ZEP Wind Farm Ganaraska

Prepared by: M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. Prepared for: ZEP Wind Farm Ganaraska LP November 1, 2012

www.mkince.ca +1 604.677.0788 602 2483 Spruce St., Vancouver, B.C., Canada, V6H 4J2 February 2, 2015 Andrea Kausel Capstone Power Development 155 Wellington Street West, Suite 2930 Toronto, Ontario M5V 3H1 Sent Electronically Attention: Reference: Andrea Kausel, Project Manager Zero Emission People Wind Farm Ganaraska, Natural Heritage Site Investigation Report Dear Ms. Kausel, We are pleased to present a copy of the for the Zero Emission People Wind Farm Ganaraska. This report was prepared to meet the requirements of the Renewable Energy Approval regulations, O. Reg. 359/09, Section 26. It reflects the finalized layout for the project as of December 9, 2011, titled 304.R2011-12-09.MM92.H100.11. We have submitted this report on your behalf to the MNR Aurora District Office for their review. Following the conclusion of the MOECC s technical review for the project, the word draft has been removed from the report title. No other changes have been made to this report. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, M. K. Ince and Associates Ltd. Martin Ince, P. Eng. MKI MK Ince and Associates Ltd. ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION... 1 2 DEFINITIONS... 4 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION... 4 2.2 PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE... 4 3 METHODOLOG... 5 3.1 KE TARGET FEATURES, SPECIES AND HABITATS... 5 3.2 SURVE TRANSECT SELECTION... 12 3.3 BOUNDARIES AND DELINEATION... 12 3.4 ALTERNATIVE SITE INVESTIGATION... 13 3.5 PERSONNEL... 13 4 SITE INVESTIGATION FINDINGS... 13 4.1 DATES, TIMES & WEATHER... 14 4.2 OAK RIDGES MORAINE AND GREENBELT... 17 4.3 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES IDENTIFIED... 17 4.3.1 Candidate Significant Wildlife Habitat... 33 4.3.2 Generalized Candidate Significant Wildlife Habitat... 40 5 CONCLUSIONS... 41 6 QUALIFICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS... 42 7 LITERATURE CITED... 43 List of Figures FIGURE 1-1: ZEP WIND FARM GANARASKA PROJECT LOCATION MAP... 3 FIGURE 4-1: ZEP WIND FARM GANARASKA ECOLOGICAL LAND CLASSIFICATION MAP... 19 FIGURE 4-2: ZEP WIND FARM GANARASKA SITE INVESTIGATION NATURAL FEATURES MAP... 22 FIGURE 4-3: ZEP WIND FARM GANARASKA SITE INVESTIGATION CANDIDATE HABITAT MAP... 23 List of Tables TABLE 1-1: SUMMAR OF REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION FOR THE NATURAL HERITAGE SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT.... 2 TABLE 3-1: WILDLIFE HABITAT AND SITE INVESTIGATION PROTOCOL... 7 TABLE 4-1: SITE VISIT DESCRIPTIONS... 14 TABLE 4-2: ENVIRONMENT CANADA WEATHER DATA AT BLACKSTOCK WEATHER STATION... 16 TABLE 4-3: VALLELAND UNIQUE ID LABELS... 18 TABLE 4-4: ECOLOGICAL LAND CLASSIFICATION CODES AND NAMES... 20 TABLE 4-5: ZEP WIND FARM GANARASKA NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES... 24 TABLE 4-6: CANDIDATE SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT IDENTIFIED THROUGH SITE INVESTIGATION... 33 TABLE 4-7: CANDIDATE SWH IDENTIFIED DURING SITE INVESTIGATION... 36 M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. i November 1, 2012

1 INTRODUCTION This report outlines the findings of the site investigation of Natural Heritage features, carried out at the location of the proposed ZEP Wind Farm Ganaraska. The Natural Heritage Site Investigation was carried out in order to confirm and supplement the findings of the Natural Heritage Records Review Report (M. K. Ince and Associates, 2012). The site investigations were performed based on the specifications in Section 26 of Ontario Regulation 359/09 (henceforth referred to as the REA rules ) and Section 5 of the Natural Heritage Assessment Guide (OMNR, 2011). Recorded Natural Heritage features were confirmed on site and additional features were searched for within the Project Location and 120 m setback area plus a buffer when applicable (see Section 3). Multiple site investigations were carried out to account for changes to the final layout of turbines, roads, and electrical taplines and to account for seasonal requirements of significant wildlife habitat (SWH) and/or species of interest (see Table 2-1). Background on the proposed ZEP Wind Farm Ganaraska project is described in Section 1 of the accompanying Natural Heritage Records Review Report (M. K. Ince and Associates, 2011), and in the Project Description Report (M. K. Ince and Associates, 2011). Table 1-1 highlights the REA reporting requirements according to the O. Reg. 359/09. Figure 1-1 displays key elements of the project infrastructure, including the proposed layout of wind turbines, roads, electrical taplines and other supporting infrastructure. Ecological Land Classification information for the ZEP Wind Farm Ganaraska Project Location is shown in Figure 4-1. Figure 4-2 and Figure 4-3 depict the Natural Heritage features within the Project Location setbacks as identified during the Site Investigation. A completed version of the MNR s Site Investigation Report Checklist (Table 1-1) is located below. M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. 1 November 1, 2012

Table 1-1: Summary of Required Documentation for the. Required Documentation 1. A physical investigation of the air, land, and water within 120 m of the project location was conducted for the purpose of determining: Requirement Met Location in Report Section 4 a) Whether the results of the analysis summarized in the records review report are correct to require correction, and identifying any required corrections b) Whether any additional natural features exist, other than those that were identified in the records review report c) The boundaries, located within 120 metres of the project location of any natural feature that was identified in the records review or the site investigation; and, d) The distance from the project location to the boundaries determined under clause (c) 2. A report was prepared and submitted to the Ministry of Natural Resources that sets out the following: a) A summary of any corrections to the records review report and the determinations made as a result of conducting the site investigation b) Information relating to each natural feature identified in the records review and in the site investigation, including the type, attributes, composition and function of the feature c) A map showing es es es es es es Section 4, Section 4.3 Figure 4-2 and Figure 4-3, Section 4.3 Figure 4-2 and Figure 4-3 Section 4, Section 4.3 Table 4-5, Table 4-6, Table 4-7, Section 4 and Appendix D i. The boundaries located within 120 metres of the project location, of any natural feature that was identified in the records review or the site investigation ii. The location and type of each natural feature identified in relation to the project location, and es es Figure 4-2 and Figure 4-3 Figure 4-2 and Figure 4-3 iii. The distance from the project location to the boundaries determined under clause (c) es Figure 4-2 and Figure 4-3 d) The dates and times of the beginning and completion of the site investigation es Section 4.1 and Table 4-1 e) The duration of the site investigation es Section 4.1 and Table 4-1 f) The weather conditions during the site investigation es Section 4.1, Table 4-1 and Table 4-2 g) A summary of methods used to make observation for the purpose of the site investigation h) The name and qualification of any person conducting the site investigation es Section 3 es Section 3.5 and Appendix A i) Field notes kept by the person conducing the site investigation es Appendix B M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. 2 November 1, 2012

Figure 1-1: ZEP Wind Farm Ganaraska Project Location Map M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. 3 November 1, 2012

2 DEFINITIONS 2.1 Project Location Project location is defined in Ontario Regulation 359/09 as follows: Project Location means, when used in relation to a renewable energy project, a part of land and all or part of any building or structure in, on or over which a person is engaging in or proposes to engage in the project and any air space in which a person is engaging in or proposes to engage in the project; Further clarification is offered in Section 2 of Chapter 1of the Technical Guide to Renewable Energy Approvals: It is important to note that the definition references the project which relates to the definition of renewable energy project. This means that activities for all project phases (i.e. the construction, installation, operation and use, changing or retiring of the facility), must be considered in defining the project location. While site plans often focus on the ground-level project footprint, the project location definition also includes any air space in which a person is engaging in or proposes to engage in a project. In the case of a wind development, all of the following are considered to be part of the Project Location: turbine foundations and towers the area or volume through which the turbine blades may pass (i.e. its swept area or volume) crane pad turbine component laydown areas roads (both permanent and temporary) constructed as part of the project turning radii electrical lines substation temporary construction compound(s) and temporary or permanent building(s) any area temporarily cleared (i.e. of trees or scrub) or disturbed for project construction (i.e. the disturbed construction area) any area cleared (of trees or scrub) for operational reasons which will be kept clear during operations (i.e. operational cleared area) 2.2 Project Infrastructure Project Infrastructure refers to the equipment and physical components or elements of the wind farm such as the turbines, access tracks, substation etc. which make up the wind farm. M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. 4 November 1, 2012

3 METHODOLOG 3.1 Key Target Features, Species and Habitats Participating properties were surveyed to identify, verify, and delineate features identified during the records review and to note any other natural features that exist within 120 m of the Project Location. Site investigators surveyed for the following natural features: Wetlands Woodlands Valleylands Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH), as defined in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (SWHTG )( OMNR, 2000) and Draft SWH Ecoregion 6E Criteria Schedule (OMNR, 2012) including: o Seasonal concentrations areas of animals o Rare vegetation communities or specialized habitat for wildlife o Habitat of species of conservation concern o Animal movement corridors Oak Ridges Moraine and Greenbelt features including ANSI s, alvars (only applicable in the Greenbelt), southern wetlands, sand barrens, savannah and tallgrass prairies. The Project Location and 120 m setback area plus a buffer were surveyed to identify, verify and delineate features identified during the records review, either specifically found in records or determined to potentially exist within the Project Location and REA mandated buffer. The size of the buffer varied depending on the habitats being surveyed; these details are included in the relevant subsections below. Key target natural features specifically searched for during the site investigations are outlined in Section 6 and Section 8 of the Natural Heritage Records Review Report and in Section 4.3 of this document. Additional buffers were added where appropriate to account for particular candidate SWH (eg. Raptor nesting habitat). An Ecological Land Classification (ELC) analysis to determine and detail land class types in the vicinity of the Project Location was done during site investigations using the Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario Field Guide (Lee et al., 1998). Agricultural and cultural ELC types were determined based on the transition ELC tables updated December 2008 that were obtained from the district MNR office December 14, 2010. In respect to the candidate Significant Wildlife Habitats, those assessed during the records review were specifically referenced during the site investigation to allow for identification of any such habitat types on site. Table 4-6 includes a list of possible wildlife habitat that may exist within the Project Location. The table includes the list of wildlife habitats as described in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR, 2000) that were addressed in the Natural Heritage Records Review Report and indicates if these habitats were observed during the site investigations. Satellite imagery (Google Earth imagery), Ontario Base Maps (OBM), First Base Solutions aerial photograph (2008) and Natural Resource Canada maps (NTS map sheet 31D02, published 2002) covering the Project Location and REA-mandated setback were also consulted during this assessment as per the SWHTG manual (OMNR, 2000). These resources were further used to supplement photos and information obtained on site, and to better define the geographic extents of certain features on the ground. M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. 5 November 1, 2012

During the site investigations all features identified in the Natural Heritage Records Review Report were visited, their presence and characteristics confirmed, and their boundaries delineated. Wetlands: Wetlands identified during records review and potential additional wetlands were searched for during all site investigations. Wetlands were identified by plant species composition, particularly the presence of upland vs. wetland plant communities following the methodology described in the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES): Southern Manual (OMNR 2002). Specifically the wetland boundary was defined along a line where upland species represent 50% of the woody species cover present. All wetlands within REA-mandated setbacks of the Project Location are shown in Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-2. Woodlands: Woodlands were identified using the definition of a woodland in the REA Rules. As parts of the project are located within the Oak Ridges Moraine, woodlands within the ORM will be assessed for significance in the Evaluation of Significance Report based on the ORM Technical Paper #7 (Identification and Protection of Significant Woodlands). Woodland boundaries were delineated on site where they fall within 120 m of the Project Location. Woodlands were visited to gain information relating to the type, attributes, composition, and function. A full ELC evaluation was done for all woodlands where site access was permitted. Other woodlands were assessed using alternative site investigation methods (see Section 3.4). Possible connectivity with other woodlands was also assessed. Field biologists searched the woodlands for snags and raptor nests (Table 4-6). Please see Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-2 for a representation of woodlands and their proximity to the Project Location. Valleylands: Valleylands identified during records review from the Municipality of Clarington Official Plan were visited to collect information on their physical characteristics, vegetation and degree of disturbance. Field staff also searched for evidence of water flowing through or standing for some period of the year in landform depressions in order to identify all valleylands within 120 m of the Project Location. Please see Section 4.3 for additional information on valleyland identification. Hedgerows: Hedgerows in of themselves are not individual features as identified in REA Rules. If a hedgerow is, however, connected to a woodland it needs to be considered as part of that feature. Hedgerows may also contain wildlife habitat. They were assessed for their potential to be used as movement corridors, for the presence of Species at Risk (SAR) / rare flora and fauna species (or their habitat), or candidate significant wildlife habitat such as snags (bat maternity roosts) or naturalized rock piles (reptile hibernacula). A number of wildlife habitats were identified during the records review which may occur within 120 m of the ZEP Wind Farm Ganaraska Project Location. Each SWH carried forward from the records review were searched for during the site investigation. A description of the Site Investigation Protocol for each SWH carried forward to the site investigation is presented below in Table 3-1. M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. 6 November 1, 2012

Table 3-1: Wildlife Habitat and Site Investigation Protocol Habitat Types Waterfowl Stopover and staging Areas (Terrestrial) Waterfowl Stopover and staging Areas (Aquatic) Shorebird Migratory Stopover Area Raptor wintering areas Site Investigation Protocol Site visits surveyed for fields with sheet water in spring including large pools formed by spring flooding from melt water or run-off or fields utilized by migrating waterfowl (mid-march to May) Field staff walked and observed all fields within 120 m of project location where access was permitted as well as potentially suitable habitat outside the 120 m setback Prior to site investigations, aerial photographs and OBM mapping were used to identify all water bodies and wetlands that intersect with the 120 m project location Wetlands and water bodies within 120 m of the project location were searched for on foot during all site visits Site visits surveyed for ponds, marshes, lakes, bays, coastal inlets, and watercourses used during migration; ideally, stopover areas should have an abundant food supply Areas of shorelines of lakes, rivers and wetlands, including beach areas, bars and seasonally flooded, muddy and un-vegetated shoreline habitats were investigation for suitable habitat Prior to site investigations, aerial photographs and OBM mapping were used to identify areas supporting potential shorebird migratory stopover habitat that intersect with the 120 m project location buffer plus a 100 m radius area Candidate Raptor Wintering Areas need to be greater than 20 hectares, with a combination of forest and upland habitats. The project location is primarily agricultural mixed with a few woodlands which may serve as shelter and roosting areas for raptors in winter. Fields that are found to be used for row-crops will be excluded from consideration as part of this habitat, since rowcropped fields do not support enough small prey animals to support significant numbers of raptors through the winter. Bat Hibernacula Geological maps of the project location were consulted for potential caves, karst, mine shafts and underground foundations prior to observational studies in the field Field staff searched for potential habitat during all site visits on all properties to which access was permitted Bat maternity colonies Comprehensive area searches were conducted in all woodlands and wooded features including hedgerows within the project location for snags which might form bat maternity roosts. Searches were conducted in November 2010 and April 2011, during pre-leaf out, with additional observations carried out during spring ELC surveys. At this time, the latest published guidance available to identify and delineate bat habitats was the March 2010 DRAFT Bats and Bat Habitats: Guidelines for Wind Power Projects. The location of all trees over 25 cm diameter at breast height (DBH) with cavities were determined and noted with a GPS unit. The locations of these snags are shown in Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-3. Once snags were identified, woodlands were evaluated for the presence of candidate bat maternity roosts based on the presence of snags located in suitable habitats of mixed or deciduous forest stands (following detailed ELC surveys). Those snags not identified in suitable ELC forest stands required no further investigation However, snags identified in suitable ELC forest stands, require acoustic surveys to assess significance. Additional surveys following 2011 Bats and Bat Habitat: Guidelines for Wind Power Projects were required in August, 2012 to access the suitability of snags in two ELC communities (FODM6-5 in WO01 and FODM6-5 in WO10). Please see Appendix G for a map of survey plots and survey results. Turtle wintering Areas supporting potential turtle over-wintering habitat within 120 m of the project location were searched for during all site M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. 7 November 1, 2012

areas visits Field staff looked for permanent water bodies, large wetlands, bogs and fens with water deep enough not to freeze and soft mud substrates Reptile Hibernacula Any naturalized rock piles of a sufficient size to potentially form reptile hibernacula were searched for throughout the Project Location and were tagged with a GPS unit. The Milksnake was listed by the NHIC as being potentially present in the vicinity of the Project Location. Site investigators recorded any incidental observations of this species, and searched for its habitat. Colonial bird nesting sites Cliffs and Talus Slopes Field biologists investigated any rock piles identified during site investigations to search for the presence of snakes. Site visits surveyed for candidate SWH composed of banks/sandy slopes (bank or cliff swallows); shoreline or wetland shrub thickets or tree colony areas (Egrets and Herons); and open ground near lakes or large rivers (Gulls and Terns) Field staff observed and recorded land use for all areas in the vicinity of the project location Field staff walked and observed the entire area within 120 m of project location where access was permitted and made property line observations where it was not Field staff surveyed for near vertical bedrock greater than 3 m in height and/or rock rubble at the base of a cliff made up of coarse rocky debris. Sand barrens Field staff walked and observed the entire area within 120 m of project location where access was permitted and made property line observations where it was not. Vegetation observations were made during field visits with appropriate seasonality Field staff sought out exposed, sandy areas with little soil, sparse and patchy vegetation that is low to the ground (<60% tree cover) Ecological Land Classification following Lee et.al.1998 was completed for the entire area within 120 m of project location where access was permitted. Aerial photographs were used to aid in identifying ELC ecosites outside the 120 m setback and where access was not permitted. Alvars Field staff walked and observed the entire area within 120 m of project location where access was permitted and made property line observations where it was not. Vegetation observations were made during field visits with appropriate seasonality Field staff sought out level, mostly unfractured calcareous bedrock feature with a mosaic of rock pavements and bedrock overlain by a thin veneer of soil; vegetation can vary from sparse lichen-moss associations to grasslands and shrublands with less than 60% tree cover Ecological Land Classification following Lee et.al.1998 was completed for the entire area within 120 m of project location where access was permitted. Aerial photographs were used to aid in identifying ELC ecosites outside the 120 m setback and where access was not permitted. Old growth forest Field staff walked and observed the entire area within 120 m of project location where access was permitted and made property line observations where it was not. Vegetation observations were made during field visits with appropriate seasonality Candidate Old Growth Forest need to be greater than 30 hectares in size with an interior of at least 10ha, All large woodlands were assessed for old growth forest characteristics (i.e. heavy mortality, multi layered canopy).ecological Land Classification following Lee et.al.1998 was completed for the entire area within 120 m of project location where access was permitted. Aerial photographs were used to aid in identifying ELC ecosites outside the 120 m setback and where access was not permitted. Savannahs Field staff walked and observed the entire area within 120 m of project location where access was permitted and made property line observations where it was not. Vegetation observations were made during field visits with appropriate seasonality Field staff sought out tallgrass prairie habitat that has tree cover between 25% and 60%. M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. 8 November 1, 2012

Ecological Land Classification following Lee et.al.1998 was completed for the entire area within 120 m of project location where access was permitted. Aerial photographs were used to aid in identifying ELC ecosites outside the 120 m setback and where access was not permitted. Tall-grass Prairie Field staff walked and observed the entire area within 120 m of project location where access was permitted and made property line observations where it was not. Vegetation observations were made during field visits with appropriate seasonality Field staff sought out areas with ground cover dominated by prairie grasses with less than 25% tree cover. Ecological Land Classification following Lee et.al.1998 was completed for the entire area within 120 m of project location where access was permitted. Aerial photographs were used to aid in identifying ELC ecosites outside the 120 m setback and where access was not permitted. Rare vegetation types Waterfowl nesting habitat Bald eagle and osprey nesting site Woodland Raptor nesting habitat Turtle Nesting Habitat Field staff walked and observed the entire area within 120 m of project location where access was permitted and made property line observations where it was not. Vegetation observations were made during field visits with appropriate seasonality Ecological Land Classification following Lee et.al.1998 was completed for the entire area within 120 m of project location where access was permitted. Aerial photographs were used to aid in identifying ELC ecosites outside the 120 m setback and where access was not permitted. Rare vegetation types are based on ELC vegetation types listed within Appendix M of the SHWTG Wetlands were searched for during site visits to identify suitable wetlands and 120 m upland areas around wetlands that may be suitable waterfowl nesting habitat Ecological Land Classification following Lee et.al.1998 was completed for the entire area within 120 m of project location where access was permitted. Aerial photographs were used to aid in identifying ELC ecosites outside the 120 m setback and where access was not permitted Observational surveys for stick nests were done in all wooded areas on properties where access was permitted. Observations were also done from the property line as a potential candidate habitat can extend up to 400 m from the nest. Field staff searched for stick nests in the spring during pre leaf-out period. Observational studies were conducted at all identified stick nests to determine what species the nests belonged to and observe the use of these nests. Observational surveys for stick nests were done in all wooded areas on properties where access was permitted. Observations were also done from the property line as a potential candidate habitat can extend up to 800 m from the nest Field staff searched for stick nests in early spring, prior to leaf-out period throughout woodlands Candidate habitat are all natural or conifer plantation woodland/forest stands >30ha with >10ha interior habitat. Interior habitat is determined with a 200m buffer from the edge of the habitat. Gravel or sand banks, soft soil, beaches that are in open, sunny areas were searched for during all spring site visits within 120 m of the project location where access was permitted as well as potentially suitable habitat outside the 120 m setback Field staff surveyed for open, sunny areas of exposed sand or gravel adjacent to shallow weedy areas of marshes, lakes and rivers Field staff walked along all permanent and intermittent watercourses to identify potentially suitable areas for nesting turtles Seeps and Springs Surveys for seeps and springs were done during all site visits when woodlands were investigated Amphibian Breeding Habitat woodland and wetland Wetlands, lakes, ponds or vernal pools were searched for during site visits to identify suitable amphibian breeding habitat (woodland) in or within 120m of a woodland M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. 9 November 1, 2012

Marsh Bird Breeding Habitat Woodland Area- Sensitive Bird Breeding Habitat Open Country Bird Breeding Habitat Shrub/Early Successional Bird Breeding Habitat Wetlands and pools (including vernal pools) that are isolated or greater than 120m from a woodland were also searched for during site visits to identify suitable amphibian breeding habitat (wetland). Salamanders and their potential habitat were searched for during Site Investigations in April, May and June of 2011. Surveying for permanent, seasonal, and ephemeral pools and wet areas was performed with special attention paid toward areas having a high potential for amphibian occurrence. Field staff visited Natural Heritage Features within 120 m of the Project Location during daylight hours. Pools, streams and wetlands were examined for egg masses and live amphibians at all stages of development. Wetlands were searched for during site visits in September, April, May and June that contain open / shallow water with aquatic emergent vegetation present. Edge habitat along sluggish streams, ponds and marshes was also searched for. Ecological Land Classification following Lee et.al.1998 was completed in June 2012 for the entire area within 120 m of project location where access was permitted. Aerial photographs were used to aid in identifying ELC ecositesoutside the 120 m setback and where access was not permitted. Field staff searched for large, natural blocks of mature woodland greater than 30 ha in size with greater than 10 ha of interior forest habitat. Site investigations included ELC assessments to locate potential habitat, which are, according to SWH Ecoregion 6E Criterion Schedule (OMNR, 2012), large grassland areas >30 ha in area. Additionally, grasslands must not be Class 1 or 2 agricultural lands, and have a history of longevity, either as abandoned fields, mature hayfields and pasturelands that are at least five years or older. Fields meeting these criteria were considered Candidate Open Country Breeding Bird Habitat, and carried forward to the Evaluation of Significance Report. Site investigations included ELC assessments to locate potential habitat, which are, according to SWH Ecoregion 6E Criterion Schedule (OMNR, 2012), large field areas succeeding to shrub and ticket habitats >10 ha in area. Additionally, such shrub land or early successional field, must not be Class 1 or 2 agricultural lands, and have a history of longevity, either as abandoned fields, mature hayfields and pasturelands that are at least five years or older. Fields meeting these criteria were considered Candidate Shrub/early Successional Bird Breeding Habitat, and carried forward to the Evaluation of Significance Report. Terrestrial Crayfish Marshes and meadows were searched for during site visits in September, April, May and June. ELC assessment was completed to confirm features found on site. Observational surveys were done along streams to search for signs of terrestrial crayfish or their burrows. Special Concern and Rare Wildlife Species Targeted observational surveys were done for special concern and rare species as well as their habitats identified during records review; surveys were species specific with concern for seasonality issues Observations of species were recorded if special concern or rare species not identified in the records review were observed during site visits Surveys were conducted throughout the 120 m buffer around the Project Location to identify any instances of rare species identified in the Records Review (NHIC search). Surveys included Milksnake (Lampropeltis triangulum )(S3), Northern Map Turtle (Graptemys geographica )(S3), Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) (S3), Long-stalked Panic Grass M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. 10 November 1, 2012

Amphibian movement corridor (Dichanthelium perlongum) (S2), Variegated Meadowhawk (Sympetrum corruptum)(s3) and Azure Bluet (Enallagma aspersum) (S3). These species and their preferred habitats were searched for during Site Investigations. Field staff searched for movement corridors for amphibians moving between their terrestrial habitat to breeding habitat Corridors are determined when amphibian breeding habitat (wetlands) are confirmed SWH. M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. 11 November 1, 2012

3.2 Survey Transect Selection All areas within the Project Location for the proposed ZEP Wind Farm Ganaraska and the surrounding 120 m setback area plus a buffer were surveyed during the site investigation. Transects were walked and were routed at the discretion of the field naturalist. Transect routes selected took into consideration: property boundaries of land to which access has been permitted, the need to confirm features identified in the Records Review and conduct an Ecological Land Classification (ELC) using methodology from Lee et al., (1998), the potential for existence of unidentified natural features, the visibility of the surrounding area, the desire to follow certain previously unidentified watercourses to source or investigate atypical habitat, the variability of the landscape and topography. The surveying method selected was based on an in-field assessment of observer visibility dependent on terrain and vegetation cover/type. Based on field experience and at the field naturalist s discretion, surveying was performed by walking along or slightly adjacent to proposed infrastructure routes while observing all areas from the Project Infrastructure and within the extent of the REA setbacks. If a natural feature was identified, the observer would perform a closer inspection, document in the field notes, mark the feature with a GPS waypoint and take photographs. Once completed the original route was resumed. Ecological Land Classification (ELC) analyses were performed using methodology from Lee et al. (1998) to assist with identifying vegetation communities, plus natural features and the delineation of their boundaries. ELC surveys involved analysis of stand composition (investigation of canopy, sub-canopy, understory and ground cover vegetation), soil composition, topographical composition, faunal observation, and a disturbance tally. These criteria were collectively utilized to assign a community classification to each polygon within 120 m of the Project Location. Detailed polygon descriptions can be found in Appendix D. Raptor nesting habitat is defined as up to a 300 m circle around a nest belonging to a raptor, depending on the species. Woodlands and hedgerows were searched for stick nests within 420 m of the Project Location where possible. 3.3 Boundaries and Delineation Boundaries for natural features within the Project Location and buffer were delineated using field techniques in line with the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR, 2000). Field staff traversed the boundaries of identified natural features that were within 120 m of the Project Location. This included possible intermittent streams as recommended in the SWHTG (OMNR, 2000). GPS waypoints were taken, which were then compared with existing documentation of boundaries, such as maps, aerial photographs (Image date: 2008) and satellite imagery from Google Earth (Image date: 2004). Where the boundaries of a natural feature fell outside of the Project Location and the defined REA setback (120m) and access was not granted (i.e. alternate site investigation), boundaries were delineated through satellite imagery. M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. 12 November 1, 2012

Wetlands were delineated by identifying plant species composition, particularly the presence of upland vs. wetland plant communities following the methodology described in the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES): Southern Manual (OMNR 2002). Specifically the wetland boundary was defined along a line where upland species represent 50% of the species present. Raptor Winter Habitat was delineated to field edges, where those fields were non-row-cropped. To delineate this habitat to the extent of its boundary, ELC information obtained from site investigations in combination with available aerial imagery (First Base Solutions and Google Earth) identified suitable agricultural land (longevity of either abandoned fields, mature hayfield or pasturelands that are at least five years or older) for inclusion as candidate habitats (OMNR, 2012). 3.4 Alternative Site Investigation Alternative site investigations were conducted where the land within 120 m of the Project Location belongs to non-participating landowners and permission to access the property was not granted. Attempts were made to gain access to all land within 120 m of the Project Location. A permission letter seeking access to land was couriered to landowners with a prepaid return. The permission letter included information on the type of work, purpose, methodology and time period that it would be completed within. Information on non-participating landowners, contact efforts and responses is included in Appendix E. Alternative site investigation methods included roadside and property-line observations and assessments based on aerial imagery. Roadside and property-line observations were collected during the field visits described in Table 4-1. Desktop data was collected in the summer and fall of 2011 and is based on aerial images from 2008 (First Base Solutions orthophoto) and 2004 (Google Earth). The results of all alternative site investigations were incorporated into our results and are shown on Figure 4-1 through Figure 4-3. 3.5 Personnel The Site Investigations were completed by M.K. Ince and Associates biologists Sebastian Irazuzta, Nigel Ward, ves Scholten, Dan Stuart, Rob Tymstra, Dave Jolly and Joel Jameson. The timing of each visit as well as who was on site can be found in Table 4-1. Their curriculum vitae can be found in Appendix A. 4 SITE INVESTIGATION FINDINGS Under Section 26(3)1 of the REA rules the is required to summarize any corrections necessary to the Natural Heritage Records Review Report based on findings in the field during site investigations. All natural heritage features identified through records review, with the exception of two features, were found to exist during the site investigations. WO08 is not located within 120 m of the project location and WO12 was not found to be a woodland but was assessed as a wetland (WE05). Boundaries of these natural features were adjusted based on the results of the site investigations. New natural features and candidate significant wildlife habitats identified on site include: M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. 13 November 1, 2012

- One woodland (WO14) - One wetland (WE07) - One candidate reptile hibernaculum - One seepage area - One candidate bat maternity colony - One candidate raptor wintering area - One candidate raptor nest - Seven candidate amphibian breeding habitats (six woodland and one wetland) - One candidate special concern and rare wildlife species (Appendix D of NHAG applied, therefore treated as generalized candidate SWH. See Appendix F for a copy of correspondence.) - Generalized candidate SWH All natural features and candidate significant wildlife habitats identified on site are described in detail in Table 4-5 and Table 4-7 and shown in Figure 4-2 and Figure 4-3. ELC information for all applicable natural features is shown in Figure 4-1. Boundaries shown on the map are those delineated during the site investigations. As a result of boundary delineations, the areas of some natural features were slightly amended. Additional details of the Site Investigation can be found in the field notes attached in Appendix B and field notes attached in Appendix C. Photos taken in the field were used by office personnel to help in the preparation of the. 4.1 Dates, Times & Weather Nine site visits pertaining to Site Investigation Methodologies took place at and around the ZEP Wind Farm Ganaraska Project Location during 2010 and 2011. An additional site visit is scheduled for spring 2012. A description of each site investigation is provided below in Table 4-1. Please note that the Site Visit number is assigned chronologically, and some visits may have been allocated to the Evaluation of Significance. Please refer to the Evaluation of Significance Report in conjunction with this report for a complete list of Site Visits. Table 4-1: Site Visit Descriptions Site Visit Date(s) Start/ End Time Duration Purpose and General Weather Conditions SI I 2010-06-10 10:20 17:20 7 hours Ground truth area to determine actual presence of natural features and record some of their characteristics. Delineate boundaries. Search for candidate significant wildlife habitat. Weather: Temp 18 C, overcast, wind ~ 15-20 km/h N. Staff: Sebastian Irazuzta M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. 14 November 1, 2012

Site Visit Date(s) Start/ End Time Duration Purpose and General Weather Conditions SI II 2010-11-15 12:00 17:30 5 hours 30 minutes Ground truth area to determine actual presence of natural features and record some of their characteristics. Delineate boundaries. Search for candidate significant wildlife habitat. High level Ecological Land Classification. Weather: Temp 9 C, 60% cloud cover, wind 10 km/h W. Staff: Sebastian Irazuzta, Nigel Ward SI III 2010-11-16 9:00 18:00 9 hours Ground truth area to determine actual presence of natural features and record some of their characteristics. Delineate boundaries. Search for candidate significant wildlife habitat. High level Ecological Land Classification. Weather: Temp 5 C, sunny, 0% cloud cover, wind 5 km/h NE. Staff: Sebastian Irazuzta, Nigel Ward SI V 2011-04-11 15:30 21:00 5 hours 30 minutes Investigate attributes, composition, and function of identified natural features. Search for candidate significant wildlife habitat including amphibian breading habitats, snags and nests (prior to leaf-out period). Valleyland investigation. Weather: Temp 18 C; Overcast; Wind 5 Staff: Nigel Ward SI VI 2011-04-12 12:00 14:00 2 hours Investigate attributes, composition, and function of identified natural features. Search for candidate significant wildlife habitat including amphibian breading habitats, snags and nests (prior to leaf-out period). Valleyland investigation. Weather: Temp 10.5 C, mixed sun and cloud Staff: Nigel Ward SI IX 2011-05-20 09:45-14:25 4 hours 20 minutes Detailed Ecological Land Classification. Searching for candidate SWH including suitable bird habitats. Valleyland investigation. Weather: Temp 18.8 C - 21.3 C; Cloud 8/10 5/10; Wind 2-3; Precip: None Staff: ves Scholten, Dan Stuart, Nigel Ward SI XI 2011-06-17 11:00-13:20 2 hours 20 minutes Detailed Ecological Land Classification. Searching for candidate SWH. Valleyland investigation. Weather: Temp 17.5-18.5 C; Cloud 4/10-9/10; Wind 2; Precip: None M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. 15 November 1, 2012

Site Visit Date(s) Start/ End Time Duration Purpose and General Weather Conditions Staff: ves Scholten, Dan Stuart, Nigel Ward SI XII 2011-09-09 9:45-16:30 6 hours 45 minutes Preliminary Ecological Land Classification. Preliminary wetland delineation and recording some of their characteristics. Valleyland investigation. Searching for candidate SWH. Weather: Temp 18 C; Cloud 1/10; Wind 1; Precip: None Staff: Dan Stuart, Nigel Ward SI XIII 2011-11-02 11:30-19:00 6 hours 30 minutes Detailed Ecological Land Classification. Wetland delineation and recording some of their characteristics. Valleyland investigation. Searching for candidate SWH. Weather: Temp 14 C; Cloud 4/10; Wind 1 SW; Precip: None Staff: ves Scholten SI XVII 2012-06-15 09:00 14:15 5 hours 15 minutes Detailed Ecological Land Classification. OWES evaluation for WE05 Habitat of species of conservation concern (Monarch Butterfly) habitat delineation Weather: Temp 23 C; Cloud 1/10; Wind 2; Precip: None Staff: Dave Jolly SI XV11I 2012-08-16 09:00-16:30 7 hours 30 minutes Candidate Maternity Roost plots in WO01 (ELC polygon: FODM6-5) and WO10 (ELC polygon FODM6-5) Weather: Temp 14 C; Cloud 4/10; Wind 1 SW; Precip: None Staff: Joel Jameson As suggested by the Natural Heritage Assessment Guide for Renewable Energy Projects (OMNR, 2010a), Environment Canada weather station data was collected for relevant dates. The nearest weather station to the Project Location with full data for the dates the Site Investigations took place was Blackstock, Ontario. This weather station is located approximately 21 km from the proposed ZEP Wind Farm Ganaraska. Table 4-2 outlines that weather data for these days at this location (Environment Canada, 2010). In some cases, weather conditions noted at Blackstock do not match field observations at the project location. Table 4-2: Environment Canada Weather Data at Blackstock Weather Station Date Max Temp ( C) Min Temp ( C) Mean Temp ( C) Total Precip (mm) Total Rain (mm) 2012-06-10 20 12 16 0 0 2010-11-15 10 0.5 5.3 0 0 M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. 16 November 1, 2012

2010-11-16 10.5-2 4.3 29.6 29.6 2011-04-11 22 9 15 0 0 2011-04-12 14.5 2 8.3 5.1 5.1 2011-05-20 23 10 16.5 1.6 1.6 2011-06-17 24 15.5 19.8 0 0 2011-09-09 25 11 18 0 0 2011-11-02 15 1 5.8 0 0 2012-06-15 26 11 18.5 0 0 2011-08-16 26 12 19 0.3 0.3 4.2 Oak Ridges Moraine and Greenbelt As outlined in the REA rules, project locations within the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) Area must consider sand barrens, alvars (only considered in the Natural Heritage System of the Greenbelt Plan), savannah, and tallgrass prairies throughout the Site Investigation. Each of these features was searched for and the outcome of the Site Investigation is presented in Table 4-5. There were no sand barrens or alvars found during the Site Investigation. Any areas suspected as potential savannah or tallgrass prairies during the Records Review were identified as agricultural areas during the Site Investigation and therefore do not exist within 120 m of the Project Location. The Oak Ridges Moraine Technical Paper Series, specifically Technical Paper #7 (ORMCP, ND), also provides technical assistance in the identification, delineation, and protection of significant woodlands. Since portions of the ZEP Wind Farm Ganaraska project falls within the ORMCP Area, woodlands within the ORMCP Area (see Figure 4-2) require consideration based upon the requirements outlined in the technical paper aforementioned. Southern wetlands that are not provincially significant but are identified within the ORMCP area or the Natural Heritage System of the Greenbelt Plans in the Protected Countryside area of the Greenbelt, must be considered as development is prohibited in the feature or within the 120m setback. Exceptions to development within a protected feature or established setback are based on an approved EIS. 4.3 Natural Heritage Features Identified All natural features and candidate SWH identified in the records review and in the site investigations are presented below in Tables 4-5, 4-6 and 4-7. Please refer to Table 4-6 for definitions of the habitat acronyms used in Table 4-5 and 4-7 which describe Natural Heritage features identified or confirmed during the Site Investigation. ELC information for all applicable natural features is shown in Figure 4-1. Natural features excluding candidate SWH are shown in Figure 4-2. All candidate SWH identified during the site investigation are shown in Figure 4-3. M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. 17 November 1, 2012

The general habitat around the proposed ZEP Wind Farm Ganaraska was observed to be primarily agricultural with small woodland and valleylands. The Project Location and 120 m setbacks are dominated by agriculture with corn, soy crops and hay. Woodlands within the REA-mandated distance are primarily deciduous, small in size and with little or no interior habitat. Valleylands: A number of additional valleylands, beyond those identified in the Municipality of Clarington Official Plan, were identified during site visits. Given that the additional valleylands identified during site visits provide contiguous valleyland features within the Project Location, those valleylands identified during the records review have been consolidated into larger contiguous valleylands. These larger contiguous valleylands are based on named tributaries of the Wilmot Creek and Ganaraska River subwatersheds as identified by the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority. Please refer to Figure 1-2 in the Natural Heritage Records Review Report for the features that have been relabeled/consolidated which can be seen in Table 4-3 below. Table 4-3: Valleyland Unique ID labels New Feature Unique ID VA101 VA102 VA103 VA104 Feature ID in Records Review Report VA01, VA03, VA05, VA06, VA07, VA08, VA13 VA04 VA12, VA15, VA16 VA09, VA10, VA11, VA14 Rare Species: All field personnel were familiar with the rare species listed in the NHIC for the area. During all site investigations, field personnel surveyed for rare species, specifically in suitable habitats during appropriate seasonal conditions. No rare species identified during the Records Review were observed during the Site Investigation. Monarchs were, however, observed during the Site Investigation. Please refer to Figure 4-3 and Table 4-7. Hedgerows: All hedgerows are to be included as part of woodlands if there is a 20 m or less gap between the features, measured from crown to crown. If a standalone hedgerow meets one of the Significant Woodland Evaluation Criteria, the hedgerow must meet the minimum width criteria of 40 m (OMNR, 2011). Additionally, hedgerows were assessed for their potential to be used as movement corridors or for the presence of Rare Flora and Fauna Species (or their habitat) or candidate Significant Wildlife Habitat such as snags (bat maternity roosts) or naturalized rock piles (reptile hibernacula). No candidate SWH or rare flora and fauna were identified in any hedgerows on site. M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. 18 November 1, 2012

Figure 4-1: ZEP Wind Farm Ganaraska Ecological Land Classification Map M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. 19 November 1, 2012

Table 4-4: Ecological Land Classification Codes and Names ELC Code ELC Name CVR_4 CGL_4 FOC4-1 FOCM4-1 FOD FODM5-1 FODM6-5 FODM7-3 FODM11 FOMM3-1 FOMM7-2 FOMM9 IAGM1 MAMM1 MAMM3-1 MEGM3 MEGM4 MEGM4-1 MEMM3 OAGM1 OAGM2 OAGM4 SAGM2 Rural Property Recreational Fresh Moist White Cedar Coniferous Forest Type Fresh Moist White Cedar Coniferous Forest Type Deciduous Forest Dry Fresh Sugar Maple Deciduous Forest Type Fresh Moist Sugar Maple Hardwood Deciduous Forest Type Fresh Moist Willow Lowland Deciduous Forest Type Naturalized Deciduous Hedge-row Ecosite Dry Fresh Hardwood Hemlock Mixed Forest Type Fresh Moist White Cedar Hardwood Mixed Forest Type Fresh Moist White Pine Hardwood Mixed Forest Ecosite Agricultural Buildings Graminoid Mineral Meadow Marsh Ecosite Mixed Mineral Meadow Marsh Type Dry - Fresh Graminoid Meadow Ecosite Fresh - Moist Graminoid Meadow Ecosite Open Graminoid Meadow Type Dry - Fresh Mixed Meadow Ecosite Annual Row Crops Perennial Cover Crops Pastureland Orchard M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. 20 November 1, 2012

SWCM1-1 SWCM1 SWMM1-1 SWTM3 SWTM3-6 TAGM1 TAGM2 TAGM4 TAGM5 THDM5 WODM5-3 WOMM3-1 White Cedar Mineral Coniferous Swamp Type White Cedar Mineral Coniferous Swamp Ecosite White cedar- Hardwood Mineral Mixed Swamp Type Willow Mineral Deciduous Thicket Swamp Ecosite Mixed Willow Mineral Deciduous Thicket Swamp Type Coniferous Plantation Mixed Plantation Treed Pasture Fencerow Dry - Fresh Deciduous Regeneration Thicket Ecosite Fresh - Moist Manitoba Maple Deciduous Woodland Type Dry - Fresh Hawthorn - White Cedar Mixed Woodland Type M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. 21 November 1, 2012

Figure 4-2: ZEP Wind Farm Ganaraska Site Investigation Natural Features Map M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. 22 November 1, 2012

Figure 4-3: ZEP Wind Farm Ganaraska Site Investigation Candidate Habitat Map M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. 23 November 1, 2012

Table 4-5: ZEP Wind Farm Ganaraska Natural Heritage Features ID Distance to Project Location ELC Code Attributes and Composition Function On ORM Carried over to EOS WO01 Woodland 64 m, 45 m, 18 m and 57 m from T11 turbine, laydown, bladeswept area and cranepad, respectively. 59 m from underground electrical cabling. 47 m from T11 temporary and permanent project road. WODM5-3 (Fresh - Moist Manitoba Maple Deciduous Woodland) FOMM3-1 (Dry - Fresh Hardwood - Hemlock Mixed Forest) FODM6-5 (Fresh - Moist Sugar Maple - Hardwood Deciduous Forest) FOCM4-1 (Fresh Moist White Cedar Coniferous Forest Type) SWCM1 (White Cedar Mineral Coniferous Swamp Ecosite) TAGM5 (Fencerow) Area: 35 ha. Interior habitat: 0 ha. Mature mixed forest with thin subcanopy. Full canopy and ground layer. Primarily upland with stream on western edge. Woodland to west of T9 field predominantly Manitoba maple with black locust and abundant invasive species. To North of T9 field, woodland is beech-hemlock dominated mixed community at western side. At eastern side, community shifts to sugar maple dominated with basswood, cherry and red and white ash mixed in. Common woodland species in under and ground stories. Seepage area identified (see SP01). No swamp identified within 120 m of Project Location or within property boundary. Based on alternative site investigation some wetland area is likely to be present further in woodland. Evidence of motorized vehicles, hunting and harvesting (~30 years ago) in part of woodland north of Project Location. Wildlife habitat, candidate raptor habitat, candidate amphibian breeding habitat. Soil erosion reduction, nutrient cycling, hydrological cycling, clean air and long-term storage of carbon. N WO02 Woodland 0 m from underground electrical line along preexisting Tamblyn Road. 7 m from temporary project road. FOCM4-1 (Fresh Moist White Cedar Coniferous Forest Type) SWCM1-1 (White Cedar Mineral Coniferous Swamp Type) FODM5-1 (Dry Fresh Sugar Maple Deciduous Forest Type) WOMM3-1 (Dry Fresh Hawthorn White Cedar Mixed Woodland Type) FOMM7-2 (Fresh-Moist Cedar - Hardwood Mixed Forest Type) SWMM1-1 (White Cedar - Hardwood Mineral Mixed Swamp Type) Area: 13 ha. Interior habitat: 0 ha. Long narrow woodland along stream. Woodland on both sides of Tamblyn Road dominated by sugar maple, with some black ash. Conifer forest adjacent to north part of Tamblyn Road is white cedar dominated. Southern part of woodland by Concession Road 6 is dominated by some cedar mixed with hawthorn, buckthorn and some hardwoods. The woodland contains many shrubs, young trees and grasses. Some area of swamp with young white cedar and hardwoods is likely to occur. Artificial pond on edge of woodland. Based on alternative site investigation some wetland area is likely to be present in woodland. Wildlife habitat, candidate raptor habitat, candidate amphibian breeding habitat. Soil erosion reduction, nutrient cycling, hydrological cycling, clean air and long-term storage of carbon. N M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. 24 November 1, 2012

ID Distance to Project Location ELC Code Attributes and Composition Function On ORM Carried over to EOS WO03 Woodland 22 m north of underground electrical line along Concession Road 6. FODM7-3 (Fresh Moist Willow Lowland Deciduous Forest Type) TAGM1 (Coniferous Plantation) Area: 0.8 ha Small patch of woodland along Orono Creek (west arm). Willow dominated. Wildlife habitat, candidate amphibian breeding habitat. Water protection, soil erosion reduction, nutrient cycling, hydrological cycling, clean air and long-term storage of carbon. N WO04 Woodland 2 m north of underground electrical line along Concession Road 6. FOMM9 (Fresh-Moist White Pine Hardwood Mixed Forest) TAGM5 (Fencerow) Area: 4.1 ha Narrow mixed woodland along Orono Creek (east arm). Small stream flowing through. Wildlife habitat, candidate amphibian breeding habitat. Water protection, soil erosion reduction, nutrient cycling, hydrological cycling, clean air and long-term storage of carbon. N WO05 Woodland 20 m south of underground electrical line along Concession Road 6. FODM7-3 (Fresh Moist Willow Lowland Deciduous Forest Type) SWTM3-6 (Mixed Willow Mineral Deciduous Thicket Swamp Type) Area: 1.9 ha Narrow deciduous wooded patch in low-lying area. Willow dominated. Small swamp thicket within woodland (see WE04). Soil erosion reduction, nutrient cycling, hydrological cycling, wildlife habitat, clean air and long-term storage of carbon. N WO06 Woodland 14 m south of underground electrical line along Concession Road 6. TAGM2 (Mixed Plantation) FODM6-5 (Fresh-Moist Sugar Maple-Hardwood Forest) Area: 4.0 ha Woodland consists of patches of mixed and deciduous forest. Laneway and residence in woodland. Social, soil erosion reduction, nutrient cycling, hydrological cycling, wildlife habitat, clean air and long-term storage of carbon. WO07 Woodland 70 m and 72 m from underground electrical line and permanent project road from Concession Road 6 to T4, respectively. FODM7-3 (Fresh - Moist Willow Lowland Deciduous Forest) Area: 1.0 ha Small moist bottomland willow woodland. High proportion of invasive species present. No rare species found. Canopy cover is greater than 50% with bayleaf willow, some Manitoba maple. Sub-canopy has a cover of less than 10% with Manitoba maple dominating white ash. Understory cover is 25-50% with red elderberry, choke cherry and white ash. Ground layer cover > 50% with jewelweed, moss and Virginia waterleaf. Woodland on silty clay loam soil. Wildlife habitat, candidate amphibian breeding habitat. Water protection, soil erosion reduction, nutrient cycling, hydrological cycling, clean air and long-term storage of carbon. WO08 123 m northeast of TAGM1 (Medium Mineral Area: 1.5 ha Economic, soil erosion N M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. 25 November 1, 2012

ID Distance to Project Location ELC Code Attributes and Composition Function On ORM Carried over to EOS Woodland permanent project road from Jewel Road to T6/T7 and 132 m from underground electrical line. Coniferous Plantation) Woodland is a spruce plantation. Mature rolling upland coniferous plantation on mineral soil (sandy loam). White spruce plantation with dog-strangling vine (aka pale swallowwort) and wild cucumber in undergrowth. Dense canopy: > 50% cover; moderate subcanopy: 10-25% cover; thin ground layer: < 10% cover. reduction, nutrient cycling, hydrological cycling, wildlife habitat, clean air and long-term storage of carbon. Not within 120 m of project location WO09 Woodland 39 m, 4 m, 0 m and 18 m from T7 turbine, laydown, bladeswept area and cranepad, respectively. 11 m from underground electrical cabling. TAGM1 (Coarse Mineral Coniferous Plantation) Area: 1.0 ha Woodland is a Red Pine plantation. Mature upland coniferous woodland on silty sand mineral soil. Primarily red pine with small amount of mature white pine, plus some smaller seedlings/ saplings in undergrowth (Manitoba maple, American mountain ash, choke cherry and red elderberry). No rare species located. Economic, soil erosion reduction, nutrient cycling, hydrological cycling, wildlife habitat, clean air and long-term storage of carbon. 3 m from T7 permanent project road. 0 m to temporary turning radius along T7 access road. WO10 Woodland 0 m, 0 m, 0 m and 13 m from T8 turbine, laydown, bladeswept area and cranepad, respectively. 58 m, 28 m, 14 m and 67 m from T9 turbine, laydown, bladeswept area and cranepad, respectively. 0 m from underground electrical cabling. FODM6-5 (Fresh - Moist Sugar Maple - Hardwood Deciduous Forest) TAGM5 (Fencerow) Area: 7.9 ha Rolling upland, natural treed area. Predominantly sugar maple woodland with seasonally wet depression in western part. Mineral soils. Canopy cover: > 50%, primarily sugar maple with occasional basswood, red ash and poplar. Sub-canopy cover: 10-25%, primarily sugar maple with some basswood, American beech and red ash. Understory minimal, < 10%. Ground layer cover 25-50%. Here, blue cohosh, ostrich fern and enchanters nightshade. Woodland disturbed by several dumping areas. Evidence of logging over about 40 years ago. No rare species observed. Wildlife habitat, candidate amphibian breeding habitat. Economic, water protection, soil erosion reduction, nutrient cycling, hydrological cycling, clean air and long-term storage of carbon. 0 m from permanent project road between T8 and T9. M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. 26 November 1, 2012

ID Distance to Project Location ELC Code Attributes and Composition Function On ORM Carried over to EOS 0 m to temporary turning radius along T8 to T9 access road. WO11 Woodland 21 m south of underground electrical line along Ganaraska Road. FODM7-3 (Fresh - Moist Willow Lowland Deciduous Forest) SWTM3 (Willow Mineral Deciduous Thicket Swamp Ecosite) Area: 1.8 ha Narrow deciduous woodland in valleyland along small stream. Large willows in section next to road. Small thicket swamp in woodland. Wildlife habitat, water protection, soil erosion reduction, nutrient cycling, hydrological cycling, clean air and long-term storage of carbon. WO12 Woodland N/A No woodland ELC code identified. Area consists of a small hedgerow, a meadow marsh and treed pasture. See WE05. N/A N No woodland ELC identified WO13 Woodland 61 m, 39 m, 17 m and 65 m from T12 turbine, laydown, bladeswept area and cranepad, respectively. TAGM1 (Coniferous Plantation) Area: 3.7 ha Plantation of white spruce and red pine. Openings with grasses, asters, lady fern, stinging nettle and tall golden rod. Intermittent stream flowing through. Sloping, upland topography. Mineral soils. Economic, water protection, wildlife habitat, soil erosion reduction, nutrient cycling, hydrological cycling, clean air and long-term storage of carbon. 91 m from T10, bladeswept area. 65 m from underground electrical cabling. 50 m from permanent project road to T8. WO14 Woodland 19 m, 5 m, 0 m, and 12 m from T9 turbine, laydown bladeswept area, and cranepad, respectively. 85 m, 15 m, 40 m and 70 m from T10 turbine, laydown, bladeswept area and cranepad, respectively. TAGM1 (Coniferous Plantation) Area: 0.4 ha Small Scotch Pine plantation. Small young Scotch Pine plantation. Mineral soils Canopy cover 25-50%, mostly Scotch Pine. Sub-canopy and understory 10-25%, mostly Scotch Pine with some Ash and Buckthorn. Ground cover > 50%, dominated by Golden Rod. Economic, soil erosion reduction, nutrient cycling, hydrological cycling, wildlife habitat, clean air and long-term storage of carbon. M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. 27 November 1, 2012

ID Distance to Project Location ELC Code Attributes and Composition Function On ORM Carried over to EOS 13 m from underground electrical cabling. 3 m from T9 permanent project road. WE02 Wetland 112 m west of underground electrical line along Tamblyn Rd. 119 m from T11 project road. SWMM1-1 (White Cedar - Hardwood Mineral Mixed Swamp Type) Area: 0.5 ha Small patch of swamp with Cedar and deciduous shrubs along a stream in valley. Part of woodland WO02. Hydrologically connected to a series of other small wetlands along the same stream. Located next to road and agricultural area. Pollution sources include runoff from road, field and livestock operation. Wildlife habitat, candidate amphibian breeding habitat. Local importance for water quality improvement, flood attenuation, and groundwater recharge. N Local importance for shoreline erosion control. WE03 Wetland 74 m northeast of underground electrical line along Tamblyn Rd. 8 1m from T11 temporary construction road. SWCM1-1 (White Cedar Mineral Coniferous Swamp Type) Area: 1.5 ha Long and narrow Cedar swamp along stream in valleyland. Part of woodland WO02. Evidence of human disturbance (trails). Located next to row crop field with a narrow buffer of coniferous forest. Pollution sources include runoff from field. Wildlife habitat, candidate amphibian breeding habitat. Minor local importance as winter cover for wildlife. Minor local importance for water quality improvement, flood attenuation, and groundwater recharge. N Local importance for shoreline erosion control. WE04 Wetland 110 m south of underground electrical line along Concession Road 6. SWTM3-6 (Mixed Willow Mineral Deciduous Thicket Swamp Type) Area: 0.3 ha Very small patch of deciduous swamp in the low-lying area. No watercourse present. Part of woodland WO05. Surrounded by pasture. Minor local importance for water quality improvement, flood attenuation, and groundwater recharge. N WE05 Wetland 52 m, 83 m and 109 m from T3 laydown, bladeswept area and cranepad, respectively. 15 m from underground MAMM3-1 (Mixed Mineral Meadow Marsh) Area: 3.8 ha Meadow marsh along intermittent stream in open area. No permanent water. Water table close to surface. Floods seasonally. Very gradually sloping. Dominated by graminoids, cattails and forbs equally dispersed. Monarchs observed (SC species) in the wetland. Wildlife habitat, candidate amphibian breeding habitat, candidate habitat for species of conservation concern. Local importance for water M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. 28 November 1, 2012

ID Distance to Project Location ELC Code Attributes and Composition Function On ORM Carried over to EOS electrical cabling along Jewel Road. 33m from entry point for underground electrical cabling via directional drilling. Surrounded by agricultural land: row-crop fields, hay fields, pasture and treed pasture. Road runs along eastern edge. Pollution sources include runoff from road and crop fields. quality improvement, flood attenuation, and groundwater recharge. Local importance for shoreline erosion control. WE06 Wetland 23 m south of underground electrical line along Ganaraska Road. SWTM3 (Willow Mineral Deciduous Thicket Swamp Ecosite) Area: 0.5 ha Small patch of swamp along stream in treed area next to road. Willow dominated. Part of woodland WO11. Pollution sources include runoff from road, crop fields and lawn. Minor local importance for water quality improvement, flood attenuation, and groundwater recharge. WE07 Wetland 3 m from underground electrical line along preexisting Concession Road 6. MAMM1(Graminoid Mineral Meadow Marsh) FODM7-3 (Fresh Moist Willow Lowland Deciduous Forest Type) Area: 1.0 ha Marsh on north and south side of Concession Road 6 along stream. Southern section dominated by grasses and cattails with soy crops on the east and a lawn and residence on the west. Northern section dominated by phragmites and forbs. Many willows. High human disturbance. Pollution sources include sediments from road and runoff from crop field and lawn. Wildlife habitat, candidate amphibian breeding habitat. Local importance for water quality improvement, flood attenuation, and groundwater recharge. N Local importance for shoreline erosion control. VA101 0 m from underground electrical line along preexisting Tamblyn Road Crossed twice by underground electrical line along pre-existing Concession Road 6 (>0.1m) Crossed by underground electrical line along preexisting Jewel Road (>0.1m) Crossed by underground electrical line and FOCM4-1 (Fresh Moist White Cedar Coniferous Forest Type) SWCM1-1 (White Cedar Mineral Coniferous Swamp Type) FODM5-1 (Dry Fresh Sugar Maple Deciduous Forest Type) WOMM3-1 (Dry Fresh Hawthorn White Cedar Mixed Woodland Type) FOMM7-2 (Fresh-Moist Cedar - Hardwood Mixed Forest Type) SWMM1-1 (White Cedar - Hardwood Mineral Mixed Swamp Width: 15 120 m. Headwater area of Orono Creek Narrow valleyland along small intermittent stream with undefined or poorly defined valleyland morphology in some reaches and wide, welldefined valleyland with permanent stream at main channel. Wet depression forming area of sheet water (in soy OAGM1 field) at one headwater location in spring. Vegetation includes forested area/ grassed waterway/graminoid meadow/coniferous plantation with moderate valleyland morphology and small intermittent stream with moderate channelization. Stream corridor becomes more defined and valleyland morphology improves in lower reach. Low degree of naturalness. Very high human disturbance at the start (row crop field), but low level of disturbance in sections of meadow and low Source water protection, surface water drainage. Groundwater recharge. In non-tilled section: Water protection, soil erosion reduction, flood attenuation, nutrient cycling, and hydrological cycling. Wildlife habitat, candidate amphibian breeding habitat and candidate habitat for species of conservation concern. (parti ally) M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. 29 November 1, 2012

ID Distance to Project Location ELC Code Attributes and Composition Function On ORM Carried over to EOS permanent project road at three locations (0m) 18 m from temporary project road along Tamblyn Road. 113 m, 102 m and 50 m from T1, T2 and T3 laydown area, respectively 88 m, 44 m and 72 m from T3 turbine, bladeswept area and crane pad, respectively Type) MAMM1(Graminoid Mineral Meadow Marsh) FODM7-3 (Fresh Moist Willow Lowland Deciduous Forest Type) CVR_4 (Rural Residential) OAGM2 (Perennial Cover Crops) OAGM4 (Open Pasture) OAGM1 (Annual Row Crops) MEGM4 (Fresh - Moist Graminoid Meadow) MAMM3-1 (Mixed Mineral Meadow Marsh) intensity pasture. No restoration present. VA102 19 m from underground electrical line along preexisting Concession Road 6 FODM7-3 (Fresh Moist Willow Lowland Deciduous Forest Type) SWTM3-6 (Mixed Willow Mineral Deciduous Thicket Swamp Type) TAGM4 (Treed Pasture) OAGM4 (Open Pasture) Width: 80 130 m. Low lying headwater area of Hunter Creek. No watercourse, no welldefined channel, likely spring runoff channel. Valleyland is forested with flat topography. Vegetation dominated by willow. Parts of valleyland used for pasture. Disturbed by human activity, grazing, road and pollution. No restoration present. Source water protection, surface water drainage, wildlife habitat, soil erosion reduction, nutrient cycling, hydrological cycling. No functional connections to other natural areas. (parti ally) VA103 105 m, 46 m, 60 m and 93 m from T4 turbine, laydown, bladeswept area and cranepad, respectively 52 m, 93 m and 84 m from T5 laydown, bladeswept area, and cranepad, respectively 91 m from T9 bladeswept area 97 m and 77 m from T10 OAGM1 (Annual Row Crops) MEGM4-1 (Open Graminoid Meadow Type) OAGM4 (Open Pasture) MEGM4 (Fresh - Moist Graminoid Meadow) TAGM1 (Coniferous Plantation) FODM7-3 (Fresh - Moist Willow Lowland Deciduous Forest) Width: 12-85 m. Headwater area of Stalker Creek Narrow valleyland along small intermittent stream with poorly defined valleyland morphology in some reaches and wide, well-defined valleyland with permanent stream at main channel. Wet depression forming area of sheet water (in corn OAGM1 field) at one headwater location in spring. Vegetation includes forested area/ grassed waterway/graminoid meadow/coniferous plantation with moderate valleyland morphology and small intermittent stream with moderate channelization. Stream corridor becomes more defined and valleyland morphology improves in lower reach. Further south agriculture along meadow turns to low intensity Source water protection (meadow vegetation provides some buffer from effects of agriculture on stream, wooded area is effective buffer), surface water drainage. Groundwater recharge. In non-tilled section: Soil erosion reduction, flood attenuation, nutrient cycling, and hydrological cycling. Wildlife habitat, candidate M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. 30 November 1, 2012

ID Distance to Project Location ELC Code Attributes and Composition Function On ORM Carried over to EOS laydown and bladeswept area, respectively. 91 m, 55 m, 72 m and 73 m from T12 turbine, laydown, bladeswept area and cranepad, respectively. pasture. Low degree of naturalness. Very high human disturbance at the start (row crop field), but low level of disturbance in sections of meadow and low intensity pasture. No restoration present. snake hibernaculum and candidate raptor wintering area. 5 m from underground electrical cabling. 5 m from permanent project road between T4 and T5. 6 m from permanent project road between T10 and T12. VA104 Crossed by permanent project road and underground electrical line between Ganaraska Road and T8 (0m) 0 m from project electrical line. 54 m, 27 m, 14 m and 59 m from T8 turbine, laydown, bladeswept area and cranepad, respectively. 60 m, 62 m, 21 m and 73 m from T9 turbine, laydown, bladeswept area and cranepad, respectively. 0 m to temporary turning radius along T8 to T9 OAGM1 (Annual Row Crops) MEGM4 (Fresh - Moist Graminoid Meadow) FODM6-5 (Fresh - Moist Sugar Maple - Hardwood Deciduous Forest) OAGM4 (Open Pasture) MEMM3 (Dry - Fresh Mixed Meadow Ecosite) THDM5 (Fresh - Moist Deciduous Thicket Ecosite) SWTM3 (Willow Mineral Deciduous Thicket Swamp) FODM7-3 (Fresh - Moist Willow Lowland Deciduous Forest) Width: 15 90 m Headwater area of a small Ganaraska River Narrow valleyland along small intermittent stream with poorly defined valleyland morphology in some reaches and wide, well-defined valleyland with permanent stream at main channel. Vegetation along valleyland varies from agricultural land use (OAGM1, OAGM4) with low degree of naturalness and high human impact to forested or meadow reaches with a high degree of naturalness, wide natural vegetation buffer and low human impact. High impact from agricultural land use and from roads and pollution from runoff. No restoration present at any location Source water protection (provides some buffer from effects of agriculture and roads on stream), surface water drainage. Groundwater recharge. Wildlife habitat, candidate amphibian breeding habitat. Soil erosion reduction, flood attenuation, nutrient cycling, and hydrological cycling. M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. 31 November 1, 2012

ID Distance to Project Location access road. ELC Code Attributes and Composition Function On ORM Carried over to EOS M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. 32 November 1, 2012

4.3.1 Candidate Significant Wildlife Habitat Table 4-6: Candidate Significant Wildlife Habitat identified through Records Review ID Habitat Types (SWHTG reference) Likelihood of Habitat Occurrence Based on Records Review Outcome of Site Investigation WFS Waterfowl stopover and staging areas (4.4.4) Possible No habitat found; not carried forward. Terrestrial: areas of sheet water are present in some fields (located in VA102 and VA103), but only in rowcropped fields (not appropriate ELC community) Aquatic: three marshes exist (in WE05 and WE07), however areas do not provide sufficient water during migration periods and do not provide abundant waterfowl food supply given small areas SBMS Shorebird migratory stopover areas (4.4.6) Unlikely There are no large water bodies or wetlands in the project area. No habitat found; not carried forward. Three marshes exist (in WE05 and WE07), however areas do not provide muddy and un-vegetated shoreline habitats. RWA Raptor wintering areas (4.4.8) Possible One candidate habitat identified. See Table 4-7 for details. All other fields that are near woodlands are highly disturbed by intensive agriculture or do not meet size criteria. BH Bat hibernacula (4.4.12) Unlikely No habitat found; not carried forward. No caves, mines shafts, underground foundations and karst in area. BMC Bat maternity colonies (n/a) Possible One candidate habitat identified during plots (see Appendix G). See Table 4-7 for details. Two additional cavity trees were found during area serached, one in a meadow community (MEGM4-1) and one in a hedgerow (TAGM5). These cavity trees do not meet the ELC forest stand requirements to be considered candidate bat maternity roosting habitat as they are not within a mixed or deciduous forest stand. TWA Turtle wintering area (n/a) Unlikely No habitat found; not carried forward. No water bodies within project location with water deep enough not to freeze and soft mud substrates. SH Reptile hibernaculum (4.4.11) Possible One candidate SWH identified. See Table 4-7 for details. CBN Colonial bird nesting sites (4.4.3) Possible No habitat found; not carried forward. No suitable ELC communities with associated features including exposed or eroding soil banks, sandy hills, borrow pits, steep slopes, sandpiles, cliff faces, rocky M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. 33 November 1, 2012

ID Habitat Types (SWHTG reference) Likelihood of Habitat Occurrence Based on Records Review Outcome of Site Investigation islands or peninsulas CTS Cliffs and Talus Slopes Possible No habitat found; not carried forward. No ELC communities identified. No vertical to near vertical bedrock > 3m in height; no rock rumble and the base of a cliff made of coarse rocky debris. SB Sand barrens (5.4.1.7) Possible No habitat found; not carried forward. No ELC communities identified through detailed ELC surveys. ALV Alvars (5.4.1.1) Unlikely Most of the Project Location is on the ORM or next to it. Bedrock is deep under many layers of sediment. No habitat found; not carried forward. No ELC communities identified through detailed ELC surveys. OGMF Old growth forest (5.4.2.3) Unlikely Few forest remnants, agricultural area. Woodlands are small and disconnected. No habitat found; not carried forward. No ELC communities with size criteria and dominant tree species >140 years old identified through detailed ELC surveys. SAV Savannahs (5.4.1.3) Possible No habitat found; not carried forward. No ELC communities identified through detailed ELC surveys. TGP Tall grass prairies (5.4.1.2) Possible No habitat found; not carried forward. No ELC communities identified through detailed ELC surveys. RF Rare vegetation types (5.4.1.4) Possible No habitat found; not carried forward. No ELC communities identified through detailed ELC surveys. WFN Waterfowl nesting habitat (4.4.5) Possible No habitat found; not carried forward. No suitable swamp communities identified through detailed ELC surveys. Three marshes exist (in WE05 and WE07), however one marsh (MAMM1 located in WE07, south of Concession Road 6) does not meet size criteria (>0.5 ha). Other two marsh areas (MAMM3-1 located in WE05 and MAMM1 located in WE07, north of Concession Road 6) meet size criteria. Adjacent upland habitat to WE05 is not suitable habitat (i.e. intensity of row, hay and pasture agriculture does not support waterfowl nesting and no open water is evident beyond mid-spring). Additionally, adjacent treed pasture does not provide suitable habitat for wood ducks and hooded mergansers (no availability of large diameter M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. 34 November 1, 2012

ID Habitat Types (SWHTG reference) Likelihood of Habitat Occurrence Based on Records Review Outcome of Site Investigation trees >40 cm dbh that may provide cavities given coniferous tree dominance). Suitable habitat adjacent to WE07 will be treated as GcSWH (see Section 4.3.2). No suitable habitat found; not carried forward. BEON Bald eagle and osprey nesting site (8.5.7) Unlikely No habitat found; not carried forward. No nests identified through detailed surveys. RN Woodland raptor nesting habitat (5.4.2.7) Possible No habitat found; not carried forward. One stick nest found in WO01. See Table 4-7 for details. TNH Turtle nesting habitat (5.4.2.6) Unlikely No habitat found; not carried forward. No gravel banks, sand beaches or other suitable nesting habitat identified. SP Seeps and springs (5.4.5) Possible One candidate SWH identified. See Table 4-7 for details. ABH Amphibian breeding habitat (5.4.2.5) - woodland Possible Six candidate SWHs identified. See Table 4-7 for details. Amphibian breeding habitat (5.4.2.5) - woodland Possible One candidate SWH identified. See Table 4-7 for details. MBB Marsh breeding bird (n/a) Possible No habitat found; not carried forward. Three marshes exist (in WE05 and WE07), however they do not contain open / shallow water necessary for this habitat. No suitable edge habitat available for Green Heron in WE05; no edge of water including sluggish streams and ponds sheltered by shrubs and trees found within 120 m of the Project Location. Suitable habitat associated with WE07 will be treated as GcSWH (see Section 4.3.2). No suitable habitat found; not carried forward. ASH Woodland Areasensitive bird breeding habitat (5.4.2.1) Unlikely Few forest remnants, agricultural area. Woodlands are small and disconnected. No habitat found; not carried forward. No woodlands greater than 30ha with an interior forest of greater than 4ha calculated from 200m from the woodland edge. OCBB Open country bird breeding habitat (n/a) Possible No habitat found; not carried forward. Most grasslands (hayfields and pasture) are found to be highly disturbed with a history of intensive hay and livestock pasturing. One high quality grassland area of meadows and lightly used pasture land was found east of T4. This area is 23 ha thus does not meet the size M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. 35 November 1, 2012

ID Habitat Types (SWHTG reference) Likelihood of Habitat Occurrence Based on Records Review Outcome of Site Investigation requirement of >30 ha. ESBB Early successional bird breeding habitat (n/a) Possible No habitat found; not carried forward. Suitable ELC communities identified (thickets and treed pastures) however they are not early successional and the size criterion (> 10 ha) is not met. TC Terrestrial Crayfish Possible No habitat found; not carried forward. Suitable ELC communities identified, however project location is not located in southwestern Ontario and is outside the listed species range. SCS Habitat of species of conservation concern (6) Possible Monarchs (SC) were observed in WE05. Candidate habitat is within 120 m of laydown area and electrical line thus will be treated as generalized candidate SWH (see Appendix F). No species listed in the NHIC for the Records Review were found, nor was the required habitat. AMC Amphibian Movement Corridors Possible Candidate habitat identified following the confirmation of a significant wetland ABH. Will be carried forward to Evaluation of Significance Report and determined should ABH08 (wetland ABH) be evaluated as significant. Table 4-7: Candidate Significant Wildlife Habitat identified during Site Investigation Candidate SWH Distance to Project Location Attributes and Composition Function On ORM Carried Over to EOS RWA02(c) 5 m from permanent project road between T4 and T5; within 120 m of permanent project road and multiple additional locations 15 m from underground electrical line between T4 and T5 12 m to temporary turning radius; 109 m to temporary road 105 m, 46 m, 60 m and 93 m from T4 turbine, laydown, bladeswept area and cranepad, respectively. 85 m, 68 m, 40 m and 75 m from T10 turbine, laydown, bladeswept area and cranepad, respectively. 61 m, 39 m, 17 m and 65 m from T12 turbine, laydown, bladeswept area and cranepad, respectively. Area: 28 ha. Woodlands: 4.7 ha. Open area: 23 ha. Mixed habitat of open areas (MEGM4-1, OAGM4, MEGM4) and woodlands. Woodlands consist of a small deciduous woodland (WO07, FODM7-3) and a larger coniferous plantation (WO13, TAGM1). The plantation is included in the candidate habitat as it is likely to be used for roosting by wintering raptors if the habitat is found significant. Open areas are composed of a large area of very low intensity pasture or hay and riparian meadows. Open field hunting / foraging grounds for wintering raptors, together with woodlands which serve as roosting / perching habitat. M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. 36 November 1, 2012

Candidate SWH Distance to Project Location Attributes and Composition Function On ORM Carried Over to EOS BMR01(c) 0 m, 0 m, 0 m and 13 m from T8 turbine, laydown, bladeswept area and cranepad, respectively. 58 m, 28 m, 14 m and 67 m from T9 turbine, laydown, bladeswept area and cranepad, respectively. 0 m from underground electrical cabling. 0 m from permanent project road between T8 and T9. 0 m from temporary project road near T8. Area: 7.0 ha FODM6-5 (Fresh - Moist Sugar Maple - Hardwood Deciduous Forest) located in WO10. Density of 10 snags/ ha identified during plot surveys. Rolling upland, natural treed area. Predominantly sugar maple woodland with seasonally wet depression in western part. Cavity or snag trees in deciduous forest may provide a natural roosting site for bats. 0 m to temporary turning radius; 65 m to temporary road SH02(c) 4 m east of permanent project road and 12 m from underground electrical line between T4 and T5 108 m, 56 m, 64 m and 97 m from T4 turbine, laydown, bladeswept area and cranepad, respectively. 11m to temporary turning radius; 111 m to temporary road Pile of rocks at the edge of a field by valleyland (VA13). South facing, no shade. Existence of underground crevices could not be verified but is unlikely due to geology. Materials are cobble, boulder and debris such as metal and plastic piping. Rock piles could potentially provide suitable hibernation areas for overwinterin g reptiles. Dimensions: length 5 m; width 3 m; height 1 m. No snakes were observed at candidate hibernaculum during spring and fall site investigations. ABH01(c) - woodland 64 m, 45 m, 18 m and 57 m from T11 turbine, laydown, bladeswept area and cranepad, respectively. 59 m from underground electrical cabling. 47 m and 47 m from T11 temporary and permanent project road, respectively. Woodland WO01 is identified as candidate SWH for breeding amphibians. Wet areas potentially suitable for amphibian breeding can occur in woodland as the feature has been found to contain a stream, one seepage area and likely wetland areas. Woodland consists of a combination of deciduous and coniferous ELC types. May be suitable habitat for amphibians to breed and complete their life cycle. N ABH02(c) - woodland 0 m from underground electrical line along pre-exisitng Tamblyn Road. 7 m from temporary project road. Woodland WO02 is identified as candidate SWH for breeding amphibians. Wet areas potentially suitable for amphibian breeding can occur in woodland as the feature has May be suitable habitat for amphibians to breed and complete N M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. 37 November 1, 2012

Candidate SWH Distance to Project Location Attributes and Composition Function On ORM Carried Over to EOS been found to contain a stream and likely wetland areas. Woodland consists of a combination of deciduous and coniferous ELC types. Highly disturbed by human activity, agriculture, road and pollution. their life cycle. ABH04(c) - woodland 3 m from project electrical line along Concession Road 6. Candidate habitat consists of two small areas of meadow marsh corresponding to wetland WE07 north and south of the road and a small woodland WO03. Woodland is a combination of a deciduous riparian treed patch and a small conifer plantation. Highly disturbed by human activity, agriculture, residences, road and pollution. May be suitable habitat for amphibians to breed and complete their life cycle. N ABH05(c) - woodland 2 m from underground electrical line along Concession Road 6. Candidate habitat identified in riparian woodland WO04 along stream. Woodland is deciduous. Highly disturbed by human activity, agriculture, residences, road and pollution. May be suitable habitat for amphibians to breed and complete their life cycle. N ABH06(c) - woodland 70 m east of underground electrical line 72 m from permanent project road from Concession Road 6 to T4. Candidate habitat identified in woodland WO07. Woodland is a moist bottomland willow forest with an intermittent spring runoff stream. Sources of pollution include runoff from road and intensive agriculture. May be suitable habitat for amphibians to breed and complete their life cycle. ABH07(c) - woodland 0 m, 0 m, 0 m and 13 m from T8 turbine, laydown, bladeswept area and cranepad, respectively. 58 m, 28 m, 14 m and 67 m from T9 turbine, laydown, bladeswept area and cranepad, respectively. 0 m from underground electrical cabling. 0 m from temporary turning radius; 65 m to temporary road near T8. 0 m from permanent project road between T8 and T9. Candidate habitat identified in sugar maple dominated woodland WO10 with intermittent spring runoff stream and valleyland VA11. Stream in woodland is slow flowing, with no defined banks and prone to pooling, however dries up early in the season. Sources of pollution include runoff from intensive agriculture. May be suitable habitat for amphibians to breed and complete their life cycle. M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. 38 November 1, 2012

Candidate SWH Distance to Project Location Attributes and Composition Function On ORM Carried Over to EOS ABH08(c) - wetland 52 m, 83 m and 109 m from T3 laydown, bladeswept area and cranepad, respectively. 15 m from underground electrical cabling along Jewel Road. 33m from entry point for underground electrical cabling via directional drilling. Candidate habitat identified in wetland WE05 may provide suitable amphibian breeding habitat in the spring. Wetland is a mixed meadow marsh with a small intermittent stream flowing in spring. Wetland is adjacent to a hedgerow (FODM11) that provides suitable terrestrial habitat May be suitable habitat for amphibians to breed and complete their life cycle. RN01(c) 116 m north of temporary project road by T11. 118 m from T11 bladeswept area. Nest found in woodland WO01. Nest constructed of pencil-size sticks, 30 cm wide (outside diameter), and 20 cm deep. At 10 m height in central fork of tree. Tree is deciduous, 25 cm DBH, 20 m total height. According to nest identification guidelines described by Szuba & Naylor (1998) the nest was very likely constructed by an American Crow, as its form reflects that typical of American Crows. Candidate wildlife habitat. N N WO01 is 35ha in size but has no interior habitat measured 200m from the edge of the habitat. As such the raptor nesting habitat criteria has not been met. SP01(c) Seep 146 m north of temporary project road by T11. Candidate feature within ELC polygon FODM6-5 contained in WO01 (120 m and 81 m from T11 temporary project road and bladeswept area, respectively; 77 m from temporary project road.) Seepage area in woodland WO01. Seep located in deciduous sugar maple dominated forest, close to the boundary of the white cedar forest ecosite. Area is slightly sloping north with a small intermittent stream flowing northwest toward western branch of Orono Creek. Dimensions are approximately 10 m by 10 m. Wildlife habitat supports many wildlife species (drinking water, salamander habitat). Source of coldwater stream. N SCS01(c) Monarchs (SC) were observed in WE05. 52 m, 83 m and 109 m from T3 laydown, bladeswept area and Located within mixed mineral meadow marsh (WE05). Vegetation includes narrow leaved emergent, robust emergent and forbes. Wildlife habitat supports species concern (Candidat e habitat is within 120 m of M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. 39 November 1, 2012

Candidate SWH Distance to Project Location Attributes and Composition Function On ORM Carried Over to EOS cranepad, respectively. 15 m from underground electrical cabling along Jewel Road. 33m from entry point for underground electrical cabling via directional drilling. Approximately 30 Monarchs were observed during site visit (2 hours spent within delineated area). Delineation of ELC polygons in area surrounding SCS01(c) confirmed on 2012-06-15. wildlife species (Monarchs). laydown area and electrical line thus will be treated as generalize d SWH see Appendix F) 4.3.2 Generalized Candidate Significant Wildlife Habitat As specified in Appendix D of the Natural Heritage Assessment Guide for Renewable Energy Projects, candidate Significant Wildlife Habitat identified within 120 m of underground lines (with the exception of winter deer yards) is not required to be delineated or evaluated. Instead, it is treated as generalized candidate Significant Wildlife Habitat. We therefore will treat the areas within 120 m of the underground electrical line in existing rights-of-way on Concession Road 6, Jewel Road and Ganaraska Road as Generalized Candidate Significant Wildlife Habitat (Figure 4-3). As such, it will not be further evaluated, but will be treated as significant in the Evaluation of Significance Report and potential construction impacts mitigated in the Environmental Impact Study Report. M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. 40 November 1, 2012

5 CONCLUSIONS The Site Investigations carried out for the proposed ZEP Wind Farm Ganaraska examined all identified natural features within the REA-mandated setback distances of the Project Location. The natural features assessed include: 14 woodlands six wetlands numerous valleylands (composed of four contiguous valleylands) 14 candidate wildlife habitats including: o seven candidate amphibian breeding habitats (six woodland and one wetland) o one candidate reptile hibernacula o one candidate raptor nest o one candidate bat maternity roosts o one candidate seepage area o one candidate raptor wintering area, o one candidate habitat of species of conservation concern o one generalized candidate SWH. Of all the features listed above, 34 will be evaluated for significance in the accompanying Natural Heritage Evaluation of Significance Report. The natural features not carried forward include: candidate habitat of species of conservation concern (treated as generalized candidate SWH); candidate raptor nest (does not meet candidate size criteria and nest not used by raptor species); and WO08 and WO12. WO08 is not located within 120 m of the project location and W012 is not a woodland (see WE05). All of the individual valleylands, identified by in the Municipality of Clarington Official Plan, will be carried forward, but have been consolidated into four valleylands. Additionally, should the candidate wetland amphibian breeding habitat be evaluated as significant, amphibian movement corridors will be determined. No candidate SWH protected under the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (savannah, sand barrens, tallgrass prairie) were found on site. Several woodlands, valleylands and wetlands were identified within the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan Area and will be evaluated for significance in accordance with the criteria outlined in the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan Technical Paper Series. The accompanying Natural Heritage Evaluation of Significance Report evaluates the significance of the natural features found within 120 m of the Project Location. Potential impacts on the features determined to be significant, and proposed mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate such impacts are detailed in the Natural Heritage Environmental Impact Study Report as required by REA regulations. M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. 41 November 1, 2012

6 QUALIFICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. (MKI) have prepared this report in accordance with information provided by its Client. The information and analysis contained herein is for the sole benefit of the Client and may not be relied upon by any other person. The contents of this report are based upon our understanding of information and reports prepared by others, including ZEP Wind Farm Ganaraska LP and their consultants. While we may have referred to and made use of this information and reporting, we assume no liability for the accuracy of this information. MKI s assessment was made in accordance with guidelines, regulations and procedures believed to be current at this time. Changes in guidelines, regulations and enforcement policies can occur at any time and such changes could affect the conclusions and recommendations of this report. M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. 42 November 1, 2012

7 LITERATURE CITED M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. 2009. ZEP Wind Farm Ganaraska Pre-construction Avian Baseline Survey and Risk Assessment Draft. October 21, 2009. 26 p. courtesy M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. 2010. Project Description Report. July 20, 2010. 18 p. M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. 2012. Draft Natural Heritage Records Review Report. June 1, 2012. 34 p. MOE, 2011. Technical Guide to Renewable Energy Approvals. Ministry of Environment. Municipality of Clarington Official Plan, 2007. Last accessed: 23 November 2010. http://www.clarington.net/htdocs/planning_official_plan.html Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC), Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. http://nhic.mnr.gov.on.ca/mnr/nhic/nhic_old.cfm. Last accessed May 2011. Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. Website: http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/page322.aspx. Accessed: June 2011. Ontario Basic Mapping (OBM). Available at: www.geographynetwork.ca/website/obm/viewer.htm. Website last accessed on 2010-10-05. OBM, ND. Ontario Base Mapping data. Produced by M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. under Licence with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2008. Ontario Geological Survey. 2006. Ontario Geological Survey Earth Layers. Available at: www.mndmf.gov.on.ca/mines/ogs_earth_e.asp Last accessed 2010-10-05. OMNR, 2000. Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. October 2000. 151 p. OMNR. 2005. Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Natural Heritage Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Second Edition. Toronto: Queens Printer for Ontario. 248 pp OMNR, 2008. Southern Ontario Land Resource Information System (SOLRIS) Land Use Data. Toronto, Ontario: The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 2008. OMNR. 2009. Natural Heritage Information Centre. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Available at: http://nhic.mnr.gov.on.ca/. Website last accessed on 2010-10-10. OMNR, 2009. Approval and Permitting Requirements Document for Renewable Energy Projects. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. September 24, 2009. 67p. OMNR, 2010. Land Information Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Available at: www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/business/lio/index.html Last accessed on: 2012-03-29. M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. 43 November 1, 2012

OMNR, 2011. Natural Heritage Assessment Guide for Renewable Energy Projects. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. July 2011. 99 p. OMNR, 2011. Bat and Bat Habitats: Guidelines for Wind Power Habitats. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. July 2011. 23 p. OMNR, 2011. Bird and Bird Habitats: Guidelines for Wind Power Habitats. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. December 2011. 32 p. OMNR, 2012. Significant Wildlife Habitat Ecoregion 6E Criterion Schedule (Draft). Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 42 p. ORMCP, ND. Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan Technical Paper Series. Technical Paper 1 Identification of Key Natural Heritage Features. 12 p. ORMCP, ND. Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan Technical Paper Series. Technical Paper 2 Significant Wildlife Habitat. 32 p. ORMCP, ND. Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan Technical Paper Series. Technical Paper 7 Identification and Protection of Significant Woodlands. 9 p. M.K. Ince and Associates Ltd. 44 November 1, 2012