan
ts, i
t can
be
used
as
an in
dica
tor o
f dis
turb
ance
.Pr
ovin
cial
Sta
tus:
Pro
vinc
ial r
anks
are
use
d by
the
NH
IC to
set
pro
tect
ion
prio
ritie
s fo
r rar
e sp
ecie
s an
d na
tura
l com
mun
ities
. Th
ese
rank
s ar
e no
t leg
al d
esig
natio
ns.
S4 a
nd S
5 sp
ecie
s ar
e ge
nera
lly u
ncom
mon
to c
omm
on in
the
prov
ince
. Sp
ecie
s ra
nked
S1-
S3 a
re c
onsi
dLo
cal S
tatu
s:VU
: nat
ive
and
very
unc
omm
onX:
nat
ive
and
not r
are
or v
ery
unco
mm
onC:
nat
ive
and
com
mon
R: n
ativ
e an
d ra
reI:
intro
duce
d an
d pe
rsis
ting
outs
ide
of c
ultiv
atio
n.
Ir: in
trodu
ced
and
rare
Ih: i
ntro
duce
d an
d kn
own
only
from
his
toric
reco
rds
Ivu:
intro
duce
d an
d ve
ry u
ncom
mon
Iu: i
ntro
duce
d an
d un
com
mon
Ic: i
ntro
duce
d an
d co
mm
onAn
nota
tions
: Pro
vide
s co
mm
ents
on
gene
ral d
istri
butio
n an
d ab
unda
nce
on th
e su
bjec
t lan
ds.
Def
initi
ons
of te
rmin
olog
y an
d ab
brev
iatio
ns u
sed
as fo
llow
s.Ab
unda
nce
Dom
inan
t (D)
: rep
rese
nted
by
larg
e nu
mbe
rs; g
ener
ally
form
ing
>10%
gro
und
cove
r or >
25%
veg
etat
ion
in a
ny o
ne s
tratu
mFa
irly
com
mon
(F):
gene
rally
wid
espr
ead;
repr
esen
ted
by fa
irly
larg
e nu
mbe
rs o
f ind
ivid
ual c
lum
ps; u
sual
ly fo
rmin
g >1
0% g
roun
d co
ver
Unc
omm
on (U
): pr
esen
t as
wid
espr
ead
scat
tere
d in
divi
dual
s or
repr
esen
ted
by o
ne o
r mor
e cl
umps
of m
any
indi
vidu
als
Rare
(R):
repr
esen
ted
in th
e po
lygo
n by
less
than
abo
ut fi
ve in
divi
dual
s or
sm
all c
lum
ps
DETA
ILED
EXP
LAN
ATIO
N O
F TE
RMS
Flor
al Q
ualit
y In
dex
and
Coef
ficie
nt o
f Con
serv
atis
m V
alue
s
Gen
eral
hab
itat v
alue
s as
soci
ated
with
the
CC
val
ues
are:
0-3:
spe
cies
foun
d in
a w
ide
varie
ty o
f com
mun
ities
, inc
ludi
ng d
istu
rbed
site
s4-
6: s
peci
es a
ssoc
iate
d w
ith a
spe
cific
com
mun
ity, b
ut to
lera
te m
oder
ate
dist
urba
nce
7-8:
spe
cies
ass
ocia
ted
with
a c
omm
unity
in a
n ad
vanc
ed s
ucce
ssio
nal s
tage
, tol
eran
t of m
inor
dis
turb
ance
s9-
10: s
peci
es w
ith a
hig
h de
gree
of f
idel
ity to
a n
arro
w ra
nge
of s
ynec
olog
ical
par
amet
ers
Vege
tatio
n sp
ecie
s an
d co
mm
unity
sen
sitiv
ity w
as a
sses
sed
thro
ugh
the
appl
icat
ion
of c
oeffi
cien
t of c
onse
rvat
ism
val
ues
(CC
), as
sign
ed to
eac
h na
tive
spec
ies
in s
outh
ern
Ont
ario
(Old
ham
, et.
al, 1
995)
. Th
e va
lue
of C
C, r
angi
ng fr
om 0
(low
) to
10 (h
igh)
, is
base
d on
a
spec
ies
tole
ranc
e of
dis
turb
ance
and
fide
lity
to s
peci
fic h
abita
t int
egrit
y. T
he o
ccur
renc
e of
spe
cies
with
a C
C o
f 9 o
r 10
can
be g
ood
indi
cato
rs o
f und
istu
rbed
con
ditio
ns s
uch
as m
atur
e fo
rest
s, fe
ns o
r bog
s.
1ra_
2012
-11-
15_B
W A
men
d - A
pp E
- P
lant
Lis
t_60
1550
32.x
lsx
Pag
e 3
pf 4
Appe
ndix
H.
Plan
t Spe
cies
Lis
tN
exte
ra -
Blu
ewat
er S
tudy
Are
a
Coefficient of Conservatistm
Wetness Index
Weediness Index
Provincial Status
OMNR StatusCOSEWIC Status
Global Status
Local Status Huron County
514 BLW1603&1658
April 17, 2012
514 BLW1603&1658
April 17, 2012
514 BLW1603&1658
April 17, 2012
551 BLW1358&1371
April 19, 2012
551 BLW1358&1371
April 19, 2012
555 BLW1329April 23, 2012
555 BLW1329June 19, 2012
582 BLW1315May 16, 2012
582
Oldham et al
Oldham et al
Oldham et al
Newmaster
Newmaster
Oldham 1993
SWD
6-3
FOD
5-1
CU
M1
FOD
5-2
C
UM
1-1
CU
P3-2
FOD
9-5
SOC
CVa
scul
ar P
lant
Su
rvey
FOD
9-5
CU
M1-
1
551
555
(SC
P-0
1)B
OTA
NIC
AL N
AME
CO
MM
ON
NAM
E51
4
mea
n C
C v
alue
/ %
spp
CC
>8
/ Con
ditio
n of
the
Land
scap
e5
/ 27
/ int
act
3.5
/ 19
/ slig
htly
deg
rade
d1.
3 / 2
/ se
vere
ly d
egra
ded
The
FQI a
ccou
nts
for t
he s
peci
es d
iver
sity
of t
he a
rea
by e
quat
ing
the
num
ber o
f nat
ive
spec
ies
with
the
mea
n C
C v
alue
. Th
e FQ
I is
gene
rally
use
d fo
r com
parin
g na
tura
l are
as.
The
CC
val
ue a
nd F
QI o
f the
stu
dy a
rea
wer
e ca
lcul
ated
for t
he e
ntire
stu
dy a
rea.
Wee
dine
ss In
dex
-1: l
ittle
or n
o im
pact
on
natu
ral a
reas
(mos
t non
-nat
ive
plan
ts a
re in
this
cat
egor
y)-2
: occ
asio
nal i
mpa
cts
on n
atur
al a
reas
, gen
eral
ly in
frequ
ent o
r loc
aliz
ed
-3: m
ajor
pot
entia
l im
pact
s on
nat
ural
are
as
Wet
ness
Inde
xAl
l pla
nts
in s
outh
ern
Ont
ario
hav
e be
en a
ssig
ned
a w
etla
nd c
ateg
ory,
bas
ed o
n th
e de
sign
atio
ns d
evel
oped
for u
se b
y th
e U
nite
d St
ates
Fis
h &
Wild
life
Serv
ice.
Pla
nts
are
desi
gnat
ed in
to th
e fo
llow
ing
cate
gorie
s:O
BL (O
blig
ate
Wet
land
): oc
curs
alm
ost a
lway
s in
wet
land
s un
der n
atur
al c
ondi
tions
(est
imat
ed >
99%
pro
babi
lity)
FAC
W (F
acul
tativ
e W
etla
nd):
usua
lly o
ccur
s in
wet
land
s, b
ut o
ccas
iona
lly fo
und
in n
on-w
etla
nds
(est
imat
ed 6
7-99
% p
roba
bilit
y)FA
C (F
acul
tativ
e): e
qual
ly li
kely
to o
ccur
in w
etla
nds
or n
on-w
etla
nds
(est
imat
ed 3
4-66
% p
roba
bilit
y)FA
CU
(Fac
ulta
tive
Upl
and)
: occ
asio
nally
occ
urs
in w
etla
nds,
but
usu
ally
occ
urs
in n
on-w
etla
nds
(est
imat
ed 1
-33%
pro
babi
lity)
UPL
(Upl
and)
: occ
urs
alm
ost n
ever
in w
etla
nds
unde
r nat
ural
con
ditio
ns (e
stim
ated
<1%
pro
babi
lity)
Each
wet
land
cat
egor
y ha
s be
en a
ssig
ned
a nu
mer
ical
val
ue to
faci
litat
e th
e qu
antif
icat
ion
of th
e w
etne
ss in
dex.
The
wet
land
cat
egor
ies
and
thei
r cor
resp
ondi
ng v
alue
s ar
e as
follo
ws:
OBL
: -5
FAC
W+:
-4FA
CW
: -3
FAC
W-:
-2FA
C+:
-1FA
C: 0
FAC
-: 1
FAC
U+:
2FA
CU
: 3FA
CU
-: 4
UPL
: 5
Prov
inci
al S
tatu
sPr
ovin
cial
rank
s ar
e us
ed b
y th
e N
HIC
to s
et p
rote
ctio
n pr
iorit
ies
for r
are
spec
ies
and
natu
ral c
omm
uniti
es.
Thes
e ra
nkin
gs a
re b
ased
on
the
tota
l num
ber o
f ext
ant O
ntar
io p
opul
atio
ns a
nd th
e de
gree
to w
hich
they
are
pot
entia
lly o
r act
ivel
y th
reat
ened
with
des
truct
ion.
The
S1
: Crit
ical
ly Im
peril
ed—
Crit
ical
ly im
peril
ed in
the
natio
n or
sta
te/p
rovi
nce
beca
use
of e
xtre
me
rarit
y (o
ften
5 or
few
er o
ccur
renc
es) o
r bec
ause
of s
ome
fact
or(s
) suc
h as
ver
y st
eep
decl
ines
mak
ing
it es
peci
ally
vul
nera
ble
to e
xtirp
atio
n fro
m th
e st
ate/
prov
ince
S2: I
mpe
riled
—Im
peril
ed in
the
natio
n or
sta
te/p
rovi
nce
beca
use
of ra
rity
due
to v
ery
rest
ricte
d ra
nge,
ver
y fe
w p
opul
atio
ns (o
ften
20 o
r few
er),
stee
p de
clin
es, o
r oth
er fa
ctor
s m
akin
g it
very
vul
nera
ble
to e
xtirp
atio
n fro
m th
e na
tion
or s
tate
/pro
vinc
eS3
: Vul
nera
ble—
Vuln
erab
le in
the
natio
n or
sta
te/p
rovi
nce
due
to a
rest
ricte
d ra
nge,
rela
tivel
y fe
w p
opul
atio
ns (o
ften
80 o
r few
er),
rece
nt a
nd w
ides
prea
d de
clin
es, o
r oth
er fa
ctor
s m
akin
g it
vuln
erab
le to
ext
irpat
ion
S4: A
ppar
ently
Sec
ure—
Unc
omm
on b
ut n
ot ra
re; s
ome
caus
e fo
r lon
g-te
rm c
once
rn d
ue to
dec
lines
or o
ther
fact
ors.
S5
:Sec
ure—
Com
mon
, wid
espr
ead,
and
abu
ndan
t in
the
natio
n or
sta
te/p
rovi
nce
SNR
Unr
anke
d—N
atio
n or
sta
te/p
rovi
nce
cons
erva
tion
stat
us n
ot y
et a
sses
sed
SX: P
resu
med
Ext
irpat
ed—
Spec
ies
or c
omm
unity
is b
elie
ved
to b
e ex
tirpa
ted
from
the
natio
n or
sta
te/p
rovi
nce.
Not
loca
ted
desp
ite in
tens
ive
sear
ches
of h
isto
rical
site
s an
d ot
her a
ppro
pria
te h
abita
t, an
d vi
rtual
ly n
o lik
elih
ood
that
it w
ill be
redi
scov
ered
SNA
Not
App
licab
le —
A co
nser
vatio
n st
atus
rank
is n
ot a
pplic
able
bec
ause
the
spec
ies
is n
ot a
sui
tabl
e ta
rget
for c
onse
rvat
ion
activ
ities
. SU
: Unr
anka
ble—
Cur
rent
ly u
nran
kabl
e du
e to
lack
of i
nfor
mat
ion
or d
ue to
sub
stan
tially
con
flict
ing
info
rmat
ion
abou
t sta
tus
or tr
ends
Ran
k ra
nges
, e.g
. S2S
3, in
dica
te th
at th
e ra
nk is
eith
er S
2 or
S3,
but
that
cur
rent
info
rmat
ion
is in
suffi
cien
t to
diffe
rent
iate
.S#
S# R
ange
Ran
k —
A nu
mer
ic ra
nge
rank
(e.g
., S2
S3) i
s us
ed to
indi
cate
any
rang
e of
unc
erta
inty
abo
ut th
e st
atus
of t
he s
peci
es o
r com
mun
ity. R
ange
s ca
nnot
ski
p m
ore
than
one
rank
(e.g
., SU
is u
sed
rath
er th
an S
1S4)
.
REFE
REN
CES
Nom
encl
atur
e ba
sed
on:
Inte
grat
ed T
axon
omic
Info
rmat
ion
Syst
em (I
T IS
). 20
12: (
http
://w
ww
.itis
.gov
)
Co-
effic
ient
of C
onse
rvat
ism
, Wet
ness
& W
eedi
ness
:O
ldha
m, M
.J.,
W.D
. Bak
owsk
y an
d D
.A. S
uthe
rland
. 19
95.
Flor
istic
qua
lity
asse
ssm
ent f
or s
outh
ern
Ont
ario
. O
MN
R, N
atur
al H
erita
ge In
form
atio
n C
entre
, Pet
erbo
roug
h. 6
8 pp
.
Prov
inci
al (O
ntar
io) S
tatu
s:N
atur
al H
erita
ge In
form
atio
n C
entre
(NH
IC).
200
0. P
rovi
ncia
l sta
tus
of p
lant
s, w
ildlif
e an
d ve
geta
tion
com
mun
ities
dat
abas
e. h
ttp://
ww
w.m
nr.g
ov.o
n.ca
/MN
R/n
hic/
nhic
.htm
l. O
MN
R, P
eter
boro
ugh.
Loca
l Sta
tus:
Old
ham
, M.J
. 199
3. D
istri
butio
n an
d St
atus
of t
he V
ascu
lar P
lant
s of
Sou
thw
este
rn O
ntar
io. O
MN
R
The
floris
tic q
ualit
y of
an
area
is re
flect
ed in
the
mea
n va
lue
of C
C.
For e
xam
ple,
an
old
field
or g
raze
d w
oodl
ot w
ould
tend
hav
e a
low
mea
n C
C; t
hese
hab
itats
are
dom
inat
ed b
y op
portu
nist
ic s
peci
es th
at o
ccur
in a
wid
e ra
nge
of s
ite c
ondi
tions
and
are
tole
rant
of
dist
urba
nce.
A b
og, p
rairi
e or
inta
ct fo
rest
wou
ld h
ave
a hi
gher
val
ue, r
efle
ctin
g th
e sp
ecifi
c ha
bita
t req
uire
men
ts o
f man
y of
the
spec
ies
and
a ge
nera
lly u
ndis
turb
ed c
ondi
tion.
The
follo
win
g pr
ovid
es a
n ex
ampl
e of
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
CC
val
ues:
The
sens
itivi
ty o
f nat
ural
are
as c
an b
e as
sess
ed th
roug
h ap
plic
atio
n of
the
Wee
dine
ss In
dex.
The
Wee
dine
ss In
dex
quan
tifie
s th
e po
tent
ial i
nvas
iven
ess
of n
on-n
ativ
e pl
ants
, and
, in
com
bina
tion
with
the
perc
enta
ge o
f non
-nat
ive
plan
ts c
an b
e us
ed a
s an
indi
cato
r of
dist
urba
nce
Valu
es(r
angi
ngfro
m1-
to-3
)hav
ebe
enas
sign
edto
mos
tnon
-nat
ive
spec
ies
base
don
the
pote
ntia
lim
pact
each
spec
ies
can
have
inna
tura
lare
as:
Furth
er re
finem
ent o
f the
Fac
ulta
tive
cate
gorie
s ar
e de
note
d by
a “+
” or “
-” to
exp
ress
exa
gger
ated
tend
enci
es fo
r tho
se s
peci
es.
The
“+” d
enot
es a
gre
ater
est
imat
ed p
roba
bilit
y oc
curr
ing
in w
etla
nds
than
spe
cies
in th
e ge
nera
l ind
icat
or c
ateg
ory,
but
a le
sser
pro
babi
lity
than
spe
cies
occ
urrin
g in
the
next
hig
her c
ateg
ory.
The
"-" d
enot
es a
less
er e
stim
ated
pro
babi
lity
of o
ccur
ring
in w
etla
nds
than
spe
cies
in th
e ge
nera
l ind
icat
or c
ateg
ory,
but
a g
reat
er p
roba
bilit
y th
an s
peci
es o
ccur
ring
in th
e ne
xt lo
wer
gen
eral
cat
egor
y.
SH: P
ossi
bly
Extir
pate
d (H
isto
rical
)—Sp
ecie
s or
com
mun
ity o
ccur
red
hist
oric
ally
in th
e na
tion
or s
tate
/pro
vinc
e, a
nd th
ere
is s
ome
poss
ibilit
y th
at it
may
be
redi
scov
ered
. Its
pre
senc
e m
ay n
ot h
ave
been
ver
ified
in th
e pa
st 2
0-40
yea
rs. A
spe
cies
or c
omm
unity
cou
ld
beco
me
NH
or S
H w
ithou
t suc
h a
20-4
0 ye
ar d
elay
if th
e on
ly k
now
n oc
curr
ence
s in
a n
atio
n or
sta
te/p
rovi
nce
wer
e de
stro
yed
or if
it h
ad b
een
exte
nsiv
ely
and
unsu
cces
sful
ly lo
oked
for.
The
NH
or S
H ra
nk is
rese
rved
for s
peci
es o
r com
mun
ities
for w
hich
som
e ef
fort
has
bd
tl
tth
thi
li
thi
tt
fll
lt
tkf
ifid
tt
1ra_
2012
-11-
15_B
W A
men
d - A
pp E
- P
lant
Lis
t_60
1550
32.x
lsx
Pag
e 4
pf 4
1ra_2012-11-15_BW Amend Tps_60155032.Docx
Appendix F Wildlife Species List
Appendix F. Wildlife Species List
American Robin Turdus migratorius S5BBlack-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus S5Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata S5Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater S4BCooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperi S4Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens S5Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris S5BHouse Wren Troglodytes aedon S5BKilldeer Charadrius vociferus S5B, S5NMourning Dove Zenaida macroura S5Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis S5Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus S4BRed-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus S4Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis S5Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus S5Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia S5BVesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus S4BWhite-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys S4BWild Turkey Meleagris gallopavo S5Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia S5BYellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius S5B
Butterflies Red Admiral Vanessa atalanta S5
Amphibians Wood Frog Rana (Lithobates) sylvatica S5
Birds
Taxon
1 S Rank (from Natural Heritage Information Centre): S1 (Critically Imperiled), S2 (Imperiled) or S3 (Vulnerable), S4 (apparently secure, uncommon), or S5 (secure, common).
Common Name Scientific NameProvinical Status
(S Rank)1
1ra_2012-11-15_BW Amend - App F - Wildlife Species List_60155032.xlsx
1ra_2012-11-15_BW Amend Tps_60155032.Docx
Appendix H OWES Evaluation for Stanley Big Drain Wetland
3rd
3rd Class:
8961
154120424
Date:Jessica Piette, To Shorney, & Jillian deMan
July, 2011
Overall:Information Source
Stanley Big Drain Wetland
Submitted by:
Biological:Social:
Hydrological:Special Features:
Special Planning Considerations:
Stanley Big Drain Wetland
June 26, 2012Year/Month Last EvaluatedYear/Month Last Updated
Evaluation Edition:
ScoresNot Provincially Significant
Wetland Significance
Official Name:
The wetland polygon's were identified and mapped using 2010 hard copies of aerial photos
June, 2012
Wetland Evaluation Edition
Comments
Include relevant information that can not be entered in the wetland data record( Ex. Sections that have not been completed.)
Additional Information
This wetland complex is approximately 50.18 hectares in size, comprised of three wetland units. It is classified as both a riverine and palustrine wetland system, hydrologically connected to the Bannokburn River via Stanley Big Drain. This watercourse passes through the western portion of the wetland complex. This wetland complex is composed of both marsh and swamp wetland types. Dominant species observed within the marsh areas include Canada rush (Juncus Canadensis), swamp milkweed (Asclepias incarnata), hop sedge (Carex lupulina), purple-stem aster (Symphyotrichum puniceus), broad-leaved cattail (Typha latifolia), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), soft stem bulrush (Scirpus validus). The dominant species observed within the swamp areas include, green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), freeman’s maple (Acer Freemanii), white elm (Ulmus americana), spicebush (Lindera benzoin), sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), and jewelweed (Impatiens capensis). Some of the swamp areas were dominated by drier species such as red baneberry (Actaea rubra ), blue cohosh (Caulophyllum thalictroides ), enchanter's nightshade (Circaea lutetiana )and star flower solomon's seal (Maianthemum stellatum ).
Wetland ID.:
Wetland Manual
WETLAND DATA AND SCORING RECORD
i) WETLAND NAME:
ii) MNR ADMINISTRATIVE REGION: DISTRICT:
AREA OFFICE (if different from District):
iii) CONSERVATION AUTHORITY JURISDICTION:
(If not within a designated CA, check here:
iv) COUNTY OR REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY:
v) TOWNSHIP:
vi) LOTS & CONCESSIONS:(attach separate sheet if necessary)
vii) MAP AND AIR PHOTO REFERENCES
a)
b) UTM grid reference: Zone: Block:Grid:E
c) National Topographic Series:
map name(s)
map number(s) edition
scale
d) Aerial photographs: Date photo taken: Scale:
Flight & plate numbers:
(attach separate sheet if necessary)
e) Ontario Base Map numbers & scale
(attach separate sheets if necessary)
Grid:N
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record March 1993
Latitude: Longitude:
Stanley Big Drain Wetland
Southern Guelph
Asauble Bayfield Conservation Authority
Huron County
Municipality of Bluewater and Municipality of Huoron East
1745106945 4816425.55
2010
Veg
etat
ion
Wild
life
Com
men
ts
WT
SCI
PR
LR
RM
LEB
LEL
C/L
S/M
Lim
SH
/MF
GH
CD
HD
CTS
LSD
SG
CM
NE
BE
RE
FFF
SUU
SwM
aFe
Bo
1M
12.
31ne
*, ls
, gc
32.
31To
tal
0.00
2.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2M
20.
18ne
*, re
, ls
30.
18To
tal
0.00
0.18
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3M
30.
49ne
*, g
c2
0.49
Tota
l0.
000.
490.
000.
000.
000.
000.
004
S1
h*, n
e, g
c3
1.13
Tota
l0.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
005
S2
h*, l
s, ts
, gc
419
.89
Tota
l0.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
006
S3
4.24
h*, l
s, ts
, gc
44.
24To
tal
0.00
0.00
4.24
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7S
410
.90
h*, t
s, gc
321
.29
Tota
l0.
000.
0010
.90
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
8U
0.65
Unv
eget
ated
0.65
0.65
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Tota
l0.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
0046
.55
1.32
0.00
0.00
Fish
Hab
D
ata
?
LOW
HIG
HA
VG
% O
PEN
WA
TER
Wet
land
Typ
eFi
eld
Com
m
Com
m
Cod
eSo
il Ty
peD
omin
ate
Veg
etat
ion
Site
Typ
eN
o. o
f Fo
rms
Veg
etat
ion
Form
s
Wetland Manual
viii) WETLAND SIZE AND BOUNDARIES
a) Single contiguous wetland area: hectares
b) Wetland complex comprised of individual wetlands:
Wetland Unit Number Size of each(for reference) wetland unit
Isolated Palustrine Riverine LacustrineWetland Unit No. 1 haWetland Unit No. 2 haWetland Unit No. 3 haWetland Unit No. haWetland Unit No. haWetland Unit No. haWetland Unit No. haWetland Unit No. haWetland Unit No. haWetland Unit No. haWetland Unit No. haWetland Unit No. haWetland Unit Totals:(Attach additional sheets if necessary)
TOTAL WETLAND SIZE ha
c) Brief documentation of reasons for including any areas less than 0.5 ha in size:
(Attach separate sheets if necessary .)
0.00
4.24Riv. R.M. Lac.E.B. Lac.E.L.
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record March 1993
50.18
3
24.65
0.00 35.04 15.14 0.00 0.00
50.18
0.00
10.3910.90
1.0 BIOLOGICAL COMPONENT
1.1 PRODUCTIVITY
1.1.1 GROWING DEGREE-DAYS/SOILS
GROWING DEGREE DAYS SOILS(check one) Estimated Fractional Area1) clay/loam2) 2800 -3200 silt/marl3) 3200 -3600 limestone4) 3600 -4000 sand5) humic/mesic
fibric granite
SCORING:Growing Clay- Silt- Lime- Sand Humic- Fibric GraniteDegree- Loam Marl stone MesicDays<28002800-32003200-36003600-4000>4000
(maximum score 30; if wetland contains more than one soil type, evaluate based on the fractional area)
Steps required for evaluation: (maximum score 30 points)
1. Select GDD line in evaluation table applicable to your wetland;2. Determine fractional area of the wetland for each soil type;3. Multiply fractional area of each soil type by score;4. Sum individual soil type scores (round to nearest whole number).
In wetland complexes the evaluator should aim at determining the percentage of area occupied by the categories for the complex as a whole.
Scoreclay/loamsilt/marllimestone
15 sandhumic/mesicfibric granite
Final Score Growing Degree-Days/Soils (maximum 30 points)
3
131518
Wetland ManualSouthern Ontario Wetland Evaluation. Data and Scoring Record May 1994
1518
1113
1.00
9
2226
13 915
>4000
1330 25
1821 10
Determine the soil type from the appropriate OMAF soils maps
8
12 8
78
159
57
20
118
18
11
15
7
15
0.000.000.00
15.000.000.00
<2800
0.00
x
1.1.2 WETLAND TYPE (Fractional Area = area of wetland type/total wetland area)
Fractional Area
Bog x 3Fen x 6Swamp x 8Marsh x 15
Wetland type score (maximum 15 points) 1.1.3 SITE TYPE (Fractional Area = area of site type/total wetland area)
Fractional Area
Isolated x 1 =Palustrine (permanent orintermittent flow) x 2 =Riverine x 4 =Riverine (at rivermouth) x 5 =Lacustrine (at rivermouth x 5 =Lacustrine (on enclosedbay, with barrier beach) x 3 =Lacustrine (exposed to lake) x 2 =
Sub Total:Site Type Score (maximum 5 points)
1.2 BIODIVERSITY
1.2.1 NUMBER OF WETLAND TYPES
(Check only one)
1) one 9 points2) two 133) three 204) four 30
Number of Wetland Types Score (maximum 30 points)
4
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record May 1994 Wetland Manual
Subtotal:
0.92
Estimate the Wetland Type from air photos or default to "swamp" (8)Score
0.0
0.00
7.40.8
Estimate from air photos
8
0.0
Score
0.058.1
0.30
0.00
0.70
0.00
0.00
1.401.200.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.603
13
13
Score
1.2.2 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES
Attach a separate sheet listing community (map) codes,vegetation forms and dominant species.Use the form on the following page to record percent area by dominant vegetation form. This informationwill be used in other parts of the evaluation.
Communities should be grouped by number of forms. For example, 2 form communities might appear as follows:
2 forms
Code Forms Dominant Species
M6 re, ff re, Typha latifolia; ff, Lemna minor, Wolffia
S1 ts, gc ts, Salix discolor; gc, lmpatiens capensis, Thelypteris palustris
Note that the dominant species for each form are separated by a semicolon. The dominant species(maximum of 2) within a form are separated by commas.
Scoring:
Total # of communities Total # of communities Total # of communitieswith 1-3 forms with 4 -5 forms with 6 or more forms1 = 1.5 points 1 = 2 points 1 = 3 points2 = 2.5 2 = 3.5 2 = 53 = 3.5 3 = 5 3 = 74 = 4.5 4 = 6.5 4 = 95 = 5 5 = 7.5 5 = 10.56 = 5.5 6 = 8.5 6 = 127 = 6 7 = 9.5 7 = 13.58 = 6.5 8 = 10.5 8 = 159 = 7 9 = 11.5 9 = 16.510 = 7.5 10 = 12.5 10 = 1811 = 8 11 = 13 11 = 19
+.5 each additional +.5 each additional + 1 each additionalcommunity = community = community = e.g., a wetland with 3 one form communities 4 two form communities 12 four form communities and
8 six form communities would score:
6 + 13.5 + 15 = 34.5 = 35 points
Vegetation Communities Score (maximum 45 points)
5
9
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation. Data and Scoring Record March 1993
5.0 3.5
Wetland Manual
Wetland Name:
Wetland Size (ha):
Vegetation Form % area in which form is dominant
h
c
dh
dc
ts
ls
ds
gc
m
ne
be
re
ff
f
su
u (unvegetated) Total = 100%
6
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation Data and Scoring Record March 1993
Stanley Big Drain Wetland
50.18
92.77
Wetland Manual
1.29
100.00
5.94
1.2.3 DIVERSITY OF SURROUNDING HABITAT(Check all appropriate items(1))
row croppastureabandoned agricultural landdeciduous forest coniferous forestmixed forest (at least 25% conifer and 75% deciduous or vice versa) abandoned pits and quarriesopen lake or deep riverfence rows with cover, or shelterbelts terrain appreciably undulating,hilly,or with ravines creek flood plain
Diversity of Surrounding Habitat Score (1 for each, maximum 7 points)
1.2.4 PROXIMITY TO OTHER WETLANDS(Check first appropriate category only) Scoring
1) Hydrologically connected by surface water to other wetlands(different dominant wetlaI1d type) or to open lake or deep riverwithin 1.5 km 8 points
2) Hydrologically connected by surface water to other wetlands(same dominant wetland type) within 0.5 km 8
3) Hydrologica11y connected by surface water to other wetlands (different dominant wetland type),or to open lake or deep river from
1.5 to 4 km away 5
4) Hydrologically connected by surface water to other wetlands(same dominant wetland type) from 0.5 to 1.5 km away 5
5) Within 0.75 km of other wetlands (different dominant wetland type)or open water body, but not hydrologically connected bysurface water 5
6) Within 1 km of other wetlands,but not hydrologicallyconnected by surface water 2
7) No wetland within 1 km 0
Proximity to other Wetlands Score (Choose one only, maximum 8 points)
hydrologically connected to the Grand River and associated nearshore marshes
7
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation Data and Scoring Record March 1993
1
1
Determine from air photos
Wetland Manual
5
5
1
1
1
Determine from air photos and other wetlands evaluations in the vicinity
Subtotal
5
5
1.2.5 INTERSPERSION
Number of Intersections(Check one) Score
1) 26 or less 32) 27 to 40 63) 41 to 60 50 94) 61 to 80 125) 81 to l00 156) 101 to 125 187) 126 to 150 218) 151 to 175 249) 176 to 200 2710) >200 30
Interspersion Score (Choose one only maximum 30 points) 1.2.6 OPEN WATER TYPES
Permanently flooded:(Check one) Score
1) type 1 82) type 2 83) type 3 144) type 4 205) type 5 306) type 6 87) type 7 148) type 8 39) no open water 0
Open Water Type Score (Choose one only maximum 30 points)
8
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation Data and Scoring Record May 1994
9
Optional: Complete as time permits or as scoring dictates.
Wetland Manual
Determine from aerial photos.
14
9
14
1.3 SIZE
hectares Subtotal for Biodiversity
Size Score (Biological Component) (maximum 5O points)
Evaluation Table Size Score (Biological component)Wetlandsize (ha) <37 >132
<21 ha 1 50
21-40 5 50
41-60 6 50
61-80 7 50
81-100 8 50
101-120 9 50
121-140 10 50
141-160 11 50
161-180 13 50
181-200 15 50
201-400 17 50
401-600 19 50
601-800 21 50
801-1000 23 50
1001-1200 25 50
1201-1400 28 50
1401-1600 31 50
1601-1800 34 50
1801-2000 37 50>2000 40 50
9
Southern Ontario wetland Evaluation Data and Scoring Record March 1993
37-48 49-60 61-72 73-84 97- 85-96Total Score for Biodiversity Subcomponent
121-
Wetland Manual
Score may be lower than actual if "Vegetation Community and Interspersion" have not been calculated.
55
9
109-
50.2
10 19
108 132120
9
8
7
5 7 9
21
23
9
10 13
11
11
9
10
13
11
13
15
8
47
25
15
28
31
34
17
19
21
2321
19
17
504643
40
37
40
43
15
13
11
10
37
34
31
28
25
23
25
28
31
34
17
19
21
23
4950 50
50
37
40
43
46
40
37
34
31
50
49
46
43
28
25
23
21
18
15
37
40
43
46
25
28
31
34
50
50
5050
49
50
50
50
50 50 50505050
50 50 50
505050
50 50 50
505050
50 50 50
505050
50 50 50
505050
50 50 50
505049
46 50 50
505043
34 43
43
28
40 49 50
504637
17 258
46
50
494031
34
37
2.0 SOCIAL COMPONENT
2.1 ECONOMICALLY VALUABLE PRODUCTS
2.1.1 WOOD PRODUCTS
Area of wetland forested (ha), i.e. dominant form is h or c. Note that this is not wetland size. (Check oneonly) h: 0.00 c: 0.00
1) <5 ha 02) 5 -25 ha 33) 26 -50 ha 64) 51- l00 ha 95) 101 -200 ha 126) >200 ha 18
Source of information:
Wood Products Score (Score one only, maximum 18 points) 2.1.2 WILD RICE
(Check one) Score (Choose one)Present (minimum size 0.5 ha) 1) 6 pointsAbsent 2) 0
Source of information:
Wild Rice Score (maximum 6 points)
2.1.3 COMMERCIAL FISH (BAIT FISH AND/OR COARSE FISH(Check one) Score (Choose one)Present 1) 12 points
Habitat not suitable for fish 2) 0
Source of infolmation:
Commercial Fish Score (maximum 12 points)
2.1.4 BULLFROGS(Check one) Score (Choose one)Present 1) 1 pointsAbsent 2) 0
Source of information:
Bullfrog Score (maximum 1 point)
10
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation Data and Scoring Record March 1993
Score0
Determine the percentage of the wetland area dominated by "h" or "c" by using aerial photograph.
Wetland Manual
Determined through a combination of aerial
0
photography interpretation and field observations
6
0
AECOM field observations
12
6
0
Determined through field investigations
12
Confirmed with AECOM Aquatic Ecologists
0
If any part of the wetland is riverine or the District fisheries files indicate presence of fish score"present"
conducted by AECOM
Wetlands Manual2.1.5 SNAPPING TURTLES
(Check one) Score (Choose one)Present 1) 1 pointAbsent 2) 0
Source of information:
Snapping Turtle Score (maximum 1 point) 2.1.6 FURBEARERS
(Consult Appendix 9)
Name of furbearer Source of information
1)2)3) 4)5)
0
Scoring: 3 points for each species. maximum 12Furbearer Score (maximum 12 points)
2.2 RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES
8 8 Not possible/NotKnown 0
8 8 0(score one level for each of the three wetland uses; scores are cumulative; maximum score 80 points)Sources of information:
Hunting:
Nature:
Fishing:
Recreational Activities Score (maximum 80 points)
11
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation Data and Scoring Record
Type of Wetland-Associated Use
0
0
No evidence observed during AECOM
FishingNature Enjoyment/
0
No evidence observed by AECOM during
Ecosystem StudyIntensity of Use Hunting
8 Moderate
High 40 points
0 08
Totals
Low
16
16
40 points2080
40 points20
AECOM field investigations - Trails observed throughout
field investigations
field observations
SubTotal
20
2.3 LANDSCAPE AESTHETICS
2.3.1 DISTINCTNESS(Check one) Score (Choose one)Clearly distinct 1) 3 pointsIndistinct 2) 0
Landscape Distinctness Score (maximum 3 points) 2.3.2 ABSENCE OF HUMAN DISTURBANCE
(Check one) Score (Choose one)Human disturbances absent or nearly so 1) 7 pointsOne or several localized disturbances 2) 4Moderate disturbance; localized water pollution 3) 2Wetland intact but impairment of ecosystem qualityintense in some areas 4) 1Extreme ecological degradation, or water pollutionsevere and widespread 5) 0
Source of information:
Absence of Human Disturbance Score (maximum 7 points)
2.4 EDUCATION AND PUBLIC AWARENESS
2.4.1 EDUCATIONAL USES(Check one) Score (Choose one)Frequent 1) 20 pointsInfrequent 2) 12No visits 3) 0
Source of information:
Educational Uses Score (maximum 20 points) 2.4.2 FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS
(check one) Score (Choose one)Staffed interpretation centre 1) 8 pointsNo interpretation centre or staff but a system ofself-guiding trails or brochures available 2) 4Facilities such as maintained paths (e.g., woodchips)boardwalks, boat launches or observation towersbut no brochures or other interpretation 3) 2No facilities or programs 4) 0
Source of information:
Facilities and Programs Score (maximum 8 points) 12
AECOM observations
Wetlands Manual
0
2
0
None Known
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring: Record May 1994
3
3
Score using ortho-aerial photography
0
2
Optional: complete as time and scoring dictates.
Localized water pollution observed
0
None KnownRequires contact with Local Boards of Education.
2.4.3 RESEARCH AND STUDIES(check appropriate spaces) ScoreLong term research has been done 12 pointsResearch papers published in refereed scientificjournal or as a thesis 10One or more (non-research) reports have been writtenon some aspect of the wetland ' s flora faunahydrology etc. 5No research or reports 0
Subtotal:Attach list of known reports by above categories
Research and Studies Score (Score is cumulative, maximum 12 points)
2.5 PROXIMITY TO AREAS OF HUMAN SETTLEMENTCircle the highest applicable score
Distance of wetland from 1) 2) 3) settlement
1) Within or adjoining settlement2) 0.5 to 10 km from settlement 103) 10 to 60 km from settlement4) >60 km from settlement
0 0 10
Name of settlement:
Proximity to Human Settlement Score (maximum 40 points) 2.6 (FA= fraction Area) Score
FA of wetland in public or private ownershipheld under contract or in trust for wetland protection x 10 =FA of wetland area in public ownership,not as above x 8 =FA of wetland area in private ownership,not as above x 4 =
Source of information:
Ownership Score (maximum 10 points)
13
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record May 1994Wetlands Manual
<2,500 or cottage
00
population> 10,000population
2,500 -10,000
0
population
4
Huron County
10
1.00
0.000.00
1040
26
16
2
16
26
40 points
Town of Zurich - population 886
community
4.00
Select a default value of "4" if no other information exists.OWNERSHIP
125
8
Additional Reports
2.7 SIZE
hectares Subtotal for Social
Evaluation Table for Size Score (Social Component)
<31 >150
1 15
1 16
2 16
3 17
3 17
4 18
5 19
5 20
5 20
5 20
6 20
6 20
6 20
6 20
7 20
7 20
7 20
7 20
7 20
8 20
8 20
8 20
8 208 20
Total Size Score (Social Component)
14
76-90 91-105 106-120 121-135
5
12
13
14
10
12
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record March 1993
Wetland Size (ha) Total for Size Dependent Score
31-45 46-60 61-75
Wetlands Manual
The score may be lower than actual since economic and recreational values have not been completed.50.2 44
3
4
5
7
136-150
2
2
2
4
4
9
9
9
7
8
8
9
106-137
138-178
12
13
14
9
10
10
10
9
<2 ha
2 - 4ha
5 - 8ha
9 - 12ha
512-665
666-863
179-233
13-17
18-28
29-37
1899-2467
234-302
303-393
394-511
12
>2467
864-1123
1124-1460
14
10
6
7
8
10
1461-1898
38-49
50-62
63-81
82-105
14
14
14
14
12
13
13
13
13
14
14
15
16
17
16
17
18
15
15 17
11
11
11
14
15
13
13
18
18
18
19
18
18
18
18
8
8
9
10
10
11
19
19
17
17
17
17
16
17
17
17
18
1815
16
16
16
15
15
16
17
20
20
20
20
19
19
20
20
20
20
14
14
15
15
16
16
18
18
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
16
20
20
20
20
20
18
19
19
20
17
14
15
16
17
20
14
14
15
16
20
20
17
17
19
19
20
18
18
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
15
1616
18
1818
19
2020
20
2020
8.0
20
2020
20
2020
20
2020
2.8 ABORIGINAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUES
Either or both Aboriginal or Cultural Values may be scored. However, the maximum score permitted for 2.8 is 30 points. Attach documentation.
2.8.1 ABORIGINAL VALUES
Full documentation of sources must be attached to the data record.
1) Significant = 30 points2) Not Significant = 03) Unknown = 0
Total:
2.8.2 CULTURAL HERITAGE
1) Significant = 30 points2) Not Significant = 03) Unknown = 0
Total:Aboriginal Values/Cultural Heritage Score (maximum 30 points)
15
0
Wetlands ManualSouthern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record May 1994
0.0
00.0
0.0
3.0 HYDROLOGICAL COMPONENT
3.1 FLOOD ATTENUATION
If the wetland is a complex including isolated wetlands, apportion the l00 points according to area. For example if 10 ha of a l00 ha complex is isolated, the isolated portion receives the maximum proportional score of 10. The remainder of the wetland is then evaluated out of 90.
Step 1: Detennination of Maximum Score
Wetland is located on one of the defined 5 large lakes or 5 major rivers (Go to Step 4)Wetland is entirely isolated (i.e. not part of a complex) (Go to Step 4) All other wetland types (Go through Steps 2,3 and 4B)
Step 2: Determination of Upstream Detention Factor (DF)
(a) Wetland area (ha)(b) Total area (ha) of upstream detention areas
(include the wetland itself)(c) Ratio of (a):(b)(d) Upstream detention factor: (c) x 2 =
(maximum allowable factor = 1)
Step 3: Determination of Wetland Attenuation Factor (AF)
(a) Wetland area (ha)(b) Size of catchment basin (ha) upstream of wetland
(include wetland itself in catchment area)(c) Ratio of (a):(b)(d) Wetland attenuation factor: (c) x 10 =
(maximum allowable factor = 1)
Step 4: Calculation of final score
(a) Wetlands on large lakes or major rivers 0
(b) Wetland entirely isolated l00
(b) All other wetlands --calculate as follows:(c * Complex Formula - Isolated portion
Initial Score 100 *Upstream detention factor (DF) (Step 2) Wetland attenuation factor (AF) (Step 3)Final score: [(DF + AF)/2] x Initial score =
(c * Final score:=*Unless wetland is a complex with isolated portions (see above).
Flood Attenuation Score (maximum l00 points)
16
(0.75)*2 1.00
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record March 1993
X
estimate
Wetlands Manual
61.0
100.00
61
0.2
1.000.22
61.00
0.22
calculate
Estimated&Calculated values can be obtained from G.I.S. data layers.
50.18
2306.000.02
50.1866.35
1.00
3.2 WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
3.2.1 SHORT TERM WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
Step 1: Determination of maximum initial score
Wetland on one of the 5 defined large lakes or 5 major rivers (Go to Step 5a)All other wetlands (Go through Steps 2, 3, 4, and 5b)
Step 2: Determination of watershed improvement factor (WIF)Calculation of WIF is based on the fractional area (FA) of each site type that makes up the total area of the wetland.
(FA= area of site type/total area of wetland) FractionalArea
FA of isolated wetland x 0.5 =FA of riverine wetland x 1 =FA of palustrine wetland with no inflow x 0.7 =FA of palustrine wetland with inflows x 1 =FA of lacustrine on lake shoreline x 0.2 =FA of lacustrine at lake inflow or outflow x 1 =
Sub Total:Sum (WIF cannot exceed 1.0)
Step 3: Determination of catchment land use factor (LUF)(Choose the first category that fits upstream landuse in the catchment.)
1) 1.0 Over 50% agricultural and/or urban 1.02) Between 30 and 50% agricultural and/or urban 0.83) Over 50% forested or other natural vegetation 0.6
LUF (maximum 1.0)
Step 4: Determination of pollutant uptake factor (PUT)Calculation of PUT is based on the fractional area (FA) of each vegetation type that makes up the total area of the wetland. Base assessment on the dominant vegetation form for each community except where dead trees or shrubs dominate. In that case base assessment on thedomininant live vegetation. (FA = area of vegetation type/total area of wetland)
FA of wetland with live trees, shrubs, Fractional Areaherbs or mosses (c,h,ts,ls,gc,m) x 0.75 =FA of wetland with emergent, submergentor floating vegetation (re,be,ne,su,f,ff) x 1 =
FA of wetland with little or no vegetation (u) x 0.5 =
Sum (PUT cannot exceed 1.0)
17
0.00
0.300.70
0.00
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record May 1994
X
0.00
Wetlands Manual
0.790.79
1.00
0.92
0.000.300.490.000.00
0.74
0.05
0.01
0.69
0.05
0.00
Estimate FA from air photos or use default factor of "0.75"Subtotal: 0.74
Step 5: Calculation of final score
(a) Wetland on large lakes or major rivers 0(b) All other wetlands -calculate as follows
Initial score 60Water quality improvement factor (WQF)Land use factor (LUF)Pollutant uptake factor (PUT)
Final score: 60 x WQF x LUF x PUT =
Short Term Water Quality Improvement Score (maximum 60 points)
3.2.2 LONG TERM NUTRIENT TRAP
Step 1:Wetland on large lakes or 5 major rivers 0 points
X All other wetlands (proceed to Step 2)
Step 2: Choose only one of the following settings that best describes the wetland being evaluated
1) Wetland located in a river mouth 10 points2) Wetland is a bog, fen or swamp with more than
50% of the wetland being covered with organic soil 10
3) Wetland is a bog, fen or swamp with less than50% of the wetland being covered withorganic soil 3
4) Wetland is a marsh with more than50% of the wetland covered with organic soil 3
5) 0 None of the above 0
Long Term Nutrient Trap Score (maximum 10 points)
18
0
35.08
35
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation,Data and Scoring Record May 1994
0.791.000.74
Determine wetland type from aerial photos and soil type from OMAF soils maps.
Wetlands Manual
3.2.3 GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE
(Circle the characteristics that best describe the wetland being evaluated and then sum the scores. If the sum exceeds 30 points assign the maximum score of 30.)
Wetland type 1) Bog = 0 2) Swamp/Marsh = 2 2 3) Fen = 5Topography 1) Flat/rolling = 0 0 2) Hilly = 2 3) Steep = 5Wetland Large (>50%) = 0 Moderate (5-50%) Small <(5%) = 5 5Area: Upslope = 2Catchment AreaLagg Development 1) None found = 0 0 2) Minor = 2 3) Extensive = 5Seeps 1) None = 0 0 2) = or < 3 seeps = 2 3) > 3 seeps = 5Surface marl deposits 1) None = 0 0 2) = or < 3 sites = 2 3) > 3 sites = 5Iron precipitates 1) None = 0 0 2) = or < 3 sites = 2 3) > 3 sites = 5Located within 1 km N/A = 0 0 N/A = 0 Yes = 10of a major aquiferTotals 0 2 5
(Scores are cumulative maximum score 30 points)
Groundwater Discharge Score (maximum 30 points)
3.3 CARBON SINK
Choose only one of the following
1) Bog, fen or swamp with more than 50% coverageby organic soil 5 points
2) Bog, fen or swamp with between 10 to 49%coverage by organic soil 2
3) Marsh with more than 50% coverage by organicsoil 3
4) Wetlands not in one of the above categories 0
Carbon Sink Score (maximum 5 points)
19
None to Little Some High
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation March 1993
WetlandCharacteristics
Potential for Discharge
The final score will be underestimated since some of the wetland characteristics cannot be scored
Wetlands Manual
0
0
7
3.4 SHORELINE EROSION CONTROLStep 1: Score
Wetland entirely isolated or palustrine 0Any part of the Wetland riverine or lacustrine
(proceed to Step 2)
Step 2:Choose the one characteristic that best describes the shoreline vegetation (see text for a definition of shoreline)
Score1) Trees and shrubs 152) Emergent vegetation 83) Submergent vegetation 64) Other shoreline vegetation 35) No vegetation 0
Shoreline Erosion Control Score (maximum 15 points)
3.5 GROUND WATER RECHARGE
3.5.1 WETLAND SITE TYPEScore
(a) Wetland > 50% lacustrine (by area) or located on one of thefive major rivers 0
(b) Wetland not as above. Calculate final score as follows:(FA= area of site type/total area of wetland)
FractionalArea
FA of isolated or palustrine wetland x 50 =FA of riverine wetland x 20 =FA of lacustrine wetland (wetland <50% lacustrine) x 0 =
Ground Water Recharge Wetland Site Type Component Score (maximum 50 points)
20
6.0
Subtotal:
Wetlands Manual
0.0
41
3
41.0
0.70
3
0.300.00
35.0
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation
x
Determine from ortho-aerial photography
3.5.2 WETLAND SOIL RECHARGE POTENTIAL
(Circle only one choice that best describes the hydrologic soil class of the area surrounding thewetland being evaluated.)
1) Sand, loam, gravel, till 2) Clay or bedrock1) Lacustrine or on a major 0 0
river2) Isolated 10 53) Palustrine 7 7 44) Riverine (not a major river) 5 2Totals 7 0
Ground Water Recharge Wetland Soil Recharge Potential Score (maximum 10 points)
21
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation March 1993
Dominant Wetland Type
7
Determine from OMAF soils maps.
Wetlands Manual
4.1 RARITY
4.1.1 WETLANDS
Site District 6-1Presence of wetland type (check one or more)
BogFen
X SwampX Marsh
Score for rarity within the landscape and rarity of the wetland type. Score for rarity of wetland type is cumulative (maximum 80 points) based on presence or absence.
Score forRarity withinthe Landscape
6-1 60 6-2 60 6-3 40 6-4 60 6-5 20 6-6 40 6-7 60 6-8 20 6-9 0 6-10 20 6-11 0 6-12 0 6-13 60 6-14 40 6-15 40 7-1 60 7-2 60 7-3 60 7-4 80 7-5 60 7-6 80
Rarity within the Landscape Score (maximum 80 points) 60Rarity of Wetland Type Score (maximum 80 points) 40
22
80
80
40808080
8080806080
80
4080808080800
00000
0000
200
0
000
6000
0000
30
200
30301020
10404020
2010
Marsh Swamp Fen
40 0 80
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation Data and Scoring Record March 1993
4.0 SPECIAL FEATURES COMPONENT
8080
Bog
Score for Rarity of Wetland Type
Slte District40 0 80
80808080
80808080
808080
80808080
Wetlands Manual
20 0 80 8080
80
80
4.1.2 SPECIES
4.1.2.1 BREEDING HABITAT FOR AN ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES
Name of species Source of information
1) 2)3)4)5)
Field InvestigationsAttach documentation.
Scoring:
For each species 250 points
(score is cumulative, no maximum score)
Breeding Habitat for Endangered or Threatened Species Score (no maximum)
Name of species Source of information1) 2)3)4)5)
field investigations
Attach documentation.Scoring:
For one species 150 pointsFor each additional species 75
(score is cumulative, no maximum score)
Traditional Habitat for Endangered Species Score (no maximum)
23
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record December 2002
None observed during
Wetlands Manual
0
0
None observed during0Total:
4.1.2.2 TRADITIONAL MIGRATION OR FEEDING HABITAT FOR AN ENDANGEREDOR THREATENED SPECIES
Total: 0
4.1.2.3 PROVINCIALLY SIGNIFICANT ANIMAL SPECIES
Name of species Source of information
1)2)3)4)5)6)7)8)9)10)11)12)13)14)15)
Attach separate list if necessary; Attach documentation
Scoring:
Number of provincially significant animal species in the wetland:
1 species = 50 points 14 species = 1542 species = 80 15 species = 1563 species = 95 16 species = 1584 species = 105 17 species = 1605 species = 115 18 species = 1626 species = 125 19 species = 1647 species = 130 20 species = 1668 species = 135 21 species = 1689 species = 140 22 species = 170
10 species = 143 23 species = 17211 species = 146 24 species = 17412 species = 149 25 species = 17613 species = 152
Add one point for every species past 25 (for example, 26 species = 177 points, 27 species = 178 points etc.)
(no maximum score)
Provincially Significant Animal Species Score (no maximum)
24
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record March 1993
No observations duringfield investigations
Wetlands Manual
0
4.1.2.4 PROVINCIALLY SIGNIFICANT PLANT SPECIES
(Scientific names must be recorded)Common Name Scientific Name Source of information
1)2)3)4)5)6)7)8)9)10)11)12)13)14)15)
Attach separate list if necessary; Attach documentation
Scoring: 80
Number of provincially significant plant species in the wetland:
1 species = 50 points 14 species = 1542 species = 80 15 species = 1563 species = 95 16 species = 1584 species = 105 17 species = 1605 species = 115 18 species = 1626 species = 125 19 species = 1647 species = 130 20 species = 1668 species = 135 21 species = 1689 species = 140 22 species = 17010 species = 143 23 species = 17211 species = 146 24 species = 17412 species = 149 25 species = 17613 species = 152
Add one point for every species past 25 (for example, 26 species = 177 points, 27 species = 178 points etc.)
Provincially Significant Plant Species Score (no maximum)
25
during field investigations
Wetlands ManualSouthern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record March 1993
No observations made
0
4.1.2.5 REGIONALLY SIGNIFICANT SPECIES (SITE REGION)
Scientific names must be recorded for plant species. Lists of significant species must be approved by MNR.
SIGNIFICANT IN SITE REGION:
.Common Name Scientific Name Source of information
1)2)3)4)5)6)7)8)9)10)11)12)13)14)15)
Attach separate list if necessary .Attach documentation.
Scoring: 4
No. of species significant in Site Region
1 species = 20 6 species = 552 species = 30 7 species = 583 species = 40 8 species = 614 species = 45 9 species = 645 species = 50 10 species = 67
Add one point for every species past 10. (no maximum score)
Regionally Significant Species Score (Site Region)(no maximum)
26
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record December 2002
No observations made
Wetlands Manual
during field investigations
0
Com
mon
Nam
eSc
ienc
tific
Nam
eS
Ran
kG
Ran
kW
et C
oETr
acke
dPo
ly. L
ocC
omm
ents
Plan
ts
Am
phib
ians
Mam
mal
s
Bir
ds
Rep
tiles
Add
ition
al S
peci
es
4.2.1.6 LOCALLY SIGNIFICANT SPECIES (SITE DISTRICT)
Scientific names must be recorded for plant species. Lists of significant species must be approved by MNR.
Common Name Scientific Name Source of information
1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950
Attach separate list if necessary .Attach documentation.
Scoring:
No. of species significant in Site District
1 species = 10 6 species = 412 species = 17 7 species = 433 species = 24 8 species = 454 species = 31 9 species = 475 species = 38 10 species = 49
For each significant species over 10 in the wetland, add 1 point.
Locally Significant Species Score (Site District) (no maximum)
27
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and ScoringRecord December 2002
No observations made
0
during field investigations
Wetlands Manual
4.2 SIGNIFICANT FEATURES AND/OR FISH & WILDLIFE HABITAT
4.2.1 NESTING OF COLONIAL WATERBIRDS
1) Currently nesting
2) Known to have nestedwithin past 5 years
3) Active feeding area(Do not include feedingby great blue herons)
4) None known
Attach documentation (nest locations etc., if known)
Score highest applicable category only; maximum score 50 points.
Score for Nesting Colonial Waterbirds (maximum 50 points)
4.2.2. WINTER COVER FOR WILDLIFE
(Check only highest level of significance) Score(one only)
1) Provincially significant l002) Significant in Site Region 503) Significant in Site District 253) Locally significant 104) Little or poor winter cover present 0
Source of information:
Winter Cover for Wildlife Score (maximum l00 points)
28
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation March 1993
Name of species Source of Information ScoreStatus
Wetlands Manual
50
0
little winter cover was observed
0
Score "locally significant" if trees & shrubs are present, also consult District deer yard data.
0
Consult the Ontario Heronry database at Bird Studies Canada. Subtotal:
25
0
0 0
15
4.2.3 WATERFOWL STAGING AND/OR MOULTING
(Check only highest level of significance for both staging and moulting; score is cumulativeacross columns, maximum score 150
Staging Score Moulting Score(one only) (one only)
1) Nationally significant 150 1502) Provincially significant 100 l003) Regionally significant 50 504) Known to occur 10 105) Not possible 0 06) Unknown 0 0
Source of information:Waterfowl Moulting and Staging Score (maximum 150 points)
4.2.4 WATERFOWL BREEDING
(Check only highest level of significance) Score
1) Provincially significant l002) Regionally significant 503) Habitat suitable 104) Habitat not suitable 0
Source of information:however no breeing paris were observed
Waterfowl Breeding Score (maximum lOO points)
4.2.5 MIGRATOR PASSERINE, SHOREBIRD OR RAPTOR STOPOVER AREA
(check highest applicable category)
1) Provincially significant l002) Significant in Site Region 503) Significant in Site District 104) Not significant 0
Source of information:
Passerine, Shorebird or Raptor Stopover Score (maximum 100 points)
29
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record March 1993
Total: 00
0AECOM field investigations
Potential habitat within ponds,
00
Subtotal: 0
Wetlands Manual
0
0
AECOM field investigations
10
10
4.2.6 FISH HABITAT
4.2.6. Spawning and Nursery Habitat
Table 5. Area Factors for Low Marsh, High Marsh, and Swamp Communities.
No. of ha of Fish Habitat Area Factor< 0.5 ha 0.10.5- 4.9 0.25.0- 9.9 0.410.0- 14.9 0.615.0 -19.9 0.820.0+ ha 1.0
Step 1:
Fish habitat is not present within the wetland (Score = 0)
Fish habitat is present within the wetland (Go to Step 2)
Step 2: Choose only one option
1) Significance of the spawning and nursery habitat within the wetland is known(Go to Step 3)
2) Significance of the spawning and nursery habitat within the wetland is notknown (Go through Steps 4, 5, 6 and 7)
Step 3: Select the highest appropriate category below attach documentation:
1) Significant in Site Region l00 points
2) Significant in Site District 50
3) Locally Significant Habitat (5.0+ ha) 25
4) Locally Significant Habitat (<5.0 ha) 15
Score for Spawning and Nursery Habitat (maximum score 100 points)
30
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record March 1993
Consult District Fisheries files. If fish are present in the wetland, score 15 or 25 points depending on the size of the fish habitat present.
Wetlands Manual
0
X
X
Step 4: Proceed to Steps 4 to 7 only if Step 3 was not answered.
(Low Marsh: marsh area from the existing water line out to the outer boundary of the wetland)
Low marsh not present (Continue to Step 5)Low marsh present (Score as follows)
Scoring for Presence of Key Vegetation Groups
Scoring is based on the one most clearly dominant plant species of the dominant form in each Low Marsh vegetation community. Check the appropriate Vegetation Group (see Appendix 16 Table 16-2) for eachLow Marsh community. Sum the areas of the communities assigned to each Vegetation Group and multiply by the appropriate size factor from Table 5.
Vegetation Vegetation PresentGroup Number Group Name as a Score
Dominant (areaForm (see factor(check) Table 5) x score)
1 Tallgrass 6 pts2 Shortgrass-Sedge 113 Cattail-Bulrush-Burreed 54 Arrowhead-Pickerelweed 55 Duckweed 26 Smartweed-Waterwillow 67 Waterlily-Lotus 118 Waterweed-Watercress 99 Ribbongrass 10
10 Coontail-Naiad-Watermilfoil 1311 Narrowleaf Pondweed 512 Broadleaf Pondweed 8
Step 5: (High Marsh: area from the water line to the inland boundary of marsh wetland type. This is essentially what is commonly referred to as a wet meadow, in that there is insufficient standing water to provide fisheries habitat except during flood or high water conditions.)
High marsh not present (Continue to Step 6) High marsh present (Score as follows)
31
Score Final
X
0.00.00.00.0
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation March 1993
TotalArea(ha)
AreaFactor
0.00.00.00.0
0.00.00.00.0
Wetlands Manual
X
0.00.0
Sub Total Score (maximum 75 points)Total Score (maximum 75 points)
Scoring for Presence of Key Vegetation Groups
Scoring is based on the one most clearly dominant plant species of the dominant form in each High 1Marsh vegetation community. Check the appropriate Vegetation Group (see Appendix 16 Table 16-2) for each HighMarsh community. Sum the areas of the communities assigned to each Vegetation Group and multiply by the appropriate size factor from Table 5.
Vegetation Vegetation Present Total Area Score FinalGroup Number Group Name as a Area Factor Score
Dominant (ha) (see (areaForm Table 5) factor(check) x score)
1 Tallgrass 6 pts2 Shortgrass-Sedge 113 Cattail-Bulrush-Burreed 54 Arrowhead-Pickerelweed 5
Step 6: (Swamp: Swamp communities containing fish habitat,either seasonally or permanently.Determine the total area of seasonally flooded swamps and permanently flooded swamps containing fish habitat.)
Swamp containing fish habitat not present (Continue to Step 7)Swamp containing fish habitat present (Score as follows)
Swamp containing fish Present Total Area Factor Score TOTAL SCOREHabitat (check) area (ha) (see Table 5) (factor x score)
Seasonally flooded 10Permanently flooded 10
Step 7: Calculation of final score
Score for Spawning and Nursery Habitat (Low Marsh) (maximum 75) =
Score for Spawning and Nursery Habitat (High Marsh) (maximum 25) =
Score for Swamp Containing Fish Habitat (maximum 20) =
Sum (maximum score 100 points) =
32
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation March 1993
0.0
0.00.0
Sub Total Score (maximum 25 points)
0.2
2.0
Sub SCORE (maximum 20 points)SCORE (maximum 20 points)
0.02.02.0
0.00.0
0
Subtotal: 2.0
2.0
Wetlands Manual
1.59
x
Total Score (maximum 25 points)
4.2.6.2 Migration and Staging Habitat
Step 1:
1) Staging or Migration Habitat is not present in the wetland (Score = 0)
2) Staging or Migration Habitat is present in the wetland significance of the habitat is known (Go to Step 2)
3) X Staging or Migration Habitat is present in the wetland significance of the habitat is not known (Go to Step 3)
NOTE: Only one of Step 2 or Step 3 is to be scored.
Step 2: Select the highest appropriate category below, attach documentation:Score
1) Significant in Site Region 25 points
2) Significant in Site District 15
3) Locally Significant 10
4) Fish staging and/or migration habitatpresent,but not as above 5
Score for Fish Migration and Staging Habitat (maximum score 25 points) Step 3: Select the highest appropriate category below based on presence of the designated site type (does not have to be dominant). See Section 1.1.3. Note name of river for 2) and 3).
Score1) Wetland is riverine at rivermouth or lacustrine at rivermouth 25 points
2) Wetland is riverine,within 0.75 km of rivermouth 15
3) Wetland is lacustrine,within 0.75 km of rivermouth 10
4) 5 Fish staging and/or migration habitatpresent, but not as above 5
Score for Staging and Migration Habitat (maximum score 25 points)
33
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation March 1993
0
5
Score only if information on fish migration and staging exists, e.g. migration of northern pike through a wetland to access spawning areas.
Wetlands Manual
4.3 ECOSYSTEM AGE
(Fractional Area = area of wetland/total wetland area)
FractionalArea Scoring
Bog x 25 =Fen, treed to open on deep soilsfloating mats or marl x 20 =Fen, on limestone rock x 5 =Swamp x 3 =Marsh x 0 =
Ecosystem Age Score (maximum 25 points)
4.4 GREAT LAKES COASTAL WETLANDS
Score for coastal (see text for definition) wetlands only
Choose one only
wetland < 10 ha = 0 pointswetland 10- 50 ha = 25wetland 51 -lOO ha = 50wetland > 100 ha = 75
Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Score (maximum 75 points)
34
0.00
0.920.05
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation March 1993
0.0
0.00.0
Wetlands Manual
Sub Total: 2.8
0
2.8
2.80.0
5.0 EXTRA INFORMATION
5.1 PURPLE LOOSESTRIFE
Absent/Not seen
X Present (a) One location in wetland XTwo to many locations
Abundance code(b) (l < 20 stems X
(2 20-99 stems(3 100-999 stems(4 >1000 stems
5.2 SEASONALLY FLOODED AREAS
Check one or more
Ephemeral (less than 2 weeks) XTemporal (2 weeks to 1 month)Seasonal (1 to 3 months) XSemi-permanent (>3 months)No seasonal flooding
5.3 SPECIES OF SPECIAL SIGNIFICANCE
5.3.1 Osprey
Present and nestingKnown to have nested in last 5 yr Feeding area for ospreyNot as above X
5.3.2 Common Loon
Nesting in wetlandFeeding at edge of wetland Observed or heard on lake or
river adjoining the wetland Not as above X
35
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record March 1993Wetlands Manual
INVESTIGATORS AFFILIATION
DATES WETLAND VISITED
DATE THIS EVALUATION COMPLETED:
ESTIMATED TIME DEVOTED TO COMPLETING THE FIELD SURVEY IN "PERSON HOURS"
WEATHER CONDITIONS
i) at time of field work(Continue in the space below if necessary)
ii) summer conditions in general this summer has been warm and dry
OTHER POTENTIALLY USEFUL INFORMATION:
CHECKLIST OF PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES RECORDED IN THE WETLAND:
Attach a list of all flora and fauna observed in the wetland.
*Indicate if voucher specimens or photos have been obtained, where located, etc.
36
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Data and Scoring Record March 1993
Jessica PietteTom Shorney
Terrestrial and Wetland Ecologist, AECOMEcologist, AECOM
Wetlands Manual
20
Terrestrial and Wetland Ecologist, AECOMJillian deMan
20ºC, and dry, on the 26th and approximately 25ºC on the 27th
Wetland was visited by AECOM Ecologists on June, 26th and 27th, 2012
July 24, 2012
WETLAND NAME AND/OR NUMBER
1.1 PRODUCTIVITY
1.1.1 Growing Degree-Days/Soils 1.1.2 Wetland Type1.1.3 Site Type
Total for Productivity
1.2 BIODIVERSITY
1.2.1 Number of Wetland Types1.2.2 Vegetation Communities (maxixmum 45) 1.2.3 Diversity of Surrounding Habitat (maximum 7) 1.2.4 Proximinty to Other Wetlands1.2.5 Interspersion1.2.6 Open Water Type
Total for BiodiversitySub Total for Biodiversity
1.3 SIZE (Biological Component)
TOTAL FOR BIOLOGICAL COMPONENT (not to exceed 250) 89
8.12.6
26
13.0
5.05.0
89.21
55
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation March 1993
14.0
15.0
Wetlands Manual
55
Stanley Big Drain Wetland
1.0 BIOLOGICAL COMPONENT
9.0
8.5
WETLAND EVALUATION SCORING RECORD
Sub Total:
9
2.1 ECONOMICALLY VALUABLE PRODUCTS
2.1.1 Wood Products 2.1.2 Wild Rice2.1.3 Commercial Fish 2.1.4 Bullfrogs2.1.5 Snapping Turtles 2.1.6 Furbearers
Total for Economically Valuable Products
2.2 RECREATIONAl ACTIVITIES (maximum 80)
2.3 LANDSCAPE AESTHETICS
2.3.1 Distinctness2.3.2 Absence of Human Disturbance
Total for Landscape Aesthetics
2.4 EDUCATION AND PUBLIC AWARENESS
2.4.1 Educational Uses2.4.2 Facilities and Programs 2.4.3 Research and Studies
Total for Education and Public Awareness
2.5 PROXIMITY TO AREAS OF HUMAN SETTLEMENT
2.6 OWNERSH1PSubtotal for Social Component
2.7 SIZE (Social Component)
2.8 ABORIGINAL AND CULTURAL VALUES
TOTAL FOR SOCIAL COMPONENT (not to exceed 250)
10
0
0
61
0
8
4
61Sub Total:
5
23
Southern Ontario Welland Evaluation March 1993
2.0 SOCIAL COMPONENT
6
16
18
00
Wetlands Manual
44.0
0120
00
3.1 FLOOD ATTENUATION
3.2 WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
3.2.1 Short Term Improvement 3.2.2 Long Term Improvement3.2.3 Groundwater Discharge (maximum 30)
Total for Water Quality Improvement
3.3 CARBON SINK
3.4 SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL
3.5 GROUNDWATER RECHARGE
3.5.1 Site Type3.5.2 Soils
Total for Groundwater Recharge
TOTAL FOR HYDROLOGICAL COMPONENT (not to exceed 250)Sub Total:
3.0 HYDROLOGICAL COMPONENT
Southem Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Score Summary March 1993
35.1
41.007.0
0.07.0
48
Wetlands Manual
154
61
3
42
0
154
4.1 RARITY
4.1.1 Wetlands4.1.1.1 Rarity within the Landscape4.1.1.2 Rarirty of Wetland Type (maximum 80)
Total for Wetland Rarity
4.1.2 Species4.1.2.1 Endangered or Threatened Species Breeding4.1.2.2 Traditional Use by Endangered or Threatened Species 4.1.2.3 Provincially Significant Animals4.1.2.4 Provincially Significant Plants 4.1.2.5 Regionally Significant Species 4.1.2.6 Locally Significant Species
Total for Species Rarity
4.2 SIGNIFICANT FEATURES OR HABITAT
4.2.1 Colonial Waterbirds4.2.2 Winter Cover for Wildlife4.2.3 Waterfowl Staging and Moulting4.2.4 Waterfowl Breeding4.2.5 Migratory Passerine, Shorebird or Raptor Stopover 4.2.6 Fish Habitat
Total for Significant Features and Habitat
4.3 ECOSYSTEM AGE
4.4 GREAT LAKES COASTAL WETLANDS
TOTAL FOR SPECIAL FEATURES (maximum 250) 120
0.07.0
17
3
120Sub Total:
0
0.00.00.0
10.0
0
0.00.00.00.00.00.0
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Score Summary December 2002
4.0 SPECIAL FEATURES
60.040.0
Wetlands Manual
100
Wetland
TOTAL FOR 1.0 BIOLOGICAL COMPONENT
TOTAL FOR 2.0 SOCIAL COMPONENT
TOTAL FOR 3.0 HYDROLOGICAL COMPONENT
TOTAL FOR 4.0 SPECIAL FEATURES COMPONENT
WETLAND TOTAL
INVESTIGATORS
AFFILIATION
DATE
Terrestrial and Wetland Ecologist, AECOM
61
154
120
424
Southern Ontario Wetland Evaluation, Score Summary March 1993
SUMMARY OF EVALUATION RESULT
Stanley Big Drain Wetland
89
Wetlands Manual
July 24, 2012
00
0
Terrestrial and Wetland Ecologist, AECOMEcologist, AECOM
Jessica PietteTom ShorneyJillian deMan
0
Com
m S
p C
ode
Com
m N
u C
ode
Veg
etat
ion
Form
s#
Form
sSp
ecie
sC
omm
ents
M1
ne*,
ls, g
c3
ne*
, Jun
cus c
anad
ensi
s; J
uncu
s spe
cies
, Car
ex lu
pulin
a,
ls, F
raxi
nus p
enns
ylva
nica
; Cor
nus s
eric
ea, S
ambu
cus r
acem
osa,
gc
, Asc
lepi
as in
carn
ata;
Sym
phyo
trich
um p
unic
eum
M2
ne*,
re, l
s2
ne*,
Pha
lari
s aru
ndin
acea
; Sch
oeno
plec
tus t
aber
naem
onta
ni, J
uncu
s can
aden
sis,
Eleo
char
is sp
.ls
, Fra
xinu
s pen
nsyl
vani
ca
M3
ne*,
gc
2ne
*, P
hala
ris a
rund
inac
ea; B
rom
us in
erm
isgc
, Asc
lepi
as sy
riac
a; S
ymph
yotr
ichu
m n
ovae
-ang
liae,
Urt
ica
dioi
ca
S1h*
, ne,
gc
3h*
, Fra
xinu
s pen
nsyl
vani
ca; P
opul
us tr
emul
oide
s, Sa
lix e
rioc
ephe
lane
, Jun
cus c
anad
ensi
s; C
arex
lupu
lina,
Sch
oeno
plec
tus t
aber
naem
onta
nigc
, Asc
lepi
as in
carn
ata,
Sym
phyo
tric
hum
pun
iceu
m
S2h*
, ls,
ts, g
c4
h*, A
cer f
reem
anii;
Fra
xinu
s pen
nsyl
vani
ca, U
lmus
am
eric
ana
ls, L
inde
ra b
enzo
in;
Frax
inus
pen
nsyl
vani
ca, C
ornu
s alte
rnifo
liats
, Lin
dera
ben
zoin
gc, O
nocl
ea se
nsib
ilis;
Impa
tiens
cap
ensi
s, Bo
ehm
eria
cyl
indr
ica,
Vio
la sp
ecie
s
S3h*
, ls,
ts, g
c4
h*, A
cer f
reem
anii;
Fra
xinu
s pen
nsyl
vani
ca, U
lmus
am
eric
ana
ls, L
inde
ra b
enzo
in; F
raxi
nus p
enns
ylva
nica
ts, F
raxi
nus p
enns
ylva
nica
; Cor
nus a
ltern
ifolia
, Ulm
us a
mer
ican
agc
, Mat
teuc
cia
stru
thio
pter
is;T
halic
trum
pub
esce
ns, A
risa
ema
trip
hyllu
m, I
mpa
tiens
cap
ensi
s
S4h*
, ts,
gc3
h*, F
raxi
nus p
enns
ylva
nica
, Fra
xinu
s nig
ra, U
lmus
am
eric
ana,
Ace
r fre
eman
iits
, Fra
xinu
s nig
ra; F
raxi
nus p
enns
ylva
nica
gc, A
ctae
a ru
bra,
Tha
lictr
um p
ubes
cens
; Cir
caea
lute
tiana
, Ari
saem
a th
riph
yllu
m, G
eum
can
aden
se
Veg
etat
ion
Com
mun
ities
Prop
erty
of
Min
istry
of N
atur
al R
esou
rces
- G
uelp
h D
istri
ctN
ovem
ber ,
200
4
Sta
nley
Big
Dra
in W
etla
nd E
valu
atio
n P
lant
Lis
t
BO
TAN
ICA
L N
AM
EC
OM
MO
N N
AM
E
CO
EFF
ICIE
NT
OF
CO
NS
ER
VAT
ISM
WE
TNE
SS
IN
DE
XW
EE
DIN
ES
S
IND
EX
PR
OV
INC
IAL
STA
TUS
OM
NR
S
TATU
SC
OS
EW
IC
STA
TUS
GLO
BAL
S
TATU
S
LOC
AL
STA
TUS
H
UR
OM
1M
2M
3S
1S
2S
3S
4S
OU
RC
EO
LDH
AM E
T AL
OLD
HAM
ET
ALO
LDH
AM E
T AL
NEW
MAS
TER
NEW
MAS
TER
OLD
HAM
199
3
PTER
IDO
PHYT
ESFE
RN
S &
ALL
IES
Dry
opte
ridac
eae
Woo
d Fe
rn F
amily
Dry
opte
risca
rthus
iana
Spi
nulo
se W
ood
Fern
5-2
S5
G5
Xx
Mat
teuc
cia
stru
thio
pter
isO
stric
h Fe
rn5
-3S
5G
5X
xO
nocl
ease
nsib
ilis
Sen
sitiv
e Fe
rn4
-3S
5G
5X
xx
GYM
NO
SPER
MS
CO
NIF
ERS
Cup
ress
acea
eC
edar
Fam
ilyTh
uja
occi
dent
alis
Eas
tern
Whi
te C
edar
4-3
S5
G5
Xx
xTs
uga
cana
dens
isE
aste
rn H
emlo
ck7
3S
5G
5X
xx
DIC
OTY
LED
ON
SD
ICO
TSAc
erac
eae
Map
le F
amily
xA
cer
rubr
umR
ed M
aple
40
S5
G5
XA
cer X
freem
anii
Free
man
's M
aple
xx
xx
Toxi
code
ndro
nra
dica
nsP
oiso
n-iv
y5
-1S
5G
5TX
xx
xx
Ascl
epia
dace
aeM
ilkw
eed
Fam
ilyA
scle
pias
inca
rnat
a S
wam
p M
ilkw
eed
6-5
S5
G5T
5X
xx
Asc
lepi
assy
riaca
Com
mon
Milk
wee
d0
5S
5G
5X
xx
Aste
race
aeC
ompo
site
or A
ster
Fam
ilyA
rctiu
mm
inus
C
omm
on B
urdo
ck5
-2S
E5
G?T
?I
xS
ymph
yotri
chum
lanc
eola
tum
Tall
Whi
te A
ster
3-3
S5
G5T
?X
xx
xS
ymph
yotri
chum
late
riflo
rum
Cal
ico
Aste
r3
-2S
5G
5T5
Xx
Sym
phyo
trich
umno
vae-
angl
iae
New
Eng
land
Ast
er2
-3S
5G
5X
xx
Sym
phyo
trich
umpu
nice
umP
urpl
e-st
emm
ed A
ster
S5
G5T
?X
xC
irsiu
mar
vens
eC
anad
a Th
istle
3-1
SE
5G
?I
xE
riger
onan
nus
Eas
tern
Dai
sy F
leab
ane
01
S5
G5
xE
riger
onph
ilade
lphi
cus
Phi
lade
lphi
a Fl
eaba
ne1
-3S
5G
5T?
Xx
Tara
xacu
mof
ficin
ale
Com
mon
Dan
delio
n3
-2S
E5
G5
Ix
Bal
sam
inac
eae
Touc
h-m
e-no
t Fam
ilyIm
patie
nsca
pens
isS
potte
d To
uch-
me-
not
4-3
S5
G5
Xx
xx
xB
erbe
ridac
eae
Bar
berr
y Fa
mily
Cau
loph
yllu
mth
alic
troid
esB
lue
Coh
osh
65
S5
GX
xx
xP
odop
hyllu
mpe
ltatu
mM
ay-a
pple
53
S5
G5
Xx
Bet
ulac
eae
Birc
h Fa
mily
Bet
ula
alle
ghan
iens
isYe
llow
Birc
h6
0S
5G
5X
xx
xB
rass
icac
eae
Mus
tard
Fam
ilyA
lliar
iape
tiola
taG
arlic
Mus
tard
0-3
SE
5G
5I
xx
Sam
bucu
sra
cem
osa
var.
race
mos
a R
ed-b
errie
d E
lder
berr
y5
2S
5G
5T4T
5X
xx
Cor
nace
aeD
ogw
ood
Fam
ilyC
ornu
sal
tern
ifolia
Alte
rnat
e-le
aved
Dog
woo
d6
5S
5G
5X
xx
xC
ornu
sse
ricea
Red
-osi
er D
ogw
ood
2-3
S5
G5
Xx
xV
icia
crac
caTu
fted
Vet
ch5
-1S
E5
G?
Ix
Ger
ania
ceae
Ger
aniu
m F
amily
Ger
aniu
mro
berti
anum
Her
b-ro
bert
5-2
SE
5G
5I
xx
xG
ross
ular
iace
aeC
urra
nt F
amily
Rib
esla
cust
reS
wam
p B
lack
Cur
rant
7-3
S5
G5
xJu
glan
dace
aeW
alnu
t Fam
ilyJu
glan
sci
nere
aB
utte
rnut
62
S3?
G4
XLa
urac
eae
Laur
el F
amily
Lind
era
benz
oin
Spi
cebu
sh6
-2S
5G
5X
xO
leac
eae
Oliv
e Fa
mily
Frax
inus
nigr
aB
lack
Ash
7-4
S5
G5
Xx
Frax
inus
penn
sylv
anic
aG
reen
Ash
3-3
S5
G5
Xx
xx
xx
xx
Ona
grac
eae
Even
ing-
prim
rose
Fam
ilyC
ircae
alu
tetia
na s
sp. c
anad
ensi
sEn
chan
ter's
Nig
htsh
ade
33
S5
G5T
5X
xx
xR
umex
cris
pus
Cur
ly-le
af D
ock
-1-2
SE
5G
?I
xR
anun
cula
ceae
But
terc
up F
amily
Act
aea
rubr
aR
ed B
aneb
erry
55
S5
G5
Xx
xA
nem
one
acut
iloba
Sha
rp-lo
bed
Hep
atic
a6
5S
5G
5X
xR
anun
culu
sab
ortiv
usK
idne
y-le
af B
utte
rcup
2-2
S5
G5
Xx
Ran
uncu
lus
acris
Tall
But
terc
up-2
SE
5G
5I
xx
Ran
uncu
lus
pens
ylva
nicu
sB
ristly
But
terc
up3
-5S
5G
5X
xx
Thal
ictru
mpu
besc
ens
Tall
Mea
dow
-rue
5-2
S5
G5
Xx
Rha
mna
ceae
Buc
ktho
rn F
amily
Rha
mnu
sca
thar
tica
Com
mon
Buc
ktho
rn3
-3S
E5
G?
xR
osac
eae
Ros
e Fa
mily
Agr
imon
iagr
ypos
epal
aTa
ll H
airy
Agr
imon
y2
2S
5G
5X
xFr
agar
iavi
rgin
iana
V
irgin
ia S
traw
berr
y2
1S
UG
5T?
Xx
Geu
mca
nade
nse
Whi
te A
vens
30
S5
G5
Xx
xx
Pru
nus
virg
inia
na s
sp. v
irgin
iana
Cho
ke C
herr
y2
1S
5G
5T?
Xx
Rub
usid
aeus
ssp
. ida
eus
Red
Ras
pber
ryS
E1
G5T
5x
xSa
licac
eae
Will
ow F
amily
Sta
nley
Big
Dra
in W
etla
nd E
valu
atio
n P
lant
Lis
t
Pop
ulus
delto
ides
ssp
. del
toid
esE
aste
rn C
otto
nwoo
d4
-1S
UG
5T?
Xx
Pop
ulus
trem
uloi
des
Trem
blin
g As
pen
20
S5
G5
Xx
xS
alix
erio
ceph
ala
Mis
sour
i Willo
w4
-3S
5G
5X
xS
alix
exig
uaS
andb
ar W
illow
3-5
S5
G5
Xx
Ver
onic
aan
agal
lis-a
quat
ica
Wat
er S
peed
wel
l-5
-1S
E5
G5
Ix
Sola
nace
aeN
ight
shad
e Fa
mily
Sol
anum
dulc
amar
aB
itter
Nig
htsh
ade
0-2
SE
5G
?I
xx
Tilia
ceae
Lind
en F
amily
Tilia
amer
ican
aAm
eric
an B
assw
ood
43
S5
G5
Xx
xx
Ulm
acea
eEl
m F
amily
Cel
tisoc
cide
ntal
isC
omm
on H
ackb
erry
81
S4
G5
Xx
Ulm
usam
eric
ana
Whi
te E
lm3
-2S
5G
5?X
xx
xU
rtic
acea
eN
ettle
Fam
ilyB
oehm
eria
cylin
dric
aFa
lse
Net
tle4
-5S
5G
5X
xx
Lapo
rtea
cana
dens
isW
ood
Net
tle6
-3S
5G
5X
xx
Urti
cadi
oica
ssp
. dio
ica
Eur
opea
n S
tingi
ng N
ettle
-1-1
SE
2G
5T?
xx
xx
Viol
acea
eVi
olet
Fam
ilyV
iola
cons
pers
aAm
eric
an D
og V
iole
t4
-2S
5G
5X
Vio
la
spec
ies
Vio
let s
peci
esx
xx
Vita
ceae
Gra
pe F
amily
Par
then
ocis
sus
inse
rtaIn
serte
d V
irgin
ia-c
reep
er3
3S
5G
5X
xx
xx
Viti
srip
aria
Riv
erba
nk G
rape
0-2
S5
G5
Xx
xx
MO
NO
CO
TYLE
DO
NS
MO
NO
CO
TSAr
acea
eAr
um F
amily
Aris
aem
atri
phyl
lum
Sm
all J
ack-
in-th
e-pu
lpit
5-2
S5
G5T
5X
xx
Cyp
erac
eae
Sedg
e Fa
mily
Car
exbe
bbii
Beb
b's
Sed
ge3
-5S
5G
5X
xC
arex
lupu
lina
Hop
Sed
ge6
-5S
5G
5X
xx
Ele
ocha
rispa
lust
risS
mal
l's S
pike
-rus
h6
-5S
5G
5?X
Sch
oeno
plec
tus
tabe
rnae
mon
tani
Amer
ican
Gre
at B
ulru
sh/s
ofts
tem
bul
rush
5-5
S5
G?
Xx
xx
Irida
ceae
Iris
Fam
ilyIri
ssp
ecie
sIri
s sp
ecie
sx
Junc
ussp
ecie
sR
ush
spec
ies
xx
Junc
usca
nade
nsis
Can
ada
Rus
h6
-5S
5G
5x
xLi
liace
aeLi
ly F
amily
Liliu
mm
ichi
gane
nse
Mic
higa
n Li
ly7
-1S
5G
5X
xx
Mai
anth
emum
stel
latu
mS
tar-
flow
ered
Sol
omon
's S
eal
61
S5
G5
Xx
xE
pipa
ctis
helle
borin
eC
omm
on H
elle
borin
e5
-2S
E5
G?
Ix
xPo
acea
eG
rass
Fam
ilyB
rom
usin
erm
is s
sp. i
nerm
isAw
nles
s B
rom
e5
-3S
E5
G4G
5T?
Ix
Gly
ceria
stria
taFo
wl M
eado
w G
rass
3-5
S5
G5
Xx
xx
xP
hala
risar
undi
nace
aR
eed
Can
ary
Gra
ss0
-4S
5G
5X
xx
xTy
phac
eae
Cat
tail
Fam
ilyTy
pha
latif
olia
Bro
ad-le
aved
Cat
tail
3-5
S5
G5
Xx
FLO
RIS
TIC
SU
MM
ARY
& A
SSES
SMEN
T
Spec
ies
Div
ersi
tyTo
tal S
peci
es:
73N
ativ
e Sp
ecie
s:59
80.8
2%Ex
otic
Spe
cies
1419
.18%
Tota
l Tax
a in
Reg
ion
(Lis
t Reg
ion,
Sou
rce)
1000
0%
Reg
iona
l Tax
a R
ecor
ded
0.73
%R
egio
nally
Sig
nific
ant S
peci
es0
S1-S
3 Sp
ecie
s0
S4 S
peci
es1
S5 S
peci
es56
Co-
effic
ient
of C
onse
rvat
ism
and
Flo
ral Q
ualit
y In
dex
Co-
effic
ient
of C
onse
rvat
ism
(CC
) (av
erag
e)4.
07C
C 0
to 3
low
est s
ensi
tivity
2440
.68%
CC
4 to
6m
oder
ate
sens
itivi
ty30
50.8
5%C
C 7
to 8
high
sen
sitiv
ity5
8.47
%C
C 9
to 1
0hi
ghes
t sen
sitiv
ity0
0.00
%Fl
oral
Qua
lity
Inde
x (F
QI)
31.2
5
Pres
ence
of W
eedy
& In
vasi
ve S
peci
esm
ean
wee
dine
ss-1
.93
wee
dine
ss =
-1lo
w p
oten
tial i
nvas
iven
ess
428
.57%
wee
dine
ss =
-2m
oder
ate
pote
ntia
l inv
asiv
enes
s7
50.0
0%w
eedi
ness
= -3
high
pot
entia
l inv
asiv
enes
s3
21.4
3%
Pres
ence
of W
etla
nd S
peci
esav
erag
e w
etne
ss v
alue
-0.5
8up
land
1013
.70%
facu
ltativ
e up
land
1115
.07%
facu
ltativ
e16
21.9
2%fa
culta
tive
wet
land
2331
.51%
oblig
ate
wet
land
1216
.44%
UTM
Zon
e 17
N, N
AD
83
Map Document: (O:\GIS_Utilities\ArcGIS_MapTemplates\AECOM_Templates\November09\11x17-Landscape_AECOM.mxt)11/10/2009 -- 8:17:49 AM
Figu
re 1
OW
ES E
valu
atio
n
Augu
st 2
012
Proj
ect 6
0155
032
Blue
wat
er W
ind
Ener
gy C
entre
This
dra
win
g ha
s be
en p
repa
red
for t
he u
se o
f AE
CO
M’s
clie
nt
and
may
not
be
used
, rep
rodu
ced
or re
lied
upon
by
third
par
ties,
exce
pt a
s ag
reed
by
AE
CO
M a
nd it
s cl
ient
, as
requ
ired
by la
w
or fo
r use
by
gove
rnm
enta
l rev
iew
ing
agen
cies
. AE
CO
M a
ccep
ts
no re
spon
sibi
lity,
and
den
ies
any
liabi
lity
wha
tsoe
ver,
to a
ny p
arty
that
mod
ifies
this
dra
win
g w
ithou
t AE
CO
M’s
exp
ress
writ
ten
cons
ent.
S2 S4
S4
S3
M1
S1 UU
S1
M1
S1U
M2
U
M2
BLW
1676
BLW
1036
BLW
1660
BLW
1658
BLW
1602
BLW
1601
BLW
1657
BLW
1659 BL
W10
84
BLW
1603
BLW
1679
BLW
1600
BLW
1656
BLW
1680
BLW
1010
BLW
1598
BLW
1606
BLW
1042
BLW
1607
BLW
1605
BLW
1589
BLW
1661
BLW
1436
BLW
1041
BLW
1662
BLW
1437
BLW
1590 BL
W14
38
BLW
1591
BLW
1451
BLW
1450
BLW
1608
BLW
1588
BLW
1439
BLW
1005
BLW
1587
BLW
1604
BLW
1599
BLW
1654
BLW
1073
BLW
1678
BLW
1683
Parr Line
Cen
tenn
ial R
oad
Babylon Line
.20
00
200
100
Met
res
Base
map
ping
from
Ont
ario
Min
istry
of N
atur
al R
esou
rces
Lege
ndO
WES
Cod
eU M
1
M2
S1
S2
S3
S4
Prop
ertie
s
OW
ES C
ode
HaM
10.
264
M1
2.04
2M
20.
118
M2
0.07
8S1
0.32
8S1
0.67
5S1
0.14
1S2
19.8
9S3
4.24
2S4
10.3
8S4
10.9
07U
0.08
2U
0.04
3U
0.25
2U
0.27
6To
tal
49.7
18
m
2,3
06
ha
2
,30
6 h
a
1ra_2012-11-15_BW Amend Tps_60155032.Docx
Appendix I Woodland Breeding Bird Species List
Appe
ndix
I.
Bre
edin
g B
irds
Surv
ey D
ata
Visit 1
Visit 2
Visit 3
P.C. # 1
P.C # 2
P.C. # 3
P.C. # 4
P.C. # 1
P.C # 2
P.C. # 3
P.C. # 4
P.C. # 1
P.C # 2
P.C. # 3
P.C # 4
P.C. # 1
P.C. # 2
P.C. # 1
P.C. # 2
P.C. # 1
P.C. # 2
P.C. # 1
P.C. # 1
P.C. # 1
Tota
l No.
In
divi
dual
s O
bser
ved
Am
eric
an C
row
Cor
vus
brac
hyrh
ynch
osS
5B1
11
21
13
23
11
17A
mer
ican
Gol
dfin
chC
arde
ulis
tris
tisS
5B1
24
31
11
114
Am
eric
an R
edst
art
Set
opha
ga ru
ticill
aS
5BA
11
Am
eric
an R
obin
Turd
us m
igra
toriu
sS
5B1
11
11
12
21
31
11
11
11
21B
altim
ore
Orio
leIc
teru
s ga
lbul
aS
4B1
12
21
12
11
113
Bel
ted
Kin
gfis
her
Meg
acer
yle
alcy
onS
4B1
1B
lack
-cap
ped
Chi
ckad
eeP
oeci
le a
trica
pillu
sS
51
11
14
Blu
e Ja
yC
yano
citta
cris
tata
S5
11
11
13
19
Bro
wn-
head
ed C
owbi
rdM
olot
hrus
ate
rS
4B2
21
31
9C
edar
Wax
win
gB
omby
cilla
ced
roru
mS
5B2
2C
omm
on G
rack
leQ
uisc
alus
qui
scul
aS
5B1
73
11
13C
omm
on Y
ello
wth
roat
Geo
thly
phis
tric
has
S5B
11
11
4C
oope
r's H
awk
Acc
ipite
r coo
peri
S4
A1
1D
owny
Woo
dpec
ker
Pic
oide
s pu
besc
ens
S5
11
11
11
17
Eas
tern
Pho
ebe
Say
orni
s ph
oebe
S5B
11
Eas
tern
Woo
d-P
ewee
Con
topu
s vi
rens
S4B
22
11
11
11
11
22
11
119
Gra
y C
atbi
rdD
umet
ella
car
olin
ensi
sS
4B2
21
11
7G
reat
Cre
sted
Fly
catc
her
Myi
arch
us c
rinitu
sS
4B1
11
11
12
11
11
11
11
16H
ouse
Wre
nTr
oglo
dyte
s ae
don
S5B
23
11
21
23
22
22
23
12
31In
digo
Bun
ting
Pas
serin
a cy
anea
S4B
22
15
Leas
t Fly
catc
her
Em
pido
nax
min
imus
S4B
A2
11
4M
ourn
ing
Dov
eZe
naid
a m
acro
ura
S5
11
13
Mou
rnin
g W
arbl
erO
poro
rnis
phi
lade
lphi
aS
4B1
1N
orth
ern
Car
dina
lC
ardi
nalis
car
dina
lisS
51
11
11
5N
orth
ern
Flic
ker
Col
apte
s au
ratu
sS
4B2
2O
venb
irdS
eiur
us a
uroc
apill
usS
4BA
11
22
11
8P
ileat
ed W
oodp
ecke
rD
ryoc
opus
pile
atus
S5
A1
1R
ed-b
ellie
d W
oodp
ecke
rM
elan
erpe
s ca
rolin
usS
41
1R
ed-e
yed
Vire
oV
ireo
oliv
aceu
sS
5B2
13
21
31
34
21
21
22
11
32R
ed-ta
iled
Haw
kB
uteo
jam
aice
nsis
S5
11
13
Red
-win
ged
Bla
ckbi
rdA
gela
ius
phoe
nice
usS
51
12
Ros
e-br
east
ed G
rosb
eak
Phe
uctic
us lu
dovi
cian
usS
4B2
21
22
11
21
22
18S
carle
t Tan
ager
Pira
nga
oliv
acea
S4B
A1
12
Son
g S
parro
wM
elos
piza
mel
odia
S5B
22
13
11
12
14
119
Turk
ey V
ultu
reC
atha
rtes
aura
S5B
11
War
blin
g V
ireo
Vire
o gi
lvus
S5B
11
2W
hite
-bre
aste
d N
utha
tch
Sitt
a ca
rolin
ensi
sS
5A
11
13
Wild
Tur
key
Mel
eagr
is g
allo
pavo
S5
22
Woo
d D
uck
Aix
spo
nsa
S5
11
Woo
d Th
rush
Hyl
ocic
hla
mus
telin
aS
4B3
21
21
11
32
21
12
21
25Y
ello
w W
arbl
erD
endr
oica
pet
echi
aS
5B3
33
9Y
ello
w-b
ellie
d Fl
ycat
cher
eE
mpi
dona
x fla
vive
ntris
S5B
44
Yel
low
-bel
lied
Sap
suck
erS
phyr
apic
us v
ariu
sS
5BA
11
12
5Y
ello
w-b
illed
Cuc
koo
Coc
cyzu
s am
eric
anus
11
Yel
low
-thro
ated
Vire
oV
ireo
flavi
frons
S4B
A1
1N
umbe
r of S
peci
es:
1010
1214
714
1213
129
1219
913
168
712
158
5N
umbe
r of I
ndiv
idua
ls16
1416
2110
1916
2026
1722
3010
1821
1113
1720
85
KE
Y a N
atio
nal S
peci
es a
t Ris
k ar
e th
ose
liste
d by
CO
SE
WIC
= C
omm
ittee
on
the
Sta
tus
of E
ndan
gere
d W
ildlif
e in
Can
ada:
EN
D =
End
ange
red,
TH
R =
Thr
eate
ned,
SC
= S
peci
al C
once
rnb P
rovi
ncia
l Spe
cies
at R
isk
are
thos
e lis
ted
by C
OS
SA
RO
= C
omm
ittee
on
the
Sta
tus
of S
peci
es a
t Ris
k in
Ont
ario
: EN
D =
End
ange
red,
TH
R =
Thr
eate
ned,
SC
= S
peci
al C
once
rnc S
Ran
k (fr
om N
atur
al H
erita
ge In
form
atio
n C
entre
): S
1 (C
ritic
ally
Impe
riled
), S
2 (Im
peril
ed) o
r S3
(Vul
nera
ble)
, S4
(app
aren
tly s
ecur
e, u
ncom
mon
), or
S5
(sec
ure,
com
mon
).d
Are
a S
ensi
tive
Spe
cies
acc
ordi
ng to
OM
NR
(200
0) S
igni
fican
t Wild
life
Hab
itat T
echn
ical
Gui
de (A
ppen
dix
G)
Visit 1
Visit 2
Visit 3
Prov
inci
al
Spec
ies
at
Ris
k b
Prov
inci
al
Stat
us
(S R
ank)
c
Area
Se
nsiti
ve
Spec
ies
d
Visit 2
Visit 3
Stat
us
555
(SC
B-0
3)51
4 (S
CB
-01)
BLW1603
Com
mon
Nam
eSc
ient
ific
Nam
e
551
(SC
B-0
2)
BLW1329
BLW1658
BLW1603
BLW1658
BLW1603
BLW1658
BLW1371
Visit 1
Nat
iona
l Sp
ecie
s at
R
isk
a