natural environment - South Frontenac

Pit Level 1 and 2 Natural Environment Technical Report Ecological Services

1

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

TECHNICAL REPORT: LEVEL 1 and 2

GPP Pit

Prepared for

Glen and Pete McNichols

McNichols Construction Ltd.

1238 Westport Road

Godfrey Ontario

K0H 1T0

ECOLOGICAL SERVICES

Rob Snetsinger

February 28, 2020


2

Table of Contents 1. Summary ...............................................................................................................................................3

2. Legislative Requirements ......................................................................................................................4

3. Methodology .........................................................................................................................................6

4. Ecological Land Classification ..............................................................................................................7

5. Assessment of Natural Features ..........................................................................................................11

5.0 Species at Risk (Threatened and Endangered) ............................................................................11

5.1 Wetland .......................................................................................................................................14

5.2 Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) ...........................................................................14

5.3 Valleylands ..................................................................................................................................14

5.4 Woodlands ...................................................................................................................................14

5.5 Wildlife Habitat ...........................................................................................................................15

5.6 Fish Habitat .................................................................................................................................21

6.0 Natural Environment Level 2: Impact Assessment ...........................................................................22

6. References ...........................................................................................................................................30

7. Qualifications ......................................................................................................................................31

8. Appendix 1: Plant List .........................................................................................................................33

9. Appendix 2: Bird List ..........................................................................................................................38

10. Appendix 2: Herp and Mammal List ...............................................................................................42


3

1. Summary

Under the Provincial Aggregate Resources Act, Glen and Pete McNichols are applying under McNichols

Construction Ltd. for a new Aggregate Resources Act pit licence adjacent to their existing pit licence

located on Buck Bay Road, east of Godfrey Ontario. Their current pit is located in Lot 13 Concession 2,

Bedford District, South Frontenac Township, and the proposed pit licence area will occur in Lot 12 and

Lot 13, Concession 2 (east of Buck Bay Road) and Lot 12 and 13, Concession 1 (west of Buck Bay

Road).

This Level 1 and Level 2 report follows the guidelines provided in the Aggregate Resources Policy

Manual and Aggregate Resources of Ontario Provincial Standards for a Natural Environment Level 1

Technical Report, which investigates whether or not significant natural heritage features are on or within

120 meters of a proposed project. If these features are present, the Level 2 report determines potential

impacts from the proposed pit. This Level 1 and Level 2 report also address the Natural Heritage

assessment requirements (e.g, EIS or EIA) of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and the Official Plans

(OP) of the County and the Township.

The proposed GPP Pit area is outlined in red

dashed lines in the adjacent image. East

refers to the portion that will be east of Buck

Bay Rd.; west refers to the portion that will

be west of Buck Bay Rd. For reference

purposes, the existing pit is labelled in the

top right of the photo. As can be seen, the

bulk of the proposed pit area will be within

farmland and fields.

As will be discussed, the proposed pit will be

within 120 m of significant woodland,

significant wildlife habitat, fish habitat,

wetland, and the habitat of species at risk

(i.e., Bank Swallow, Barn Swallow, Whip-

poor-will, and butternut). These natural

heritage features are described below in the

Level 1 report and assessed in the attached

Level 2 report. Some buffering distances are

prescribed, and some mitigation measures

(e.g., habitat enhancements and seasonally

restricted pit operations) are recommended.

However, on balance, we do not see the

operation of a pit at this project location

having a negative impact on adjacent

significant features and functions for the purposes of the Provincial Policy Statement, South Frontenac

Official Plan, and the County of Frontenac Official Plan


4

2. Legislative Requirements

Aggregate Resources of Ontario Provincial Standards (AROPS) for Category 3 Licence

Applications

Aggregate Resources Program Policies and Procedures Manual section 2.01.07, relates to natural

environment report standards as prescribed by AROPS. Specifically:

“A Natural Environment Level 1 report determines whether one or more of the following features exist

on-site or within 120 metres of the site:

• significant wetlands (including significant coastal wetlands);

• significant habitat of endangered and threatened species;

• significant Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs);

• significant woodlands (south and east of the Canadian Shield)

• significant valleylands (south and east of the Canadian Shield)

• significant wildlife habitat; and

• fish habitat.

The Level 1 report must clearly conclude whether each of the features above exists on or is

within 120m of the site. If any of these features are identified, then an impact assessment (i.e. Natural

Environment Level 2 report) is required to determine any negative impacts on the natural features or

ecological functions, and any proposed preventative, mitigation or remedial measures.

Provincial Policy Statement (PPS)

Issued under the Planning Act, the 2014 version of the PPS requires that municipalities consider natural

heritage features in assessing development proposals. Guidance on the extent of adjacent lands is

provided in a Natural Heritage Reference Manual (OMNR 2010). The adjacent land width for significant

natural heritage features is 120 m. From the PPS:

2.1.4 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in:

a) significant wetlands in Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E1; and

2.1.5 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in:

b) significant woodlands in Ecoregions 6E; (NOTE: the proposed pit is in Ecoregion 5E)

c) significant valleylands in Ecoregions 6E;

d) significant wildlife habitat;

e) significant areas of natural and scientific interest;

… unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or

their ecological functions.

2.1.6 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in fish habitat except in accordance with

provincial and federal requirements.

2.1.7 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in habitat of endangered species and

threatened species, except in accordance with provincial and federal requirements. Note: Adjacent


5

lands do not apply to the habitat of endangered species and threatened species, as impacts are based

on a species by species basis in accordance with federal and provincial requirements.

2.1.8 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on adjacent lands to the natural

heritage features and areas identified in policies 2.1.4, 2.1.5, and 2.1.6 unless the ecological function

of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative

impacts on the natural features or on their ecological functions.

South Frontenac Township and County of Frontenac Official Plan Requirements

Although we understand no Official Plan (OP) Amendment is required for the proposed GPP Pit,

relevant Natural Heritage policies from the County Official Plan and Environmental Protection policies

from the Township Official Plan require consideration through an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS), and an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), respectively. This is due to the proximity of the

proposed pit to OP prescribed natural heritage features.

Relevant Images from the County and Township Official Plans and Township Zoning

The image to the left is

from the Township of

South Frontenac

Zoning By-Law 2003-

75 Schedule ‘D’. The

white area is a Rural

(RU) Zone, the light

blue area is Pit “B”

Zone (PB). The image

to the right is from

Frontenac County

Official Plan Aggregate Resources Sand and Gravel where the yellow

area is Sand and Gravel Tertiary. The black hatched lines are the

proposed licence area.

The image to the left is from the Township

of South Frontenac Official Plan,

Schedule ‘A’ Land Use. The blue area is

Mineral Aggregate, the green areas are

Environmental Protection. The proposed

licence area is represented by black

hatched lines.

In the adjacent cut-out of Frontenac

County Official Plan Natural Heritage

Resources, the dark green areas represent

“Wooded Areas” and the lime green area

represents unevaluated wetland. The black hatched lines represent the

proposed licence area. The lime green wetland area in the adjacent image

has not been evaluated, and it is MNRF policy that un-evaluated wetlands

are to be considered significant, unless a wetland evaluation proves otherwise.


6

3. Methodology

On June 19, 2018 we received the list of potential significant features that would need to be considered

during field work from Henry Penyk of the Peterborough office of the Ontario Ministry of Natural

Resources and Forestry (MNRF). Field work commenced on April 27 and focused on taxa that we felt

were likely to be on the MNRF list.

The site visits are provided in Table 1 and listed by the primary focus of the visit. However, incidental

taxa of note would be recorded during all visits. For example, Barn Swallows (Threatened) were

observed nesting on April 27, but this was not the primary focus of the visit that day. Habitat

communities are described following the methodology outlined in the Ecological Land Classification

(ELC) manual for Southern Ontario (Lee et al., 1998) and if applicable, the Ontario Wetland Evaluation

System Southern Manual (MNR 2002). Photographs of the site were also taken to document natural

features observed during the site investigation.

Significant natural features were identified following the criteria outlined in the Natural Heritage

Reference Manual (MNR 2010), Significant Wildlife Habitat Ecoregion Criteria Schedules (MNRF 2015)

and Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (MNR 2000).

Breeding bird point count surveys were conducted using methods described in the Ontario Breeding Bird

Atlas Guide for Participants (Cadman and Kopysh, 2001) and the Canadian Wildlife Service Forest Bird

Monitoring Program. Evening visits were also included to provide a greater level of effort for species

active at night such as nightjars and amphibians.

Snakes were assessed by examining areas of appropriate habitat such as rock piles, potential basking sites,

and potential hibernacula. Other wildlife species of interest (e.g., butterflies, mammals) were noted as

encountered, either directly or from other evidence (tracks, scat, den sites, etc.). Vascular plant species

were used to characterize ELC community types. If specimens could not be identified they would be

assessed later using appropriate references (e.g., Gleason and Cronquist 1991; Queen`s University Fowler

Herbarium records).

MNRF protocols for targeted surveys were applied when necessary. For example:

Bobolink and Eastern Meadowlark: OMNR (2011) Bobolink Survey Methodology.

Bats: MNR (2011a)

Barn and Bank Swallows: Standard avifaunal surveys, with focus on prospective nest sites.

Whip-poor-will: OMNR (2012) Whip-poor-will Survey Methodology.

Butternut: 10 m transect search pattern.

Turtles: Survey for basking sites and nesting specific substrates.

Rat Snakes: OMNRF (2016) and OMNRF (undated)

Table 1 Site visit summary. Survey Date Starting

Time

Weather

Conditions

Surveyor Main Purpose of Visit

April 27, 2018 1000 14 C, clear Rob Snetsinger Initial Site Inspection

April 30, 2018 2100 Full Moon, 7 C Rob Snetsinger Evening Birds, Amphibians

May 5, 2018 700 8 C, clear Rob Snetsinger

Chris Grooms

Birding, Herps

May 15, 2018 2200 New Moon,10

C

Rob Snetsinger Amphibians, Evening Birds, bats


7

May 24, 2018 2200 2/4 moon, 15 C,

no wind

Rob Snetsinger Amphibians, Evening Birds, bats

May 26, 2018 730 16 C, clear Rob Snetsinger Herps

May 30, 2018 600 15 C, clear Chris Grooms Birds, herps

June 16, 2018 600 12 C, clear Chris Grooms Birds, herps

June 17, 2018 800 15 C, clear Rob Snetsinger Herps, Birds

June 25, 2018 2200 17 C, clear Rob Snetsinger Evening Birds, bats

June 26, 2018 700 20 C, mostly

clear

Rob Snetsinger

Megan Snetsinger

ELC, Birds, Herps

Sept 28, 2018 1100 20 C, partly

overcast

Rob Snetsinger

Megan Snetsinger

Herps and fall plants

Oct 4, 2018 1400 24 C, sunny Rob Snetsinger

Megan Snetsinger


Oct 9, 2018 1500 25 C, sunny Rob Snetsinger

Megan Snetsinger


April 30, 2019 1500 14 C, sunny Rob Snetsinger Herps

May 16, 2019 1400 15 C, sunny Rob Snetsinger Herps

4. Ecological Land Classification

The proposed pit is located in Hills Site Region 5E which requires the use of the 2009 draft ELC manual

produced for 5E by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (see Banton et al. 2009), as opposed to Lee

et al (1998), which is intended for Site Regions 6E and 7E..

The minimum ELC polygon for

mapping (seen in the adjacent image) is

0.5 ha. Different habitat types existing

that are less than 0.5 ha., were lumped

into the large habitat type.

In the adjacent image the proposed pit

boundary is outlined with red dashed

lines for reference purposes.

The ELC polygons associated with the

proposed pit are outlined in yellow, and

the ELC codes are provided in red

script, with the code descriptions

provided further below.


8

ELC Map Terms:

Agricultural (Ag): Refers to areas being actively

managed for agricultural purposes, such as for wheat on

the east side of Buck Bay Road (see adjacent 2018 image)

and corn on the west side of Buck Bay Road. Most of the

agricultural areas are within the proposed pit location.

Cultural (Cu): Refers to areas that have an ongoing cultural use. Here they refer to the existing

operational pit located to the east of the proposed pit area, a hydro transmission corridor, a residence on

the west side of Buck Bay Road, lands altered by past landscape alteration, and lands associated with an

abandoned house.

Very Shallow, Dry to Fresh: Maple Hardwood (G018): This is the largest ELC type associated with

the proposed pit. It extends well beyond 120 meters from the proposed pit and is part of a contiguous

woodland that extends north for hundreds of kilometers as part of the Canadian Shield woodlands. The

following edited description of these woodlands from Banton et al. (2009) appropriately describes most of

the woodlands that surround the proposed pit area.

Hardwood canopy consisting mostly of maple species. Sugar maple … in the main canopy. May

contain American basswood, ironwood, American beech, white ash, eastern white pine, and white

birch. Understory tree species consisting of high levels of sugar maple, ironwood, American

basswood, balsam fir, red oak, white ash and American beech. Shrub poor. Herb moderately rich.

Ground surface mostly broadleaf litter and exposed bedrock. Substrate texture variable. Mostly

very shallow (≤ 15 cm) and dry to fresh (MR ≤ 3) or xeric.

In some locations within this woodland there were patches dominated by poplar, some dominated by pine,

and some dominated by white birch. As these patches are all less than 0.5 ha., they were lumped in as

sub-units within the main G018 woodland.

Most of the G018 trees within 120 m of the proposed pit are younger (~30 to 40-year age range), although

scattered older trees are present, which is typical in a logged woodland. Past logging was evident by

stumps and bush roads, which was most notable in the woodlands east of the proposed pit, where it is our

understanding that this woodland was heavily cleared about 30 years ago. We also encountered hunters

and blinds and were told that all woodlands adjacent to the proposed pit area are extensively used by

hunters, primarily for deer and turkey. Two representative images of the adjacent woodlands are

provided on the next page.

Aside from the large contiguous G018 woodland that is to the east of the proposed pit area, there are

four isolated woodland patches (marked as G018* in the ELC map) associated with the west side of

the proposed pit. These are:

1. A 1.7 ha. patch bordered by Buck Bay Road on its east edge, farmland, fields, and the residential

lot. About 1 ha. of this woodland will be retained within the 30 m setback along Buck Bay Road.

2. A 0.4 ha. patch west of Buck Bay road that is surrounded by farm and cultural habitat. This

woodland will be within the pit licence area and will be removed.

3. A 1.2 ha. patch northwest of the proposed pit that provides some buffering for the creek system

further north. It also contained an active Whip-poor-will nest in 2018. A number of disturbance


9

impacts occur to this patch from tree harvesting, hunting, and bush roads. This patch is outside of

the pit licence area.

4. A 3.8 ha. patch located south of the proposed pit that provides some buffering for the Mineral

Meadow Marsh (G142) further to the southeast. Disturbance indicators include the abandoned

house and past agricultural use, but of the four isolated woodlands associated with the proposed

pit area, this one is the least disturbed. This patch is outside of the pit licence area.

The lower left photo represents #4 in the list above. The lower right photo represents the large contiguous

woodland east of Buck Bay Rd. As can be seen, the bulk of the trees are younger (~30 to 40-year age

range). This latter woodland is outside of the pit licence area.

Dry, Sandy: Field (G029): Approximately 3.6

hectares, mostly within the proposed pit area,

except for portions to be set aside as a buffer for

adjacent sensitive habitats. These fields have a

history of human disturbance including past

agricultural use. They are dominated by grasses

such as Poa sp., and various seasonal forbs such

as vetch, clovers, and buttercup, but this cover is

not dense, likely due to the impoverished nature

of the soils and/or human use. These fields

contain two access roads, and are used for

hunting, agricultural purposes, and various recreational activities, including ATV use.

Dry, Sandy: Shrub (G032): Approximately 2.5 hectares, located northwest of the proposed pit area. It

has a history of human disturbance including past agricultural use, and contains access roads, presumably

for recreational use such as hunting, and ATV recreation. It contains a diverse mix of species, with some

field and woodland patches, but it was determined that the overall dominance was by shrubs, primarily

brambles.

Very Shallow, Dry to Fresh Conifer (G014): This 1.4 ha. isolated patch is surrounded by farmland and

borders Buck Bay Road. It is actually a mix of four distinct patches, with none being greater than 0.5 ha.

These include a lowland ephemeral area used for breeding amphibians, a white pine portion, a more


10

maple hardwood portion, and a mixed hardwood/conifer portion. However, it is being categorized as an

overall G014 ELC type as pine represented the dominant type in age and canopy cover.

Mineral Thicket Swamp (G134):

Bisected by Buck Bay Road, this ELC

type is composed of an approximate 0.7

ha. portion on the east side of the road

and a 1.7 ha. portion on the west side of

the road. It contains creek tributaries and

roadside ditches that flow into Buck Bay,

but also dry up in summer. The smaller

portion east of Buck Bay Rd. is narrow

and more influenced by edge effects,

including weedy species and invading

upland species. The western portion (see

image above) is bordered to the north by hardwood woodland and to the south by field. It is dominated

by a dense stand of speckled alder, as seen in the image above. All portions of this wetland will be at

least 35 m away from the proposed pit boundary. In 2018 it contained Golden Winged Warblers, a

special concern species, which is discussed further on in the Level 2 report.

Moist, Coarse: Elm-Ash Hardwood (G071): This approximate 1 ha. patch is bordered by farmland to

the east and the G134 shrub wetland and Buck Bay Road to the west. Its narrow shape and significant

past disturbance by human activities has resulted in a characteristic weedy appearance with no obvious

canopy dominant. Due to its disparate appearance it was difficult to apply a distinct ELC category, but

G071was considered the closest of possible types provided in Banton et al (2009).

Mineral Meadow Marsh (G142): The portion of this wetland that is within 120 m of the proposed pit,

represents the eastern portion of an approximate 55 hectare wetland that extends about 1.4 km west, and

is also connected to the Mineral Thicket Swamp (G134) described above via various creek tributaries.

The portion south of the proposed pit has become drier recently, as evidenced by historical aerial

photography that showed more open water. This greater water was likely related to beaver activity as

dams are evident in older aerial photographs. It is also our understanding that hay was taken off parts of

this wetland by the inhabitants of the nearby abandoned house, which also suggests a drier past.

From field evidence and a review

of older aerial photos, this G142

wetland had a greater speckled

alder component, especially in

proximity to Buck Bay Road.

However, these shrubs have

experienced recent and

considerable mortality, as can be

seen in the grey dead branches in

the middle right of the adjacent

image. This was likely linked to

the flooding regime caused by

the beavers. The portion of this

wetland that is south of the proposed pit is currently dominated by two vegetation types: tussock sedge

and bur marigold. The G142 south of the proposed pit will be at least 75 m away, while the portion north

of the proposed pit will be about 90 m away.


11

5. Assessment of Natural Features

5.0 Species at Risk (Threatened and Endangered) Henry Penyk of the MNRF Peterborough provided the list of potential species at risk (threatened or

endangered) for consideration when undertaking this assessment.

American Eel (Endangered): A species primarily of larger lakes and rivers, which are not found within

120 m of the proposed pit area.

Eastern Meadowlark (Threatened) and Bobolink (Threatened): Eastern Meadowlark and Bobolink

are found in old fields or hayfields, where the tall grasses provide an appropriate level of nest cover. The

open areas of the proposed pit area do not contain appropriate natural grasslands, and no Meadowlark or

Bobolink were observed on or adjacent to the proposed pit area.

Blanding’s Turtle (Threatened):

The wetlands within 120 m of the

proposed pit do not contain good

Blanding’s turtle features in that they

lack sufficient open water for feeding

or overwintering. The photo at right

was taken on October 4, 2018 and

shows the wetland south of the

proposed pit area to be mostly dry.

This drier condition was evident

throughout 2018. Potential

appropriate Blanding’s Turtle habitat

features are found in Buck Bay about 280 meters north of the proposed pit, and some ponding in a portion

of the wetland seen in the above image about 400 meters west, and in small lakes about 1 km west of the

proposed pit area. The nearest recorded Blanding’s sighting in iNaturlist is near Gartner Lake, about 7

km to the east. No Blanding’s turtles or depredated Blanding’s turtle nests were observed throughout the

site visits, which also included roadside surveys, and in the sand faces of the existing pit.

Barn Swallow (Threatened): There was one structure adjacent to proposed pit area that had three

successfully fledged nests in 2018. This will be discussed in a Level 2 report.

Bank Swallow (Threatened): Bank Swallows were observed using the existing pit, and this will be

discussed in a Level 2 report.

Butternuts (Endangered): Eight butternut trees were

observed near the proposed pit area (see red B’s in adjacent

photos). The five middle butternuts in the adjacent image are

> 50 m from the proposed pit boundary, which is the standard

setback distance for butternuts and development. The two

northern butternuts and the southernmost butternut in the

adjacent image are within 50 m, and these trees will be



12

Gray Ratsnake (Threatened): The proposed pit area and surrounding lands do contain habitat features

for Gray Ratnsake in that they are a mosaic of forest/field/wetlands on the Canadian Shield. We found

one spot that had snake hibernacula features (i.e., south facing, exposed, fractured granite slope that faces

a wetland) about 170 m from the proposed pit boundary, which subsequently was one of our focus areas

during snake surveys.

The proposed pit area is at the northern and western range

of the gray rat snake, as indicated by the Ontario Herp

Atlas (see adjacent image). As can be seen, the proposed

pit area is in a red herp atlas square, meaning no sightings

have been reported since before 1998.

The nearest recorded sighting in iNaturlist is for Potspoon

Lake, about 4 km to the east.

We completed the 10 requisite survey visits spread

throughout the 3 seasons for gray rat snakes as outlined in OMNRF (2016), where if ten are completed it

suggests a 95% confidence level that they are not on the site. Our fall visits commenced in late

September 2018 to coincide with gray rat snake postings in the Facebook page of the Ontario Reptile and

Amphibian Atlas that these snakes were starting to move to their winter hibernacula in eastern Ontario.

During the two October surveys at Buck Bay, we also observed many fresh road killed garter snakes,

northern water snakes, ribbon snakes, brown snakes, and one smooth green snake on Westport Road,

Buck Bay Road, White Lake Road, Desert Lake Road, Bedford Road, and Opinicon Road, and chased

one ribbon snake off the road near the junction of Westport and Buck Bay Road. The closest road killed

snake to the proposed pit was a water snake, about 500 m north of the proposed pit, where the road

bisected a wetland. The weather on these October visits was optimal for hibernacula movement, in that

they were warm days, bracketed by cold days.

We found a water-snake hibernacula on Eagle Lake on one of the October visits, again indicating the

importance of this time of year for hibernacula movement. We stopped snake surveys after October 9

because the weather turned cold after that and it would not be productive to continue. During the two

October visits we also saw and submitted observations to the Ontario Herp Atlas of four roadkill gray rat

snakes, one on the Desert Lake road about 12 km south of the proposed pit, and three on the Opinicon

Lake Road.

No gray rat snakes were found during any of our site visits on the proposed pit property, nor in the

adjacent woods. The only snakes observed on the property were two garter snakes in the vicinity of the

abandoned house, and we are confident that gray rat snakes are not an issue for the proposed pit.

The pit proponents and their associates have been hunting and wood harvesting in this area for many

decades and have never seen rat snakes.

Bats (Endangered): There are four endangered bat species in Ontario. There was no requirement in the

list sent by the MNRF for us to search for bats, or to undertake bat habitat surveys. Nevertheless, we did

consider bats during our field work. The proposed pit area is predominately occurring in field and

farmland with a lack of potential roost or maternity trees. The woodlands surrounding the proposed pit

area are mostly comprised of younger trees and as a result the number of snags and cavity trees present is

low. There is evidence of tree harvesting in the form of stumps and bush roads, which means that larger

trees that may have bat roost potential are targeted for harvest, and therefore less likely to be present.


13

During the survey nights for night birds we also operated the Wildlife Acoustics EMT2 Pro with a

particular focus on the abandoned house at the western edge of the proposed pit. From our 2019 field

work in the region, it has been our experience with overnight sets with the Wildlife Acoustics SM4 Bat

Monitor that bats are present throughout the region, and therefore likely undertake feeding flights in

association with the proposed pit area. However, the fact that no bats were picked up by the EMT2Pro

during the night bird surveys suggests a low use by bats. We can also be reassured that bats would

unlikely be at risk from the proposed pit operation due to the lack of the trees and pit only operates during

the day when the bats are dormant.

Eastern Whip-poor-will (Threatened): Eastern Whip-poor-will

were observed in association with the proposed pit licence area.

In the image to the right, the left most whip-poor-will (red wh)

was about 250 m from the proposed pit area. The other two red

wh’s were calling within 120 m. Other Whip-poor-wills were

calling at greater distances and these are summarized in Table 1.

A nest was found (image below) in the calling area (wh) top right

in the adjacent image.

The Whip-poor-wills calling and

nesting within 120 of the

proposed pit will be discussed in

a Level 2 report.

Table 1. Whip-poor-will results of four site visits.

Date

(2018)

Beaufort

Scale Background

Noise

Moon Call Detail

April 30 0 Nil (calling

amphibians)

Full No calls

May 15 0 Nil (calling

amphibians)

No

moon

No calls

May 24 0 Nil (calling

amphibians)

¾

moon.

1 on west side of Buck Bay Rd. in small woodlot <120

m north of proposed pit boundary (nest found, shown

in image above)

1 on west side <120 m south of pit boundary

1 ~ 250 west of proposed pit boundary

1 ~ 400 m south of proposed pit boundary, west side of

Buck Bay Road (not shown in above image)

1 on west side of Buck Bay Road, ~500 m north of

proposed pit boundary

1 ~ km south of proposed pit boundary, west of Buck

Bay Road (not shown in above image)

June 25 0 Nil (calling

amphibians)

Nearly

full

Same first three in May 24 box above

1 on west side >300 m north

1 ~ km south of proposed pit boundary


14

5.1 Wetland There is no wetland within the proposed pit area, but there is wetland within 120 m of the proposed pit area that contains two ELC types: Mineral Thicket Swamp (G134) and Mineral Meadow Marsh (G142). This wetland has not been evaluated, but it is noted as an Environmental Protection Area in Schedule “A” of the Township of South Frontenac Official Plan. When an unevaluated wetland is adjacent to a proposed pit, it is the policy of the MNRF that it will be considered as significant, unless an evaluation can show otherwise. As a result we will consider the adjacent G134 and G142 wetland to be significant, and as such, move discussion of potential impacts to a Level 2 report.

5.2 Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) There are no ANSI’s on or within 120 m of the proposed pit.

5.3 Valleylands

There are no valleyland features on or within 120 m of the proposed pit.

5.4 Woodlands

The pit associated woodlands are in Site Region 5E and in the Canadian Shield. Consequently, a

woodland impact assessment is not necessarily required as per the wording in the PPS and the Natural

Heritage Reference Manual (OMNR 2010). Nevertheless, in the interests of transparency the following

assessment is provided. Standard woodland ranking criteria provided by OMNR (2010) and intended for

6E and 7E woodlands were applied and it was determined that the woodland adjacent to the proposed pit

area has potential significance features. Woodland ranking details are as follows:

1. Size. If woodland cover occupies more than 60% of the

land, a minimum size is not suggested. The adjacent

woodland is within Frontenac County (see adjacent image

supplied by the County), which has more than 60% woodland

cover. This woodland is also within the Bancroft Ecodistrict

of which 93% is primarily natural forest cover (Henson and

Biodrib 2005). As such, the size criterion does not apply.

2. Woodland Interior. Core interior habitat in this category

is undisturbed habitat within 100 meters of the woodland

edge, and for the woodlands in association with the proposed

pit area, 20 ha or more of interior habitat is required to meet

the significance threshold for woodland interior. The woodland adjacent to the proposed pit area

is part of a swath of woodland that covers several thousand square kilometers, and therefore there

is no doubt that 20 ha patches of interior habitat are present in some locations. However, on a


15

smaller scale, there is no woodland block with 20 ha of interior habitat that is within 120 m of the

proposed pit area, when accounting for habitat breaks caused by roads, wetlands, transmission

corridors, and water bodies.

3. Proximity. Woodlands are considered significant if they are located within 30 m of an

important natural feature, such as fish habitat. The woodlands adjacent to the proposed pit area

border water bodies that contain fish habitat. However, none of these water bodies are within 30 m

of the proposed pit area.

4. Linkages. The woodland does not provide a link between two other designated significant

features.

5. Water Protection: Woodlands are considered significant if they are located within a sensitive

watershed or near the top of bank from a sensitive groundwater discharge, recharge, or headwater

area. The woodlands adjacent to the proposed pit area border water bodies, and one small

woodland patch within 120 m of the proposed pit area borders a creek that may contain fish habitat.

This implies some significance, and this will be discussed in a Level 2 report.

6. Woodland Diversity. The woodlands within 120 m of the proposed pit area mostly represent a

common type in the region (i.e., sugar maple dominated), and display disturbance features resulting

from logging and recreational activities.

7. Uncommon Characteristics. Woodlands with a unique species composition, species with a

high Coefficient of Conservatism, vegetation communities with S1, S2, S3 rankings, or a certain

percentage of larger older trees can be considered significant. The woodlands that we observed are

mostly young and comprised of common species that do not have a high Coefficient of

Conservatism. However, they also contain butternuts, which implies significance, and this will be


5.5 Wildlife Habitat

The Significant Wildlife Habitat Criteria for Site Region 5E (MNRF 2015) describes thresholds for

habitat significance. Analysis of each wildlife habitat type is provided as follows:

Seasonal Concentration Areas:

Habitats of seasonal concentrations of animals apply when they occur in high densities for specific

periods in their life cycles and/or in particular seasons. As described in MNRF (2015), these areas are

generally localized and small in relation to the area of habitat used at other times of the year. MNRF

(2015) lists 13 types of seasonal concentration habitats for consideration.

Waterfowl stopover and staging areas (terrestrial): Suitable stopover and staging habitat for migrating

waterfowl include cultural meadow and thicket communities that are seasonally flooded. There are no

appropriate seasonally flooded terrestrial communities within 120 m of the proposed pit area.

Waterfowl stopover and staging areas (aquatic): These areas include ponds, marshes, lakes, bays,

coastal inlets, and watercourses used during migration. Specific ecosites (G142-G152) listed by MNRF

(2015) are present within 120 m of the proposed pit.


16

To be significant, the site must have aggregates of 100 or more of the listed species for 7 days, which

results in more than 700 waterfowl use days. Areas with annual staging of ruddy ducks, canvasbacks, and

redheads are also WSH.

Waterfowl stopover and staging (aquatic) may occur near the proposed pit at the southern tip of Buck Bay

(part of Bob’s Lake), however it is more than 120 m from the proposed pit area and was therefore not

surveyed for migrating waterfowl.

The wetland south of the proposed pit area that is west of Buck Bay Road might appear to have sufficient

water for migrating waterfall in satellite images. However, it did not contain sufficient open water in

2018 (see image below) to be used by migrating waterfall. The reason for the lack of water is unknown,

but beaver activity is likely a factor. The dominant vegetation seen in the image below is nodding bur

marigold and tussock sedge (Carex stricta).

Shorebird migratory stopover area: Shorebird migratory stopover would have shoreline areas that are

usually muddy and un-vegetated, but can also include beach bars and seasonally flooded shoreline.

These habitat features are not present on or within 120 m of the proposed pit.

Raptor wintering area: This habitat type includes a combination of fields and woodlands that provide

roosting, foraging and resting habitat for wintering raptors. The lack of mammal productivity in the open

areas (agriculture: corn and wheat, field: impoverished grassland) associated with the proposed pit area

would minimize any value of the proposed pit for winter raptor use.

Bat hibernacula: These are found in crevice and cave ecosites, which were not observed on or within 120

m of the proposed pit.

Bat Maternity Colonies: Maternity sites can be found in older larger diameter trees in various states of

health. While some snags and cavity trees are present in the woodlands adjacent to the proposed pit, we

found a notable lack of such features and assume that the logging activities that occur here would target

older trees. Regardless, there will be no intrusion into the adjacent woodlands as a result of the proposed

pit activities.

Bat Migratory Stopover Area: According to Amy Cameron (MNR Species at Risk Biologist), criteria

have not yet been developed for identifying bat movement corridors and therefore they do not need to be


17

considered at this time. The only place in the province currently identified as SWH for bat movement

corridors is Long Point (Ecoregion 7E) for silver-haired bats

Turtle Wintering Areas: There are no turtle appropriate wintering areas within 120 m of the proposed pit

area. The immediate areas of wetland (within 120 m) that are adjacent to the west portion of the area

lack sufficient open water for overwintering.

Snake hibernaculum: MNRF (2015) notes that sites located below the frost line in burrows, rock

crevices, and other natural locations are needed. These areas should also have proper moisture levels to

keep reptile from drying out during the winter, and south facing slopes are preferred in providing more

moderate winter conditions. We most often find snake hibernacula in close proximity to a nearby

waterbody, most typically a swamp.

The proposed pit will be mostly within agricultural lands and fields containing deep sandy soils, and no

cover, which would have poor potential for containing reptile hibernacula.

No hibernacula were found in the adjacent 120 m lands, but some hibernacula features were observed

more than 120 m southwest of the proposed pit.

During all site visits only two garter snakes were observed in association with the proposed pit. These

were within the vicinity of the abandoned house. It may be that the house is being used, but we found no

evidence of such.

Colonially -Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat (Bank and Cliff): Nesting sites for these species includes

eroding banks/cliffs, sandy hills, quarries, steep slopes, rock faces or piles. Bank Swallow nesting was

observed in the existing pit to the east of the proposed pit area, and this will be discussed in a Level 2

report.

Colonially -Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat (Trees/Shrubs): No Heronries were observed on or within

120 m of the proposed pit.

Colonially -Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat (Ground): Nesting occurs on rocky islands or peninsula

within a lake or large river. These features are not present on or within 120 m of the proposed pit.

Deer Yarding Areas: In general, the MNRF determines the location of significant deer yards and deer

winter congregation areas, and the woodlands next to the proposed pit area have not been identified as

such. Regional deeryards are also identified in the County of Frontenac Natural Heritage Study (2012),

and none were identified on or within 120 m of the proposed pit.

Some deer use was observed in association with the proposed pit area, and local hunters do hunt here.

However, we saw no evidence of significant deer use (e.g., well warn trails, scats, browse damage) that

would indicate significant yarding or winter congregations.

Rare Vegetation Communities:

Rare vegetation community types are those with SRANKS of S1 to S3 (i.e., extremely rare - rare -

uncommon in Ontario). MNRF (2015) lists the following rare types for site region 5E: Beach/Beach

Ridge/Bar/Sand Dunes, Shallow Atlantic Coastal Marsh, Cliffs and Talus Slopes, Rock Barren, Sand

Barren, Alvar, Old Growth Forest, Bog, Tallgrass Prairie, Savannah, Red Spruce Forest, White Oak

Forest. None of these types is present on or within 120 m of the proposed pit.


18

The proposed pit extension is found within the Bancroft Ecodistrict 5E-11, where Henson and Brodribb

(2005) identify the following significant habitat types:

Atlantic Coastal Plain Shallow Marsh Type S2

Dry Black Oak – Pine Tallgrass Savannah Type S1

Dry Tallgrass Prairie Type S1

None of these habitat types were observed on or adjacent to the proposed pit area.

Specialized Habitats for Wildlife

OMNR (2015) lists 11 categories of Specialized Habitat for Wildlife for Site Region 5E, discussed as

follows:

Waterfowl Nesting Area: The potential waterfowl nesting area extends 120 m into the upland from

wetland habitats G129-G135, and G142-G152. To be considered SWH, there needs to be at least 3 or

more nesting pairs of the listed species, excluding Mallards, or 10 or more nesting pairs of the listed

species, including Mallards. Only Wood Ducks were observed in a flyover, and therefore the threshold

for possible significant waterfowl nesting was not observed.

Bald Eagle and Osprey Nesting, Foraging and Perching Habitat: Although both species are known to

occur in this region, neither were observed within 120 m of the proposed pit area. Ospreys were observed

flying over Buck Bay, more than 120 m to the north.

Woodland Raptor Nesting Habitat: None of the candidate raptor species were observed during the field

work.

Turtle and Lizard Nesting Areas: Road surveys within 120 m of the proposed pit area were undertaken

and no depredated nests were found. The sandy soils of the existing pit areas are appropriate for turtle

nesting and given its proximity to Buck Bay (Bob’s Lake) we spent some time within the existing pit and

in sandy slopes next to the wetland areas west of Buck Bay Rd. Four depredated painted turtle nests, and

one painted turtle shell were observed in a sandy slope west of Buck Bay Rd. and north of the proposed

pit area. This does not meet the threshold of five needed for significance wildlife habitat. Nevertheless,

this will be discussed in a Level 2 report.

Seeps and Springs: Forested areas with seeps and springs. No forested seeps and springs were found.

Aquatic Feeding Habitat: There are no appropriate aquatic feeding areas within 120 m. As well, this

category is mainly intended for aquatic areas used by feeding moose, which would not be relevant here as

moose are mostly confined to areas north of Hwy. 7. We know of no reliable consistent sightings for

moose in the area associated with the proposed pit.

Mineral Licks: Refers to mineral licks that are used by white-tailed deer and moose. However, for the

proposed pit area it would only be deer, as moose are mostly confined to areas north of Hwy. 7. Deer are

found in forested ecosites with upwelling or seepage areas, typically in association with sedimentary rock,

or calcareous glacial till. Such sites were not observed in the adjacent forests, which consist of primarily

of shallow granitic rock, typical of Canadian Shield woodlands. No seepage areas were observed, and


19

there were no track concentrations which might suggest that of features being exploited by White-tailed

Deer.

Denning Sites for Mink, Otter, Marten, Fisher, and Eastern Wolf: Found in all forested ecosites and

mink, otter, and fisher are present in the region, but no potential dens were observed, nor evidence of

extensive use by these species such as otter runs, scat piles, or tracks.

Amphibian breeding habitat (woodland): Two sites within 120 m of the proposed pit contained

woodland amphibian breeding (see 2 and 3 of Table 2). Species types did not meet thresholds for

significance.

Amphibian breeding habitat (wetland): One site (see #1, Table 2) within 120 m of the proposed pit

contained amphibian breeding (wetland). Call levels of spring peepers met thresholds for significance,

but these are not a listed species in OMNR (2015). Significance requires 3 of the listed species, but of

these, only leopard frogs and tree frogs were heard and at call level code 1. Consequently, a significance

threshold was not met. Regardless, there will be no intrusion into this habitat from proposed pit

operations.

Table 2. Marsh Monitoring Protocol results of three site visits (April 30, May 15, and May 24, 2018).

Site Beaufort

Scale

Call

Level

Code

Back

ground

Noise

Code

Size Species

1. Wetland south of

proposed pit area,

west of Buck Bay

Road

0,0,0 3,3,3 0,0,0 60 hectares 1. Mostly spring peepers, call level

code 1 for leopard frogs.

2. Spring peepers.

3. Mostly spring peepers, tree frogs

2. Ditch/depression

east of Buck Bay

Road (woodland)

0,0,0 2,2,2 0,0,0 800 m2 1. Mostly spring peepers.

2. Only spring peepers

3. Tree frogs

3. Creek/ditch

system associated

with Buck Bay Road

(shrubland)

0,0,0 1,1,1 0,0,0 ~500 m long 1. Only spring peepers.

2. Only spring peeprs.

3. Tree frogs

Mast Producing Areas: White tailed deer and Wild Turkey are occasionally seen in this area, and black

bear tend to be transient. A mast producing area is one with more than 50% of mast production trees

(beech, red oak, hickory, basswood, black cherry, ironwood, mountain ash, pin cherry, and butternut).

Openings within forests with mast producing shrubs (blackberry, raspberry, blueberry, beaked hazel,

serviceberry) is also supportive. The adjacent woodlands do contain mast producing trees, but not in

significant numbers.

Habitat for Species of Conservation Concern

OMNR (2015) lists 4 categories of Habitat for Species of Conservation Concern for Site Region 5E,

discussed as follows:

Marsh bird breeding habitat: There are no wetlands or water bodies within 120 m of the proposed pit

that contains appropriate marsh bird breeding habitat.


20

Open country bird breeding habitat: Requires grassland habitat 30 ha or larger in size. This is not

present within 120 m of the proposed pit area.

Shrub/early successional bird breeding habitat: This requires large fields (>30 ha) succeeding to shrub

and thicket habitat. This is not present within 120 m of the proposed pit area.

Special concern and Rare Wildlife Species: Refers to provincial S1, S2, and SC species that are not

threatened or endangered. The list of potential species in Table 2 were provided by the following four

sources:

1. Henson and Brodribb, Bancroft Ecodistrict 5E-11 (2005).

2. NHIC 1 km grids 18UQ6939 and 18UQ7039.

3. OMNR Peterborough (2018).

4. Field observations.

Table 2. Potential SAR species associated with the pit.

Species Preferred Habitat Source Suitable

Habitat

Seen

Mammals

Southern Flying Squirrel

(SC)

Woodlands 1 Yes No

Reptiles

Snapping Turtle (SC) Prefer lakes or large rivers with soft bottoms. 3 Yes No

Map Turtle (SC) Prefer lakes or large rivers with soft bottoms. 3 No No

Five-lined Skink (SC) Rock barrens, dry pasture 1,3 No No

Birds

Wood Thrush (SC) A range of woodland habitats 3, 4 Yes Yes, but

> 120 m

Black Tern (SC) Open water wetlands 1 No No

Cerulean Warbler (SC) Large mature deciduous woodlands with extensive

core habitat

1 Yes No

Wood-pewee (SC) Mature woodlands 3 Yes Yes, but

> 120 m

Bald Eagle (SC) Mature woodlands in association with water bodies 1 Yes No

Red-headed Woodpecker

(SC)

Open woodlands 1 No No

Golden Winged Warbler

(SC)

Shrub areas. 3, 4 Yes Yes,

Level 2

report

Plants

Rams Head Lady Slipper

S3

Moist coniferous woodlands, usually in proximity

to wetlands.

1 No No

Head Lady Slipper S3 Moist coniferous woodlands, usually in proximity

to wetlands.

1 No No

Northern Woodsia (S2) Calcareous cliffs 1 No No

Fogg’s Goosefoot (S2) Woodlands, cliffs, rock outcrops 1 Yes No

Auricled Twayblade (S3) Alder thickets with alluvial sand 1 No No

Drooping Bluegrass (S3) Grasslands 1 Yes No

Little Prickly Pear Cactus

(S3)

Rock barrens 1 No No

Hidden Fruited

Bladderwort (S3)

Wetlands 1 Yes No

Scrub Oak (S1) Woodlands 1 Yes No

Insects No

Ebony Boghaunter (S2) Bog habitat 1 No No


21

Animal Movement Corridors

MNRF (2015) list three types of animal movement corridors; amphibian movement corridors and deer

movement corridors.

Amphibian Movement Corridors: Amphibian movement corridors refer to areas that provide movement

zones between breeding and summer habitat. To be significant, corridors should consist of native

vegetation, not be crossed by roads, and have no gaps such as fields or waterways. The fields and various

gaps (eg., roads) of the proposed pit areas do not have these features and therefore would not act as

amphibium movement corridors as defined in OMNR (2015).

Cervid Movement Corridors: Deer movement corridors are those associated with deer wintering habitat.

Regional deer linkages and winter deeryards have been identified for the County of Frontenac (2012), and

these are not associated with the proposed pit.

Furbearer Movement Corridor: Intended to protect otter and mink denning sites and movement to and

from those sites. These are typically found within a riparian area of a lake, river, stream, or wetland. Any

movement of mink or otter in association with the proposed pit would follow around the pit area, and not

through it, due to the nature of the surrounding habitat. Consequently, corridor interference would be

unlikely.

No sign of otters was observed on site, and the limited open water and associated fish habitat within 100

m (i.e., the denning site distance threshold) limits its potential as SWH for otter. Likewise, the wetland

areas to the south of the proposed pit do not represent good mink habitat due to a lack of open water. A

riparian system is located mostly more than 100 m to the north of the proposed pit, except where it dips

down in one spot to be within about 65 m away. However, this area dries up in summer, making it less

than ideal as mink habitat or as a corridor. No mink were observed during the site visits.

Exceptions for EcoRegion 5E

Eco-District 5E-11 – Rare Forest Types: Jack Pine: Any forest stand with more than 40% jack pine

coverage is to be considered significant. This is not present within 120 m of the proposed pit area.

5.6 Fish Habitat

Fish habitat features are present in a creek system that flows into Buck Bay and originates more than a

kilometer west of the proposed pit.

The closest creek location to the proposed pit is a

tributary about 60 meters north of the proposed pit

and west of Buck Bay Road. At this location, we

were told by pit operators that it regularly dries up

in the summer, and this was also the case in 2018,

as can be seen in the adjacent photo taken on June

26, 2018. Consequently, we would consider this

portion of the creek within 120 m of the proposed

pit as marginal fish habitat.

One other tributary north of the proposed pit did not dry up in 2018, with one bend of the creek getting as

close to 65 meters to the western portion of the proposed pit.


22

The creek eventually crosses Buck Bay Road, where it enters a ditch that runs north along the side of the

road for about 240 meters, before crossing back west across the road for a short distance, before passing

back east across the road. From there it is an approximate 500 m to Buck Bay, via a creek channel and a

pond. The ditch portion of this creek is about 80 meters from the eastern portion of the proposed pit, and

portions of it were dry in the summer and so we would consider it marginal fish habitat.

As the creek, and potential fish habitat is within 120 meters of fish habitat, it will be discussed in a Level

2 report.

6.0 Natural Environment Level 2: Impact Assessment

Significant Feature – Species at Risk

Bank Swallow (Threatened)

We counted 4 active nests within the existing

pit area (1 can be seen in the upper left edge

of the adjacent photo), although the number

of Bank Swallows observed throughout the

field work was much greater than suggested

by these 4 nests. However, there a number of

nearby sand pits, and Bank Swallows are

likely flying to and from these pits as part of a

colonial meta-population behavior.

The pit operators indicated that Bank

Swallows have been present within their pit

for a number of years and if needed, the pit

operators wait until the off-season to target

the sand that is in the nest areas. The four nests observed are in portions of the pit that would unlikely be

targeted for sand removal, as they are on the walls supporting the existing pit roadways. The nests were

still present during the final site visits in October.

It is not surprising that Bank Swallows were seen as these birds are attracted to the sheer sand faces for

nest building purposes, and Heneberg (2001) notes that Bank Swallows preferentially move to sand pits

over traditional nesting areas due to the good nesting qualities of the sand substrate. As such, it is likely

that the proposed pit area will also attract Bank Swallows.

If there is a reasonable separation distance of 30 m during the nesting season, it is unlikely that pit activity

will impact these swallows. We have observed many examples in Eastern Ontario pits where Bank

Swallows display tolerance to pit operations, as long as there is no direct destruction of their nests. If

Bank Swallows are in an active pit, the pit operators are required to register their pit activity. Information

on how to do this can be obtained from the following link. Typical restrictions usually involve not

removing nests during the breeding season (early May to mid-August) and yearly population monitoring. http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/pits-or-quarries-and-endangered-or-threatened-species

http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/pits-or-quarries-and-endangered-or-threatened-species


23

Barn Swallow (Threatened)

We counted 3 active nests in an old abandoned shed about 15 m to

the west of the proposed pit boundary. See red X in the lower left

corner of the adjacent image. The shed had a notable lean as a

result of rotting walls, which is likely why it partially collapsed as a

result of a summer windstorm. Thankfully, the Barn Swallows had

fledged by that point, tripling the local population in this vicinity.

The remains of the shed, and an adjacent open vehicle shelter that

was also damaged by the storm were removed by the landowners.

We observed no nesting in the vehicle shelter when it was standing.

Subsequent to that we noted the fledglings and parents

accessing the attic of a nearby (about 40 m west of the

damaged shed) abandoned house through holes in the

roof, one of which can be seen in the adjacent image. The

house is about 31 m to the proposed pit boundary. Barn

Swallows were not observed to use the house prior to this,

so it is assumed these were the swallows from the shed.

We observed two Barn Swallows around the house the

following spring on May 16 2019, but didn’t observe

them entering or leaving the house. It is conceivable that Barn Swallows will take up residence in either

the attic, or build nests on the walls, which we have seen done elsewhere in abandoned structures.

As the roof is now open to the elements, this house may eventually

cave in or collapse like the shed. As a result, we asked the

McNichols’ to build a barn swallow nesting structure in the same

location that the shed used to occupy. In the adjacent image the

built structure and the abandoned house (middle far center right).

We did not see the new shelter used on May 16, 2019 for nesting. If

it or the house are used, it shouldn’t preclude pit operations as it is well known that Barn Swallows are

tolerant of nearby human activity. As a testament to this they were nesting here in a shed that was

immediately adjacent to active corn fields and vehicles (i.e., the vehicle shed). Furthermore, we have

observed them nesting in busy highway overpasses, boathouses, under marina docks, in a gun firing range

shelter, and of course in barns.

Prior to extraction within 30 m of the built Barn Swallow structure/shelter we recommend surveys be

undertaken to determine if Barn Swallow are nesting. If nesting is taking place in the shelter, we

recommend a 30 m pit operation buffer during the breeding season (April 1 to August 15).

Eastern Whip-poor-will (Threatened)

We often find Whip-poor-will in the vicinity of pits and quarries, which can also be borne out with a

search of eBird records. This may either be a reflection of the landscape that supports these geological

features, or it could be that Whip-poor-wills are attracted to the open areas of pits and quarries for aerial

feeding. We would not expect to find Whip-poor-will nests in the open areas of the proposed pit as it has

traditionally been used for farming. However, we would suspect nesting in the adjacent woodlands, and

except for a small 0.4 ha isolated patch of woodland west of Buck Bay Road that did not contain Whip-

poor-wills, there will be no intrusion into any adjacent woodland by the proposed pit boundary.


24

The closest distance of the proposed pit boundary to the observed Whip-poor-will nest north of the pit

boundary is 65 m. This exceeds the 20 m distance (Category 1) that is noted as highly sensitive to

disturbance outlined in the General Habitat Description for the Eastern Whip-poor-will (Caprimulgus

vociferous) produced by the OMNRF (undated). The intervening distance will include maple dominated

woodland, which will provide a good site and sound barrier. As well, the intervening field slopes upward

and away from the nest, such that pit operations (once they go below grade) will be mostly out of visual

site of the nest by the height of this intervening slope.

Habitat alteration might have a greater negative outcome to breeding Whip-poor-wills for certain types of

development, such as for housing, but the level of impact between a pit operation and the current use of

these fields (occasional cultivation, hunting, ATV use, recreational use) is considered negligible,

especially considering the pit will not operate at night when Whip-poor-wills are active.

The distance of 20 m to 170 m (Category 2) from a nest

is considered the approximate defended territory and is

considered to have a moderate tolerance to alteration.

We don’t consider a pit operation to be a significant

source of disturbance, as it does not involve blasting or

drilling, and the pit operation does not operate at night

when Whip-poor-wills are most active, and there is little

reason why Whip-poor-wills cannot be active over a pit

in the evening. As well, we and others have often

observed Whip-poor-wills in the vicinity of pits,

suggesting they are attracted to pit features.

Nevertheless, we would expect night feeding flights to

focus away from the proposed pit area, and instead

focus on the wetland areas further north and south as

these would more likely contain a higher density of

aerial insect prey. Nevertheless, a seasonal Category 2

restriction boundary is recommended to provide an

extra layer of disturbance minimization (see adjacent

image). This will provide a setback distance of at least

110 meters from the observed nest area along the north

side of the pit, and at least 85 m from the calling

concentration area along the south side of the pit.

The Category 3 area is from between 170 and 500 m

from the nest site, mainly for foraging and it has a high level of tolerance to alteration, and in this regard,

daily pit activities are not considered a detriment to these birds for reasons discussed above. Furthermore,

we would expect feeding flights to focus more above the adjacent wetland areas as opposed to the crop

and field areas of the proposed pit area.

The Whip-poor-will calling from the south of the proposed pit (see the lower ‘wh’ in the above image)

was from woodland that also contained a rocky clearing. We spent considerable time in this small 0.13

ha. area for a variety of surveys. The area where Whip-poor-wills might set up a nest was easily traversed

and due to its small size we are confident that Whip-poor-wills did not nest here in 2018. Although the

nestlings can be well camouflaged, the females will make a notable show to draw intruders away from the

nest, as they did for the one nest found further north of the proposed pit area. In an area as small as this,

which we traversed numerous times, the nest or this distraction behavior would be difficult to avoid.

Consequently, it is our conclusion that no nesting occurred here in 2018.


25

Nevertheless, good nesting features (Category 1) at this southern site will be from 50 to 65 m to the

proposed pit boundary, and at least 85 from a proposed seasonal Category 2 restriction zone with an

intervening woodland to provide a sight and sound buffer.

In summary, it is recommended that no pit activities occur in these Category 2 restriction boundary areas

during the regional Whip-poor-will season extending from April 15 to July 31, as surveyed by Weir

(2008). Whip-poor-will surveys will need to be conducted if pit operators are interested in bypassing

these timing boundaries during any particular year. If it is determined that Whip-poor-wills are not

present, we see no need for a restriction boundary during that particular year.

Finally, there is no intention to intrude into the adjacent Whip-poor-will woodlands for pit operations and

the pit boundary is proposed to be at least 20 m from any woodland edge.

Butternut (Endangered)

None of the Butternuts are within an area that is proposed for the new pit

licence area. Five butternuts located from 50 to 120 m of the proposed pit

area are clearly non-retainable due to peeling bark and almost no crown cover,

such as the butternut in the image to the right.

Three butternuts were observed within 50 m of the proposed pit area which is

a standard setback distance for housing developments. A butternut health

assessment (BHA) was not undertaken for the southernmost of these three as

it was clearly non-retainable as a result of peeling bark and minimal crown

cover. BHA’s were undertaken for the butternuts within 50 m of the proposed

pit area east of Buck Bay Road. The BHA’s were not submitted at this time,

but the scores shown in the table below indicate that they are non-retainable.

There are no protections for non-retainable butternuts, but in order to provide

a formal process, we recommend that a new BHA be undertaken and

submitted on the three trees within 50 m when active pit operations get within

50 m of these trees. Although unlikely, it is conceivable that these trees could recover from the canker

whereupon future BHA results would indicate that they are retainable. If that were to occur, we would

recommend a 50 m buffer around these trees.

S

<2

m

S

>2

m

O

<2

m

O

>2

m

RF

S

RF

O

Circ

(cm)

BC

(cm)

RC

(cm)BC% RC% BRC%

1 80 14 5 3 8 7 2 2 y 44 95.0 15.0 216.1 34.1 125.1 1 1 1 1 1

2 75 21 5 0 9 1 1 6 y 65.9 62.5 32.5 94.8 49.3 72.0 1 1 1 1 1

2 trees located near N 44 36.238 W 76 38.417

Landowner / Client Name

Property Location

BHA ID # 123 BHA Name Rob Snetsinger

Glen McNichols

sooty (S)

(will be

assigned

2.5 cm

per

canker)

open (O)

(will be

assigned

5 cm per

canker)

total

bole

canker

width

(sooty x

2.5 +

open x

5)

total RF

canker

width

(sooty x

2.5 +

open x

5)

input field data automatic calculations from field data

# root

flare

(RF)

cankers

<40 m

fro

m c

ankere

d tre

e? (Y

or

N)

bole

canker

% of

circ.

RF

canker

% of

circ.

total

bole &

root

canker

% of

2xCirc

Circ.

(cm) =

Pi x

dbh

# bole cankers

Tree

#

Live

Cro

wn

%

Tre

e d

bh

(cm

)

Categories: 1: non-retainable,

2: retainable,

3: archivable

LC%

>/=

50 &

BC%

= 0

LC%

>70

&

BRC

%

<20

LC

%

>70

&

BC

%

<20 Pre

lim

inar

y tr

ee

cal

l

FINAL

TREE

CALLa Cat 2,

dbh>20c

m

<40m

from a

Cat 1


26

Significant Feature – Significant Wetland

As previously discussed, wetland areas within 120 m of the proposed pit have not been evaluated and the

policy of the MNRF in such situations is that these wetlands are to be considered significant, unless a

wetland evaluation proves otherwise.

There are four wetland areas within 120 m of the proposed pit. These are:

1. Mineral Thicket Swamp (G134) north of the West proposed pit area. The bulk of this wetland is

located just west of Buck Bay Road and the closest distance of the main body of this wetland area

to the proposed pit is approximately 55 m, but also includes a small (0.1 ha) finger further west,

that is approximately 35 m from the proposed pit boundary. The intervening distance in all cases is

a combination of field, shrub, and treed buffer.

2. Mineral Thicket Swamp (G134) west of the East proposed pit area. The distances to the

proposed pit vary, but the closest distance is about 40 m. The intervening distance is all shrub and

treed buffer.

3. Mineral Meadow Marsh (G142) north of the West proposed pit area. The distances to the

proposed pit vary, but the closest distance is about 60 m. The intervening distance is a combination

of field, shrub, and treed buffer. If seasonal Category 2 Whip-poor-will boundary is applied, the

minimum distance to the Mineral Meadow Marsh would be about 80m during the active season of

the wetland.

4. Mineral Meadow Marsh (G142) south of the West proposed pit area. The closest distance to the

wetland from the proposed pit boundary is about 60 m, with the intervening distance being a

combination of field, shrub, and treed buffer.

Wetland features that pertain to wildlife habitat and fish habitat are discussed under the Level 2 categories

of wildlife habitat and fish habitat.

Biological features, such as diversity are not expected to be impacted by the proposed pit due to a lack of

the biological interactions that are feasible for the type of upland present here and the adjacent wetland.

The lands to be converted to pit are predominantly soybean and corn field. These would have little value

to wetland species in their needs for life cycle completion, and thus the conversion to pit would have little

impact. Furthermore, significant changes to wetland features such as diversity appear to be controlled by

factors (i.e., beaver activity) unrelated to adjacent upland land use. These activities that are unrelated to

the use of the proposed pit lands would also be significant controlling factors to wetland hydrological

function. As a result, the pit will offer little hydrological risk, especially as it will not operate below the

water table, and there will be no water diversion away from these wetlands from the pit operations.

Finally, no wetland species at risk were noted, nor expected due to the nature of the wetland within 120 m

of the proposed pit.

In summary, no impacts from the proposed pit activities to the adjacent unevaluated wetland are expected

due to a lack of potential wetland/upland interactions, the length and nature of the intervening buffers,

and the relative benign nature of normal pit operations. In our opinion, no recommendations are

warranted for the pit as it relates to nearby wetlands.


27

Significant Feature – Woodland

In Ontario, woodlands in Site Region 5E extend over 800 km north in a continuous band, thus reducing

the potential for significant impact from local activities. However, important woodland features and

functions can still occur at a local level. In this regard, we discuss one feature (uncommon

characteristics) and one function (water protection) below.

Uncommon Characteristics: This feature is discussed because the adjacent woodlands contain butternut

trees. There will be no intrusion into the woodlands containing these butternuts for the purposes of the

proposed pit area, and thus the woodlands ability to provide this feature will be little impacted. Details in

regard to these trees is discussed under the Species at Risk section.

Water Protection: There are two woodland areas within 120 m of the proposed pit that are near the top

of bank from water areas, and thus are considered under the Water Protection function. These include:

1. G018 woodland north of the proposed pit area that is west of Buck Bay Road. It is located to

the south of a creek system, with the closest distance of the woodland being about 38 m to the main

creek channel. This woodland is about 77 m wide, which is more than wide enough for buffering

purposes. Furthermore, there will be no intrusion into this woodland from the proposed pit activity,

and thus its buffering function should be unimpeded.

2. G071 woodland west of the proposed pit area that is east of Buck Bay Road. It borders the

creek system that runs north beside Buck Bay Road. The creek has little to no buffering from Buck

Bay Road. In contrast, the G071 woodland provides varying widths (i.e., 40 to 80 m) of buffering

from potential pit operations. This is more than adequate, especially considering the lack of

impacts that could come from the relatively benign activities associated with a pit.

In summary, no impacts from the proposed pit activities to the water protection function of these

woodlands are expected. In our opinion, no recommendations are warranted for the pit as it relates to

nearby woodlands.

Significant Feature – Significant Wildlife Habitat

Colonially -Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat (Bank and Cliff): See the Level 2 assessment

above for species at risk regarding Bank Swallows.

Turtle and Lizard Nesting Areas: As discussed in the Level 1 assessment, the number of

painted turtle nests observed did not meet the threshold for significance. In our opinion these

were painted turtle nests due to the size and shape of the discarded eggs, and because an old

painted turtle shell was found at this location.

It is unlikely that impacts will occur to turtle nests from the proposed pit as all nests were

observed in the intervening area between the wetland/creek system and the proposed pit

boundary. This nesting also occurred north of the proposed Category 2 Whip-poor-will seasonal

restriction zone. This timing coincides with the turtle nesting period, and this will provide an

even greater setback distance for nesting turtles.

Rare Species – Golden Winged Warbler (Special Concern): Up to four Golden Winged

Warblers were observed and heard calling in both portions of the Mineral Thicket Swamp that is

bisected by Buck Bay Road.


28

Impacts to these birds is not expected as there will be no intrusion into their habitat and there will

be at least a 40 m forested and shrub setback from the proposed pit boundary. As well, the

densely growing speckled alder where they were found provides good cover. Finally, the

presence of these birds adjacent to Buck Bay Road (which is closer to their habitat than the

proposed pit areas) suggests that they are tolerant of a level of disturbance that exceeds the level

of disturbance expected for this pit.

In summary, no impacts to significant wildlife habitat are expected from the proposed pit activities. In

our opinion, no recommendations are warranted for the pit as it relates to nearby Golden Winger warbler

habitat.

Significant Feature – Fish Habitat

Due to their open exposure and wetland associations, the creek systems within 120 m of the proposed pit

are considered warm water fish habitat. They eventually flow into the west basin of Bob’s Lake, via a

small shallow lake, and Buck Bay. The west basin contains lake trout (mostly stocked), as a result of its

depth, but the outer edges, and especially Buck Bay are more known for their warm water associated

fisheries such as for bass and pike.

The fish habitat that would be within 120 m of the proposed pit is considered marginal habitat because

portions dry up in summer and other portions operate as roadside ditches.

Negative impacts to fish habitat from nearby pit operations are unlikely, because there will be no

intrusion into fish habitat and pit operations are mostly benign in this regard. The only likely impact

would be from sand sedimentation via storm induced runoff. However, the setbacks are considered more

than adequate with the distances ranging from 66 m to beyond 120 m, and all containing intervening

vegetated buffers.

In summary, no impacts to significant wildlife habitat are expected from the proposed pit activities. In

our opinion, no recommendations are warranted for the pit as it relates to nearby fish habitat.

LEVEL 2 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Species at Risk

1. Register any pit activity with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry that occurs within 120 m

of Bank Swallow nests.

2. Prior to extraction within 30 m of the built Barn Swallow structure/shelter we recommend surveys be

undertaken to determine if Barn Swallow are nesting. If nesting is taking place in the shelter, we

recommend a 30 m pit operation buffer during the breeding season (April 1 to August 15).

3. It is recommended that no pit activities occur in these Category 2 restriction boundary areas during

the regional Whip-poor-will season extending from April 15 to July 31, as surveyed by Weir (2008).

Whip-poor-will surveys will need to be conducted if pit operators are interested in bypassing these timing


29

boundaries during any particular year. If it is determined that Whip-poor-wills are not present, we see no

need for a restriction boundary during that particular year.

4. We recommend that a new BHA be submitted on the three identified butternuts trees that are within 50

m of the proposed licence area when active pit operations get within 50 m of these trees. All these trees

were heavily cankered, but if the BHA determines that these trees are retainable, we recommend a 50 m

buffer around these trees, until when or if they are no longer retainable.

Significant Wetland

No impacts expected and therefore no recommendations are provided.

Significant Woodland

No recommendations are provided, other than those that may apply to butternuts, which are provided

above under the Species at Risk heading.

Significant Wildlife Habitat

No recommendations are provided, other than those that may apply to Bank Swallows, which are

provided above under the Species at Risk heading.

Fish Habitat

No impacts expected and therefore no recommendations are provided.


30

6. References

Banton, E., J. Johnson, H. Lee, G. Racey, P. Uhlig, and Monique Wester. 2009. Draft ELC manual for

Zone 5e, produced by the Ecological Land Classification Working Group of the Ontario Ministry

of Natural Resrouces.

Cadman M. and N. Kopysh. 2001. Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas Guide for Participants. Bird Studies

Canada, Environment Canada: Canadian Wildlife Service, Federation of Ontario Naturalists,

OFO, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.

County of Frontenac. 2012. Natural Heritage Study Final Report. Produced by Dillon Consulting

Limited.

Gleason, Henry A. and Arthur Cronquist. 1991. Manual of the Vascular Plants of Northeastern United

States and Adjacent Canada, Second Edition. D. Van Nostrand, N.Y.

Henson, B.L. and K.E. Brodribb 2005. Great Lakes Conservation Blueprint for Terrestrial Biodiversity,

Volume 2: Ecodistrict Summaries. Nature Conservancy of Canada.

Heneberg, P. 2001. Size of sand grains as a significant factor affecting the nesting of banks swallows

(Riparia riparia). Biologia. 56:205-210.

Lee, H., W. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig, and S. McMurray. 1998. Ecological

Land Classification for Southern Ontario. Natural Heritage Information Centre, OMNR

Peterborough.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2000. Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide. 151 pp. Fish

and Wildlife Branch, Technical Section.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2010. Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Natural Heritage

Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005. Second Edition. Toronto: Queen’s Printer

for Ontario 248 pp.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2011. Survey Methodology under the Endangered Species Act,

2007: Dolichonyx oryzivorus (Bobolink). Ministry of Natural Resources Policy Division

Species at Risk Branch.

MNR, Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2011a. Bats and Bat Habitats: Guidelines for Wind Power

Projects. Second Edition.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. 2015. Significant Wildlife Habitat Ecoregion 5E

Criterion Schedule. MNRF Peterborough Regional Office.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2012. Survey Protocol for Eastern Whip-poor-will (Caprimulgus

vociferous) in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Species at Risk Branch,

Peterborough, Ontario. ii + 10 pp.

OMNRF. 2016. Survey Protocol for Ontario’s Species at Risk Snakes. Ontario Ministry of Natural

Resources and Forestry, Species Conservation Policy Branch. Peterborough, Ontario. ii + 17 pp.


31

OMNRF. (undated). Proposed Gray Ratsnake Survey Guidance.

Weir, R. 2008. Birds of the Kingston Region. Kingston Field Naturalists. 610 pp.

7. Qualifications

Ecological Services has been in operation in eastern Ontario since 1985. Our experience includes

environmental impact assessments, management plans, wetland evaluations, and municipal land use

planning. We have research experience in aquatic ecology and chemistry, forest fragmentation, avian

ecology, and fisheries ecology.

We have worked with government at the federal, provincial, local and international levels. Other clients

have included Crown corporations, planning and engineering firms, developers, and local groups. Our

association with Queen’s University provides us access to current and broad-based research, and also

provides us with a pool of expert associates. A work prospectus is available at

http://ecologicalservices.webs.com.

Report preparation was carried out by Rob Snetsinger.

1. Rob Snetsinger: 3803 Sydenham Rd. Elginburg, Ontario KOH 1M0 (613) 376-6916

[email protected]

Employment

1985 - present: Environmental Consultant.

Specializing in floral and faunal resource inventories, wetland evaluations, woodland/forest

assessments, environmental impact assessments, and habitat restoration.

1985 - present: Adjunct Academic. Department of Biology at Queen's University.

Development and instruction of various courses at Queen’s University:

Education

M.Sc., Biology, Queen's University. Kingston, Ontario.

B. Sc., Biology, Queen's University. Kingston, Ontario.

Forestry Diploma. Lakehead University. Thunder Bay, Ontario

Technical

Wetland Evaluation Certification

Butternut Health Assessor

Ecological Land Classification Certification

2. Chris Grooms: 4388 Florida Rd. Harrowsmith, Ontario K0H 1V0 (613) 386-7969

[email protected]

Employment

1995 – present: Environmental Consultant

http://ecologicalservices.webs.com/


32

Specializing in breeding bird and amphibian surveys.

2006 - present: Research Assistant. Paleoecological Environmental Assessment and Research

Laboratory, Queen’s University.

2003- 2005: Coordinator, Eastern Region. Ontario Nature – Federation of Ontario Naturalists.

1992- 2003. Habitat Stewardship and Ornithological Experience. Contracts with the Canadian Wildlife

Service, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), Wildlife Preservation Trust Canada, and Bird

Studies Canada.

Education

B.Sc., 1998 (Biology), Queen's University. Kingston, Ontario.

Affiliations

Former President, Kingston Field Naturalists

3. Megan Snetsinger: 929 Victoria St., Kingston Ontario, K7K 4T9, 539-1316 [email protected]

Employment

2016 - present: Environmental Consultant.

Specializing in floral and faunal resource inventories, wetland evaluations, woodland/forest

assessments, environmental impact assessments, and habitat restoration.

To be filled in

Education

M.Sc., Biology, Queen's University. Kingston, Ontario.

B. Sc., Biology, Queen's University. Kingston, Ontario.

Technical

Wetland Evaluation Certification

Ecological Land Classification Certification


33

8. Appendix 1: Plant List

Plants found within 120 m of the proposed pit: Please note that this is not an exhaustive plant list as the EIS was focused on habitat characterization and significant features analysis.

McNichol Pit

Acer rubrum Maple, red S5

Acer negundo Maple, Manitoba S5

Acer saccharum Maple, sugar S5

Achillea millefolium Yarrow, common SNA

Actaea pachypoda Baneberry, white S5

Actaea rubra Baneberry, red S5

Adlumia fungosa Fumitory, Climbing S4

Agalinis paupercula Agalinis, Small-flowered S4/S5

Agrostis stolonifera Bentgrass, Spreading S5

Alisma triviale Water-plantain, Northern S5

Alnus rugosa Speckled alder S5

Ambrosia artemisiifolia Ragweed, annual SNA

Amelanchier arborea Serviceberry S5

Amphicarpaea bracteata Hog-peanut, American S5

Anemone acutiloba Hepatica, sharp lobed S5

Anemone canadensis Anemone, Canada S5

Antennaria neglecta Pussytoes, field S5

Apocynum androsaemifolium Dogbane, spreading

S5

Aquilegia canadensis Columbine, wild S5

Arabis hirsuta Rock-cress, Hairy S5

Aralia nudicaulis Sarsaparilla, Wild S5

Arctium lappa Burdock, greater SNA

Arctium minus Burdock, common SNA

Asclepias incarnata Milkweed, swamp S5

Asclepias syriaca Milkweed, common S5

Aster annuus Daisy fleabane S5

Aster cordifolius Aster, heart leaved S5

Aster lanceolatus Aster, panicled S5

Aster macrophyllus Aster, large leaved S5

Aster novi-belgii Aster, New England S5

Athyrium filix-femina Fern, lady S5

Betula papyrifera Birch, paper S5

Bidens cernua Beggar-ticks, Nodding S5

Brassica nigra Black mustard SNA

Bromus inermis Brome, Awnless SNA

Calamagrostis canadensis Blue-joint, Canada S5

Campanula rotundifolia Harebell, American S5


34

Capsella bursa-pastoris Shepherd's Purse, Common SNA

Cardamine diphylla Toothwort, Two-leaf S5

Carduus sp. Thistle sp. SNA

Carex bebbii Sedge, Bebb's S5

Carex comosa Sedge, bristly S5

Carex crinita Sedge, fringed S5

Carex hystericina Sedge, porcupine S5

Carex pensylvanica Sedge, Pennsylvania S5

Carex plantaginea Sedge, plantain leaved S5

Carex platyphylla Sedge, broad leaved S5

Carex rosea Sedge, rosy S5

Carex stricta Sedge, tussock S5

Carex tuckermanii Sedge, Tuckermans S5

Carex vulpinoidea Sedge, fox S5

Carpinus caroliniana Hornbeam, American S5

Carya cordiformis Hickory, bitternut S5

Carya ovata Hickory, shag bark S5

Caulophyllum thalictroides Cohosh, blue S5

Chelone glabra Turtlehead, white S5

Chenopodium album Lamb's quarters SNA

Cicuta bulbifera Water-hemlock, Bulb-bearing S5

Cirsium vulgare Thistle, bull SNA

Comandra umbellata Bastard Toad-flax, Umbellate

Cornus rugosa Dogwood, roundleaf S5

Cornus stolonifera Dogwood, red osier S5

Cystopteris fragilis Fern, fragile S5

Dactylis glomerata Grass, orchard SNA

Daucus carota Wild carrot SNA

Decodon verticillatus Swamp loosestrife, hairy S5

Desmodium glutinosum Tick-trefoil, large SNA

Diervilla lonicera Bush-honeysuckle, Northern S5

Digitaria sanguinalis Large crabgrass SNA

Dryopteris carthusiana Shield fern, spinulose S5

Dryopteris intermedia Woodfern, evergreen S5

Dryopteris marginalis Marginal Shield Fern S5

Eleocharis acicularis Spike-rush, least S5

Equisetum arvense Horsetail, field S5

Equisetum pratense Horsetail, meadow S5

Erigeron canadensis Horseweed SNA

Erythronium americanum Trout-lily, yellow S5

Eupatorium maculatum Joe pye weed S5

Eupatorium perfoliatum Common boneset S5


35

Eupatorium rugosum Snakeroot, yellow S5

Eurybia macrophylla Large-leaf Wood-aster S5

Fagus grandifolia Beech, American S5

Fragaria vesca Strawberry, woodland S5

Fragaria virginiana Strawberry, wild S5

Fraxinus americana Ash, white S5

Galium circaezans Licorice, wild S5

Galium mollugo Bedstraw, great hedge SNA

Geranium robertianum Herb-robert SNA

Geum canadense Avens, white S5

Helianthus divaricatus Sunflower, woodland S5

Hesperis matronalis Dames rocket SNA

Hieracium aurantiacum Hawkweed, orange SNA

Hieracium caespitosum King devil SNA

Hydrocharis morsus-ranae Frog's bit SNA

Hypericum canadense St. John's-wort, Canadian S5

Ilex verticillata Holly, winterberry S5

Impatiens capensis Jewel-weed S5

Iris versicolor Blueflag S5

Juglans cinerea Butternut S5

Juncus dudleyi Rush, Dudley's S5

Juniperus communis Juniper S5

Juniperus virginiana Cedar, red S5

Lactuca canadensis Lettuce, Canada S5

Leersia oryzoides Cutgrass, rice S5

Lemna sp. Duckweed S5

Leonurus cardiaca Motherwort SNA

Leucanthemum vulgare Daisy, ox-eye SNA

Linaria vulgaris Butter-and-eggs SNA

Lonicera tatarica Tartarian Honeysuckle SNA

Lonicera hirsuta Honeysuckle, hairy S5

Lotus corniculatus Trefoil, birdsfoot SNA

Lycopus americanus Bugleweed, American S5

Lythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife SNA

Maianthemum canadense Lily-of-the-valley, Wild S5

Maianthemum racemosum False solomon's seal S5

Malus Apple SNA

Malva rotundifolia Mallow, round leaved SNA

Medicago lupulina Black medic SNA

Medicago sativa Alfalfa SNA

Melilotus alba Sweet clover, white SNA

Mitchella repens Partridge-berry S5

Mitella nuda Bishop's cap S5


36

Myrica gale Bayberry, sweet S5

Oenothera biennis Evening-primrose, common S5

Onoclea sensibilis Fern, sensitive S5

Oryzopsis racemosa Mountain-ricegrass, Black-fruit S5

Osmorhiza claytonii Sweet-cicely, Hairy S5

Osmunda regalis Fern, royal S5

Ostrya virginiana Hop-hornbeam, eastern S5

Oxalis corniculata Woodsorrel SNA

Parthenocissus vitacea Virginia Creeper S5

Passerina cyanea Meadowrue, early SNA

Pastinaca sativa Parsnip, wild SNA

Pedicularis canadensis Wood Lousewort, early S5

Phalaris arundinacea Canary grass, reed SNA

Phleum pratense Timothy grass SNA

Phryma leptostachya Lopseed S4/S5

Pinus strobus Pine, eastern white S5

Plantago major Plantain, Nipple-seed SNA

Poa compressa Bluegrass, Canada S5

Poa palustris Bluegrass, Fowl S5

Poa pratensis Bluegrass, Kentucky S5

Polygonatum pubescens Solomon's-seal, Downy S5

Polygonum amphibium Smartweed, water S5

Polygonum aviculare Prostrate knotweed SNA

Polygonum convolvulus Bindweed SNA

Polypodium virginianum Common polypody S5

Polystichum acrostichoides Fern, Christmas S5

Populus balsamifera Poplar, balsam S5

Populus deltoides Eastern cottonwood S5

Populus tremuloides Aspen, trembling S5

Potamogeton pusillus Pondweed, slender S4/S5

Prenanthes alba Rattlesnake-root, white S5

Prunella vulgaris Self-heal SNA

Prunus serotina Cherry, wild black S5

Pteridium aquilinum Fern, bracken S5

Pyrola rotundifolia Pyrola, round leaved S5

Quercus alba Oak, white S5

Quercus rubra Oak, northern red S5

Ranunculus abortivus Buttercup, kidney leaved S5

Ranunculus acris Buttercup, tall SNA

Rhamnus cathartica Buckthorn SNA

Rhus radicans Poison Ivy S5

Rhus typhina Sumac, staghorn S5


37

Ribes cynosbati Gooseberry, prickly S5

Rosa blanda Smooth Rose S5

Rubus idaeus Raspberry, common red S5

Rubus occidentalis Raspberry, black S5

Rumex crispus Dock, curly SNA

Sagittaria latifolia Arrowhead, broadleaf S5

Salix discolor Willow, pussy S5

Salix petiolaris Willow, slender S5

Sambucus racemosa Elder, European red S5

Sanguinaria canadensis Bloodroot S5

Sanicula marilandica Snakeroot, black S5

Saxifraga virginiensis Saxifrage, Virginia S5

Scirpus atrovirens Bulrush, dark green S5

Scirpus cyperinus Bulrush, cottongrass S5

Scirpus acutus Bulrush, hard stem S5

Setaria pumila Foxtail grass SNA

Silene vulgaris Bladder campion SNA

Solanum dulcamara Nightshade, climbing S5

Solidago bicolor Silver rod S5

Solidago caesia Goldenrod, bluestem S5

Solidago canadensis Goldenrod, Canada S5

Solidago flexicaulis Goldenrod, zig zag S5

Solidago hispida Goldenrod, rough stemmed S5

Sonchus arvensis Thistle, field SNA

Sonchus oleraceus Thistle, sow SNA

Spiraea alba Meadowsweet, narrow leaved S5

Spiraea tomentosa Hardhack S5 Symphyotrichum cordifolium Aster, heart leaved S5

Taraxacum officinale Dandelion SNA

Thalictrum dioicum Meadowrue, early S5

Thelypteris palustris Fern, marsh S5

Thuja occidentalis Cedar, eastern white S5

Tiarella cordifolia Foam flower, heart leaved S5

Tilia americana Basswood, American S5

Triadenum fraseri St. John's-wort, Marsh S5

Trifolium hybridum Clover, alsike SNA

Trifolium pratense Clover, red SNA

Trillium grandiflorum Trillium, white S5

Triticum Wheat SNA

Tsuga canadensis Hemlock, eastern S5

Tussilago farfara Colt's Foot SNA


38

Ulmus americana Elm, American S5

Urtica dioica Nettles SNA

Utricularia vulgaris Bladderwort, greater S5

Uvularia grandiflora Bellwort, large flowered S5

Uvularia perfoliata Bellwort, perfoliate S5

Verbascum thapsus Mullein, great SNA

Verbena hastata Vervain, blue S5

Viburnum acerifolium Viburnum, maple leaved S5

Viburnum lentago Nannyberry S5

Viburnum rafinesquianum Arrowwood, downy S5

Vicia cracca Vetch, tufted S5

Viola adunca Violet, sand S5

Viola cucullata Violet, marsh blue S5 Viola palmata var. palmata Violet, wood S5

Viola rostrata Violet, long spurred S5

Vitis riparia Grape, riverbank S5

Zanthoxylum americanum Ash, prickly S5

Zea mays Corn SNA

9. Appendix 2: Bird List

Species Count Observation date Location

Alder Flycatcher (Empidonax alnorum) 3 30-May-18 road

American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) 2 05-May-18 Throughout

American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) 2 30-May-18 Throughout

American Goldfinch (Spinus tristis) 4 05-May-18 Open Areas

American Goldfinch (Spinus tristis) 8 30-May-18 Open Areas

American Goldfinch (Spinus tristis) 31 16-Jun-18 Open Areas

American Pipit (Anthus rubescens) 7 05-May-18 migrants

American Robin (Turdus migratorius) 9 05-May-18 Throughout

American Robin (Turdus migratorius) 7 30-May-18 Throughout

American Robin (Turdus migratorius) 5 16-Jun-18 Throughout

Baltimore Oriole (Icterus galbula) 3 30-May-18 Woodland

Baltimore Oriole (Icterus galbula) 5 16-Jun-18 Woodland

Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia) 21 05-May-18 Sand Pit

Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia) 34 30-May-18 Sand Pit

Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia) 4 16-Jun-18 Sand Pit

Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica) 8 05-May-18 Field Edge

Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica) 4 30-May-18 Field Edge

Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica) 14 16-Jun-18 Field Edge


39

Belted Kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon) 4 05-May-18 pits

Belted Kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon) 2 30-May-18 South wetland

Belted Kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon) 3 16-Jun-18 South wetland

Black-and-white Warbler (Mniotilta varia) 1 05-May-18 east furest

Black-and-white Warbler (Mniotilta varia) 4 30-May-18 east woodland

Black-and-white Warbler (Mniotilta varia) 1 16-Jun-18 east woodland Black-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus erythropthalmus) 5 30-May-18 north >120 Black-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus erythropthalmus) 1 16-Jun-18 north >120

Black-capped Chickadee (Poecile atricapillus) 2 05-May-18 north >120

Black-capped Chickadee (Poecile atricapillus) 5 30-May-18 Throughout

Black-capped Chickadee (Poecile atricapillus) 7 16-Jun-18 Throughout Black-throated Green Warbler (Setophaga virens) 3 30-May-18 east woodland Black-throated Green Warbler (Setophaga virens) 1 16-Jun-18 east woodland

Blue Jay (Cyanocitta cristata) 5 05-May-18 Throughout

Blue Jay (Cyanocitta cristata) 16 30-May-18 Throughout

Blue Jay (Cyanocitta cristata) 3 16-Jun-18 Throughout

Brent Goose (Branta bernicla) 95 30-May-18 >120 m (lake)

Brown Thrasher (Toxostoma rufum) 4 05-May-18 west ..middle

Brown Thrasher (Toxostoma rufum) 5 30-May-18 G032 northwest

Brown Thrasher (Toxostoma rufum) 9 16-Jun-18 G032 northwest

Brown-headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater) 1 05-May-18 Edge Habitat

Brown-headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater) 1 30-May-18 Edge Habitat

Brown-headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater) 1 16-Jun-18 Edge Habitat

Canada Goose (Branta canadensis) 87 05-May-18 Flyover

Canada Goose (Branta canadensis) 550 30-May-18 >120 m (lake)

Canada Goose (Branta canadensis) 2 16-Jun-18 Flyover

Cedar Waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum) 2 30-May-18 Throughout

Cedar Waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum) 5 16-Jun-18 Throughout Chestnut-sided Warbler (Setophaga pensylvanica) 5 30-May-18 west ..middle Chestnut-sided Warbler (Setophaga pensylvanica) 6 16-Jun-18 west ..middle

Chipping Sparrow (Spizella passerina) 2 05-May-18 Fields

Common Grackle (Quiscalus quiscula) 22 05-May-18 Throughout

Common Grackle (Quiscalus quiscula) 6 30-May-18 Throughout

Common Grackle (Quiscalus quiscula) 4 16-Jun-18 Throughout

Common Loon (Gavia immer) 2 05-May-18 Flyover

Common Loon (Gavia immer) 1 16-Jun-18 Flyover

Common Loon (Gavia immer) 2 30-May-18 Flyover

Common Raven (Corvus corax) 3 05-May-18 Flyover

Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas) 1 05-May-18 wetland

Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas) 11 30-May-18 wetland


40

Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas) 16 16-Jun-18 wetland

Downy Woodpecker (Picoides pubescens) 1 05-May-18 woodland

Downy Woodpecker (Picoides pubescens) 1 30-May-18 woodland

Downy Woodpecker (Picoides pubescens) 5 16-Jun-18 woodland

Eastern Kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus) 2 30-May-18 Open Areas

Eastern Kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus) 5 16-Jun-18 Open Areas

Eastern Phoebe (Sayornis phoebe) 1 30-May-18 Open Areas

Eastern Towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus) 4 05-May-18 Open Areas

Eastern Towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus) 5 30-May-18 road

Eastern Towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus) 6 16-Jun-18 road

Eastern Wood-Pewee (Contopus virens) 2 30-May-18 north >120 m

Eastern Wood-Pewee (Contopus virens) 1 05-May-18 north >120 m

European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris) 3 05-May-18 Throughout

European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris) 3 30-May-18 Throughout

European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris) 2 16-Jun-18 Throughout

Feral Pigeon (Columba livia) 2 30-May-18 Near house

Field Sparrow (Spizella pusilla) 2 05-May-18 Fields

Field Sparrow (Spizella pusilla) 3 30-May-18 Fields

Field Sparrow (Spizella pusilla) 9 16-Jun-18 Fields Golden-winged Warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera) 3 30-May-18 west north road Golden-winged Warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera) 4 16-Jun-18 west north road

Gray Catbird (Dumetella carolinensis) 4 30-May-18 Edge Habitat

Gray Catbird (Dumetella carolinensis) 1 16-Jun-18 Edge Habitat

Gray Catbird (Dumetella carolinensis) 4 30-May-18 Near house

Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias) 3 30-May-18 Flyover

Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias) 1 16-Jun-18 Flyover

Great Crested Flycatcher (Myiarchus crinitus) 2 30-May-18 east woodland

Great Crested Flycatcher (Myiarchus crinitus) 1 16-Jun-18 east woodland

Indigo Bunting (Passerina cyanea) 1 16-Jun-18 west middle

Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) 2 05-May-18 Open Areas

Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) 1 30-May-18 Open Areas

Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) 2 16-Jun-18 Open Areas

Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) 1 30-May-18 >120 m (lake)

Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura) 1 05-May-18 Open Areas

Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura) 3 30-May-18 Open Areas

Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura) 10 16-Jun-18 Open Areas

Northern Flicker (Colaptes auratus) 1 05-May-18 east woodland

Northern Flicker (Colaptes auratus) 2 30-May-18 east woodland

Northern Flicker (Colaptes auratus) 4 16-Jun-18 east woodland

Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) 30-May-18 >120 m (lake)

Ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapilla) 30-May-18 east woodland

Ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapilla) 2 16-Jun-18 east woodland


41

Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) 1 05-May-18 east woodland

Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) 4 16-Jun-18 east woodland

Red-eyed Vireo (Vireo olivaceus) 7 30-May-18 east woodland

Red-eyed Vireo (Vireo olivaceus) 5 16-Jun-18 east woodland

Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) 10 30-May-18 SW wetland

Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) 34 16-Jun-18 SW wetland

Ring-billed Gull (Larus delawarensis) 1 05-May-18 Flyover Rose-breasted Grosbeak (Pheucticus ludovicianus) 5 30-May-18 east woodland Rose-breasted Grosbeak (Pheucticus ludovicianus) 7 05-May-18 east woodland Rose-breasted Grosbeak (Pheucticus ludovicianus) 3 16-Jun-18 east woodland

Ruby-crowned Kinglet (Regulus calendula) 1 05-May-18 west wet

Ruffed Grouse (Bonasa umbellus) 1 05-May-18 east woodland

Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis) 3 05-May-18 Fields

Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis) 1 30-May-18 Fields

Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis) 7 16-Jun-18 Fields

Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia) 12 05-May-18 Fields

Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia) 20 30-May-18 Fields

Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia) 39 16-Jun-18 Fields

Swamp Sparrow (Melospiza georgiana) 2 05-May-18 G142 wetland

Swamp Sparrow (Melospiza georgiana) 1 30-May-18 G142 wetland

Swamp Sparrow (Melospiza georgiana) 4 16-Jun-18 G142 wetland

Veery (Catharus fuscescens) 2 30-May-18 north woodland

Veery (Catharus fuscescens) 4 16-Jun-18 north woodland

Vesper Sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus) 1 05-May-18 Fields

Vesper Sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus) 2 30-May-18 Fields

Vesper Sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus) 4 16-Jun-18 Fields

Warbling Vireo (Vireo gilvus) 1 05-May-18 east woodland

Warbling Vireo (Vireo gilvus) 2 30-May-18 east woodland

Warbling Vireo (Vireo gilvus) 2 16-Jun-18 east woodland

White-throated Sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis) 1 05-May-18 east woodland

Wild Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) 1 30-May-18 Fields

Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii) 2 16-Jun-18 Fields

Wilson's Snipe (Gallinago delicata) 2 30-May-18 G142 north wetland

Wilson's Snipe (Gallinago delicata) 1 16-Jun-18 G142 north wetland

Wood Duck (Aix sponsa) 2 05-May-18 Flyover

Wood Thrush (Hylocichla mustelina) 2 30-May-18 >120 m north

Yellow Warbler (Setophaga petechia) 1 05-May-18 wetland areas

Yellow Warbler (Setophaga petechia) 8 30-May-18 wetland areas

Yellow Warbler (Setophaga petechia) 15 16-Jun-18 wetland areas

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius) 4 30-May-18 west woods

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius) 8 05-May-18 west woods


42

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius) 4 16-Jun-18 west woods

Yellow-rumped Warbler (Setophaga coronata) 1 05-May-18 east woods

10. Appendix 2: Herp and Mammal List

Herps Painted Turtle Adjacent wetland west of Buck Bay Road, north of proposed pit area Leopard Frog Roadside ditch, south of proposed pit Spring Peeper In all adjacent ponds, creeks, and wetlands. Tree Frog In all adjacent ponds, creeks, and wetlands Mammals White Tailed deer Tracks on both sides of Buck Bay Road within proposed pit area Red Squirrel In large woodland on east side of Buck Bay Road Chipmunk In large woodland on east side of Buck Bay Road Coyote Scats within existing pit east of Buck Bay Road

natural environment - South Frontenac

Documents

Transcript of natural environment - South Frontenac