cropland assessment and environmental …...— based on identified weed control and planting...

CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA

CROPLAND ASSESSMENT AND

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

EFFECTS EVALUATION

SECTION 67 OF THE CANADIAN

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT, 2012

COLLINS BAY INSTITUTE

DECEMBER 7, 2017

WSP Canada Inc.

CROPLAND ASSESSMENT

AND ENVIRONMENTAL

ASSESSMENT EFFECTS

EVALUATION

SECTION 67 OF THE

CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL

ASSESSMENT ACT, 2012

COLLINS BAY INSTITUTE


FINAL REPORT

PROJECT NO.: 171-11942-00

DATE: NOVEMBER 2017

WSP

610 CHARTWELL ROAD

SUITE 300

OAKVILLE, ON, CANADA L6J 4A5

T +1 905-823-8500

F +1 905-823-8503

WSP.COM

WSP Canada Inc.

610 CHARTWELL ROAD

SUITE 300

OAKVILLE, ON, CANADA L6J 4A5

T +1 905-823-8500

F +1 905-823-8503

wsp.com

December 7, 2017

CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA 443 Union Street West PO Box 260 Kingston, ON K7L 4V8

Attention: Corinna Dally-Starna

Dear Madam:

Subject: Cropland Weed Control and Land Management Environmental Evaluation at Collins Bay Institution

Client ref.: 21120-18-2676823

WSP is pleased to provide our Environmental Effects Evaluation and Cropland Assessment for the Collins Bay Institution. This report presents the results of our investigation and review of the agricultural lands.

For questions or comments, please contact the undersigned.

Yours sincerely,

Darren Keam, M.Sc., P.Ag. Manager, Environmental Management

AB/dk Encl. cc: Dennis Roy WSP ref.: 171-11942-00

CROPLAND ASSESSMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT EFFECTS EVALUATION

Project No. 171-11942-00


WSP

November 2017

Page iii

Q U A L I T Y M A N A G E M E N T

ISSUE/REVISION FIRST ISSUE REVISION 1 REVISION 2 REVISION 3

Remarks Client comments

incorporated

Client comments

incorporated

Final

Date October 11, 2017 October 30, 2017 November 30, 2017 December 7, 2017

Prepared by Annette Blazeiko Annette Blazeiko Darren Keam Darren Keam

Signature

Checked by Dan Reeves Dan Reeve Danette Sahulka

Signature

Authorised by Darren Keam Darren Keam Darren Keam Darren Keam

Signature

Project number 171-11942-00 171-11942-00 171-1192-00 171-11942-00

Report number

File reference

keamd

Image

CROPLAND ASSESSMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT EFFECTS EVALUATION Project No. 171-11942-00 CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA

WSPNovember 2017

Page v

P R O D U C T I O N T E A M

CLIENT

Regional Coordinator, Environmental Programs

Corinna Dally-Starna

Institutional Environmental Officer Dennis Roy

WSP

Project Manager Darren Keam

Ecologist Dan Reeves

Technical Staff Annette Blazeiko

SUBCONSULTANTS

N/A


WSPNovember 2017

Page vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. PROJECT INFORMATION ................................................ 1

A.1 Project Identification ........................................................................ 1

A.2 Contract Objective ............................................................................. 1

A.2.1 Scope of Work ..................................................................................................................................... 2

A.2.2 Tasks ........................................................................................................................................................... 2

A.3 Regulatory Requirements ..............................................................3

B. ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION .............................. 5

B.1 Background .......................................................................................... 5

B.2 Site Visit Observations .................................................................... 5

B.2.1 Previous Reports ................................................................................................................................ 7

B.3 Environmental Setting..................................................................... 7

B.4 Regional BioPhysical Environment ............................................ 7

B.4.1 Soil Characteristics ........................................................................................................................... 8

B.5 Site Biophysical Environment ................................................... 10

B.5.1 Site Vegetation ................................................................................................................................ 10

B.5.2 Site Wetlands .................................................................................................................................... 10

B.6 Species at Risk .................................................................................. 10

B.7 Socio-Economic Environment ..................................................... 11

B.7.1 Lessee Farm Producer Engagement .................................................................................. 11

B.7.2 Community Gardens .................................................................................................................... 12

B.8 Integrated Crop Practices ............................................................. 12

B.8.1 Nutrient Stewardship ................................................................................................................... 12

B.8.2 Crop Rotations .................................................................................................................................. 12

B.8.3 Integrated pest management ............................................................................................... 13

B.9 Contract Agricultural Objective REsponses ........................ 14

C. COMMUNICATIONS ........................................................ 16

C.1 Consideration of Public Concern ............................................... 16

C.2 Expert Consultation ........................................................................ 16

WSP November 2017 Page viii

CROPLAND ASSESSMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT EFFECTS EVALUATIONProject No. 171-11942-00


D. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS EVALUATION ......... 17

D.1 Matrix of Potential Environmental Interactions ................ 17

E. MITIGATION MEASURES .............................................. 18

E.1 Established and Effective Mitigation Measures................. 18

F. DETERMINATION ............................................................ 29

G. SIGNATURES ..................................................................... 30

REFERENCES .................................................................................. 31

TABLES

TABLE A.1 PROJECT INFORMATION ........................................................................ 1 TABLE A.2 APPLICABLE ACTS AND REGULATIONS ....................................3

TABLE D.1 ENVIRONNENT/PROJECT INTERACTIONS MATRIX ................................................................................................. 17

TABLE E.1 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS INTERACTIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES............................................ 18

FIGURES

FIGURE 1: SITE LOCATION .................................................................................4 FIGURE 2: AGRICULTURAL SOIL CLASSIFICATION .......................... 7

APPENDICES

A SPECIES AT RISK MEMO

B ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MEASURES FOR

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION

C CONTRACT (21120-18-2676823)


WSPNovember 2017

Page 1

A. PROJECT INFORMATION

A.1 PROJECT IDENTIFICATION

Table A.1 Project Information

Project Title CBI Cropland Weed Control and Land Management Environmental Evaluation

Project Location Collins Bay Institution, 1455 Bath Road, Kingston, Ontario

Lead Authority Correctional Service Canada (CSC)

Contact Name Corinna Dally-Starna

Title Regional Coordinator, Environmental Programs

Telephone No. 613-536-4744

Email Address [email protected]

Other Authority(ies) Owen Nicholl, Senior Procurement Officer,

Correctional Service Canada, Comptroller’s Branch

Contact Information 613-995-0884

[email protected]

A.2 CONTRACT OBJECTIVE

The project was proposed to commence on August 14, 2017 and was anticipated to take approximately six (6) weeks to complete, one extension was provided and terminated on October 31, 2017.

As per Section 67 of the Canadian Enviornmetnal Assessment Act (CEAA), 2012, the CSC is required to assess options regarding pesticide use and to determine whether a project is likely to cause any significant adverse environmental effects. WSP’s objective was to provide expertise for the following:

— Determine acceptable weed control methods to address the current and anticipated presence of noxious weeds;

— Determine the feasibility of planting any type of crop this year;

— Perform an environmental effects evaluation of three to four weed control methods as well as planting activities;

— Perform a Species-at-Risk survey to commensurate with weed control and planting activities; and

— Provide recommendations for weed management including beneficial crop planting to also address potential for erosion for a period of minimally three years.

WSP November 2017 Page 2



A.2.1 SCOPE OF WORK

— Prepare an EEE consistent with CSC Internal Service Directive 318-11. This work is anticipated to be supported by desktop review of any pertinent sections/tables of available documentation assessing impact on past farming activities, including soil, surface and ground water sampling results (Phase I and II of CORCAN Agribusiness operations), some Species-at-Risk observations, for example.

— The EEE shall serve the purpose of allowing CSC to determine whether the proposed activity is likely to cause any adverse effects, release any polluting substances in to the soil, air, ground or surface water, as well as any impact on migratory birds or Species-at-Risk.

— To ensure continued compliance with applicable regulatory requirements, best management practices, as well as TB Directive on Pesticides and CSC Internal Directive 318-11, conduct an EEE of 3-4 identified options for weed control as well as planting crops this year and/or following years:

(1) A project description must be documented in the EEE report. The project description should characterize, within the scope of project and for each life-cycle phase (e.g. construction, operation, decommissioning, etc.) the physical structure, resource requirements, construction methods, schedule, energy use/emissions and discharges.

(2) An environmental description must be documented in the EEE report with the appropriate level of detail and based on the agreed-upon scope of factors. The environmental description should characterize, at a minimum, the following:

(a) The site’s aquatic and terrestrial environment

(b) Surrounding natural environments

(c) All sensitive aquatic or terrestrial ecosystems

(d) Any avian, terrestrial or aquatic species and/or their habitat that is covered by the Species at Risk Act, the Fisheries Act or the Migratory Birds Convention Act

(e) The site’s socio-economic and cultural environment

(f) Any structure or entity present on the site that is of historical, archaeological, paleontological or architectural significance

(g) All potential effects or indirect environmental effects that the project may have on any of the above.

— Conduct a Species-at-Risk survey to commensurate with the identified limited project scope and area.

— Based on identified weed control and planting options, EEE, and SAR survey, prepare a matrix outlining the various project tasks for all options and activity components/phases, associated environmental risks, as well as required and recommended mitigation measures to address these risks.

— A health and safety plan outlining risks and associated control measures, including PPE and training requirements, must be presented for review to the Project Authority prior to commencement of work to account for site conditions related to this specific project.

A.2.2 TASKS

— Task 1: Project Start up Meeting;

— Task 2: Desktop Analysis and Background Review;

— Consultant to identify and be provided with available historical information and data pertaining to the work as needed.

— Task 3: Site Work or Visit;

— Consultant to perform site work in coordination with CSC staff as appropriate.

— Perform non-destructive field evaluation/inspections of the site consistent with the Statement of Work.

— Task 4: Desktop Review and Data Analysis;

— The report is to include all documentation and/or citation to applicable authorities to support the Species-at-Risk survey, EEE findings, required and recommended mitigation measures, contractor checklists with photographs to identify Species-at-Risk, agronomist review and recommendations.

— Task 5: Preparation of DRAFT Report; and

— Task 6: Final report and Project Exit.


WSPNovember 2017

Page 3

A.3 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

Land management within the CBI is required to be consistent with all applicable federal and provincial environmental legislation while recognizing the various stakeholders’ interests. These include: Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority, Ducks Unlimited, Farm Advisory Group, CSC staff and occupants, and the general public.

Table A.2 Applicable Acts and Regulations

ACT/REGULATION APPLICABILITY

Canadian Council of Ministers of

the Environment (CCME)

Guidelines

Inter-governmental forum for collective action on environmental issues of

national and international concern and to provide science-based goals for the

quality of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.

Canadian Environmental

Assessment Act, 2012

Protects the environment by determining whether the project is likely to

cause significant adverse environmental effects.

Canadian Environmental

Protection Act, 1999

Protects the environment by respecting pollution prevention and the

protection of the environment and human health in order to contribute to

sustainable development.

CSC Internal Directive, 318-11 Identifies potential impacts that projects may have on human health and the

environment and to ensure that projects are compliant with CEAA.

Fertilizers Act (R.S.C., 1985, cF-10) Ensures respect of fertilizers and supplements for land application for use as

plant nutrients and/or improvement of soil or plant growth/yields.

Fisheries Act (R.S.C., 1985, c.F-14) &

2012/2013 Amendments

Ensures safe passage of fish or preventing harm to fish around and over

obstructions. Prohibits works, undertakings or activities that result in serious

harm to fish that are part of a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery.

Migratory Birds Convention Act,

1994

Protects migratory birds by prohibiting killing, removal of eggs, disturbance of

nests or their destruction. Breeding times generally are between May 1st and

August 1st and construction activities should be timed to avoid this period.

Government of Canada Pesticide

Directive Ch.2-15

The Pesticide Directrive incorporates the minium requirments of the Canada

Labour Code, Part II, and applicable regulations issued pursuant to that

legislation and applies to all departments. The requirement of the Pesticide

Directive is for all departments to develop a pest management program that

incorporate an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) principles and practices to

reduce the use of broad spectrum pesticides.

Government of Canada

Transportation of Dangerous

Goods Act, 1992

Defines handling as loading, unloading, packing or unpacking dangerous

goods in a means of containment for the purposes of, in the course of or

following transportation and includes storing them in the course of

transportation. Handling does not include use of a hazardous product.




Ontario Environmental

Protection Act, 1990

Provides authority to protect the environment to limit the release of

pollutants to the air, land or water to protect and conserve the natural

environment.

Ontario Occupational Health and

Safety Act and Workplace

Hazardous Materials Information

System Regulation (R.R.O. 1990,

Regulation 860)

OHSA generally requires employers to ensure hazardous products are

identified, to obtain safety data sheets and make them available in the

workplace and to provide instruction and training to workers.

Hazardous Materials Information Systems Regulation sets out in detail the

employer’s duties respecting labels and safety data sheets for hazardous

products and prescribes the content and delivery of worker education

programs. The regulation also sets out the types of confidential business

information the employer may withhold from a label or safety data sheet.

Ontario’s WHMIS legislation applies to all workplaces covered by the

Occupational Health and Safety Act, with the exception of farms.

Ontario Provincial Standard

Specifications (OPSS)

Provide standards and guidelines for construction. OPSS 805 Construction

Specification for Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Measures.

Ontario Water Resources Act,

(RSO 1990, c0.40)

Provides for the conservation, protection and management of Ontario’s

waters and for their efficient and sustainable use, to promote environmental,

social and economic welfare.

Ontario Weed Control Act (RSO

1990, c. W-5)

Identifies noxious weeds to reduce infestations, plant diseases, health

hazards.

Pesticides Act and Regulation

63/09

The Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) ) is

responsible for regulating the sale, use, transportation, storage and disposal of

pesticides in Ontario. Ontario regulates pesticides by placing appropriate

education, licensing and/or permit requirements on their use, under the

Pesticides Act and Regulation 63/09. An operator licence is required if you

own pesticide extermination or employ people who apply pesticides

commercially.

Species at Risk Act, 2002 Protects species listed under Schedule 1 of the Act that may occur in an area.

Critical habitats of “Threatened” or “Endangered”-listed species are also

protected.

Pest Control Products Act Regulates the composition, handling and application of materials that would

be used during application of weed control.


WSPNovember 2017

Page 5

B. ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION

B.1 BACKGROUND

WSP Canada Inc., (WSP) was retained by Correctional Service Canada (CSC) to conduct an Environmental Effects Evaluation (EEE) consistent with the CSC Internal Services Directive (318-11) and the Treasury Board – Pesticide Directive Chapter 2-15, for the agricultural lands at the Collins Bay Institution (CBI), 1455 Bath Road, Kingston, Ontario. As part of this assignment, a Species at Risk (SAR) Screening is required and an evaluation of potential weed control methodologies for continued agricultural management of the land.

The Site is described as the lands associated with the CBI, and includes the approximately 182 hectares (ha) (450 acres) of open agricultural lands and fields to the east, west, and south of CBI and was historically known as the Frontenac Institution. Henceforth the ‘Site’. The Site is shown on Figure 1. The Site is bound to the north by Bath Road, to the west by Days Road and the Ducks Unlimited Wetland (DU Lands), to the south by Front Road, and to the east by the Little Cataraqui Creek Complex Provincially Significant Wetland owned by the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority (CRCA Lands).

B.2 SITE VISIT OBSERVATIONS

On Monday September 11, 2017 a WSP staff member attended the Site and was toured by Mr. Dennis Roy with Correctional Services Canada. The majority of the northern portion of the Site includes manicured lawns, natural areas, and planted ornamental trees, while the southern portion of the Site consists mainly of the wetlands, treed areas, and croplands. There was a new building that had been erected on the northeast corner of the Site.

Landscape

The Site is located in a mixed area of commercial and residential. The surface topography is fairly flat with undulating knolls and valleys, but generally slopes gently down towards Little Cataraqui Creek located along the eastern boundary of the Site.

Soil within the agricultural lands consists of a moist, brown sandy silt, with good tilth. Rootlets and organic matter were observed to depths ranging from 5 centimetres (cm) to 15 cm (2 to 6 inches), with suitable pore space and stable aggregates.

Excess surface water naturally drains towards the drainage channels present across the Site, and tile drains have been installed within the croplands. Employees indicated that one of the field tile drains may have collapsed west of the newly created wetland on the north side of the farm road. There was evidence of historical movement of water in newer channels and a build-up of the topsoil on the south side of the farm road.

Evidence of an expanding/retracting flood zones was observed in several areas as was evidenced by lack of vegetation and/or an increase of the natural vegetation along the drainage channels.

Asphalt was observed in the area west of the woodlot and south of a storm pond on the southern portion of the Site where it is reported that soil and manure drying beds had been stockpiled during historical activities.

Herbicides and Weed Control

The past lessee applied herbicides within the agriculturally productive lands to aid in the management of weed growth. The areas where the herbicides had been applied were distinguishable at the Site, as the difference in vegetation was easily observed between the croplands and the edge rows and/or wetland areas.

FIGURE

1

Scale: As ShownREFERENCEImagery © 2017 Microsoft Corporation and its data suppliers http://www.bing.com/mapsProjection: UTM Zone 17N Datum: NAD 83

SITE LOCATION

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS EVALUATIONCOLLINS BAY INSTITUTION

KINGSTON, ONTARIO

LegendProperty Boundary

0 0.5 1 1.5 2Kilometers

DATE:NOVEMBER 2017PROJECT:171-11942-00

³

I:\EngSoftware\2017\33\171-11942-00 EEE and Cropland Mgmt Options Collins Bay Inst\Env Mgmt\ARC\MXD\Figure 1 Site Location.mxd

³

Lake Ontario


WSPNovember 2017

Page 7

B.2.1 PREVIOUS REPORTS

Outlined below is a list and a brief summary of the environmental site-related investigations that have been provided to WSP.

Golder Associates Limited, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, CORCAN Agribusiness Operations, Frontenac Correctional Institution, Correctional Services Canada, March 2010

— Golder Associates Ltd., (Golder) conducted a Phase I ESA on the CORCAN Agribusiness operations located on Frontenac Correctional Institution and associated property. Findings suggest that a Phase II ESA is required to address the potential environmental issues.

Dillon Consulting Limited, Supplemental Site Investigation, Site Specific Human Health Risk Assessment and Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment for Frontenac Correctional Institution, Correctional Services Canada, March 2012

— Dillon conducted several environmental investigations for the Frontenac Correctional Institution site (441-C09). The conclusions and recommendations indicate that there is no significant risk to humans or local ecosystems. There were no further assessment or remediation activities recommended for the site.

Public Works and Government Services Canada, Environmental Services, Environmental Effects Evaluation Report, Collins Bay Institution, June 2014

— Dillon completed an EEE in preparation for the relocation of solid wastes from one area to a designated area within the property limits. The EEE indicated that the project was not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects provided that the mitigation measures were implemented.

WESA, BluMetric Environmental Inc., Final Environmental Effects Evaluation and Species at Risk Evaluation, Collins Bay Institution, Correctional Service Canada, September 2014

— WESA completed an EEE in preparation for the decommissioning of a former septic tank system and groundwater monitoring wells. The EEE indicated that with appropriate mitigation measures in place and good work practices, the project was unlikely to result in significant adverse environmental effects.

B.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

Much of the Site has been altered from its original state, the field areas having been used for agricultural purposes since 1812, and with the current facility land use since 1930. As such, the majority of the northern portion of the Site includes manicured lawns, planted ornamental trees and the walled enclosure encompassing the penitentiary and units. The institution houses maximum, medium and minimum streams and is set within the urban setting. The Site is serviced municipally with water and sanitary services provided by the City of Kingston.

Beyond the walled confines of the CBI, are multiple service buildings which comprised the historical farming and livestock operations. There are two closed private landfills known as CSC ID441-L01 in the northwest portion of the Site and CSC ID441-L02 located in the southeast portion. Both landfills were covered with vegetation and are monitored routinely via monitoring wells installed on-site.

B.4 REGIONAL BIOPHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

The Lake Simcoe-Rideau Ecoregion encompasses 6.4% (6,311,957 ha) of Ontario. It extends from Lake Huron in the west to the Ottawa River in the east, and includes most of the Lake Ontario shore and the Ontario portion of the St. Lawrence River Valley. It also includes Manitoulin, Cockburn, and St. Joseph’s Islands in Lake Huron.

The underlying bedrock is Paleozoic dolomite and limestone, mainly of Ordovician and Silurian ages, except for a complex zone of mixed bedrock types in the Frontenac Axis, where Precambrian (formed more than one billion years ago) granites and gneisses are mixed with Ordovician limestone and sandstone. The Frontenac Axis is an arch of rock between Algonquin Park and the Adirondacks (Chapman and Putnam, 1973). The surface is gently undulating to rolling terrain of ice-laid materials deeply covering the bedrock, although in a few areas limestone plains with shallow substrates dominate. Deep ground moraine materials predominate with numerous areas showing well-developed drumlins and end/interlobate moraine features such as the Oak Ridges, Wawanosh, Waterloo, and Saugeen Moraines. Local plains of smoother lacustrine deposits occur as well. The eastern portion of the




ecoregion is underlain by glaciomarine deposits resulting from the brief post-glacial incursion of salt water from the Champlain Sea along the St. Lawrence valley (Crins, et al., 2009).

The Niagara Escarpment traverses the ecoregion and provides elevated rugged landscapes in the northern and central parts of this ecosystem. There are some rugged landscapes in the eastern portion as well, including the Frontenac Axis where numerous lakes and high hills provide picturesque vistas. Mineral materials comprise more than 95% of the substrates, and are dominated by Gray Brown Luvisols (43%) and Melanic Brunisols (27%). Gleysols (14%) and Humoferric Podzols (5%) also are found. Most of the substrates provide a high capability to buffer the acidity of atmospheric deposition before it reaches surface waters (Environment Canada, 1988), (Crins, et al., 2009).

B.4.1 SOIL CHARACTERISTICS

The soil series reported for this Site is predominantly the Lansdowne Clay, an imperfectly drained clay soil occurring in the most southerly portions of the region. Lansdowne soils are found on gentle slopes that represent a rising elevation in a limestone plain. In some locations islands of rock occur completely surrounded by clay sediment. The Lansdowne series is a Podzolic, Gray Wooded soil (Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, 2017). The Lansdowne Soil series has an Agricultural Capability Classification of 2 with a capability subclass of D (undesirable soil structure and/or low permeability). Soils in Class 2 have moderate limitations that restrict the range of crops or require moderate conservation practices, the subclass of D includes soils that are difficult to till or which absorb water very slowly or in which the depth of rooting zone is restricted by conditions other than a high water table or consolidated bed rock. Soil classification is shown on Figure 2.

The soil series reported for the CRCA Lands is organic (Muck) consisting of black, fairly well decomposed organic materials located predominantly in low lying areas. As they are typically found in depressional areas, they tend to be poorly drained. Whereas the DU Lands are generally flooded areas supporting water-loving plants that have less than one foot of organic accumulation and are predominantly used as wildlife habitat.

Site observations indicated that the topsoil in the field areas was predominantly sandy silt. A review of the soil sampling results printed May 13, 2017 indicated that the Site had nine farmed areas and samples were submitted for fertility analysis. The results indicated that for alfalfa crop yields lime was required ranging in application from 1 to 3.5 tons/acre.

Source limitation: It should be noted that the information obtained through the Land Information Ontario database is licensed “as

is”, and the Information Provider excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities, whether express or implied, to

the maximum extent permitted by law. The Information Provider is not liable for any errors or omissions in the information, and will

not under any circumstances be liable for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, consequential, or other loss, injury or damage

caused by its use or otherwise arising in connection with this licence or the information, even if specifically advised of the possibility

of such loss, injury or damage.

FRONT RD

WARTMAN AVE

VISTA DR

ROOSEVE LT D R

COUNTRYCLUB

D R

CASTELL RD

CHELSEARD

REDDEN ST

RICHARD SONDR

BELMONT

AVEBRODIE AVE

HENDERSON BLVD

CAMBERLEYCRESGR

EENVIEW DR

EVERITT AVE

KNIGHTSBRIDGE RD

OLD OAK RD

NORDIC AVE

PERCY

CRES

EVELYN ST

LENNOX ST

NOTCH HILL RD

AUL

D ST

DONE

LLCR

T

CAMPBELL

CRES

HYDE ST

CRANBROOK ST

RENDA ST

BRAEMAR RD

MCEWEN DR

HAVERHIL L DR

BATH RD

FAIRFAX DR

SHERMANS T

KI RKW OOD

RD

RUNNYMEDERDBI

CKNE

LLCR

ES

DAYS RD

QUEEN MARY RD

GARD

INERS

R D

ASHLEY CRES

WELBORNE AVE

KING ST W

LAKEVIEW AVE

BERNICE DR

CARRIE CRES

F AWYH ILL

CR ES

ABDO RD

PARKVIEW DR

MEADOWCREST RD

TRAILHEADPL

OLYMPUS AVE

CANTERBURY CRES

FIGURE

2

Scale: As ShownREFERENCEImagery © 2017 ESRI Corporation and its data suppliers, Land Information Ontario (LIO), Ontario Base Mapping, October 2016http://www.esri.com/imageryProjection: UTM Zone 18N Datum: NAD 83

AGRICULTURAL SOIL CLASSIFICATION

LegendProperty BoundaryWaterbodies

SOIL CLASSIFICATIONBUILT UP AREAFARMINGTON LOAMLANSDOWNE CLAYMARSHMUCK (ORGANIC SOILS)NAPANEE CLAYNAPANEE CLAY - SHALLOW PHASE

0 200 400 600 800 1,000Meters

DATE:NOVEMBER 2017PROJECT:171-11942-00

³

I:\EngSoftware\2017\33\171-11942-00 EEE and Cropland Mgmt Options Collins Bay Inst\Env Mgmt\ARC\MXD\Figure 2 Agricultural Land Classification.mxd

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS EVALUATIONCOLLINS BAY INSTITUTION

KINGSTON, ONTARIO

Lake Ontario

Little Cataraqui Creek




B.5 SITE BIOPHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

As the Site is within the Lake Simcoe-Rideau Ecoregion and the Niagara Escarpment traverses the ecoregion, this provides a rugged landscape in the northern and central parts of this ecosystem. Topographic mapping available through the Natural Resources of Canada Website (http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca) topographic map sheet 31C02 of the National Topographic Database was accessed to review topographic features in the general vicinity of the Site; the Site is approximately 85 m above sea level (masl). The surface topography is fairly flat with undulating knolls and valleys, but in general, gently slopes down towards Little Cataraqui Creek located along the eastern boundary of the Site. The principal direction of regional groundwater flow is inferred to be south towards Lake Ontario. Localized groundwater flow is inferred to be east towards Little Cataraqui Creek. It should be noted that local groundwater flow may be influenced by underground utilities such as service trenches, and building structures.

Surface water across the Site is managed by natural drainage towards several channels which either drain into the Cataraqui Creek Marsh on the south portion of the Site or to the Little Cataraqui Creek tributary in the northern portion of the Site.

The Site is located in an area of mixed landuse; commercial, residential and farm.

B.5.1 SITE VEGETATION

Naturally vegetated areas are restricted to the communities associated with the CRCA Lands; the wetland rehabilitation project completed by Ducks Unlimited Canada in the northwest portion of the Site and the area between the Former Landfill #2 (CSC-ID: 441-L01) and the CBI institution.

The open cultivated field areas on the Site that had historically been farmed were not planted during the 2017 summer season. Vegetation within the croplands that had grown within the 2017 season included common early successional field species, grasses, and weeds (e.g. thistle). Other common weed species observed included lamb’s quarters, burdock, goldenrod, ragweed flat-top white aster, purple aster, milkweed, grasses, common tansy, Queen Anne’s Lace, hickory, hawthorn, and sumac.

B.5.2 SITE WETLANDS

The CRCA Lands were observed from the Site. The additional wetlands created after the removal of Former Landfill CSC-ID: 441-L03 (L03) included wetland areas that were lush and full with vegetative species including sedges and grasses, marsh marigold, and flowering rush. Species such as duckweed, cattails, arrowhead, and phragmites were observed along the water edges in the wetland area of the former landfill.

In addition, the DU Lands were observed from the croplands, as access was limited due to the dense vegetation growth of weeds in the croplands and natural overgrowth in the DU Lands. Mr. Roy indicated that upgrades were being considered for the DU Lands as the water control devices were not functioning properly.

B.6 SPECIES AT RISK

As part of a desktop review, a search of the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) database (OMNRF, 2015) was conducted to determine the existence and approximate location of recorded occurrences of Species at Risk (SAR) and Natural Areas within the vicinity of the Site. Six (6) one square kilometer (1 km2) quadrats (18UP74_97, 98, 99, 18UP75_97, 98, 99, and 18UP_97, 98, 99) surrounding the Site were checked to ensure potential Species at Risk were accounted for. Three Endangered species were noted as having occurrences within the squares, including Northern Bobwhite (Colinus virginianus), King Rail (Rallus elegans), and Henslow’s Sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii). In addition, two Threatened species were noted as having occurrences, and included Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), and Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens pop 3).

In addition to a search of the NHIC database, the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas (OBBA) (Bird Studies Canada et al., 2006) and Ontario Reptile and Amphibian Atlas (Ontario Nature, 2017) were consulted to determine if there were SAR known to be present within the vicinity of the Site. The OBBA uses 100 km by 100 km blocks, further subdivided into 10 km by 10 km squares to compartmentalize geographical areas. The potential sites all lie within the square 17LP20. Breeding evidence values for Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica), Black Tern (Childonias niger), Chimney Swift (Chaetura pelagica), Bobolink, Least Bittern (Ixobrychus exilis), and Eastern Meadowlark


WSPNovember 2017

Page 11

(Sturnella magna) were observed within the general area in the first and second atlas. The Ontario Reptile and Amphibian Atlas yielded occurrences for one Threatened species, the Blanding’s Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii), and one Special Concern species, the Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentine).

A Species at Risk Screening was completed for the Collins Bay and Frontenac Institutions in 2012 (LGL, 2012) as part of the Environmental Assessment Screening: Collins Bay Institution Storm Sewer and Sanitary Sewer Upgrades (CH2MHILL, 2012). In addition to the species noted within our searches, they identified potential for Gray Fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica cerulean), Canada Warbler (Wilsonia canadensis), Golden-winged Warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera), Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrines), Barn Owl (Tyto alba), Yellow-breasted Chat (Icteria virens), Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), Red-headed Woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus), Common Nighthawk (Chordeiles minor), Whip-poor-will (Antrostomus vociferus), Black Tern (Chlidonias niger), Western Chorus Frog (Pseudacris triseriata), Gray Ratsnake (Pantherophis spiloides), Five-lined Skink (Plestiodon fasciatus), Eastern Musk Turtle (Sternotherus odoratus), Northern Map Turtle (Graptemys geographica), Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus), American Ginseng (Panax quinquefolius), Butternut (Juglans cinerea), and Eastern Flowering Dogwood (Cornus florida). A full assessment of the habitat potential for the above-mentioned SAR within the crop area and within 120 m of the Site is provided within the Species at Risk Screening Memo (WSP, 2017), refer to Appendix A. No Species at Risk were noted during the site visit; however, it is noted that species-specific habitat searches were not completed due to the project timelines.

Based on the habitat characteristics present within the cropland areas, there is moderate potential for three (3) SAR: Bobolink, Eastern Meadowlark, and Monarch Butterfly. In order to ensure Monarch Butterfly individuals are not impacted, weed and/or naturalized vegetation clearing within the croplands should take place prior to spring arrival (May). No weed or naturalized vegetation clearing should take place between May 1 and September 30.

Within the larger Site, there is high potential for one (1) species; Monarch Butterfly, and moderate potential for fifteen (15) SAR: Barn Swallow, Canada Warbler, Chimney Swift, Bobolink, Least Bittern, Eastern Meadowlark, Golden-winged Warbler, Black Tern, Common Nighthawk, King Rail, Blanding’s Turtle, Snapping Turtle, Northern Map Turtle, Western Chorus Frog, and Butternut.

The Little Cataraqui Creek Complex Significant Wetland and Little Cataraqui Marsh border the Site to the east, and a wetland rehabilitation project completed by Ducks Unlimited Canada in the northwest portion of the Site. The Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority (CRCA) suggests a 30 m setback from wetlands and/or watercourses within their watershed (O. Reg 148/06, 1990; CRCA, 2012; 2015). While there is currently an existing naturally vegetated buffer between the existing cropland areas and adjacent wetlands and aquatic features, where possible this setback could be increased to 30 m in order to further protect these features from overland runoff.

B.7 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

B.7.1 LESSEE FARM PRODUCER ENGAGEMENT

WSP contacted the past farm producer, Herb Hart to discuss his approach to agricultural production over the past five years at this Site. The farm producer’s crop rotation included wheat, corn and then two years of beans followed by wheat. Based on Mr. Hart’s experience the land produced an average crop with annual inputs of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. In year one the producer applied lime at a rate of 1 ton per acre to make calcium available to the crop, however without longer term contracts this was limiting in economic return. Mr. Hart reported that the land base did not demonstrate any salinity concerns and that the land was suitable for annual crop production.

From the perspective of an agricultural producer, Mr. Hart provided the following observations:

— The Site be mechanically tilled to prepare the soil for planting and if timing was suitable, apply a pre-burn broadleaf pesticide.

— Annual crop rotation should be based on a five year-rotation; if leased to a local producer then this producer should have first option to continue production following the end of the lease.

— The land base may require a land application of lime to return calcium and potassium to the soil along with annual nutrient inputs to build a nutrient reserve.




B.7.2 COMMUNITY GARDENS

At the time of the site visit, two community gardens were observed within the vicinity of the croplands.

— One community garden is located south of the institution and west of the CRCA Lands. This garden was accessed and maintained by occupants of the institution.

— A public community garden was observed to be located just east of the Royal Kingston Curling Club and the Centre 70 Arena bordering the croplands on the southwest portion of the Site.

B.8 INTEGRATED CROP PRACTICES

Crop production is annual in schedule but it is dynamic and multilayered in operational logistics. The discussion in this chapter is to outline a cropping practice approach for the Site. The approach will outline the basic concepts to be considered for nutrient stewardship, crop rotations, and integrated pest management.

B.8.1 NUTRIENT STEWARDSHIP

In order to produce a viable crop, plants require nutrient inputs. These nutrients are provided in part by the natural soil resource, but also through the addition of fertilizer inputs, either as inorganic chemical fertilizers or as organic amendments (manures). If insufficient fertilizers are provided, then crop yield can be lower than anticipated, however, should fertilizer amendment be in excess of crop needs, or application methods are improper, environmental impacts may occur in non-target areas. Nutrient stewardship provides a plan for managing fertilizers and focuses on crop production with the aim of optimizing crop yield and quality, minimizing fertilizer input costs and protection of the environment (soil and water). Essentially, nutrient stewardship aims to apply the right fertilizer source, at the right rate, at the right time and right place (Fertilizer Canada, 2017).

The right fertilizer source is to ensure a balanced supply of the essential macro-nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and sulfur) accounting for both natural available sources and the characteristics of specific products available on the market, for example the use of a controlled-release product like polymer-coated urea.

The right fertilizer rate is based on the mass balance between nutrients in the soil and specific crop requirements to achieve target crop yield and desired quality. One key to selecting the right fertilizer rate is to determine the supply of soil nutrients by soil testing; soil testing should be based on key landscape features (knolls or ridges, mid-slope and toe areas). Benchmark soil sampling should be completed of key locations/features as part of an annual sampling program. Soil testing should be completed for key nutrients, other chemical features such as pH, E.C, organic matter and samples should be collected from within the crop rooting zone (0-0.15 m and 0.15 to 0.6m).

Fertilizer application should be based on the right time for optimum crop uptake, supply, and risk of loss and operation logistics. For example, macro-nutrients should be metered-out between the spring planting season and mid-season application. This approach can be based on in-field crop monitoring and testing and it works well for nitrogen fertilizers and limiting environmental impacts.

Placing the fertilizer in the right place is also significant in that it addresses rooting dynamics of specific seed germination patterns, seed spacing variability, available technology and logistics all in an effort to maximize crop needs and limit potential losses due to impacts on seedlings. Some crops are more susceptible to injury from in-furrow (row) fertilizer application. In general seedling sensitivity to fertilizer is soybeans>sorghum>corn>small grains (most to least).

Establishing proper nutrient stewardship is based on comprehensive soil testing and annual monitoring, establishment of a soil sampling protocol and nutrient balance based on a long-term management strategy.

B.8.2 CROP ROTATIONS

Varied crop production at the Site provides risk management for a number of farm production parameters including economics, fertility, soil health, insect and disease management, and weed control approaches. Crop diversity also diversifies operations and widens the window of operation for seeding and harvest. Selection of the crop rotation can be implemented to achieve objectives such as crop residue management, increasing soil moisture, improvement of soil organic matter, reduction in nutrient inputs, avoidance of creating herbicide resistant weeds and achievement of an integrated pest management program. Approaches to crop


WSPNovember 2017

Page 13

rotations should consider continuous cropping and the inclusion of fall-seeded crops, forages and green manures to a crop rotation management plan.

Continuous cropping is the annual production of a crop with no fallow year between production years. It has been demonstrated that fallow years (years were no crop production occurs but includes weed control measures) decreases soil organic matter and exposes the land to increased soil erosion risk. Crop rotation and continuous cropping has also been demonstrated to provide synergistic effects for future crops, for example it is often observed that wheat grown in rotation with oilseeds, like canola, and pulses obtain a yield bump. Avoid planting the site with a crop two years back to back as residual disease and pests may more heavily impact the crop in the second year. Continuous cropping can also comprise a crop rotation that includes short season varieties and long season crops or varieties, this will allow for a fall-seeded crop to be included in the rotation. Fall-seeded crops provide erosion control and diversify pesticide management approaches.

Perennial forages in a long-term rotation help build soil health through the return of soil organic matter, reduce soil and wind erosion risks, and reduce pest impacts. Forages can be strategically located in areas that are perceived to be more vulnerable to tillage activites or act as an aesthetically pleasing buffer for public perception concerns. Green manure crops are short-term crops planted to directly improve soil tilth and add organic matter and nutrients back to the soil. A green manure crop includes annual legumes and clover as they are able to fix nitrogen through Rhizobium bacteria association.

At this stage of the agricultural management plan for the Site, a specific crop rotation is premature and will not provide the operators with best opportunities for production. Rather the approach could be to provide approaches for operators to consider when establishing their nutrient stewardship and integrated pest management approaches. However, it is recommended to have a continuous cropping system that is established for the long-term. Crop rotations can be between cereals, oil seeds, soybean, and corn with the inclusion of a fall-seeded crop and a forage and green manure crop stand over time.

B.8.3 INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT

Achieving Pesticide Directive Chapter 2-15 an integrated pest management (IPM) approach involves using a combination of control methods (cultural, biological, mechanical and chemical) to control crop pests including plants (weeds), insects and diseases. An IPM program considers the overall management of a pest species, not just the control measures used during outbreaks of the pest (OMAFRA, 2017 and AAF, 2017). Advantages of an IPM program include:

— Reduced number of pesticide applications, resulting in efficient use of inputs (pesticides, fuel, water, soil compaction and time);

— Less potential exposure impacts on soil, water and non-target species of fish, wildlife and non-target insects; and

— Potential fewer emerging problems due to development of resilience in the pest complex.

IPM programs do however have challenges, specifically they require the cooperating farm producer and land manager to have a greater understanding of, and long-term commitment for the land base. For example for some crops, IPM principals require a complete, long-term focus to make economic sense as they may need to incorporate extra costs including the addition of monitoring equipment, laboratory analysis and field scouting by advising agronomists. IPMs are also field/site specific and are not easily transferred from one site to another.

There are four basic steps to IPM:

1 Apply pest control methods that focus on prevention and outbreak that are species specific; 2 Field scout for pests that are both beneficial and detrimental to crops and base control on economic thresholds before

implementing control measures; 3 Select and apply control options when thresholds indicate economic benefit and monitor effective application, and 4 Document control methods and results.

An IPM does have applicability to this Site due to the number of environmental sensitivities surrounding the land, however, it will require working with cooperating farm producer(s) to be successful. Each of the IMP control methods have slight variations from traditional application, basic examples for each method are outlined below.

CULTURAL CONTROL:

— Manage for a vigorous, health crop stand; — Choose pest resistant varieties; — Use crop rotation to reduce or eliminate the conditions that self-propagate infection;




— Plant strips of different crops around sensitive or main crops to trap pest species; — Purchase clean, treated seed; and — Physically remove host species.

BIOLOGICAL CONTROL:

— Use an introduced agent (e.g. fungicide) to control pests; — Use genetically modified crops to control or provide resistance to pests; and — Monitor soil organic matter content and amend as required to ensure a healthy soil.

MECHANICAL CONTROL:

— Cleaning all tillage, seeding and harvesting equipment between fields; — Mowing, tilling, grazing and hand pulling weed species; and — Silage weedy fields to stop weeds from going to seed.

CHEMICAL CONTROL:

— Select and apply pesticides according to label instructions to minimize harmful effects on non-target species; and — Rotate chemical categories, limit repeated applications that may develop resilience within pest species.

B.9 CONTRACT AGRICULTURAL OBJECTIVE RESPONSES

As per CEAA, 2012, the CSC is required to assess options regarding pesticide use and to determine whether a project is likely to cause any significant adverse environmental effects. WSP’s recommendations to each objective are outlined below:

— Determine acceptable weed control methods to address the current and anticipate presence of noxious weeds;

— The cropland area was observed by WSP to be over-grown in a variety of weed species with substantial vegetative growth. In consideration of the time of year (late fall), the most reasonable approach to clearing this vegetation growth is to complete a mechanical removal either through mowing or heavy tillage. This approach will prepare the land base for spring planting and permit removal of vegetation at an appropriate time of the year (outside of the breeding bird and SAR calendar limitations). Application of pesticides is not suitable after the plants begin to senescence for the season. There are limited options or methods to be applied after the weed species are mature plants in full growth.

— Determine the feasibility of planting any type of crop this year;

— With the establishment of a good seedbed early in the 2018 spring season, it is reasonable to initiate the crop rotation with a cereal such as Red Spring Wheat; the seed can be easily obtained, requires moderate nutrient inputs and allows for practical and integrated mechanical, cultural and chemical control approaches to weed management at the site. These components will allow for the establishment of a program that is productive and sustainable for the land base.

— Nutrient requirements for establishing the 2018 crop should be based on a soil sampling program, however based on a Red Spring Wheat target yield of 70bu/ac, the target nitrogen requirements for plant uptake and removal are between 125 – 145 lbs/ac and for phosphorus between 30 and 35 lb/ac. However, actual application rates should be based on soil test recommendations and specific variety of cereal crop planted.

— Perform an environmental effects evaluation of three to four weed control methods as well as planting activities;

— An environmental effects evaluation is provided in Section D of this report for the removal of the current weed vegetation, IPM Cultural Control, Biological Control, Mechanical Control and Chemical Control. The environmental effects evaluation also includes mechanical tillage for seed bed preparation, soil ammendments (fertilizers), seeding of spring and fall annual crops and harvest of annual crops. Environmental mitigation measures for identified physical work of agricultural production operorators cross reference table is included in Appendix B.

— Perform a Species-at-Risk survey to commensurate with weed control and planting activities; and

— A Species at Risk Memo (Appendix A) was prepared as a desktop excersice to evaluate the requirement for an in-field survey. As weed clearing on the crop land is to be completed outside fo the restricted window of time for the identified SAR subject (Monarch Butterfly) weed control can occur with out constraints.

— Provide recommendations for weed management including beneficial crop planting to also address potential for erosion for a period of minimally three years.


WSPNovember 2017

Page 15

— It is recommended to have a continuous cropping system that is established for the long-term. For the next three years a crop rotations can be between cereals, oil seeds, soybeans and corn. This would be dependent on specifics of contractor logistics.




C. COMMUNICATIONS

C.1 CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC CONCERN

Public consultation was deemed unnecessary for this evaluation.

C.2 EXPERT CONSULTATION

Information regarding past practices from agricultural production of the lands which was obtained by interview with the previous farm contractor. Information regarding soil quality, drainage, and production yields were incorporated into the environmental effects evaluation and documented in Section B.6.1.

The Peterborough Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) were contacted to determine if any additional SAR have the potential to be present on or adjacent to the Site (with follow-up request, a response has not been received at the time of publication of this report).


WSPNovember 2017

Page 17

D. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS EVALUATION

D.1 MATRIX OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL INTERACTIONS

Table D.1 Environnent/Project Interactions Matrix

PROJECT

PHASE/

PHYSICAL

WORK/ ACTIVITY

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

PHYSYCAL BIOLOGICAL SOCIAL

Air

Qu

ali

ty/N

ois

e/

Vib

rati

on

So

il Q

ua

lity

Su

rfa

ce

Wa

ter

Qu

ali

ty/D

rain

ag

e

Gro

un

dw

ate

r Q

ua

lity

Te

rra

in/

To

po

gra

ph

y

Ge

olo

gy/

Ge

op

hysi

cs

Ag

ric

ult

ure

/ V

eg

eta

tio

n

Bir

ds

(Ha

bit

at,

M

igra

tory

C

orr

ido

rs/

Bu

ffe

r Z

on

es)

Sp

ec

ies

at

Ris

k*

Wil

dli

fe/

Wil

dli

fe

Ha

bit

at

(Te

rre

stri

al)

Wil

dli

fe/W

ild

life

H

ab

ita

t (A

qu

ati

c)

Arc

ha

eo

log

y

Ab

ori

gin

al

Inte

rest

s

Removal of

current

vegetation

P - P - - - P P P - - - -

IPM Cultural

Control

- - - - - - P - - - - - -

IPM Biological

Control

- P P - - - P - - - - - -

IPM Mechanical

Control

P - P - - - P P - - - - -

IPM Chemical

Control

P P P P - - P P - P P - -

Soil testing - - - - - - P - - - - - -

Mechanical

tillage for

seedbed

preparation

P P P - P - P P - P - - -

Soil fertilizer

amendments

P P P P - P P - - - - - -

Seeding of

annual crop

P P P P P - P P - - P - -

Harvest of

annual crop

P P P - - - P P - - - - -

P = Potential Effect of Project on Environment ‘-‘ = No Interaction ‘*’ = SAR when activities occur outside of constraints windows.




E. MITIGATION MEASURES

E.1 ESTABLISHED AND EFFECTIVE MITIGATION MEASURES

Table E.1 Potential Environmental Effects of Project on Environment, Potential Environmental Interactions and

Applicable Mitigation Measures for Valued Ecosystem Components

VALUED ECOSYSTEM COMPONENT – AIR QUALITY/NOISE/VIBRATION

Potential Effect – Decreaed Air Quality and Noise Pollution

Potential Environmental Interactions

— Disturbance of vegetation may release pollen and dust into atmosphere

— Potential for pesticides (sprays) to become airborne and impact local residents

— Operation of machinery may result in noise pollution

Mitigation Measures

— Tilling must be completed to limit the potential for soil erosion by minimizing tillage operations (e.g. minimum tillage, zero tillage or one pass tillage). Tillage should be completed perpendicular to hill slope where practical.

— Work should be conducted to avoid extremely windy periods.

— Pesticide application must comply with all regulatory requirements including application by licenced operators and as per pesticide label.

— Machinery should only be operated during business hours to minimize impacts on neighbouring properties.

— Machinery must be checked for leakage of lubricants and fuel and must be maintained in good working order.

MAGNITUDE

Small

REVERSIBILITY

No

GEOGRAPHIC EXTENT

Immediate and surrounding

DURATION

Short term

FREQUENCY

Once

RESIDUAL EFFECT

Insignificant

MONITORING

None

COMMENTS: Scheduling the work to avoid windy periods will mitigate these potential impacts. Noise and vibration pollution are not expected to cause concerns due to the distance of residential areas.


WSPNovember 2017

Page 19

VALUED ECOSYSTEM COMPONENT – SOIL QUALITY

Potential Effect – Erosion and/or Soil Contamination

Potential Interactions

— Disturbance of soil from heavy equipment

— Soil erosion

— Soil contamination from spills and leaks (e.g. fuels, lubricants, pesticides, fertilizers)

Mitigation Measures


— No burning of crop residue.

— Machinery must be inspected for fluid leaks and must be maintained in good working order.


— Ensure a Spills Management Plan (including materials, instructions regarding their use, education of contract personnel, emergency contact numbers) is on-site at all times for implementation in the event of an accidental spill during operations. All measures and procedures should conform to pertinent provincial requirements.

— Existing naturally vegetated buffers between the cropland areas and wetlands and aquatic features within the adjacent natural features will provide controls with respect to the transport of sediments, nutrients, contaminants, and increased turbidity. Where possible a 30 m vegetated buffer zone should be maintained to further protect sensitive landscape features (e.g. wetlands and aquatic systems).

MAGNITUDE

Small

REVERSIBILITY

Reversible/non reversible (soil erosion)

GEOGRAPHIC EXTENT

Immediate

DURATION

Short term

FREQUENCY

Once

RESIDUAL

EFFECT

Insignificant

MONITORING

None

COMMENTS: Adequate measures should be taken to prevent and/or capture and contain all debris and spills resulting from farming activities. During farming operations sufficient containment should be maintained on-site to collect spilled fluids and control and store waste and debris.




VALUED ECOSYSTEM COMPONENT – SURFACE WATER QUALITY AND DRAINAGE

Potential Effect – Surface Water Contamination


— Contamination of surface water due to spills and surface run-off (e.g. fuel, lubricants, pesticides and fertilizers)

— Erosion of soil

Mitigation Measures

— Machinery must be checked for leakage of lubricants and fuel and must be in good working order.


— Work must be scheduled to avoid periods of heavy precipitation.



— Implement a nutrient management plan that aims to optimize nutrient stewardship principals including the application of fertilizer as the right source, at the right rate, at the right time and right place.

MAGNITUDE

Small

REVERSIBILITY

Reversible

GEOGRAPHIC EXTENT

Immediate

DURATION

Short term

FREQUENCY

Once

RESIDUAL

EFFECT

Minimal

MONITORING

None

COMMENTS: Implementation of mitigation measures minimizes the potential impact to surface water quality from surface water runoff and soil erosion. A buffer setback of 30 m will further help to protect local surface water quality.


WSPNovember 2017

Page 21

VALUED ECOSYSTEM COMPONENT – GROUNDWATER QUALITY

Potential Effect – Groundwater Contamination


— Contamination of groundwater due to spills and leaks (e.g. fuel, lubricants, pesticides and fertilizers)

— Leaching of chemical fertilizer nutrient – nitrogen

— Leaching of pest control chemicals

Mitigation Measures

— Machinery must be checked for leakage of lubricants and fuel and must be in good working order.


— Application events must be scheduled to avoid periods of heavy precipitation.


— Complete annual soil nutrient analysis for nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and sulfur and other soil chemistries (E.C., pH and soil orgainc matter). Apply ammendments based on soil test results and in a manner that is compliant with other mitigation measures.


MAGNITUDE

Small

REVERSIBILITY

Limited

GEOGRAPHIC EXTENT

Immediate

DURATION

Long term

FREQUENCY

Annually

RESIDUAL

EFFECT

Minimal

MONITORING

Soil testing

COMMENTS: Implementing the outlined mitigation measures minimizes the potential for groundwater impacts. Monitoring of soil nutrient profile will provide an indicator to the risk of nutrient loss due to leaching.




VALUED ECOSYSTEM COMPONENT – TERRAIN / TOPOGRAPHY

Potential Effect – Erosion / Sedimentation


— The potential for water and wind ersoion of soil due to mechanical tillage and crop establishement.

— Sediment loading of drainage pathways.

Mitigation Measures


— Utilize a continous crop rotation program that includes fall-seeded crops where appropriate.



MAGNITUDE

Small

REVERSIBILITY

Reversible

GEOGRAPHIC EXTENT

Immediate

DURATION

Short term

FREQUENCY

Annually

RESIDUAL

EFFECT

Minimal

MONITORING

Observation

COMMENTS: Implementing mitigation measures to control erosion of bare soil either by water or wind doubles as protection against sediment loading in drainage pathways.


WSPNovember 2017

Page 23

VALUED ECOSYSTEM COMPONENT – GEOLOGICAL / GEOPHYSICAL

Potential Effect – Salinization/Alteration of Soil Geochemistry


— Chemical fertilizer ammendments are salts, addition of salt to the soil profile can change the chemical matricies of the soil profile, especially in areas vulnerable to hydrogeological influences.

— Soil chemistry (pH) becomes acidic overtime due to the chemical process in the soil profile due to intensive cropping and additions of chemical fertilziers. Soil ammendments such as adding lime improve these conditions.

Mitigation Measures



— Machinery must be inspected for fluid leaks and must be maintained in good working order.



— Complete annual soil nutrient analysis for nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and sulfur and other soil chemistries (E.C., pH and soil orgainc matter). Apply ammendments based on soil test results and in a manner that is compliant with other mitigation measures.

MAGNITUDE

Small

REVERSIBILITY

Reversible

GEOGRAPHIC EXTENT

Immediate

DURATION

Short term

FREQUENCY

Annually

RESIDUAL

EFFECT

Insignificant

MONITORING

Observations/Soil Sampling

COMMENTS: Monitoring of soil profile will provide an indicator to the risk of salinization developing and changes to the geochemistry of the soil profile.




VALUED ECOSYSTEM COMPONENT – AGRICULTURE/ VEGETATION

Potential Effect – Establishment of Weed Infestation and Seed Bank


— Not maintaining the cropland in a means that controls weed infestation and growth.

— Transferance of weed species including noxious weeds on equipment from off-site.

— Loss of crop yield and quality.

— Development of chemically resistant weed species or establishment of weed species natually tolerant to select herbicides.

— Biosecurity concerns for adjacent lands.

Mitigation Measures

— Implementation of a crop management plan that includes continuous cropping, sustainable crop rotation, nutrient stewardship and a IPM.


— Clean farm equipment before entering field and when preparing to depart.

— Proper timing and method of pesticide control within the cropping system. Pesticide application must comply with all regulatory requirements including application by licenced operators and as per pesticide label.



— In order to ensure Monarch Butterfly individuals are not impacted, weed and/or naturalized vegetation clearing within the croplands should take place prior to spring arrival (May). No weed or naturalized vegetation clearing should take place between May 1 and September 30.

MAGNITUDE

Small

REVERSIBILITY

Reversible

GEOGRAPHIC EXTENT

Immediate

DURATION

Extended term

FREQUENCY

Annual Management

RESIDUAL

EFFECT

Insignificant

MONITORING

Annually required

COMMENTS: Decreased cropping potential due to lack of management leads to a weed infestation. Implementation of mitigation measures that are applied to ensure proper cropping and agronomic management of the VEC will provide sustainability to the agro-environmental system.


WSPNovember 2017

Page 25

VALUED ECOSYSTEM COMPONENT – BIRDS (HABITAT, MIGRATORY CORRIDORS/ BUFFER ZONES)

Potential Effect – Disrupting Nesting and/or Habitat on Cropland


— Disturbance and/or distruction of active bird nests and habitat.

— Disturbance of resting grounds for migratory birds.

Mitigation Measures


— To avoid contravention of the Migratory Birds Convention Act (1994) and the Endangered Species Act (2007), vegetation removal (including mowing and tillage) should not occur during breeding bird season (April 1st to August 31st), unless a survey by a qualified avian specialist (biologist) confirms that there are no active nests within the vegetation to be removed.




— Wildlife encountered on the Site should remain undisturbed and be allowed to leave on their own. Photos for identification should be taken of animals observed on-site, if possible.

MAGNITUDE

Small

REVERSIBILITY

Reversible

GEOGRAPHIC EXTENT

Immediate

DURATION

Short term

FREQUENCY

Once

RESIDUAL EFFECT

Insignificant

MONITORING

None

COMMENTS: Implementation of mitigation measures will minimize these potential impacts. This VEC is applied only to the direct cropland itself.




VALUED ECOSYSTEM COMPONENT – SPECIES AT RISK

Potential Effect – Disruption of Species at Risk and/or Species at Risk Habitat


— Disturbance of species at risk.

— Disturbance of vegetation and/habitat where species at risk may occupy.

Mitigation Measures



— In order to ensure Monarch Butterfly individuals are not impacted, vegetation clearing within the croplands should take place prior to spring arrival (May). No vegetation clearing should take place between May 1 and September 30.

— If Threatened or Endangered species are discovered during weed vegetation clearing on the croplands outside of applied calendar restrictions period, operations will stop, or be modified to avoid negative impacts to Species at Risk until further direction is provided by the OMNRF.

— Wildlife encountered on the Site should remain undisturbed and be allowed to leave on their own. Photos for identification should be taken of animals observed onsite, if possible.

MAGNITUDE

Small

REVERSIBILITY

Reversible

GEOGRAPHIC EXTENT

Immediate

DURATION

Short term

FREQUENCY

Once

RESIDUAL

EFFECT

Insignificant

MONITORING

None

COMMENTS: Based on the habitat characteristics present within the cropland areas, there is moderate potential for three (3) SAR: Bobolink, Eastern Meadowlark, and Monarch Butterfly. Implementation of mitigation measures will minimize potential impacts on these identified species and others.


WSPNovember 2017

Page 27

VALUED ECOSYSTEM COMPONENT – WILDLIFE/ WILDLIFE HABITAT (TERRESTRIAL)

Potential Effect – Disruption of Non Species at Risk Wildlife Species and/or Habitat


— Disturbance of wildlife

Mitigation Measures




MAGNITUDE

Small

REVERSIBILITY

Reversible

GEOGRAPHIC EXTENT

Immediate

DURATION

Short term

FREQUENCY

Once

RESIDUAL

EFFECT

Insignificant

MONITORING

None

COMMENTS: Implementation of mitigation measures will minimize potential impacts on wildlife species and surronding wildlife habitat.




VALUED ECOSYSTEM COMPONENT – WILDLIFE/WILDLIFE HABITAT (AQUATIC)

Potential Effect – Disruption of Species and/or Species Habitat


— Disturbance of aquatic species contamination of aquatic habitat

Mitigation Measures





MAGNITUDE

Small

REVERSIBILITY

Reversible

GEOGRAPHIC EXTENT

Immediate

DURATION

Short term

FREQUENCY

Once

RESIDUAL

EFFECT

Insignificant

MONITORING

None

COMMENTS: Implementation of mitigation measures will minimize potential impacts on aquatic wildlife species and surronding aquatic habitat.


WSPNovember 2017

Page 29

F. DETERMINATION

The Project Authority is required to provide a determination of the significance of environmental effects as a result of this project. The decision outlined below is based on the interpretation of environmental effects and mitigation measures described in Section E of this report.

Project Name Cropland Assessment and Environmental Effects Evaluation Report

Location Collins Bay Institution, 1455 Bath Road, Kingston, Ontario

Project No. 171-11942-00-ENV

The Project Authority has evaluated the project for significant adverse environmental effects as required under Section 67 of Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA), 2012. On the basis of this evaluation, the department has determined that the decision opposite “X” applies to the proposed project.

___ Project not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects – proceed.

_X_ Project not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects with implementation of mitigation measures – proceed using mitigation measures as provided.

___ Inadequate information available – further study and assessment is required.

___ Project likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects that cannot be justified in the circumstances – project will not proceed.

___ Project likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects that may be justified in the circumstances – refer to the Governor in Council for decision.




G. SIGNATURES

PREPARED BY WSP

Annette Blazeiko, Technical Staff

REVIEWED BY WSP CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA

Name

Darren Keam, Project Manager Signature

This report was prepared by WSP for the account of CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA, in accordance with the professional services agreement. The disclosure of any information contained in this report is the sole responsibility of the intended recipient. The material in it reflects WSP’s best judgement in light of the information available to it at the time of preparation. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. WSP accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report. This limitations statement is considered part of this report.

The original of the technology-based document sent herewith has been authenticated and will be retained by WSP for a minimum of ten years. Since the file transmitted is now out of WSP’s control and its integrity can no longer be ensured, no guarantee may be given with regards to any modifications made to this document.


WSPNovember 2017

Page 31

REFERENCES

— Alberta Agricultural and Forestry, Beneficial Management Practices: Environmental Manual for Crop Producers in Alberta – Pest Management and Pesticides. http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex9350 (accessed: October 27, 2017).

— AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Phase Two Environmental Site Assessment, Collins Bay Institution, Correctional Service Canada, March 2012

— Bird Studies Canada et al., Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas, 2006

— CH2MHill, Environmental Assessment Screening: Collins Bay Institution Storm Sewer and Sanitary Sewer Upgrades, 2012

— Crins, Paul A. Gray, Peter W.C. Uhlig, and Monique C. Wester 2009; Science & Information Branch Inventory, Monitoring and Assessment Section Ministry of Natural Resources Technical Report SIB TER IMA TR-01 The Ecosystems of Ontario, Part 1: Ecozones and Ecoregions By William J. Species at Risk Memo

— Golder Associates Limited, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, CORCAN Agribusiness Operations, Frontenac Correctional Institution, Correctional Service Canada, March 2010

— Kingston Field Naturalists, Report on Little Cataraqui Creek Wetland, West Side, 2004

— LGL, Species at Risk Screening was completed for the Collins Bay and Frontenac Institutions, 2012

— Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, AgMaps (https://www.gisapplication.lrc.gov.on.ca/AIA/) Accessed: October 10, 2017.

— Ontario Department of Agriculture, Soil Survey of Frontenac County, Report No. 39 of the Ontario Soil Survey, Research Branch, Canada Department of Agriculture and the Ontario Agricultural College, University of Guelph, 1966.

— Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Natural Heritage Information Centre Database, 2015

— Ontario Nature, Ontario Reptile and Amphibian Atlas, 2017

— Ontario, Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Integrated Pest Management, http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/insects/ipm.html (accessed: October 27, 2017)

— Public Works and Government Services Canada, Environmental Services, Environmental Effects Evaluation Report, Collins Bay Institution, June 2014

— TCO Agromart Ltd., Soil Test Report, A&L Canada Laboratories; May 5, 2017.

— WESA, BluMetric Environmental Inc, FInal Environmental Effects Evaluation and Species at Risk Evaluation, Collins Bay Institution, Correctional Service Canada, September 2014

APPENDIX

A SPECIES AT RISK

MEMO

Units C and D

561 Bryne Drive

Barrie, ON, Canada L4N 9Y3

Tel.: T T +1 705 735-9771

wsp.com

November 29, 2017

John Oddie Correctional Services Canada 340 Laurier Avenue West Ottawa, ON K1A 0P9

Subject: Species at Risk Screening Memo Collins Bay Institution Cropland Weed Control and Land Management

Environmental Effects Evaluation Project No. 171-11942-00

Dear Mr. Oddie:

WSP Canada Inc. (WSP) was retained by Correctional Services Canada to conduct an Environmental Effects Evaluation for the lands surrounding the Collins Bay Institution, City of Kingston, Ontario. As part of this assignment, a Species at Risk (SAR) Screening is required. To meet the objectives of the project we have broken our reporting into potential for SAR within the agricultural fields on the Site, and potential for SAR on the Site and surrounding areas as a whole.

WSP is pleased to provide the following memo to summarize the ecological work completed as part of the Environmental Effects Evaluation and Species at Risk Evaluation for the Collins Bay Institution agricultural fields.

1 SITE INFORMATION

1.1 SITE DESCRIPTION

The Site is described as the lands associated with the Collins Bay Institution, located at 1455 Bath Road, Kingston, Ontario, and includes the open agricultural fields to the east, west, and south of the Institution, henceforth the ‘Site’. The Site is bounded to the north by Bath Road, to the west by Days Road, to the south by Front Road, and to the east by the Little Cataraqui Creek Complex Significant Wetland and Little Cataraqui Marsh. Refer to Figure 1 for Site Location and boundary details. A further description and mapping of the Site is located within the Environmental Effects Evaluation (WSP, 2017) report.

Much of the Site has been altered from its original state, with the field areas having been used for agricultural purposes since 1812, with the current facility land use since 1930. As such, the

majority of the Site includes manicured lawns and planted ornamental trees. Naturally vegetated areas are restricted to the communities associated with the Little Cataraqui Creek Complex Significant Wetland and Little Cataraqui Marsh that border the Site to the East, and a wetland rehabilitation project completed by Ducks Unlimited Canada in the northwest portion of the Site. An overview of the existing cropland areas, mapped wetlands and watercourses and a 30 m setback from these features is provided in Figure 1.

The open field areas on the Site have historically been farmed, though were not planted during the 2017 summer season. Vegetation within the field has grown within the 2017 season to include a mixture of grasses and forbs typically found in early succession field habitats. As the Environmental Effects Evaluation looks to determine the best course of action in order to continue actively farming these field sections, our Species at Risk Screening has identified the potential for SAR within the agricultural fields on the Site, then within the Site and surrounding areas.

2 SITE INVESTIGATION

2.1 SITE VISIT

A site visit was conducted on September 11, 2017. The purposes of the site visit was to confirm the presence of Natural Heritage Features and their boundaries, complete a brief vegetation assessment, and determine the general characteristics of the agricultural fields and surrounding area as suitable SAR habitat. Site visit details are provided in Table 1, below.

Table 1 Site Visit Details

DATE TIME/DURATION WEATHER CONDITIONS SURVEYS

September

11, 2017

9:00 AM to 3:00

PM

Clear skies, ± 15 °C, light breeze,

no precipitation

General Site Inventory

3 BACKGROUND REVIEW

As part of a desktop review, a search of the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) database (OMNRF, 2015) was conducted to determine the existence and approximate location of recorded occurrences of Species at Risk (SAR) and Natural Areas within the vicinity of the Site. Six (6) one square kilometer (1 km2) quadrats (18UP74_97, 98, 99, 18UP75_97, 98, 99, and 18UP_97, 98, 99) surrounding the Site were checked to ensure potential Species at Risk were considered. Three Endangered Species were noted as have occurrences within the search area, including Northern Bobwhite (Colinus virginianus), King Rail (Rallus elegans), and Henslow’s Sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii). In addition, two Threatened species were noted as have

occurrences, and included Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), and Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens pop 3).

In addition to a search of the NHIC database, the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas (OBBA) (Bird Studies Canada et al., 2006) and Ontario Reptile and Amphibian Atlas (Ontario Nature, 2017) were consulted to determine if there were SAR known to be present within the vicinity of the Site. The OBBA uses 100 km by 100 km blocks, further subdivided into 10 km by 10 km squares to compartmentalize geographical areas. The potential sites all lie within the square 17LP20. Breeding evidence values for Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica), Black Tern (Childonias niger), Chimney Swift (Chaetura pelagica), Bobolink, Least Bittern (Ixobrychus exilis), and Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna) were observed within the general area in the first and second atlas. The Ontario Reptile and Amphibian Atlas yielded occurrences for one Threatened species, the Blanding’s Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii), and one Special Concern species, the Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina). The Peterborough Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) were contacted to determine if any additional SAR have the potential to be present on or adjacent to the Site, though a response has not been received at the time of publication.

A Species at Risk Screening was completed for the Collins Bay and Frontenac Institutions in 2012 (LGL, 2012) as part of the Environmental Assessment Screening: Collins Bay Institution Storm Sewer and Sanitary Sewer Upgrades (CH2MHILL, 2012). In addition to the species noted within our searches, they identified potential for Gray Fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica cerulean), Canada Warbler (Wilsonia canadensis), Golden-winged Warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera), Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrines), Barn Owl (Tyto alba), Yellow-breasted Chat (Icteria virens), Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), Red-headed Woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus), Common Nighthawk (Chordeiles minor), Whip-poor-will (Antrostomus vociferus), Black Tern (Chlidonias niger), Western Chorus Frog (Pseudacris triseriata), Gray Ratsnake (Pantherophis spiloides), Five-lined Skink (Plestiodon fasciatus), Eastern Musk Turtle (Sternotherus odoratus), Northern Map Turtle (Graptemys geographica), Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus), American Ginseng (Panax quinquefolius), Butternut (Juglans cinerea), and Eastern Flowering Dogwood (Cornus florida).

An assessment of the habitat potential for the above-mentioned SAR within the crop area and in and within 120 m of the Site is provided in Table 2, below. Special consideration was given to these species and their habitats during the site investigation.

Table 2 Species at Risk Habitat Potential Assessment

SPECIES SARO1 COSEWIC2

HABITAT

DESCRIPTION3

HABITAT

POTENTIAL

WITHIN CROP

AREA

HABITAT

POTENTIAL

WITHIN 120

M OF SITE

FIELD

OBSERVATIONS

Barn

Swallow

THR THR The species often lives

in close association

with humans, building

their cup-shaped mud

nests almost

exclusively on human-

made structures such

as open barns, under

bridges and in

culverts. This species

forages over a wide

area.

Low Moderate Suitable habitat was

present on and

surrounding the site

as existing building

structures. No

structure removal is

anticipated in order

to farm the existing

agricultural fields.

Canada

Warbler

SC THR The species is found in

a variety of forest

types, but is most

abundant in wet,

mixed deciduous-

coniferous forests with

a well-developed

shrub layer. Also found

in riparian shrub

forests.

Low Moderate Potential habitat can

be found in the

forested areas to the

south. It is

recommended to

avoid vegetation

clearing during

breeding bird

window.

Chimney

Swift

THR THR The species feeds in

flocks around

waterbodies due to

the large amount of

insects present.

Nesting occurs in

large, hollow trees or

in the chimneys of

houses in urban and

rural areas.

Low Moderate This species was not

observed. Suitable

habitat, such as the

presence of

uncapped chimneys,

was not noted within

the vicinity of the Site.

There could be

potential within 120m

of the Site.

Bobolink THR THR Generally prefers open grasslands and hay fields. In migration and in winter uses freshwater marshes and grasslands.

Moderate Moderate Suitable habitat is

present. While ideal

habitat was not

observed, the fallow

cropland has the

potential to be

habitat for this

species. Further, open

grasslands were

found within 120m of

the Site.


HABITAT

DESCRIPTION3

HABITAT

POTENTIAL

WITHIN CROP

AREA

HABITAT

POTENTIAL

WITHIN 120

M OF SITE

FIELD

OBSERVATIONS

Eastern

Whip-poor-

will

THR THR This species avoids

exposed, open areas

or closed-canopy

forests, and prefers

rock or sand barrens

with scattered trees,

savannahs, and open

conifer plantations.

Low Low Suitable habitat, such

as open patchy

woodland was not

found within 120 m of

the Site.

Least

Bittern

THR THR Generally located near

pools of open water in

relatively large

marshes and swamps

that are dominated by

cattail and other

robust emergent

plants.

Low Moderate Cropland areas are

not suitable for this

species. Suitable

habitat such as large

wetlands are present

within 120 m of the

Site.

Eastern

Meadowlark

THR THR Generally prefers

grassy pastures,

meadows and hay

fields. Nests are always

on the ground and

usually hidden in or

under grass clumps.

Moderate Moderate Suitable habitat is

present. While ideal

habitat was not

observed, the fallow

cropland has the

potential to be

habitat for this

species. Further, open

grasslands were


the Site.

Golden-

winged

Warbler

SC THR Golden-winged

Warblers are found in

shrubby areas

surrounded by

woodland, such as

utility right-of-ways,

field edges, and

logged areas.

Low Moderate Moderate habitat

potential can be


the Site.

Black Tern SC NAR Black Terns build

floating nest in loose

colonies in shallow

marshes.

Low Moderate Cropland areas are

not suitable for this

species. There are

wetlands with open

water within 120m of

the Site.


HABITAT

DESCRIPTION3

HABITAT

POTENTIAL

WITHIN CROP

AREA

HABITAT

POTENTIAL

WITHIN 120

M OF SITE

FIELD

OBSERVATIONS

Cerulean

Warbler

THR END Generally found in mature deciduous forests with an open understory; also nests in older, second-growth deciduous forests.

Low Low No mature deciduous

forest were found on

or within 120 m of the

Site.

Peregrine

Falcon

SC SC Generally nest on tall, steep cliff ledges adjacent to large waterbodies; some birds adapt to urban environments and nest on ledges of tall buildings, even in densely populated downtown areas.

Low Low Suitable habitat was

not found on Site or

within 120 m of Site.

Barn Owl END END Nests and roosts in barns and abandoned buildings, as well as natural cavities in trees or holes in cliff faces. Hunts over orchards, grasslands, farmlands, fallow fields and meadows.

Low Low Cropland areas have

some potential to be

suitable foraging

habitat for this

species. Suitable

habitat such as

abandoned barns

were not noted on or

within 120m of the

Site.

Henslow’s

Sparrow

END END Generally found in old fields, pastures and wet meadows. They prefer areas with dense, tall grasses, and thatch, or decaying plant material.

Low Low While potential

suitable habitat does

exist, the species

current known range

does not extend into

this area.

Common

Nighthawk

THR SC Generally prefer open, vegetation-free habitats, including dunes, beaches, recently harvested forests, burnt-over areas, logged areas, rocky outcrops, rocky barrens, grasslands, pastures, peat bogs, marshes, lakeshores, and river banks. This species also inhabits mixed and coniferous forests. Can also be found in urban areas (nest on flat roof-tops).

Low Moderate There is some

potential for Common

Nighthawk to nest

within 120 m of the

Site.


HABITAT

DESCRIPTION3

HABITAT

POTENTIAL

WITHIN CROP

AREA

HABITAT

POTENTIAL

WITHIN 120

M OF SITE

FIELD

OBSERVATIONS

Olive-sided

Flycatcher

SC THR The species lives in forest openings and edges, particularly where tall snags and dead trees can be used for foraging perches. Breeding habitat is frequently located along wooded riparian corridors or wetlands.

Low Low Suitable habitat, such

as the presence of

dead trees near the

edges of

wetland/riparian area,

was not identified.

King Rail END END Generally this species requires large marshes with open shallow water that merges with shrubby areas.

Low Moderate Potential habitat was

observed within

wetlands and Little

Cataraqui Creek.

Northern

Bobwhite

END END Generally inhabits a variety of edge and grassland type - habitats including non-intensively farmed agricultural lands.


not found on Site or

within 120 m of the

Site.

Blanding’s

Turtle

THR THR Generally occur in freshwater lakes, permanent or temporary pools, slow-flowing streams, marshes and swamps. They prefer shallow water that is rich in nutrients, organic soil and dense vegetation. Overwintering occurs in permanent pools that average about one metre in depth, or in slow-flowing streams.

Low Moderate Suitable habitat was

not found on the Site.

There is potential for

habitat to be found in

open water wetlands

within 120 m of the

Site.

Snapping

Turtle

SC SC Generally inhabit shallow waters where they can hide under the soft mud and leaf litter. Nesting sites usually occur on gravely or sandy areas along streams. Snapping Turtles often take advantage of man-made structures for nest sites, including roads (especially gravel shoulders), dams and aggregate pits.

Low Moderate Suitable habitat, such

as the wetland and

open water, is found

on and within 120 m

of the Site.


HABITAT

DESCRIPTION3

HABITAT

POTENTIAL

WITHIN CROP

AREA

HABITAT

POTENTIAL

WITHIN 120

M OF SITE

FIELD

OBSERVATIONS

Northern

Map Turtle

SC SC Generally inhabits both lakes and rivers, showing a preference for slow moving currents, muddy bottoms, and abundant aquatic vegetation. These turtles need suitable basking sites (such as rocks and logs) and exposure to the sun for at least part of the day.

Low Moderate Suitable habitat, such

as the wetland and

open water, is found

on and within 120 m

of the Site.

Western

Chorus Frog

NAR THR In marshes or wooded wetland areas it is found on the ground or in low shrubs, in close proximity to seasonally dry temporary ponds.

Low Moderate Potential suitable

habitat can be found

within wetlands and

ponds on the Site.

Gray

Ratsnake

THR THR Occurs in a variety of habitat types including along edges of deciduous forests, wetlands, lakes, rocky outcrops and agricultural fields.

Low Low There is limited

deciduous habitat

within the study area,

and no rocky outcrops

or mixed/deciduous

forests nearby.

Five-lined

Skink

(Southern

Shield

Population)

SC SC Can be found underneath rocks on open bedrock in deciduous or mixed forests.

Low Low There is limited

suitable habitat

present on and within

120 m of the Site.

Monarch SC END Exist primarily wherever milkweed and wildflowers exist; abandoned farmland, along roadsides, and other open spaces.

Moderate High This species has been

previously observed

on and surrounding

the Site. Suitable

habitat and host

species (Milkweed)

does exist on and

surrounding the Site.

Gray Fox THR THR Found in deciduous forests and marshes. Grey Fox dens are usually found in dense shrubs close to a water source but they will also use rocky areas, hollow trees, and underground burrows dug by other animals.

Low Low Habitat was not

present on or within

120 m of the Site.


HABITAT

DESCRIPTION3

HABITAT

POTENTIAL

WITHIN CROP

AREA

HABITAT

POTENTIAL

WITHIN 120

M OF SITE

FIELD

OBSERVATIONS

Little Brown

Myotis

END END During the summer,

this species roosts in

trees, abandoned

buildings, attics, and

barns close to water.

This species

overwinters in large

groups in warm, moist

caves or abandoned

mines.

Low Low Suitable

overwintering habitat

was not observed on

the Site. Candidate

maternity roost

habitat was not

identified on or within

120 m of the Site.

Northern

Myotis

END END This mainly solitary

species is most

commonly associated

with the boreal forest

where they roost in

tree cavities or under

loose bark. Over-

wintering occurs in

caves or abandoned

mines that remain

above freezing.

Low Low

Suitable


was not observed on

the potential sites.

Candidate maternity

roost habitat was not


120 m of the Site.

Tri-Colored

Bat

END END The Tri-Colored Bat is

found in a variety of

forested habitats. It

forms day roosts and

maternity colonies in

older forest and

occasionally in barns

or other structures.

They forage over water

and along streams in

the forest. Suitable

overwintering occurs

in caves

Low Low Suitable


was not observed on

the potential sites.

Candidate maternity

roost habitat was not


120 m of the Site.

American

Ginseng

END END Grows in rich, moist,

undisturbed and

relatively mature

deciduous woods in

areas of neutral soil

(such as over

limestone or marble

bedrock). Deep leaf

litter in rich, moist

deciduous woods,

especially on rocky,

shaded cool slopes in

sweet soil.


not found on or

within 120 m of the

Site.


HABITAT

DESCRIPTION3

HABITAT

POTENTIAL

WITHIN CROP

AREA

HABITAT

POTENTIAL

WITHIN 120

M OF SITE

FIELD

OBSERVATIONS

Butternut END END Grows best in rich,

moist, and well-

drained soils often

found along streams,

well-drained gravel

sites, especially those

made up of limestone

and seldom found on

dry, rocky and sterile

soils. Butternut is a

shale intolerant

species, which prefers

rich, moist and well-

drained soils, and is

often found along the

edges of streams and

rivers. It can grow

alone or in small

groups in deciduous

forests. Young

seedlings and saplings

can tolerate up to

60% crown closure.

Common associates

include basswood,

black cherry, beech,

black walnut, elm,

hickory, oak, red

maple, sugar maple,

white ash and yellow

birch.

Low Moderate Butternut was not

observed during the

field visit. Potential

habitat can be found

within 120 m of the

Site.


HABITAT

DESCRIPTION3

HABITAT

POTENTIAL

WITHIN CROP

AREA

HABITAT

POTENTIAL

WITHIN 120

M OF SITE

FIELD

OBSERVATIONS

Eastern

Flowering

Dogwood

END END In Ontario, commonly

grows as an

understory species in

open dry-mesic oak-

hickory to mesic

maple-beech eastern

deciduous or mixed

forests. The forests

where it is found are

generally mid-age to

mature. It can also

occur along roadsides

and fencerows. It

occurs on soils that

range from moist,

deep soils to light-

textured, well-drained

upland soils. Most

commonly it occurs

on coarse to medium-

textured acidic soils

such as sand and

sandy loams, although

it can occur on clay

loam soils.

Low Low The species was not

observed and suitable

habitat was not found

on or within 120 m of

the Site.

Protection status: 1 SARO - Species at Risk in Ontario and 2 COSEWIC - Committee on the Status of

Endangered Wildlife in Canada: END – Endangered, THR – Threatened, SC – Special concern, “-“– Not

listed. 3 Habitat Description Source: COSEWIC reports and/or Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) List.

4 AGENCY CONSULTATION

A request for information was submitted to Monique Charette and Lisa Solomon at the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (OMNRF), Peterborough District. This was to ensure that Natural Heritage Features and Species at Risk (SAR) with the potential to be in the vicinity of the Study Area were identified. A copy of email correspondence from the OMNRF is provided in Appendix A.

5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

No Species at Risk were noted during the site visit; however, it is noted that species-specific habitat searches were not completed due to the project timelines. Based on the habitat characteristics present within the identified cropland areas, there is moderate potential for three (3) SAR: Bobolink, Eastern Meadowlark, and Monarch Butterfly. Species information sheets for use by staff and/or contractors can be found in Appendix B.

Within the larger Site and surrounding areas, there is high potential for one (1) species; Monarch Butterfly, and moderate potential for fifteen (15) SAR: Barn Swallow, Canada Warbler, Chimney Swift, Bobolink, Least Bittern, Eastern Meadowlark, Golden-winged Warbler, Black Tern, Common Nighthawk, King Rail, Blanding’s Turtle, Snapping Turtle, Northern Map Turtle, Western Chorus Frog, and Butternut.

The Little Cataraqui Creek Complex Significant Wetland and Little Cataraqui Marsh border the Site to the East, and a wetland rehabilitation project completed by Ducks Unlimited Canada in the northwest portion of the Site. The Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority (CRCA) suggests a 30 m setback from wetlands and/or watercourses within their watershed (O. Reg 148/06, 1990; CRCA, 2012; 2015). While there is currently an existing naturally vegetated buffer between the existing cropland areas and adjacent wetlands and aquatic features, where possible this setback could be increased to 30 m in order to further protect these features from overland runoff.

Because no development is proposed in areas other than those that have previously been agricultural fields, proposed mitigation measures are suggested to deal specifically with the potential SAR habitat and the clearing of the existing fallow vegetation currently present in those areas. In order to minimize the potential for the proposed usage of the croplands on the Site to negatively impact SAR or their habitat, the following mitigation measures could be employed:

• To avoid contravention of the Migratory Birds convention Act (1994) and the Endangered Species Act (2007), vegetation removal (including ploughing) should not occur during breeding bird season (April 1st to August 31st), unless a survey by a qualified avian specialist (biologist) confirms that there are no active nests within the vegetation to be removed.

• Due to the potential for the cropland areas to house SAR, the appropriate MNRF staff should be consulted prior to vegetation clearing to ensure there is no contravention of applicable regulations or legislation.

• No ground disturbance or development should occur outside of the established cropland areas.

• It is anticipated that the existing naturally vegetated buffers between the cropland areas and wetlands and aquatic features within the adjacent natural features will provide controls with respect to the transport of sediments, nutrients, contaminants, and increased turbidity. Where possible, this buffer could be increased to 30 m to further ensure that changes to surface water run-off, water temperature and overall productivity of the adjacent surface water features are minimized.

• Ensure a Spills Management Plan (including materials, instructions regarding their use, education of contract personnel, emergency contact numbers) is onsite at all times for implementation in the event of an accidental spill during operations. Adequate measures to prevent or capture and contain any debris and spills resulting from construction activities should be kept onsite in sufficient quantities. Staff should be orientated as to the location of materials and their proper use and disposal. All measures and procedures should conform to pertinent provincial requirements.

• Operating, refuelling and maintenance of construction equipment and the handling and storage of toxic materials (e.g. fuel, lubricants, and other chemicals) must be carried out in such a way as to avoid contamination of soils, groundwater and surface waters.

• All parts of equipment shall be free of fluid leaks and externally cleaned/degreased offsite, in a contained environment.

• Wildlife encountered on the Site should remain undisturbed and be allowed to leave on their own. Photos for identification should be taken of animals observed onsite, if possible. If Threatened or Endangered species are discovered during vegetation clearing on the croplands, operations will stop, or be modified to avoid negative impacts to Species at Risk until further direction is provided by the OMNRF.

• In order to ensure Monarch Butterfly individuals are not impacted, vegetation clearing within the croplands should take place prior to spring arrival (May). No vegetation clearing should take place between May 1 and September 30.

6 CLOSURE

This memo was prepared by WSP Canada Inc. The assessment represents the conditions at the subject property only at the time of the assessment, and is based on the information referenced and contained herein. The conclusions presented respecting current conditions represent the best judgment of the assessors based on current environmental standards. WSP Canada Inc. attests that to the best of our knowledge, the information presented in this report is accurate. The information in this report should be evaluated, interpreted, and implemented only in the context of the assignment. The use of this memo or any of its parts for other projects without written permission of the Client and WSP Canada Inc. is solely at the user’s own risk. This report must be reviewed and approved by the relevant regulating agencies prior to being relied on for planning and/or construction purposes.

Thank you for the opportunity to complete this assignment. We trust that this information is satisfactory for your current requirements. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.

Yours truly,

Dan Reeves, M.Sc. Project Ecologist, ISA Certified Arborist

DJR/nah Encl. WSP ref.: 171-11942-00 C:\Users\joshua.vandermeulen\Documents\Projects\Goldcorp\JDV - Goldcorp Memo_Draft.docx

REFERENCES

— AMEC Environment & Infrastructure. 2012. Phase Two Environmental Site Assessment, Collins Bay Institution, Correctional Services Canada.

— Bird Studies Canada, Ontario Field Ornithologists, Environment Canada, Ontario Nature, and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2006. Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas Internet Site. www.birdsontario.org/atlas/atlasmain.html

— Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority. 2012. Guidelines for Implementing Ontario Regulation 148/06: Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses.

— Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority. 2015. Environmental Planning Policies, April 2015. Document # CRCA-P00005.

— CH2MHill. 2012. Environmental Assessment Screening: Collins Bay Institution Storm Sewer and Sanitary Sewer Upgrades.

— Government of Canada. 1994. Migratory Birds Convention Act. Published by the Minister of Justice at the following address: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca. 57 pp.

— Government of Canada. 2016. Species at Risk (SARA) Public Registry. http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/schedules_e.cfm?id=1

— Government of Ontario. 1990. Ontario Regulation 148/06: Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority: Regulation of Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses under Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27.

— Government of Ontario. 2007. Endangered Species Act (ESA). http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_07e06_e.htm

— LGL. 2012. Species at Risk Screening for Collins Bay and Frontenac Institutions.

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

— Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2010. Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Natural Heritage Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement. Second Edition. Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

— Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. 2015a. Natural Heritage Areas Make-a-Map. Queen’s Printer for Ontario. http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/LUEPS/index.html.

— Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. 2016. Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) list. Queen’s Printer for Ontario. http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Species/2ColumnSubPage/MNR_SAR_CSSR_SARO_LST_EN.html.

— Ontario Nature. 2017. Ontario Reptile and Amphibian Atlas. http://www.ontarionature.org/protect/species/herpetofaunal_atlas.php

— WSP Canada Inc. 2017. Cropland Assessment and Environmental Effects Evaluation Report. Section 67 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. Collins Bay Institution.

Little Cataraqui Creek

Cataraqui Bay

FRONT ROAD

DA

YS

RO

AD

BATH ROAD

MC

EW

EN

DR

IVE

LA

KE

VI E

W A

VE

NU

E

CH

ELS

EA

RO

AD

KING

ST

R

EET WEST

ME

AD

OW

CR

ES

T R

OA

D

RO

OS

EV

EL

TD

RIV

E

HYDE STREET

GA

RD

INE

RS

RO

AD

AB

DO

RO

AD

REDDEN STREET

CASTELL ROAD

TA

NN

ER

DR

IVE

EVELYN STREET

LENNOX STREET

CRANBROOK STREET

KIR

KW

OO

DR

OAD

GOLDEN MILE ROAD

AULD S

TREET

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GISUser Community

126 DON HILLOCK DRIVE, UNIT 2AURORA, ONTARIO CANADA L4G 0G9

TEL.: 905-750-3080 | FAX: 905-727-0463 | WWW.WSP.COM

FIGURE NO:

PROJECT NO: DATE:

SCALE:

1

171-11942-00 OCTOBER 2017

DISCIPLINE:

TITLE:

SITE MAP

SPECIES AT RICK SCREENING MEMOCOLLINS BAY INSTITUTION

CROPLAND WEED CONTROL ANDLAND MANGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL

EFFECTS EVALUTION

PROJECT:

1:10,000

ENVIRONMENT

.

DRAWN BY:

T.P.

Data Source: Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Base Mapping, October 2016.

100 0 10050 Metres

CLIENT:

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES CANADA

CHECKED BY:

REV.:ISSUE:

--

-

-

DESIGNED BY:

LEGEND

PROPERTY BOUNDARY

WATERCOURSE

PROVINCIALLY SIGNIFICANT WETLAND

NON EVALUATED WETLANDS

WATERBODIES

CROPLAND

NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURE 30 m SETBACK

Document Path: T:\171-11942-00\MXD\171-11942-00 Figure 1 Site Map.mxd

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus

Provincial Status: Threatened

Federal Status: Not at Risk

Identifying Features:

The Bobolink is typically 15 to 20 cm long, with a wingspread of 26 to 32 cm. This species is commonly identified by its

white – yellow patch on the back of its neck. The remainder of the bird is black, with white streak from lower back to

the bend in the wings. The species has a unique call of Bob-o’-link, bob-o’-link, spink, spank, spink.

Habitat:

The Bobolink is generally observed in grassy or weed-grown fields. The nest is built by the female on ground in tall

grasses. Breeding and nesting typically occurs between May and July and results in 4 to 7 pale gray to brown, brown

blotched, eggs.

www.ontario.ca

Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna

Provincial Status: Threatened Federal Status: Not at Risk

Identifying Features: The Eastern Meadowlark is typically 20 to 28 cm long, with a wingspread of 35 to 45 cm. The species has a yellow breast with a black V extending down from either cheek. The species is commonly identified while in-flight, by the outter white tail feathers. The species is typically spotted on fences adjacent to grassy fields. The species has a unique whistle of tee-you, tee-air, or spring-o’-the-year.

Habtiat: Eastern Meadowlark is generally observed in grassy or weed-grown fields. They construct nests in natural depressions in the field or in cattle or horse hoofprints and are constructed of dry grasses, animal hair, plant stems, pine needles, and are typically built against a dense clump of grasses. Breeding and eggs laying typically occurs between April and August and results in 3 and 7 white, speckled brown, eggs.

www.ontario.ca

Monarch Danaus plexippus

Provincial Status: Special Concern Federal Status: Special Concern

Identifying Features: The Monarch is a relatively large (wingspan reaching 93-105 mm) showy orange and black butterfly with small white spots. The caterpillar is easily recognized as having black, white, and yellow stripes and can be found feeding on milkweed plants.

Habitat: The caterpillars of this species feed on milkweed plants and are confined to meadows and open areas where milkweed grows. Adult butterflies can be found in more diverse habitats, where they feed on nectar from a variety of wildflowers. Monarchs spend the winter in forests found in central Mexico.

www.ontario.ca

COSEWIC. 2012. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Monarch in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa.

APPENDIX

B ENVIRONMENTAL

MITIGATION

MEASURES FOR

AGRICULTURAL

PRODUCTION

Appendix B. Environmental Mitigation Measures for Identified Physical Work of Agricultural Production

PROJECT PHASE

/PHYSICAL WORK

/ACTIVITY

EVALUATED

ENVIRONMENT

AL EFFECTS

MITIGATION MEASURE

OPERATOR

IMPLEMENTED

MITIGATION

MEASURE

APPLIED

Removal of

the Current

Vegetation

Air Quality / Noise / Vibration

Surface Water Quality / Drainage

Agriculture / Vegetation

Birds (Habitat, Migratory Corridors/Buffer Zones)

Species at Risk*


— Machinery should only be operated during business hours to minimize impact on neighbouring properties.










— Ensure a Spills Management Plan (including materials, instructions regarding their use, education of contract personnel, emergency contact numbers) is on-site at all

times for implementation in the event of an accidental spill during operations. All measures and procedures should conform to pertinent provincial requirements.


IPM Cultural,

Biological,

Mechanical

and Chemical

Controls




Birds (Habitat, Migratory Corridors / Buffer Zones)

Species at Risk*















Soil testing

and analysis

Agriculture/Vegetation








Mechanical

tillage for

seed bed

preparation


Soil Quality

Surface Water






Quality / Drainage

Groundwater Quality

Geological / Geophysical











Soil Fertilizer

Amendments


Soil Quality

Surface Water






Quality / Drainage

Groundwater Quality














Seeding of

annual crop


Soil Quality


Groundwater Quality



Wildlife/Wildlife Habitat (Terrestrial)















Harvest of

Annual Crop


Soil Quality


Groundwater Quality

















Notes: * - SAR when activities occur outside of constraints window (May 1 to September 30).

APPENDIX

C CONTRACT

(21120-18-2676823)