windsor solar project - samsung renewable energy€¦ · windsor official plan (see appendix a1)....

WATER ASSESSMENT REPORT Windsor Solar Project

February 2015

Windsor Solar Project Water Assessment Report

P a g e | i

Table of Contents

Page

1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

2. The Proponent ................................................................................................................................. 3

3. Project Location ............................................................................................................................... 4

4. Records Review Purpose .................................................................................................................. 6

5. Records Review Results ................................................................................................................. 10

5.1 Water Bodies .................................................................................................................... 10

5.1.1 Average Annual High Water Mark Determination .............................................. 10

5.1.2 Lakes .................................................................................................................... 10

5.1.3 Lake Trout Lakes .................................................................................................. 10

5.1.4 Permanent and/or Intermittent Streams ............................................................ 11

5.1.5 Seepage Areas ...................................................................................................... 11

5.2 Aquatic Species at Risk ...................................................................................................... 11

5.3 Provincial Plan Areas ......................................................................................................... 12

5.4 Regulated Areas ................................................................................................................ 12

6. Summary of Records Review ......................................................................................................... 13

7. Site Investigation Purpose ............................................................................................................. 14

8. Site Investigation Methodology ..................................................................................................... 15

8.1 Names and Qualifications of Site Investigators ................................................................ 15

8.2 Site Investigation Dates, Times, Duration, and Weather Conditions ............................... 15

8.3 Access to Adjacent Lands .................................................................................................. 16

9. Site Investigation Results ............................................................................................................... 18

9.1 Lakes ................................................................................................................................. 18

9.2 Lake Trout Lakes ............................................................................................................... 18

9.3 Permanent and/or Intermittent Streams ......................................................................... 18

9.3.1 Lappan Drain ........................................................................................................ 18

9.3.2 McGill Drain ......................................................................................................... 20

9.3.3 Rivard Drain ......................................................................................................... 21


P a g e | ii

9.3.4 Rusette Drain ....................................................................................................... 22

9.4 Seepage Areas ................................................................................................................... 22

10. Summary of Amendments to the Records Review ........................................................................ 24

10.1 Rivard Drain ...................................................................................................................... 24

11. Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 25

12. References ..................................................................................................................................... 27

List of Figures

Figure 1: General Location of Windsor Solar Project in Ontario .................................................................. 2

Figure 2: Project Location, Natural Features and Setbacks .......................................................................... 5

Figure 3: Records Review Mapping ............................................................................................................... 9

Figure 4: Accessible Lands........................................................................................................................... 17

Figure 5: Water Assessment Site Investigation Results .............................................................................. 23

List of Tables

Table 1: Checklist for Requirements under O.Reg. 359/09 - Water Assessment - Records Review ............ 1

Table 2: Records and Resources Searched and Analyzed During Records Review ....................................... 7

Table 3: Summary of Provincial Plan Areas and Applicability to the Project Location ............................... 12

Table 4: Summary of the Water Assessment Records Review ................................................................... 13

Table 5: Names and Qualifications of Site Investigators ............................................................................ 15

Table 6: Site Investigation Dates, Times, Duration and Weather Conditions ............................................. 16

Table 7: Summary of the Water Assessment Site Investigation Report ..................................................... 26

List of Appendices

Appendix A: Supplementary Information

Appendix B: GIS Data Layer Information

Appendix C: Field Notes

Appendix D: Site Photos


P a g e | 1

P a g e | 1

1. INTRODUCTION

Windsor Solar LP proposes to develop a solar facility with a maximum name plate capacity of

50 megawatts alternating current (MWac), located on the Windsor International Airport property in the

City of Windsor, Ontario (Figure 1). The Windsor International Airport is owned by the City of Windsor

and operated by Your Quick Gateway (Windsor) Inc. (YQG). The renewable energy facility will be known

as the Windsor Solar Project (the “Project”).

Windsor Solar LP has initiated the Project with the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO)1 and

will require approval under Ontario Regulation 359/09 – Renewable Energy Approval (REA) under Part

V.0.1 of the Ontario Environmental Protection Act. Ontario Regulation 359/09 requires that all

renewable energy projects conduct a records review and site investigation for all water bodies that fall

within the Project Location or the prescribed setback area (REA Section 29). This Water Assessment

Report was completed in partial fulfillment of the regulatory requirements for the REA process as

detailed in Table 1. Additional details regarding the potential impacts and mitigation measures required

to protect these features will be provided in a separate Water Body Report, as required. These reports

will be submitted to the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) for review and

comment, as required in Ontario Regulation 359/09, and will provide for the protection of water bodies

within and adjacent to the Project Location.

Table 1: Checklist for Requirements under O.Reg. 359/09 - Water Assessment - Records Review

Required Documentation Location in Report

Search for and analysis of the records set out in Column 1 of the Table to

section 30 of O. Reg. 359/09 was conducted in respect of the Project Location

for the purpose of making the determinations set out opposite the records in

Column 2 of the Table.

Water Assessment Report Section

5, Records Review Results

Report was prepared setting out a summary of the records searched and the

results of the analysis conducted above.

Water Assessment Report Section

6, Summary of Records Review

1 The IESO and Ontario Power Authority were merged as of January 1, 2015.

_̂Project Location

U.S.A.

L A K E E R I E

L A K E S T . C L A I R

'Ð

'Ð

']

'±

'z

WINDSOR

CHATHAM

SARNIA

LONDON

LEAMINGTON

COUNTY ROAD 42

WINDSOR SOLAR PROJECT

FIGURE 1GENERAL PROJECT LOCATION

0 10 205 km ²MAP DRAWING INFORMATION:DATA PROVIDED BY MNRMAP CREATED BY: GMMAP CHECKED BY: MBMAP PROJECTION: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N

FILE LOCATION: I:\GIS\149152 - Samsung Windsor\mxd\PDR

PROJECT: 149152STATUS: DRAFTDATE: 9/22/2014

1:500,000

%±%Ð

%Ð

%z

%z

%Ò%Ð

%̂

%]


P a g e | 3

P a g e | 3

2. THE PROPONENT

Windsor Solar LP is coordinating and managing the approvals process for the Project. Windsor Solar LP is

located at 2050 Derry Road West 2nd Floor, Mississauga, ON, L5N 0B9 (1-866-236-5040). Dillon

Consulting Limited (Dillon) has been retained by Windsor Solar LP to prepare the REA application for the

Project. The contact at Dillon is:

Full Name of Company: Dillon Consulting Limited

Prime Contact: Michael Enright, Project Manager

Address: 1155 North Service Road West, Unit 14, Oakville, Ontario, L6M 3E3

Telephone: (905) 901-2912 ext. 3401

Fax: (905) 901-2918

Email: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


P a g e | 4

P a g e | 4

3. PROJECT LOCATION

The proposed Class 3 Solar Facility is to be located within the YQG, Windsor International Airport

property, in the City of Windsor. The overall optioned lands available for development consist of

approximately 175 hectares (432 acres) and the proposed Project Location is generally bounded by

Rhodes Drive to the north, Division Road to the south, Lauzon Parkway to the east, and Walker Road to

the west. Of the optioned lands, approximately 128.3 hectares (317 acres) will be occupied by

components to make up the Project. The geographic coordinates of the centroid of the proposed Project

Location are as follows:

Latitude: 42° 16’ 40.84” N

Longitude: 82° 56’ 22.87” W

Figure 1 shows the general location of the Project in southwestern Ontario. The Project Location is

defined in Ontario Regulation 359/09 to be “a part of land and all or part of any building or structure in,

on or over which a person is engaging in or proposes to engage in the project”. The Project Location as

shown on Figure 2 identifies the maximum buildable area for the Project. Figure 2 also includes the 50

m setbacks. The 50 m setbacks are development prohibitions for solar facilities that are outlined in Part

V, Sections 37 and 38 of Ontario Regulation 359/09. Project components, including solar modules and

electrical facilities such as inverters, transformers, substations and electrical lines, will be located on the

Windsor International Airport lands owned by the City of Windsor and operated by YQG. The planned

solar facility will occur on lands designated as “Airport”, and “Future Employment Area” by the City of

Windsor Official Plan (see Appendix A1).

&,

#*

")

")

")

")

")

")

")")

")

")

")

")

")")

Windsor Airport Swamps (ER 23)

JEFFERSON

RD.

PILETTE RD

.

SHO

OTIN

G R

AN

GE RD

.

E C ROW EXPRESSWAY

E C ROW EXPRESSWAY

COUNTY ROAD 42

LAU

ZON

PARKW

AY

RHODES DRIVE

NORTH SERVICE ROAD EAST

CO

NC

ESS

ION

RO

AD

9

JEFFERSON

BO

ULEVA

RD

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping,Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community


FIGURE 2PROJECT LOCATION -NATURAL FEATURES AND SETBACKS

0 100 200 30050 m ²MAP DRAWING INFORMATION:DATA PROVIDED BY MNR, ERCAMAP CREATED BY: GMMAP CHECKED BY: JPMAP PROJECTION: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N

FILE LOCATION: I:\GIS\149152 - Samsung Windsor\mxd\Water Assessment\


1:10,000

_̂ Project Location

U.S.A.

LAKE ERIE

LAKE ST. CLAIR

WINDSORCHATHAM

SARNIA

LONDON

%] %±

%Ð

%z

%Ò

%Ð

%̂

%Ð

") Gate

#* Communication Tower

&, Point of Common Coupling

Fence

Operations & Maintenance Building

MV Station

Substation Transformer

Substation Yard

Temporary Laydown Area

Railway

Permanent / Intermittent Stream

Ephemeral Drain

Project Location

Project Location 50 m Setback



Parcel Boundary

Provincially Significant Wetland

Woodland

Access Road

Solar Panel Row


P a g e | 6

P a g e | 6

4. RECORDS REVIEW PURPOSE

A records review was completed, consistent with Section 30 of Ontario Regulation 359/09, for the

Project Location (Figure 2) using secondary source information.

Section 30 of Ontario Regulation 359/09 states a water assessment for a renewable energy facility

includes a records review to search for and determine whether the Project Location is:

1. In a water body.

2. Within 120 m of the average annual high water mark of a lake, other than a Lake Trout

lake that is at or above development capacity.

3. Within 300 m of the average annual high water mark of a Lake Trout lake that is at or

above development capacity.

4. Within 120 m of the average annual high water mark of a permanent or intermittent

stream.

5. Within 120 m of a seepage area.

Under Ontario Regulation 359/09, the definition of a water body includes lakes, permanent and

intermittent streams and seepage areas, but does not include:

a) Grassed waterways.

b) Temporary channels for surface drainage, such as furrows or shallow channels that

can be tilled and driven through.

c) Rock chutes and spillways.

d) Roadside ditches that do not contain a permanent or intermittent stream.

e) Temporary ponded areas that are normally farmed.

f) Dugout ponds.

g) Artificial bodies of water intended for the storage, treatment or recirculation of runoff

from farm animal yards, manure storage facilities and site and outdoor confinement

areas.

Table 2 outlines the secondary sources of information used to conduct the water assessment records

review.


P a g e | 7

P a g e | 7

Table 2: Records and Resources Searched and Analyzed During Records Review

Record Source Records Requested and/or Reviewed

Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) District Office: Aylmer Main Contact: Catherine Jong, Management Biologist

Records requested directly from MNRF Aylmer District relating to natural heritage features

Date of Request: May 26, 2014

Date of Data Receipt: June 19, 2014

Manuals/Guidelines Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Natural Heritage Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, Second Edition, (OMNR, 2010)

Natural Heritage Assessment Guide for Renewable Energy Projects, Second Edition, November 2012

Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR, 2000), Appendices and Decision Support Tool

Significant Wildlife Habitat Eco-regional Criteria Schedules, (OMNR, March 2012)

Land Information Ontario (LIO), data requested/accessed April 2014

Interactive Online Mapping Tool Agricultural Information Atlas (municipal drains) Warehouse Data (see Appendix B for data layers obtained)

Ontario Crown Land Use Policy Atlas, online data accessed April 2014

Crown Land areas

Federal Government Canadian Wildlife Service/ Environment Canada

Contact: Denise Fell, Environmental Assessment Officer, via email Records relating to natural features and wildlife species

Date of Request: May 28, 2014

Date of Data Receipt: No records received

Fisheries and Oceans Canada online mapping (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, May 2014)

Distribution of Fish Species at Risk mapping for Essex Region Conservation Authority (valid May 2014- May 2015)

Conservation Authority Essex Region Conservation Authority Contact: Tim Byrne, Watershed Management Services

Meeting with ERCA to discuss records relating to natural features and municipal drains.

GIS & Interactive Online Mapping, for mapping of municipal drains

Date: May 22, 2014

Municipality Single-Tier Municipality: City of Windsor (2013)

Official Plan and mapping Schedules reviewed Review of any applicable studies done to date in the area of the

Project Location

City of Windsor Update to the CNHS Inventory (dated June 2008)

Reviewed for information relevant to the Candidate Natural Heritage Site #39 located within 300 m of the Project Location

Planning Authorities and Local Boards Municipal Planning Authority See Above

Local Planning Board Not applicable in Project Location

Local Roads Board Not applicable in Project Location

Local Services Board Not applicable in Project Location


P a g e | 8

P a g e | 8

Record Source Records Requested and/or Reviewed

Other Resources Great Lakes Conservation Blueprint for Aquatic Biodiversity. Volume 2: Ecodistrict Summaries; Cedar Creek Tertiary Watershed 2GH (Phair et al., 2005)

Produced by the Nature Conservancy of Canada. A summary of statistics and land use relating to water bodies in the tertiary watershed.

Windsor International Airport Master Plan. YQG (Windsor) Inc. (2010)

Reviewed for information related to natural environment features located on Windsor International Airport lands.

Lauzon Parkway Improvements Class EA Study (McCormick Rankin Corporation, August 2013)

Review of Appendix F Part A (Natural Environment – Existing Conditions). Field studies occurred in 2011/2012 and a portion of the study area overlapped the Project Location.

Windsor Annexed Lands Master Planning Study – Background Reports Summary (Stantec Consulting Ltd., November 2006)

A summary report prepared by Stantec Consulting Ltd. in association with Pryde, Schropp and McComb that includes discussion on natural features within the airport lands.

Google Earth Pro Aerial Imagery

Provincial Plan Area Records Niagara Escarpment Plan, 2014. (Niagara Escarpment Commission, June 2014)

Project location does not fall within the Niagara Escarpment Plan Area

Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, 2001. (Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, 2001)

Project location does not fall within the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan Area

Greenbelt Plan, 2005. (Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, 2005)

Project location does not fall within the Greenbelt Plan Area

Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, 2009. (Ontario Ministry of the Environment , July 2009)

Project location does not fall within the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan Area

Rivard Drain



Lit t

le R

iver

Rivard Drain

McGill Drain

Rusette Drain

Lappan Drain

Branch of Rusette Drain

McGill Drain

JEFFERSON

RD.

PILETTE RD

.

SHO

OTIN

G R

AN

GE RD

.

E C ROW EXPRESSWAY

E C ROW EXPRESSWAY

COUNTY ROAD 42

LAU

ZON

PARKW

AY

RHODES DRIVE


CO

NC

ESS

ION

RO

AD

9


FIGURE 3RECORDS REVIEW MAPPING




1:10,000

Railway

Watercourse

Project Location



Parcel Boundary


Woodland (Airport Woodlands Environmentally Significant Area #39)

Pond


U.S.A.

LAKE ERIE

LAKE ST. CLAIR

WINDSORCHATHAM

SARNIA

LONDON

%] %±

%Ð

%z

%Ò

%Ð

%̂

%ÐJefferson Woodlot

Shooting Range Woodlot

East Perimeter Woods

St. Louis Woods


P a g e | 10

P a g e | 10

5. RECORDS REVIEW RESULTS

The Project is located at the YQG, Windsor International Airport and is designated in part as either

“Airport” or “Future Employment Area” by the City of Windsor Official Plan (see Appendix A1). The

Project Location is within the Cedar Creek Tertiary Watershed (2GH) and was summarized in the Great

Lakes Conservation Blueprint for Aquatic Biodiversity (Phair et al., 2005). The watershed drains into

Lake Erie and there are 163,000 ha of stream systems. Sparse and dense deciduous forest are scattered

throughout the watershed. Agriculture is the dominant land-use throughout the watershed. The Project

Location is within the Little River subwatershed, nested within the Detroit River watershed. Little River is

located east of the Project Location (approximately 655 m) and flows northward into the Detroit River.

5.1 Water Bodies

Based on review and analysis of the records and resources outlined in Table 2, and in

accordance with Ontario Regulation 359/09, determinations were made whether the Project

Location is in a water body or within 120 m of the average annual high water mark of a water

body (Figure 3). All mapping used for the records review is based on agency data (see Appendix

B) and is not necessarily reflective of site conditions. In consideration of potential Lake Trout

lakes and to meet the requirements of the Construction Plan Report, water bodies within 300 m

are also noted. The Construction Plan Report is included as part of the REA Application.

5.1.1 Average Annual High Water Mark Determination

For the purposes of this REA reporting, the average annual high water mark for streams is

defined as the usual or average level to which a body of water rises at its highest point and

remains for sufficient time so as to change the characteristics of the land. In flowing waters, this

refers to the “active channel/bankfull level” which is often the one-to two-year flood flow return

level (MOECC, 2013).

5.1.2 Lakes

A search and analysis of the records and resources outlined in Table 2 did not identify any

named lakes, as defined by Ontario Regulation 359/09, in the Project Location or within the

surrounding 300 m.

5.1.3 Lake Trout Lakes

A search and analysis of the records and resources outlined in Table 2 did not identify any Lake

Trout lakes under management by the MNRF, in the Project Location or within the surrounding

300 m setback area.


P a g e | 11

P a g e | 11

5.1.4 Permanent and/or Intermittent Streams

A search and analysis of records and resources outlined in Table 2 identified three potential

streams within the Project Location, and one potential stream in the surrounding 120 m setback

(Figure 3). These four potential streams are identified as named municipal drains on ERCA

mapping, and as watercourses on MNRF mapping, as follows:

The Lappan Drain is shown to originate west of the Project Location and outside the 300 m

setback. It flows generally eastward, enters and flows through the Project Location, turns

southward, exits the Project Location, and discharges into the McGill Drain at a confluence

located within the 120 m setback area for the Project.

The McGill Drain is shown to originate within the Project Location, near its southwest boundary.

It generally flows in an easterly direction within both the Project Location and the 120 m

setback. This drain discharges into Little River approximately 655 m to the northeast of the

Project.

The Rivard Drain is shown to originate within the Project Location, near its southern boundary.

It flows generally eastward, exits the Project Location near its southeast boundary, and

discharges into the Little River approximately 1.6 km to the east.

The Rusette Drain is shown to originate north of the Project Location and outside the 300 m

setback. It flows generally eastward, enters the 120 m setback area near its northern boundary,

turns northward, and discharges into another tributary of the Rusette Drain. This system then

discharges into the Little River.

5.1.5 Seepage Areas

A search and analysis of the records and resources outlined in Table 2 did not identify any

seepage areas in the Project Location or within the surrounding 300 m.

5.2 Aquatic Species at Risk

Species at Risk listed under the federal Species at Risk Act and provincial Endangered Species

Act, 2007, with the potential to interact with the Project Location and/or adjacent lands, are

being considered in consultation with the appropriate agency. Reporting related to the

protection of Species at Risk will be provided to the appropriate agency under separate cover as

required. This reporting format meets the requirements as set out in Ontario Regulation 359/09,

and is consistent with the direction provided by the MNRF and the MOECC.


P a g e | 12

P a g e | 12

5.3 Provincial Plan Areas

Under Ontario Regulation 359/09, if any part of the Project Location falls within a provincial plan

area, the Project may be subject to different criteria to evaluate the applicable water bodies. In

addition, should development occur within the prescribed setback area of a water body, it may

be subject to a different set of prohibitions under Ontario Regulation 359/09. Table 3 outlines

the provincial plan areas that should be considered when planning a renewable energy project,

and identifies which, if any, are applicable to the Project Location.

Table 3: Summary of Provincial Plan Areas and Applicability to the Project Location

Provincial Plan Area Applicability to Project

Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan Area None

Niagara Escarpment Plan Area None

Greenbelt - Natural Heritage System None

Greenbelt – Protected Countryside None

Lake Simcoe Protection Plan None

5.4 Regulated Areas

Portions of the lands within the Project Location are regulated by ERCA under Ontario

Regulation 158/06, Essex Region Conservation Authority: Regulation of Development,

Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses (see Appendix A).

Where required, ongoing consultation with ERCA will occur to obtain relevant permits and/or

approvals for the Project.


P a g e | 13

P a g e | 13

6. SUMMARY OF RECORDS REVIEW

This report is intended to fulfill the requirements for the water assessment records review under

Ontario Regulation 359/09. Table 4 summarizes the determinations made during this records review. All

previously mapped water bodies within the Project Location and surrounding 300 m are outlined on

Figure 3.

Table 4: Summary of the Water Assessment Records Review

Water Body ID Source of Information*

Distance Relative to Project Location

Lakes

No known features identified within the Project Location or adjacent lands within 300 m

Lake Trout Lakes


Permanent and/or Intermittent Streams

Lappan Drain MNRF LIO and ERCA Mapping

Within Project Location

McGill Drain MNRF LIO and ERCA Mapping


Rivard Drain MNRF LIO and ERCA Mapping


Rusette Drain MNRF LIO and ERCA Mapping

Within 120 m setback

Seepage Areas


Provincial Plan Areas

None applicable within the Project Location or adjacent lands within 300 m

Regulated Areas

ERCA Regulation Limit ERCA Mapping Within Project Location

* See Table 2 and Appendix B


P a g e | 14

P a g e | 14

7. SITE INVESTIGATION PURPOSE

This site investigation report was completed to analyze the accuracy of the determinations made in the

records review. It is consistent with Section 31 of Ontario Regulation 359/09, which states that a person

who proposes to engage in a renewable energy project shall ensure that a physical investigation of the

land and water within 120 m of the Project Location is conducted for the purpose of determining:

Whether the results of the analysis summarized in the records review report are correct or

require correction, and identifying any required corrections.

Whether any additional water bodies exist, other than those identified in the records review.

The boundaries, located within 120 m of the Project Location, of any water body that was

identified in the records review or the site investigation.

The distance from the Project Location to the boundaries of the water body.


P a g e | 15

P a g e | 15

8. SITE INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGY

Based on the determinations made during the records review, all water bodies that were mapped within

the Project Location and surrounding 120 m were the subject of a site investigation. The Project

Location was assessed by site investigators in order to document the presence of applicable water

bodies within the Project Location. Documentation of applicable and accessible water bodies included a

record of qualitative and quantitative observations including type and location of water body, average

annual high water mark, habitat types, surrounding riparian composition and taking of representative

photographs. Efforts were co-ordinated with the site investigator conducting the natural heritage

assessment of the Project Location to locate any potential water bodies not identified during the records

review and streams were marked using GPS devises in the field to verify locations on mapping.

8.1 Names and Qualifications of Site Investigators

The names and qualifications of site investigators are outlined in Table 5 below. The site

investigators listed below have been involved with the Project since it began and are involved in

other renewable energy projects that are currently seeking approval under Ontario Regulation

359/09.

Table 5: Names and Qualifications of Site Investigators

Name

Degrees and

Professional

Designations

Years of

Experience Project Role Certifications

Ben Gottfried Adv. Dip (Fish and

Wildlife Technician)

6 Water Bodies

Assessment

Incidental

Wildlife

Certified Inspector of

Sediment and

Erosion Control

Ontario Ministry of

Natural Resources

Class 1 Electrofishing

Trevor Goulet B.Sc. (Env.), Natural

Resources

Management

3 Water Bodies

Assessment

Incidental

Wildlife

Environmental

Professional in-

Training (EPt)

8.2 Site Investigation Dates, Times, Duration, and Weather Conditions

As outlined in Table 6, a single site investigation was conducted on May 14, 2014. The details

of the site investigation completed in accordance with REA Section 31(3) are provided in Table

6 and should be read concurrently with Table 5. Field notes that are part of the Natural


P a g e | 16

P a g e | 16

Heritage Assessment (i.e., ELC) are included in the Natural Heritage Assessment Site

Investigation Report.

Table 6: Site Investigation Dates, Times, Duration and Weather Conditions

Date

(2014)

Survey

Type

Site

Inve

stig

ato

r(s)

Star

t Ti

me

Du

rati

on

(h

ou

rs)

Weather Conditions

(Field Observations)

Weather Conditions

(EC* Station)

Air

Te

mp

. (oC

)

Win

d (

Be

aufo

rt

Scal

e)

Clo

ud

Co

ver

(%)

Ave

rage

Air

Te

mp

.

(oC

)

Win

d

(Sp

ee

d/D

ire

ctio

n)

Pre

cip

itat

ion

(m

m)

May 14 Water Body

and

Watercourse

Assessment

BG,

TG

10:00 5.0 17 3 100 13.3 17

km/h

NNE

7.6

Total Duration of Field Work: 5.0 hours

*Nearest Environment Canada (EC) Weather Station at Windsor, Ontario (42°16’32.00” N, 82°57’20.00”W).

8.3 Access to Adjacent Lands

As outlined in Ontario Regulation 359/09, all lands within 120 m of a project component are

required to be assessed for water bodies. In the case of the Project, access was not available

to some lands within 120 m of the Project Location. Some areas of lands to the north of the

Project Location were not accessible because they were within an industrial facility without

available access, and lands to the northwest of the Project Location were not accessible

because they were near the airport’s runway and taxiway, where access was not permitted by

YQG for health and safety reasons (Figure 4). Water bodies located on adjacent lands where

access was not available were assessed from property lines and road rights-of-way, where

applicable. This alternative site investigation was conducted in accordance with Ontario

Regulation 359/09 (see Figure 4).

Rivard Drain



Lit t

leR

iver

Rivard Drain

McGill Drain

Rusette Drain

Lappan Drain


McGill Drain

JEFFERSON

RD.

PILETTE RD

.

SHO

OTIN

G R

AN

GE RD

.

E C ROW EXPRESSWAY

E C ROW EXPRESSWAY

COUNTY ROAD 42

LAU

ZON

PARKW

AY

RHODES DRIVE


CO

NC

ESS

ION

RO

AD

9


FIGURE 4ACCESSIBLE LANDS




1:10,000

Railway

Watercourse

Project Location




Area of Alternative Site Investigation

Parcel Boundary



Pond


U.S.A.

LAKE ERIE

LAKE ST. CLAIR

WINDSORCHATHAM

SARNIA

LONDON

%] %±

%Ð

%z

%Ò

%Ð

%̂




St. Louis Woods


P a g e | 18

P a g e | 18

9. SITE INVESTIGATION RESULTS

Based on the site investigation, the occurrence of water bodies within the Project Location or its

surrounding 120 m is documented below. In addition to assessing if the results of the records review

were correct or required corrections and/or amendments, information relating to each water body, if

any, within the Project Location and surrounding 120 m was collected. This included the type of water

body, plant and animal composition and the ecosystem of the land and water under investigation. In

consideration of potential Lake Trout lakes and to meet the requirements of the Construction Plan

Report, water bodies within 300 m were also noted. The Construction Plan Report is included as part of

the REA Application.

9.1 Lakes

As outlined in Table 4, a search and analysis of the records and resources did not identify any

lakes in the Project Location or within the surrounding 300 m. The results of the site

investigation confirmed this determination for lands within 300 m of the Project Location.

9.2 Lake Trout Lakes

As outlined in Table 2, a search and analysis of the records and resources did not identify any

lakes that had potential to support a managed population of Lake Trout in the Project Location

or within the surrounding 120 m. The results of the site investigation confirmed this

determination for lands within 300 m of the Project Location.

9.3 Permanent and/or Intermittent Streams

As outlined in Table2, a search and analysis of the records and resources identified four streams

mapped within the Project Location (Figure 3), and within the 120 m surrounding area. Results

of the site investigation found that three of these streams are permanent and/or intermittent

streams, while one was found to be seasonal surface drainage swale (Figure 5). Each is discussed

in the following sections. All site investigation notes are available in Appendix C. Appendix D

contains representative site photographs.

9.3.1 Lappan Drain

The site investigation found that the Lappan Drain occurred as mapped on the MNRF and ERCA

mapping reviewed in the records review (Figure 3). The Lappan Drain originates approximately

610 m west of the Project Location (UTM Zone 17T 338765 E, 4681947 N; Figure 5; Photo 1 in

Appendix D). Near its origin, the Lappan Drain is fed by a sub-surface corrugated steel pipe (CSP)

culvert (diameter of approximately 1.0 m), conveying flow from the west (Photo 2 in Appendix

D). Near the culvert, the drain is also fed by a swale conveying water from the north. This swale

was observed to be dry at the time of the site investigation and likely conveys water seasonally

during spring freshet and times of greater precipitation. It therefore does not meet the

definition of a water body under Ontario Regulation 359/09 and was not mapped on Figure 5.


P a g e | 19

P a g e | 19

From the CSP culvert, the Lappan Drain flows generally eastward, enters the 120 m setback

area, then crosses under Pilette Road through a concrete box culvert approximately 2.0 m wide

and 1.0 m high (Photo 3 in Appendix D). The drain then enters the Project Location, flows

eastward, and crosses under Jefferson Road via a concrete box culvert approximately 2.0 m

wide and 1.0 m high (Photo 4 and Photo 5 in Appendix D). Two small utility sheds are located

near the box culvert on the west side of Jefferson Road. One is a general storage shed. The other

is an equipment shed containing a water level monitoring system, which is operated by YQG

operations staff. The monitoring system equipment includes a plastic pipe plumbed from the

drain into the shed, and an electrical conduit wired into the shed (Photo 4 in Appendix D). The

drain then turns southward, exits the Project Location, and empties into the McGill Drain within

the 120 m setback area. The Lappan Drain is fed by various temporary/seasonal surface

drainage channels throughout the Project Location (Photo 6 in Appendix D).These

temporary/seasonal surface drainage channels do not meet the definition of a water body.

Lappan Drain was observed to be a channelized permanent stream. At the time of site

investigation, water was flowing heavily into the drain from the sub-surface CSP culvert near its

origin. Along the length of the drain within the Project Location, the habitat type was primarily

flat, with occasional runs. Substrates were primarily silt and detritus. The mean wetted width

ranged from 1.8 to 2.0 m. The mean wetted depth ranged from 0.1 to 0.4 m. The mean bankfull

width was 4.0 m, while the mean bankfull depth was 1.2 (widths and depths are approximate).

Banks were stable, with minimally erodible soil and material. In-water and shore cover for the

stream included: overhanging and in-stream woody debris (5-10%); organic debris (30%);

overhanging vascular macrophytes (15%); in-stream vascular macrophytes (50%). Shore cover

provided coverage to approximately 1 – 30% of the stream surface area. Vegetation was mostly

emergent, and included various pondweed species, common reeds (Phragmites spp.), cattails

(Typha spp.) and willows (Salix spp.). No submergent or floating vegetation species were

observed. Four individuals of Cyprinidae were observed in the drain, approximately 200 m west

of Jefferson Road.

Surrounding riparian lands included occasional scrubland in the adjacent 10 m, and cultivated

agricultural lands. Riparian scrubland was sparsely treed in the portions west of Jefferson Road

(Photo 7 in Appendix D), and was more heavily treed in the portions east of Jefferson Road

(Photo 5 in Appendix D). Some surrounding agricultural areas were recently row planted with

Winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) while other areas were last row planted with Corn (Zea mays),

and contained stubble and stover from the most recent harvest; likely in autumn of 2013.


P a g e | 20

P a g e | 20

9.3.2 McGill Drain

The site investigation found that McGill Drain occurs as mapped on the MNRF and ERCA

mapping reviewed in the records review. It originates within the Project Location, near its

southwest boundary, east of Pilette Road (339576 E, 4681754 N; Figure 5; Photo 8 in Appendix

D). From here, it flows generally eastward through the Project Location. It exits the Project

Location at its southeast boundary, continues eastward, then turns northward near the

perimeter of a swamp identified as Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) Windsor Airport

Swamp ER 23 (Figure 5; Photo 9 and Photo 10 in Appendix D). The drain re-enters the Project

Location, turns eastward, flows for approximately 250 m within the Project Location, then exits

the Project Location at its eastern boundary, approximately 5 m west of Jefferson Road. Within

the 120 m setback area, the drain crosses Jefferson Road via a concrete box culvert,

approximately 2.0 m wide and 2.0 m high (Photo 11 in Appendix D). From here, the drain flows

eastward within the 120 m setback, is fed by the Lappan Drain, then crosses Shooting Range

Road via a CSP culvert, approximately 60 cm in diameter (Photo 12 in Appendix D). The McGill

Drain then flows north-eastward, exits the 120 m setback area, and empties into the Little River.

The reach of the McGill Drain between its origin and its confluence with the Lappan Drain was

observed to be a channelized intermittent stream. Although water was actively flowing in the

drain at the time of site investigation, observed characteristics, including extensive cover of

terrestrial grasses, indicated that periods of stream dry-up likely occur during the summer in this

reach. The reach of the McGill Drain downstream of the confluence was observed to be a

channelized permanent stream. Observed characteristics, including cover by aquatic plant

species, indicated that active water flow is consistent throughout the year from water inputs

from the Lappan Drain.

Along the length of the drain within the Project Location, the habitat type was primarily flat,

with occasional runs. Substrates were a mix of primarily silt and detritus. The mean wetted

width ranged from 1.6 to 1.8 m. The mean wetted depth ranged from 0.1 m in western areas to

0.5 m in eastern areas. The mean bankfull width ranged from 2.5 to 3.0 m, while the mean

bankfull depth ranged from 0.8 to 1.0 m (widths and depths are approximate). Banks were

primarily stable, with minimally erodible soil and material. An area of bank erosion and

instability was observed east of Shooting Range Road along the drain’s southeast bank (Photo

13 in Appendix D). At this location, the opposite bank was protected from erosion by rip-rap

material (Photo 14 in Appendix D). In-water and shore cover for the stream included:

overhanging and in-stream woody debris (5%); organic debris (70%); overhanging vascular

macrophytes (5%); in-stream vascular macrophytes (30%). Shore cover provided coverage to

approximately 1 – 30% of the stream surface area. Vegetation was predominantly emergent,

and included various pondweed species, common reeds (phragmites spp.), cattails (typha spp.)

and various terrestrial grasses. Sparse patches of a pondweed species (Elodea spp.), were

observed in areas near the drain origin. No floating vegetation was observed. Fish were

observed within the drain approximately 100 m east of the drain origin (Photo 15 in Appendix

D).


P a g e | 21

P a g e | 21

In reaches of the drain near the adjacent Windsor Airport Swamps ER 23 PSW, the surrounding

riparian lands contained sparse areas of shrub vegetation, including Bigtooth aspen (Populus

grandidentata) and willows. Riparian areas further from the PSW were cultivated agricultural

lands throughout; primarily winter wheat to the south and clover mixed with various weeds to

the north.

9.3.3 Rivard Drain

The site investigation found that the portion of the Rivard Drain occurring within the Project

Location and its surrounding 300 m setback is not a permanent or intermittent watercourse.

Rather, it is a seasonal swale that conveys surface water. It has both been tilled and driven

through. Therefore, it does not meet the definition of a water body under Ontario Regulation

359/09, and is not mapped as such on Figure 5. The characteristics of the drain observed during

the site investigation are described below to provide further evidence that this is not an

applicable water body.

The site investigation found that the Rivard Drain occurs only partially as mapped on the MNRF

and ERCA mapping reviewed in the records review (Figure 3). The drain originates within the

Project Location, near its south boundary (339988 E, 4681705 N; Figure 5). From here, it flows

generally eastward through the southern area of the Project Location (Photos 16 and 17 in

Appendix D), as mapped (Figure 3). The drain then exits the Project Location at its southeast

boundary, and continues eastward within the 120 m and 300 m setback areas, also as mapped

(Figure 3). The drain then diverts approximately 5.0 m south of, and entirely outside of, the

Windsor Airport Swamp ER 23 PSW, flowing entirely within an agricultural field (Photos 18 and

19 in Appendix D). The observation that the drain is outside of the PSW differs from what is

shown on MNRF and ERCA mapping, which instead shows the drain flowing within the PSW. This

discrepancy and its required amendment to the records review mapping is discussed in Section

10.1 of this report.

East of the PSW, the Rivard Drain exits the 300 m setback area, enters a roadside ditch along the

west side of Jefferson Road (Photo 20 in Appendix D), crosses Jefferson Road via a concrete box

culvert, and flows eastward toward the Little River (Photo 21 in Appendix D).

In the portion of the Rivard Drain mapped within the PSW swamp area (Figure 3), a long area of

standing water was observed. However, this was found to be a depression area within the PSW

and not part of Rivard Drain (Photos 22 and 23 in Appendix D).

At the time of site investigation, there was minor water flow throughout the portion of the drain

within the Project Location. The habitat type was entirely flat. Substrates were primarily silt and

detritus. The mean wetted width ranged from 0.3 m in western areas to 1.5 m in eastern areas.

The mean wetted depth ranged from 0.02 m in western areas to 0.08 m in eastern areas (all

widths and depths are approximate). The mean bankfull width and depth could not be

determined as the drain had no distinct banks. No in-stream cover or shore cover were

observed along the portion of the drain in the agricultural field.


P a g e | 22

P a g e | 22

9.3.4 Rusette Drain

During the site investigation, the portion of the Rusette Drain occurring within the Project

Location 120 m setback area could not be observed due to unavailable access to an enclosed

industrial facility. Instead, a portion of the drain located approximately 200 m to the west,

outside of the 300 m setback, was accessed and observed (340674 E, 4683581 N; Figure 5;

Photo 24 in Appendix D). From the access point, the drain flowed eastward, and entered twin

CSP culverts (Photo 25 in Appendix D). Each culvert had a diameter of approximately 1.0 m, and

each was partially covered with a metal screen cage with a width and height of approximately

0.5 m.

The site investigation found that the Rusette Drain was a channelized permanent stream. At the

time of investigation the drain was actively flowing. Surface habitat type was a run with

occasional flat areas. Substrates were primarily silt and detritus. Mean wetted width was

approximately 1.5 m and mean wetted depth was approximately 0.3 m. Banks were stable, with

minimally erodible soil and material. In-water and shore cover for the stream included:

overhanging and in-stream woody debris (5-10%); organic debris (25%); overhanging and in-

stream vascular macrophytes (10%). Shore cover provided coverage to approximately 1 – 30% of

the stream surface area. Vegetation was predominantly emergent common reeds. Surrounding

riparian communities were grassed meadows within the surrounding 10 m, and cultivated

agricultural land beyond the surrounding 10 m to the south.

9.4 Seepage Areas

As indicated in Table 2, a search and analysis of applicable records and resources of the Project

Location did not identify any seepage areas, as defined by Ontario Regulation 359/09, in the

Project Location or within the surrounding 300 m. The results of this site investigation verified

this determination.



JEFFERSON

RD.

PILETTE RD

.

SHO

OTIN

G R

AN

GE RD

.

Rivard Drain

Litt

leRiv

er

McGill Drain

Rusette Drain

Lappan Drain


Lappan Drain

McGill Drain

Rusette Drain

M

cGillDrain

Rivard Drain

E C ROW EXPRESSWAY

E C ROW EXPRESSWAY

COUNTY ROAD 42

LAU

ZON

PARKW

AY

RHODES DRIVE


CO

NC

ESS

ION

RO

AD

9


FIGURE 5WATER ASSESSMENTSITE INVESTIGATION MAP




1:10,000

Railway

Permanent / Intermittent Stream

Ephemeral Drain

Project Location




Parcel Boundary

Airport




U.S.A.

LAKE ERIE

LAKE ST. CLAIR

WINDSORCHATHAM

SARNIA

LONDON

%] %±

%Ð

%z

%Ò

%Ð

%̂




St. Louis Woods


P a g e | 24

P a g e | 24

10. SUMMARY OF AMENDMENTS TO THE RECORDS REVIEW

Based on the results of the site investigations, no previously unidentified water bodies were

identified within the Project Location or surrounding 120 m. Results of the site investigation of the

streams mapped within the Project Location determined that amendments are required to be made to

the records reviewed (Figure 3) for one water body, as follows.

10.1 Rivard Drain

Two amendments are required for the Rivard Drain. First, the portion of the drain within the

Project Location and its 300 m setback was observed to be ephemeral in nature and therefore

not an applicable water body under Ontario Regulation 359/09.

Second, the Rivard Drain is shown on ERCA mapping to enter and flow within the southern area

of the Windsor Airport Swamp ER 23 PSW. However, it was observed during the site

investigation to not flow within the PSW. Rather, it diverts approximately 5 m south of the

southern boundary of the PSW. Figure 5 shows the revised location of the ephemeral drain.


P a g e | 25

P a g e | 25

11. CONCLUSIONS

This report is intended to fulfill the requirements for the Water Assessment Report under Ontario

Regulation 359/09. Based on the results of the site investigations, there are two applicable water

bodies (Lappan Drain and McGill Drain) within the Project Location, both of which also extend into the

surrounding 120 m setback. One applicable water body (Russet Drain) occurs strictly within the 120 m

setback. Based on this, an Environmental Impact Study (i.e., a Water Body Report) on three water

bodies (Lappan Drain, McGill Drain and Rusette Drain) as outlined in Sections 39 and 40 of Ontario

Regulation 359/09 is required for this project.

Table 7 summarizes the results of the site investigation in the context of the proposed Project.


P a g e | 26

P a g e | 26

Table 7: Summary of the Water Assessment Site Investigation Report

Water Body ID

Does the Project

Location overlap

this water body?

Is the Project Location

within 120 m of this water

body?

Distance to nearest project

components

Project Components within 120 m of the

water body*

EIS

Req

uir

ed?

Lakes

None identified within the Project Location or adjacent lands within 300 m

Lake Trout Lakes


Permanent and/or Intermittent Streams

Lappan Drain Yes Yes 32 m to fencing Fencing*

Inverters

Access Roads

Panels

Yes

McGill Drain Yes Yes 32 m to fencing Fencing*

Inverters

Access Roads

Panels

Yes

Rusette Drain No Yes 91 m to fencing Substation

Fencing*

Yes

Seepage Areas


*Project component closest to each water body


P a g e | 27

P a g e | 27

12. REFERENCES

City of Windsor. 2013 Official Plan and Schedules. 2013. City of Windsor. June 2008. Update to the Candidate Natural Heritage System (CNHS) Inventory. 235 pp. Essex Region Conservation Authority. GIS & Interactive Mapping.

http://gisweb.countyofessex.on.ca/svlerca/Viewer.html?Viewer=Public. Accessed June 2014. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. May 2014. Distribution of Fish and Mussel Species at Risk. Essex Region

Conservation Authority. Valid May 2014 to May 2015. McCormick Rankin Corporation. August 2013. Lauzon Parkway Improvements Class EA Study. Appendix F

Part A- Natural Environment- Existing Conditions. 44 pp. Niagara Escarpment Commission. June 2014. Niagara Escarpment Plan, 2014. Toronto: Queen’s Printer

for Ontario. 145 pp. Ontario Ministry of the Environment. June 2009. Lake Simcoe Protection Plan. Toronto: Queen’s Printer

for Ontario. 93 pp. Ontario Ministry of the Environment. 2013. Technical Guide to Renewable Energy Approvals. Toronto:

Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 267 pp. Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. 2001. Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, 2001.

Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 72 pp. Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. 2005. Greenbelt Plan, 2005. Toronto: Queen’s Printer

for Ontario. 57 pp. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Crown Land Use Policy Atlas.

http://crownlanduseatlas.mnr.gov.on.ca/clupa.html. Accessed April 2014. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Land Information Ontario.

http://www.giscoeapp.lrc.gov.on.ca/web/MNRF/NHLUPS/NaturalHeritage/Viewer/Viewer.html. Accessed April 2014.

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

Heritage Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005. Second Edition. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 248pp.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. March, 2012. Significant Wildlife Habitat Eco-regional Criteria

Schedules. http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-

External/displaynoticecontent.do?noticeId=MTE1ODc5&statusId=MTczNDgy. Accessed April

2014.

http://crownlanduseatlas.mnr.gov.on.ca/clupa.html


P a g e | 28

P a g e | 28

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2000. Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide. 151pp. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2012. Natural Heritage Assessment Guide for Renewable Energy

Projects. Second Edition. 109pp. Phair, C., Henson, B.L., Brodribb, K.E. 2005. Great Lakes Conservation Blueprint for Aquatic Biodiversity:

Volume 2: Tertiary Watershed Summaries. Nature Conservancy of Canada. 454 pp. Stantec Consulting Ltd. November 2006. Windsor Annexed Lands Master Planning Study- Background

Reports Summary. 134 pp. Your Quick Gateway (Windsor) Inc. 2010. Windsor International Airport Master Plan. 195 pp.

windsor solar project - samsung renewable energy€¦ · windsor official plan (see appendix a1)....

Documents